Is Israel The New Apartheid?

I was born and grew up in South Africa, spent most of my life here immersed in the racial travails of the country, and now live in Israel, in Jerusalem, where I have been involved with pursuing dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. I am closely linked to both countries, in heart and mind.

Coming here now, I believe that I can understand why so many South Africans condemn Israel and favor Palestinians. Among ANC members, and especially Umkhonto we Sizwe veterans, there is the history of shared military training with Palestinians during the apartheid era. Going beyond that, the basis of the struggle against white domination and apartheid was to oppose ethnicity and tribalism. The goal was a single, united, non-racial South Africa and that is what we have.

Israel seems to run counter to this. I read and hear it being condemned as an apartheid and racist state. It is even said to be worse than apartheid. Its founding ideology, Zionist, is rejected as racism. It is pilloried as colonialist, as a pitiless oppressor of Palestinians, denying them fundamental human rights and killing them en masse whenever it wants to, and guilty even of genocide.

But merely to believe these charges doesn't necessarily mean they are true. Saying them repeatedly doesn't make them true. Yelling slogans that Israel is apartheid and Zionism is racism doesn't make any of it true. And they are not true.

I have no doubt that many critics of Israel speak out of sincere belief. But I find a great lack of knowledge in South Africa about the present and the past in the Middle East, and this leads to misunderstandings. It also opens the way to manipulation: there are people here who are not only ignorant but also malevolent; it is depressing to read their distortions about Israel, and even more to find that they have an audience.

It is worth recalling the basics of the conflict …

One, Britain, with its Balfour Declaration in 1917, promised Jews a national home in what was called Palestine, with due regard to the rights of Arab inhabitants. Five years later, despite Jewish opposition, Britain hived off 77 percent of Palestine and created an Arab state – today's Jordan. Britain spent nearly 30 years trying to bring together Jews and Arabs in Palestine. It failed, and ended up hated by both sides. It threw the problem to the United Nations General Assembly which investigated, decided there was no chance of Jews and Arabs living together, and voted for partition: a state for Jews and a state for Arabs.

Two, Jews accepted the UN decision, Arabs refused. Arabs attacked and killed Jews, and Arab armies invaded. The Jews fought back, won, and in the process added another 20 percent to the land allocated by the UN.

Three, this was victory for Zionism. It has been the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, as valid and successful as the liberation movements which emerged in Europe during the 19^th century and the liberation movements in Africa and Asia during the 20^th century.

The aim of Zionism was to create a state for Jews, giving freedom and a haven after centuries of persecution. It has achieved that in Israel where a Jewish majority rules.

No one objects to Saudi Arabia having only Muslims as citizens. No one objects to Pakistan declaring itself an Islamic state as do many other Muslim states. In Africa, does Ghana or a host of other countries, easily allow whites as citizens? They are all ethnic states. Israel is also an essentially ethnic state. Is it any less valid? Why is it singled out for condemnation?

Four, a consequence of Israel's war for survival in 1948 was that about 750,000 Arabs fled the country. Many left because they were frightened as war approached or swirled around them; many were expelled by the Israeli armed forces. No doubt they meant to return home when the fighting ended. But the victorious Israelis did not allow that: they feared a fifth column in their midst and they also followed the example of the previous year when India and Pakistan had split: in those countries, communal violence spawned 13 million refugees who left their homes and never returned; their properties were seized.

In the refugee tragedy created by the new Israel the UN gave Palestinians a unique international status which has never been done for anyone else: not only were the original 750,000 ranked as refugees but also their descendants so the number spread around the world is now about 4.5 million, and growing by the day. More than 60 years later, Palestinian refugees remain in limbo. Many hundreds of thousands are denied elementary rights in host countries, such as in Lebanon. Refugees have suffered for too long and their plight must be ended. It needs international coordination. Israel must share in that because it is part of the problem.

Five, there is, however, not the slightest chance that the refugees will be able to return to their original homes. The oft-declared "right of return" is a false hope, a bit of propaganda theatre used cynically by those who want to see Israel destroyed. It is a cover for their true intentions – the destruction of Israel - and too many others go along with it because they do not realize what it means. It's a non-starter for the simple reason that the return of Palestinians en masse would end the Jewish majority and hence the Jewish state – which is the purpose for which Israel was created, by Jews and the United Nations.

Six, the 176,000 Arabs who remained in 1948 have flourished and now number some 1.3 million. So much for the wicked accusation that Israel practises genocide. They have the vote and elect Members of Knesset (Parliament), both Arabs and Jews. Every South African, remembering apartheid, will know the significance of that. They have full civil rights. Every South African will know what that means. They have equal health benefits: the same hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses. Every South African will know that was inconceivable under apartheid. The equality shows in the two basic reflectors of national health, the infant mortality rate and life expectancy: vast improvements over the years have closed gaps between Jews and Arabs; both enjoy levels of health among the best in the world.

Education is complicated. I haven't read anything in South Africa which shows any understanding of it, only ranting that Israel discriminates against Arabs. It starts with separate schools – an inheritance from the Ottoman era 100 years ago and the British mandate. A system was set in place which Israel has maintained and is now very difficult to get away from because Arab children study in Arabic and Jewish children in Hebrew. Any child is free to go to other schools but very, very few do so because of language. There are also deep divisions among Jews, with separate schools for secular and religious, and still more separation among different streams of the religious.

In funding, public schools receive a "basket" of teaching hours based on student numbers – regardless of religion, ethnicity or anything else. The government pays each year. Then parents and local municipalities put in cash, for more teachers or piano lessons, or whatever, and differences grow between wealthy and poorer areas. Arabs towns are poorer and have lower tax collection rates and the lesser resources show up in the schools and in results. But nothing is straightforward: an Arab Christian school, with mainly Muslim students, regularly scores the highest matriculation results; the worst current achiever is a Jewish ultra-Orthodox school. There are also private and Jewish ultra-Orthodox schools: they receive government funding calculated somewhat differently but also based on student numbers plus the extent to which the schools adopt the core curriculum set by the government.

In religion, the right of each group to administer its own affairs is also inherited from the past. This too is complicated. Take the Jews: a Jew cannot marry a Christian or a Muslim. That seems like discrimination akin to apartheid's prohibitions in the Mixed Marriages Act. But it isn't. Instead, the situation is that Orthodox rabbis control Jewish marriage: they will marry any Jew to any Jew as long as he/she is Jewish from birth or has undergone an Orthodox conversion. Those who want to avoid the rabbinate can fly one hour to Cyprus and marry there in a civil ceremony; they return to Israel and the marriage is recognized in law. Among Muslims, Islam allows only Muslim-to-Muslim marriage – so a non-Muslim partner must first convert to Islam. Christians can be married in the churches, but some Orthodox churches will not marry a couple in which one partner is Protestant.

Land is much misunderstood and false accusations are made. It is, once again, a complex issue shaped by past practices. The basic picture is that 93 percent of the land in Israel is owned by the state and anyone can buy or rent it. But 13 percent of the 93 percent is restricted for Jewish use only. This is land owned by the Jewish National Fund, set up at the start of the last century to buy land for Jews. The fund's success provided a basis for the UN's decision to create a Jewish state. In recent years several Arab families have sought to buy into Jewish communities living on JNF land and have been rejected. The issue has been before the Supreme Court: some argue that the JNF's charter is inviolate and the land must remain Jewish forever; others insist that the charter must be changed to open the land to everyone.

The Knesset has stepped in and this year passed a law giving communities the right to exclude anyone they don't want. Clearly, it is aimed at keeping out Arabs – and can also be used against unwanted others, whether secular Jews or Jews not considered religious enough, or too religious, or gays. Exactly how it will work out remains to be seen because it includes a non-discrimination clause which prohibits racial or ethnic criteria as a basis for rejection. Meanwhile, it is not anything uniquely and nastily Israeli, but is like "gated" communities in the US, Britain or anywhere else where a group of people seek to insulate themselves from those they don't want.

