Israeli Illusionary Democracy: Beyond Apartheid

The saying that occupation exists best in the dark explains one reason as to the level of controversy, surrounding the use of the word Apartheid to describe the Israeli system. It also explains why, what is a clear simple fact to those intimately acquainted with the reality on the ground, has caused so much confusion, or strife to those who are not. Generally speaking there are three sides of the debate about the term used to describe Israel's political system, as compared to South African Apartheid. Staunch Zionist defenders are completely against the use of the term, charging it as ‘anti-Semitic’ or as part of the ‘war on terror’, with no thoughtful discussion of the issues. By dismissing the criticism as a personal attack, they fail to account for the basic facts and reality on the ground, and reveal their limitations in understanding or wanting to know the severe injustices which are taking place, in their name. Then there are activists, academic and legal experts who support the use of the term. As a matter of convenience, they borrow the term from the oppressive South African regime, which most people know to be reprehensible, to make the Palestinian case. They say though it is not entirely representative of the situation, but the underlying racism and discrimination are the same. Because of the advances made in South Africa to end oppression, it is easier to leverage the parallels and draw on the advances of the anti-Apartheid movement, as a case for boycott etc. Finally, even amongst Palestinians and solidarity activists, there are internal disagreements about the use of the term. Because the term “Apartheid” is borrowed from South Africa, it fails to portray the complexity of the Israeli system and in fact directly leads to more confusion, instead of facilitate further understanding.

Most well intentioned people would agree that the only way to find an end to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to first engage in an honest analysis of the situation. Still generalities are made, distinctions are muddled and those with the best of intentions are left to interpret meanings, or worse, completely confused by all of the insidious details of the system at work. This can be clearly seen with Jimmy Carter’s well intentioned book titled, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which in fact feeds into these misconceptions. His assertion is that Apartheid is alive and well in the West Bank and Gaza, but he generally sidesteps the system that exists within Israel implying that the situation is generally fine. Yet, within Israel, the parallels more accurately represent Apartheid, and the case can be made originating from the basic laws alone; and the effects lead to the cultural genocide of Palestinian-Israeli identity. In fact, the system of domination and militarized control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, more accurately reflects one on the very real path of ethnocide. Though the means may vary within Israel and the West Bank, the goals are the same and should be analyzed as such. As the Zionist settler project is moving ever so near its patient, but very real colonization of all of historic Palestine, or “Eretz” (Greater) Israel, and its demographic goals which translate into the dispossession and transfer of Palestinians.

Still Zionist leaders know that to the outside world, they must walk the fine line of upholding the appearance of being a democracy, while maintaining its Jewish character. Thus, the conflict for both, extremely dependent peoples - economically, politically and in the realm of public relations – becomes ultimately, a war of public opinion. Perhaps this is why the Israel’s main success in battle, lies in its public relations campaign; over the years, the Zionist leaders have engaged in the world's most brilliant and cunning, PR campaign in history. Adding to the confusion and profound complexity of misunderstanding of the state of Israel, it is perhaps one of the most multi-cultural places on earth! In South Africa, the practice of racist laws was much easier to identify, manifested by separate laws based on the color of one’s skin for “Whites”, and “non-Whites”. Similarly in Israel, you are either a “Jew”, (whether you are religious or not- which makes it therefore a definition of race), or a non-Jew.

Also in Israel as was in South Africa, the goals are colonial and imperialistic in nature. However, in South Africa, the system of control and separation was designed to expropriate the valuable natural resources for the ruling minority, while oppressing the natives, who did not enjoy the right to vote. Because Whites were the underwhelming minority, they realized the impossibility of upholding even a fallacy of a democracy. Therefore the laws of the imperialists were made, and upheld, by and for the ruling class. Since the Palestinian populations of the oPt and Israel, will soon surpass the number of Jews, it has been the single most obsession of every leader of first, how to artificially achieve, and then maintain the demographic majority of Jews in historic Palestine. Because Israeli-Palestinians are allowed to vote, this adds to the confusion and the illusion of upholding a democracy. Still the founding laws-within Israel- and countless military orders, in the oPt, which exclude Palestinians, are so deeply embedded into the fabric of Israeli Apartheid, that they are seldomly questioned on any systemic level.

