"Contrary to the impression given by Benvenisti, the argument is not over whether one can literally take the South African example..."
Writing in Ha'aretz on Thursday 19 May, Meron Benvenisti suggested that the alleged widespread use of the term 'apartheid' is both inappropriate and unhelpful.
His piece initially attempts to maneuver itself into the much coveted category of balance and 'objectivity', before going on to list apparent concrete differences between the South African model of apartheid, and the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Strangely, however, the examples he picks are weak ones, and instead serve to strengthen the argument that apartheid is indeed an apposite term to use, or even of insufficient weight to fully describe what is happening in Palestine.
For the purpose of this brief article, Dr Uri Davis, someone who has done more than most to expose the partially hidden apartheid apparatus of the Israeli state, will supply a definition of 'apartheid'. In December 2003, Davis defined apartheid thus:
Apartheid is a political system where racism is regulated in law through Acts of Parliament...After the demise of apartheid in the Republic of South Africa, Israel remains, to my knowledge, the only member state of the UN that is an apartheid state, and it is correct to single out Israel on this basis.
This is not the place to rehash the research done by Davis and others that makes the claim of Israel to be the 'only democracy' in the Middle East ring so hollow. Unsurprisingly then, Benvenisti chooses not to tackle the principle characteristics of the Israeli state that make it intrinsically apartheid; that is, the institutional discrimination in favor of Jews, and the state's ownership of lands confiscated from Palestinians. This of course is because such matters go to the very core of Israel's identity as a Zionist state, a holy cow not even Benvenisti appears to want to approach.
The Occupation that began in 1967 was perhaps Israel's greatest strategic error, though not necessarily for the same reasons that Israeli 'doves' believe. In the years following 1948, the new Israeli state was able to veil the apartheid nature of its institutions and legislation, and enshrine in law the confiscation of the refugees' land. But in the aftermath of the Six Day War, and in the absence of another large-scale bout of ethnic cleansing, the Israeli state found itself in the position of having to exercise control over a large Palestinian population.
At the same time, key voices within the Zionist movement were advocating and implementing a program of land annexation and colonization in the newly conquered territory. The Occupation and its manifestations - separate road networks, Israeli colonies, checkpoints, permits, closures - and now, ghettoes behind the Wall - are the fullest, most brutal extension of Zionist logic. So rather than the Occupation marking a horrible new chapter in Israel's history, as some 'doves' claim, it is in fact a naked display of the aggression and racial logic inherent in the Israeli state from the beginning.
Curiously, Benvenisti actually himself recognized the apartheid comparisons in an article that appeared in the UK Guardian back in April 2004. In this piece, he makes open comparison to South Africa, and describes how "the fence creates three Bantustans on the West Bank", and what is more, "the Bantustan plan is now in swing".
Even within this week's Ha'aretz column itself, he refers to the "separation fence", "the amendment to the Citizenship Law limiting Palestinian family unification", the "establishment of cantons under Palestinian control", and yet still concludes that there is insufficient evidence of apartheid to warrant its usage when discussing Israel. Not only that, but Benvenisti goes on to warn would-be critics of Israel that in using a provocative word like 'apartheid', they are making it less likely that Israeli guilt will be "aroused". These words of advice bring to mind Martin Luther King's 'Letter from a Birmingham Jail', who, when responding to clergyman urging caution and less agitation, replied:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's greatest stumbling block in the stride towards freedom is...the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.
Contrary to the impression given by Benvenisti's convoluted inconsistencies, the argument is not over whether one can literally take the South African example, and like a template, apply it comprehensively to the situation in Palestine. Rather, apartheid is a term that emerged in the context of a state that had put racial separation and discrimination at its very heart, and can thus justifiably be applied to the only other such UN member-state remaining in the world today.
The term apartheid is so unpalatable precisely because it goes to the heart of the Zionist enterprise. It is ironic that through the perpetuation and consolidation of the occupation post-1967, whose manifestations in some instances exceed elements of South African apartheid, Israel is demonstrating for all to see its very essence as a polity.
Bibliography
'Apartheid Misses the Point', Meron Benvenisti, Ha'aretz, May 19 2005
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/577789.html
'APARTHEID ISRAEL: A Critical Reading of the Draft Permanent Agreement, known as the 'Geneva Accords' (Provisional Title)', Uri Davis
http://www.one-democratic-state.org/articles/davis'.html
'Bantustan Plan for an Apartheid Israel', The Guardian, Monday April 26, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1203156,00.html
Martin Luther King, 'Letter from a Birmingham Jail', 1963