Misplaced Pages

Israeli apartheid: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:37, 26 June 2006 view sourceJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits of course he's commenting on it, we've already said what the analogy is, cutting down 91 word quote to something readable and non-copyright violating, as per Talk:← Previous edit Revision as of 22:41, 26 June 2006 view source ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits change unfortunate wording - makes it appear that analogy is confined to extremes on both wingsNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
"'''Israeli apartheid'''" is a highly controversial expression used to compare ]'s relationship with the Palestinians and its own ] to ]-era ]. It is also used by some within Israeli politics and academia to warn of what they think Israel may become if certain actions are not taken. <ref>Oren Yiftachel, Department of Geography and Environmental Development , Ben Gurion University of the Desert, ''''.</ref> The phrase is considered offensive by many observers inside and outside Israel. Critics of the analogy argue that it is a historically inaccurate ] ]. "'''Israeli apartheid'''" is a highly controversial expression used to compare ]'s relationship with the Palestinians and its own ] to ]-era ]. It is also used by some within Israeli politics and academia to warn of what they think Israel may become if certain actions are not taken. <ref>Oren Yiftachel, Department of Geography and Environmental Development , Ben Gurion University of the Desert, ''''.</ref> The phrase is considered offensive by many observers inside and outside Israel. Critics of the analogy argue that it is a historically inaccurate ] ].


The analogy has been made by individuals and organizations from the far left to the far right of the political spectrum, including ] officials, <ref>Aluf Benn,, ''Ha'aretz'', August 24, 2004]</ref> South Africans, <ref name="tutu"> in ] by ]</ref> Israeli political scientists, <ref> by Meron Benvenisti (''The Guardian'') April 26, 2004</ref> members of the Knesset, <ref>Frenkel, Sheera Claire , ''Jerusalem Post'', May 15, 2006</ref> Palestinian-rights activists, <ref name=Davis>Davis, Uri. </ref> and ] and ] individuals <ref name=duke>, David Duke Online Radio Report, July 22, 2002.</ref> and groups. <ref name=watch>, '']''.</ref> The analogy has been made by individuals and organizations across the the political spectrum, including ] officials, <ref>Aluf Benn,, ''Ha'aretz'', August 24, 2004]</ref> South Africans, <ref name="tutu"> in ] by ]</ref> Israeli political scientists, <ref> by Meron Benvenisti (''The Guardian'') April 26, 2004</ref> members of the Knesset, <ref>Frenkel, Sheera Claire , ''Jerusalem Post'', May 15, 2006</ref> Palestinian-rights activists, <ref name=Davis>Davis, Uri. </ref> and ] and ] individuals <ref name=duke>, David Duke Online Radio Report, July 22, 2002.</ref> and groups. <ref name=watch>, '']''.</ref>


Nobel Peace Prize winner ] supported this analogy when, in ], he wrote: "Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through", and stating that a letter signed by "several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans" had drawn "an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies."<ref>] and ], , ''The Nation'', July 15, 2002</ref> Nobel Peace Prize winner ] supported this analogy when, in ], he wrote: "Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through", and stating that a letter signed by "several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans" had drawn "an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies."<ref>] and ], , ''The Nation'', July 15, 2002</ref>

Revision as of 22:41, 26 June 2006

Template:ApartheidMerges Template:POV-title "Israeli apartheid" is a highly controversial expression used to compare Israel's relationship with the Palestinians and its own Arab citizens to apartheid-era South Africa. It is also used by some within Israeli politics and academia to warn of what they think Israel may become if certain actions are not taken. The phrase is considered offensive by many observers inside and outside Israel. Critics of the analogy argue that it is a historically inaccurate pejorative political epithet.

The analogy has been made by individuals and organizations across the the political spectrum, including United Nations officials, South Africans, Israeli political scientists, members of the Knesset, Palestinian-rights activists, and neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic individuals and groups.

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 "several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans" had drawn "an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies."

Dr. Jean-Christophe Rufin, president of Action Against Hunger and former vice-president of Médecins Sans Frontières, has recommended in a report to the French government that the allegation 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.)

Usage

Origins

The origins of 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.

Some invoked the example of South Africa, where a white-dominated government controlled by force a large and politically hostile black African population. South Africa's approach was seen by some – for better or worse – as a potential model for Israel. 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 London Times 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. After several years of debate, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 3379 in 1975 equating Zionism and racism. The text of the UNGA R/3379 stated: "the Organization of African Unity ... considered that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure". The resolution was revoked in 1991 by Resolution 4686.

File:Israel barrier zigzag.jpg
The barrier on the Green Line, separating the Israeli-Arab town of Baka West (inside Israel, on the left) from the Palestinian town of Nazlat Issa inside the West Bank (right). Some of its critics have dubbed it the "Apartheid Wall".

Accusation that Israel practices apartheid

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 say that Israel has created roads and checkpoints in the occupied territories that isolate Palestinian communities, which is seen as a parallel 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 law professor 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."

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."

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."

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.

Proponents also point to the fact that 93% of the land inside the Green Line is owned by the Jewish National Fund and the Israeli Lands Authority. This land was reserved exclusivly for Jews until an Israeli Supreme Court ruling in 2000.

The term 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. Archbishop Desmond Tutu used the term in articles he published following his visit to Israel.

The term has also been used by David Duke, the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States.

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 Ministor, 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 Powll, 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.

Implementation

The term "apartheid" was originally applied as a political epithet. But 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 Gaza and the West Bank. This program included the following main components:

  • Walls and fences between Israeli and Palestinian areas, primarily in the West Bank (Main article: Israeli separation barrier).
  • Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
  • Limitations on travel by Palestinians within the West Bank
  • Israeli-only roads (Main article: Israeli settlement)

One can interpret some features of the "separation program" not as methods to enforce apartheid rule of Israel over the Palestinians, but rather to unilaterally approach a two state solution. Dismantling Israeli settlements and withdrawing Israel's 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 a method to approach 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 arguably seen as a temporary security measure rather then a method to enforce long term apartheid.

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 2004, Dr. Jean-Christophe Rufin, former vice-president of Doctors without Borders and president of Action Against Hunger, recommended in a report for the French Ministry of the Interior that the charge of apartheid and racism against Israel be criminalized in France.

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."

Norman G. Finkelstein has described Rufin's report as "truly terrifying", reflecting "a totalitarian cast of mind" with an "attendant stigmatizing of dissent as a disease that must be wiped out by the state".

The following arguments are often 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 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 workers in Israel.
  • Opponents of the term argue that the security wall is a reasonable and necessary security precaution to protect Israeli civilians from terroristic violence, and that its existence was made necessary by the Palestinians themselves.
  • Unlike South Africa, where Aparthied 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.
  • Zionism is not a manifestation of European colonialism.
  • 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."

Notes

  1. 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.
  2. Aluf Benn,UN agent: Apartheid regime in territories worse than S. Africa, Ha'aretz, August 24, 2004]
  3. ^ Apartheid in the Holy Land in The Guardian by Desmond Tutu
  4. Bantustan plan for an apartheid Israel by Meron Benvenisti (The Guardian) April 26, 2004
  5. Frenkel, Sheera Claire "Left appalled by citizenship ruling", Jerusalem Post, May 15, 2006
  6. Davis, Uri. "The Movement against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine"
  7. ^ "The Hypocrisy of Jewish Supremacism", David Duke Online Radio Report, July 22, 2002.
  8. "Israel's Palestinian Apartheid Laws", Jew Watch.
  9. Desmond Tutu and Ian Urbina, Against Israeli Apartheid, The Nation, July 15, 2002
  10. ^ 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.
  11. "Problems of victory divide Israelis", The Times, London. 15 June 1967.
  12. "Zionist doctrine and Israeli expansionism", Ian Gilmour M.P., The Times. 25 June 1969
  13. Summary of news events, New York Times, 10 December 1971
  14. Forbidden Checkpoints and Roads at B'Tselem
  15. http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060524-074634-8971r
  16. Aluf Benn,UN agent: Apartheid regime in territories worse than S. Africa, Ha'aretz, August 24, 2004]
  17. Farsakh, Leila "Israel an apartheid state?", Le Monde diploatique, November 2003
  18. 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
  19. Uri Davis Israel: An Apartheid State (1987) ISBN 0862323177
  20. Worlds apart at The Guardian
  21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4111915.stm
  22. "Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week" at Jerusalem Post by Jonny Paul
  23. http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/20020604ib.html
  24. Meron Benvenisti, Bantustan plan for an apartheid Israel, The Guardian, April 26, 2005
  25. 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
  26. "Israel's settlers: Waiting for a miracle", The Economist, August 11, 2005
  27. Qureia: Israel's unilateral moves are pushing us toward a one-state solution, Haaretz, January 9 2004, accessed June 26 2006
  28. PMO rejects Palestinian assertion on right to declare state, Haaretz, January 11 2004, accessed June 26, 2006
  29. Is the two-state solution in danger?, Haaretz, April 13 2004, accessed June 26 2006
  30. Left appalled by citizenship ruling at Jerusalem Post by Sheera Claire Frenkel
  31. "EDITORIAL: An apartheid state?", Jerusalem Post, November 11, 2002
  32. Eric Silver, "Israel Accused of 'Racist Ideology' with Plan to Prevent Arabs Buying Homes", The Independent (UK), July 9, 2002.
  33. http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/8228.htm
  34. http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20051019-095908-7655r.htm
  35. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/821573801.html?FMT=ABS&startpage=13
  36. ^ Matas, David. Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55.
  37. 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.
  38. ^ Israel Is Not An Apartheid State at Jewish Virtual Library
  39. ^ Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause Jerusalem Post op-ed by Gerald M. Steinberg (hosted in full at http://www.ngo-monitor.org)
  40. Is it Apartheid? at Jewish Voice for Peace by Moshe Machover published 10 November 2004
  41. Presbyterian Church Violates US Antiboycott Laws. General Assembly of Presbyterian Church, USA, votes For Illegal Action at Convention August 1, 2004 (Boycott Watch)

Further reading

See also

Categories: