IS THIS ISRAELI APARTHEID?

How does one characterize the nature of Palestinian-Israeli relations today? Can it be considered a current example of apartheid; a policy of de jure segregation that prompted such international responses as sanctions and boycotts that ultimately ended this system of state-sponsored segregation and discrimination.  The online source bitterlemons.org provides a variety of perspectives addressing whether the status of Palestinians can be considered the equivalent to that of what the blacks in South Africa experienced under apartheid.

The responses range from outright denial and anger at the prejudice of the international community against the state of Israel (e.g. UN) to a more tacit acceptance that while discrimination exists, it is essential for Israeli security. On the Palestinian side one finds that the viewpoints see similarities between the Israeli policies and the policies of apartheid in South Africa.  The distinction is whether one is referring to the settlements or in the state itself.

The first post is by Gerald M. Steinberg (a professor of Political Science at Bar Ilan University) entitled “Exploiting apartheid for political warfare” argues that the use of the term “apartheid” serves to delegitimize the existence of the Israeli nation-state.  The nature of this type of political warfare emerged from the September 2001 UN Conference in the Non-Governmental Organization forum on Racism and Discrimination in Durban that was also accompanied by the BDS campaigns (boycott, divestment and sanctions).  He argues that this campaign is simply the continuation of the Arab rejection of the November 1947 UN Partition plan.  He argues that the use of the term also serves to “immorally exploit” the suffering of those who suffered under the system of apartheid.  To support his claim he quotes a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court who denounced the comparison in a New York Times editorial claiming it was unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel.  Furthermore Steinberg quotes South African journalist Benjamin Pogrund to support his position.

Steinberg also claims that while Israel is criticized by the international community (the UN) the same criticism is not applied to Islamic states that continue to abuse human rights and systematically deny equal rights to women and other ethnic minorities. The term “apartheid” is never applied to these countries.  There are clearly “blatant double standards” when it comes to the use of this term.   The Arab bloc within the UN and influence of media sources allows for such anti-Israeli platforms to exist.   Such rhetoric inhibits the development of the peace process by promoting mutual hatred and anger. 

Steinberg notes that the reality is that Israel’s diverse Arab citizenry (composed of Christian, Druze and Muslim faiths) do in fact enjoy property rights, voting rights and equal protection and equal access to state-provided services.  There are even Arabs in the Israeli high court. 

Upon review Steinberg’s claims his reference to Goldberg and Pogrund’s statements are factually correct however he fails to mention that Pogrund also acknowledged that the Palestinian refugees live in despair and degradation and that there are similarities with the South African example in the element of control. He further notes that the tension between the Jews and the Gaza and West Bank Arabs will only be resolved when each learns to respect the humanity of the other.  Steinberg also fails to mention the Israeli boycott of the UN Commission meeting in 2001.  Additionally, his claim that UN ignores the human rights abuses that exist in Islamic states is exaggerated and not supported by any evidence. 

Shlomo Gazat (a retired IDF Major General) in “the many faces of discrimination” distinguishes between South African “apartheid” and Israeli “discrimination” of the Palestinians and other non-Jews living in the Israeli territories.  Gazat notes that the situation for Palestinians in Israel is not ideal—they do face discriminatory practices and laws.  His argument that Palestinians do live in a discriminatory environment is evidenced by the “law of return” that permits open immigration for any Jew but does prohibits it for Arabs or any other nationalities.  Additionally, Palestinians born in Jerusalem who are now abroad are not allowed to return to their birthplace.  This situation, according to Gazat is compounded by the fact the current Knesset is overly nationalistic and has adopted a “dangerous pattern of legislation” exemplified by the Nekba law that withdraws government support to any Arab institution that commemorates the events of the 1948 war from an Arab perspective or the “admissions committees” that determines where or non-Jewish families can live; or even the law requiring a loyalty oath to Israel and Zionism.  Those who originate from an “enemy territory” can also be refused citizenship.  He notes that another law being proposed is to cancel Arabic as an “official Israeli language”.

