A site devoted to to understanding the world we live in and to making a difference.

Brilliant! IAW and the “apartheid” label dissected

David Saks is one of our most informed and able commentators on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and especially on the BDS project  and its penumbra of propagandists. In the post below, he delivers one of the most outstanding deconstructions of the “apartheid” smear directed at Israel in the space of a single short article written for a South African audience. It is worth reading and disseminating widely.

As much as they keep throwing mud, we will have to wipe it off and whereas we are getting better at this tedious and messy job, they are increasingly discredited by unfolding events and by their own actions in the eyes of all decent and informed people. When is our sad media community going to wake up to this reality

Mike Berger

Israel’s Enemies wage a ceaseless campaign of defamation

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has absorbed millions of Jewish immigrants from all over the world. In doing so, it has carried out the mission for which the United Nations voted it into being in the first place, namely to provide a homeland in which the Jewish people can live as a free, sovereign people able to determine their own national destiny. The UN General Assembly Resolution 181 which approved the partition of Mandatory Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish states’ was quite unambiguous in defining the partition in such terms. Indeed, it uses the expression ‘Jewish state’ no fewer than 27 times.

Under international law, there has hence never been any question over the legitimacy or legality of Israel defining itself as the state of the Jewish people. Why, in any case, should there be when virtually all of its neighbours define themselves in either religious or national-ethnic terms? It is hardly reasonably to label as ‘racist’ Israel’s definition of itself as Jewish when countries like Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia unabashedly define themselves as “Islamic” or ‘Arab’ countries. Indeed, the Palestinians themselves wish to establish societies defined along religious (Islamic) or national (Arab) lines, as seen by the respective founding documents of Hamas and Fatah.

In reality, what is fundamentally racist is denying the Jewish people (the right) to establish a sovereign national entity of their own, whereas that same right is unquestioningly accorded to others. That those at the forefront of driving the ‘Zionism is Racism’ (or the related ‘Israel = Apartheid’ canard) are quite unapologetic in advocating on behalf of self-defined Islamic countries says something about the hypocrisy and double-standards that underpin the current war of delegitimisation against Israel. This is not, nor ever was about combating ‘Israeli apartheid’; it is about waging a ceaseless campaign of defamation against the world’s sole Jewish majority country with a view to turning it into an international pariah and eventually driving it out of existence altogether.

Apartheid in South Africa, as hardly needs be pointed out, was through and through a system underpinned by racial differentiation and discrimination. The idea was to divide the population into racial categories and concentrate power and privilege in the hands of the white minority. Israel, by contrast, has gone out of its way to facilitate non-European immigration. Today, about half its population originates from Arab-speaking countries and a significant minority of the remainder come from India and Ethiopia. All have full and equal citizenship rights. What most immigrants to Israel have in common is a shared adherence to the Jewish religion, and if the claim is then made that it is on this basis that it practices ‘apartheid’, the sheer absurdity of such a position should be immediately apparent. Of all the countries in the Middle East, not one comes even close to ensuring the legal protection and freedom of religious minorities to the extent that Israel does. Elsewhere, religious discrimination and persecution is characteristic of the entire region. Jews have long since been driven out because of it and today, it is the Christian minority that is being forced out en masse. It is only in Israel that the Christian minority has actually grown, and significantly so, since 1948. Nor is it accidental that the international headquarters of the Bahai’i faith, another much persecuted religious minority, is located in the Israeli city of Haifa.

Does there nevertheless exist in Israel proper discriminatory laws similar to those practised in pre-1994 South Africa? The answer is an unequivocal ‘no’, and saying so merely belittles what   non-white South Africans were subjected to. In South Africa, only whites had political rights, race-based residential segregation was mandatory, public amenities such as parks and hospitals were segregated, non-white education was separate and inferior, 87% of the land reserved for white ownership and non-whites were not only restricted from most professions, but as a matter of law received lower wages. Nothing of this remotely exists in Israel. There, all citizens have full political rights, can attend whatever educational institution they wish, have access to all levels of the economic and professional sectors and can lease or reside in 87% of the country. De facto discrimination does exist, but the difference is that whereas in SA discrimination was mandatory, in Israel it is illegal, and if proven will be dealt with.

Obviously, much more could be written to distinguish between these two radically different societies, but the above summary will have to do. The next crucial point to address is whether Israel is practising apartheid in the occupied West Bank. This is less clear-cut, since here Jews and Palestinians are very obviously segregated from one another and, moreover, there are many laws that genuinely do impact negatively on Palestinians, particularly when it comes to freedom of movement. Here, it is necessary to distinguish between restrictive measures imposed in order to enforce racial domination (as was the case in South Africa) and those necessitated by the reality of bitter inter-ethnic and/or religious conflict. Prior to the Palestinian terror campaign waged against Jewish Israelis in the early years of this century, separation measures such as check points, border fences and separate roads did not exist. Whereas the laws of apartheid had nothing to do with what black South Africans actually did – merely being classified as non-white was enough – the actions of the Palestinians have effectively forced Israel to impose a range of security measures in order to protect their citizens. One of the most egregiously dishonest ploys by those pushing the Israel-Apartheid equation is to portray those measures as having been imposed without cause on an entirely innocent population in order to dominate and exploit them.

Israel’s presence in the West Bank is not good for the Palestinians and not good for Israelis either. Israel has consistently shown its willingness to withdraw from the territory if its legitimate security concerns are met, and once the Palestinians display a similar willingness to co-exist peacefully with their Jewish neighbors, then peace will at last come to the region. Those stoking the whole ‘Israel-is-Apartheid’ feeding frenzy put little, if any, emphasis on the necessary process of negotiations and compromise that is necessary to bring this about. Nor is this surprising, since their real agenda is to convince the world at large that Israel should not be allowed to exist at all.

David Saks

Original: The Star, 14 March 2014, page 13.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: