Venezuela's Support for Palestine: A model for third world diplomacy

Nikhil Shah—Sorry to get ridiculous, and to decline your offer of a private debate (for my own personal reasons—thanks for the offer).  My point was not to defend Israel’s “colonization” (I thought I made it clear that I agreed with accusations of Apartheid, and that this should not be underestimated, but I think it’s too late, and would also be unjust, to kick out the Israelis now).  I think you should qualify your “rest of the world” defending Israel, to the rest of the “western” world.  I personally have only experienced this Israel-Palestine conflict second hand; and the situation looks grave.

My point was that demonizing and dehumanizing your opponent, although psychologically understandable from a victim’s point of view, may jeopardize your legitimacy in a “higher” court (public opinion, history, etc.)  A case in point is the cover for Quigley’s book (for those who didn’t follow the link, it shows a lone Palestinian youth throwing a rock at an ominously huge oncoming military vehicle).  The picture says much… about the disparity of power, the desperation of a people, etc; but it also makes Israel out to be a faceless military machine (the photo obscures the face of the driver).  I think to approach peace, you must realize that there are human beings on both sides of the conflict.

I get sick, when I hear news, such as that it took George W. Bush to stop Israel from bombing Iran recently.  The Israeli government has definitely got to relax its military posture.   This is a nuclear power that has been involved with terrorism (on both sides of the issue) long before 9/11—much too dangerous.  But again, I think the tactic of accusations of genocide, rather than offering “bargaining power,” or taking the "villians" to task, will exacerbate already poor relations.  Perhaps you too look towards a peaceful two state solution, as an interim for a further out and ideal one-state harmony.  I don’t know.

My personal naïve approach to a solution is that Israel pay a heavy ongoing monetary price to Palestinians for the rights to West Bank water supplies (that hopefully are not polluted!), as a just reparation.  Maybe the US’s aid should go towards this, rather than the military, etc?

Another link:

The Case for Palestine - John Quigley

Does Quigley’s “Case for Palestine,” (cited by Shah), as demonstrated by the cover of the book, require such a “faceless” Israel?  And where does history begin?—at a point where an entire people has no “homeland?”  (Which people?)  Do we need to consider only the modern history of, e.g., Jerusalem, or its entire clouded, territorially mapped and re-mapped, history, when determining various rights of return (rights cited in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 13) based on racial heritage?  How many wars need be fought in the name of racial real estate?  Maybe Italy has a stake in this too, dating back to the Roman Empire? (OK, maybe that was a bad Joke).  But, I think Quigley has pre-loaded his verdict with his starting point.

I also think Shah’s basic premise, that UN law should be invoked in the Israel-Palestine conflict, is sound—and there are many legal issues involved; I just don’t think his emphasis, as well as Hugo Chavez’s, on Genocide is legally tenable, or apt.

Christopher—I didn’t mean to victimize anyone… There are a variety of voices at ZNet… I didn’t think I was being too unreasonable???  An accusation of Apartheid is a serious allegation, and even this is somewhat controversial in some circles.  Maybe I’m just not a radical enough resister?  Polite, nuanced, and subtle disagreement over issues like Genocide may seem beyond the pale… but I think propriety can be at the heart of real civilization.

Here’s a Relevant Interview Excerpt from:

Noam Chomsky/Ilan Pappé Interview on Israel/Palestine

http://lifeunderoccupation.wordpress.com/

-The word apartheid is more and more often used by NGOs and charities to describe Israel\'s actions towards the Palestinians (in Gaza, the OPT but also in Israel itself). Is the situation in Palestine and Israel comparable to Apartheid South Africa?

Ilan Pappé: There are similarities and dissimilarities. The colonialist history has many chapters in common and some of the features of the Apartheid system can be found in the Israeli policies towards its own Palestinian minority and towards those in the occupied territories. Some aspects of the occupation, however, are worse than the apartheid reality of South Africa and some aspects in the lives of Palestinian citizens in Israel are not as bad as they were in the hey days of Apartheid. The main point of comparison to my mind is political inspiration. The anti-Apartheid movement, the ANC, the solidarity networks developed throughout the years in the West, should inspire a more focused and effect pro-Palestinian campaign. This is why there is a need to learn the history of the struggle against Apartheid, much more than dwell too long on comparing the Zionist and Apartheid systems.

Noam Chomsky: There can be no definite answer to such questions.  There are similarities and differences.  Within Israel itself, there is serious discrimination, but it\'s very far from South African Apartheid.  Within the occupied territories, it\'s a different story.  In 1997, I gave the keynote address at Ben-Gurion University in a conference on the anniversary of the 1967 war.  I read a paragraph from a standard history of South Africa.  No comment was necessary.

Looking more closely, the situation in the OT differs in many ways from Apartheid.  In some respects, South African Apartheid was more vicious than Israeli practices, and in some respects the opposite is true.  To mention one example, White South Africa depended on Black labor.  The large majority of the population could not be expelled.  At one time Israel relied on cheap and easily exploited Palestinian labor, but they have long ago been replaced by the miserable of the earth from Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.    Israelis would mostly breathe a sigh of relief if Palestinians were to disappear.   And it is no secret that the policies that have taken shape accord well with the recommendations of Moshe Dayan right after the 1967 war: Palestinians will “continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave.”

