…But God Forbid Not Apartheid.
Unfortunately, this needs to be said again and again and again. Here Akiva Eldar, in discussing the Supreme Court ruling last week to lift the ban on Palestinians using Route 443, says it well. While agreeing with The Association for Civil Rights in Israel that the travel ban was illegal, the Supreme Court was uncomfortable with the fact that ACRI used the word “apartheid” in its complaint.
To avoid the rude word apartheid, [Supreme Court President Dorit] Beinisch pulled out the well-known argument that apartheid is “a policy of segregation and discrimination based on race and ethnicity, which is based on a series of discriminatory practices designed to achieve the superiority of a certain race and oppress those of other races.” Indeed, systematic segregation (apartheid) and discrimination in South Africa were meant to preserve the supremacy of one race over others.
In Israel, on the other hand, institutional discrimination is meant to preserve the supremacy of a group of Jewish settlers over Palestinian Arabs. As far as discriminatory practices are concerned, it’s hard to find differences between white rule in South Africa and Israeli rule in the territories; for example, separate areas and separate laws for Jews and Palestinians.
Eldar finishes off with an account of an all too often occurrence:
Last Wednesday, Israeli policemen blocked the main road linking Nablus and Tul Karm. Dozens of taxis with Palestinian workers on their way home from another day on the job in the settlements were told to park on the side of the road. Cars with yellow license plates passed by. There was no roadblock for security inspections; it was just the memorial ceremony for Rabbi Meir Hai. Just as long as they do not say that there is apartheid.
Full story here.
I think one of the biggest mistakes some observers make is that they consider Israel and Palestine (and their respective nations) as one divided only recently by religion and religious sectarianism. Most of them argue for the one state solution.
While Israeli Arabs are Israeli, I have yet to see significant, if any, solidarity for Jewish rights among the Arabs. I’m not talking about the settlements, but the intolerance of Jewish rights in Arab domains, and the tolerance for anti-Jewish sentiments imported from Old Europe.
Advocates for the one state solution argue on two false presumptions. One, that Israel ‘claims’ the West Bank. And two, that Israel and Palestine are the same nation, the same country, and hence Israel should integrate the West Bank and Gaza into Israel proper. These advocates assume that the individual rights defined in international law obliges Israel to treat Palestinians as citizens. However, the opposite is true. Israel has responsibilities as an occupying power, and pressured to reach a settlement and withdrawal. While Israel has some reasonable interests in the West Bank, many are not (such as the settlements deep into the West Bank).
Secure borders is entitled to any sovereign nation. This is separation between two states, not two races, therefore, Israel is not apartheid.
“Secure borders” and “separation between two states” are expressions of what should be, not of what is, and therefore so is “not apartheid”.
and why exactly do you feel that Arab states not demanding Jewish rights gives the right for the Jewish state to abuse Arab rights? That is completely repugnant and incomprehensible to me.
Justin, I was trying to illustrate why Israel and Palestine are two separate states for two people. I was also affirming that Israeli Arabs are part of the State of Israel. This is an argument for two states.
Perhaps you were reacting to when I was stating that international law does not obliges Israel to treat Palestinians as citizens. An occupying power is not obliged to annex an occupied territory and give inhabitants the right to vote.
BZ, yes, they are expressions of what should be. However, apartheid is not what is either. As I explained above, if you were to consider Israel as apartheid, then you would have to believe that the West Bank and its inhabitants are part of Israel. I do not consider the West Bank as part of Israel, nor are the West Bank Arabs part of Israeli citizenry and nation. Israel disputes the West Bank and occupies it, but does not have the right to act as the sole authority.
Justin, I was trying to illustrate why Israel and Palestine are two separate states for two people.
No they aren’t, but they should be.
BZ, yes, they are expressions of what should be. However, apartheid is not what is either. As I explained above, if you were to consider Israel as apartheid, then you would have to believe that the West Bank and its inhabitants are part of Israel.
Ok, I agree that Israel within its sovereign borders is not apartheid. But Israel doesn’t treat the West Bank settlers and settlements as “not part of Israel” the same way it treats the West Bank Palestinians as “not part of Israel”.
Jews in the West Bank are Israeli citizens. Arabs in the West Bank aren’t.
