Up For Debate: No, there is not a state of apartheid in Israel
Matan Lurey | Nov 29, 2011 | Comments 11
Rhetorical language has its place. However, the exaggerations used by Aminah and the argument put forward hardly constitutes anything constructive. A key to constructive writing is unwavering cogency — that is, it must make sense.
Aminah argues that a few similarities found in the Israeli situation, despite some strong contrasts, still equate identically to a legal definition of which even the author implies is inapplicable: “In the law, Arabs … can [run for the Israeli parliament, or Knesset] and vote.”
The unfortunate side of Israel — being a modern state — is that overzealous politicians can prescribe actions which are discriminatory, and in some cases, illegal. But to say that these cases totally override the many positive democratic values that Israel offers is to make a gross and inaccurate presumption. Every Israeli citizen, whether Jewish, or non-Jewish — as 20 percent of the population is — has these rights and more; including attending the same education system, access to the same public transportation, and like other democracies, minorities that are discriminated against can and do utilize a strong court system against both individuals and the government.
The most obvious example of Israeli democracy is the recent rape case against former Israeli President Moshe Katzav, where a non-Jewish Arab Supreme Court Justice found him guilty and sentenced him to prison. I have met the director of the YMCA in Jerusalem, Forzan Hussein, who acknowledged discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel — but was also quick to note he would “rather be a minority in Israel than the ‘majority’ in any other [state in the Middle East].”
It is a good thing in an editorial to take liberties, as I’ve previously mentioned, but the author unfortunately takes a few factual liberties as well. The Palestinian author, Edward Said, wrote: “There is simply no rational justification from an intellectual point of view of having a policy of ignorance, or using ignorance as a weapon in a struggle. Ignorance is ignorance, no more and no less. Always and in every case.”
Aminah’s inaccuracies only foment an atmosphere of ignorance. When discussing the checkpoints, she cites “thousands,” contradicting B’Tselem which clearly states as of 2011, there are “55” (excluding border-crossings into Israel-proper), and that the “wall” is “in most areas … comprised of an electronic fence with dirt paths.” In addition, when the author wrongly characterizes roads as “Jewish only,” one must remember this is a conflict of nationalities, not religions or ethnicities — Israelis (which can be Jewish, Muslim or Christian — and also be Iranian, Syrian, Armenian and Palestinian) have full access to all roads and buses under Israeli-jurisdiction.
While an exaggeration of 55 to thousands and a nationality to a single religious group certainly helps the author’s argument, it does nothing to contribute to a fact-based discussion on any injustice perpetrated in the area.
In similar manner to Ami Kaufman, a former chief editor for Haaretz, “it’s the occupation, stupid.” Occupation by nature, of course, is not a friendly game of “Candy Land” — but that also doesn’t mean one should personally condone the situation. I personally as a Jew with family in Israel unequivocally oppose any ill effects brought about by the occupatory status. Indeed, under the Fourth Geneva Conventions unilateral land appropriations are illegal, however, the same accords Israel, “both the responsibilities and privileges of being the occupying power, which includes controlling [Palestinian] movement under security concerns.”
The primary concern of any occupying power is the safety and security of their civilian populace — and this is concern is echoed by Amnesty International’s report “Without Distinction,” which states that “[Israel’s] obligation to protect civilians is absolute and cannot be set aside. The attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians.” Certainly such a policy would not have been implemented if their were not grave threats to Israeli civilians, and as the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, restrictions on Palestinian movement from 1967 to 1991 were “relatively light.” Occupation has problems of its own, and unfortunately, security concerns are some of them, but occupation is a far cry from apartheid.
Criticism is good — in a modern democratic state it is one of the few weapons against tyranny in a democracy — as most of us would not take up arms in a “well organized militia.” However, once one endorses a dogma (a dogma that former South African President, F.W. de Clerk calls “absurd”) that one cannot escape and which the author’s hyperbole steers towards, one becomes not only unhelpful but also detrimental to the progress.
We’ve seen this happen before in our own democracy, whether in congressional deadlock or partisan voting. This summer I was in Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, and Jordan. The grassroots, the people on the ground, NGOs and independents, Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians, Americans, everyone, they are all working, however slowly but diligently, towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict that gives as close to an absolute justice as possible for everyone. To sully their work with unfounded accusation is disrespectful to not only Palestinians but also the international community as a whole.
Matan Lurey is a fifth-year informatics major. He can be reached at mlurey@uci.edu.
Filed Under: Opinion
This is the current problem: you have 28 other conflicts and border wars in the world today involving repressive Islamic regimes.
Then you have sectarian wars: Muslim Shiites against Sunnis in Pakistan, Muslims against Hindus in India, Muslims against Christians in Nigeria, Muslims against Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims against Copts in Egypt, Muslims against Christians the Philippines, Aceh (Indonesia), Kosovo (Serbia), Muslims against Maronites in Lebanon, Muslims against Hindus in Bangladesh, Muslims against Russian Othodox, Muslims against Greek Cypriots
Then you have ethnic-cleansing wars (Islamic regimes intent at exterminating and expelling non-Muslims from their countries): Algeria (Berbers), Sudan (Dinkas), Sudan (Darfur), Mauritania, Iran , Iraq, Syria (Kurds)Then you have world wide acts of terrorism.
Coptic News: “Since Christianity came to Egypt in 57 A.D., we, the Christians of Egypt, have not had conflict with the Jewish people. Copts have been a marginal population held in captivity for sixteen centuries. We constitute the largest non-Arab, non-Moslem minority in the Middle East. The Church of Alexandria, is one of the oldest organization in the Middle East. Despite this distinguished history, it is a church that has been under siege since the Islamic invasion.”
Does Israel still have to explain their position?
Listen to what Chomsky has to say on this subject!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUsXt8TmVfU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM8K7n_SuWE&feature=fvwrel
Said does not say anything about apartheid in the video posted. He talked about *occupation* and only mentioned one part of resolution 242.
He did not mention that the second part of 242 which places demands on both Israelis and Palestinians
“ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”
If Israeli unilaterally left from territories occupied in the 67 conflict, do you really believe that Hamas will end all of its belligerency and acknowledge the sovereignty and independence of Israel? As far as I have seen they will only accept a truce if Israel withdraws. Also note, it doesn’t say *all* terrorities.
Under Olmert, Israel was planning to unilaterally take out settlements but Hezbollah and Hamas ruined that.
I would be all for peace along the lines Clinton proposed or Olmert proposed in 2008.
Regarding the Chomsky clip on youtube: Chomsky said there are similarities to South Africa under apartheid but he never calls Israel an apartheid state.
The Chomsky video distorts things in a major way. The Boston paper had the month wrong. It was late in December that 97% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza and East Jerusalem was offered as a peace proposal. The Israeli leader accepted it within acceptable parameters. Arafat did not.
You can hear Clinton take about the process here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UJamyuv_3Y&list=FLbCTaMak-xkouO4N8X7zjYQ – you can ignore the pictures they are not relevant to what Clinton says.
Obama has laid out what will needed for peace in his Cairo speech. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/
Most Israelis support the two state solution. I agree with that solution too. The current situation is unsustainable and direct negotians are needed to bring forth the two state solution.
Calling Israel an apartheid state retards rahter than advances peace negotiations
I agree, we should read what Chomsky said on this subject too:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040330.htm
Thanks!
What makes you think you are on the right side! As a typical pro-Israeli mind you are not interested in stating the facts. Look at what you are doing here! Intellectually are engaged to discredit Aminah! Where is your independent argument? You have framed her stated facts as a falsehood and had employed all your intellectual power to defend it. Please don’t disgrace Edward Said by quoting him again. It ‘s clear that you have no interest in understanding what Said Stood for.
As you quoted, there is no justification for an intellectual point of view such as yours when is based on pure ignorance!
If Israel is not an apartheid stated then how would you justify the following facts (Given there are many more examples).
1) The right of return’, extended at present only to Jews within Israel, and not to the Arab-Israeli citizens of Palestinian descent.
2) There are two legal systems in the Occupied territories? Settlers are tried in Israeli Civil court while Palestinians are tried under military courts! Thus the same crime, committed in same time and place get two different legal responses. The full rights of Palestinians are never protected in these military courts. Is this a functioning democracy or?
4) How could the current Israeli Occupation and its behavior not be a form of Apartheid!
Pleas take the time to educated yourself!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anOMM5S6NMw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXSZlvjNTgA
Unfortunately, friend, you do not know me or what I normally write about and my harsh critiques of Israeli policy and the pro-Israel diaspora. Anyway, I wish I had more space and time to be very critical of Israel and explain my position further – but Aminah chose to be a loaded question – is “Israel an Apartheid State?” – which pretty much kills any chances at an intellectual discussion on what Israel does wrong (which is a lot, a lot, a lot).
Anyway, thanks for reading!
That’s interesting that all your points are based on the opposition’s article. Did you do any research yourself?
Good piece.
The current situation with the occupied territories needs to end. Building settlements is an obstacle to peace.
The best solution to end the occupation is through negotiations.
I firmly believe in a two state solution along the lines of the Clinton Parameters as the best resolution to the conflict. A Palestinian state should be created as a homeland for the Palestinian people along the 67 borders with some swaps of land.
Just as some Jews will not be able to live in the land where their ancestors lived some Palestinians will have to give up on demanding a right to live where their ancestors lived. A symbolic return of some refugees may occur. However, it is unrealistic for the Palestinians to demand that Israel accept millions of refugees the right to return into Israel when a Palestinian homeland is created.
East Jerusalem would serve as the Palestinian capital. The old city should be held by some international agency.
But before any negotiations can have any success, the Palestinian leaders have to show they are one unified government and that they will be earnest in policing extremists (Israeli leaders will have to do this too) who use violence to prevent peaceful co-existence.
The other opinion piece has some big holes.
It is a shame your first paragraph did not fit in the piece.
Here is a link to Goldstone’s piece – “Israel and the Apartheid Slander”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html
Read more on the subject Get all the facts!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWjYHP91gA&feature=related
really good piece, keep it up
Unfortunately the copy-editor had to scrap my first paragraph, so you can read the full unedited copy of my blog: http://lurey.tumblr.com/post/13511522247/no-there-is-not-a-state-of-apartheid-in-israel and follow me on Twitter: @matanlurey.