Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Turning Reality Upside Down: Dershowitz, Israel's Wall and the Jim Crow Era
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz compared the International Court of Justice to the white courts of Mississippi during the Jim Crow era...Mr. Dershowitz has it backwards. He would like to place Israel above the law in the same way that the courts of Mississippi tried to place white citizens above the law who blatantly and wantonly violated the rights of African Americans...Israel is a Jewish democracy, not a liberal democratic society -- the distinction being that a liberal democracy is equally accountable to all of its citizens regardless of their race or religion...In Israel, there is rampant discrimination against non-Jews in all aspects of society including their education, employment, housing, and indeed the ability to become a citizen... Candidates for political office running on a platform of equality for all Israeli citizens can be seen as traitorous and subject to disqualification of their candidacy for "threatening" the Jewish state.
Turning History Upside Down
Dershowitz, the ICJ and the Jim Crow Era
By SHERVAN SARDAR
In a recent editorial, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz compared the International Court of Justice to the white courts of Mississippi during the Jim Crow era. Dershowitz believes that the Court unfairly singled out Israel for human rights violations. He maintains that the ICJ is inherently biased against Israel because undemocratic nations are disproportionately represented in the UN and the Court, while Israel is excluded from the potential pool of International Court of Justice judges (failing to note that Palestinians are similarly excluded). Thus, he concludes that the ICJ is precluded from objectively examining the legal issues before it where Israel is concerned and therefore, Israel has no obligation to follow the advisory opinion which held that Israel should tear down the barrier and pay Palestinians compensation for all damages.
As usual, Mr. Dershowitz has it backwards. He would like to place Israel above the law in the same way that the courts of Mississippi tried to place white citizens above the law who blatantly and wantonly violated the rights of African Americans. Let's not forget that in the past four years, three times as many Palestinians have been killed by Israeli violence, the homes of more than 3,000 Palestinians civilians have been destroyed (according to Amnesty International) and that 20,000 people have been made homeless as a result. To date, Israel has built more than 150 settlements outside of its legally recognized territory -- and seeks to make additional "security" decisions based on those illegal settlements by building a "security barrier."
Contrary to Mr. Dershowitz assertions, all human rights organizations and virtually all democratic and non-democratic countries agree that Israel's conduct during the course of its 37 year occupation has blatantly violated the rule of law. What rule of law? The law of occupation as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, and many other international treaties. It was the atrocities of World War II that led to the development of this highly specific body of law regarding the permissible conduct of an occupying power during the course of an occupation. The subject of the exploitation of occupied (European) territories was significantly dealt with during the trials of Nuremberg.
Any occupying power (not just Israel) is prohibited from annexing territory that it occupies (East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza), building civilian settlements in occupied territory, making security decisions based on those illegal settlements, demolishing civilian homes, engaging in practices of collective punishment, wantonly killing civilians, denying access to medical care, torturing prisoner detainees, deporting residents from the occupied territory, and expropriating the land and water resources of an occupied population. After tirelessly passing decades of Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions on various aspects of the illegal conduct of Israel's occupation -- and without any accountability from Israel -- the ICJ was finally consulted on the legal consequences to Israel for building the wall.
Almost all the judges found the International Court to have jurisdiction and competence to hear the case, regardless of their country of origin (democratic or not). The ICJ ruling simply rejected Israel's self-serving attempts to avoid its responsibilities under international law -- while it colonized, annexed, and exploited the Palestinian people and their land. Even the lone dissenting American judge found Israel's practice of building settlements in occupied territory to be highly objectionable. If Israel wanted to build a wall to protect itself from attacks, the wall should have been built on the Green Line -- virtually all parties and judges agreed that Israel had a right to build the security barrier in its own territory, not on Palestinian land.
A court presiding over an apartheid society better characterizes the Israeli Supreme Court in contrast to the International Court of Justice. While three million Palestinians live under Israeli military jurisdiction, Israelis (including settlers) live under Israeli civil and criminal jurisdiction clearly an apartheid state of affairs. Even Israeli settlers are authorized by Israeli military jurisdiction to arrest any Palestinian, need I say more.