Eric writes:
Jews in the West Bank are Israeli citizens. Arabs in the West Bank aren’t.
Israelis in the United States are Israeli citizens, but they still have to travel to Israel to vote in Israeli elections. Israelis in the West Bank don’t.
Israelis in the United States are Israeli citizens, but Israel doesn’t provide them with roads, electricity, or military security.
I think at this juncture, a single, non-ethnoreligiously defined state is the real solution. otherwise, you might as well be pushing for the Four State Solution and have a chiloni state, a charedi state, an Islamist state and a secular Arab state.
Or you know, just have Rav Eliashiv or somebody like that declare all Palestinians Jewish. I mean, since the Israeli rabbinate already decided they can contradict the Talmud (by revoking conversions), so why not, right?
Israel is not obliged to give Palestinians in the West Bank citizenship. It is obliged to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians.
If the answer to apartheid is a bi-national state, then create it in the West Bank. There is no reason for it to be incorporated into Israel.
BZ, I’m not getting your point. Judea/Samaria/West Bank is the subject of dispute between multiple parties and part of the traditional Jewish heartland. Israel does not have claim to American land anymore than Italy has claim to Brazilian land.
Anyway, as sexy as the word “apartheid” is (booga-booga!) its use here is absurd. The road was closed to Palestinians because they kept murdering Israeli drivers. Why should Israel allow people to murder and threaten its citizens without consequence?
Anyway, as sexy as the word “apartheid” is (booga-booga!) its use here is absurd. The road was closed to Palestinians because they kept murdering Israeli drivers. Why should Israel allow people to murder and threaten its citizens without consequence?
Let’s unpack the word “they” there, shall we?
As I’ve said here many times, “unjustified” is not part of the definition of “apartheid”. So if you want to claim that a particular policy is justified, then you’re arguing “apartheid is justified in this case”, not “this is not apartheid”.
Eric writes:
BZ, I’m not getting your point. Judea/Samaria/West Bank is the subject of dispute between multiple parties and part of the traditional Jewish heartland. Israel does not have claim to American land anymore than Italy has claim to Brazilian land.
Israeli embassies and consulates around the world are under undisputed Israeli sovereignty. Why can Israeli citizens vote in Kiryat Arba but not at the Israeli Embassy in Washington?
Israelis in the United States are Israeli citizens, but they still have to travel to Israel to vote in Israeli elections. Israelis in the West Bank don’t.
Israelis in the United States are Israeli citizens, but Israel doesn’t provide them with roads, electricity, or military security.
The United States isn’t occupied by Israel. A better analogy would be the American presence in Iraq, where the US builds roads, provide its citizens with military security and electricity and enables its citizens to vote in elections back home. It’s not a perfect analogy either (see below), but it’s much closer.
Anyway, as sexy as the word “apartheid” is (booga-booga!) its use here is absurd. The road was closed to Palestinians because they kept murdering Israeli drivers. Why should Israel allow people to murder and threaten its citizens without consequence?
My (limited) understanding of South African apartheid is that the motivations/justifications weren’t all that different. Yes there was a much larger degree of racial prejudice involved in the petty apartheid context, and there weren’t (to my knowledge) any South African suicide bombers. But the overriding concern behind apartheid was that the majority black population would overrun the minority white population, which is very, very similar to what you describe in the occupied territories.
In Israel proper, there are problems with racial prejudice and discrimination, but nothing even remotely resembling the apartheid regime of South Africa. In the territories, however, things start to look very different. The argument that the responsibilities of an occupying power are different from those of a sovereign government is compelling, but unlike the US presence in Iraq, for example, which is clearly intended to be temporary, most Jewish settlers in the territories don’t seem to have any intention of ever leaving, which weakens the “occupying power” distinction and starts to make the situation look more and more like institutional apartheid.
In my opinion, the bugaboo over this word stems from its wanton misapplication by the radical left, who want to apply it to Israel as a whole. When you see all Jews living in Israel as colonialist occupiers, it’s easy to ignore the sovereign-Israel/occupied-territory distinction (since sovereign Israel is in that view inherently illegitimate), and say the whole darn thing is apartheid. And because of the word’s association with this view that Israel is inherently illegitimate, you get these knee-jerk reactions from the pro-Israel crowd when you apply apartheid to any context involving Israel, even when it more or less fits.