On the negative side there is certainly serious discrimination against Israeli Arabs. They are, for example, blocked from extending village boundaries and from establishing industrial areas on the outskirts as a means of gaining taxes. Their generally poorer school results means less access to higher education – and that shows in student and faculty numbers at universities – and in getting jobs and hence income levels.

A major factor in discrimination is that most Israeli Arabs do not serve in the army. On the one hand they are spared three years' conscription for men (two years for women) and annual call ups until their forties. However, it means that they do not get benefits such as housing and university study. As a complication, Jewish religious men are exempted and are subsidised for Talmudic study.

The exclusion of Arabs goes back to the 1948 and later wars and continuing Jewish suspicion about the loyalty of the minority population. Martial law existed until as recently as the 1960s. But once more it is more complicated than at first sight because not all Arabs are the same. The Druze has always been conscripted, exactly like Jews, and attain high ranks in the army. Bedouin Arabs are not conscripted but volunteer.

There is a a great deal of consciousness about the gaps between Arabs and Jews. A range of NGOs work for change. Interestingly, the current government, although right-wing, has pledged huge amounts of money to upgrade Arab existence and also pushes national service so that Arab young men and women can work in hospitals and community centres in lieu of army service and earn the benefits of non-combat soldiers.

So the picture of the Israeli Arab community is a mixed one. Discrimination yes, but also some closeness with, for example, an Arab judge on the Supreme Court, and senior doctors and university teachers throughout the country. Theatres, cinemas, parks, beaches are open to everyone.

The extent of separation in schools and housing does, unfortunately, breed and perpetuate division. Social discrimination is one result. But none of this is remotely like the institutionalized racist laws and restrictions of apartheid South Africa. Anyone who levels that accusation against Israel has either forgotten what apartheid was, or does not know Israel, or is inventing it.

***

This is Israel within the 1948/49 borders. The story is very different when it comes to the West Bank. It is linked with Israel but is separate from it. The story again starts with history: in 1967, in making pre-emptive strikes against Egypt and Syria, Israel sent a message to Jordan's King Hussein on the eastern border: stay out of this, we have no quarrel with you. But Hussein believed the great lies that Egypt was feeding him – that it had destroyed Israel's air force whereas the opposite was true – and attacked. To general astonishment, the Israeli army defeated Jordan, evicting it from Jerusalem and the West Bank which it had seized in 1948.

At first, Israel was interested in exchanging land for peace. Remember, it was still in a state of war with the Arab countries it had defeated 19 years earlier and they did not recognise its existence. The Arab League met in Khartoum and issued a statement on 1 September 1967: No peace with Israel, no recognition, no negotiations. In the wake of the unexpected war victory, Israelis were already intoxicated. New feelings now came to the fore, first that the West Bank was a vital buffer against another attack by Jordan; and second, fostered by the religious, emphasis on the West Bank as the ancient heartland of the Jewish people – the biblical Judea and Samaria – and had to be retained.

Jewish settlement began and has grown. Today scores of settlements house some 250,000 Jews, plus another 200,000-plus in East Jerusalem. Despite domestic and worldwide objections, the settlements have spread. Originally started by the then leftwing Labor party they are now driven by a combination of fervent nationalism and religiosity. Although the numbers involved remain a small part of Israel's Jewish population they have highly significant power because of settler zealousness in their messianic belief that they are the new bearers of the Zionist standard – a view rejected by many Israelis. They enjoy support within the deep recesses of government with vast sums of money funnelled to them, legally and illegally.

Israel is in military occupation of the West Bank. I am among the many Israelis who oppose the occupation and who believe that we must get out of there. Nothing about occupation is pleasant. Its nature is oppressive and abusive. Day after day the actions needed to maintain the occupation debase Palestinian victims as well as Israeli soldiers.

