Enduring Impressions of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine - Part I

It is a while since the third session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine was held in Cape Town at the District Six Museum. I needed time to reflect on the impact it had on me. I volunteered to help on the weekend of the 5th and 6th November 2011 with some trepidation. I was pretty sure there would not be many Jews there other than the diehard anti-Zionist variety like Ronnie Kasrils (a former South African Government Minister and one of the jurists) or Max Ozinsky (an ANC stalwart and invited guest). However, there were some Israelis on the witness list, and in any case, once I'd Googled it, it seemed more interesting to go than not to. I'd been asked by a former colleague, so I wondered if the organisers thought they needed trauma counsellors. To be there in my professional role felt easier than being there as a Jew.

I need to explain myself - years ago, in my more radical youth, I used to be a staunch anti-Zionist. but I had changed my position over the years. (see post above). Now, after 44 years of Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, I thought it might be an idea to reassess the situation.

Terry Crawford-Browne

When I said I was interested in being involved Terry Crawford-Browne, a member of the organising committee, wrote to me , as follows:

  " Let me assure you, this is not an “Israel-bashing” occasion, nor anti-Semitic, nor anti-Jewish.  Sober-minded people are concerned about the situation in Israel-Palestine, and in the cause of peace are endeavouring to find a way forward, and out of the disastrous situation that presently pertains. Indeed, Stephane Hessel who heads the Tribunal is a 94 year old Jewish survivor of Buchenwald concentration camp.  He was born in Germany, fled to France, fought in the French Resistance against the Nazis"

Terry included exactly the same paragraph when he invited Judge Dennis Davis to be one of the jurists.  Dennis Davis refused. He had Googled his potential fellow jurists only to learn that they had all already made up their minds about Israel being an apartheid state. In a talk he gave at a Jewish community meeting just before the start of the Tribunal, Judge Davis described what he understood to be the underlying agenda of the Tribunal. There would be no debate, the intention was to promote a one state solution to the problem of Israel/Palestine, and to fuel the boycott movement against Israel. All true. But after listening to two days of evidence I saw it all in a very different light. 

Understandably, Dennis Davis was concentrating on the jurists and their lack of impartiality.  That was perhaps important in the public domain, but to my mind they mostly provided a platform for the evidence that was presented, and for asking certain key questions. I don't think its terribly important to prove that Israel is an apartheid state, although perhaps this has propaganda value for the Palestine solidarity movement. Surely there must already be ample instruments within international law to charge Israel's military occupation on any number of counts? The apartheid issue seemed to provide the excuse to have the Tribunal in South Africa. I'm not sure why. This may have to do with the role some South Africans would like to play in a future peace process; or to give the boycott movement here a bit of a boost or....?. What do you think the motives were? 

It seemed to me that the main purpose of the Tribunal was to express solidarity with the Palestinian cause and for Palestinians and their allies to have an international hearing. Nobody said it, but it is notoriously difficult for Palestinians from the different territories to meet, and also for them to meet with supportive Israelis. The Tribunal made this possible. Having sympathetic jurists and a specially invited audience as listeners, created a safe space for Palestinians so that , mostly on Day Two, they could describe the conditions under which they live, without having to be on the defensive i.e. to have to explain their views on Hamas or on suicide bombings, etc. I found this testimony harrowing, moving and often shocking. Much of it came from Israelis themselves. I'll give just a few examples:

1. In the Occupied territories, there are separate legal systems and courts for Jewish settlers and Palestinians. Jewish settlers are under the jurisdiction of Israeli civil courts. Palestinians are subject to military courts. Depending on nationality, the same crime will result in very different punishments.

   

   Lea Tsemel

2. Lea Tsemel, an Israeli lawyer provided the most damning evidence with regard to Palestinians living in Israel (so-called Israeli Arabs). They are permitted to become Israeli citizens but there are many laws relating to their rights to this citizenship. In terms of the recent Loyalty Act their citizenship can be revoked for any acts of resistance e.g. characterizing the Israeli Day of Independence as a Day of Mourning or being involved in an organisation that promotes boycotting Israel. She mentioned that a bill was tabled in August 2011 preventing any spouses and children of Arab-Israelis who live in the Occupied Territories, from joining their families in Israel. The bill goes on to explicitly declare its racist purpose - to prevent the immigration of a hostile Arab population which would shift the demographics thus endangering Israel as a Jewish state.

3. 

   Jeff Halper

   Jeff Halper, an American who made aliyah to Israel in the early 70's, works with the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions. Although demolitions are common throughout the country, it is in the Occupied Territories that these seem to me to be most shocking. Using various laws relating back to the British mandate, Israel doesn't recognise Palestinian ownership of land in the Occupied Territories and so very few permits to build are awarded. People sometimes risk building homes on the land they legally own. They are then subject to demolitions by the military administration because these homes are "illegal". The terrible injustice of this is not only that people's homes are destroyed just as they were in District Six, but that this happens on land adjacent to equally illegal Jewish settlements where homes are being built apace.
4. Many speakers demonstrated convincingly that Israeli policy is no longer about security issues so much as being about how the demographics of "Greater Israel" will impact on the survival of a Jewish state. Both explicitly and implicitly, a policy of ethnic displacement is being pursued with the intention to induce voluntary emigration of Palestinians to other countries. 

Continued in Part II (above)