Victor Gordon to the New Age

NEW AGE

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

Refers:  Letter:  “Kudos to EU court for historic Hamas ruling”  30/12/14

 

If there’s a single sensible word in Bhekithemba Mbatha’s letter,  “Kudos to EU court for historic Hamas ruling” I have yet to find it.

To refer to the decision of the EU Court as “progressive” underlines the latter’s  inability to recognise the realities of what is in fact, a dangerously misguided decision which completely ignores a fundamental reality:  the existence of Hamas is not in the interests of the Palestinians but solely in that of the officialdom of Hamas itself,  together with the promotion of radical Islam in that region.

Even Mahmoud Abbas has spoken out against BDS which will ultimately harm the interests of the entire region, including those of the Palestinians. Does Mbatha know better?

For Mbatha to praise Hamas for it’s “protection and defence of women and vulnerable children” is laughable indeed considering that 108 children died while made to construct terror tunnels from Gaza into Israel with the political leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal  safely ensconced in a 5-star Qatari hotel.  Concurrently, Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh sent  his grand-daughter and brother-in-law to ‘goulish’  Israel for urgent  medical attention where they were received with open arms and successfully treated.  We can safely assume that none of their children were utilized for this purpose.

If Mbatha were to compare the charter of Hamas to that of the ANC Freedom Charter (which governed  Umkhonto we  Sizwe) he would note that, while Hamas calls for the complete destruction of a sovereign state and the murder of Jews no matter where they are, the Freedom Charter never wavered in its universal call for unity, peace and mutual co-existence. How he can possible reconcile the two is beyond me.

Allan Wolman to the Sunday Independent

Emma Daitz writing in the Sunday Independent, hiding behind her “academic impartiality” is involved in Palestinian solidarity activism; therefore her impartiality is questionable.

 

But the subject of her piece being “never again to any people” would be difficult to criticize, if only she were not so miserly with facts that she presents. Like so many others critics of the Zionist adventure she kicks off by writing about Jewish suffering in order to garner respectability for what is to follow.

 

It would be interesting if she were to leave the past alone as the world at large is really not interested in Jewish suffering, never has been and never will be. But to justify her tale she must mention the Jewish experience. In reality she focuses on Palestinian suffering only. Israelis, reading Daitz’s column have not suffered – they’re simply dishing it out!

 

Reading Ms. Daitz’s take on history the uninformed would believe that Israelis’ descended on Palestine, dispossessed those hapless people of their land, possessions and dignity and colonized that country. As a PhD student in Sociology, this academic is rather economical with historical fact, rather economical with Israeli suffering and rather generous in some of her condemnation of the “colonizers”. 

 

Palestine after the Great War became British mandated territory and the Palestinians living in what is Israel today were Jews, there were off course Arabs who remained Arabs until 1967 when they became ‘Palestinians’. That mass of land was then divvied up by the great powers into a number of Arab states and one Jewish state. No doubt the writer wouldn’t question the legitimacy of Jordan, Iraq or Syria it seems however that she questions Israel’s legitimacy.

 

The historical events of those tumultuous years were of course documented in the history books but not necessarily studied by all academics. Some read other books – depicting the world according to Daitz. “ Dehumanization, prejudicial legislation ……. and indeed massacres” yes indeed massacres in a territory where the population continues to expand and life expectancy the highest in the Middle East. Massacres Ms Daitz are what are playing out in Syria, Iraq, and many parts of Africa, not surprising as she echo’s the language of the movement that she supports – Arabs killing Arabs or African killing Africans, or Arabs killing Africans are of no earthly interest to Daitz and her group, its only when Jews kill Arabs that’s important and worth their ire.

 

When we read “Imagine, for instance, the reality of the Palestinian child who must integrate the knowledge that there is no such thing as an innocent Palestinian, that to play with a ball in a public place is to court death” How dare this woman make such a statement? How dare she fabricate such an outrageous lie?

It’s common knowledge that Palestinian children in the West Bank are taught hatred of the Jew as their subject of choice. How dare she ignore that Palestinian TV broadcasts of Disney characters dressed up in a suicide belts encouraging toddlers to aspire to blowing themselves up.

Naturally Ms. Daitz has no knowledge of Israeli children traumatized by the sounds of sirens which allow them precious seconds to seek shelter or infants having their throats slit in front of their older siblings – really Ms Daitz do these things not enter your conversation or is it only the Palestinian suffering that interests you?

 

But If the Israeli oppression is as severe as she describes how come the schools and the TV broadcasts are not suppressed or shut down? How come Israel accredits hordes of foreign correspondents, salivating to dig up dirt and malign Israel, to operate without hindrance?  And how come the Palestinian Authority controls almost all aspects of Palestinian life?

 

As a PhD academic she must have learned somewhere that the Arab states are the greatest oppressors of the Palestinian people but she chooses to ignore truth or turn it on it’s head!

 

 

Don Krausz responds to John Dugard (The Star)

Dear Sir,

 

RE: PROFESSOR JOHN DUGARD – Debunking Israel’s self-defence argument.

 

We are creatures of emotion and intellect. Often the emotion overrides the intellect, even with professors.

 

He refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and accuses Israel of being in breach of many of its provisions.

 

Yet in Google, under the heading: The Settlements Issue: Distorting the Geneva Convention and the Oslo Accords, several ambassadors, professors, deans of international law schools and international lawyers dispute, and even ridicule, Dugard’s opinions.

 

He frequently refers to Israeli “occupation.”

 

A Google article states that the term “occupation” is often employed politically without regard for its general or legal meaning. The use of the term “occupation” in political rhetoric reduces complex situations…to predefined categories of right and wrong.

