Quotes from South African sources are often used to support the comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa. Some of the quotes are real, such as those from South Africa's loveable Archbishop Desmond Tutu; and some of them are fabricated, such as the fraudulent quotes attributed to Nelson Mandela.
Most people in prestigious positions often fall victim to their own importance, casting judgements on Israel before getting to 'know' Israel. Desmond Tutu fell victim to this. He denounced Israel as an apartheid state after a short visit to the region where he was hosted by Palestinian delegates. In fact, it is a little known fact that when he spoke for the first time in Bethlehem he did so under a PLO banner on which Arabic writing read 'first the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.'
One person who has perhaps gotten to 'know' Israel is former Umkhonto we Sizwe commander Major General Fumanikile Quiba. Since 2003 General Quiba has been the South African ambassador to Israel. Joel Pollak recently interviewed Major General Quiba. Pollak has published a quick quote-let from Major General Quiba where Quiba emphasises how his objective thinking has led to a paradigm shift about how he sees Israel.
“Firstly, let's deal with one issue. Where people would say, you know, my belief was that Israel is the extension of the racist, white South Africa. Because that was my understanding before I came here. I regarded Jews as whites. Purely whites. But when I came here I discovered that, no, these guys are not purely whites. They are mixed. It's some kind of a, shall we say, a melting pot. You've got people from all over the world. You've got Indian Jews, you've got African Jews, you've got even Chinese Jews, right?” |
That forms the basis for my third and final entry in this recent series on debunking the illegitimate Israel apartheid slur. Whilst my last entry drew lessons from apartheid South Africa that could be applied to the conflict, this entry focuses on some key differences between the nature of apartheid South Africa and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I have chosen to focus on physical segragation and mental segragation in terms one's ability to control his or her own destiny (i.e. labour and education).
Segregation
Segregation in South Africa was driven by an ideology of racist supremacy. In Israel however, segregation was created by a legal UN partition that sought to create two states for two separate peoples.
The Bantustan borders were arbitrarily constructed by the white minority, creating numerous superficial and illegal constructs. In contrast, the borders between Israel and the Palestinians are the result of the 1947 UN partition resolution 181 and the subsequent war that the Arabs launched against Israel after rejecting the partition.
Segregation between Israelis and Palestinians has since been enhanced by a security barrier (part wall, part fence), that has been created as a practical response to Palestinian terrorism. In South Africa a physical barrier was never required. The "unseen power of apartheid" (quote from the apartheid museum) is what kept black Africans from spilling over into the white preserve.
In South Africa Bantustans became the tool of grand apartheid giving blacks a foreign citizenship so that they didn't have a claim to South African suffrage. In Israel, Arab citizens have the vote.
International Positions
Whilst the 1947 partition between a Jewish and Palestinian state was legally recognised by the United Nations, the Bantustans were never recognised.
Although international opinion tolerates the apartheid 'Bantustans' comparison this is typically empty window dressing designed for sensationalism (as Jimmy Carter basically admits). The actions of the international community are in contrast to the tacit acceptance of the apartheid comparison. I'll tell you why.
The international community never accepted the idea of South African apartheid and its heedless Bantustans. When the apartheid government tried to admit Transkei as a sovereign nation to the UN, the international community uniformly rejected this admission which would have legitimised the Bantustans.
Yet no one argues that representatives of 'Palestine' at the UN legitimise 'Israeli apartheid'.
Also, as opposed to the outright rejection of South African apartheid, the international community has formally accepted the 2 state settlement as a model to end the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Bantu Education
The Bantu Education act wrought complete control over the black education system into the hands of the government. Black education was designed to control the destiny of the native Africans - to ensure that they became nothing more than a pool of manual labour for whites – "hewers of wood and drawers of water" as the government put it.
In Israel Arabs have a relatively independent education system. They can control their destiny within Israel by designing their own education systems should they so wish. They can however, (and many do) attend Hebrew schools.
In the Palestinian territories the Palestinian Authority and not Israel, controls Palestinian education.
Labour
South Africa created rules ensuring that whites would have cheap access to black labour -- and they were dependant on this labour. In Israel, Israelis are not dependant on Arab or Palestinian labour. In fact, one of the pillars of Ben Gurion's Zionism centred around the idea of Jewish labour – Jews building up their own land.
--
And so it goes. These arguments, I realise, have zero propaganda value. The apartheid accusations will continue to be made. It is a powerful tool of demonisation that allows people to easily pick sides without requiring them to think. Like the South African ambassador, I can only hope that people remain objective and remember what apartheid really was.
