Israeli apartheid: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →

Revision as of 22:13, 4 July 2006 view sourceChrisO~enwiki (talk \| contribs)43,032 editsm moved Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Israeli apartheid: Out of process move - ongoing move poll is not yet concluded and no decision has been reached← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:15, 4 July 2006 view source Jayjg (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 editsm moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: There's good enough consensus for this, and NPOV really demands it.Next edit →
(No difference)

Revision as of 22:15, 4 July 2006

Template:ApartheidMerges Template:POV-title "Israeli apartheid" is a highly controversial expression: its proponents use it to compare Israel's policy with respect to the Palestinians on the West Bank and, to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens to apartheid-era South Africa; according to its opponents, it is both without merit, and misused to isolate and condemn Israel.

The comparison has also been made by some within Israeli politics and academia to warn of adverse scenarios that would result from current trends. Critics of the analogy argue that it is a factually inaccurate pejorative political epithet.

The expression has been used by diverse groups and individuals, such as John Dugard, a professor of international law of South African-origin serving as the Special Rapporteur for the United Nations in a disputed report on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, Desmond Tutu, Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli writer and political scientist, left-wing members members of the Knesset, and by Palestinian-rights activists.

It has also been used by far right elements, including white supremacist David Duke, Holocaust denier Paul Grubach of the Institute for Historical Review, and anti-Semitic groups such as Jew Watch.

Usage

Origins

The origins of claims linking Israel and Zionism with apartheid policies go back at least to the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War. Following the Israeli victory in the war, there was an intense debate in Israel and elsewhere about the future of the large Palestinian Arab population of the territory captured by Israel from Jordan and Egypt.

Some invoked the example of South Africa, where a white-dominated government controlled by force a large and politically hostile black African population. Moshe Dayan, the Israeli Defence Minister, publicly called for the creation of "a sort of Arab 'Bantustan'" in the West Bank structured along similar lines to the nominally independent "homelands" established in South Africa.

Others saw the South African example as one to be avoided, rather than emulated. The senior British Conservative politician Ian Gilmour was an early proponent of this school of thought. In June 1969 he wrote a lengthy article in The Times of London arguing that an apartheid-style system was the "logical culmination" of "Zionist exclusiveness."

Similar views have been expressed by many others since then, often in connection with the much-disputed and controversial assertion that Zionism is an inherently racist doctrine. The argument was adopted by the Soviet Union, Arab countries and a number of non-aligned nations, against the opposition of Israel and most Western countries. In December 1971, the Soviet ambassador to the United Nations, Yakov Malik, accused Israel of promulgating a "racist policy of apartheid against Palestinians.

File:Israel barrier zigzag.jpg

The barrier on the Green Line, separating the Israeli town of Baka West (left) from the West Bank town of Nazlat Issa (right). While some call it the "Apartheid Wall", others point out many separation barriers around the world.

In 1987, Uri Davis, an Israeli-born academic and Jewish member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, wrote a book Israel: An Apartheid State, which alleged a comparison of Israel and South Africa.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu supported this analogy when, in 2002, he wrote: "Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through", and stating that a letter signed by Ronnie Kasrils, Max Ozinsky, and "several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans" had drawn "an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies."

Occupied territories

Proponents of the term argue that, while Israel grants some rights to its Arab citizens, its policies towards Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are (or were, in case of Gaza) analogous to the Apartheid policies of South Africa towards blacks. They reject Israel's claims to self-defense and claim that Israel has created roads and checkpoints in the occupied territories to isolate Palestinian communities, a practice they say is equivocal to Apartheid South Africa's Bantustans; that the government of Israel has termed its policy of disengagement Hafrada, which literally means "separation"; and that the Israeli West Bank barrier is referred to by detractors as the Apartheid Wall for its impact on the Palestinian population in the West Bank. Palestinians living in the non-annexed portions of the West Bank (ie East Jerusalem) do not have Israeli citizenship or voting rights in Israel, but they are under Israeli occupation and subject to the policies of the Israeli government and its military.

