Advocates of boycotts of Israel and Israelis, such as the British boycott Eugene blogs below, often draw an analogy between Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and South African apartheid. And just as South Africa was boycotted, they argue, so should Israel be boycotted.
For reasons that should be obvious to any objective observer, I find the South Africa analogy to be both absurd and obscene. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that Israel's occupation of the lands it captured in 1967 is indeed morally analogous to South African apartheid.
The relevant analogy would then have to be as follows. South Africa has publicly declared its willingness, indeed eagerness, to end apartheid, and in fact allowed the African National Congress to return from exile and administer most of South Africa, subject to government security conditions. The ANC and the South African government then launched into final status negotiations, at which time the South African government once again expressed its willingness to end apartheid, and offered a deal which most objective observers thought met 95% or so of the ANC's stated demands, and went much further than most observers thought that the South African government would ever be willing to go.
The ANC responded not by demanding the other 5%, not by launching a worldwide public relations campaign seeking to press the South African government to accede to its final demands, but by launching a terrorist war against the white civilian population of South Africa, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths.
A few years later, the South African government unilaterally ended apartheid in about half of the disputed territory, turning sovereignty over to the ANC, and expressed its hope that the ANC would govern responsibly and that its withdrawal from this territory would ultimately form the basis for a new chapter in their relationship.
Instead, the black population of South Africa voted in a new government composed of black supremacists, who expressed openly and vigorously their hatred and contempt of white people, and swore that they would never negotiate any accommodation with the South African government, short of turning all of South Africa into a black supremacist state, with whites being forced to return to their "homelands". The new black government used its new territorial sovereignty to establish terrorist bases, smuggle weapons, and establish new military and political ties to other organizations that had genocidal views toward South African whites. White South African towns faced a constant missile barrage from this territory.
Even knowing the hatred leveled at South Africa during apartheid years, I find it hard to believe that under these circumstances anyone with a modicum of respectability would have been calling for boycotts of the South African government.
The long and the short of it is that calls to boycott Israel are not about "the occupation," but about calling into question the legitimacy of Israel per se. The boycotters are not anti-occupation, they are pro-Hamas. As such, they are morally culpable in Hamas's genocidal anti-Semitism, totalitarian Islamism, and so forth. Those who voted for the boycott should reveal their names publicly, so that people of good moral conscience can decide whether THEY should be boycotted.
Related Posts (on one page):
- British Lecturers' Union Boycott Discussions:
- Israel and the South African Analogy:
- Britain's Lecturers' Union Votes for a Boycott of Chinese Universities and Academics,
Translation: I have no argument.
Problem one: There was never an offer like this. Even the camp david 2000 offer included only 70-something percent of the west bank. If you want to argue that 20-something percent remaining under Israeli control was really about security you're welcome to do so.
I for think the apartheid analogy is apt. The fact is that if you’re a Palestinian living in the West Bank your life is cheap. There's a whole generation that's grown up under occupation, and unless something is done soon the violence is going it get worse. If Israel wanted to annex the west bank and gaza, and grant all of those Palestinians full-Israeli citizenship then let them. But of course the won't for demographic reasons. There's the rub they can't take the land, they can't keep the status quo, and they can't leave.
Let me propose a hypo to Prof. Bernstein. If the US had gone to war with the USSR in the 60's and lost. And then the Soviets occupied America and began relocating Russians to the pleasant valleys of Virginia. Would an American freedom fighter be justified in suicide bombing, a Russian military convoy? How about attacking Russian civilians now living in America, and supporting the occupation?
You also contradict yourself directly - you attack the comparisons, and then explain you think boycotting South Africa was equally absurd. Which makes them the same, and the analogy would hold.
I think you are letting your emotions cloud your reasoning somewhat. How do we know that all who call for a boycott of Israel are "pro-Hamas" and are attempting to challenge the legitimacy of Israel per se? We don't, of course, without knowing the identities of all who support the boycott, and their reasons for supporting it. Some might want a change in Israel's policies, but still believe themselves to be supporters of Israel. Others may want to see the state's destruction (as you posit). In short, you see this as only black and white when there are likely many other shades, among boycott supporters (I am not one, by the way, as I do not favor a boycott of any sort with respect to Israel).
I think the tendency to vilify one's political opponents is the biggest problem to achieving a peaceful solution in the Middle East and, in the USA, is a big obstacle to forging a consensus on a range of important issues.
As for Camp David, I don't want to get into the whole map dispute, but Israel ultimately offered 100% of the amount of land that constitutes the West Bank and Gaza. Regardless, the point is not whether what Israel offered was precisely what the Pals wanted, but how the Pals pressed their demands, by launching a wave of terrorism, when they could have almost certainly gotten what they had previously claimed to demand through p.r. and negotiation. But that assumes that their stated goals were their real goals, which turned out not to be true, just as if the ANC's stated goal of having a multiparty democracy that respected human rights turned out to be pure p.r.
And if you opposed the Iraq war, you were objectively pro-Saddam. Instead of boycotting Israel or South Africa, how about if we boycott arguments of this sort?
In your hypothetical, would South Africa have abandoned its unique status as a specifically white African state? Would it have maintained a system which encouraged housing segregation by race? Would it have allowed all of the blacks in the areas which it militarily controlled to vote? Or, would this have been the other 5% that the hypothetical SA government didn't agree to?
I think the question comes down to whether one sees the Israeli response to Palistian demands as reasonable/generous or not. If one believes the Israelis are being reasonable and fair, as you do, then continues anti-Israel sentiment is unjustified. On the other hand, if one sees the idea of an ethnic state as inherently unjust, the matter comes out differently.
You had a long thread on this last year, arguing that an ethnic basis of states was common and well accepted internationally. I read it with interest, but thought that you came out on the short side of the argument. I'd agree that this was so prior to WW II, but of course prior to WW II racism, or racial separation, generally was accepted as a reasonable viewpoint in many nations, including the US. I'd agree that if the idea of preserving Israel as a Jewish state is taken as given, then Israel's actions are reasonable. The point of the South Africa analogy, I think, is to attack the underlying premise - the legitimacy of maintaining a ethnic Jewish state
Where to begin?
1) Why is "the occupation" in scare quotes? Are you denying that Israel occupies the Palestinian territories?
2) What support do you have for the argument that the boycotters "are not anti-occupation, they are pro-Hamas"? The text of the boycott and the public statements all explicitly say otherwise.
3) How does opposition to Israeli occupation translate into moral culpability for the actions of a Palestinian political party?
I note that you removed the phrase "morally bankrupt" in an edit. It's a start, but that whole paragraph is nothing but an angry screed.
When exactly did Israel engage in post-war forced relocation of Palestinians? And what of the thousands of non-Israeli Jews expelled from all Arab lands simply because of their ethnic/religious, not national identity?
Be that as it may, there are many reasons your analogy to America/Russia is false: you compare Palestinians to a vanquished formerly free nation, when in fact a nation of Palestine never existed. You compare actions designed to break a victors hold over land with the openly stated goals of Hamas which is the destruction of the entire State of Israel. To use your analogy, if Russia agreed to sit at a bargaining table to speak of terms with Americans, would those same suicide attacks be justifiable under any circumstances, so long as negotiations are taking place? And if suicide attacks by freedom fighters are 'justified', would the other side not be equally justified in taking all measures within its means to protect its innocent citizens from harm?
The boycott issue is simple - if the British choose to boycott all nations that engage in discrimination and threw Israel in the mix, their argument might have some leg to stand on. But to single out Israel in light of the many abuses worldwide that occur in other countries smacks of anti-semitism. Seems strange that some commentators can argue that innocent citizens can be legitimate targets for 'freedom fighters' because they enable government policy through their support, but on the other hand a boycott of Israel by other parties should not be seen as a vote of support for its enemies?
As for voting, I've never heard of an occupying power that permits its "subjects" to vote in its elections, but the Palestinian in the territories now vote for the Palestinian government, and they've chosen to turn it over to Hamas.
As for the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, for the most part, they do not seem to want to be assimilated in the greater Israeli public, but want collective rights. It's awfully hard to argue for a system that gives the Arabs of Israel exactly equal rights when their leaders have no interest in their assuming exactly equal obligations (like military service). It's not to my taste, but both the Jews and Arabs of Israel seem to agree that the status of Israeli Arabs should be one of a national minority, with the focus of the debate what rights, privileges, and obligations that national minority should have.
"The occupation" is what the boycotters misleadingly claim to be focused on, when what they want is a Hamas victory.
You wrote:
"the West Bank was claimed by (and previously occupied by) Jordan"
That is incorrect as a matter of history. Jordan did occupy the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, but it was very careful to disclaim any sovereign status over the territory or its inhabitants. In fact, the Israeli position during most of the 1948 - 1967 period was that there *was* a Palistinian state - Jordan. Jordan very specifically disclaimed any such thing and refused to grant Jordanian passports to most Palistinians.
In short, you presented the Israeli diplomatic position as if it were the Jordanian diplomatic position.
Wouldn't you agree at least the Israel itself shares some of the blame for the alienation of Israeli-Arabs.
Prof. Berstein, I mean this with the utmost respect but I believe Christopher Cooke is exactly right. To assert that those who think the western world must take more direct actions to end the occupation want a Hamas victory is a statement that comes from the heart not the head. There are those of us who recognize the threat to Israel and who sincerely believe that the occupation is in fact harming Israel.
I agree absolutely that the South African analogy has little validity with respect to objections limited to to Israel's occupation of territory outside of its 1967 boundaries. This really doesn't turn on reasonableness, though - it turns on the fact that nobody questioned the *boundaries* of South Africa, but rather its internal administration.
Note also that while Israel does not treat non-Jews residing in the occupied territories (ie outside its pre-1967 lines) as citizens, it does treat Jews in those territories as citizens.
If Israel is to survive as a Jewish state, its present policies with regard to the occupied territories are at least reasonable, if not compelled. Certainly, the level of brutality involved is quite low, given the objectives of the policies. I know that in your view, this is enough, because you postulate the right of Israel to survive as a Jewish state. Would you say this is generally true for all ethnic groups regardless of the level of brutality required to erect an ethnic state, or is Israel a special case?
My feed reader shows it as having been updated a couple of times, but I apologize. I must have misread.
So your argument is that the boycott writers are liars who want something other than what they've demanded in written statements? It's like a straw man, ad hominem, and well-poisoning all rolled up together.
Did Hadrian's wall become a canal when I wasn't paying attention?
Blacks in South Africa wanted equality.
The Palestinians want the death of all Jews (or so they proclaim loudly and regularly).
If you can't see that those situations are not remotely analogous, well, I don't see how I (or anyone else with a functioning brain) can have a meaningful conversation with you.
Since they didn't do so immediately after the establishment of Israel, it sometimes gets remembered that they never did so.
I appreciate the answer, but I was focusing more on the Israeli perspective, rather than the Arab one. In other words, it's fine for Israel to argue "those darn Arabs won't even agree to compulsory national service," but does Israel really WANT them to agree, given that what you'd end up with is a military containing many members of dubious loyalty? It seems like Israel would actually be quite content with the status quo where Arabs choose to opt out of national service.
I believe that Hamas' rise to power and popularity among the Palestinians was largely a result of corruption in Fatah, the miserable conditions in which many Palestinians live, and a frustration with the lack of change in their situation, and not so much because of widespread Palestinian desires to kill or wipe out their Israel Jewish neighbors.
My own view on the British Lecturers' call for a boycott is that it reflects the double-standard typical in the US and Western Europe among the left, which often applies human rights rules to condemn Israel more harshly than the left does to authoritarian/totalitarian countries, such as China and Iran. I would try to persuade these people by pointing out (a) the double standard they use (Eugene's post below), and (b) your points about Palestinian violence, than by attacking them as pro-Hamas or anti-semitic.
I encourage the boycott of Israel and Palestinian interests except I can't think of any significant Palestinian interests worth boycotting.
It is a sham argument that Israel's killing is justified because it is "targeted" whereas Palestinians target innocent civilians. By my count, Israel's "targeted killings" kills more innocent bystanders than the Palestinian's do with their homemade rockets.
A pox on both their houses.
But, the reason the left sees the situations as analogous is that both situations involve a "minority-ruling-a majority" and Israel uses religion and ethnicity in describing its national identity, and in how it assigns some privileges of citizenship, while apartheid-era South Africa used ethnicity and race.
David, you state:
Don't you think Israel would be better off today, if it had followed this alternative? I see these territories and the continuing Palestinian problem as dragging down Israel.
MKs and IDF officers I have spoken to, as well as Arab leaders, all agree that Arab Israelis could not serve in the military because the Palestinians are, quite literally, their cousins.
