In order to prove that Israel is an apartheid state Amjad Iraqi uses extremely wide common denominators. They are so wide not only Israel and apartheid SA are included in it, but every society on earth, and every human activity. He also uses lies about SA and about Israel. But what is more dire is what he brings as examples of apartheid policies in the history of Israel.
He brings four examples, Israel’s absentees property
law, from 1950. The annexation law of East Jerusalem in 1980. Banning family
unification for WB Palestinians in 2003. And the military administration of
civilian lives in the WB. (He also brings Israel’s nation state law, but that
example had already been discussed). What these examples have in common is the
lack of context. And that context is war, a violent conflict. This conflict is
not just context. It is the cause of each of these examples. Avoiding
mentioning that fact makes the deception possible. It helps create the false
impression that these are the causes of the conflicts, and not the byproducts. Disputing
them does more than rebuking the apartheid allegations. It demonstrates the
actual complexities this conflict is trapped in.
The military
administration of civilian lives is definitely a heavy burden on the civilians
been administrated. But, this is another wide common denominator. This is a
part of every occupation. Be it the genocidal imperialistic occupation of
Europe by Nazi Germany. Or the occupation of Nazi Germany by allied forces that
ended Nazi aggression.
There is no question that any military occupation
should be and must be scrutinized by the standards of law and morality. But the
critique itself must answer to moral and ethical guidelines. Those guidelines
suggest that no decent critique of the IDF can ignore the threat to Israeli
civilians on both sides of the green line. The historic and current record show
that armed Palestinian groups are a threat to the very lives of Israeli
civilians. As a result, both the IDF and its critics are on the same
razor-sharp dilemma. The dilemma of finding a balance between the right of
Israeli civilians to live, and the elementary human rights of Palestinian
civilians. A critic that ignores that is not a critic. It is political propaganda
of the worse kind.
An unavoidable follow up to this discussion are the
settlements and the settlers. Aren’t they apartheid? Well…look at the images
Amjad Iraqi choose to present. The first one (here on the right) shows a group of settlers walking
through a market in Hebron, secured by armed IDF soldiers. Where is the
apartheid here? Shopping? Walking? Are these activities constitute apartheid?
Receiving military escort for everyday activity is very disturbing. But if
those lives are under threat, they must be protected; regardless of your views
on the issue of the settlements. These images are supposed to be examples of
apartheid. They are supposed to be as clear as ‘whites only, blacks only’
signs. But the only thing these two images show, is the existence of tension
between the two populations.
 |
| Source: 972 magazine |
The second picture shows a confrontation between a settler and an Arab resident, near Hebron. The caption given to this describes the general situation, but not the two main participants in this scene. It is like a picture of a traffic accident with the caption, "Rush hour traffic." It is related, maybe, but it doesn't explain what happened and how the caption and the picture are related. Was this accident the result of rush hour traffic, or just happened to take place during the rush hour? The explanation may come in the body of the article. If it doesn't, all it creates is an impression. And accusations are not made based on impression. They are made based on information. Be it allegations over bad road safety maintenance, or apartheid.
The irony is that this picture does not deliver the expected impression. The settler in this picture is begging for something. The Arab man is steadfast in his position. Whatever the debate is; no matter who is right and who is wrong; apartheid does not look like this. The oppressor never begs the oppressed. And remember, there is an armed soldier next to the settler. Under apartheid, and under oppressive regimes, a scene like this cannot take place, not even once. This does not mean that everyday life for Palestinians in the WB is a garden of roses. Far from it. This does tell us a lot about Amjad Iraqi. From the complex situation that exists in the WB, there are probably other pictures that are better suited for Amjad Iraqi’s purpose. Other scenes that can be taken out of context in order to make this nefarious accusation. Yet, he chose the most useless ones. Why did he chose them? The answer will reveal itself. It is not stupidity.