John Dugard, a South African professor of international law and an ad hoc Judge on the International Court of Justice, serving as the Special Rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories described the situation in the West Bank as "an apartheid regime ... worse than the one that existed in South Africa." . Dugard has since become an outspoken critic of Israel.

According to Leila Farsakh writing in Le Monde diplomatique, after 1977, "(t)he military government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WGBS) expropriated and enclosed Palestinian land and allowed the transfer of Israeli settlers to the occupied territories: they continued to be governed by Israeli laws. The government also enacted different military laws and decrees to regulate the civilian, economic and legal affairs of Palestinian inhabitants. These strangled the Palestinian economy and increased its dependence and integration into Israel." Fasakh adds that "Israel has constructed more than 145 settlements by 1993 and moved in 196,000 settlers; half lived in 10 settlements around East Jerusalem. The settlements’ exponential growth and scattered distribution over the occupied areas began the structural-territorial fragmentation of the WGBS (West Bank and Gaza Strip); they were intended to challenge the Palestinian demographic in the WGBS. Many view these Israeli policies of territorial integration and societal separation as apartheid, even if they were never given such a name."

Land policy inside the Green Line

Proponents also allege that 93% of the land inside the Green Line is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Israeli Lands Authority (ILA). The actual figures are 79.5% of the land is owned by the government and 14% is privately owned by the JNF, Thus, the ILA administers 93.5% of the land in Israel. ILA lands can not be sold they can only be leased.

As part of its land development efforts, the Israeli government utilizes the ILA and the JNF to establish towns in Israel. The JNF's bylaws prohibited the sale or leasing of land to non-Jews. It appoints half the directors of the Israeli Lands Authority. In March 2000, Israel's High Court ruled in Qaadan v. Katzir that the government's use of the JNF to develop public land was discriminatory due to the agency's prohibition against leasing to non-Jews. According to Dr. Alexandre Kedar of the Haifa University Law School "Until the Supreme Court Qaadan v. Katzir decision, Arabs could not acquire land in any of the hundreds of settlements of this kind existing in Israel.. However, according to other sources, Arab could and did acquire lands which belonged to the ILA in some cases: "Upper Nazareth, a relatively new community (founded in 1957), is built on the slopes above the ancient city of Nazareth, has always had a Jewish majority, and was built entirely on “state land.” Today, it has a population (look for Nazerat Illit in the following link) that is more than 20% non- Jewish, at least half of whom are Israeli Arabs, who, like their Israeli Jewish neighbors, lease their land from the Israel Land Administration (ILA)."The availability of state-owned land to Israeli Arabs is true not just in theory, but also in practice. For example, about half of the land farmed by Israeli-Arabs is leased from the ILA. (Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Westview Press, p. 66, 1990)").

Although there are formal restrictions on the lease of JNF land, which is privately owned by the JNF and comprises just 14% of the land total, "in practice JNF land has been leased to Arab citizens of Israel, both for short-term and long-term use. To cite one example of the former, JNF-owned land in the Besor Valley (Wadi Shallaleh) near Kibbutz Re'em has been leased on a yearly basis to Bedouins for use as pasture (The Negev Bedouin and Livestock Raising, Berg Publishers Ltd., 1994, p. 28, 36, 38)."

After the court ruling, the government of Ariel Sharon introduced a bill into the Knesset that would have permitted Jewish-only towns to continue. The bill was narrowly defeated when it came to a vote.

Employment

Proponents of the apartheid analogy also argue that while 18% of the population within Israel's pre-1967 borders is Arab "only 3.7 percent of Israel's federal employees are Arabs; Arabs hold only 50 out of 5,000 university faculty positions; and of the country's 61 poorest towns, 48 are Arab."

Chris McGreal

In a controversial Guardian special report, Chris McGreal, the newspaper's Middle East Correspondent who has covered both apartheid South Africa and Israel in his career, compared the two and alleged numerous similarities. Among other claims, McGreal alleged that Israel's Population Registration Act is similar to an apartheid era South African Act of the same name. The latter categorized South Africans according to racial definitions in order to determine who could live in what land. McGreal alleges that the Israeli act "serves a similar purpose by distinguishing between nationality and citizenship. Arabs and Jews alike can be citizens, but each is assigned a separate 'nationality' marked on identity cards (either spelled out or, more recently, in a numeric code), in effect determining where they are permitted to live, access to some government welfare programmes, and how they are likely to be treated by civil servants and policemen." .

To support his contention that Israel practices apartheid, McGreal cites the the United States Department of State's annual human rights report for 1999 which discusses "institutionalised legal and societal discrimination against Israel's Christian, Muslim and Druze citizens." He claims the report says the Israeli government "does not provide Israeli Arabs, who constitute 20% of the population, with the same quality of education, housing, employment and social services as Jews." (ibid).

Point-by-point responses to McGreal's allegations were offered by several organizations, including the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America , the British Israel Communications and Research Centre ; Engage and Honest Reporting. More than 100 readers wrote back to the Guardian to comment on the article, with about 40 of them rejecting any apartheid analogy.

External response

The term "apartheid" has been used by groups protesting the Israeli government, particularly student groups in Britain, the United States and Canada, where "Israeli apartheid week" is held on many campuses. It has been widely used by Palestinian rights advocates, anti-Zionists, and by some on the Israeli Jewish left.

The apartheid analogy was used in a 1984 Syrian letter to the UN Security Council, which stated: "... Zionist Israeli institutional terrorism in no way differs from the terrorism pursued by the apartheid regime against millions of Africans in South Africa and Namibia ..., just as it in no way differs in essense and nature from the Nazi terrorism which shed European blood and visited ruin and destruction upon the peoples of Europe."

By contrast, Dr. Jean-Christophe Rufin, president of Action Against Hunger and former vice-president of Médecins Sans Frontières, recommended in a 2004 report about New anti-Semitism commissioned by the French government that the allegation that Israel practises apartheid be criminalized in France on the grounds that it is a "perverse and defamatory use of the charge of racism against those very people who were victims of racism to an unparalleled degree" and has "major consequences which can, by contagion, put in danger the lives of our Jewish citizens". (See the criticism section below.)

Apartheid as a spectre

A number of voices, both within Israel and internationally, warn that Israel could become an "apartheid state" if the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza were to continue or if certain government policies were implemented. Such arguments are raised both by those advocating complete Israeli disengagement from the West Bank and Gaza and by those who advocate a binational solution.

Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli political scientist and the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem warns that Israel is moving towards the model of apartheid South Africa through the creation of "Bantustan" like conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

An academic paper by Professor Oren Yiftachel of the Ben Gurion University of the Desert warns that Israel unilateral disengagement plan will result in "creeping apartheid" both in the West Bank and Gaza as well as within Israel itself. .

The analogy has also been used as a warning of what Israel may become if a two state solution is not realised. This allusion has been used in reference to the debate on Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza and West Bank. The Economist, in an article on the debate over withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, asserted that "Keeping the occupied land will force on Israel the impossible choice of being either an apartheid state, or a binational one with Jews as a minority."

In January 2004, Ahmed Qureia, then the Palestinian Prime Minister, said that Sharon's unilateralism could prompt an end to the Palestinian efforts towards a two-state solution: "This is an apartheid solution to put the Palestinians in cantons. Who can accept this? We will go for a one-state solution... There's no other solution. We will not hesitate to defend the right of our people when we feel the very serious intention to destroy these rights.'" Colin Powell, then U.S. Secretary of State, when asked about Qureia's threat of a one-state solution responded "No. We're committed to a two-state solution. I believe that's the only solution that will work: a state for the Palestinian people called Palestine and a Jewish state, state of Israel. I don't believe that we can accept a situation that results in anything that one might characterize as apartheid or Bantuism." Ehud Olmert, then Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, later commented in April 2004 that, "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."

Several left wing Members of the Knesset (MKs) have drawn an analogy between Israeli policies and apartheid, such as Zehava Gal-On of the Meretz party who said of an Israeli Supreme Court ruling upholding the country's citizenship law: "The Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegated us to the level of an apartheid state."

