|Anti-Zionist Uri Davis (University of Exeter) denounces Israel for "Apartheid"|
THE APARTHEID WALL IN THE CONTEXT OF ISRAELI APARTHEID
Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine
Political Zionism and Apartheid
In order to appreciate the full negative impact and destructive implications of the Apartheid Wall currently constructed by the Israeli occupation authorities and designated to extend the full length of the West Bank (some 350 km) it is necessary to consider the Apartheid Wall in its historical context. First, in the context of the history of the mainstream ideology informing past and current Israeli policies, namely, political Zionism, an ideology predicated upon the distinction between “Jew and “non-Jew,” and committed to a settler-colonial political program. Second, in the context of the legal underpinnings of the “two-state solution,” notably in the context of such UN General Assembly and Security Council, resolutions as are relevant to the question of Palestine.
The political Zionist school of thought and practice, encompassing all political Zionist parties, is committed to the political statement that it is a good idea to establish and consolidate in the country of Palestine a sovereign state, a Jewish state, the State of Israel, that attempts to guarantee in law (e.g., Absentees Property Law of 1950) and in practice (e.g., the mass expulsion, under the cover of the 1948-49 war, of the native indigenous Palestinian Arab people) a demographic majority of the Jewish tribes (a demographic majority of ethnic Jews) in the territories under its control. Individuals and organizations who believe the above to be a bad idea, a war criminal proposition and an apartheid political program, would be opposed to political Zionism. They would be anti-Zionist (and in no way anti-Jewish) in the same sense that democratic individuals and organizations opposed to apartheid in South Africa have been anti-apartheid (and in no way anti-White).
The debate among the various political Zionist parties primarily concerns differences in prioritizing the means most adequate for the implementation of the allegedly “good idea” above, and the extent of the territorial expansion which can realistically be expected in given circumstances to remain effectively under Israeli control.
The Apartheid Wall currently under construction is being set up in the context of the above debate with the view to further segregate the indigenous Palestinian Arab population of the WestBank from Israel in what amounts to walled, fenced and tightly controlled mass concentration areas under the ultimate dominion of the Israeli occupation authorities; a manner similar to the segregation of the Palestinian Arab population of the Gaza Strip, security gates, magnetic cards and all. In this way an infrastructure is put in place for the consolidation of a Palestinian bantustan under apartheid Israel control, or, in certain circumstances, the orchestration of the mass expulsion of the captive indigenous Palestinian Arab population - the so-called “transfer.” Needless to say that both options represent war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law.
The reference to the Wall as an Apartheid Wall is accurate and correct, in that it is put there by a government, the Government of the State of Israel, which is informed by apartheid values of segregation and separation known as political Zionism, regulated by Acts of Parliament (the Knesset) and enforced by law enforcement instruments (the courts, the army, the police and the prison system.)
Racism is not apartheid and apartheid is not racism. Apartheid is a political system where racism is regulated in law through Acts of Parliament. Racism is regrettably prevalent in all states, including liberal democratic states such as the current western liberal democracies. But in liberal democratic states, those victimized by racism have legal recourse to seek the protection of the law
As noted above, Israeli apartheid is informed by the ideology of political Zionism, predicated on the distinction between “Jew” and “non-Jew” and committed to a settler-colonial political program.
Political Zionism, founded at the First Zionist Congress convened in Basel in August 1897, is the dominant and hegemonic mainstream school within the World Zionist Organization (WZO).
The first political program of the World Zionist Organization, known as the “Basel Program,” was formulated at the First Zionist Congress in 1897 as follows:
Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law.
The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:
1. The promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Palestine of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers;
2. The organization and uniting of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country;
3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish natio4. Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goal of Zionism.