Beyond that, remember, Israel is a Jewish democracy, not a liberal democratic society -- the distinction being that a liberal democracy is equally accountable to all of its citizens regardless of their race or religion. Israel has no constitution. The protection of the non-Jewish minority is subject to the whim of the majority in their system of parliamentary supremacy. In Israel, there is rampant discrimination against non-Jews in all aspects of society including their education, employment, housing, and indeed the ability to become a citizen -- where any Jewish person can become a citizen, but Palestinians are denied a right of return to their homes that they lived in prior to the 1948 war. Candidates for political office running on a platform of equality for all Israeli citizens can be seen as traitorous and subject to disqualification of their candidacy for "threatening" the Jewish state.
In addition, the Supreme Court of Israel is not a co-equal branch of authority with a Congress and the Presidency as in the United States.
Thus, the ability of the Israeli Supreme Court to overturn racist or unjust laws is subordinate to the will of the Israeli Knesset. I am not suggesting that we are better off without the Israeli Supreme Court -- as the court is perceived as "liberal" and "progressive" within the context of Israeli society. However, make no mistake, the Israeli Supreme Court is highly deferential to the testimony and interests of the Israeli military and rarely follows international standards of human rights, particularly when it comes to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Many, if not all, of the above practices have been approved by the Israeli Supreme Court as security measures.
In America's ugly past, the Jim Crow courts of Mississippi turned a blind eye to the rule of law by allowing white citizens to exploit African Americans through a reign of terror that affected every aspect of their lives. Similarly, Mr. Dershowitz would like Israel to continue to have free reign to deal with the Palestinians as it sees fit, subject only to its own legal interpretations (Sheriff Bull Conner, the White Knights, and Governor Barnett would have loved to play by these rules), however self-serving or limited such interpretations may be in terms of international legal standards of decency. Thankfully, the ICJ saw through the endless rationalizations of Israel's human rights violations and scored a major (even if only symbolic) victory for justice, the rule of law, and the Palestinian cause.
Shervan Sardar is a lawyer in Washington DC and has a Master's degree in international affairs from American University.
Dershowitz, the ICJ and the Jim Crow Era
By SHERVAN SARDAR
In a recent editorial, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz compared the International Court of Justice to the white courts of Mississippi during the Jim Crow era. Dershowitz believes that the Court unfairly singled out Israel for human rights violations. He maintains that the ICJ is inherently biased against Israel because undemocratic nations are disproportionately represented in the UN and the Court, while Israel is excluded from the potential pool of International Court of Justice judges (failing to note that Palestinians are similarly excluded). Thus, he concludes that the ICJ is precluded from objectively examining the legal issues before it where Israel is concerned and therefore, Israel has no obligation to follow the advisory opinion which held that Israel should tear down the barrier and pay Palestinians compensation for all damages.
As usual, Mr. Dershowitz has it backwards. He would like to place Israel above the law in the same way that the courts of Mississippi tried to place white citizens above the law who blatantly and wantonly violated the rights of African Americans. Let's not forget that in the past four years, three times as many Palestinians have been killed by Israeli violence, the homes of more than 3,000 Palestinians civilians have been destroyed (according to Amnesty International) and that 20,000 people have been made homeless as a result. To date, Israel has built more than 150 settlements outside of its legally recognized territory -- and seeks to make additional "security" decisions based on those illegal settlements by building a "security barrier."
Contrary to Mr. Dershowitz assertions, all human rights organizations and virtually all democratic and non-democratic countries agree that Israel's conduct during the course of its 37 year occupation has blatantly violated the rule of law. What rule of law? The law of occupation as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, and many other international treaties. It was the atrocities of World War II that led to the development of this highly specific body of law regarding the permissible conduct of an occupying power during the course of an occupation. The subject of the exploitation of occupied (European) territories was significantly dealt with during the trials of Nuremberg.
Any occupying power (not just Israel) is prohibited from annexing territory that it occupies (East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza), building civilian settlements in occupied territory, making security decisions based on those illegal settlements, demolishing civilian homes, engaging in practices of collective punishment, wantonly killing civilians, denying access to medical care, torturing prisoner detainees, deporting residents from the occupied territory, and expropriating the land and water resources of an occupied population. After tirelessly passing decades of Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions on various aspects of the illegal conduct of Israel's occupation -- and without any accountability from Israel -- the ICJ was finally consulted on the legal consequences to Israel for building the wall.
