Tag Archives: Jeff Halper

Normalising Apartheid: The Greatest Threat to the Palestinians since 1948

This two-page summary, prepared by ICAHD and Jeff Halper, sums up concisely where we are in the political moment in the struggle for a decolonized and free Palestine, which we hope you will consider and share.

As the page shows, we are in a confused but crucial moment between two initiatives that are coming down the pipeline and are being integrated — Trump/Netanyahu’s plan of normalization with the European/Saudi need for a Palestinian state (what I call a “good enough” Palestinian state, a Bantustan) — and the still embryonic, perhaps fantastical one-state idea, which, for all its far-fetchedness, is truly the only just and workable way out. So the page is a kind of combined reality-check of where we are politically and a warning that we are in the danger of being overtaken by events. Normalization is a closure. It is imposed by the US, Israel and the Arab states (plus other Muslim countries like Indonesia, Pakistan and Kazakhstan), not negotiated, and the Palestinians have little if any say. And after normalization, little space exists for furthering political struggle.

We may say, OK, let’s go with the flow. Apartheid is inevitable. Palestinian civil society and all of us, supporters of the Palestinians in their struggle for liberation, is simply not able to make its voice heard, fragmented and so harshly repressed as it is by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. And so the Palestinians have no end-game of their own, the one-state idea far from being agreed-upon and formulated into a political program around which their supporters can be mobilized. When the Abraham Accords are imposed and apartheid becomes a reality, then, we can simply shift to an anti-apartheid struggle a la the ANC in South Africa. The Palestinians will then, with no choice, have the same end-game: decolonization (but more complete than what was done in South Africa) leading to a democracy based on one person, one vote.

There is a fatal flaw in this (sort of) strategy, however. While the international community refused to recognize the Bantustans in South Africa and finally rejected the apartheid regime, in the case of the Palestinians and Israel it will accept a Palestinian Bantustan as part of a “two-state solution” if only to wash its hands of this persky nuisance and move on to more weighty issues, like consolidating the rising Israeli/Saudi hegemony over the region as a NATO counterweight to China. Accepting and normalizing Israeli apartheid is a small price to pay. Good enough.

All this is to question whether a post-normalization strategy in fact exists; indeed, whether any political space exists after normalization, since normalization is, well, normalization. it’s done, it’s a closure, the international community has moved on. If we don’t try (and succeed) to block the vehicle of normalization, the impending Abraham Accords, I really wonder whether we have run out of political space for further struggle. Will the Palestinian people, despite the fervent support they enjoy from the peoples of the world, be able to continue their struggle, first and foremost against the very collaborationist Bantustan government the Abraham Accords will establish?

There is an urgency here. The Palestinian struggle is in danger of being overtaken by events. We do not determine the political timetable. Palestinian agency as expressed in the BDS movement, in film and literature, in sumud and resistance on the ground, in rallies and protests abroad must, in the end — and urgently — be accompanied by a political program, an end-game, with which to push back against the normalization of Israeli apartheid and effectively mobilize the global forces that played such a key role in defeating apartheid in South Africa.

This ICAHD page attempts to focus on the political moment we are in and the immediate threat normalization poses. Indeed, we argue that normalization represents the greatest threat to the Palestinian people since the Nakba. It also points to where, in our view and that of our Palestinian partners, the struggle should be going. A useful appraisal of the political moment, I hope, but an urgent warning as well. Please circulate.

Download a Pdf version of this ICAHD resource

ICAHD Calls for an End to Israeli Genocide Against the Palestinian People

The term “genocide” was formulated by the Jewish-Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin against the backdrop of the Holocaust. It was codified as a crime under international law in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The definition of genocide, as set out in Article 2 of the Convention, is simple and straightforward, its first three elements clearly reflecting Israeli policies and actions towards the Palestinian people since initiating its process of systematic genocide in 1947:

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
in whole or in part.

Continue reading

Jeff Halper on Netanyahu’s Pandora’s Box

An update from Jeff Halper, the director of the Israeli Committee Against House demolitions (ICAHD), on the situation in Israel/Palestine. This is the first of what will be a monthly update I am recording with Jeff about what is happening on the ground in Palestine/Israel.

This month Jeff speaks about the push of international right-wing organisations to change the face of democracy in the world, with Netanyahu and his group leaders in this effort. However, Netanyahu’s agenda has fractured Israeli society and coming to the surface are questions about how Israel can be a democracy with an occupation and apartheid policies. Jeff goes on to speak about the heighten repression of the Palestinians during Ramadan and again calls for the UN to provide protective presence for the Palestinians.

Please become a member of ICAHD and receive the monthly Newsletter and Bulletin.

Jewish, Muslim and Christian Perspectives on my Tribunal

“The central message arising from the tribunal is that the well-documented accusations of repeated antisemitic behaviour made over more than a decade have been dismissed! Only one allegation of antisemitism has been found to have substance – but that was dealt with quickly and effectively [in 2015] at the time by the Bishop of Guildford (as Jonathan Arkush accepts), Stephen apologising for his actions, recognising the deep hurt his actions had caused and stating publicly that his sharing of the material was ill-considered and misguided and that he “never believed Israel, or any other country was complicity in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11.”

“It is significant that not one word or statement from Dr Sizer has been shown to be antisemitic. There are none.” Stephen Hofmeyr KC

To read more about my tribunal, my refutation of the complaint and the statements of over 40 witnesses see Pure Joy in Trials of many Kinds

JewishMuslim and Christian perspectives on the outcome of my Ecclesiastical Tribunal.

Continue reading

Jeff Halper on Inquisitions (Religious Tribunals)

As an Israeli Jew and the head of an Israeli human rights organization – ICAHD, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions – I am appalled by the very thought of bringing anyone, let alone such a principled person as Stephen Sizer, before a religious Tribunal. What, are we back to the Medieval days of the Inquisition? I can’t speak for the Church of England, but Jews, the British Board of Deputies, participating in a religious Tribunal?! The very thought is appalling. What has happened to us, Jews and Christians together? Are we willing to return to the dark processes of Tribunals with no legal underpinnings, no genuine evidence or testimony, conducted solely against people whose views we don’t like – besmirch and destroy people’s lives – just to prevent criticism of Israel? Is it really so easy, in the 21st Century, to persecute people for their religious and political views? Savonarola meets Trump?

The charges against Dr. Sizer are untrue and trumped-up – and you all know it. Antisemitism?! How do you possibly defend yourself against such a charge? In the intellectual and democratic world in which most of us live, Dr. Sizer has made a rational, well-researched case for his views and analysis presented in articles, books and lectures based firmly on academic research and religious history. But that is exactly the type of person for which Tribunals are necessary, since analyses like Dr. Sizer presents, unpopular in some partisan circles as they may be, cannot be dismissed in academic circles or barred in courts of law. They must be denounced in Tribunals with no moral, legal or intellectual authority, and as in all religious Tribunals, the person maligned and destroyed in order to somehow delegitimize his or her views. I am embarrassed for all of you – and downright angry at the Jews who participate in the dark proceeding of religious Tribunals.

Let me say this as plainly as I can. I have known Dr. Sizer for over twenty years. I respect his moral position on Israel. I certainly respect his academic work on Christian Zionism, one of the most insidious and antisemitic religious doctrines in modern history and profoundly anti-Israel (Israel exists to bring on the Christian End of Days in which virtually all Jews die or become Christians). I respect Dr. Sizer’s willingness to go beyond the comforts of parish life to engage critically in an issue of central concern to us all: how to prevent Israel from becoming the next apartheid South Africa, how to prevent Jews from becoming Afrikaners, and how to liberate the Palestinian people from the yoke of occupation and apartheid – causes Christians and Jews should be engaged with rather than outdated and discredited Tribunals. And while I don’t use Dr. Sizer’s faith-based language, I have never heard him utter a word that I would consider antisemitic. To accuse or “convict” him of such is truly medieval. It is all the more outrageous if you and your Tribunal are basing your judgement on the false and tendentious position represented by the IHRA assertion that any criticism of Israel is de facto antisemitic – a position disavowed by Kenneth Stern, who drafted the IHRA paper (only intended as a “working definition”), as well as by dozens of prominent Jewish and Israeli scholars and progressive Jewish and Israeli organizations.

Not only should Stephen Sizer be “acquitted” of such ridiculous charges, he should not have been brought before a Tribunal at all. I would have advised him to disassociate from this entire inquisitorial process completely – and I urge you to do so as well. Especially the Jews, for God’s sake!

In solidarity (with Stephen),

Dr Jeff Halper

ICAHD Statement of Support