DID YOU KNOW?
You will be delighted to learn I received much push-back on my last submission. Aside from some interesting comments, I was sent several good links to legitimate sources of information regarding specific issues I was said to be confused about. I've read all of those now and offer the following review.
APARTHEID
One main argument against what I wrote was that many others, “experts”, refer to the situation between Palestine-Israel as one of apartheid. And, I am told, they have done so for some time. “Great,” I say. And the article sent to me for review was a press release from South Africa’s Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), titled “Report: Israel practicing apartheid in Palestinian territories.” Well, who better than the South Africans to offer an assessment of apartheid? I also learned the report was conducted by an international team of scholars and over the period of fifteen months. "Fantastic!" And what does this article say?
The section referencing apartheid specifically begins with: "[T]he team found that Israel’s laws and policies in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories] fit the definition of apartheid in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid."
(The first thing to notice, and something I don't wish to get too into here, is that with this one sentence perfectly exposes the position of the authors: that Israelis or perhaps Jews are alien invaders and their presence, and thus defensive stance, illegitimate. That's what "occupied territories" means. No one has to read beyond the first half of the above first sentence to reliably know in advance their positioning, where all their following arguments will land, or their conclusions... And none of that is new or interesting. But I am interested in the specific claim about a specific phenomenon: apartheid. So let's do this anyway and see where it goes.)
Because the article didn’t offer any details on the convention in question (how many scholars involved?) I sought those out on Wikipedia:
Article II [of the convention] defines the crimes of apartheid:
Denial of the right of life and liberty to members of a racial group by:
murders of members of a racial group or groups
inflicting physical and mental harm
arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment
Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part
Any legislature measures that deny a group of political, social, economic, and cultural life of the country
Any measures designed to divide the population by racial lines
Exploitation of labor of members of a racial group
Persecution of organizations and persons because they oppose the apartheid
Notice that, just as I did in my original rant, these points highlight race as the critical factor within the apartheid regime, its orienting framework and primary justification. This above definition of apartheid and its crimes speaks only of “racial lines” and “racial group” not of ethnicity or faith or anything else; which, to be clear, would also fail to help the HSRC’s argument.
Yes, I’m working from the premise that Jews are not their own race (*barf*), nor are Israelis, thus, a distinct race from Palestinians. I also acknowledge that Jews, Muslims, and Christians, Arab or otherwise (and of any skin-type, hair colour, and nose dimensions) are present within Israel. And these observations may amount to the whole problem here. I believe one is required to have a barbaric, 19th century eugenicist obsession with nose shape, hair texture, and skin tone, and with that only conjure up a wildly untenable rationale and definition for the race of Jews or Israelis or otherwise all members therein being "White" — and, thus, the non-Whiteness of everyone else in the region and beyond. (*BARF*) Still, as far as I can tell, given the above scholars' own definition of apartheid and its crimes, just to make any sense at all the paper requires one or another senseless race label of the sort I though we tossed out in the middle of the last century. Troublingly, they assert all of this laughable race nonsense but without the burden of spelling any of it out clearly or justifying anything at all. Typical.
The scholarly cohort of apartheidists go on:
The report finds that Israeli practices in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territory] exhibit the same three ‘pillars’ of apartheid: The first pillar 'derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews.'
Again, Jews are not a race and Israel does not focus on race in its policies in the requisite manner that would make it an apartheid state. Further, any commitment the nation has to people recognized as Jewish makes perfect sense given the origin of and rationale for the state: endless expulsions, targeted killings, full-on pogroms, and their near extermination all traced back eons and persisting still today (with a group a thousand strong feeling compelled and free to gather to wave ISIS flags and chant things like "gas the Jews" at the Opera House in Sydney, or synagogues being firebombed and Jewish homes and businesses being painted with Stars of David in, of all places, Berlin, and so many more examples all across the West, to say nothing of the rest of the world, in the immediate aftermath of these indiscriminate acts of barbarism against innocents.)
