Jeff Handmaker

One year ago on 9 July 2004, at the request of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. But, the Court did not stop at Israel’s obligations. An overwhelming majority of the Court concluded that all states were obliged not to recognize the illegal situation Israel has created and to refrain from any financial support to Israel in maintaining the illegally constructed wall. Much remains to be done before States can be said to be in compliance with international law.

Haifa has attracted many Palestinians from the North, in addition to the residents that remained in Haifa after 1948. But, a considerable number of Haifa’s Palestinian residents had lived in Haifa for decades without having been defined as legal residents of Haifa in the population registry. The unofficial estimation of the Palestinian population in Haifa is around 30,000, leaving around 6,000 Palestinians officially unrecognised. Around 121,000 Palestinians were dispossessed from Haifa and from 58 surrounding villages. Adri Nieuwhof and Jeff Handmaker visited Haifa and give voice to those who remained and those dispossessed.

Governments should be allowing Palestinians the opportunity to claim political asylum, but they are failing to do so and mistreating Palestinians in the process. In this article, the writers consider international law in relation to this. They also examine the case of Khalil, who has — contrary to international law — not been given an effective opportunity to claim refugee status in the Netherlands and instead has been confined to a bureaucratic ‘no man’s land’, with severe personal consequences.

The official role of Israel as sole protector of the Jewish people through the so-called Israeli right of return (or Aliyah) is increasingly tested. The law of return is an exclusive law benefiting only Jews and allows any Jew to emigrate to Israel. This role of Israel, as sole protector of the Jewish people, is being increasingly tested by a large and growing number of émigrés from Israel to other countries around the world, matched by a diminishing number of new immigrants. Jeff Handmaker and Adri Nieuwhof argue that this creates serious problems for Israel in seeking to maintain the exclusively Jewish character of the Israeli state.

In early March 2005, the High Court of Australia made a unanimous decision to give refugee protection to a Russian Jewish doctor and his son. The Australian court determined that it could not “offload its responsibilities” to protect them by arguing Israel was a ‘safe third country’ on the basis of the so-called law of return or ‘Aliyah’. The decision has important implications as it directly challenges the notion held by Israel and its supporters that there must exist a ‘Jewish state’ for the exclusive protection of Jews. There are clear and growing signs that many Jews do not see Israel as a “safe haven” and therefore seek refuge elsewhere.

Sometimes the relevance of making comparisons between the liberation movements in South Africa and Palestine is questioned. Jeff Handmaker, Adri Nieuwhof and Bangani Ngeleza argue that, while the situations are by no means identical, sufficient similarities exist for Palestinians and their solidarity counterparts to draw relevant experiences and strategies that helped form the conditions for peace negotiations in South Africa. It is the massive land dispossession and disproportionate situation that has existed both for black South Africans and for Palestinians, reinforced by policies and actions designed to destroy their dignity, which have formed the primary motivators in both liberation struggles.

History has not given the Palestinian people much reason to trust the intentions of the government of Israel. While Ariel Sharon has repeatedly claimed to be driven by a commitment to peace, his actions have so far belied his words, particularly concerning its military occupation of Palestinian territories. In this second article of a two-part series, Adri Nieuwhof, Bangani Ngeleza and Jeff Handmaker revisit key factors that built trust amongst both parties to the conflict in apartheid South Africa, without eroding key principles of the liberation movement, and reflect upon these experiences in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Despite some initial optimism following the outcome of the Palestinian presidential elections, there has been no obvious progress towards peace negotiations. This is of little surprise, since the conditions for holding negotiations simply do not exist and possibly have not even been thought through by either party. While opportunities for peace talks are fast disappearing as the region appears again to slide into outright confrontation, the writers, former anti-apartheid activists from the Netherlands, South Africa and Great Britain respectively, look back on this crucial period in South African history in the first of two articles in a series, to reflect upon and provide inspiration to the Palestinian struggle for liberation.

”After the death of Yasser Arafat, it was impossible not to note the grief and sadness of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories and in the Diaspora, an emotion echoed by leaders of other liberation struggles, including Nelson Mandela. Most of the Jewish voices inside Israel were conveyed a different perspective, one that ignored the fact that Israel is also the home of many Palestinians. A free election to choose a new leader must ensure the participation of all Palestinians, including prisoners and refugees.” Adri Nieuwhof and Jeff Handmaker comment from The Netherlands.

The International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People concluded its work this week. According to an adopted plan of action, internationally coordinated action would be developed to escalate pressure to end the Israeli occupation and achieve the realization of Palestinian rights. Jeff Handmaker, an international human rights lawyer and regular contributer to EI, participated at the conference and presented a paper with Susan Akram on legal strategies.