Terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: some remarks from an informed observer
John Dugard is a South African professor of international law who has written extensively on South African apartheid. He has served as Judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice and as a Special Rapporteur for both the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the International Law Commission. Almost exactly a year ago, Dugard delivered his final report in his capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories. In that report he made the following remarks on the subject of terrorism which, given the events of the past few days, are worth reminding ourselves of and quoting in full.
***********
"Terrorism is a scourge, a serious violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. No attempt is made in the reports to minimize the pain and suffering it causes to victims, their families and the broader community. Palestinians are guilty of terrorizing innocent Israeli civilians by means of suicide bombs and Qassam rockets. Likewise the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are guilty of terrorizing innocent Palestinian civilians by military incursions, targeted killings and sonic booms that fail to distinguish between military targets and civilians. All these acts must be condemned and have been condemned. Common sense, however, dictates that a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by Al Qaeda, and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid or military occupation. While such acts cannot be justified, they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation. History is replete with examples of military occupation that have been resisted by violence - acts of terror. The German occupation was resisted by many European countries in the Second World War; the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) resisted South Africa’s occupation of Namibia; and Jewish groups resisted British occupation of Palestine - inter alia, by the blowing up of the King David Hotel in 1946 with heavy loss of life, by a group masterminded by Menachem Begin, who later became Prime Minister of Israel. Acts of terror against military occupation must be seen in historical context. This is why every effort should be made to bring the occupation to a speedy end. Until this is done peace cannot be expected, and violence will continue. In other situations, for example Namibia, peace has been achieved by the ending of occupation, without setting the end of resistance as a precondition. Israel cannot expect perfect peace and the end of violence as a precondition for the ending of the occupation."
"A further comment on terrorism is called for. In the present international climate it is easy for a State to justify its repressive measures as a response to terrorism - and to expect a sympathetic hearing. Israel exploits the present international fear of terrorism to the full. But this will not solve the Palestinian problem. Israel must address the occupation and the violation of human rights and international humanitarian law it engenders, and not invoke the justification of terrorism as a distraction, as a pretext for failure to confront the root cause of Palestinian violence - the occupation."
Labels: Israel/Palestine, Terrorism



5 Comments:
i of course agree with Dugard's comments, and asserting a moral framework in such a time of crisis and destruction is something we must do and continue to do lest in the heat of [admittedly other people's] battles we lose our moral compass.
it also may come across as bad form seem bad form then to analyse israel's political and military strategy at a time of acute suffering of the palestinians.
however in lieu of naomi klein's maxim that we should not forget our history; my mind casts back 25 odd years to israel's invasion of lebanon. back then it was the increasing respectability of the PLO israel was concerned about. a two state solution on the boundaries outlined in 242 was on the table, and was gaining international political legitimacy.
what did israel try to do? on the pretext of self defense they tried to destroy the PLO and thereby secure their hold over the west bank.
25 years on the PLO or PA are a total joke and it is Hamas that israel fears. they are a serious political organisation, that provides genuine support and services to its people (which goes a long way in explaining its popularity) they are also willing to negotiate a settlement as they have made clear on numerous occasions in the last few years.
the current attack on Gaza is quite clearly motivated by the same reasoning as the invasion of lebanon in 1982. to keep hold of the west bank (and particularly its water).
here is an article back in november which predicted the break down of this ceasefire and explains it in terms of israel's fear of hamas gaining power in the WB.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1037571.html
and here is one today from counterpunch which underlines what a complete red herring the issues of israel's "right to defend itself" and "proportionate/disproportionate responses" as a starting point for discussion
http://www.counterpunch.com/loewenstein01012009.html
yep, it's those dreaded Palestinian "peace offensives" again. They've got to be crushed, at whatever cost.
jamie
i've been enjoying your blog, keep up the good work!
cheers!
Thanks, Samuel. I quite agree. It has been clear for decades that what the Israeli state wants is not peace but victory. Terrorism is an entirely predictable consequence of its long-term brutalisation and repression of hte Palestinians. It is reasonably clear that successive Israeli governments have decided that they can live with that. What is more important to them is being able to maintain control of the desirable parts of the West Bank. Indeed, by using the terrorism that the occuaption engenders as an excuse for prolonging it, the occupation has made itself ideologically self-sustaining.
As long as Hamas called for Israel's destruction and set off suicide bombs it was playing into the hands of that strategy. But when it started talking about peace on the 67 borders and showing that it had the cohesion and discipline to impose ceasefires, even uniltateral ones, on its armed wing and other armed groups, it became a real threat - that is, a threat to Israel's mode of dominance. What is more, since it is independent of the West, unlike Fatah, it cannot be co-opted. So you have an independent, politically and militarily disciplined force moving towards an acceptance of the internationaly recognised solution to the conflict, thus destroying Israel's main excuse for avoiding a proper peace deal.
It seems to me that this weeks events (not least the bombing of a Mosque on a Friday), like the Israeli policy to Hamas generally, are a conscious attempt to destroy or undermine the moderating voices within Hamas and send it backwards to the extremism that it was at least seeming to move away from. That way, Israel can say it has no partner for peace, portray the conflict as one of Israeli self-defence, in inverse of reality, and maintain its occupation of stolen land.
Post a Comment
<< Home