For my part I would like to see Israeli Arabs take part in some sort of German-style civil service, where they would also dedicate a year to their country, like their Jewish (and Druze, and Christian) fellow citizens, and maybe get to experience the rest of the reality of Israel, come to see Jews as something else than oppressors and themselves as more than victims.
But given the current political situation, that is science fiction.
Why must the acceptance of obligations come before the granting of rights? If isreali arab's don't have a reasonable expectation being given full rights, why would they undertake the burdens? Here's an idea: make granting full citizenship rights contingent on completing military or civilian service and guarantee that the rights will be granted. To my knowledge this has not been attempted.
Meanwhile, Arab civil rights groups consistently file lawsuits claiming that they should be entitled to the same benefits as veterans because they are not drafted. I can't think of any argument less likely to win sympathy from the Jewish population (and justifiably so): you don't want to volunteer for the responsibilities, but you want the rights.
BTW, the Druze and Bedouin, who do serve in the military, are considered more "Israeli" and are looked on far more favorably than the "Palestinian" population.
Which is why I keep offering the idea of the German-style civil service, but apparently I'm the only one who thinks it's worth anything.
Regardless, my arguments are either logical or illogical, my facts are either right or wrong, grains of salt are irrelevant. A correct fact that's pro-Israel wouldn't become incorrect if I were Meir Kahane, and an incorrect fact that's pro-Israel wouldn't become correct if I were Yassir Arafat.
In essence: their misery was the result of bad strategy. What they lacked was self-determination--something they deserve for sure.
The second group, those in the foreign encampments constitute the classical Palestinian problem. They've been packed in like sardines and treated as no more than refugees by the countries in which they live. But this is a condition created by the willful refusal of the Arab governments to grant these people the citizenship they want and deserve.
Prior to the six-day war, all Palestinians were in group II, because the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordon and Egypt respectively.
Indeed, the Arab solution to this problem was that Israel should be disposed of and the Palestinians would then occupy what had been Israel. Problem solved.
Indeed, when Osama Bin Laden first issued his manifestos in the mid-1990s, he didn't even mention Israel. All he cared about was the Saudi peninsula and the sanctions on Iraq. It wasn't until years later that he added the Palestinians to his list of grievances.
Gerhard, does this mean that any time you argue in favor of a position you prefer, that your argument is wrong because of your preferences, regardless of the merit of the argument? Or does that only apply to Prof. Bernstein?
100 or so years ago, the Russian secret police made their great and enduring contribution to antisemitism, that the infamous forgery entitled The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. 30+ years ago, their Russian successors formulated, sold, and disseminated through the helpful intermediacy of the United Nations General Assembly the infamous canard "Zionism is racism." Those attacks, first on Jews as such, then on the Jewish aspiration of nationhood and its fulfillment in the state of Israel, have been complemented by the memes of Jews as Nazis and Israel as the Fourth Reich and/or the equivalent of apartheid South Africa. (Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Peace Prize winner like Yasser Arafat, liked Israel as South Africa so much that he wrote a book with that as its subtext.)
DB has done a good and useful job of deconstructing the "South Africa analogy." He neglected to say anything about the source(s) of that analogy, though. The "South Africa analogy" is as (un)worthy as the other transparently antisemitic canards which proceeded it. Those who urge the comparison of Israel to South Africa are either benighted or evil, or both. (To be generous, I will allow that Carter may just be benighted. I am not firmly wedded to the explanation for him, however.)
Misrepresenting the position of one's opponents and calling them liars is arguing in bad faith and I'm disappointed in Prof. Bernstein for shamelessly doing so. Partisanship is one thing, intellectual dishonesty is quite another.
Rejecting apartheid and calling for boycotts to pressure the South African government to stop treating its black citizens as second class is not the same thing as supporting the ANC. Similarly, calling for a boycott of Israel to pressure them to end the occupation is not the same as supporting Hamas.
People are not their leaders; Iraqis were not Saddam Hussein, North Koreans are not Kim Jong Il, and Americans are not George W. Bush. The individual people in the occupied territories deserve freedom regardless of who holds power over them and arguments like Prof. Bernstein's are merely an attempt to misdirect the issue.
P.S. to Prof. Bernstein: the "morally bankrupt" line is in one of your early comments to the post, not in the post body itself. My apologies for the confusion
If Wikipedia is any guide, it woudl appear that the spark behind Israel's ties with South Africa was this:
It would appear that the Commies were a shared concern: