Its often been said that in the context of the Middle East, words mean what the speaker chooses them to mean - nothing more nor less. In a conflict where words carry immeasurable amounts of propagandist power, it's important to understand the language used. Too many words have been reduced to mere swear words, cheapening the actual meaning of the words. Few words have been more abused than apartheid. Just last week, Major General Fumi Quiba made a strong comment against the use of the "Apartheid" analogy by detractors of Israel. The Sowetan quoted Quiba as saying "The accusations are unfounded, the term "apartheid" is uniquely South African and devalues the struggle of the black population against one of the worst forms of oppression known to man." Indeed.
It's been a while since I added an entry to the IAS apartheid category, so here one is from, of all places, the vanguard of the left - The Guardian. Do not treat Israel like Apartheid SA. The article has many points which I strongly disagree with, but it proves that not everyone on the left considers Israel an apartheid state.
Israel, in many respects, has become the South Africa of today. It is the litmus test of one's progressive credentials. If you are on the left, you can be friendly with Jews, you can be a Jew, but you cannot be on the side of Israel. And yet the comparison with South Africa is intellectually lazy, morally questionable, and possibly even mendacious. Boycotters of South Africa believed that the apartheid system made the government illegitimate. This, after all, was a state which deprived the majority of its people of civil rights because of the colour of their skin. Whatever one thinks of the efficacy of boycotting as a tactic, isolating South Africa was a political act in favour of democracy. The abolition of apartheid restored the legitimacy of the South African state.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the campaigners for a boycott against Israel are not challenging the legitimacy of the Israeli government. They are against Israeli policies in occupied areas, which is a different thing. Inside the state of Israel, there is no apartheid. In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest minority within its borders of any country in the Middle East. The official figure for Copts in Egypt is 10%. Non-Jews, mostly Arab Muslims, make up 20% of the Israeli population, and they enjoy full citizen's rights. Israel is one of the few Middle Eastern states where Muslim women are allowed to vote.
Certainly, Israeli Arabs are not always treated well, though not nearly as badly as the Egyptian Copts, or the few Jews left in the Muslim world. Israeli Arab towns are neglected and, particularly since the latest intifada, public suspicion has led to social discrimination. To make things worse, some politicians make no secret of their desire to remove the Arabs from Israel altogether. But apartheid, however satisfying it is for the morally outraged to think so, it is not.
As I said, I disagree with many points made by the writer (article is from 2002), but it does serve to prove that there are people who, whilst openly siding with the Palestinian side, still realise the folly in superficial comparisons to Apartheid South Africa.
Comments