It has since been revised a number of times, the latest following the 1967 war by the 27th Zionist Congress in 1968, and subsequently by the Zionist General Council in 1991. The current program is known as the Revised Jerusalem Program. It reads as follows:
The aims of Zionism are:
1.The unity of the Jewish people and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life;
2. The ingathering of the Jewish people in its historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through aliyah from all countries;
3. The strengthening of the State of Israel which is based on the prophetic vision of justice and peace;
4. The preservation of the identity of the Jewish people through the fostering of Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values;
5. The protection of Jewish rights everywhere.
(The reference to “Zionist education” was introduced into the text by the Zionist General Council XXXI/5 in 1991)Since the American and the French revolutions in 1776 and 1789 respectively, the democratic political systems of most west European states, let alone the United States of America, are predicated on the principle of separation of religion from the state and separation of tribalism from the state, as well as on the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Given the above, those committed to democratic principles and these values would have good reasons to conclude that the idea of political Zionism, the idea of a Jewish state in the political Zionist sense of the term, is a bad idea and that positing “centrality of Israel in Jewish life” cannot sit very well with the principle of separation of religion from the state.
During the heyday of the apartheid regime in South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church educated its constituents, almost exclusively classified as “White” in the apartheid legal system, and their supporters in the West and beyond, that to oppose the political program of apartheid, to be antiapartheid, was somehow tantamount to being “anti-Christian.” and thus, “pro-Devil,” or worse, “pro-Communist.” In a similar way, under the dominance of political Zionist ideology and practice, Zionist and Israeli educational and information establishments educate their constituents, almost exclusively classified as “Jews” in the Zionist legal system, and their supporters in the West and beyond, that to oppose the political program of Zionism, to be anti-Zionist, is somehow tantamount to being “anti-Jewish,” and thus, “anti-Semitic,” or worse, “pro-Nazi.” It took many decades of protracted struggle, including armed struggle, by the native indigenous (“non-White”) peoples of South Africa under the leadership of the African National Congress (ANC), supported by international solidarity and culminating in UN sanctions, before the criminal education of equating Christianity with apartheid and being a ‘good Christian’ with being ‘pro-apartheid’ was effectively challenged. In the new South Africa today, where in 1994 the apartheid legal system was dismantled and replaced with a democratic constitution, one would be hard put to find anyone admitting that they were ever pro-apartheid.
Let us hope that it does not take as long to get the equivalent results in Palestine.
Regularizing the Irregular: The Regulation of Apartheid in Israel
With the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, the legal status of the landholdings, properties and operations of inter aliyah the World Zionist Organization (WZO), and WZO affiliated bodies such as the Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel (JA) and the Jewish National Fund (JNF) inside the State of Israel had to be regularized. Following the establishment of the state, a fundamental legal and political circle had to be squared.
On the one hand, the new state was politically and legally committed to the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations Organization, and the standards of international law, which since the Second World War inform most, if not all, liberal western democracies and enlightened world public opinion. On the other hand, the driving force underpinning the efforts of political Zionism since its establishment at the First Zionist Congress was not liberal democratic, but ethnocratic, namely, the attempt to establish in Palestine a state that would be as ‘Jewish’ as England was ‘English’, in other words, establish and consolidate in the country of Palestine a sovereign state, a Jewish state, that attempts to guarantee in law and in practice a demographic majority of the Jewish tribes in the territories under its control - an apartheid state.
Clearly, the political Zionist efforts to create in all or in a part of the country of Palestine a Jewish majority ex nihilo, could not but further entail the dispossession and expulsion of the majority of the native indigenous population from the territories of the projected Jewish state, and the legislation of the remnants of the non-Jewish, largely Palestinian Arab, population remaining under Israeli rule into the status of second and third-class citizens.
But it was equally clear to the political Zionist leadership that successfully steered the establishment of the Jewish state from its modest beginning in the first Zionist Congress in 1897 through to its admission as a member state in the UN some 50 years later in 1949, that for a state constituted by a UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and admitted to the UN on the basis of its declaration that the State of Israel ‘unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations charter and undertakes to honor them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations’
The liberal democratic world community, having defeated the Nazi Third Reich, emerged, scarred and smoldering, from the devastation and the horrific slaughter of the Second World War with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948 (five months prior to the admission of Israel as a member state of the UN on 11 May 1949)
1 it was imperative to be able to project the Jewish state as ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’. Israel’s admission to the UN, let alone its continued membership in the UN, depended on it.
