|
英国指导coursework：关于论以色列问题研究
简介:以色列种族隔离对抗安全
迄今为止分析了巴以冲突已经证明这是一个相当复杂的任务。在波涛汹涌的模糊海面当中,似乎有大量令人不安的不同观点撞在了矛盾的历史上,完全相反的合理化与困境的根源相关联。本文将说明这是为什么。学术界一般认为造成这种困难的原因是以色列的起源有分歧。
进一步将分析以色列过去和现在许多方面的行为包括土地所有权,歧视性法律,种族净化和军事占领。不用说,这可能会描述一个有别于经典的非常不同的故事,英雄的国家被迫从一开始为其继续存在的斗争对抗无情,凶残的和嗜血的敌人;一个国家有错但在权力范围内通过纯粹的方式尽其所能去实现和维护贵族。
毫无疑问,一个广泛的研究为了吸引注意到这反映的差距是必要的。西方偏袒以色列宣传具有巨大的影响这不是怀疑而是似乎有更多的元素和深层的原因。
安全在历史上一直是以色列政策范围的主要理由。这是明显的从1948年的人口驱逐种族到隔离的建筑...60年后的隔离墙。安全和防卫就是以色列被迫采取这种措施的原因,然而他们可能会引起反对的。
关系与友谊-Relationship and friendship
简介:以色列种族隔离对抗安全-Introduction : Israeli Apartheid vs Security
Analysing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has demonstrated thus far to be a rather perplexing task. In the midst of the stormy sea of ambiguity, there seems to be an unsettling abundance of waves of extensively varied view points crashing down onto the paradoxical accounts of history, and utterly contrasting rationalization in relation to the root of the quandary. This paper intends to clarify why this is. General academia suggests that the reason for this difficulty is the fact that there are disagreements over the origins of Israel.
A further analysis will be into the many aspects of Israel's past and present actions including the ownership of land, discriminatory legislation, the ethnic cleansing and military occupation. Needless to say, this may paint a very different picture from the classic tale of the tiny, heroic nation forced into a struggle for its continued existence from the very start against relentless, murderous and bloodthirsty enemies; a nation that has erred but done everything in its power to achieve and uphold nobility by the purest of means.
Undoubtedly, an extensive study is needed in order to draw attention to this reflective disparity. That Western pro-Israeli propaganda has an immense impact on this is not at all in doubt but there is seemingly a more elemental and deep seeded reason. That is security.
Security has been the primary justification for the scope of Israeli policies throughout history. This was evident from the population expulsions in 1948 to the building of the aparthei.... separation wall 60 years later. Security and defence is the reason why Israel is forced to take such measures, however objectionable they may be.
The pro Israeli argument is that Israel is a country that struggles for survival. Even if one was to set aside Israel's immense military fortitude a question arises as to why the existence of a Jewish state would be so objectionable to Palestinians. Unlike today's rosy holy auto-proto messianic apologists, early Zionists were refreshingly candid about the reality of their aims. This will be later discussed in depth.
One foremost Zionist leader and theoretician was Ze'ev Jabotinsky. This man has more streets in Israel named in his honour than any other historical figure[1]. Written within what was perhaps his most famous essay from 1923, Jabotinsky did clarified one thing. That is that; "Zionists colonisation, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population."[2] Why is this? Purely because, history shows that "every indigenous people will resist alien settlers."[3]
This paper is intended to offer an insight as to what Zionism has meant for the Palestinians, how Israeli apartheid has been continually implemented, and suggestions for how it can be resisted and rectified. Throughout, references will also be made in relation to the work of the multitude of academics, writers and the blessed journalists[4] who have researched, documented and witnessed the unfolding of a form of apartheid in Palestine.
In order to do this, a clear and concise definition of apartheid is needed in accordance with international law. Further to this an analogy must be made between South African apartheid and Israel in order to fully comprehend the similarities and of course the differences between the two.
定义隔离-Defining apartheid
For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over another racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them...[5][Emphasis added]
Article II, International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, UN General Assembly
Resolution 3086, 30 November 1973
Though the state of South Africa is most connected to Apartheid as it is the context from which the term is derived,[6] the crime of apartheid itself is far more widely defined. This is a key point in relation to the study of apartheid in Israel since, even if one was to set aside the comparison to South Africa specifically, there exists some kind of measure by which the world may assess Israeli policy towards Palestinians.
The UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid in 1973. This meant that a comprehensive description of what unerringly the "crime of apartheid" looked like should be established. From this list of "inhuman acts" derived from the convention, below listed are a number of acts particularly worth noting;
Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person... by the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. [7]
Any legislative measures and other group measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in political, social, economics and cultural life of the country... [including] the right to leave and return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence... [8]
Any measures including legislative measures design to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups... the expropriation of the landed property belonging to a racial group... as will be further analysed, Israel has been and continues to be guilty of these crimes, which are all the more serious for having been "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons".[9]
In recent times, at an international conference, the Rome statue of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted in 1998.[10] It comes as no surprise that Israel was in fact one of seven countries to vote against the statute. 148 countries voted in total. The ICC Statute incorporates the "crime of apartheid" in a list of "crime against humanity". It further goes on to describe apartheid as:
Inhumane acts... committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime...
Thus, suffice to say, even before the South Africa and Israeli Apartheid analogy is made, the criteria for what constitutes Apartheid is set out with a high degree of clarity under international law. With this it is possible to analyse Israeli policies since 1948 and in as far as possible, understand what this has meant and continues to mean to the Palestinian people.
"supporters of Israel present Zionism as an ideology of liberation of the Jewish people, but for Palestinians, Zionism, as it has been practiced and as they have experienced it, has been precisely apartheid."[11]
南非比较-The South Africa comparison
If Palestinians were black, Israel would now be a pariah state subject to economic sanctions led by the united state. [12]
Observer, October 2000
White settlers in South Africa, like Zionist pioneers, colonised a land already inhabited. As on South Africa, the settlers in Palestine expelled the indigenous population, some two-thirds of the Palestinians in the land that became Israel in 1948, took possessions of their properties and legally segregated those who remained.[13]#p#分页标题#e#
It seems to me that the Israelis would like the Palestinians to disappear. There was never anything like that in our case. The whites did not want the blacks to disappear.[14]
Mondli Makhanya, editor-
in-chief of the South African Sunday Times, July 2008
The Israeli apartheid analogy has existed long before Jimmy Carter wrote his bestseller "Peace Not Apartheid". Although the legal framework that had imposed apartheid in South Africa was considerably different when compared to the relevant Israeli policies, there is a plethora significant similarity.[15] A common relative of both legal infrastructures is the intention to fortify and implement dispossessions, and by doing so, securing paramount land control over natural resources for the absolute benefit one group at the total expense of another.
Renowned architect and academic Lindsay Bremner has stated that while the popular conception of apartheid in South Africa painted a picture of walls, fences and barbed wire separating blacks and whites, in reality:
"It was the countless instruments of control and humiliation (racially discriminatory laws, administration boards, commissions of enquiry, town planning schemes, health regulations, pass books, spot fines, location permits, police raids, removal vans, bulldozers) ... that delineated south African society during the apartheid years and produced its characteristic landscapes." [16]
Though this point will be later elaborated, this description is all too recognizable for Palestinians living in Israel as well as the OPT. For them, like black South Africans, "daily acts and rituals" are "acts of segregation and humiliation." [17]
What a bitter irony. Key parts of the peace process in the 1990's, where limited Palestinian 'self rule' was established in a minuscule proportion of the occupied territories, has thus far stood to fortify the apartheid analogy with South Africa. 1959, South Africa introduced legislation calculated to encourage "self government" amongst the black population. This was to be in sealed off "reservations". [18] This following description is by the late Israeli journalist Tanya Reinhart. It encapsulates frightening similarities with the situation in the occupied Palestinian terrortories since 1990's;
"The power in each of these entities was bestowed to local flunkies, and few Bantustans even had elections, parliaments, quasi governmental institutions... the Bantustans were allowed some symbols of sovereignty: a flag, postage stamp, passports and strong police force."
Bishop Desmond Tutu acknowledged in 1984 that, the Bantustans in territory "arbitrarily carved up for them by the all mighty white government" deprived of "territorial integrity or any hope of economic viability" were basically intended to "give a semblance of morality to something that had been condemned as evil".[19] "Fragmented and discontinuous territories, located in unproductive and marginal parts of the country" with "no control" over natural resources or access to "territorial waters". As we shall see, this is a frighteningly spot on description of the OPT today. [20]
Nonetheless, it of paramount importance to note at this point that, to describe Israel using the phrase apartheid state does not necessarily have to mean connecting "Israel with South Africa". [21] Of course, any competent analysis should accentuate both analogous developments in addition to the "obviously different circumstances".[22] Some argue that the apartheid analogy is not as black and white[23] as one may assume.