Nikhil Shah—your comments qualify you– “Israel and its victims are not on the same footing.  Any nation state founded on illegal annexation of territory, ethnic cleansing and terrorism should have their foundations condemned”—and make Your positions (and not John Quigley’s?) somewhat clear… you are not for a two-state solution, and therefore we might as well consider OUR discussion closed.  (You are basically insinuating that victimizing Israelis is OK… Nikhil, when is it EVER OK to victimize someone?  “Justified” revenge makes it OK to terrorize and murder?)

Consider in closing:

International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm

Again, how do you define “part?”  Sounds like a significant fraction to me.

The helpful Wikipedia entry on the Crime of apartheid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

Here’s a characterization of apartheid from that article from legal sources:

“Apartheid is similar to other crimes against humanity ‘committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.’ It [includes] such crimes as murder, enslavement, deprivation of physical liberty, forced relocation, sexual violence, and collective persecution.”

Sound familiar?  It should, because that’s exactly the sort of crime being perpetrated by Israel, and not genocide.

And why mischaracterize my noting that your quotes cited do show genocidal intent?  My point was that both sides have used genocidal language.  But why should I expect you to be a fair judge?  You’re an advocate.  (and BTW—Francis Boyle was a former legal adviser to the PLO; again hardly impartial).

Again, Chavez was right, imo, for leading Venezuela to pull its diplomats from Israel after the Lebanon invasion; but his reference to Hitler… was not judicious.

Christopher—thanks for your thoughtful reply; I try to address you here, point by point.

Christopher: “Regarding the convention link, it was to illustrate that publicly calling for death to all isn\'t even required for the word genocide to be applicable.”

J.D.: I agree, but I think Nikhil Shah, a lawyer, was interested in intent (of Israeli leaders).

Christopher: “I object to the insinuation of this article being somehow absurd or needing qualification.”

J.D.: To not address what I see as serious issues, and simply ignore it would be to treat it as absurd—I think Hugo Chavez’s severing of diplomatic relations made sense, in response to the invasion of Lebanon, but not his remarks about Hitler.

Christopher: “If you are asking for my opinion on the convention, I think point c is difficult to refute in this case: c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”

J.D.: That is exactly the point I think needed to be clarified… the above article mentions 1.5 million Palestinians being forced into starvation and economic devastation.  A shitty thing for Israel to be responsible for, no doubt… but is it more like apartheid or genocide?  Again, Nikhil Shah brings this up in a legal context—and the word “part” must be clarified.  Asking questions like, “how many starved to death” may seem callous, but then again, conflating statistics like that (starvation & economic devastation) is rhetorically misleading; and everything should be above board, to make any case as strong and compelling as possible.

Christopher: “I strongly disagree that Israel is held to a \'higher standard\'. Is the criticism it receives harsher than being blockaded, sanctioned, occupied, losing larger and larger portions of your territory, having your house demolished, being denied a permit to travel to hospital?”

J.D.: That specific issue (Israel being held to a higher standard) was with regard to intent—not action, and was brought up in that context.  To say that various Israeli leaders have engaged in hate speech, as if that is not common on both sides, says little—other than that both sides have genocidal intent (which is a lot)—that was my point.  The issues you point out look like apartheid to me, and illegal to the extent that agreed upon territorial lines are crossed aggressively.  I detest territorial expansionism, and sanctions that hurt populations… but again, is it genocide?—this is a crux of the legal issue involved.

Christopher: “How many other countries get to walk all over UN resolutions without reprisal?”

J.D.: Probably any permanent member of the UN Security Council, and their closest allies.

Christopher: “I will not be offering a critique of all the victims caught up in this, the vast majority being Palestinian. Or a critique of everyone in the world who isn\'t running the state of Israel. Support can be given without having to give criticism in equal measure. Consistently following that path would result in a terminal lack of friends. Victims should not be played off against each other or blamed in the name of balance. That would be insulting - and negate the support in the first place.”

     RE: Genocide—Shah Nikhil, the quotes you’ve cited are as about as ugly as it can get—but I imagine the racist rhetoric and “genocidal intent” of the (self-declared) enemies of Israel can be documented as well.  I’m not saying one should not take sides here, but that holding Israel to a “higher standard” can lead to its own forms of hypocrisy, and insults those of your chosen side, when you do not critique them as well (as if “we” were above reproach and self-criticism).

Christopher… what is your interpretation of the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide?”—how large a “part” of a group must be targeted and murdered for being part of that group, for it not to be a hate-crime, but genocide?  One person?  A certain percentage?  Etc.  People have a “feeling” for what Genocide is, mostly from cases that aren’t close to being borderline.  How far do you consider the case of the Palestinians to be beyond the borderline of being genocide victims (if you think it is a genocide)?

While I support the general content of the article, the repeated description of the Israeli occupation as genocide doesn\'t seem justified. Illigal occupation, repeated human rights violation, assasinations, torture, etc. yes, but genocide? Certainly the comparisons with Nazi Germany and Ruwanda are absurd. Israeli leaders have never called for the death of all Palestinians. What does Nikhil Shah specifically mean when using this term without qualifying or explaining? I also think that this term does not help the Palestinian people. Genocide accusations are unlikely to be taken seriously. The Palestinian tragedy is bad enough without inflating it.