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world;
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people;
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
The Nazi occupation of Europe and the holocaust notwithstanding, the State of Israel would not have been able to project itself in the West as successfully as it has done since its establishment in 1948 as the “only democracy in the Middle East” without elaborately obscuring its apartheid legislation.
It is in this context that one better understands why, all Governments of the State of Israel and pro-Israel and the pro-Zionist lobbies in the West worked relentlessly since 1975 for a period of over fifteen years to nullify one of the most significant achievements of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the international Palestine solidarity movement, including the anti-Zionist Jewish opposition inside and outside Israel, namely, UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 of November 1975. All parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were aware that the passage of this Resolution could provide a platform for UN sanctions against Israel directed to assist rogue Israeli Governments to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, and ultimately an instrument applied to effect the suspension of Israel’s membership in the UN in the event that it fails to do so. The nullification of the said resolution by the UN General Assembly in December 1991 represents a massive setback for the struggle of the Palestinian people to regain their rights under international law.
It is for these and related legal and political considerations that the legal regulation of apartheid in Israel is structured in terms that are rather different from the structures of legal apartheid in the Republic of South Africa. One, there is no UN resolution recommending the partition of South Africa into a “White state” and a “non-White” state; and Second, given the specificity of the establishment of the State of Israel outlined above, blatant Israeli violations of UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and 194(III) under the cover of the 1948-49 war had to be covered from public view by a facade of legal ambiguity in a way apartheid in South Africa did not. (After all, the Republic of South Africa was not the creation of the United Nations Organization.)
Thus, the official Israeli claim that the record of the State of Israel on the question of racism is not better, but also not worse relative to other member states of the United Nations Organization is basically correct. But is also serves to conceal the fact that Israel is probably the last remaining apartheid state member of the UN as well as the reality of Israeli apartheid, namely the regulation of racism in law through Acts of the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset), resulting in 93 per cent of all the territory of pre-1967 Israel being designated in law through Acts of the Knesset for cultivation, development and settlement by, of and for Jews only. It is in order to note in this connection that Israeli apartheid legislation in the area of land tenure (the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) is more radical than apartheid legislation in the Republic of South Africa at the heyday of the apartheid Governments there, when some 87 per cent of the land were designated in law for cultivation, development and settlements for “whites only.”
Apartheid in Israel is an overarching legal reality that determines the quality of everyday life and underpins the circumstances of living for all the inhabitants of the State of Israel. In the decades preceding 1994, when the official and hegemonic ideological value system of the Republic of South Africa was apartheid, the key legal distinction in South African apartheid legislation was between “White” versus “Coloured,” “Indian” and “Black.” The official hegemonic ideological value system in the State of Israel is political Zionism, and the key legal distinction in Zionist apartheid legislation in Israel is between “Jew” versus “non-Jew.”
The introduction of this key distinction of “Jew” versus “non-Jew,” into the foundation of Israeli law is, however, accomplished as part of a two-tier structure. It is this two-tier structure, which has preserved the face of ambiguity over Israeli apartheid legislation for over a half of a century
2. The first tier, the level at which the key distinction between “Jew” and “non-Jew” is rendered openly and explicitly, is in the Constitutions and Articles of Association of all the institutions of the Zionist movement and, in the first instance, the World Zionist Organization (WZO), the Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel (JA), and the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Thus, the Constitution of the Jewish Agency stipulates:
Land is to be acquired as Jewish property and ... the title of the lands acquired is to be taken in the name of the JNF to the end that the same shall be held the inalienable property of the Jewish people. The Agency shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labour, and in all works or undertakings carried out or furthered by the Agency, it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed (Article 3 (d) & (e)).
Similarly, the Memorandum of Association of the Keren Kayemeth Leisrael (JNF) Ltd., as incorporated in the United Kingdom in 1907, defines the primary object of the company:
To purchase, take on lease or in exchange, or otherwise acquire any lands, forests, rights of possession and other rights, easements and other immovable property in the prescribed region (which expression shall in this Memorandum mean Palestine, Syria, and other parts of Turkey in Asia and the Peninsula of Sinai) or any other part thereof, for the purpose of settling Jews on such lands (Article 3, Sub clause 1).