As a result, the point which begs understanding, and what is obvious to Palestinians, anti-Zionist Jews and other scholars, is that Israel as a state 'for Jews', leads directly to the oppression and subjugation of Palestinians. Herein, lies the inherent racism for Palestinians, both inside and outside the ‘Green Line’. Either we come to terms with Jewish superiority and ’right to exist’ as it is – Greater Israel, or we can not ‘coexist’ at all. The implication here is that it is naïve, unrealistic, perhaps ideal but definitely impossible, to live as equals on this land if Israel continues to be allowed to define itself exclusively as a Jewish state. End of discussion. Yet, as one scholar noted, the only way to resolve the impossible contradiction between Zionism and democracy, “Greater Israel would have to sacrifice some of its Jewish identity – it would seek to fulfill the universal goal of sanctuary for all people facing religious persecution. In that sense, it would be a tribute to the millions of Jews and other minorities who perished in the Nazi Holocaust…the creation of a Greater Israel – would open a path for Israel to emerge as a technological, cultural and financial center for the Middle East. Israel would have the opportunity to integrate its talents with its regional neighbors, thus building the lasting bonds that can augur peace, not war.”

Integration, cooperation and equality, seems like a reasonable demand as pursued by a recent initiative titled, “Future Vision of Palestinian Arabs in Israel” by leaders and academics, and those generally seen as representative of Palestinian-Israeli civil society. Their message was made explicitly clear, that in

“Defining the Israeli State as a Jewish State and exploiting democracy in the service of its Jewishness excludes us, and creates tension between us and the nature and essence of the State. Therefore, we call for a Consensual Democratic system that enables us to be fully active in the decision –making process and guarantee our individual and collective civil, historic, and national rights.”

Yet, Zionists see the mere pursuit of Palestinians seeking equal rights as the ultimate threat – equated by many, to calling for the killing of Jews and the destruction of the Jewish state! Though it implies only, the desire for true equality for peoples living in the same country, the initiative led to the following reaction by some of the most ‘centrist’ of Israeli Jews one of which stated:

“For nearly all Israeli Jews it is also a profoundly disturbing document,” who “must now send a clear signal to the authors of this document that it rejects their extreme demands.” He goes even further to say that it should be seen as a document which can be “understood to bring its authors into line with those in the Arab and Islamic world who refuse to accept the existence of a Jewish people at all, much less one with legitimate roots in the Middle East.”

When the laws of the state are inherently racist, it sets the tone and the precedent for race relations of the country. Whether it is in the oPt where colonial ethnocide is practiced, or within Israel, where open racism has led to cultural genocide – an attitude of superiority and entitlement are commonly accepted on every level of Israeli society.

Israeli ‘Democracy’: The Formula for Dispossession
Since the inception of the state, the very basis of Zionist ideology and Apartheid is personified in the Israeli 'Law of Return’ of 1950, which states very clearly that any Jew in the world – spanning 3 generations, are allowed to 'return' to their 'promised land', of over 2000 years ago. This law stands in stark contrast to the laws for Palestinians which are according to every standard forbids around 6 million of who were displaced because of Zionist terrorism, from returning to their own homes of just 60 years ago! This law alone, makes it impossible to construct, much less uphold, a democratic system. It is this discrimination that contradicts every democratic principle and the otherwise universally recognized right of 6 million 1948 Palestinian refugees who are entitled to Israeli nationality based on the right of return, and the law of state succession.

The Jewish returnees need a place to live! Since 1950, the “Absentee Property Law”, has ensured the new immigrant settlers a comfortable home, with its cherished belongings. Ethnocide and transfer were ensured by applying this law to those who fled or were forced to leave their property because of Zionist terrorism during the 1948 War. The same law was later applied to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the 1967 war. The property rights were transferred to the Custodian of Absentee Property without compensation to the property owner or provision to appeal. In the Occupied Territories the seized land has been used predominately for military bases, Jewish-only bypass roads, and settlements. This “state land” also allows for the Apartheid “roads and tunnels plan”. Israel is currently in the process of completing - 24 tunnels for Palestinians to drive underground through - and will connect the prison of Palestinian islands - and cement the 56 settler-only Apartheid roads, for Jews only to travel on!