But then this begs us to ask who isn't exhibiting the first pillar of apartheid? How about Turkey or Iran, South Korea or Japan, the Haida or Inuit or Cree? Could we frame the make-up of the population or the traditions or laws of these lands or cultures as affording preferential benefit or status to those recognized as citizens or members of a common ethnic group? It would be strange to think we couldn't. And what really matters here is whether Israel shows an apartheid-level of racial discrimination (that is, a skin colour-based partitioning of all of society and their built world.) I'm still waiting to see any evidence of that.
The authors continue:
The second pillar is reflected in Israel’s ‘grand’ policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory.
Does that make any sense given any part of so much context we all have? As I stated in my original writing, there are no such restrictions on travel or employment or housing within Israel. Why? Because their concern is not racial (or ethnic or religious, even). Israel restricts human movement (and the movement of goods) with nearly a century of precedence for very significant violence (not 'words are violence' as at Yale or Harvard and not the occasional bar fight or act of armed robbery) along with persistent threats of genocide (not in the form of anonymous tweets or a note slipped into someone's mailbox but institutional promises inscribed as policy statements from terrorist groups within the region, many of them, and even whole nations nearby, all of whom regularly lob rockets and send suicide bombers and mercenaries into the territory, all of whom supported or were directly involved in this latest massacre). Right. Their neighbours and at least a million people in their midst have called for their extermination and done their best to contribute to that at seemingly every opportunity, even prior to the existence of Israel. And what does Israel do with all this information and many generations of personal experience? Get weird about skin colour? No. They cite security concerns directly — irrespective of identity. Where violence persists, coming from absolutists on both sides in some cases, as in the West Bank, movement can be highly restricted. Justifiably so: to preserve life.
But how did things look in South Africa? Well, race was always the premise and stated purpose. No one felt any need to conceal the fact. Why? Not because some folks felt racial diversity and mixing were, perhaps, taboo but because government, institutions, and millions of supporters were convinced this sort of thing was deeply unethical. And, as a result, they were happy to explain that, make these acts serious criminal offences, and then also enforce such all-pervasive and brutal race-based rules. During apartheid in South Africa, the level of obsession with race, skin colour and the density of the curl in ones hair, included the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 which banned marriage between persons of different races; and the Immorality Act of 1950, making sexual relations between races a criminal offence. This derangement went to a level similar to that found in the worst period of American history, prior to the successes of the civil rights movement, in which persons of one race were not permitted to sit on a bench reserved for another race, for just one example, and punishment could be as severe as authorities were willing to dole out.
Now, is anything of this sort even vaguely analogous with regard to Israel? We all know people of any and all races are and may become full citizens of Israel and that Israel doesn't care who you sleep with or what seat you take on the bus. Not only are there millions of Israelis, a large swathe of the population, who self-identify as Arab and/or Muslim but there are even hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews who are of African descent (those who trace their lineage to Ethiopia alone number around 200,000...) Right. So how can it be that Israel has an uncommon focus on race and a cosmic commitment to keeping races apart, synonymous with the worst ever examples of such, like South Africa in the 1950s or the US in the 1850s, while exhibiting none of that? Well, it can't, because that's not what they're up to, obviously. What they do have are perfectly understandable security concerns. (And the threats are not originating from Buddhists or Rastafarians or Pastafarians but self-identifying Jihadists and Islamists — who call home breathless, still drenched in blood, to exclaim to their mothers with delight "Mom, I killed ten Jews with my bare hands!")
To highlight this point further, just notice that Egypt, who controls the movement of Palestinians in the same manner as Israel, does not have an open border policy with Gaza and, as seen recently, will permit neither humans nor the passage of essential goods, even on humanitarian grounds during an unmistakable emergency — all while having effectively none of the security concerns Israel does. So how is it that so many excited parties commonly fail to notice Egypt and so avoid ever framing Egyptians as keeping Palestinians "confined to reserves" or acting as the prison guards to the "concentration camp" of Gaza when, according to everyone, Egypt clearly holds the key?
And doesn’t all this present us with an unequivocal example, just one more, of folks the world-over being, themselves, weirdly obsessed with "race"? And aren’t they demonstrating that their deranging obsession causes them to see what is not there and to overlook everything actually worth noticing? I think that’s clear. Imagine your own Jew-hatred being so overwhelming and it so saturating your own society that you can walk around saying all this stuff out loud and post it on social media with no push-back of any kind. Me, I'm very accustomed to receiving blank stares and getting non-responses and yet I've never experienced those as I have just in the last two weeks and just for pointing out the obvious or asking conspicuous questions or making frank observations, like "What about Egypt?" or "How many internment or refugee camps have car dealerships and health spas?"...