In parallel, the Memorandum of Association of the Keren Kayemeth Leisrael (JNF) as incorporated in Israel in 1954, similarly defines the primary object of the Israel company:
To purchase, acquire on lease or in exchange, etc in the prescribed region (which expression shall in this Memorandum mean the State of Israel in any area within the jurisdiction of the Government of Israel) or any part thereof, for the purpose of settling Jews on such lands and properties (Article 3 (a) ).
The second tier is the level at which this key distinction between “Jew” and “non-Jew,” as institutionalized in the Constitutions and Articles of Association of all the bodies affiliated to the World Zionist Organization, is incorporated into the body of the laws of the State of Israel, notably the body of strategic legislation governing land tenure.
Until 1948, it could have been argued with some justice that the WZO, the JA, the JNF, and the various other bodies of the Zionist movement are institutional expressions of a technically voluntary organization of primarily parochial interests, and that they should, therefore, be properly judged by standards relevant to similar establishments, for instance the establishment of the Catholic Church and its various corporate organizational and business subsidiaries. It could further be argued that Zionist institutions are constitutionally restricted to the promotion of Jewish interests in terms very similar to the constitutional limitations on Catholic institutions to promote Catholic interests. I am not sure, though, that the analogy applies, in that I am not sufficiently acquainted with Catholic dogma and the constitutional charters of the various relevant Catholic establishments. However, to the extent that this analogy does apply, it applies only to the period of activity of the WZO, JA and JNF and their affiliated bodies in Palestine until 1948 and before the stablishment of the State of Israel.
The situation alters radically after the establishment of the State of Israel, in that now the exclusivist constitutional stipulation of the WZO, JA and the JNF (for Jews only) are incorporated into the body of the laws of the State of Israel through a detailed sequence of strategic Knesset legislation initiated within two years of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, and by and large completed a decade or so later. Thus, organizations and bodies which, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, could credibly have claimed to be voluntary, have been incorporated, following the introduction of the strategic legislation listed below, into the legal, compulsory, judicial machinery of the State:
1950 - Absentees Property Law; Law of Return; Development Authority Law;
1952 - World Zionist Organization - Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel (Status)Law;
1953 - Keren Kayemeth Leisrael (Jewish National Fund) Law; Land Acquisition (Validations of Acts and Compensation) Law;
1954 - Covenant between the Government of Israel and the Zionist Executive, also known as the Executive of the Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel;
1958 - Prescription Law;
1960 - Basic Law: Israel Lands; Israel Lands Law; Israel Lands Administration Law;
1961 - Covenant Between the Government of Israel and the Jewish National Fund
In subsequent years this body of strategic legislation governing, in the first instance, the terms of tenure of 93 per cent of Israel lands was further refined in such pieces of legislation as the Agricultural Settlement (Restriction on Use of Agricultural Land and Water) of 1967 and the Lands (Allocation of Rights to Foreigners) Law of 1980. The list above, however, represents the mainstay of Israeli apartheid, namely the body of strategic legislation enacted by the Parliament of the State of Israel, the Knesset, which, until the Israeli Supreme Court ruling in the case of Adil and Iman Qaadan versus the cooperative communal settlement of Qatzir in 2000, constituted the primary instruments of the denial of access in law and through Acts of Knesset to some 93 per cent of the territory of the State of Israel to non-Jews, Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel and 1948 Palestine refugees in the first instance.
It is in order to point out that the laws listed above were promulgated in addition to previously available legal instruments such as Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance of 1943 and in addition to the unlimited powers with regard to the requisition of lands and property which are vested in the Israeli authorities under the various Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945 and Ordinances which have been in force from 1948-49 up to the present. These are, inter alia:
Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945; Emergency (Security Zones) Regulations (1949);
Requisitioning of Property in Times of Emergency Law (1949); Emergency Regulations (Cultivation of Waste Lands) Ordinance (1949).
Israel and the UN
One of the standard claims put forward by official representatives of the State of Israel as well as her NGO apologists alleges that the rejection of UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) by the representative bodies of the native indigenous Palestinian Arab population and by the League of Arab States somehow nullified the said resolution and gave license to the Government of the newly established State of Israel to extend the borders of the new state beyond that boundaries of the “Jewish state” as determined in the said UN Resolution by twenty per cent (from 57 per cent of the territory of British Mandate Palestine to some 77 percent.)
Such a claim is seriously misguided. Transgressions against UN General Assembly and UN Security Council resolutions by one or more member states of the UN do not give license to other member states to do likewise. No omission or commission by any party to an armed conflict allows other parties to the conflict to perpetrate war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as ethnically cleansing the majority of the native indigenous Palestinian Arab people from the territories that came under the control of the Israeli army and razing some 400 Palestinian rural and urban localities to the ground in whole or in part under the cover of the 1948-49 war.
The UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) could be reversed, but it is important to note that to date the said UN General Assembly Resolution is the constitutive document of both the State of Israel (the “Jewish state”) and the State of Palestine (the “Arab state”) and that the only internationally legally recognized boundaries for the “Jewish state” are the boundaries as determined in the UN Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947.
The territory of pre-1967 Israel is classified by international law under two categories:
1. The territory allocated for the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan for Palestine (UNGA Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947);
2. The territory occupied illegally by the Israeli army in the 1948-49 war beyond the boundaries of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.Palestine is “Plan of Partition with Economic Union.” Under the terms of the Plan, the governments of both the proposed “Jewish” and the proposed “Arab” states were committed, inter alia, to hold elections to the Constituent Assembly “which shall be conducted on democratic lines.” This requirement for the drafting of a democratic constitution with the various guarantees was never met in Israel.3 that were originally constituted as part of the Republic of South Africa. It still remained the case, however, that South African apartheid recognized the legal personality of its black inhabitants in a way that Zionist apartheid with regard to the Palestinian Arabs does not. While intending to deprive all of its black inhabitants from citizenship in the Republic of South Africa, South African apartheid still recognized them as legal persons (albeit inferior), and thus predicated the legal mechanism of their exclusion on the replacement of their citizenship in the Republic of South Africa with an alternative citizenship, namely, citizenship in one of the bogus ethnic “new independent states.”cent (approximately 1 million persons) are citizens of the State of Israel4. Of these some 250,000 (25 per cent) are classified as ‘absentees’ under the Absentees Property Law of 1950, and are thus denied their rights to the titles of their pre-1948 properties inside the state of which they are citizens.
All students of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Zionist apologists or otherwise acknowledge that the 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution recommending the partition of Palestine was politically highly controversial. The State of Israel and the legitimacy of its continued existence as a Jewish state in the political Zionist sense of the term were (correctly, I submit) challenged at the outset, both in the field in Palestine and in the Middle East, and in all international, diplomatic and political arenas. It was, therefore, politically impossible for the newly established State of Israel immediately to contravene the terms of the UN Charter by passing open and explicit apartheid legislation. For the newly established Government of Israel it was both politically and materially imperative to present Israel to the West as an advanced form of democracy and social progress. In order to do so, it was necessary to conceal its apartheid legislation from the view of the UN.
The democratic forces inside Palestinian Authority territories, inside Israel and Palestine solidarity worldwide could do worse than take a page out of the book of the African National Congress (ANC), and remove the mask covering Israeli apartheid and combat the Apartheid Wall, on the basis of universal values as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and a political program anchored in all UN resolutions relevant to the question of Palestine and the standards of international law.
In order to do so effectively one needs to distinguish conceptually, politically and legally between the idea of the “Jewish state” as conceived and articulated in UN resolutions versus the idea of the “Jewish state” in the political Zionist sense of the term, reading UN resolutions, notable, Resolution 181(II) of 1947 not only in political terms, but rather primarily in legal terms reveals that the legal reading of UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) is not compatible with the political Zionist reading of the said Resolution, and effectively exposes the apartheid values underpinning the political Zionist position.
