Is Israel an Apartheid State?A British View: World's Apart, please read both parts of the article, the second reports on the secret alliance between Israel and South Africa and nuclear proliferation.
An African American View: Israeli Apartheid: The Striking Parallels to South Africa
A Pro-Israeli View: Is Israel and Apartheid State?
Another Pro-Israeli View: Israel is not an Aparthied State this is a very interesting article because it actually refers to a statement by David Ben-Gurion in which he says that it is not his goal to establish a South Africa like situation in Palestine. It is fascinating that even Ben Gurion, as early as 1934 !, could imagine the possible comparison.
The view of a "Palestinian Jew": Apartheid Israel
Amnesty International's Report on Israel to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
13 Comments:
McGreal does a good job finding the parallels between apratheid and "security measures". The criticism of the comparison is just amusing. Apparently, a color-coding system with green for Israeli land is less of a segregation measure that would have signs that say 'Jews Only'. Call it segregation, call it apartheid, call it reservation, Bantustan, Group Area Act,or antiterrorism, it's all an unpleasant system to live under, and no truly democratic society could stand for it. It is very interesting how Israel resents these accusations, claiming to be the only democracy in the region. This definition of democracy would have only worked before the 1960s, when it was still acceptable in the western world to ignore the needs of a significant portion of the population and still call it democratic, because in theory, the oppressed population still has voting rights. Criticism of Israel has a tendency to get labelled as antisemitism, and often results in a degeneration of argument, with all parties screaming in unison like so many preteens having and aim fight, "ZOMG, UR HITLER1!!!!11!", and now the same sentiment is being used about apartheid.
Another point McGreal makes is that municiple racism can pretend to be cold and neutral. Arabs citizens of Israel are prevented from bringing Palestinian spouses into the country because in the unfeeling eyes of the law, they are a security threat. There is no explaination, however, for the 100:1 ratio of education spending.
I was surprised that the issue of farming was not mentioned, as this was one excuse of Boehrs, American "pioneers" and Israelis for taking land; not only did God command/say it's ok, the proof is that they have better farming technology and therefore should be in chrage of the land. and for comparison, the use the good land they stole and the unsuitable land left to show the world their relative agricultural success.
The worst of it is the absentee laws where people can be declared to have abandoned houses they currently live in.
palestinefacts.org is positively sickening. The mission is apparrently to debunk any claims that Israel might be a cause of various civil rights violations. One of their more interesting arguements is that Palestinians oppress themselves more than Israelis oppress them seems a common defense of t he privileged class. People have defended american police brutality with examples of black-on-black violence.
More disturbing were the 'unbiased' sources listed at the end. The first link to the Jewish Virtual Library features a lovely quote by BenGurion which states that Israel is not appartheid because the Jewish community does not seek unskilled labour from the Palestinian community. I was unaware that slavery was a necessary component of apartheid, but in the case that it is, then Israel is not appartheid, just segregation with really mean land laws, and that's better.
Israel now and forever has a few defenses for common accusations against Israeli human rights violations. It seems like a manual on spin with settlements in the Westbank relabled as communities in Samaria. (even using biblical arguments for Israel, one should remember that Samaria was always a marginalised region, and while many Samaritans practised Judaism, they were not regarded as equals or as one continuous nation with Israel.)
Masada2000 is the most appalling of the sources. The introductory statement basically says that everyone else kills Palestinians and Arabs, so why is it more of a crime when Israel does it? Their arguement against Israel being a racist state is just annoying: the fact that BLACK(sic) Falashas were helped into Israel is reminiscent of everyone i know that says 'look, i'm not racist; i have black friends, here's a picture'. (as much as i hate using nazi comparisons, one could say that hitler was not racist because he was mostly killing white Europeans and some members of the Hitler Jugen were half Tanzanian [from the colonial period] or half African-American [from WWI] {many of them were sterilised, but still}, and no one ever bothers with either of those specious arguements) I couldn't read any more after that without giving myself an anurism.
The notion that Israel is an apartheid state is an issue that I think really requires a lot of pondering over. Even thinking about what I want to say here is giving me trouble. I’m reluctant to agree with the position that Israel is an apartheid state because of the connotation that is associated with apartheid, but yet I see that there are striking similarities to Israel and South Africa. There seems to be a constant holding down if you will of the Palestinians by the Israelis. The articles noted the differences in education spending and home construction permits, which show that while Israel could allow the Palestinians to have better schools and build homes, they just choose not to. It troubles me to think that the United States so strongly supports a state that does things that if done here would be considered racist and un-American.
The articles seem to show two viewpoints on the issue of apartheid. The first viewpoint is the one that says that it is apartheid and lists all the grievances that the Palestinians have towards the Israelis and the similarities between Israel and South Africa. The second viewpoint seems to me to be basically the “other side” trying to metaphorically “close the curtain” like in the Wizard of Oz and saying “there is no man behind the curtain!” and “there is no apartheid in Israel,” as if repeating it to themselves over and over again makes it true.
The Jewish Virtual Library article seems to be a little outdated since they say that, “Palestinians from the territories are allowed to work in Israel and receive similar pay and benefits to their Jewish counterparts. They are allowed to attend schools and universities.” Palestinians are currently not allowed to enter Israel to attend school because of a recent ban. I recently read an article on Haaretz about a Palestinian woman who has a full scholarship to an Israeli university but is unable to attend it due to the ban. (Here is an article about the same story but not from Haaretz: http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061019-094845-8143r) There was also another article I saw on Haaretz today about Palestinians not being able to enter Israel to attend school, since they needed to cross over from Gaza to the West Bank. At least in this case the courts told the government to give a good reason as to why they shouldn’t be allowed to cross (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/783304.html). This blocking of movement on the part of Israel does bear a striking resemblance to the apartheid.
While I would not conclude that Israel has apartheid like South Africa, I would conclude that Israel is practicing policies that are while not the same, very similar to those in South Africa. Israel is however, engaging in behavior that is discriminatory and wrong and I believe the people of the US need to become aware of this and encourage the government to put pressure on Israel to stop this injustice.
To say that Israel is an apartheid state is fairly accurate. Not only are they racially segregated within the Israeli state, but they've militarily occupied Palestinian territory for almost 60 years. One of the arguement against calling Israel an apartheid state was that there wasn't a race issue. But some would argue that being Jewish is not only a religious affiliation but an ethnic identity, separating themselves from Arabs.
Palestinians are resrticted in their own territory just like blacks were in South Africa, just like Algerians were limited by the French in Algeria before their independence struggle in the mid 1900's. They basically implement America's Indian Removal Act on Palestinians; encroaching on more and more land everyday. Europe and Europeans have a history of being racist and anti-semetic. That's what fuelled the Zionist movement and the creation of Israel in the first place, putting them in their current situation. I don't even mind Israel denying it has an apartheid state, in the true sense of the terms because Arabs do have some rights within Israel, but they cannot deny having a military occupation.
Though it appears that there are a number of comparisons between the Arab-Israeli conflict and other situations like the British in South Africa and French in Algiers, they’re not the same. A number of atrocities are seen in Israel concerning a struggling second, third, and fourth class but the very roots of the issues are different. These other European examples are other nations of people infringing on the rights of other nations of people, and extending their global territory from their home country to an additional area or country. Whether it is imperially driven or otherwise, these invaders almost certainly represent a minority in the country and come from their own sovereign nation to get there. When apartheid failed in South Africa, those who didn’t choose to stay at least had the option of returning home to Europe; as was seen in all of the devastating imperialist nations which divided up Africa. When uprisings were successful or ventures were abandoned, they had the option of packing up and leaving and returning back to another separate country that is internationally recognized as their own.
How can a situation such as that be compared to a conflict between two sets of people that dispute over a nation which they both believe to be their own? Whether you believe it should be considered Israel or Palestine, there’s always a group of unwanted tenants. Much unlike these European comparisons however, neither group of people have anywhere else to go. The British went back to Great Britain, the French to France, and Americans to the U.S.; but where can the Israelis go? Where can the Palestinians go? The comparison cannot be formed because entirely different situations are being presented. The Israelis and Palestinians are 2 entities fighting over 1 lot of land and because neither of them is willing to recognize the other, whoever is on the losing end of this conflict becomes an unwanted guest.
I do not mean to contend that any of hardships or disproportionate treatment is justified in any sense from either nation, but that it is simply not something comparable to South African apartheid or other European imperialism; unless that is to say that it’s apartheid in the simple sense of being separated. Though Palestinian supporters may say that it is the Israelis that are living in their land, Israeli supporters argue the exact same case and rely on Holy Scripture as a source. Who’s right? Is it even possible to tell? Within South African apartheid was there any real question as to who’s indigenous land it was? The British may have contended that they could stake claim to it, but it was certainly not as much a question at least in retrospect, whose land it was. South Africa is not a holy British land; it’s not the home to their most sacred piece of reverence. Apartheid and African imperialism were about bigger stronger nations sending a minority force into a relatively underdeveloped land and exploiting it. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not.
These articles all seem to take their own spin on the issue but none seem to explain how to get past the roots of it all. For the pro-Israeli stance, explaining how it’s not apartheid doesn’t at all remedy any of the issues with the fact that they’re treating the inhabitants of their land extremely unequally. For the pro-Apartheid supporters, how do you answer any of the previous questions posed?
After reading the Pro-Israeli view of the the apartheid debate, I was amazed at what I read. Shalom Freedman makes many good points about the Arab-Israeli Conflict and its connections to the apartheid state in South Africa. He claimed that in South Africa the minority of whites ruled over the majority of blacks and denied them the right to vote as well as creating laws that were racially discriminative.