OPEN-AIR PRISON
Which takes me to “open-air prison.” This statement with regard to Gaza lands itself among the list of dumbest ideas I have ever come across. And yet it is thrown out everywhere, causally so, in discussions of and rallies supporting the Palestinian people (and, most certainly, Hamas). I was told I was confused about this matter and sent an article (a rather long article) from Human Rights Watch titled “Gaza: Israel’s ‘Open-Air Prison’ at 15”
The article begins with: “The closure [of the border] has devastated the economy in Gaza, contributed to fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and forms part of Israeli authorities’ crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution [sic] against millions of Palestinians.”
The very title of the article, just as all responses to my writing and nearly every other article I’ve read, insists that Israel has enacted a “hermetic closure” of Gaza's borders, thereby creating conditions indistinguishable from prison for Palestinians. Now, please acknowledge the use of this language is explicitly intended to call to mind Alcatraz or La Sante (and maybe an internment or even a notorious concentration camp) and most certainly not some spa-like Scandinavian prison. Right. The authors wish you to imagine all the worst associations you have. And they want you to imagine the full curtailment of all rights including, especially, the inability of Palestinians to leave Gaza.
I mean, what else is a prison but somewhere you are kept against your will? So the concern here and elsewhere is not a proliferation of utilitarian orange jumpsuits in Khan Yunis or Rafah. And no one is arguing there are too many stainless steel toilets or bars on windows in Gaza City. Is anyone highlighting an overabundance of reading time, free meals, communal showering, gender segregation, or state facilitated rape? No. None of the above. The focus and endless protestings are about the inability of Gazans ("all" by some tellings or merely "most" by other accounts) to leave the Gaza Strip. And there is much concern adjacent to that about people living in the deplorable conditions of this prison they cannot ever leave. Right.
So what does the Human Rights Watch article talk about? It starts by explaining how, since 2007, when Hamas took control over Gaza, Israeli authorities have restricted Palestinians from leaving Gaza via the Erez passenger crossing.
Did you catch all that?
Since 2007 (so not "for 75 years")
When Hamas (the "kill all Jews" fellas) took over
Israeli authorities (those responsible for the safety and security of Israelis and with a unique concern for the Jewish people)
Restricted (not prohibited) travel
Okay. Same page. Continue.
Then Human Rights Watch explains that “Israeli authorities have said they want to minimize travel between Gaza and the West Bank to prevent the export of 'a human terrorist network' from Gaza to the West Bank, which has a porous border with Israel and where hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers live.” They would also like to prevent missiles and rockets coming in from Lebanon and Iran. Right. So, I’d like to know in what universe the above are an outlandish set of concerns and actions? And I can answer that for you. There is no such universe. All of this was valid fifty years ago and somehow feels doubly justified in October of 2023.
From there, to my astonishment, the article acknowledges that Egypt controls movement in the same manner via its Rafah border crossing, in the south of Gaza. Human Rights Watch suggest “Egyptian authorities kept Rafah mostly closed for nearly five years following the July 2013 military coup in Egypt that toppled President Mohamed Morsy, whom the military accused of receiving support from Hamas.” (Egyptian authorities! Kept the border mostly closed for five years! Citing security threats posed by Hamas, that death cult voted in by a majority of Palestinians!) So does this set of facts support either the claim that Israel is behaving unusually or that their security concerns are illegitimate? Or does it do the opposite? That's the simplest question you've ever been asked. Given this border restriction reality, it’s extraordinarily difficult, if only for me, to understand the unique focus on Israel by so many.
Why is the restriction or even full prohibition of travel to Gazans, even refugees from conflict, on Egypt’s part so unlikely to even be acknowledged while everyone also knows it so well? (Even if you only came upon this two weeks ago, you simply could not have missed that Egypt was refusing even the importation of international humanitarian aid into Gaza. And yet your whole focus and argumentation and public protest disregarded this essential fact entirely?) Why is Egyptian security post-coup deemed a very legitimate concern and their border restrictions something not worth noticing while Israel’s (with the addition of real threats of mass murder and even genocide, along with continual bombardment by rockets from Gaza — which are as much of a threat to Gazans as Israelis) is mysteriously illegitimate and their border controls worthy of laser focus by the global community and activists everywhere? I tell ya, it’s far easier to explain if you accept a truly pervasive and potent anti-Semitism. In fact, then it all makes perfect sense.
And just for some context, if you’re the sort of miscreant into that sort of kink, Egypt has a population of 103 million (Cairo alone is home to 19 million), a military numbering 1,310,000 (conscription could bring in, what, 25 million more?), and it is a nation covering one million sq/km (so you could fit 167 Gaza Strips in just the sliver of Egypt that is the Sinai Peninsula, between the Suez Canal and Rafah.) How does Israel compare? Well, it doesn’t. Just nine million people, 642,000 soldiers, and 22,000 sq/km. And we all know Egypt has seen fit to declare war on and conduct surprise attacks against the Jewish population in the region and Israel in 1936, '48, '53, '67, '73 with other minor conflicts since. And we know Egypt occupied Gaza for a generation, too. (Wow. It’s amazing what happens to the picture when you zoom out just a wee bit — or stop, for just one second, so narrowly focusing on Israel.) I'd love to know how none of this relevant with regard to security concerns or who you consider the imposing and oppressive force at Gaza’s border or, for that matter, who has all the land?
Sadly, the picture gets far worse for all my friends and colleagues. From there, Human Rights Watch goes on to note:
Despite keeping Rafah open more regularly since May 2018, movement via Rafah is a fraction of what it was before the 2013 coup in Egypt. Whereas an average of 40,000 crossed monthly in both directions before the coup, the monthly average was 12,172 in 2019…
Wait, what? 40,000 every MONTH, nearly 500,000 annually, were coming and going? And with the recent reduction there are 146,000 annually, 12,000 per month (or 400 per day) getting through? Just from this one crossing?! I was told Gazans are held against their will by military force and cannot leave, in a manner that makes Gaza indistinguishable from a prison. But the population of Gaza is roughly 2.1 million, with its largest city, Gaza City, being home to 650,000. And Human Rights Watch is stating that almost that entire city-worth of people (a city the size of Boston or Washington DC) was passing through the Rafah crossing alone each year? And even with significant restrictions in place more than 20% of that population still come and go from this crossing? Does that feel more or less prison-like? Even at the reduced rate, due to (il)legitimate security concerns, does that feel like the border is “hermetically sealed” and that Gazans “cannot leave”?
Trying to think about this, I wondered how many people come to Victoria each year. I found that Victoria, a vacation destination with a $1.8 billion tourism industry, sees as many cruise ship passengers as the border crossing at Rafah saw people transiting there prior to Egypt’s recent concerns about Hamas. I also found that all of Vancouver Island receives half as many annual tourists from our neighbours in Washington (population 7.7 million) as passed each year between the Gaza-Egypt border. So is that a small number? Does that feel impossibly restrictive? Oh, and when I go looking at Tripadvisor.com I find Gaza to have nicer luxury and boutique accommodation than Victoria. More than that, and laughably to me, Humans Rights Watch explains how Gaza-based travel agencies work with the Egyptian government to facilitate travel from Gaza and advertise their services on social media. They tell us “some of these companies advertise that they can assure travel within days to those who provide payment and a copy of their passport.” Adding that, in recent years travel companies have offered ‘VIP travel service’, expediting travel between Rafah and Cairo, with flexibility on travel date and smoother interactions with authorities. “The cost was $700, as of January 2022,” they tell us. What prison does all of this remind you of? None. Right. Because it's not prison-like by any rational evaluation.
Human Rights Watch adds to all this, telling us “Israeli authorities announced in March 2022 that they would authorize 20,000 permits for Palestinians in Gaza to work in Israel.” (That’s, what, equal to 3% of the population of Gaza City?) And, as Human Rights Watch explains, Israel didn’t wait two decades to come through on their promise but within no time, just two months, almost 10,000 of those work visas were granted. Again, is that prison-like? (Have you ever tried to get travel or work documents any where? It took me as long to get a travel visa to East Africa.) And, going back to apartheid, is this indicative of Israel’s slavery-like race-based oppression? I'm going with NO. You may disagree. But for context [He 'Did his own research!' *groan* *eye roll*], according to a 2020 report from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, in 2018 Canada (population 38 million, more than four times that of Israel) issued work permits to approximately 23,000 people (from all over the world, not just Palestine or Gaza) under its Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The following year, still pre-pandemic, they issued 98,310. How is the above acknowledgement around work visas by Human Rights Watch supporting of the prison argument? How is it evidence for Israel setting itself apart from the community of nations with outlandish race-based deprivations? It isn't. But don’t worry, if all this wasn’t enough, the story from Human Rights Watch gets stranger still.
PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
As an example of how Israel is destroying the lives of Palestinians, Human Rights Watch then offers examples of specific cases. Highlighting the prison-like inability to leave, they introduce us to folks who tried and failed to get travel permits.
One example is:
Ahed Abdullah, 29, Zimam’s youth programs coordinator in Gaza, said she applied twice for permits in 2021, but Israeli authorities denied both applications on grounds of ‘nonconformity.’ “This is supposed to be my right. My simplest right. Why did they reject me? My colleagues who are outside Palestine managed to make it, while I am inside Palestine, I wasn’t able to go to the other part of Palestine … it’s only 2-3 hours from Gaza to Ramallah, why should I get the training online? Why am I deprived of being with my colleagues and doing activities with them instead of doing them in dull breakout rooms on Zoom?”
Hilal al-Ghawash, 25, had a similar story. He told Human Rights Watch his football team, Khadamat Rafah, had a match against a West Bank team, the Balata Youth Center. He explained how the Palestinian Football Association applied for permits for the 22-person team and 13-person staff but Israeli authorities only granted permits to four of them. He tells of how, after the decision was appealed in the Jerusalem District Court, Israeli authorities eventually granted 11 travel permits, saying the other 24 were still being denied on security grounds, and al-Ghawash was among the players who failed the security clearance. Human Rights Watch reports, "Despite the cancellation, al-Ghawash said, the Balata Youth Center later that year offered him a contract to play for them. The Palestinian Football Federation again applied for a permit on al-Ghawash’s behalf, but he said he did not receive a response and was unable to join the team." Then they tell us, in 2021, al-Ghawash signed a contract with another West Bank team and the Israeli army denied travel permits once again on unspecified security grounds. Al-Ghawash told Human Rights Watch he does not belong to any armed group or political movement and has no idea on what basis Israeli authorities denied him a permit.
The first thing that stands out to me about both cases is that Human Rights Watch seems perfectly uninterested in either confirming or understanding why anyone had their travel applications denied. They even fail to do so little as offer us the definitions of the terms of rejection. Why? What could matter more? The first case was rejected twice for ‘nonconformity’ that seems both specific and consistent, not arbitrary or unreasonable as implied. (Because why else would we be hearing about it?) And the same with the other person, multiple rejections all on security grounds. We're to believe the primary concern here on the part of the nation of Israel is race and that, what, any and all interests or concerns about peoples motivations or intentions are perfectly illegitimate?
And then what stands out about the program coordinator? Well I’m reading this soon after Canadian federal government employees went on strike fighting for the right to Zoom from home — and not be required to commute three hours each way to work or a meeting or conference. Right. So the most privileged employees in Canada didn't have the right to choose the conditions of their labour. And that’s perfectly common. And only because they are the most privileged, and unionized, were they able to do something about that. Right. So I’m left wondering what it is about Zoom in Gaza that transmutes it from a hard-won, emancipatory thing, the attainment of which places you among the elite, to something that contributes to a most egregious violation of your human rights, causing international NGOs to take notice?
