John Kerry: Israel Risks Becoming An Apartheid State

[Viking]

The problem is simple; if Israel doesn't go for a two state solution, in the long term it will be compelled to give full citizenship rights and full enfranchisement to its palestinian minority or become an apartheid state. But of course, if it does, in a few generations we'll get Hamas (or whoever) ruling in Tel Aviv and hilarity will ensue.

Seems quite a slip by Kerry though. He should be aware of the kind of fallout this would entail, and you can make the same point in a more elegant manner. The worst of it is that it is a real issue that now can be buried under a layer of indignation.

How will it be compelled?

What's to stop the israelis from putting parts of the west bank (the blocs) under israeli civil administration (like they have done with jerusalem and the thinly populated golan). And then just keeping the palestinians as occupied enemy aliens? While doing so in perpetuity is obviously problematic they won't be doing that. They will be doing it temporarily until the palestinians are willing to negotiate.

Even if palestinians are in a majority, I don't see the Israelis being compelled to do anything. Especially if the Israelis think that making them citizens means the end of their state and the end of their safety and well being.

[Sheilbh]

Can somebody who actually agrees that it is at risk of becoming an apartheid state explain how it risks becoming an aparheid state? I'm a bit curious as to how Israel can't just let the status quo continue for a few more generations. I'm also confused as to why it somehow becomes incumbent on israel to give up it's state to a palestinian majority between the river and the sea should one manifest itself.

Jeffrey Goldberg's been banging this drum for years and I think he's right. For me this is possibly his best piece on it. Since then Sharon's gone, Hamas took Gaza, the Israeli left's been routed and the national-religious parties are in government and there's far more price tag settlers around:
http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_among_the.php

Seems quite a slip by Kerry though. He should be aware of the kind of fallout this would entail, and you can make the same point in a more elegant manner. The worst of it is that it is a real issue that now can be buried under a layer of indignation.

It's not a slip. It's not a word he'd use accidentally. Though I imagine he didn't think it would become public.

In reality, a better analogy for the Israeli situation is not "apartheid", so beloved of Euros and the left, but what is currently happening in Russia/Ukraine. Obviously not a perfect fit, but the motives in Israel are to acquire land, not to enslave a population; and unlike Russia's, they are very limited and small-scale - close off Jerusalem, take the best bits along the current border, etc. There is no serious move to take the entire WB, and of course Sharon quite deliberately abandoned all of Gaza.

I think your view would be totally right ten years ago but given the radicalisation of Israeli politics I don't think it's accurate any more.

As a recent example, it's party policy of the Jewish Home party to annex area C of the West Bank - which is 60% of the land. Yesterday their leader and Minister of the Economy called for it again. His party's proposal is to take the majority of the West Bank (which has important resources but few Palestinians) and offer the Palestinians there citizenship or 'transfer'. The areas which the PA already has control of would be given 'autonomy on steroids' but not a state. Obviously those Palestinians wouldn't have a vote in Israel despite not having a state of their own. The Likud Minister of Communications (third on the Likud election list) and Deputy Foreign Minister backed this plan and Bennett has said while it's not government policy there's support in the cabinet beyond his party.


Apparently several other Likudniks in the cabinet back the idea and, according to the Deputy Foreign Minister, under 5 Likud MKs are totally committed to the idea of a two-state solution. Though he isn't one of them. This view that most of the West Bank should be annexed and the Palestinians can have citizenship (perhaps with Lieberman's proposed 'loyalty oath'), transfer or 'autonomy on steroids' is very mainstream and dangerous for Israel.

Obviously there's still sensible politicians like Yair Lapid and most Israelis are considerably less keen on the settlements and annexation. But those don't seem to be the views that are winning seats in the Knesset or round the cabinet table. I find these trends really worrying. I think the old critique of the Israeli left that the settlement movement is a threat to either Israeli democracy or Israel as a Jewish state is absolutely right.

Israel will never be without the friendship of right-wing columnists, or Christian Zionists like Bachmann, or people like Ted Cruz. But I think the status quo which is expanding settlements and increasingly annexationist politics will lose her friends like John Kerry and, I think, increasingly diaspora Jews. This is why I think candour is useful.

