The Osterley Times: UN says Israel's behaviour in Gaza resembles Apartheid

A UN human rights investigator has compared Israel's occupation of Palestine to the South African Apartheid regime and says there should be "serious consideration" over bringing the occupation to the International Court of Justice.

John Dugard, a South African law professor who is the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, went on to say that Israel's bombardment of Gaza after the kidnap of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit "is a form of collective punishment in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949."

And then, in a sentence that goes to the heart of the matter but will almost certainly be excluded from all mainstream coverage of his report, he states:

The indiscriminate use of military power against civilians and civilian targets has resulted in serious war crimes.

He then finds the state of Israel to possess characteristics of the three regimes that the international community finds "inimical to human rights".

The international community has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights - colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation. Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. At the same time elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States? It is suggested that this question might appropriately be put to the International Court of Justice for a further advisory opinion.

Now, of course, we know that the US would never allow such an action to take place and would come down heavily on any state that attempted to ensure that Israel conformed with international law. However, Dugard argues - and I agree - that such reticence on the part of the US (and, indeed, other Western governments) to confront the worst excesses of it's Israeli ally has serious consequences to how seriously the West is seen to be committed to human rights.

Indeed, this is the only case of a western ally denying people self determination since the fall of Apartheid South Africa.

The Occupied Palestinian Territory is the only instance of a developing country that is denied the right of self-determination and oppressed by a Western-affiliated State. The apparent failure of Western States to take steps to bring such a situation to an end places the future of the international protection of human rights in jeopardy as developing nations begin to question the commitment of Western States to human rights.

He then goes on to describe the effects this occupation has on the occupied people beginning with Israel's actions in Gaza following the kidnap of Gilad Shalit by Palestinian militants. Here, he describes what took place in Beit Hanoun.

Forty thousand residents were confined to their homes as a result of a curfew as Israeli tanks and bulldozers rampaged through their town, destroying 279 homes, an 850-year-old mosque, public buildings, electricity networks, schools and hospitals, levelling orchards and digging up roads, water mains and sewage networks. In April 2006, the IDF narrowed the “safety zone” for artillery shelling, allowing targeting much closer to homes and populated areas. This, together with heavy artillery fire, contributed substantially to the increase in the loss of life and damage to property.

And, whilst condemning Palestinian rocket fire into Israel as "war crimes" he states, "Israel’s response has been grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate and resulted in the commission of multiple war crimes."

And, of course, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is being implicitly supported by the international community who, after the election of Hamas, agreed to a series of sanctions that have resulted in a humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Territories. A crisis which he says has been, "carefully managed by Israel, which punishes the people of Gaza without ringing alarm bells in the West. It is a controlled strangulation that apparently falls within the generous limits of international toleration."

The idea that this strangulation is failing to set off alarm bells in the West implies that the effect of the sanctions must be seriously more grave than we have been led to believe. We know that this strangulation is controlled by closing all the principle crossing points into Palestine, through which all goods and foods flow. Dugard explains the effect:

The siege has had a major impact on employment. Construction workers are out of work as a result of the restriction on the import of construction materials; farmers (particularly those employed in the greenhouses of the former Israeli settlements) are unemployed as a result of the ban on exports of Palestinian produce; fishermen are out of work as a result of the ban on fishing along most of the Gaza coast; many shopkeepers have had to close their shops as a result of the lack of purchase power of Gazans; small factories employing some 25,000 workers have had to close; and the public service, while employed in theory is largely unpaid as a result of Israel’s withholding of funds due to the Palestinian Authority and the refusal of the EU and the United States to transfer donations to the Palestinian Authority. Consequently about 70 per cent of Gaza’s potential workforce is out of work or without pay.

And the international community seem silent on Israel's refusal to comply with international law regarding the "security" wall, despite the findings of the International Court of Justice that this wall is illegal and that it must be brought down. Dugard argues that Israeli reasoning that it needs the wall for security masks it's true purpose:

That the purpose of the Wall is to acquire land surrounding West Bank settlements and to include settlements within Israel can no longer be seriously challenged. The fact that 76 per cent of the West Bank settler population is enclosed within the Wall bears this out.