In the second example, with the soccer player and his teammates and coaches, we are told specifically that they were rejected over and over again on security grounds. So why doesn’t Human Rights Watch share with us what obligation Israel has under international law to overlook any number of activities they deem to be threatening to their national security? And why not spell out where it is written that every nation of the world is required to permit unimpeded travel within its borders, always and regardless of circumstances? And does any of what they describe sound any different from anywhere else? Aren’t folks denied travel between Canada and the US all the time, for things they did or did not do, even for minor things done long ago? Certainly. Every day. Many. And aren’t many of those reasons often deemed absurd and rather far from something any of us would consider a serious threat to national security? Absolutely. People are also denied travel permits to Canada all the time simply because they're deemed to have insufficient connections to home to ensure their return home. That's not a human rights violation but a good policy based on experience. So I just don't see the big deal. More than that, wouldn't it be a better use of the time and resources of Human Right Watch to try and discover what kinds of activities are getting people banned and then share that with Palestinians? As such, again, why focus on and enflame dramatic allegations against Israel? ...I have some guesses.
More than that, why doesn’t Human Rights Watch demonstrate that something even mildly negative has occurred or even potentially could occur with these people? I'm not sure where the obvious and egregious harm is in these examples. Further, it may be true that this soccer player isn’t a card carrying member of a named terrorist organization. Fine. But Human Rights Watch haven’t demonstrated or even implied as much. Regardless, have they shown or even inquired whether folks who had their travel pass rejected enjoy endlessly sharing anti-Jewish conspiracy or their posing with machine guns or that they weren’t caught on camera transporting contraband or helping hide materials for making weapons? Did they seek to discover whether they attended and participated in setting fires during the March of Return with the intent to conceal attempts to breach the border? No. Right. So how egregious would these denials appear to be if any of that was so? Well, in that case the unreasonable position would be that of Human Rights Watch.
And, let’s get serious, the real question here is why Israel would ever permit travel for any males 15 to 55 living in Gaza? Yes, denying travel to children and elders and even the vast majority of women seems unacceptable, and it may be; but 20-something males? How does pretending to be so ignorant of the world enhance everyone's human rights or ensure their safety and security? I always report being taken aback on the rare occasion I'm not subjected to enhanced screening at the airport. After all, I’m a 40-something male and I still find myself squarely in the cohort of folks who’ve understandably earned, and re-earned and earned again, a little extra attention. Why would it ever be as easy for me to board a plane or cross a border as it is for my sister or grandmother? How stupid are we all required to be?
VISUAL EVIDENCE
Perhaps the most troubling element of the Human Rights Watch piece is the video accompanying it. (Or almost any other: A) TRT - 5 Places to go in Gaza; B) We Are Not Numbers - Virtual Tour in the Historical Sites in Gaza City; C) DW - Visiting Gaza Strip as a Palestinian.) I strongly encourage you to go watch all of these (with "prison" in mind.) The landscapes and street scenes and clips from inside people’s homes and shops and gardens appear far nicer than places I’ve lived and travelled in Malaysia and Indonesia, Uganda and Tanzania — places never considered to be "literal hell." (And, to be honest, this video paints a nicer picture of Gaza than many of the Israeli settlements I’ve seen in articles and videos over the years and even much of my own neighbourhood. I mean, where are the bodies in the streets? Where are the groaning zombies filling vacant storefronts? Where are the sprawling homeless camps swallowing up what were city parks and gardens? Where are the piles of dangerous garbage and human waste?) Worse still, everyone looks well-fed and well-dressed, are seen driving around in nice cars and sporting fine technology. And everywhere there are big beautiful homes and apartment buildings (often topped by solar panels), freshly swept streets and plazas, and large stretches of beautiful, clean beaches. Makes one wonder if the videographer bought everyone new clothes and vehicles and had the whole of the city and even the damned air cleaned for filming. Prison? What the fuck are we talking about?
MORE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth: A former AP correspondent explains how and why reporters get Israel so wrong, and why it matters - Tablet Magazine - 2014
Israeli Settlers in the Occupied West Bank - The Atlantic - 2018
Speaking to Palestinians in the West Bank - Lex Fridman - July 2023
Harris X Weinstein - Triggernometry - October 2023
https://youtu.be/9boE53Z_lAg?si=T78hdhj_1hJ4LxhB
This is a little apartheid-esque. Two different court systems