A Response to John Dugard

John Dugard, the outgoing Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council on Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories, continued to reveal his anti-Israel bias in a recent interview published in the Jerusalem Post. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1206632349014&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) Mr. Dugard's favoritism begins with his sources, when he adheres to B'tselem's casualty figures. B'tselem's figures cannot be considered objective when their overt goal is "to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories." (For more information on B'tselem's bias, see http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/b_tselem.)

Aside from Mr. Dugard's problematic sources, throughout the interview, he adopts two central arguments that further betray his bigotry. Firstly he consistently attempts to hide behind his mandate, which he readily admits is "limited to human rights violations committed by the Israeli government and the IDF." This self-imposed qualification allows him to ignore the true context in which these supposed human rights violations occur. Mr. Dugard expresses disappointment with Israeli security measures in the West Bank, such as the security fence, and the roadblocks. Both have proven to be extremely effective in preventing Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching civilian populations. Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Abdallah Shalah even recently admitted that the fence affects their capabilities. "...they built a separation fence in the West Bank . We do not deny that it limits the ability of the resistance [i.e., the terrorist organizations] to arrive deep within [Israeli territory] to carry out suicide bombing attacks..." (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ct_250308e.htm)

Mr. Dugard's second argument is one that has been worn out, yet still proves a challenge for many. He refers to his personal experience as a South African, and in several contexts he compares the situation in Israel to the situation in South Africa. Firstly, he compares Palestinian terrorism to that of the ANC (the African National Congress). This is a vulgar falsity that compares violent resistance against South African government and military targets to horrific terrorism directed against innocent Israeli citizens.

Mr. Dugard continues to compare the situations and claims that just as South Africa negotiated against the backdrop of violence, Israel should not condition negotiations on the cessation of Palestinian violence. The glaring difference is that negotiations in South Africa were over laws and culture, whereas in Israel, the issue is territory. Successful negotiations in South Africa benefited all, and the violence ceased soon afterwards. An Israeli pull-out from territories (without any apparent return) would not guarantee an culmination to the violence, especially in light of the rise of Hamas. Mr. Dugard tends to focus on Hamas statements that are more moderate than their charter, political statements that speak only of ending the occupation. Mr. Dugard admits that he is ignoring the Hamas charter that explicitely speaks of the destruction of the State of Israel. "The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised." (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm)

We have here just another example of the worldwide phenomenon that is known as anti-Israel bias.