So we continue to punish the Palestinian people for the refusal of their government to recognise Israel whilst ignoring the fact that the International Court of Justice has found all settlement activity in the occupied territories to be illegal and yet, despite this, "the Government of Israel persists in allowing settlements to grow." Indeed, Israeli settlements are growing at a rate of 5.5% each year compared to the 1.7% average for Israeli cities, and the Israeli government Dugard states, "makes no attempt to enforce the law". And yet we are continuing to punish the Palestinians?

This is one of the most damning reports I have ever read, outlining the war crime of collective punishment, land theft and a policy of demolition that constitutes ethnic cleansing.

Since 1967, Al-Aqaba’s population has decreased by 85 per cent, from 2,000 in 1967 to 300 persons today. What cynical exercise in social engineering could motivate the demolition of nearly half the structures in the village?

Nor is there any clear set of rules when Palestinians are made to pass through Israel's numerous check points. Here Dugard tells us that, rather than a set of laws that all can understand, "an arbitrary and capricious regime prevails" where people's freedom of movement is curtailed on what appears to be the whim of the particular IDF soldier operating the check point on any given day. He warns that Israel should pay attention to the historical precedent of it's present behaviour:

In apartheid South Africa, a similar system designed to restrict the free movement of blacks - the notorious “pass laws” - created more anger and hostility to the apartheid regime than any other measure. Israel would do well to learn from this experience.

Indeed, Dugard asserts that many of Israel's laws and practices towards the Palestinians, "violate the 1966 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination."

Taking all of the above into account, he asks:

Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them?

Dugard reminds us that, with the application of sanctions against the Palestinians by Israel, the US and the EU, that this is the first time in the UN's history that an occupied people have been subjected to such measures. Indeed, he argues that it is Israel who should be the subject of UN sanctions, not the Palestinians.

Israel is in violation of major Security Council and General Assembly resolutions dealing with unlawful territorial change and the violation of human rights and has failed to implement the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, yet it escapes the imposition of sanctions. Instead, the Palestinian people, rather than the Palestinian Authority, have been subjected to possibly the most rigorous form of international sanctions imposed in modern times.

He concludes:

Colonialism and apartheid are contrary to international law. Occupation is a lawful regime, tolerated by the international community but not approved. Indeed over the past three decades it has, in the words of the Israeli scholar Eyal Benvenisti, “acquired a pejorative connotation”.

What are the legal consequences of a regime of occupation that has continued for nearly 40 years? Clearly none of the obligations imposed on the occupying Power are reduced as a result of such a prolonged occupation. But what are the legal consequences when such a regime has acquired some of the characteristics of colonialism and apartheid? Does it continue to be a lawful regime? Or does it cease to be a lawful regime, particularly in respect of “measures aimed at the occupants’ own interests”? And if this is the position, what are the legal consequences for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States? Should questions of this kind not be addressed to the International Court of Justice for a further advisory opinion?

As I say, it is the most damning report of it's kind that I have ever read. Nor is it possible for any fair minded person to disagree with it's conclusions. An occupation is, by definition, a temporary thing that occurs to restore order after warfare. A forty year occupation is, therefore, an oxymoron. And when that forty year occupation appears to favour the domination of one racial group over another then one is right to raise the apartheid analogy.

And yet, at the moment, the international community is imposing sanctions on the occupied people rather than on their occupiers. This is a scandalous perversion of any idea of natural justice, where the occupier appears to flout international law with impunity and the occupied people suffer harsh sanctions for failing to "recognise" their occupier.

There are many historical and political reasons as to why successive US administrations appear willing to view all events in the Middle East from an Israeli perspective, but we have now arrived at a point of moral and ethical bankruptcy where we are punishing the weaker state and deliberately turning a blind eye to the many crimes - in some cases war crimes - of the occupying power.

Fear of the charge of anti-Semitism has made the West complicit in these crimes. Dugard's report should be clarion call, a wake up point where we ask Israel to comply with international law to the same degree that we insist other country's do. Our failure to do so not only makes us hypocritical of the values we espouse, but - in the case of Israel - it makes us the equivalent of an over indulgent parent, feeding chocolate to an obese child.

Our indulgence is helping no-one. And I include Israelis in that.

Click title to read the full report.