The term “Jewish state” became legitimate once incorporated into UN resolution narrative, subject to the values of the UDHR and the Charter of the UN. But as we have attempted to show above, hopefully successfully, the term “Jewish state” in the political Zionist sense cannot be defended as legitimate, since it is underpinned by apartheid values in violation of the UDHR and the Charter of the UN.
Predicating the struggle on the UDHR and a legal (not just political) reading of all relevant UN resolutions, notably UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 1947 and 194(III) of 1948 aiming at a just and stable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a two state solution, one ‘Jewish’ and one ‘Arab’, both bi-national, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under UN international administration, and joined together by economic union is, in the view of this writer, a necessary condition for turning world public opinion against apartheid Israel, fortify Palestine solidarity against the smear of anti-Semitism and defend the campaign advocating boycott of Israeli produce and the international sanctions against the rogue Government of the State of Israel from the slander of anti-Jewish racism.
Throwing in the proposal that in the framework of the above solution every person that is entitled to Palestinian citizenship is ipso facto entitled to dual Palestinian-Israeli citizenship and every person entitled to Israeli citizenship is ipso facto entitled to dual Israeli-Palestinian citizenship would have the additional effect of significantly strengthening the case for democracy and palpably weaken the ability of the opposition.
(1) See Mussa Mazzawi, Palestine and the Law, 1997, p. 129. As Musa Mazzawi points out in his seminal study of Palestine and the law, an important point to note is ‘the repeated reference on behalf of Israel to the United Nations General Assembly’s partition resolution and Israel’s insistence on it as the sole basis of the legitimacy of Israel Š And if the partition resolution was then valid it remains so today, since its maker - the United Nations General Assembly - has not in any way undone it’ (Ibid, p. 140; see also Ibid 148). It is, however, sobering to remember that a resolution that impinges equally critically on the question of Palestine, UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 of November 1975 determining that ‘Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination’ was rescinded by the UN in December 1991. Though UN resolutions and the standards of international law represent one of the most weighty defenses of the rights of the Palestinian people, the justice of the Palestinian struggle is anchored in the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(2) With the work of the “new historians’” in Israel, however, the cover is progressively torn at the seams. See, for instance, Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, Croom Helm, London, 1987, 1987; Baruch Kimmerling & Joel Migdal, Palestinians: The Making of a People, Free Press, New York, 1993; Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of ‘Transfer’ in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948, Institute of Palestine Studies, Washington DC, 1992; Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestine Refugee Problem, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987; Ilan Pappe, The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951, I.B. Tauris, London, 1992; Avi Shlaim, Collution Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement and the Partition of Palestine, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988.
(3) Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Lebowa, Venda, Gazankulu, QwaQwa, KwaZulu, KwaNdebele and KaNgwane.
(4) Currently, the population within Israel’s 1948-49 boundaries stands at approximately 5.2 million Jewish citizens and 1.2 million Palestinian Arab citizens. In other words, through a natural growth rate of close to 3-4 per cent per annum, the Palestinian Arab population under Israeli rule and occupation since 1948 has increased by a factor of 8, from some 150,000 to some 1,200,000 million in less than sixty years (Statistical Abstracts of Israel 2002, No. 53, Table 2.1, pp. 2-9 & 2-10).
With a negligible margin, the non-Jewish population of the state of Israel is Palestinian Arab. It is worth noting that the Israeli Government Central Bureau of Statistics no longer renders separate citations for East Jerusalem (annexed in 1967) and the Golan Heights (annexed in 1981). The figures for the population within Israel’s 1948-49 boundaries therefore include the population of these two areas.
In the face of such advocacy, it will become progressively more and more difficult for the opposite parties to maintain the public image covering Israeli apartheid from view in the West and elsewhere, projecting the bantustanization of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip as compatible with UN resolutions and the Apartheid Wall as a step forward towards Palestinian independence.
Under the UN Charter and Resolutions, Israel has no legitimate rule in either category. Israeli rule over the territories allocated for the “Jewish state” by the 1947 UN Partition Plan was subject to a number of important conditions, notably compliance with the terms of the steps preparatory to independence and future constitution and government (see below) none of which have been upheld by the incumbent state.
Likewise, the Israeli occupation, in 1948-49, of territories beyond the boundaries specified in the 1947 UN Partition Plan, their colonization by exclusive Jewish settlements, and their subsequent annexation to the State of Israel, are in violation of both the UN Charter and of international law, like all colonial occupation. From an international legal point of view, Israeli claims to West Jerusalem, Safad or Jaffa, occupied in 1948-49, are as thoroughly invalid as Israeli claims to East Jerusalem, Hebron or Gaza, occupied in 1967.
As noted repeatedly above, the full title of the 1947 UN Partition Plan for
Additional to the constitutional violations detailed above, holy places, religious buildings and sites are not preserved, and rights in respect of holy places and religious buildings and sites are systematically denied. To illustrate but a handful of many thousands of cases of violation in this regard: the mosque of the city of Safad in the Galilee has been transformed into an art gallery; the mosque of the village of Ayn Hud in the Haifa district has been transformed into a restaurant and bar; the mosque of the village of Caesarea similarly serves as a restaurant and bar; the central mosque of Beer Sheba serves as the city museum; the Tel Aviv Hilton Hotel and the adjacent park, named Independence Park, are built on the site of a Muslim cemetery; the Jerusalem Plaza Hotel and the adjacent park, also named Independence Park, are likewise built on the site of a Muslim cemetery. Religious and minority rights have similarly been subject to outright and radical violation.
For example, freedom of conscience and of worship is not available in Israel.
But most significantly, the State of Israel is guilty of flagrant violation of the constitutional principle regarding citizenship as stipulated by the UN General Assembly in the 1947 Partition Plan for Palestine. There is no question that under the stipulations of the said Plan all the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants, by now some 4 million people defined under Israeli law as “absentees,” are constitutionally entitled without qualification to Israeli citizenship. Thus, regarding citizenship, the following is stipulated as the relevant constitutional principle for both the Jewish and the Arab states:
Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the state in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights (1947 UN Partition Plan, (C) Declaration Chapter (3) (1)).
The persistent denial of Israeli citizenship to this Palestinian constituency is an act of mass nullification of citizenship (denationalization), and a blatant violation of the UN Charter and international law, let alone Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(1) Everyone has a right to a nationality;
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
The Israeli procedure of denationalization is far more radical and far-reaching than its apartheid South African equivalent. The Republic of South Africa, in the framework of its apartheid policy, devised a legal mechanism intended to deprive some 75 per cent of its inhabitants - the majority of its black people - of their South African citizenship. Under the Bantu Homeland Citizenship Act (1970) (amended as the Bantu Laws Amendment Act (1974)) every black person with South African citizenship was to become a “citizen” of one of ten ethnic homelands
In the case of Israel, Zionist apartheid is applied under the categories of “Jew” versus “non-Jew.” Of the some 5 million non-Jewish Palestinian Arabs who are today entitled, under the constitutional stipulations of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, to Israeli citizenship, only some 20 per
However, having classified the 1948 Palestine refugees as “absentees” in the eyes of the law, the Israeli legislator has thereby not only defined them as aliens in their own homeland, but has cast them outside legal existence insofar as their rights to their pre-1948 properties are concerned.
under a democratic Constitution, namely a Constitution that embodies the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In an apartheid state, on the other hand, the state enforces racism through the legal system, criminalizes expressions of humanitarian concern and obligates the citizenry through Acts of Parliament to make racist choices and conform to racist behavior. The Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) has, since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, put in place a series of strategic legislation, beginning with incorporation of the British Mandate Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945 into the corpus of Israeli law and the promulgation of the Absentees’ Property Law of 1950, aiming, in the first instance, to dispossess the indigenous native people of Palestine, the Palestinian Arab people, and obligating the Government to apply the force of the law in order to advance segregationist policies in the territories under its control both by belligerent occupation and by enforcing racialist choice based on the distinction between “Jew” and “non-Jew” upon the citizens of the Jewish State.
|1. ||It is too 'wise' and complicated for|
| ||From Steven Shamrak, Sent in 06-11-2005|