There is no dispute that actions taken by Israeli governments had an impact on the lives of Palestinians. There is a conflict going on. And actions taken by either side had an impact on the population of the other side. Israel’s 1950 absentee’s property law contributed to the problem of Palestinian refugees. It prevented them from returning. But it did not cause it, and did not perpetuated it. The cause was a brutal civil war that devastated both societies, Jewish and Arab. The cause of that war was the Arab opposition to the two states solution, and to the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It was fueled by the mutual hostility both populations had towards each other. This law effectively ended that brutal war. The most likely outcome of allowing the return of these refugees would have been the resumption of hostilities. And the continued devastation of both societies. This is why other, similar conflicts, ended the same way. Therefore, those accusing this law of apartheid are knowingly or unknowingly making a moral case for the continuation of bloodshed. Apartheid is one of the most immoral systems of government in human history. If one thing is apartheid, then its opposite is highly moral. In this case the opposite to Israel’s absentee’s property law it is the resumption of bloodshed. One the worst this conflict has known. This is the razor-sharp dilemma “critics” keeps avoiding. And in this case, it is sharp enough to slice an eyelash from one end to the other.
This continuation of bloodshed would have denied
Israel the legitimate right of national self-determination. This fact raises a
question as to Amjad Iraqi views on the matter. Is he for or against the
principle of national self-determination? His harsh accusations against the
1950 law suggests he is against it when it favors Israel. He does call it
apartheid. He makes the same accusation against Israel’s nation state law. He
calls that apartheid by falsely claiming it denies self-determination for the
Palestinians. It seems that for Amjad Iraqi the principal of national
self-determination is not a universal one. To him, denying it from the
Palestinians is apartheid. But giving it to Jews is also apartheid.
This law gave Israel not only the ability to have
effective national self-determination, but also the ability to absorb hundreds
of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. These refugees fled countries
they were not a threat to, and societies they did not declare war on. But those
societies were hostile to them, violently so.
Israel’s absorbed them, and ended their refugee status. While the Arab
world, with the help of UNRWA, perpetuated the stateless conditions of the
Palestinian refugees. Instead of absorbing them, they treated them as a threat.
And they continue to do so today, with the exception of the Kingdom of Jordan.
It is the only Arab state that gave them citizenship.
Israel’s absentee’s property law was brutal, there is
no denying that. But it was the lease possible evil, from all the evils that
were available. And only evils were available. This evil gave both sides the
time and ability to recover. Israel took that chance, the Arab side scorned it.
If Amjad Iraqi thinks that the creation of the refugees’ problem makes this law
an apartheid law; then he must include in it the other, more dominate factors
that contributed to the refugee problem. The segregation and ghettoization
imposed by Arab governments on Palestinian refugees. And the war initiated by
the Palestinian leadership. But if both sides are responsible, and both sides
are responsible, this is not apartheid. It is an important part of a greater
conflict that has to be resolved. The refugees’ problem is one of several open
wounds that need to be closed. But it won’t be solved by destroying Israel. Each
side has its grievances and concerns. Ignoring the other side concerns is not
an act done in good faith.
It is important to be reminded that in traditional
Palestinian polemics the accusation is not apartheid. It is ethnic cleansing.
This accusation is challenged in a similar way. If it was ethnic cleansing,
where is the responsibility of the Arab side, and the Palestinian side? As
mentioned before, this conflict was their idea. And how come this is ethnic
cleansing if many Palestinian Arabs remained in Israeli controlled territory?
Today their descendants are a fifth of the Israeli population. If this is an
ethnic cleansing what would you call the fact the Arab world had been emptied
from its Jewish population? There are slightly
more than 3,000 Jews in the Arab World; mostly in Morocco and Tunisia. It is
just 3 eighths of a percent from the 800,000 that used to live there. It is one
of the best examples in history for the expression, a faint shadow of its
former self. And one of the saddest. The one-sided nature of both accusations
shows that the criterion is not the nature of the did. But the identity of the
accused. And that is more than just bad faith. It is the very nature of
bigotry.
No comments:
Post a Comment