Almost all the judges found the International Court to have jurisdiction and competence to hear the case, regardless of their country of origin (democratic or not). The ICJ ruling simply rejected Israel's self-serving attempts to avoid its responsibilities under international law -- while it colonized, annexed, and exploited the Palestinian people and their land. Even the lone dissenting American judge found Israel's practice of building settlements in occupied territory to be highly objectionable. If Israel wanted to build a wall to protect itself from attacks, the wall should have been built on the Green Line -- virtually all parties and judges agreed that Israel had a right to build the security barrier in its own territory, not on Palestinian land.
A court presiding over an apartheid society better characterizes the Israeli Supreme Court in contrast to the International Court of Justice. While three million Palestinians live under Israeli military jurisdiction, Israelis (including settlers) live under Israeli civil and criminal jurisdiction clearly an apartheid state of affairs. Even Israeli settlers are authorized by Israeli military jurisdiction to arrest any Palestinian, need I say more.
Beyond that, remember, Israel is a Jewish democracy, not a liberal democratic society -- the distinction being that a liberal democracy is equally accountable to all of its citizens regardless of their race or religion. Israel has no constitution. The protection of the non-Jewish minority is subject to the whim of the majority in their system of parliamentary supremacy. In Israel, there is rampant discrimination against non-Jews in all aspects of society including their education, employment, housing, and indeed the ability to become a citizen -- where any Jewish person can become a citizen, but Palestinians are denied a right of return to their homes that they lived in prior to the 1948 war. Candidates for political office running on a platform of equality for all Israeli citizens can be seen as traitorous and subject to disqualification of their candidacy for "threatening" the Jewish state.
In addition, the Supreme Court of Israel is not a co-equal branch of authority with a Congress and the Presidency as in the United States.
Thus, the ability of the Israeli Supreme Court to overturn racist or unjust laws is subordinate to the will of the Israeli Knesset. I am not suggesting that we are better off without the Israeli Supreme Court -- as the court is perceived as "liberal" and "progressive" within the context of Israeli society. However, make no mistake, the Israeli Supreme Court is highly deferential to the testimony and interests of the Israeli military and rarely follows international standards of human rights, particularly when it comes to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Many, if not all, of the above practices have been approved by the Israeli Supreme Court as security measures.
In America's ugly past, the Jim Crow courts of Mississippi turned a blind eye to the rule of law by allowing white citizens to exploit African Americans through a reign of terror that affected every aspect of their lives. Similarly, Mr. Dershowitz would like Israel to continue to have free reign to deal with the Palestinians as it sees fit, subject only to its own legal interpretations (Sheriff Bull Conner, the White Knights, and Governor Barnett would have loved to play by these rules), however self-serving or limited such interpretations may be in terms of international legal standards of decency. Thankfully, the ICJ saw through the endless rationalizations of Israel's human rights violations and scored a major (even if only symbolic) victory for justice, the rule of law, and the Palestinian cause.
Shervan Sardar is a lawyer in Washington DC and has a Master's degree in international affairs from American University.
For more information:
http://www.counterpunch.org/sardar07162004...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Once again ignorance runs rampant.
The palestinians have no representing body, so how could they have memebrs in the icj? Israel is a democracy and can make its own choices under its own law, unlike say... the people who live in jordan (palestinian or otherwise).
The icj is biased against israel as well as this indy media.
why the "Jew" nation recives special and biased attention dispreportionate to whats goin on there only makes sense when you factor in the anti-jewish bigots that write such non-sense.
The palestinians have no representing body, so how could they have memebrs in the icj? Israel is a democracy and can make its own choices under its own law, unlike say... the people who live in jordan (palestinian or otherwise).
The icj is biased against israel as well as this indy media.
why the "Jew" nation recives special and biased attention dispreportionate to whats goin on there only makes sense when you factor in the anti-jewish bigots that write such non-sense.
because you can't have both
right now, calling Israel a democracy, when it places the populace of the occupied territories under lock down status perverts the entire concept
see the following from an article on the Counterpunch website:
[Yonatan was shocked into his refusal to obey orders by two occurrences, among others.