It does not take a mathematical genius to recognize the agenda at work, once the practices and the formula are understood. These basic laws added to countless supplemental policies equal the clearing of Palestinians, while populating the land with Zionist settlers. Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are suffering of tragic proportions, a destruction of property and economic opportunities, cultural identity and heritage. While illegally occupied, they are considered “permanent residents,” whose residency permits can be taken away if they go abroad for more than 7 years or without a re-entry permit. Jews may have dual citizenship, but a non-Jewish Jerusalemite loses their residency if acquiring additional citizenship. Palestinian communities in East Jerusalem are also enduring the same systematic process as the West Bank, in which the Wall which leads to house demolitions, property confiscation, forced displacement, isolation and a complete denial of access to social services etc. Such practices found in Jerusalem, can be widely seen extending from the Galilee, to the Nakab and the Jordan Valley, also known as the ‘Judea Triangle’ – and are entirely indicative of what is taking place in the West Bank. When added with the sum of its parts, the greater context and an objective analysis, the recipe is clear to see.

An objective analysis is critically needed to see beyond the smokescreen of misinformation. Yet, since the birth of Israel in 1948, the writing was on the wall about what kind of state it would become and (generally), how one viewed the creation of the state then, is still largely respective of one's opinion now. To Zionists, their state is a safe haven for Jews, a bastion of diversity, and democracy an oasis in the otherwise hostile dessert. To Palestinians, the birth of Israel was a Nakba, leading to the dispossession and displacement of hundreds of thousands, and remains today as one ongoing, catastrophe after another. Today, despite enormous differences and disagreements in practice, Zionists across the board agree on one thing: the right of the Jewish state to exist. For Palestinians here in lies the fundamental, inherent contradiction: Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish democracy, unequivocally means a disaster for Palestinian identity, culture, sovereignty and equality - both within Israel and the oPt. Expansionist and exclusionary policies, do not differentiate within or outside the green line – and they are made possible only through expulsion and marginalization of the natives. In addition to 'regular' apartheid of separation – or Palestinian banto-state hood, it becomes necessary to take it beyond Apartheid – in order to fulfill the divine prophecy of 'Eretz', or Greater Israel of which Zionism is based.

While Palestinians hope for a political solution to ease the sheer insanity that Israel has imposed, it has always been the Israeli government's ‘future vision’ to uphold their illusionary democracy. Just as European Imperial systems, set out to ‘tame the savages’, Zionism justification lies in ‘reclaiming the land of Judea and Samaria’, or the West Bank. The Zionists divine proclamation over the land does not leave room for a shred of clear reasoning, debate - or negotiation. The rules become obsolete, and the default system becomes an exercise in military hegemony, imposing its will on the ‘hostile natives’, exerted through control and upheld by force. Innumerably embedded in this context, is also the entitlement and presumption on the deepest level that Jews have a right to exist, convert and/or return, and populate historic Palestine, while the indigenous people do not. It is time to define in our own terms and claim our rights, in practice, as they are recognized in human rights conventions and international law. In addition to the concept of Apartheid, it is critical we challenge the acquiescence of cultural genocide and ethnocide, in part and in full.

On February 22 and 23, Israel is scheduled for review for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Let us use this time to recognize the terms, in practice as they are on paper. Palestinians deserve a freedom, justice and equality not because their leaders are corrupt or not, or whether the people are good or bad, Palestinians deserve equality because:

“Considering that the Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings, and that all Member States have pledged themselves to take joint and separate action, in co-operation with the Organization, for the achievement of one of the purposes of the United Nations which is to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, Considering that the United Nations has condemned colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith, in whatever form and wherever they exist, and that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14 December 1960 (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)) has affirmed and solemnly proclaimed the necessity of bringing them to a speedy and unconditional end”.



Footnotes:
1. Article 7 of the "United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples" defines Cultural genocide as (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities; (b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources; (c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights; (d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or otherwise.

2. Raphael Lemkin, the linguist and lawyer coined the term genocide as “the union of the Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), used ethnocide as an alternative form representing the same concept, using the Greek ethnos (nation) in place of genos.” The broader definition of ethnocide may be useful in addressing perceived shortcomings and restrictions of genocide law and in identifying cultural destruction when it occurs by less violent and less visible means (All Experts Online Encyclopedia: http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/ra/raphael_lemkin.htm)

3. Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq in his article: One State

4. The National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel, of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel presented titled, A Manifesto for the “Future Vision of Palestinian Arabs in Israel”.

5. Yossi Alpher is coeditor of the Bitterlemons family of internet publications, ‘a website that presents Israeli and Palestinian viewpoints on prominent issues of concern; article “A Profoundly Disturbing Document”, January 29, 2007.

6. Negotiations Support Unit Website - http://www.nad-plo.org/inner.php?view=palisraeli_Roads_faq%20roadfinal