One such conspicuous difference is the fact that Apartheid South Africa saw the rule of a white minority over a substantial black majority. In 1913, when the first segregation laws were passed, the indigenous blacks made up "more than 75% of the total labour force." [24]
Another profound difference is that Israel has not practiced any form of 'petty' apartheid. For example, you would not find separate public lavatories for Jews and non Jews. Further to this, the Palestinian citizens of Israel, known as Israeli Arabs, have full and equal voting rights and there is even a number, albeit not sizeable in any way, of elected Palestinians in the Israeli legislature, also known as the Knesset. This may be attributed to the fact that had "discrimination against Palestinians been written into Israeli law as specifically as discrimination against blacks" was woven into the fabric South African law, then "outside support would surely be jeopardised". [25] 'Outside support', a great ally Israel does not want to miss.
One major difference between apartheid South Africa and Israel which Zionists certainly make no effort to raise is that while in apartheid South Africa, the white settlers exploited the labour force of the dispossessed natives, Israel's plans for Palestine were rather different. Zionists settlers were not interested in exploiting the native Palestinians. Their plan was clear; "The native population was to be eliminated; exterminated or expelled rather that exploited". [26]
Now that we know this, it can be argued that Impact Zionism has in fact been worse for the indigenous population of Palestine than the effects apartheid had in South Africa. Israel does indeed want the land, they do want Zion, but without the people, its current residents; the Palestinians.
During a discussion between Palestinian-American academic and author Joseph Massad and renowned Israeli historian Ben Morris, Massad made a comparison between Israel and South Africa in relation to its supremacist rights.[27] Naturally, Morris dismissed such an analogy as simply ludicrous, further responding that throughout the history of Zionism, Zionists "would have much preferred Palestine to be empty of Arabs with therefore no need for Jews to be supreme over anybody. They simply wanted a Jewish state."
On this occasion, Morris' dismissal of the term supremacist has proven to be rather revealing, as it raises a ghost that has forever haunted Zionism even to this day. South African apartheid had a crucial inner contradiction. While serving the primary aim of distinguishing between racial groups, it also acknowledged their dependency.[28] Zionism in contrast, has tried vanishing the Palestinians both theory and in practice, yet they do not disappear. Sorry, oh persistent Zionist, they do not simply decease, vanish, wane or withdraw.
种族隔离的南非和以色列之间的关系-The relationship between apartheid South Africa and Israel
Over time, the respective leaders of the South African apartheid regime and Israel had developed a warm friendship. In 1953, Daniel Malan became South Africa's first Prime Minster to visit the Holy Land of Jerusalem. But even before this event took place, even before statehood was proclaimed for Israel, a personal friendship had flourished between Chaim Weizmann, who would later become Israel's first president, and Jan Smuts. Smuts was the South African Prime Minister as well as the senior military leader for the British. [29] In fact, the bond between them was so close that Wiseman would often turn to Smuts in times of calamity and "both men took for granted the moral legitimacy of each others respective position." [30] [Insert homosexual joke]
Ultimately, Israel became a prominent supporter of the South African apartheid regime in South Africa. This eventually led to the UN General Assembly Resolution in 1984, explicitly condemning the escalating collaboration between Israel and "the racist regime of South Africa". [31]
That many countries supported apartheid is not at all in doubt, but what is particularly striking in Israel's case is the extent of shared empathy. Another South African Prime Minister, Henderik Verwoerd, expressed his own view in the early 60s that "the Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like south Africa, is an apartheid state." [32]
In 1976 then South African Prime Minister John Vorster a man who had been a Nazi sympathiser in WWII was afforded a state banquet during a visit to Israel.[33] At the official welcome, Israel's Yitzhak Radin made a toast to "the ideal shared by Israel and South Africa: the hopes for justice and peaceful co existence".[34] The following year the official yearbook of the Republic of South Africa noted that "Israel and South Africa have one thing above all else in common: they are both situated in a predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples." [35]
种族隔离的类比总结-Conclusion of apartheid analogy
The uncanny parallels between Israel and apartheid South Africa are increasingly being identified by Palestinians, Israelis, South Africans and Israeli observers. there has been no shortage of prominent South African figures that have expressed solidarity with the Palestinians or the denouncement of what they believed to be similar to, or in most cases worse structure of oppression the apartheid regime so many of them had fought against.