Again I thought Goldberg was totally right on this tweeting this morning:

Re: Israel/Kerry/apartheid controversy, two points to follow. 1/3
Amazing the degree to which critics ignore the fact that Israel tried to negotiate an end to occupation in 2000 and 2008. 2/3
Also amazing that supporters of Israel who favor continued settlement don't see how this brings about the end of democracy. 3/3

Continued settlement is the status quo.

[grumbler]

How will it be compelled?

What's to stop the israelis from putting parts of the west bank (the blocs) under israeli civil administration (like they have done with jerusalem and the thinly populated golan). And then just keeping the palestinians as occupied enemy aliens? While doing so in perpetuity is obviously problematic they won't be doing that. They will be doing it temporarily until the palestinians are willing to negotiate.

Even if palestinians are in a majority, I don't see the Israelis being compelled to do anything. Especially if the Israelis think that making them citizens means the end of their state and the end of their safety and well being.

I think that you are correct, and that Israeli Jews will, as you note, make Israel into an apartheid state rather than risk having a majority-Muslim population.  I would just note your assumption that "Israelis' means "Israeli Jews" as more evidence that Israeli Arabs are not seen as true Israelis by many people, so that even if they are a majority, "Israelis" will still not be "compelled" to "make them citizens."

In the end, I think Israel will have to choose between being a democracy and being a Jewish state.  If they choose democracy, the risk of becoming an apartheid state is obviously a lot less.

[Viking]

Can somebody who actually agrees that it is at risk of becoming an apartheid state explain how it risks becoming an aparheid state? I'm a bit curious as to how Israel can't just let the status quo continue for a few more generations. I'm also confused as to why it somehow becomes incumbent on israel to give up it's state to a palestinian majority between the river and the sea should one manifest itself.

Jeffrey Goldberg's been banging this drum for years and I think he's right. For me this is possibly his best piece on it. Since then Sharon's gone, Hamas took Gaza, the Israeli left's been routed and the national-religious parties are in government and there's far more price tag settlers around:
http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_among_the.php

Yes, some Israelis are scumbags. Some Israelis want land and transfer. Every one of those scumbags wants the Arabs to leave. These scumbags want the Arabs to leave because they don't even consider having them as second class citizens as an option. I repeat.

How does Israel risk becoming an apartheid state? Can you walk me through a step by step process for how this will happen if Israel doesn't do X, Y or Z?

[grumbler]

How does Israel risk becoming an apartheid state? Can you walk me through a step by step process for how this will happen if Israel doesn't do X, Y or Z?

I think you mistake 'risks' and "plans."  A risk isn't a step-by-step process like a plan is.

[Viking]

How will it be compelled?

What's to stop the israelis from putting parts of the west bank (the blocs) under israeli civil administration (like they have done with jerusalem and the thinly populated golan). And then just keeping the palestinians as occupied enemy aliens? While doing so in perpetuity is obviously problematic they won't be doing that. They will be doing it temporarily until the palestinians are willing to negotiate.

Even if palestinians are in a majority, I don't see the Israelis being compelled to do anything. Especially if the Israelis think that making them citizens means the end of their state and the end of their safety and well being.

I think that you are correct, and that Israeli Jews will, as you note, make Israel into an apartheid state rather than risk having a majority-Muslim population.  I would just note your assumption that "Israelis' means "Israeli Jews" as more evidence that Israeli Arabs are not seen as true Israelis by many people, so that even if they are a majority, "Israelis" will still not be "compelled" to "make them citizens."

In the end, I think Israel will have to choose between being a democracy and being a Jewish state.  If they choose democracy, the risk of becoming an apartheid state is obviously a lot less.

Can you explain that mechanic? How will Israeli Jews be forced to choose between democratic or having Israel being Jewish?

[Viking]

How does Israel risk becoming an apartheid state? Can you walk me through a step by step process for how this will happen if Israel doesn't do X, Y or Z?

I think you mistake 'risks' and "plans."  A risk isn't a step-by-step process like a plan is.

Oh grumbler, master of the semantic red herring, I appeal to you to actually answer my question as you obviously think you know what I meant when I asked it.


Edit: I could of course go into a long discussion on the relationship of risks to hazards and consequences and how plans are used to mitigate hazards and prevent risks. There were no plans concocted by ice bergs or oil wells to sink the Titanic or the Deepwater Horizon. There were however in both cases step by step sequences turning risks into hazards and hazards into consequences.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sheilbh the stuff you are talking about is concerning but it is not apartheid.  Words have meaning, especially a historically emotive word like apartheid.  Apartheid was a comprehensive system for social control and systematic racial discrimination and segregation.  It involved things like restricting occupations and educational possibilities based on race.  It involved separate public accomodations and transport based on race.  Israel isn't doing that and isn't contemplating doing that.

The Bennett annexation plan is totally nutty but it does contemplate grant of citizenship rights to the Palestinians in area C.  That is the opposite of apartheid.  Areas A and B would be geographically dispersed as per the map but politically unified (assuming continued Fatah integrity) and thus aren't comparable to the divide and rule policy of the apartheid "homelands."  It is true that the autonomous areas would be effectively neutered as a security matter, and indeed that is almost certainly the intent.  But again not the same as apartheid South Africa.

[Viking]

Richard Goldstone on Israel and the Apartheid Slander

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html?_r=0

Israel and the Apartheid Slander
By RICHARD J. GOLDSTONE
THE Palestinian Authority's request for full United Nations membership has put hope for any two-state solution under increasing pressure. The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.

One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues "apartheid" policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a "hearing" on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a "tribunal." The "evidence" is going to be one-sided and the members of the "jury" are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.

While "apartheid" can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.

I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa's abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use "white" toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a "pass." Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no "black" ambulance to rush them to a "black" hospital. "White" hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.

In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.

In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: "Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel's population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.

To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.

The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain "an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group." This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa's enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.

But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel's citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of "apartheid" is invoked.

Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an "apartheid wall" and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.

Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.

Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.

The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.

Richard J. Goldstone, a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9.

[Sheilbh]

Again I agree with Goldberg when he describes the West Bank as a de facto apartheid system - though less sophisticated, deliberate or malevolent as South Africa's. The situation is totally different in Israel, but in the West Bank Jews are subject to one set of political and legal rights while Palestinians are subject to another that is significantly less democratic. There are two legal systems the application of which is based on ethnicity. I can't think of another word that describes that, even 'segregation' doesn't work because the two aren't designed to be equal. It isn't anywhere near as bad as South Africa and it doesn't serve the same purpose. More importantly it is temporary and accidental. The more settlements are built, the more it looks permanent and deliberate and the more difficult it will be for Israel to extricate herself.

In addition you're right areas A and B wouldn't be for the same purposes as the homelands. But they would be areas with 'autonomy on steroids'. Politically unified but with no right to self-determination. Maybe 'apartheid' isn't the best word for that, but I can't think of a word that isn't historically emotive to describe that situation. Maybe we'd need a new one.

I don't think 'apartheid' helps discussion about Israel and Palestine in general. As you say it's historically emotive and I think it's the sort of word that closes rather than opens a debate, which is why it's a shame that Kerry's remarks have been made public. But I also think that, at a time when most of Israel's government has stopped supporting a two-state solution, this needs saying 'a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state. Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution'.

Also I think a lot of the Israeli right basically thinks they're are already effectively an international pariah and that they shouldn't give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks (except for America and, especially, the American right). One useful aspect of 'apartheid' is that it should remind everyone that Israel really isn't a pariah, but would become one. But also that Jewish groups in the US, the UK, South Africa and elsewhere have a very long history of campaigning and caring deeply for civil and democratic rights. I don't think any sense of affection for Israel would override that. I think if Israel gave up on full democracy - self-governing enclaves with no right to self-determination and population transfers etc - then I think most Israeli supporters would struggle to support her and see the state as a tragic, failed hope.

