Does The Term 'apartheid' Fit Israel? Of Course It Does.

[Purveyor]

By Saree Makdisi

The storm of controversy after Secretary of State John F. Kerry's warning that Israel risked becoming an "apartheid state" reminded us once again that facts, data and the apparently tedious details of international law often seem to have little bearing on conversations about Israel conducted at the highest levels of this country. As was the case when other major figures brandished the "A-word" in connection with Israel (Jimmy Carter comes to mind), the political reaction to Kerry's warning was instantaneous and emotional. "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and any linkage between Israel and apartheid is nonsensical and ridiculous," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. That's that, then, eh?

Not quite. Flat and ungrounded assertions may satisfy politicians, but anyone who wants to push the envelope of curiosity even a little bit further might want to spend a few minutes actually thinking over the term and its applicability to Israel.

"Apartheid" isn't just a term of insult; it's a word with a very specific legal meaning, as defined by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1973 and ratified by most United Nations member states (Israel and the United States are exceptions, to their shame).

According to Article II of that convention, the term applies to acts "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." Denying those others the right to life and liberty, subjecting them to arbitrary arrest, expropriating their property, depriving them of the right to leave and return to their country or the right to freedom of movement and of residence, creating separate reserves and ghettos for the members of different racial groups, preventing mixed marriages — these are all examples of the crime of apartheid specifically mentioned in the convention.

MORE...

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-makdisi-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html

[GoneFishin]

1. Um. Yeah.

[4now]

2. It sure does

and the world is getting tired of Israeli apartheid.

[Mosby]

3. I like his definition

"Apartheid" isn't just a term of insult; it's a word with a very specific legal meaning, as defined by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1973 and ratified by most United Nations member states (Israel and the United States are exceptions, to their shame).

According to Article II of that convention, the term applies to acts "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." Denying those others the right to life and liberty, subjecting them to arbitrary arrest, expropriating their property, depriving them of the right to leave and return to their country or the right to freedom of movement and of residence, creating separate reserves and ghettos for the members of different racial groups, preventing mixed marriages — these are all examples of the crime of apartheid specifically mentioned in the convention.

Seeing the reference to racial groups here, some people might think of race in a putatively biological sense or as a matter of skin color. That is a rather simplistic (and dated) way of thinking about racial identity. More to the point, however, the operative definition of "racial identity" is provided in the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (to which Israel is a signatory), on which the apartheid convention explicitly draws.

Jews and Arabs are both Semites right? We are all the children of Abraham (Ibrahim), so how can Jews be "dominating" their OWN racial group? LOL.

All joking aside, the truth is that applying the Apartheid label to Israel is nothing more than act of desperation, any person with a brain knows that there is no apartheid in Israel. If one wants to see what REAL apartheid looks like just look at the Arab gulf states and the United States.

[azurnoir]

4. Luv it

"Jews and Arabs are both Semites right? We are all the children of Abraham (Ibrahim), so how can Jews be "dominating" their OWN racial group? "

people have been banned from DU for saying that, at least if they're under 100 posts

[Mosby]

5. I guess you missed the part where I said I was joking

I though saying "all joking aside..." was an indication that my first para was me just being silly.

[azurnoir]

6. ah so you were not using the not a race or not different races excuse I see

but what do you call it when there are 2 different justice systems based on ethnic background?

[Mosby]

7. it has nothing to do with "ethnic backgrounds"

The OTs are not part of Israel, hence no apartheid.

[azurnoir]

8. it is Israel commiting apartheid on behalf of the Israelis that transfered there

to colonize land you confess is not Israel's land to colonize by setting up one legal system for Israeli colonists and another for Palestinians

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

14. Can't really argue with that.

Not sure why some would try. Ar best it is splitting hairs. At worst it is lying for apartheid.

[WatermelonRat]

9. I'd very much like to know what other countries proponents of this view consider to be

apartheid states. I can think of several under the standards laid out, segregation era United States most prominently, but I've seldom heard of them referred to as such. This leads me to believe that it is used not as a analytical descriptor but as an emotive tactic.

[shaayecanaan]

10. Apartheid is segregation

The word "apartheid" (apartness) was essentially conceived as a softer, more media-friendly term than the Afrikaans/Dutch word "segregatie" (segregation).

The overall intention was that outsiders would think that the races were being separated for their mutual benefit and that the respective communities would be "separate but equal".

[Shaktimaan]

11. Great article.

Interesting and convincing arguments. She gives a short but accurate lesson on the actual meaning of the term "apartheid"; information sorely missed in most critical hit pieces on Israel.

The problem is that none of Israel's
laws or policies actually meet this definition. The examples she gave are all either flat-out untrue, fail to meet the criteria, (her own criteria, stated earlier), or simply aren't relevant. In some cases a selective editing of the facts was deemed necessary.

One of the key components of Israel's nationality law, the Law of Return, for example, applies to Jews only, and excludes Palestinians,

Simply untrue. Non Jews are eligible. Palestinians aren't specifically excluded.

including Palestinians born in what is now the state of Israel.

Why would a palestinian born in Israel need to use the law of return? They'd already be a citizen if they were born there.

In Israel itself, however, hundreds of communities have been established for Jewish residents on land expropriated from Palestinians, in which segregation is maintained, for example, by admissions committees empowered to use ethnic criteria long since banned in the United States,

Banned in Israel too, actually.

or by the inability of Palestinian citizens to access land held exclusively for the Jewish people by the state-sanctioned Jewish National Fund.

Also untrue. In fact, it's specifically illegal for the JNF to discriminate against non-Jews in this way.

[shaayecanaan]

12. ???

In Israel itself, however, hundreds of communities have been established for Jewish residents on land expropriated from Palestinians, in which segregation is maintained, for example, by admissions committees empowered to use ethnic criteria long since banned in the United States,

Banned in Israel too, actually.

False.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_settlement_(Israel)

The community settlements are all Jewish, and virtually all of them are on JNF land.

Why would a palestinian born in Israel need to use the law of return? They'd already be a citizen if they were born there.

Not necessarily. A child born of an Israeli Arab mother and a West Bank father (or vice versa) will not qualify for citizenship, even if born in Israel. The child may remain with the Israeli parent until the age of twelve, and thereafter will be liable to deportation.

or by the inability of Palestinian citizens to access land held exclusively for the Jewish people by the state-sanctioned Jewish National Fund.

Also untrue. In fact, it's specifically illegal for the JNF to discriminate against non-Jews in this way.

False.

In 2004, Adalah submitted a petition to the Supreme Court saying that the practice of the JNF allocating lands to Jews exclusively was illegal.

That case, remarkably, is still pending, notwithstanding the ten years that have since passed. Thus, there is no official word on whether the practice is illegal or not.

In response, the Attorney General of Israel instituted a policy that whenever an Arab managed to buy a parcel of land, the State would compensate the JNF with an equal-sized portion in the Negev. Technically, the ILA will now lease JNF land to Arabs, although in practice it generally requires the threat of court action.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

13. Kick.