Previous items in this apartheid series
IAS label - apartheid
I don't think people realise the degree to which they insult the victims of real Apartheid when they compare it to current Israeli policy, which is more progressive than any country South or East of Israel for thousands of miles.
I optimistically chalk it up to historical ignorance.
Using the Israel=Apartheid analagy cheapens the memory of the Struggle. It's like analogies with Nazi Germany. There are certain atrocities you do not draw parallels with lightly.
Posted by: James Clark | September 06, 2007 at 23:55
I always find it amazing when Black people get told what should or should not insult us. James Clark, are you Black? Are you South African? Are you or have you been a victim of Apartheid? If not, then dont tell us what cheapens our struggle. When lots of Black people who suffered from Apartheid say that Israel is an Apartheid state and we say that the oppression of Palestinians by Israel is worse than Black people's in Apartheid South Africa, you should respect us enough to believe that we know what we are talking about. We do not draw these parallels "lightly". We suffered and so we can recognize other peoples suffering. To compare the views of a Christian Zionist like Quiba, who is heavily influenced by his religious beliefs, with the testimonies of thousands of other Black South Africans is very silly.
Posted by: BlackSAn | September 10, 2007 at 15:55
BlackSAn,
Are you a Christian Zionist? Are you religious? If not, then dont tell us what beliefs influence my positions!
Your attack on Christian Zionists is immature.
"When lots of Black people who suffered from Apartheid say that Israel is an Apartheid state and we say that the oppression of Palestinians by Israel is worse than Black people's in Apartheid South Africa, you should respect us enough to believe that we know what we are talking about."
Rubbish. I could just as easily tell you to respect Jewish positions on right and wrong merely because they have suffered so much.
And though I can respect your "thousands of blacks" know about apartheid, why should I just respect that they know what they talking about when it comes to Israel? SHould I just respect any Jew knows what he talk about because he has suffered?
Posted by: JustPlainSAn | September 10, 2007 at 17:30
If I, as a non-Jew, claimed to understand Jewish suffering and the deep significance of the Holocaust on the lives and phsyche of Jews individually and collectively, then I would be talking rubbish. And if Jews who live with the reality of the Holocaust only a half century after it happened say that, for example, Rwandan survivors of their genocide have similar issues as Jewish survivors of the Holocaust did for reasons a, b and c, then it would be disrespectful for me to say Rwandans who look to the Jewish experience for a comparison are insulting the survivors of the Holocaust. Who am I to suggest that when those Jewish survivors themselves make that comparison. (Please note I am not saying this is a real comparison. I am just using an example.)
Posted by: BlackSAn | September 11, 2007 at 14:24
Blacksan, Just because someone has been part of a people that has suffered does not mean they are qualified to analyze its historical context. Jewish perspectives on the Holocaust are certainly not monolithic. Some take great offense at comparing anything to it. While others like to focus on the commonality between say Sudan and Rwanda. And just because some Holocaust victims say its doesn’t make it. One would need to analyze the facts in a more academic and less emotional manner. I would argue the same with the Israel=Apartheid analogy.
Posted by: Mike | September 11, 2007 at 22:50
Well,
I didn't read Carter's book, but I did hear him speak about it in an interview.
And I think that if the people who flipped out over his choice of words actually WENT to the West Bank and saw the way things work over there, they'd understand the comparison. It's creepy. Your ID card is your life, determines where you can go, mostly where you can't go, plainly says what religion you are, etc. If you are a young man living in Ramallah, it's absolutely impossible to go 20 min over to Jerusalem. (Or basically to Nablus either for that matter. Or to your own farm land if there happens to be a settlement or military outpost nearby.) And yes, it's all because you're an Arab. Period.
And furthermore, the fact that there are Ethiopian Israelis does not make the occupation any less of an offense to humanity. I don't get the point. (Note by the way that the Darfur refugees aren't in the photo ops, they were put in prison and many of them sent to Egypt to whatever fate.) The whole system of the occupation is based on assuming that every one of the 5 or 6 million Palestinians is a terrorist. I've been living in Be'er Sheva for two years, I know that most Israelis want peace and security just like everyone else, but it does take an impressive amount of racism to justify this kind of system. Occupation is occupation, even if you think it's justified in the name of "security," don't pretend it's anything less.
(And this is 2007, by the way. 1947 borders do not apply. There are no real borders here, only a big wall inside an invisible "green line" with a whole bunch of illegal settlements penetrating inside anyway.)
Posted by: L | October 21, 2007 at 01:32
Hi I just want to say I enjoyed your blog and site! thanks for sharing, keep up the hard work.
Posted by: | February 21, 2010 at 22:12