Just the facts:
“if you were to consider Israel as apartheid, then you would have to believe that the West Bank and its inhabitants are part of Israel. I do not consider the West Bank as part of Israel”
South Africa created Bantustans that were, from a SA legal perspective, no longer part of South Africa. Just like the West Bank is not ‘part’ of Israel.
It seems to be true that manipulating citizen ship and boundaries to strengthen those in power is a hallmark of oppressive regimes. Side note: how did Nazi Germany provide legal cover for the transport of Jews from occupied countries (nominally independent) to the camps? Germany had its pet regime deprive the Jews of citizenship. Since only citizens had legal rights, Germany ‘helped’ but removing them from the public domain and assuming authority over that stateless bunch.
The use of the category ‘citizen’ to award rights to people is valid in your own territory. Doing so in occupied lands, or as part of a regime of control and subjugation, is, well, kind of like apartheid.
(tho’ I hate using that word myself.)
“Let’s unpack the word “they” there, shall we?”
—BZ · January 5th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Sure. 100% of the people murdering drivers on Route 443 were Palestinian.
“As I’ve said here many times, “unjustified” is not part of the definition of “apartheid”. So if you want to claim that a particular policy is justified, then you’re arguing “apartheid is justified in this case”, not “this is not apartheid”.”
—BZ · January 5th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Hmmmmm…. so you believe that aviation security measures are “apartheid”?
Eric writes:
Sure. 100% of the people murdering drivers on Route 443 were Palestinian.
Also, 100% of the people murdering drivers on Route 443 were murderers, and 100% of them were Middle Eastern. There are many narrower or wider ways to define the “they”: close the road to all murderers, or close the road to all Middle Eastern people (Palestinian, Israeli, etc.). Defining it on an ethnic basis as “Palestinians” reflects a particular choice. You believe that this choice is justified. See above.
Hmmmmm…. so you believe that aviation security measures are “apartheid”?
Which ones?
Geuvara,
By international law, the West Bank is not part of Israel proper. I assume the same was for the Bantustans in SA.
How the hell can you call Israel not giving citizenship to West Bank inhabitants “manipulation”? Israel did not control the West Bank before 1967. No country recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. West Bank Arabs are not claiming Israeli citizenship, they are claiming their right to national self-determination. This is a goal they have defined for themselves and that everyone recognizes. Your analogy is improper and insulting to the victims of the Nazis.
Correction: I assume the Bantustans in SA were recognized as part of SA by international law.
“Also, 100% of the people murdering drivers on Route 443 were murderers, and 100% of them were Middle Eastern. There are many narrower or wider ways to define the “they”: close the road to all murderers, or close the road to all Middle Eastern people (Palestinian, Israeli, etc.).”
Hmmmm…. there’s a good idea. Israel should announce that Route 443 will hereby be closed to all people of Middle Eastern origins, but shall be open without restriction for Swedes, Thais and Lesothans. Definitely the most intelligent way to improve security.
Care to submit your resume to a counterterrorism agency with a suggestion like that?
“Which ones?”
Religious and geographic profiling.
Eric writes:
Definitely the most intelligent way to improve security.
Care to submit your resume to a counterterrorism agency with a suggestion like that?
Where did I suggest that this would be an improvement?
I don’t understand: Jews in the west bank (not Israelis – Jews) are subject to Israeli law, are arrested by the police and tried in civilian courts. Non-Jews in the west bank are subject to martial law (a melange of Jordanian, British and some particularly oppressive ISraeli innovations), arrested by the army, and tried in courts-martial.
The two groups have different roads, electric and water lines. One group gets to vote over policy affecting the other. All agree that the west bank is not part of Israel (it might be, one day, but as of now it is most certainly not).
Please explain how this is not apartheid.
Eric: 100% of the people who blew up the twin towers were muslim men. Does that mean the government should stop letting muslim men onto airplanes? Do statistics mean anything at all here?
Also, I would like to understand why Eric thinks that if there is a problem with Israelis and Palestinians using the same roads, the ISraelis should get to use the road, and not the Palestinians. After all, it was built on their land, for their use (According to the ISraeli govt.!)
Actually Amit, 97%+ of Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to PLO law.
“100% of the people who blew up the twin towers were muslim men. Does that mean the government should stop letting muslim men onto airplanes?”
It would suggest that Muslim men attempting to board airplanes warrant greater security screening than non-Muslim men — wouldn’t you say?
“Do statistics mean anything at all here?”
I don’t know, Amit, do they? Do statistics have any role in the analysis, understanding or prevention of violence and violent crime? Maybe you should ask these guys.
“Also, I would like to understand why Eric thinks that if there is a problem with Israelis and Palestinians using the same roads, the ISraelis should get to use the road, and not the Palestinians.”
Because Palestinians have been murdering Israelis on those roads, and not vice versa.
Amit, it is an occupation. Apart from Israelis subject to Israeli courts and can vote, Israelis and Palestinians used the same roads and shop in the same markets (or at least used till the intifadas). If an Israeli Arab was arrested in the West Bank, he’ll stand in front of the same Israeli court as Jewish Israelis. So what is the separation here? The separation is of citizenship, a common and accepted distinction between countries. The separation is not of race nor religion since in Israel proper, Arabs serve in the Knesset and courts along side Jews.
The have different infrastructure and legal systems – two countries (with one yet to be). Part of the issue here is borders. The international community obliges both parties to negotiate territories for peace and reach a final status agreement. Some of the settlements are right next to the Green Line. It would not make sense for those settlements to be connected to West Bank infrastructure when they are not going to be part of a future Palestinian state.
What ever your view of the security measures Israel takes in the West Bank, it has nothing to do with racial or religious superiority. How can Israeli policy makers think of racial/religious superiority while serving along side Arab lawmakers in the Israeli Knesset?
How can Israeli policy makers think of racial/religious superiority while serving along side Arab lawmakers in the Israeli Knesset?
You must be smoking something. There were Arab lawmakers in the Knesset (not “Israeli Knesset”; either “Israeli Parliament” or just “Knesset”) even when they needed passes to get home to their villages. The Arab MKs are not much more than window dressing.
It would not make sense for those settlements to be connected to West Bank infrastructure when they are not going to be part of a future Palestinian state
Says you. The future of the settlement is far from settled.
Actually Amit, 97%+ of Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to PLO law.
Wrong again. The Israeli army may – and does – enter any area in the West Bank and Gaza and detain persons for indefinite periods of time with or without trial. It’s also not “PLO law”, it’s the law of the Palestinian National Authority, which still uses Shekels as currency.
Because Palestinians have been murdering Israelis on those roads, and not vice versa.
If Israelis weren’t occupying the roads, they would not have been killed on them. That aside, the Geneva conventions stipulate that occupying forces may not use occupied territory for civilians of the occupying power. The settlements are for “military purposes”, but the road goes from pt. A in Israel to pt. B, and when closed to Palestinians, is a flagrant violation of the accords, to which ISrael is a party.
Palestinians in the West Bank are not under PLO law. The Palestinian Liberation Organization is the legal representative of the Palestinian people, the entity which negotiates on behalf of Palestinians in the territories and Palestinian refugees around the world.
The Palestinian Authority is the department of Israel’s administration of the occupied territories that has administrative authority over certain, limited and well-defined civil matters.
The Palestinian Legislative Council is the law-making body I think you’re referring to. But it only has full jurisdiction with Area A (some 2.7% of the land) and civil (but not security) jurisdiction in Area B (25%), the rest is ruled and administered entirely by Israel.
No body here disputes that the West Bank is occupied. The question here is whether an occupation automatically determines that the occupying power is apartheid. The distinction between Israeli settlers and Arab inhabitants in the West Bank is that of a dispute between two nations, one of which includes Jewish and non-Jewish citizens serving in all levels of government (legislative, judicial, and executive). Even Netanyahu agreed to a Palestinian state. Whether he means it or not, does not hinder the fact that the majority of the Israeli people support the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Just to clarify some stats here, according to wikipedia, 17% of West Bank land and 55% of West Bank Palestinians are in Area A; 24% of land and 41% of Palestinians are in Area B, and 59% of land and 4% of Palestinians are in Area C.
As far as jurisdiction, the only crimes for which 96% of West Bank Palestinians would be tried by the Israelis are security-related. When I was in the army, we never arrested Palestinians for regular civil or criminal issues. They are under Palestinian jurisdiction for those crimes.
Also, there are plenty of roads open to Palestinians that are closed to Jews. I used to live in Tekoa, and for many years, the “Zatara Bypass Road”–now open to all and shortening Tekoa residents’ drive to Jerusalem from 45 minutes to 15–was only open to Palestinians.
I’m not defending the occupation by any stretch of the imagination. I saw it from the inside and saw just how much it rots those involved, not to mention those who suffer under it. I just think it serves no one to distort the facts, willfully or not.
As far as jurisdiction, the only crimes for which 96% of West Bank Palestinians would be tried by the Israelis are security-related.
All that means is that Israel doesn’t care one whit about law and order that doesn’t affect it. “Security related” means nothing except “Israel cares about it”.
I used to live in Tekoa, and for many years, the “Zatara Bypass Road”–now open to all and shortening Tekoa residents’ drive to Jerusalem from 45 minutes to 15–was only open to Palestinians.
IT’S THEIR ROAD!
Let’s just assume that one day Canada siezed Maine. Then they send Canadians to live in Maine. Then they say they want roads to get from Nova Scotia to Ontario that go through Maine. When the Americans start shooting them (for their liberty, etc.), then they prohibit Americans from using those same roads.
Amit, how dare you:
“The Arab MKs are not much more than window dressing.”
I’ve known a few of those MK’s, and while some of the were crap, others were brave defenders of Palestinian interests in Israel.
Israeli democracy IS vibrant. And Israeli rule over Palestinians smacks of Apartheid.
JG, I think the Arab MKs would agree with me. They’re no doubt brave defenders of Palestinian interests in Israel, but they’re perpetually in the opposition, their votes are never solicited, and everybody loves to hate them.
I admire the Arab MKs, I really do, but in the big scheme of things – they’re window dressing. Until they get all the Arabs to vote for Arab (or mixed) parties, get 24 mandates (their proportion in the population), demand a seat in the government and a deputy Prime minister, their admirable presence in the Knesset is a nice declaration, but not much more.
“Let’s just assume that one day Canada siezed Maine. Then they send Canadians to live in Maine. Then they say they want roads to get from Nova Scotia to Ontario that go through Maine. When the Americans start shooting them (for their liberty, etc.), then they prohibit Americans from using those same roads.”
Actually the accurate comparison to Israel would be: one day America invades historic New Brunswick and pushes out the native Canadians living there. 20 years later it starts launching surface-to-surface missiles on Montreal. In response Canada counterattacks and recaptures New Brunswick. The missile attacks stop. 20 years later America renounces its former claim to New Brunswick.
“I used to live in Tekoa, and for many years, the “Zatara Bypass Road”–now open to all and shortening Tekoa residents’ drive to Jerusalem from 45 minutes to 15–was only open to Palestinians.
IT’S THEIR ROAD!”
Why is it “their road”? The entire reason for the existence of bypass roads is that Palestinians didn’t their pristine streets tainted by the presence of Jews.
one day America invades historic New Brunswick and pushes out the native Canadians living there
When did the Palestinians invade Israel and kick out Jews? Are you thinking of Gush Etzion?
Why is it “their road”? The entire reason for the existence of bypass roads is that Palestinians didn’t their pristine streets tainted by the presence of Jews.
It’s their road because its in the west bank. The settlers are – by Israel’s OWN ADMISSION in it’s OWN COURTS – a temporary presence, while the Palestinian residents of the west bank belong their, again by the same claims of the same country in the same court.
Correction:
Henry Siegman, former director of AJCongress and the Synagogue Council of America, says Israel has officially crossed the threshhold into an apartheid state:
Henry Siegman . . . says Israel has officially crossed the threshhold into an apartheid state….
From a quick read of this guy’s essay, it seems his entire argument rests on the assumption that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel. If I read it correctly, he has given up any hope for a two-state solution.
Israel faces a serious issue with how to resolve its occupation of the West Bank, because the status quo there essentially is apartheid, and that is unacceptable. But that does not make Israel an “apartheid regime,” as this guy says, because the situation in Israel proper is most definitely not apartheid.
So if South Africa managed to pull off it’s creation of the bantustans, it wouldn’t have been aparteid anymore?