Israeli control means checkpoints, late night raids and detentions and killings, and administrative cruelties in regulating people's lives. Palestinians resist and fight back, attacking both soldiers and settlers, undermining their own morality through ugly deeds.

The fundamental point is that it is an occupation. Accusing Israel of practising apartheid on the West Bank is inappropriate and irrelevant. The charge confuses and distracts. Occupation is wrong and evil in itself. It does not need to be embellished or exaggerated. The roads built to carry only cars with Israeli yellow and black number plates – the Palestinian green and white are barred – are an expensive, heavy-handed response to drive-by shootings and have nothing to do with apartheid. The security barrier – part wall but mainly fences and ditches – was originally planned for security, to keep out suicide bombers from getting into Israel, but the purpose has been twisted to enable land grabs from Palestinians. That is exploitative and damaging. But it has nothing to do with apartheid.

To say that Israeli behavior is even worse than apartheid is even more misleading for the simple reason that the comparison is invalid. There was never in South Africa resistance in the form of suicide bombers, drive-by shootings and wholesale terror attacks, and there was thus never any call for the military responses that Israel resorts to.

The Bantustan analogy which some draw is equally faulty: apartheid Bantustans were meant as reservoirs of labour, to keep blacks penned in them so that they could be hauled into "white" South Africa when needed. The West Bank with its barrier and checkpoints is the exact opposite: Israel doesn't want Palestinian workers; it wants to keep them out.

Intentionality, or the lack of it, is a vital element: the white rulers in South Africa deliberately set about driving segregation and discrimination into every nook and cranny of society; that is not Israel. The checkpoints and separate roads and the rest are not ideological goals but are a consequence of occupation and resistance to it. End the occupation, and they will end.

So why do so many put such effort into trying to attach the apartheid tag to the occupation, with so many incessant and emotive references to apartheid roads, the apartheid wall, apartheid checkpoints and the rest? This is where we get back to the beginning: yell apartheid again and again and again and some people will believe it, or at least that is the hope and aim of the shouters.

There is an underlying, more convoluted, purpose: if Israel can be declared guilty of apartheid – and the United Nations definition is so broad that it can be pulled and stretched any way you want – then the country can be declared as much a pariah state as was apartheid South Africa and hence open to international sanctions, from trade and oil to being driven out of every possible world activity. What is clear and certain is that the ultimate purpose is the destruction of the Jewish state.

Israel is wide open to criticisms. It is as imperfect as any other country, and carries more burdens than many. But it is not the racist, cruel monster that some people depict. I believe it is time for South Africans to take a fresh look at the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians: to be aware of the machinations of critics, to ask about their motivation and their ultimate goal. The question must be asked: why is so much hatred directed at that tiny country?

Ending the occupation will not in itself bring peace. But it is crucial to getting there. Jews and Arabs must settle their differences between themselves, through negotiation. The way forward is known: two states, with a Palestinian state living alongside the Jewish state and Jerusalem as the shared capital. But it's a troubled path to get there and South Africa is uniquely placed, with its experience in resolving bitter division and conflict, to give intelligent advice and guidance. But always remember: Israel/Palestine is not South Africa: there is a different history, different peoples, different cultures, different religious determinants, and different aspirations. Offer help, but please be wise, careful and modest.

Benjamin Pogrund, South African-born, was deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg, then chief foreign sub-editor of The Independent, London, then editor of The WorldPaper, Boston. He moved to Jerusalem in 1997 as founder director of the Yakar Center for Social Concern. He is the author of three books: about Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe, Nelson Mandela, and the Press under apartheid. He is co-editor of Shared Histories: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue. He is writing a book about Israel and apartheid and was a Visiting Fellow at the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Cape Town.

DISCLAIMER: Opinion expressed in this article is solely of the author and may not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Weekly Blitz.

Related Topics: Op-Ed and Editorial receive the latest by email: subscribe to weekly blitz's free mailing list

Is Israel The New Apartheid?

Reader comments on this item

Comment on this item