An interview with John Dugard
Bitterlemons-InternationaI (BI): You wrote recently that, while there are differences in Israel's practices and those of apartheid South Africa (namely that black South Africans were citizens), there are similarities in the areas of discrimination, repression and territorial fragmentation. Can you touch briefly on those areas?
Dugard: I think that when we compare the situation in South Africa and the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, you have to look at it from two perspectives. First of all, there is the similarity between the two systems or regimes and secondly, there is the question of whether the system in the occupied Palestinian territory falls within the scope of the [United Nations] convention on apartheid. These are two related issues, but I think it is helpful to treat them separately.
If I can start from the first, I think it is very clear that there are similar features in the sense that there is discrimination, repression and territorial fragmentation in the occupied Palestinian territory. There is of course the dispute about "race", but the general view seems to be that one can regard the Palestinians and the Jews as separate races. Once one does that, it is clear that there is discrimination against Palestinians in favor of settlers. Settlers fall roughly in the category of white South Africans in the sense that they are the dominant group.
As far as repression is concerned, there are security laws that are similar. In South Africa, there were laws that allowed torture and there are also serious allegations of torture in the occupied Palestinian territory.
On the subject of territorial fragmentation, in South Africa we had the Bantustan policy which sought to separate the country territorially. In the occupied Palestinian territory, the wall, the settlements, the military zones [constitute] territorial fragmentation and you see Palestinian territory being carved up.
Virtually every South African that goes to the West Bank and Gaza is struck by the similarities. We all have a sense of deja vu. I am talking principally here about black South Africans like Archbishop [Desmond] Tutu and others who have repeatedly stated that, in their opinion, the situation in the Palestinian territory is in many respects worse than it was under apartheid.
BI: How do you respond to critics--such as judge Richard Goldstone--who say that this is absurd?
Dugard: I am not so worried by the comment by Richard Goldstone in the New York Times where he said that the [comparison] between apartheid and what happens in the occupied Palestinian territory is slanderous and false. What I find very interesting is that when one examines the so-called Goldstone report and the chapter on the West Bank in particular, it does not use the term "apartheid", but the criticism of the system in the West Bank really identifies it as a form of apartheid. I find it a bit strange that he should say that it is "slanderous" when his own report does to a large extent confirm the fact that the system in the occupied Palestinian territory is a form of apartheid.
BI: Does the system in place in the occupied territories fit the UN definition of "apartheid"?
Dugard: The apartheid convention does list a number of "inhuman acts" and quite a number of those inhuman acts are committed by the [Israel Defense Forces] in the Palestinian territory. There are unlawful killings--here one speaks of "targeted assassinations". There is detention without trial and inhuman acts of the kind that are listed in the apartheid convention. And then the act must be committed with the intentional purpose of domination of one racial group over another. Here, too, I think that one can correctly say that the purpose of these inhuman acts is to maintain the domination of settlers in the Palestinian territory.
BI: Why do you think this kind of academic comparison is considered so "beyond the pale" in mainstream discussion about the situation in the occupied territories?
Dugard: I don't think that it is very academic. I think that the two systems are so similar that it's important to emphasize the similarities, particularly because apartheid was clearly condemned by the international community and action was taken against the apartheid regime. I think that the reason that the comparison is so resisted in Israel is precisely because of the fear that the sort of action that was taken against the apartheid regime would be taken against Israel in respect to the occupied territory.
I think, ultimately, my criticism relates largely to the position of settlers. I know that there are some that argue that Israel's practices in Israel itself constitute a form of apartheid. I have very serious misgivings about that.
The other important factor is that settlement can be capitalized as a form of colonialism. Colonialism is totally unacceptable to the international community. And so we have two regimes that have been condemned by the international community--apartheid and colonialism--and the international community does not respond in the same way that it did to South Africa.
BI: What do you see as the next step for those pursuing legal and advocacy strategies against these practices?
Dugard: I think that it is important to try to educate public opinion, particularly in the United States and Europe, to persuade people to see the similarities. And I think it is particularly important that Israelis themselves should become more aware of the similarities. I know that prominent Israelis have drawn the comparison, but it doesn't seem to have affected public opinion in Israel. I think that it is a process of education that is important. I don't want to get into the whole [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] action program. I can see the merits of it, but I have misgivings about it in other respects.-Published 23/2/2012 © bitterlemons-international.org
Front Page Features