user preferences

New Events

Mashriq / Arabia / Iraq

no event posted in the last week
Search author name words: Ilan Shalif

Admitting to Apartheid in Israel

category mashriq / arabia / iraq | imperialism / war | feature author Tuesday January 16, 2007 17:27author by Ilan Shalif Report this post to the editors

On the importance of Shulamit Aloni's article "Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel"

At one point, the Israeli anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist organization Matspen called for an international boycott of products from the new settlments, but it took years - and the help of radical Zionists - before the call started to have any effect. After the project to boycott products of the settlers gained momentum, Europe (which granted tax benefits to Israel) responded to the call by disallowing tax deductions on the settlers' produce, as the settled areas were no longer regarded as part of Israel, a fact which forced some of them to relocate to the old Israeli areas... If the call to boycott Israel and to treat it like the Apartheid regime of South Africa succeeds in gathering support, it may contribute to finally ending the occupation of Palestinan land resulting from a war that took place all of 40 years ago this year.

In this article Israeli anarchist Ilan Shalif, a long-time member of Matzpen now working with the Anarchists Against the Wall initiative, examines the relevance of a recent article by Shulamit Aloni, "Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel", which itself is a response to Jimmy Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".

Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel, by Shulamit Aloni

"Freedom Rides" Against Apartheid Travel Ban, call for action

[ العربية ]

Translation of road sign: Welcome to the Az-Za’ayyem/Adumim crossing-point. The crossing-point is intended for use by Israelis only. It is prohibited for a non-Israeli person to cross or to be transported across this crossing-point!!
"Israeli" - a resident of Israel, whose place of residence is in the region and is an Israeli citizen, or a person who is entitled to immigrate to Israel pursuant to the 1950 Law of Return as it is applied in Israel, or a person who is not a resident of the region but holds a valid entry permit to Israel.


Admitting to Apartheid in Israel

by Ilan Shalif


Jewish Israel is a settler colonialist project, but it is not a monolithic community. Throughout the years there has been a wide spectrum of opinions expressed within it, from the most right-wing fascists to the practical capitalists, humanitarians, and marxists. Since its beginnings, there have always been capitalists seeking to exploit the indigeneous Palestinians, in sharp contrast with the national socialist Zionists until they eventually yielded to "Hebrew (Jewish) work".

When Israel was built on the ruins of half of Palestine in 1948, those Palestinians who were not transferred due to political considerations were subjected to a military regime of apartheid - restricted to the area they lived in, needing permission to travel to other parts of Israel. Of course, as most of their lands had been confiscated and with industrialization being closed to them as an option, they were forced to become wage slaves outside their villages. But as they were formally citizens with a vote, the ruling elite of the national socialist party used this situation to gain their votes, essentially offering travel permits in exchange for votes. This was the reason behind the paradox of the coalition of the fascist right and the national marxists-Zionists in 1966 which abolished the military rule that had been imposed on Israeli Palestinians.

After the 1967 war, in the occupied territories Palestinians and others were held under military rule. The south of Syria was cleansed of most of inhabitants. The Sinai Peninsula was mainly a source of oil. Other densely-populated Palestinian areas were treated as a source of cheap wage slaves and locations for expansion, seen in the new suburbs for Jerusalem and the many settlements in other areas.

At one point, the Israeli anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist organization Matspen called for an international boycott of products from the new settlments, but it took years - and the help of radical Zionists - before the call started to have any effect. After the project to boycott products of the settlers gained momentum, Europe (which granted tax benefits to Israel) responded to the call by disallowing tax deductions on the settlers' produce, as the settled areas were no longer regarded as part of Israel, a fact which forced some of them to relocate to the old Israeli areas.

Because of the Holocaust and Israel constantly harping on about it in order to justify its settler colonialist project and atrocities against the Palestinians, any call from within the Israeli Jewish community can act as an important catalyst. This is why the Israeli State directed huge efforts into fighting 30 Matspen activists in the late 1960s and the 1970s, as well as our contacts abroad.

So it is entirely possible that we see this catalyst effect once again following the call by Shulamit Aloni in her article "Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel" against the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

Atheist and Israeli nationalist Aloni was born in 1928, and was a member of the Socialist-Zionist youth movement, Hashomer Hatzair. Following her participation in the fighting to establish the State of Israel in 1948, she became part of the young leadership of the ruling Mapai party (the predecessor of today's Labor) until 1973. Having then set up the Ratz party, she later drifted further to the left and in 1991 founded the (Zionist) far left party, Meretz, holding two ministerial positions in the Rabin government in the mid-90s.

She was also the first Zionist to justify in public the Palestinians' resistance to the occupation, during an open assembly of Matzpen and its sympathizers. No wonder the party she built pushed her out of power. However, she is still a prominent public figure whose access to the media is anything but limited.

Shulamit Aloni, together with many other humanitarians and Zionists of the left, has moved a long way from her original total support for the main Zionist ideology and the project of "a country without nation for a nation without country". In a way, her labelling the policy of Israel as "Apartheid" is a kind of call to arms for all the world's humanitarians and leftists. And in her call, she provides the antidote to the usual attitude of Israelis and Zionists of accusing any form of criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism and highly invested in by the propaganda of the Israeli establishment, the US Jewish establishment, and their like.

