Search

Begin New Search Political Geography South Africa Journal Journal of Palestine Studies

1. Richard J. Goldstone, "Israel and the Apartheid Slander," New York Times, 31 October 2011.

Publication Date:
01-2012
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Palestine Studies
Institution:
Institute for Palestine Studies
Abstract:
Judge Goldstone, who led the UN - commissioned investigation into allegations of war crimes committed during Israel's winter 2008–9 operation in Gaza (see Special Doc. File in JPS 154) and later, in a much-publicized move, repudiated one of the commission's major findings (see Doc. A1 in JPS 160), elicited further controversy with his op-ed in the New York Times defending Israel against accusations of apartheid. The op-ed was occasioned by the third session of the Russell Tribunal on Pales- tine (an “international people's tribunal” created by activists to promote peace and justice in the Middle East and funded by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation), scheduled to begin on 4 November in Cape Town, South Africa, which was to focus on the question of whether Israel's practices with regard to the Palestinians constitute apartheid differences (see un- der “Other” in this issue's Quarterly Up- date). See the first item in the “Selections from the Press” in this issue for reactions to the Goldstone op-ed.
Political Geography:
New York, Israel, South Africa, and United Nations

2. A1. European Members of UN Security Council, Joint Statement on Jerusalem, New York, 20 December 2011

Publication Date:
05-2012
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Palestine Studies
Institution:
Institute for Palestine Studies
Abstract:
"We have just heard a brie!ng from Mr Fernandez-Taranco about the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian territories. One of the themes that emerged was the severely damaging effect that increased settlement construction and settler violence is having on the ground and on the prospects of a return to negotiations. The UK, France, Germany, and Portugal are dismayed by these wholly negative developments.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, United Kingdom, Israel, South Africa, and Brazil

3. Letter from the UN: After the U.S. Veto on Settlements

Author:
Graham Usher
Publication Date:
05-2011
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Palestine Studies
Institution:
Institute for Palestine Studies
Abstract:
Obama's first veto in defense of Israel at the UN was of a Security Council draft resolution that condemned Israeli settlements in language reflecting the administration's own stated policy. The draft, supported by all other UNSC members, forced the U.S. to choose between undermining its credibility internationally and alienating constituencies at home. For the Palestinians, insistence on tabling the draft in defiance of Washington was seen by some as a first step in an “alternative peace strategy” involving a turn away from the Oslo framework in favor of the UN. After reviewing the context of the resolution, the author analyzes the stakes for the various players, the repercussions of the veto, and the diplomatic prospects in its wake. On 18 February 2011, the Obama administration vetoed a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution that would have condemned as illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied territories. Palestinian insistence on submitting the resolution incurred America's wrath. But the Council's fourteen other member states (including permanent members Britain, France, China, and Russia and nonpermanent powers Germany, Brazil, India, and South Africa) all voted for the resolution. And a colossal 123 countries cosponsored it, including every Arab and African state except Libya (which rejects a twostate solution to the conflict). Israel “deeply appreciated” the American veto—understandably so. Rarely had it been left so alone internationally, with even close allies like Germany ignoring appeals to abstain. For the Americans, Obama's first veto in defense of Israel at the United Nations came at a time when he wanted to appear at least rhetorically on the side of young Arab protestors who from Morocco to Yemen had been demanding change, rather than with the ancien régimes defending inertia. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice's contortions were palpable as she tried to explain a veto that violated elemental justice, international law, and until recently her administration's own stated policy on settlements—all in the name of a peace process that no longer exists. The veto “cost the Americans blood,” admitted Israel's Maariv newspaper, paraphrasing a “sharp” exchange between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the aftermath. It also cost Obama in the occupied territories. In Ramallah, some 3,000 mainly Fatah members staged a “day of rage” against the veto, with the West Bank Palestinian Authority's (PA) usually pro-American Prime Minister Salam Fayyad incandescent: “The Americans have chosen to be alone in disrupting the internationally backed Palestinian efforts,” he said. Smaller Fatah anti-America demonstrations occurred in Qalqilya, Hebron, Jenin, and East Jerusalem. The Palestinian and Arab decision to take the resolution to the UN was born of the beaching of the U.S.-steered “peace process” after the Israeli government's refusal last September to renew a partial moratorium on West Bank settlement starts. It was the first run of what has been called the PA's new “alternative” diplomatic strategy. Combined with the promise of new elections in the West Bank and Gaza, moves toward reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and the approaching climax of Fayyad's state-building agenda in September, the alternative strategy involves freeing the Palestinian case from the grip of American tutelage in order to anchor it again on UNSC resolutions and international law. How serious is the alternative?
Political Geography:
Russia, China, America, India, South Africa, Brazil, Palestine, and Germany

4. Apartheid Alliance

Author:
Aslam Farouk-Alli
Publication Date:
08-2011
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Palestine Studies
Institution:
Institute for Palestine Studies
Abstract:
The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa , by Sasha Polakow-Suransky. New York: Pantheon Books, 2010. ix + 242 pages. Acknowledgements to p. 245. Notes to p. 294. Bibliography to p. 307. Index to p. 324. $27.95 cloth. Reviewed by Aslam Farouk-Alli The sense of tragedy looms heavily through the book's prologue as the star-crossed protagonists are drawn together by cruel circumstance. Prior to 1967, Israel was the darling of the international Left, and its leaders vocally opposed apartheid and built alliances with newly independent African nations. South Africa, on the other hand, was in the clasp of Nazi-sympathizing Afrikaner nationalists ... and never the twain shall meet. However, after occupying Palestinian territories in 1967, Israel found itself estranged from former allies and threatened anew by old enemies. As both countries now found themselves outcast as international pariahs, their covert military relationship began to blossom... this is the central narrative that runs throughout the book and therefore deserves critical reflection.
Political Geography:
New York, Israel, South Africa, and Palestine