Gazat argues that the residents of the sovereign territories are faced with discrimination and while equality under the law exists in Israel the same cannot be said for those living outside the state.   Because the Israeli government is in charge of the creation of both de jure and de facto law in its settlements (which has been supported by the Israeli Supreme Court) it has justified discrimination in such territories light of its security needs. 

Several of Gazat’s references to law are factually correct although his reference to the “law of return” suggests that only Jews can become citizens in Israel. There must be other ways that non-Jews can become Israeli citizens, or other types of naturalization laws?  In addition, there is not enough evidence provided to support the example of the anti-Arabic law currently being proposed in the Knesset. 

The post by Samah Jabr (a free lance writer and psychiatrist) “Apartheid has a face” provides another perspective on the Israeli-South African Apartheid perspective.  Jabr’s post is rather solemn in tone and through anecdotal evidence he suggests that the comparison is legitimate.  He notes “every day that it [discrimination] goes unaddressed my people are forced to take a step backward into unfairness and loss”.  He descries how upon driving down Jerusalem’s Route 1 he was bombarded by young Jewish orthodox boys who threw a Molotov cocktail into his car.  When approached by the police the incident was dismissed as simply a harmless “Purim” toy.  Even though the boys have continued to harass Arab drivers, the police fail to respond.

Another example provided by Jabra also describes the scene of a horrific traffic accident in “Area C” (where the Palestinian Authority has no power).  The accident was between a Palestinian truck driver and a bus carrying students.  He notes that what was unusual about the incident was that it occurred in an area that has inferior road systems and suffer from limited basic services. According to Jabr, although the emergency response teams are only minutes away, it took ambulances and fire crews almost an hour to respond to the fiery crash.  He speculates that this is because the victims were Palestinians and notes that the media focused on how the Israeli medical teams helped to rescue the children and take them to “good” Israeli hospitals.  But the reality is that the existence of poor infrastructure, checkpoints and other barriers creates an inherent unequal environment for Palestinians in comparison to Israeli citizens.

Jabr provides a rather loose definition of “apartheid” defining it as a system of discrimination.   His evidence is anecdotal and subjective.  His reference to the "bus crash" is historically correct however his claims are speculative in regards to the nature of the response.

Finally, the interview with John Dugard (a professor of international law, and a former member of the UN Human Rights Commission) reveals how depending on the question is asked and the sources used, dictates the answer to the question as to the similarity between apartheid and Israeli practices. Primarily, Dugard notes that there are similar features in that there is discrimination, and that Palestinians and Jews can be considered separate “races”. Under apartheid the white South Africans were the settlers and the policies favored them at the expense of the black South Africans. If viewed form this perspective than the comparison is valid.  Dugard notes, “we all have a sense of Déjà vu”.  He suggests that Archbishop Desmond Tutu noted that the situation in the Palestinian territory is in many respects worse.
Dugard also responds to Goldstone’s claims that the comparison was “slanderous” when his [Goldstone’s] own report confirmed that the system in the occupied Palestinian territory is a “form of apartheid”.  He argues that the UN definition of “apartheid” does apply to Israel in the context of the “inhumane acts” such as unlawful or targeted killings, detention without trial and the intentional purpose of domination of one racial group over another; “here too, I think that one can correctly say that the purpose of these inhumane acts is to maintain the domination of the settlers in Palestinian territory”.   This for Dugard can be seen as a form of colonialism, and in both cases the actions of the regimes have been been condemned by the international community.  

Dugard’s criticism is primarily in the context of the position of settlers and suggests that Israel’s practices in Israel itself, do not really constitute a form of apartheid.   He notes that the US and European public need to be educated and shown the similarities, as should the Israelis.  He also questions the validity of the BDS action program; “I can see the merits of it, but I have misgivings about it in other respects”.

Indeed, Dugard is correct in his claim that the Israeli government forces (the IDF) have received a great deal of criticism from both the international community (the UN) and from former Archbishop Desmond Tutu.  Overall, Dugard's post appears to be the most objective. However, all the posts demonstrate that it is not clear whether the actions in Israel can be compared with that of South African Apartheid.  Clearly it is a matter of one’s perspective.