One was the action of a fellow Israeli pilot who fired a 1-ton bomb from his F16 fighter jet, as ordered, at a house in Al-Deredg, where a suspected Palestinian terrorist was staying. Yonatan identifies Al Deredg as one of the most crowded districts of Gaza, and indeed of the world. Besides the targeted Palestinian, 13 local people were killed in that attack: 2 men, 2 women, and 9 children, one of whom was 2 years old. 160 other people were wounded in the explosion. A 1-ton bomb, Yonatan calculates, has approximately 100 times the explosive power of the type of lethal belts worn by Palestinian suicide bombers. In proportion to the US population and the fatalities of the original 9/11 disaster, now an icon and classic measure of terrorist devastation, the fatalities of that single attack on tiny Gaza (population 1,200,000) were greater by 10% than the fatalities in America's own 9/11.
Nor was the bombing of Al-Deredg unique in the scale of its impact on civilian life. Yonatan has cited the casualties resulting from 7 other targeted assassinations conducted in Palestine by the Israel Defense Forces, where, along with the 7 targeted individuals, 44 bystanders were killed. Taking Palestine's overall population at 3,500,000 and that of the US at 290 million, those 44 bystander deaths would represent, in proportion to the US population, another one and a-third 9/11's.
As a volunteer in Selah, a group that assists victims of Palestinian terror, Yonatan has first-hand knowledge of the appalling effects of the multiple 9/11-scale attacks that Israel has tself experienced, at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. He was nevertheless -- or consequently -- appalled by the action in Al-Deredg of his fellow pilot. He considered the means used in the attack , a 1-ton bomb, and its goal, the assassination of one man, to be wildly disproportionate to the attack's predictable collateral effects, and a violation of the rules of engagement concerning which all Israeli soldiers are instructed. Those rules, as Yonatan has understood them, include the obligation to refuse to obey orders that are clearly illegal and immoral.
The other occurrence Yonatan cited, that pushed him to become a refuser, came out of a disturbing exchange he had with the commander of the Israeli Air Force, General Dan Halutz, concerning his refusal to serve on missions in the Occupied Territories. In Yonatan's words:
"In the discussion of my dismissal, I asked General Halutz if he would allow the firing of missiles from an Apache helicopter on a car carrying wanted men, if it were travelling in the streets of Tel Aviv, in the knowledge that that action would hurt innocent civilians who happened to be passing at the time. In answer, the general gave me his list of relative values of people, as he sees it, from the Jewish person who is superior down to the blood of an Arab which is inferior. As simple as that."
As simple as that.]
right now, calling Israel a democracy, when it places the populace of the occupied territories under lock down status perverts the entire concept
see the following from an article on the Counterpunch website:
[Yonatan was shocked into his refusal to obey orders by two occurrences, among others.
One was the action of a fellow Israeli pilot who fired a 1-ton bomb from his F16 fighter jet, as ordered, at a house in Al-Deredg, where a suspected Palestinian terrorist was staying. Yonatan identifies Al Deredg as one of the most crowded districts of Gaza, and indeed of the world. Besides the targeted Palestinian, 13 local people were killed in that attack: 2 men, 2 women, and 9 children, one of whom was 2 years old. 160 other people were wounded in the explosion. A 1-ton bomb, Yonatan calculates, has approximately 100 times the explosive power of the type of lethal belts worn by Palestinian suicide bombers. In proportion to the US population and the fatalities of the original 9/11 disaster, now an icon and classic measure of terrorist devastation, the fatalities of that single attack on tiny Gaza (population 1,200,000) were greater by 10% than the fatalities in America's own 9/11.
Nor was the bombing of Al-Deredg unique in the scale of its impact on civilian life. Yonatan has cited the casualties resulting from 7 other targeted assassinations conducted in Palestine by the Israel Defense Forces, where, along with the 7 targeted individuals, 44 bystanders were killed. Taking Palestine's overall population at 3,500,000 and that of the US at 290 million, those 44 bystander deaths would represent, in proportion to the US population, another one and a-third 9/11's.
As a volunteer in Selah, a group that assists victims of Palestinian terror, Yonatan has first-hand knowledge of the appalling effects of the multiple 9/11-scale attacks that Israel has tself experienced, at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. He was nevertheless -- or consequently -- appalled by the action in Al-Deredg of his fellow pilot. He considered the means used in the attack , a 1-ton bomb, and its goal, the assassination of one man, to be wildly disproportionate to the attack's predictable collateral effects, and a violation of the rules of engagement concerning which all Israeli soldiers are instructed. Those rules, as Yonatan has understood them, include the obligation to refuse to obey orders that are clearly illegal and immoral.
The other occurrence Yonatan cited, that pushed him to become a refuser, came out of a disturbing exchange he had with the commander of the Israeli Air Force, General Dan Halutz, concerning his refusal to serve on missions in the Occupied Territories. In Yonatan's words:
"In the discussion of my dismissal, I asked General Halutz if he would allow the firing of missiles from an Apache helicopter on a car carrying wanted men, if it were travelling in the streets of Tel Aviv, in the knowledge that that action would hurt innocent civilians who happened to be passing at the time. In answer, the general gave me his list of relative values of people, as he sees it, from the Jewish person who is superior down to the blood of an Arab which is inferior. As simple as that."
As simple as that.]
Since it seems that all the People in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza cannot live together as equals with the same equal rights for each person no matter their race, or religion in one State.
Then lets get this two state solution called for in the Road Map done and over with.
Tit for Tat is getting us nowhere, as proof you can see there is still conflict after thirty six years. So you have to look at the problem as it stands today, and do the right thing so both people can live in peace and with freedom.
If only one side has freedom, the other side will always be seeking it, in anyway they can. That is why there have been wars as far back as we can remember.
Thirty six years of war should be enough for such a small number of people, when you consider the World Population.
You can save Israel by allowing the Palestinian People to have their small state in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza.
There are 1,200,000 or so Arabs living inside Israel Proper.
There are 400,000 or so Jews living inside the West Bank and Gaza.
Trying to remove all the settlement can be an almost undoable task.
So Set the Borders for Israel to it Pre 1967 Border (Green Line) and have the State of Palestine inside the West Bank and Gaza.
If the U.N. can decide the Borders of Israel in 1948.
The U.N. can decide the Borders of Palestine in 2004.
You would end up with Israel with a majority Jewish Population and Palestine with a majority Muslim Population.
This would allow for the Israeli Military to Guard and Control the Israeli pre 1967 borders instead of confiscating Palestinian Land and Demolishing Palestinian Homes in the West Bank and Gaza that only goes to fuel the need for the Palestinian People to fight for their Freedom.
The Jews who do not like living in the new Palestinian State can feel free to move to Israel if they so choose.
The Arabs living inside Israel can feel free to move to the new Palestinian State if they so choose.
Almost every nation on earth has more then one ethnic group or religious group. So why not Israel and Palestine?
It would sure be better then the never ending conflict we have right now.
Then lets get this two state solution called for in the Road Map done and over with.
Tit for Tat is getting us nowhere, as proof you can see there is still conflict after thirty six years. So you have to look at the problem as it stands today, and do the right thing so both people can live in peace and with freedom.
If only one side has freedom, the other side will always be seeking it, in anyway they can. That is why there have been wars as far back as we can remember.
Thirty six years of war should be enough for such a small number of people, when you consider the World Population.
You can save Israel by allowing the Palestinian People to have their small state in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza.
There are 1,200,000 or so Arabs living inside Israel Proper.
There are 400,000 or so Jews living inside the West Bank and Gaza.
Trying to remove all the settlement can be an almost undoable task.
So Set the Borders for Israel to it Pre 1967 Border (Green Line) and have the State of Palestine inside the West Bank and Gaza.
If the U.N. can decide the Borders of Israel in 1948.
The U.N. can decide the Borders of Palestine in 2004.
You would end up with Israel with a majority Jewish Population and Palestine with a majority Muslim Population.
This would allow for the Israeli Military to Guard and Control the Israeli pre 1967 borders instead of confiscating Palestinian Land and Demolishing Palestinian Homes in the West Bank and Gaza that only goes to fuel the need for the Palestinian People to fight for their Freedom.
The Jews who do not like living in the new Palestinian State can feel free to move to Israel if they so choose.
The Arabs living inside Israel can feel free to move to the new Palestinian State if they so choose.
Almost every nation on earth has more then one ethnic group or religious group. So why not Israel and Palestine?
It would sure be better then the never ending conflict we have right now.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network