Shulamit Aloni, former Education minister and a former leader of Meretz, has said "if we are not an apartheid state, we are getting much, much closer to it." This comment was in response to a proposal by the then-government of Ariel Sharon to bar Arabs from buying homes in "Jewish townships" within Israel proper. The proposed bill was "narrowly defeated" in the Knesset. At the time, Tommy Lapid, leader of the liberal Shinui party, said he opposed the bill because it "smells of apartheid".

"Separation" program

In response to the Intifada, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel began in 2002 to implement a "separation program" designed to physically separate Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank. Some critics of Israeli policy allege that this program is an implementation of "apartheid". The program includes fences and walls between Israeli and Palestinian areas, limitations on travel by Palestinians within the West Bank, and Israeli-only roads .

Israel describes the features of the "separation program" not as methods of enforcing apartheid rule of Israel over the Palestinians, but rather to approach a two-state solution unilaterally. Dismantling Israeli settlements and withdrawing the army from the Gaza Strip (and most of the West Bank if the proposed (2006) realignment plan of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert takes place), will allow the Palestinians self determination in the areas "separated" from Israel, and thus be a major step towards the creation of an independent Palestinian state existing alongside Israel. The "separation barrier" can be seen as one approach to such a solution. Other features of the "separation program", such as limitations on travel by Palestinians within the West Bank, may disappear if the realignment plan is successful and Israel withdraws from most of the West Bank, and thus may be a temporary security measure.

Criticism

Critics of the term argue that it is inaccurate, anti-Semitic, dangerous, and its use a rhetorical device with no substantive merit.

David Matas, senior counsel to B'nai Brith Canada, argues that the starting point for anti-Zionists is the "vocabulary of condemnation", rather than specific criticism of the practises of Israel. He writes that "any unsavoury verbal weapon that comes to hand is used to club Israel and its supporters. The reality of what happens in Israel is ignored. What matters is the condemnation itself. For anti-Zionists, the more repugnant the accusation made against Israel the better."

Because apartheid is universally condemned, and a global coalition helped to bring down the South African apartheid regime, anti-Zionists "dream of constructing a similar global anti-Zionism effort", writes Matas. "The simplest and most direct way for them to do so is to label Israel as an apartheid state. The fact that there is no resemblance whatsoever between true apartheid and the State of Israel has not stopped anti-Zionists for a moment."

In November, 2002, Lee Bollinger, in his capacity as President of Columbia University, stated that the analogy of Israel to South Africa at the time of apartheid, "is both grotesque and offensive".

In 2004, Dr. Jean-Christophe Rufin, former vice-president of Doctors without Borders and president of Action Against Hunger, recommended in a report about anti-Semitism commissioned by French Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin that the charge of apartheid and racism against Israel be criminalized in France. He wrote that a "subtle" form of anti-Semitism exists in "radical anti-Zionism" expressed by far-left and anti-globalization groups, in which criticism of Jews and Israel is used as a pretext to "legitimize the armed Palestinian conflict".

He wrote: "here is no question of penalising political opinions that are critical, for example, of any government and are perfectly legitimate. What should be penalised in the perverse and defamatory use of the charge of racism against those very people who were victims of racism to an unparalleled degree. The accusations of racism, of apartheid, of Nazism carry extremely grave moral implications. These accusations have, in the situation in which we find ourselves today, major consequences which can, by contagion, put in danger the lives of our Jewish citizens. It is why we invite reflection on the advisability and applicability of a law ... which would permit the punishment of those who make without foundation against groups, institutions or states accusations of racism and utilise for these accusations unjustified comparisons with apartheid or Nazism."

The conclusions of the report were welcomed by the anti-discrimination group, SOS-Racism, which called it "a good analysis" of a "new breed of anti-Israel, anti-Semitism". Norman G. Finkelstein, by contrast, described the recommendations as "truly terrifying", and as reflecting "a totalitarian cast of mind" with an "attendant stigmatizing of dissent as a disease that must be wiped out by the state".

Arguments against legitimacy of the term

The following arguments are have made against the term and the comparison:

Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity. Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all other Israelis, whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc. These rights include suffrage, political representation and recourse to the courts. Israeli Arabs are represented in the Knesset (Israel's legislature) and participate fully in Israeli political, cultural, and educational life. In apartheid South Africa, "Blacks" and "Coloreds" could not vote and had no representation in the South African parliament.
The features of legal petty apartheid do not exist in Israel. Jews and Arabs use the same hospitals, Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, Jews and Arabs eat in the same restaurants, and Jews and Arabs travel in the same buses, trains and taxis without being segregated.
The director the "Program on Conflict Management" at Bar-Ilan University, and editor of NGO Monitor, argued in a Jerusalem Post Op-Ed piece:

The analogy "demean(s) Black victims of the real apartheid regime in South Africa."
Black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid; Palestinians are given the same rights and privileges as all other non-citizen foreign workers in Israel.
Zionism is not a manifestation of European colonialism.

Opponents of the term argue that the security barrier is a reasonable and necessary security precaution to protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian terroristic violence. They reagard as a major causal factor in reducing incidents of terrorism by 90% from 2002 to 2005.
Unlike South Africa, where Apartheid prevented Black majority rule, in Israel (including the occupied territories) there is currently a Jewish majority.
Dr. Moshe Machover, professor of philosophy in London and co-founder of Matzpen, argues against the use of the term on the basis that the situation in Israel is worse than apartheid. Machover points out some significant differences between the policy of the Israeli government and the apartheid model. According to Machover, drawing a close analogy between Israel and South Africa is both a theoretical and political mistake.
In 2003, South Africa's minister for home affairs Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi said that "The Israeli regime is not apartheid. It is a unique case of democracy".
According to Fred Taub, the President of Boycott Watch, "The assertion ... that Israel is practicing apartheid is not only false, but may be considered libelous. ... The fact is that it is the Arabs who are discriminating against non-Muslims, especially Jews."

References

^ Matas, David. Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55.
Oren Yiftachel, Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Neither two states nor one: The Disengagement and "creeping apartheid" in Israel/Palestine Template:PDFlink
Not an "Apartheid Wall". Debunking the outrageous comparison between Israel and racist South Africa. (Honest Reporting) February 15, 2004
U.N. Human Rights Official Uses Status To Promote Anti-Israel Bias, Anti-Defamation League March 10, 2006
(Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)
UN Envoy Calls for End of Israel by P. David Hornik (FrontPageMagazine) September 30, 2005
Submission to the Department of Foreign Affairs On the occasion of the 61st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. March 2005. Abuse of the Special Rapporteur Mechanism
Aluf Benn, UN agent: Apartheid regime in territories worse than S. Africa, Ha'aretz, August 24, 2004]
^ Apartheid in the Holy Land in The Guardian by Desmond Tutu
Bantustan plan for an apartheid Israel by Meron Benvenisti (The Guardian) April 26, 2004
Frenkel, Sheera Claire "Left appalled by citizenship ruling", Jerusalem Post, May 15, 2006
Davis, Uri. "The Movement against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine"
"The Hypocrisy of Jewish Supremacism", David Duke Online Radio Report, July 22, 2002.
Grubach, Paul. "Israel, Zionism, and the Racial Double Standard", The Revisionist, No 1, 2002.
"Jews and Government:File 12", Jew Watch.
"Problems of victory divide Israelis", The Times, London. 15 June 1967.
"Zionist doctrine and Israeli expansionism", Ian Gilmour M.P., The Times. 25 June 1969
Summary of news events, New York Times, 10 December 1971
Uri Davis Israel: An Apartheid State (1987) ISBN 0862323177
Desmond Tutu and Ian Urbina, Against Israeli Apartheid, The Nation, July 15, 2002
Forbidden Checkpoints and Roads at B'Tselem
http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060524-074634-8971r
Aluf Benn,UN agent: Apartheid regime in territories worse than S. Africa, Ha'aretz, August 24, 2004]
"Tear Down This Wall". John Dugard, International Herald Tribune, August 2, 2003
Farsakh, Leila "Israel an apartheid state?", Le Monde diploatique, November 2003
Chris McGreal, Worlds apart, The Guardian, February 5, 2006
^ Alex Safian, Guardian Defames Israel with False Apartheid Charges, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, February 20, 2006
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001: Israel Jewish Virtual Library
Dr. Alexandre Kedar, Haifa University Law School, "A First Step in a Difficult and Sensitive Road": Preliminary Observations on Qaadan v. Katzir
, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, June 25, 1997
Lucy Ash, Battling Israeli 'apartheid', BBC News, December 23, 2004
Flore de Préneuf, Israel's apartheid, November 3, 2000
Chris McGreal, Worlds apart, The Guardian, February 5, 2006
United States Department of State's annual human rights report for 1999
Lee Green, Gilead Ini, Steven Stotsky, "CAMERA ALERT: Guardian portrays Israel as an Apartheid State"Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America]], February 8, 2006
Guardian Defames Israel with False Apartheid Charges - Further distortions exposed in March 8th update, CAMERA, February 20, 2006
Guardian's False Apartheid Charges—Part II, CAMERA, February 23, 2006
Response to the Guardian's G2 supplement - Part II, British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), 8 February 2006
Guardian Promotes Apartheid Slur, and Honest Reporting, February 12, 2006
, The readers' editor on ... a debate about Israel and apartheid South Africa , The Guardian, February 13, 2006
"Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week" at Jerusalem Post by Jonny Paul
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/20020604ib.html
UN Doc S/16520 at 2 (1984), quoting from Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1987. Edited by Y. Dinstein, M. Tabory. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987) ISBN 9024736463 p.36
^ "French concern about race attacks", BBC News, October 2004.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51552.htm "France: International Religious Freedom Report 2005"], U.S. Department of State.
^ Rufin, Jean-Christophe. "Chantier sur la lutte contre le racisms et l'antisemitisme, presented on October 19, 2004. Cited in Matas, David. Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, p. 54 and p. 243, footnotes 59 and 60.
Meron Benvenisti, Bantustan plan for an apartheid Israel, The Guardian, April 26, 2005
Oren Yiftachel, Department of Geography and Environmental Development , Ben Gurion University of the Desert, Neither two states nor one: The Disengagement and "creeping apartheid" in Israel/Palestine
"Israel's settlers: Waiting for a miracle", The Economist, August 11, 2005
Qureia: Israel's unilateral moves are pushing us toward a one-state solution, Haaretz, January 9 2004, accessed June 26 2006
PMO rejects Palestinian assertion on right to declare state, Haaretz, January 11 2004, accessed June 26, 2006
Is the two-state solution in danger?, Haaretz, April 13 2004, accessed June 26 2006
Left appalled by citizenship ruling at Jerusalem Post by Sheera Claire Frenkel
"EDITORIAL: An apartheid state?", Jerusalem Post, November 11, 2002
Eric Silver, "Israel Accused of 'Racist Ideology' with Plan to Prevent Arabs Buying Homes", The Independent (UK), July 9, 2002.
Lucy Ash, Battling against Israeli 'apartheid', BBC News, December 23, 2004
President Lee Bollinger's Statement on the Divestment Campaign, November 7, 2002. Retrieved from the Columbia University Divestment Campaign website, July 4, 2006.
^ Bryant, Elizabeth. "France stung by new report on anti-Semitism," United Press International, October 20, 2004.
Norman G. Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005, p. 49.
^ Israel Is Not An Apartheid State at Jewish Virtual Library
^ Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause Jerusalem Post op-ed by Gerald M. Steinberg
Wall Street Journal, "After Sharon", January 6, 2006.
Not an "Apartheid Wall"
Fence? Security barrier? Apartheid wall?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/Israel_&_apartheid.html Israel Is Not An Apartheid State
Is it Apartheid? at Jewish Voice for Peace by Moshe Machover published 10 November 2004
S. African Minister: Israel is Not Apartheid by Yossi Melman (Haaretz) September 23, 2003
Presbyterian Church Violates US Antiboycott Laws. General Assembly of Presbyterian Church, USA, votes For Illegal Action at Convention August 1, 2004 (Boycott Watch)

Misplaced Pages