In Israel, Arabs have equal rights and there are no racially unfriendly laws. Plus, as Shalom said the Jews are of every shape and size and race, so it is very hard to consider the Jewish regime in Israel as a racist one. Shalom did use slant some aspects of the conflict until it fit his agenda. For example, he claimed that the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza are part of the Palestinian Authority and are not under the Jewish rule.
This is very slanted considering it is not officially under Israeli control but there are many illegal camps on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He also claims that the reason why the Israeli's restrict the free movement of Arabs in that region is due solely for self defense, which could be partly true but of course it is not the only reason.
I agree with Kyle in that whatever you call this Israeli state, the real problem is how the inhabitants are being unfairly treated and there will be problem there until that situation gets remedied.
I have similar feelings as Ted towards the notion of defining or qualifying Israel as an apartheid state. Although I am slow to admit to qualifying Israel as an apartheid state because of the negative connotation associated with such a title, I am forced to admit that there are many parallels between Israel and apartheid South Africa. Although, I think it is necessary to acknowledge that the apartheid in Israel is no where near the level that it was in South Africa. I think that one must also note that where-as in South Africa, there was no reason for apartheid other than racial ideology, the Israeli’s can at least promote the “its for our safety” argument.
The question that I would like to pose is whether or not there is any justification for apartheid? Although one might initially scoff at the very notion of a justified apartheid, I am forced to wonder if there is any situation where it is a necessary evil and if Israel is one of such situations. As Elmer said in the ZNet article, “To create a Jewish state in a land with a Jewish minority - which historically Palestine has had – one of two things must happen to the indigenous population: apartheid or expulsion. Although half of the Palestinian population now lives in exile, the mass expulsion option has failed to "cleanse" Palestine of its indigenous population, leaving apartheid as the only remaining option.” Basically, in order to create and preserve a Jewish majority in Israel, apartheid like tactics must be utilized. It can be argued that this is simply Israel defending itself, because without a Jewish majority, can Israel be the Jewish homeland, and if not the Jewish homeland, is Israel really Israel? But if this argument is to be used then one would have to admit that apartheid, or at least apartheid like tactics, are a defining characteristic of Israel. Obviously apartheid is not seen as legitimate policy by most of the world. It follows that if apartheid is an integral part of Israel, and if apartheid is not legitimate, then Israel is also illegitimate. So the real question would be whether or not an Israeli state (one based on apartheid) is legitimate.
Personally, I feel that Israeli apartheid is not on nearly the same level that was apparent in South Africa, but never-the-less still exists. I also feel that there is certain level of legitimacy towards the Israeli argument for apartheid. Unfortunately, I think the Israeli’s have taken too many steps towards the South African type apartheid and must reign in some of its discriminating policies.
It is interesting to see the parallels the different authors used to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa. The measures that the state of Israel uses to maintain a Jewish majority could compare to tactics that were used in South Africa during the time of Apartheid. If what the authors are saying is true, then the American media machine is doing a fantastic job of keeping it quiet because before this blog post I was unaware of the segregationist type of living in Israel. With that said, in South Africa, Apartheid was a result of racial dislike among the white-landowners. Other than that, there is no direct cause for the discrimination other then dislike. In Israel, this segregationist views stems from the occupied territories, and the “we’re doing it for our own safety” argument. But can that argument hold water? Hamas was allowed to run because of their year of no violence according to the world’s superpowers. So does that mean that since Hamas committed no violence, then it is a moot point. NO! Hamas is not the only group executing violence against Israel. Other, smaller, sometimes disassociated, violent factions of Palestinian groups are doing these acts, and that is what Israel is protecting itself from. To be clear, I do not agree with all the “measures” Israel has taken to “protect” itself, but some seem to be necessary and working. I do not agree with separate car license plates or “Jewish-only” anything, but ID cards and other, less invading methods I do agree with.
My final point is that in Apartheid South Africa, black people were not given rights. They could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population. Palestinians are given rights and they are allowed to vote, especially in their own governments elections, something the South Africans were not afforded.
After reading these documents, it is hard not to say that there are definate parallels between Israel and S. Africa. I too, like Jacob, find it unsettling to go as far and use the word apartheid to address the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. Black people had no rights in apartheid S.Africa, which in comparison to Israel is not true. Palestinians do have rights in Israel. However they are an oppressed population by Israel and their feelings of freedom or equality are neither being recognized nor ignored.
What I find curious is Israel's feelings towards certain Palestinian's areas. There are times when Israel views it as being hostile and sets up roadblocks and the such to "defend themselves." And other times they do not feel the need to bother with these areas and think they should defend themselves, including with education and hospitalization. It is unclear when a Palestinian may recieve help and when they may not, and it all depends on how Israel feels on that particular day.
The series of articles paralleling apartheid in South Africa and the current situation Israel identify the struggles of Palestians and their “eleventh” class citizenship. Regardless of whether or not someone considers Israel to practice apartheid, the fact that reasonable comparisons can be made between it and South Africa during most of the second half of the 20th century, speaks volumes. The countercurrents.org article, “Imagine, if you will, a modern apartheid state with first, second and eleventh class citizens(…)” , illustrates for Americans the nearly unthinkable conditions legally imposed on Palestinians. Furthermore, it is a democratic state, and our ally, that is practicing this discriminating governance.
It is interesting to see the vastly different perspectives on the issue. As expected, the pro-Israeli articles cite the Israeli government’s offers, whether or not they are being practiced; and, that if Palestinians would agree to the premises of these offers, they wouldn’t face their current restrictions. The implication being, Israelis are open to compromise, it’s the Palestinians own fault for being stubborn. Conversely, the British and African articles only mention Israel’s concessions to the Palestinians in passing. However, the Amnesty International report spells out the many violations committed by the Israeli government without accusing or defending Israel of apartheid. The report states that it is “not intended to comprehensively review all forms of racial discrimination in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Rather, it highlights some of the most egregious aspects of discrimination, in law and practice”. After adding up all the violations and reflecting on their cumulative effect, the reader can make their own determination without consulting commentary on either side of the argument.
It really blows my mind that all of these articles are from foreign sources. Whether Israel is an apartheid state or not is a worthy subject for debate(I think that it is, but that is personal opinion). What is appalling is that there is no public debate going on here in the United States. Im sure with some research one could find American sources talking about Israeli human rights violations, but it is sad to look at these articles and see that the rest of the world sees the situation realistically, while we in the States only see the Israeli side of any argument.
One could contend that a great job is being done by the Israeli lobbying groups to keep the American public uninformed and therefore supportive of the oppressive and racist regime in Israel. I think that until the US media begins to publish and show these awful violations of basic human rights (ex. freedom of movement, right to a nationality, right to shelter) there will be no end to the problems that the Palestinians have to deal with everyday. With broad support from Americans and the US Government, Israel has no need or any real pressure to treat the Palestinians or their Arab countrymen with dignity. Israel with continue to be a de facto apartheid state until the US steps up and begins to call it out on its horrible treatment of these peoples.
The Pro-Israeli author mentions the fact that in South Africa apartheid was the racial discrimination of black by minority whites, and thus cannot be paralleled with what's happening in Palestine. However, many people who support the Israeli aprtheid notion are not talking so much about race, but ethnicity and religion. THe Israeli apartheid might be similar to the South African in the fact that both of them were targeted towards a specific group of people, which in the Israeli case are the Palestinian Muslims. IT doesn't have to be a minority stepping on rights of the majority, look at USA, the dominant and powerful (who are mostly white) push for a way to stay powerfull, which leads to discrimination and subordination of the minority (blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc), noticing the fact that being hispanic is not a racial label, but an ethnic one. If Israel is suppose to be the epitome of democracy in Middle East is even discriminatory in it's name. Why is it called "The Jewish State of Israel", What if we rename USA the "Christian State of USA", I bet that will create some havoc. Israel can be looked at as an apartheid state in that it "discriminates", regardless of whether it's race or ethnicity doesn't take away this fact.
The Pro-Israeli article that rejects the idea of Israeli Apartheid rests on the argument that the two States cannot be compared based on a number of small discrepancies. The author touts the familiar rhetoric that Israel’s actions are justified as it is simply defending itself, that the occupations in the West Bank and Gaza are essential for their security. So called self defense can be used to justify almost any military action. I also find it hard to believe that Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank are required to make Israel safer, if anything they make it less safe.
The article also claims that in South Africa during Apartheid blacks were confined to specific areas and were not permitted free movement within the country. I doubt that anyone can consider checkpoints, exclusive roads for settlers or the requirement of identification papers free movement. Like the article from the Guardian stated, Said Rhateb is only permitted to drive through Jerusalem four times a year.
But perhaps the most ridiculous point of this argument is that there can be no comparison between South Africa’s racist policies towards indigenous Africans and Israeli’s policies towards the indigenous people of Palestine. According to the author because Jews don’t comprise a race but rather there are Jews of many races and have no laws prohibiting intermarriage or voting Apartheid in Israel doesn’t exist. Another argument claims that even if Apartheid were true that it could only apply to the occupied territories for the previously stated reasons. However what has been conveniently left out is the fact that almost a million Palestinians were expelled from Israel and still haven’t been given voting rights or the freedom to return to their homes. Regardless as to whether Israel truly is an Apartheid state like South Africa both Israelis and Palestinians can learn from South Africa’s experience.
Post a Comment
<< Home