[Viking]

Again I agree with Goldberg when he describes the West Bank as a de facto apartheid system - though less sophisticated, deliberate or malevolent as South Africa's. The situation is totally different in Israel, but in the West Bank Jews are subject to one set of political and legal rights while Palestinians are subject to another that is significantly less democratic. There are two legal systems the application of which is based on ethnicity. I can't think of another word that describes that, even 'segregation' doesn't work because the two aren't designed to be equal. It isn't anywhere near as bad as South Africa and it doesn't serve the same purpose. More importantly it is temporary and accidental. The more settlements are built, the more it looks permanent and deliberate and the more difficult it will be for Israel to extricate herself.

The West Bank is under military occupation. The Palestinians are not second class citizens they are enemy aliens. I'm baffled as to how you think enemy aliens under military occupation should somehow get the vote? have freedom of travel? freedom of assembly? etc.etc.?

[Sheilbh]

The West Bank is under military occupation. The Palestinians are not second class citizens they are enemy aliens. I'm baffled as to how you think enemy aliens under military occupation should somehow get the vote? have freedom of travel? freedom of assembly? etc.etc.?

I don't. You're absolutely right and it's fine because it's temporary and accidental.

But the expansion of settlements is making Israeli occupation more permanent and more difficult to end - that's a deliberate policy of especially this Israeli government. It's more of a problem because a significant number, if not a majority, of the current Israeli government don't believe in a two-state solution.

[Zanza]

Not really related to the apartheid thing:
Can anybody explain why Israel is even building those settlements in the West Bank? They seem a huge security hazard, are a diplomatic nightmare and I can't imagine that gaining a bit more land can be relevant for a state like Israel. In short, I never got their rationale for these settlements. I can see why they want that buffer zone around Jerusalem, but why those strange "islands" like Ariel or the other light blueish areas deeper in the West Bank.

[Viking]

The West Bank is under military occupation. The Palestinians are not second class citizens they are enemy aliens. I'm baffled as to how you think enemy aliens under military occupation should somehow get the vote? have freedom of travel? freedom of assembly? etc.etc.?

I don't. You're absolutely right and it's fine because it's temporary and accidental.

But the expansion of settlements is making Israeli occupation more permanent and more difficult to end - that's a deliberate policy of especially this Israeli government. It's more of a problem because a significant number, if not a majority, of the current Israeli government don't believe in a two-state solution.

How does it risk becoming an apartheid state though? I'm still waiting for an explanation there.

In my understanding expansion of settlements makes agreeing on final border more difficult. How does that make it more difficult to end? Both Barak and Olmert have made final status proposals ending the occupation. In any case that is a problem for the Israeli government.

Also, I am very very very annoyed that, rather than answer the question posed, you have brought up unsubstantiated red herrings like your suggestions above about he secret thoughts of the current Israeli government.

The trope that Israel will have to choose if it is going to be a jewish or democratic state has been repeated so often that is being accepted as a given. I want somebody who agrees with that trope to explain to me how this might happen.

The thing is, so what if Palestinians have a majority of people between the river and the sea. So what if they demand it? Mexicans form a large majority of the population within Mexico's pre 1848 border, and that fact is completely irrelevant. I can see how the threat of a non-zionist majoriy in israel itself might force that choice, but I don't see how the number of palestinians in the west bank and gaza affect that in any way what so ever.

Somebody needs to answer and Shelf, you need to stop obfuscating and give me an answer.

[Barrister]

Not really related to the apartheid thing:
Can anybody explain why Israel is even building those settlements in the West Bank? They seem a huge security hazard, are a diplomatic nightmare and I can't imagine that gaining a bit more land can be relevant for a state like Israel. In short, I never got their rationale for these settlements. I can see why they want that buffer zone around Jerusalem, but why those strange "islands" like Ariel or the other light blueish areas deeper in the West Bank.

Well "Israel" is not a monolithic entity of course, and the settlements are not supported by all Israelis.

But for the Settlers, they feel that the Jews have been given this land by God.  They are the Chosen People.  They create the settlements in order to create facts on the ground that will eventually lead to the land being fully incorporated into Israel.  It has nothing to do with buffer zones, economic benefits, or any practical concern.