One such person, veteran anti-apartheid figure and human rights campaigner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, made headlines in 2002 with his article "Apartheid in the Holy Land". [36] in it, Tutu described himself as being deeply distraught upon returning from a recent trip to Palestine. the trip, as he described, had reminded him "so much of what happened to us black people in south Africa". Further to this the archbishop confirmed that "Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people."#p#分页标题#e#
In 2007, South African legal professor, apartheid expert and the UN human rights rapporteur John Dugard, affirmed that "Israel's laws and practices in the OPT certainly resemble aspects of apartheid", resonant of the views of many other south African politicians, trade union leaders, religious groups and academics. [37] Even the western media correspondents have made the comparison, albeit not as openly as the South Africans. [38]
Even Israeli politicians and commentators are now voicing their opinions with regards to the issue of apartheid. More explicitly, they comment on the risk of Israel facing an analogous civil rights struggle that eventually prevailed in South Africa.[39] Though a contrasting perspective on the matter, in 2004 the Israeli foreign minister had predicted that Israel could turn into a pariah state, in equivalence with south Africa during the apartheid years.[40]
Its is of utmost importance to realise that to compare the situation in Israel and Palestine to South Africa does not require a forced 'one size fits all' political analysis. Rather a degree of clarity must be acknowledged in outlining the outright differences as well as the frightening similarity. Any such analogy is particularly valuable as it helps highlight issues surrounding a political system based on structural racism, separation and dominance.
Moreover, as the rest of this paper will explain, even leaving aside the specific comparison with south Africa, Israel's past and present policies towards the indigenous Palestinians fully meet the afore mentioned definition laid out in international law, and urgently needs to be treated as such by the International Community.
第二章-Chapter 2
结论:完美的种族隔离的秘诀-Conclusion: The perfect recipe for apartheid
Independence for Israel, catastrophe for Palestine
"We must expel Arabs and take their places"[41]
Ben gurion in a letter to his son, 1937
"Ben gurion was right... without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here" [42]
Benny Morris, Israeli historian in August 1897,
In the Swiss city of basle, a meeting took place that would have profound and disastrous consequences for the Palestinians- though they were not present at the event, or even mentioned by the participants. The first Zionist congress, the brain child of zionisms chief architect theodor herzl, resulted in the creation of the Zionist organisation (later the world Zionist organisation) and the publication of the basle programme - a kind of early Zionist manifesto.
Just the year before, herzl had published "the Jewish state", in which he laid out his belief that the only solution to the anti Semitism of European societies was for the Jews to have their own country. Writing in his diary a few days afterwards, herzl predicted the real upshot would be of the congress:
"At basle I founded the Jewish state. If I said this aloud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. In five years perhaps, and certainly in 50 years, everyone will perceive this."[43]
Herzl's Zionism was a response to European anti Semitism and, while a radical development, built on the foundations of a more spiritually and culturally focused Jewish settlers who had already gone to Palestine on a very small scale. At the time, many Jews, for different reasons, disagreed with Herzl's answer to the "Jewish question". Nevertheless, the Zionist got to work; sending new settlers, securing financial support and bending the ear of the imperial powers without whose cooperation, the early leaders knew, the Zionist project would be impossible to realise.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the population of Palestine was around 4% Jewish and 96% Palestinian Arab (of which around 11% were Christian and the rest Muslim). [44] before the new waves of Zionist settlers, the Palestinian Jewish community was small but of long standing, and concentrated in four cities of religious significance: Jerusalem, safed, tiberias and hebron. [45] As new Zionists immigrants arrived, with the help of outside donations, French experts were called upon to share their experience of French colonisation of north Africa. [46]
An early priority for the Zionists was to secure more land on which to establish a secure, expanded, Jewish community. In 1901, the Jewish national fund (JNF) was founded, an organisation "devoted exclusively to the acquisition of land in Palestine for Jewish settlement". [47] The JNF was destined to play a significant role in the history of Zionism, particularly as the land it acquired, by definition, became "inalienably Jewish, never to be sold to or worked by non Jews" [48]
The land purchased by the JNS was often sold by rich, absentee land owners from surrounding Arab countries. However, much of the land was worked by Palestinian tenant farmers, who were then forcibly removed after the JNF had bought the property. Thousands of peasant farmers of and their families were made homeless and landless in such a manner. [49]
