Is Israel obligated to provide Palestinians in the Occupied Territories with the same level of COVID vaccination it provides its own citizens? The answer is yes

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Yair Wallach

Yair Wallach Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @YairWallach

5 Jan
The debate on Israeli responsibility on COVID vaccines in West Bank and Gaza is an opportunity to think of the competing and overlapping frameworks: occupation vs. apartheid.

[Thread]
2/ On vaccines, Israel's responsibility as an occupying power towards the occupied population is clear, based on the 4th Geneva convention. The Palestinian Authority, the Oslo agreements, or claims for Palestinian statehood do not change that.
3/ Israel could meet its obligation through the PA, but it is ultimately its obligation.

And this shows the strength of the occupation paradigm. On some things - like responsibility towards local population, or settlements - it's very clear.
Read 14 tweets
3 Dec 20
Given its weaknesses, I can see two reasons to promote the IHRA. The first, primarily as a symbolic gesture; the second, because if its "edge" on defining anti-Israel discourse as antisemitic.
If your reason is the first, consider carefully the IHRA's weaknesses; the message that it sends, that antisemitism is substantially different from other racisms; and that it pits directly diaspora Jews against Palestinians and Palestine advocacy. theguardian.com/news/2020/nov/…
As for "anti-Israel discourse", this is what the Jewish Chronicle called "political antisemitism" in its famous front page editorial. The IHRA was needed because Labour would only address "racial antisemitism" but not "political antisemitism".
Read 6 tweets
3 Dec 20
Four reasons why imposing the IHRA definition on universities is bad for Jews:

(It's also bad for Palestinians and for academic freedom, but I'll focus on Jews)

holocaustremembrance.com/resources/work…
1. The core definition is poorly phrased and is very restrictive. It defines antisemitism as hatred - that is, an emotion - but does not mention discrimination, prejudice, or other forms of anti-Jewish racism which do not necessarily manifest as "hatred".
The CST website, in its page on Antisemitism definition, starts with the sentence

"Antisemitism is hatred, bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against Jews."

Three of these terms do not appear in the core IHRA definition.

cst.org.uk/antisemitism/d…
Read 9 tweets
3 Dec 20
By neo-Zionism I mean the current hegemonic political project in Israel. Explicit view of Israel as ethno-state over entire Israel/Palesine, Jewish-Israeli domination and rights for Israeli Jews, limited or no rights for Palestinians, ongoing colonisation, effective annexation 1/
Neo-Zionists are allied with the global populist right. Diaspora communities understood by neo-Zionists as extensions of Israel, they are not expected to immigrate to Israel. Welcome if they do, but a Jewish Trump supporter in the US is as-good as a settler in the West Bank. 2/
A significant share, probably plurality, of Israelis, support this model. Most diaspora Jews disagree with parts or all of this - including most of those identifying as Zionists. But there is a minority that supports this. 3/
Read 6 tweets
2 Dec 20
I agree with every word here.
The IHRA has become a symbol for the fight against antisemitism, which leads meany to underestimate its shortcomings.
The definition is especially wrong for universities, and will introduce confusion rather than clarity.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The imposition of IHRA on universities will likely escalate campus wars, rather de-escalate them. We need to disaggregate the issue of antisemitism from Israel/Palestine, as much as possible. The EHRC report showed it can be done, but this move sends us in the wrong direction.
If you read Gavin Williamson's letter, the verb "demonstrate" repeats five times. This is the politics of symbolic gestures, rather that of substance. He makes no claim regarding the actual value of the IHRA for fighting antisemitism - because there is no such evidence.
Read 8 tweets
10 Nov 20
My Saeb Erekat story.
----------------------
In December 1998 I was a subtitles translator in the Israeli TV news department (channel one). Bill Clinton arrived to Israel (4th visit) and for the first ever presidential visit to the Palestinian Authority. Very busy 3-4 days 1/
Clinton's Gaza itinerary included meeting kids whose fathers were in Israeli prisons. Saeb Erekat did the simultaneous translation for the President. One boy (8yr?) recounted some bare details about his story. The boy was shy and subdued. 2/
Erikat translated the child's sad factual account and then added "we just want peace now". Which the child didn't say. I remember staring at the screen with amused admiration. Erikat's quickness of improvisation, the moulding of a feel-good Hollywood monologue 3/
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!