 

Dugard states that “the occupation of Gaza is now in its 47^th year,” yet he admits that Israel withdrew in 2005. Surely the withdrawal of all Israeli military personnel and any Israeli civilian presence in the Gaza strip would constitute a clear end of occupation?

 

Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 42 states that: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the control of a hostile army.” Gaza is controlled by Hamas.

 

The Fourth Geneva Convention did not change this definition of occupation.

 

Dugard states that the “present occupation” of Gaza must not be seen as an act of self-defence by Israel. What, even after the firing at Israeli residential areas of 14,000 missiles and counting? Surely such utterings are more a reflection on Dugard than on Israel?

 

He opines that rockets fired from Gaza must be construed as acts of resistance. Sure, especially when concentrated during times when children are going to school or returning home and so not in shelters!

 

Once again the deceptive term “Disproportionate Force” is used. Israel protected its civilians from those 14,000 missiles. The German Blitz during WW2 killed 51,000 Britons. Churchill vowed to return every bomb tenfold and did. Disproportion?

 

Dugard complains that the International Criminal Court did not hold Israel responsible for what Dugard terms “crimes.” I wonder how the ICC regards the “defensive Palestinian” actions with cars, guns and axes now taking place in the streets of the Holy City, Jerusalem, in synagogues and revered sites like the Temple Mount, and against unarmed hitchhiking youths?

Victor Gordon responds to John Dugard (The Star)

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

THE STAR

Refers:  John Dugard: “Debunking Israel’s self-defence argument”  (28/11/14)

The lay public harbour a systemic respect for those with exalted academic qualifications, and who can blame them. If you can’t trust the views and opinions of experts, who then can one look to for authoritative council?

A prime example applies to Professor John Dugard, the former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the ‘occupied Palestinian territory’,  and professor emeritus of international law at the University of Leiden. Indeed, his seemingly definitive article, “Debunking Israel’s self-defence argument” that originally appeared in ‘Al Jazeera America’  in July prior to it’s resuscitation in The Star on November 28, illustrates how often respected commentators depend on the ignorance of readers, the majority of whom would never resort to checking the veracity of what they’re fed.

And so it is with Dugard, a generally respected jurist that most would never suspect of stating anything but verified fact – until it comes to Israel.

Making light of Israel’s claim that its acts of retaliation to being on the receiving end of 14,000 Gaza-based rockets are acts of self-defence, Dugard launches into a seemingly convincing  argument that, despite Israel’s complete departure from Gaza in 2005, it is still the occupier as defined by International Law. He brushes aside Hamas’ relentless missile attacks for the past 9 years, construing them as “acts of resistance of an occupied people and an assertion of its recognized right to self-determination”.

Further, he asserts that Israel, (which based its withdrawal on the naïve hope that the Palestinians of Gaza would use this newly-found independence to establish a meaningful, mutually advantageous  relationship with its powerful neighbour),  “is not the victim but the occupying  power, using force to maintain its illegal occupation. “

Dugard suggests that despite  Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza,  it continues to maintain control of it through “intermittent incursions … regular shelling … controlling the land crossings into Gaza, its airspace and territorial waters and its population registry which determines who may leave and enter.”

Writing in ‘Al Jazeera America’, Dugard claimed that because Israel is “occupying Gaza”, the normal laws of self-defence do not apply. While Israel may not legally defend itself  he argued that Hamas may legally attack. Firing thousands of rockets at Israelis going about their lives is perfectly legal, he claimed. After all, Hamas rockets and terror tunnels are “acts of resistance of an occupied people.” The status of Gaza is clear, he wrote. It is occupied territory — part of occupied Palestinian territory. Effective control is the test for occupation.”

Conveniently Dugard overlooks the existing “effective control” of the enclave by the ruling government, Hamas which, by no stretch of the imagination takes its orders from Israel. What Israel has opted to control under existing belligerent circumstances is entry through her borders (as does Egypt, which Dugard feels vindicated in ignoring); the rearming of a recognised terrorist group – Hamas – from the sea (also upheld by Egypt); the control over what essential commodities are supplied to Gaza from Israel (in view of the abuse of this in the past) and the monitoring of attack tunnels into Israel which Dugard fails to even mention.

Dugard bases his entire argument about “effective control being the test for occupation” on the International Court of Justice’s recent confirmation thereof in the dispute between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, asserting that “the physical presence of Israel in Gaza is not necessary provided it retains effective control and authority over the territory  by other means.”

Yet the definition of “effective control” by the ICJ in the DRC/Uganda conflict is an exact contradiction of what Dugard claims.  The true situation was not only radically different but  the ICJ definition of “effective control” in the Congo/ Uganda case was completely contrary to what Dugard said.

Examining  two extensive analyses of the decision of the ICJ ruling over the DRC/ Uganda vis-à-vis Gaza /Israel undertaken by Steve Aspel and the influential USA-based blog, “The Elder of Zyion” in August 2014, Dugard is revealed to be both misleading and duplicitous as the situation applicable to the DRC/Uganda has no bearing whatsoever on that in Israel/Gaza.

The ruling stated:

“To reach a conclusion as to whether a State … is an ‘occupying power’ … the Court must examine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the said authority was in fact established and exercised by the intervening State in the areas in question. … armed forces (must) not only be stationed in particular locations but also substitute their own authority …”

Therefore, the final test for occupation is a simple one. If Israel cannot substitute its authority for that of Hamas and change the government in Gaza, or the court system, or the police force, then Israel is not an occupying power. Even Dugard would have to concede that Hamas, and Hamas alone, wields the whip in Gaza.