The Zionists knew early on that the support of an imperial power would be vital. Zionism emerged in the age of empire and thus "Herzl sought to secure a charter for Jewish colonisation guaranteed by one or other imperial European powers". [50] Herzl's initial contact with the British led to discussions over different possible locations for colonisation, from an area in the Sinai peninsular to a part of modern day Kenya. [51] Once agreed on Palestine, the Zionists recognised, in the words of future president Weizmann, it would be under Britain's wing that the Zionists scheme would be carried out. [52]
The majority of British policy makers and ministers viewed political Zionism with favour for a variety of reasons. For an empire competing for influence in a key geopolitical region of the world, helping birth a natural ally with reap dividends. From the mid 19th century onwards, there was also a tradition of a more emotional and even religious support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine amongst Christians in position of influence, including Lord Shaftesbury and Prime Minister Lloyd George. [53]
Britain's key role is most famously symbolised by the Balfour Declaration, sent in a letter in 1917 by then foreign secretary Arthur Balfour to lord Rothschild. The declaration announced that the British government viewed with favour the establishment in Palestine for a national home for the Jewish people and moreover, promised to use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this project. At the time, Jews were less than 10% of Palestine's population. [54]
In the end, the role of the imperial powers proved crucial. For all the differences between some in the British foreign policy establishment and members of the Zionist movement as well as the open conflict between radical Zionists terror groups and British soldiers, it was under British rules that the Zionists were able to prepare for the conquest of Palestine. Ben Gurion once joked, after visiting the houses of parliament in London "that he might as well have been at the Zionists congress, the speakers had been so sympathetic to Zionism". [55]
Differenced between the Zionists leaders of various political stripes were essentially tactical. As Ben Gurion explained, nobody argued about the indivisibility of "Eretz Israel" (the name usually used to refer to the total area of the biblical "promised land"). [56] Rather, "the debate was over which of two roots would lead quicker to the common goal". In 1937, weizmann told the British high commissioner that "we shall expand in the whole country in the course of time... this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years". [57]
从一个没有国家的人到一个国家没有人-From a people without land to a land without people
"There is a fundamental difference in quality between Jews and native". [58]
Chaim weizmann, israles first president.
The Zionists leadership's view of the natives was unavoidable- "wanting to create a purely Jewish, or predominantly Jewish, state in Arab Palestine" could only lead to the development "of a racist state of mind". [59]Moreover, Zionism was conceived as a Jewish response to a problem facing the Jews; the Palestinian Arabs were a complete irrelevance.
In the early days, the native Palestinians were entirely ignored- airbrushed from their own land- or treated with racist condescension, portrayed as simple, backward folk who would benefit from Jewish colonisation. One more annoying obstacle to the realisation of Zionism, as Palestinians opposition increased, the natives became increasingly portrayed as violent and dangerous. For Zionists, Palestine was empty; not literally but in terms of people of equal worth to the incoming settlers.
The early Zionists leaders expressed an ideology very similar to that of other settler movements in other parts of the world, particularly with regards to the dismissal of the natives' past and present relationship to the land. Palestine was considered a dessert that the Zionists would irrigate and till until "it again becomes the blooming garden it once was". [60]#p#分页标题#e#
The founding farther of political Zionism, Theodore herzl, wrote in 1896 that in Palestine, a Jewish state would form "a part of a wall of defence for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilisations against barbarism". [61]
Many British officials shared the Zionists view of the indigenous Palestinians. In a conversation, the head of the Jewish agencies colonisation department asked Weizmann about the Palestinian Arabs. Weizmann replies that "the British told us that there are some hundred thousand negros and for those there is no value". [62]
"Jabotinski most popular street name in Israel" Ynetnews.com,28 November 2007
Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians, Washington DC: Institute of Palestine Studies, 2001, p28
Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall, New York, W.W Norton, 2000, p13
Sarcasm not sincerity..... Just in case you were wondering
Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights website.
Aafrikaans word meaning separation
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid Article II paragraph (a) (i)(ii)(iii), as elaborated by White B. Israeli Aparthied: A Beginners Guide, 2009, p. 4
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid Article II paragraph (c) as elaborated by White B. Israeli Aparthied: A Beginners Guide, 2009, p. 4
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid Article II paragraph (d) as elaborated by White B. Israeli Aparthied: A Beginners Guide, 2009, p. 4
"Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court" http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm
Mona N. Younis, Liberation and Democritization, Minneapolis MN, University of Minnisota Press, 2000 pp 12-13
"Israel must the hatred now" Observer, 15 October 2000.
Leila Farsakh, 'Israel: an apartheid state?', Le Monde Diplomatique, November 2003
Newspaper, Ha'aretz, 12 July 2008
Mirroring Israeli land ownership laws, The Native Land Act 1913, and the Native Trust and Land Act 1936 which designated 93% and 87% of South African land respectively off-limits to native African acquisition.
See also, John Quigley, Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice, Durham NC: Duke University Press, 1990 pp124-5
Lindsay Bremner, "Border/Skin", In Michael Sorkin's; Against the Wall, NYP, pp122-137
Lindsay Bremner, "Border/Skin, p. 129
Tanya Reinhart, 'The era of yellow territories', Newspaper; Ha'aretz, 27 May 1994
Desmond Tutu, Hope and Suffering, London: Fount Paperbacks, 1984 pp94-5
Lindsay Bremner, "Border/Skin, p. 127
Uri Davis, Apartheid Israel, London: Zed Books,2003, p. 84
Lorenzo Veracini, Israel and Settler Society, London: Pluto Press, 2006, p. 18
no pun intended
Farsakh, 'Israel: an apartheid state?'
Roselle Tekiner, 'The "Who is a Jew" controversy in; Israel: a product of political Zionism', in; Samir Abd-Rabbo, Roselle Tekiner and Norton Mezvinsky, Anti Zionism: Analytical Reflections, Battleboro, VT Amana Books, 1989, pp. 62-89
Moshe Machover, 'Is it Aparthied', Jewish Voice for Peace website, 15 december 2004.
'History on the Line: Joseph Massad and Benny Morris discuss the Middle East' in Joseph A Massad, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question, Oxon: Routledge, 2006, pp. 154-165
Lindsay Bremner, "Border/Skin, p. 131
Joel Peters, Israel and Africa: The Problematic Friendship, London: British Academic Press, p. 53
N.A Rose, The Gentle Zionists: A Study In Anglo Zionist Diplomacy, 1929-1939, London: Routledge, 1973, p. 5:
Richard P. Stevens, 'Smuts and Weizmann', Journal of Palestinian Studies,Vol. 3, No 1 (Auntum 1973)
A/RES/39/72.C, 'Policies of Apartheid of the Government of South Africa', Adopted at the 99th Plenary meeting, 13 December 1984
Guardian, 6 February 2006
Ben White, Israeli Apartheid p
'Brothers in arms- Israel's secret pact with Pretoria', Guardian, 7 February 2006
As Cited in Benjamin M. Joseph, 'Separatism at the wrong time in history', in Tekiner et al, Anti Zionism, pp. 136-52
'Apartheid in the Holy Land', Guardian, 29 April 2002
'Occupied Gaza like apartheid South Africa, says UN Report', Guardian, 23 February 2007;
see as an example 'COSATU open letter in support of CUPE Resolution on Israel', MRZine, 7 June 2006,
and also; ' "This is like apartheid": ANC veterans visit the west bank', Independent, 11 July 2008
Ha'aretz, 21 February 2003; 'Why the BBC ducks the Palestinian story', The Electronic Intifada, 6 February 2004;
'Worlds Apart', Guardian, 6 February 2006
'Israel risks apartheid like struggle if two state solution fails, says Olmet', Guardian, 30 November 2007;
Meron Benvenisti, 'Bantustan plan for an apartheid Israel' Guardian, 26 April 2004;
'Ha'aretz editor slams Israel in U.N conference', JTA, 30 August 2007,
'The war's seventh day', Ha'aretz, 3 March 2002
'Israel could become pariah state, warns report' Associated Press, 14 October 2004
Anton La Guardia, Holy Land Unholy War, London: John Murray Publishers, 2002, p. 188
Ha'aretz, 9 January 2004
Anton La Guardia, Holy Land Unholy War, London: John Murray Publishers, 2002, p. 7
Justin McCarthy, The Population Of Palestine, New York: Columbia University Press, 1990, p. 10
Hussein Abu Hussein and Fiona McKay, Access Denied, London: Zed Books, 2003, p. 67
Ref 6 pg 13
Ref 7 pg 13
Ref 8 pg 13
Ref 9 pg 14
Ref 10 pg 14
Ref 11 pg 14
Ref 12 pg 14
Ref 13 pg 15
Ref 14 pg 15
Ref 15 pg15
Ref 16 pg 15
Ref 17 pg 15
Ref 18 pg 16
Ref 19 pg 16
Ref 20 pg 16
Ref 21 pg 17
Ref 22 pg 17
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