Her article, seemingly written in response to the ex-US president Jimmy Carter's latest book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid", also points out some of the evidence that the Israeli State is an Apartheid State, at times even appearing as if she is on the verge of labelling certain regulations as being clearly the Nazi way of doing things:

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order - this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"
Shulamit Aloni's position is very near to that of the Israeli Communist Party, but it too is still Zionist. Neither question the justification of building Israel - as if it could be built without harming the Palestinians. Both are of the opinion that the establishment of Israel was justified. Both, like the long-dead Mapam party (United Workers Party, an ancestor of today's Meretz), claim that Israel is not a reactionary settler colonialist project, from whatever angle you care to look. All three still claim that it is not impossible for Israel to become a benevolent project, and not just a racist tool in the service of the imperialist powers and the "Judeo-Nazis" (to use the expression coined by the late orator Yeshayahu Leibowitz).

Anyway, if the call to boycott Israel and to treat it like the Apartheid regime of South Africa succeeds in gathering support, it may contribute to finally ending the occupation of Palestinan land resulting from a war that took place all of 40 years ago this year.


Ilan Shalif


Shalif is a member of the Anarchists Against the Wall initiative and the Israeli anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian organization Matzpen.

www.matzpen.org

www.awalls.org

Related Link: http://www.shalif.com/anarchy
author by Michael Schmidt - Zabalaza Education Fund, Johannesburgpublication date Wed Jan 17, 2007 17:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

While there are clear parallels between apartheid South Africa and the currently balkanised territory of Israel/Palestine, especially in terms of the Palestinian territories being used as militarily-controlled cheap labour pools by Israel in the way white South Africa used the "bantustans", the analysis falls down at some point. I put this to Leila Khaled when I met her last year: that while the "apartheid Israel" slogan has much resonance in terms of drumming up solidarity with the Palestinian cause in South Africa, the authorities in both Israel and Palestine have decided to entrench balkanisation by embarking on a "two-state solution" whereas in South Africa, the balkanised territories were unified with the former white territories. Of course statist options in themselves create fundamental problems for the working class of both territories, but my point is simply that one can't decry "apartheid Israel" - and yet still insist on an apartheid-style "separate development" pseudo-solution. Khaled, a real party hack with no inovative thought of her own to offer, really hated me pointing this out!

Related Link: http://www.zabalaza.net/
author by José Antonio Gutiérrez Dpublication date Wed Jan 17, 2007 18:48author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Michael, history at all times and places is unique -you really can't expect two situations to be absolutely identical. Franco, Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet were all different regimes -and yet they are all labelled under "fascism". Though there are obvious differences between South Africa and Israel, the term "Appartheid" still it is a useful and accurate category.

Both systems discriminate and ban certain rights to specific segments of the population in the face of their ethnic origin. Both systems have segregated spaces for their population and one of these groups is seen as you said as a militarily controlled pool of cheap labour. Sounds pretty appartheid for me.

A model only describes certain fundamental features, categories lump together certain situations that share similarities but that are all unique. It does not mean that all the situations are identical.

The term appartheid actually describes the system in place -what solution you want to give to the problem that is a complete different matter. Or would you believe that, had Mandela said he wanted a separate black state, therefore, there was no Appartheid in South Africa in the 80s? That type of analysis is quite weak Michael.

The "two state" solution does not affect the true nature of the appartheid system in Israel. Israel is an appartheid state and it has to be denounced as such, not only for the sake of propagandistic impact, but because it is a true human drama.

About Khaled, she has been around for a number of years and has done her bit for the cause of her people -she deserves from my point of view all respect (whether you agree with her politics or not). I don't think there is no good in insulting or dismissing people that have been on the struggle -that's the cheap resort of the right wing papers and I hate to see my comrades going down that road, exchanging political discussion for insults (by the way, I'm sure she might have been pretty annoyed with you -if someone came to me, while Pinochet was murdering militants in the thousands and wanted to start a wee discussion if "Pinochet was fascism or not" I probably would have punched him in the face!)

author by Nestor - Anarkismopublication date Mon Jan 22, 2007 22:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This article in Arabic:

Related Link: http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=4710
author by maratpublication date Thu Feb 08, 2007 16:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The pivotal difference between apartheid S. Africa and Israel as models of colonial settler state development remains this. In S. Africa. the colonizing strategy was to create an infrastructure designed to dominate and exploit the indigenous population. In Palestine, the goal of the Zionist movement was to replace the Arab population through land acquistion and seizure, settlement, the creation of a separate political economy, ( the "conquest of labor" ) population displacement and finally widescale ethnic cleansing.

Indeed, if a historical comparison is made, it might be more instructive to compare Israel to the United States, - a colonial settler state constructed upon the twin pillars of genocide and slavery.

author by Ilan Shalif - AATWpublication date Thu Feb 08, 2007 19:14author address Tel Avivauthor phone Report this post to the editors

The difference between the settler colonialism of the naZionists and that of US is not because of an ideological reasons. If you look into it you will find that the naZionist ideology was even more racist than that of US. The fact that the massacre of Palestinians was much less than in US is because of political reasons mainly.

Related Link: http://awalls.org
author by Alan Johnston - BBC News, Gazapublication date Sat Feb 24, 2007 04:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

A UN human rights envoy has compared Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories to elements of apartheid.

The UN's Special Rapporteur, John Dugard, describes the regime as being designed to dominate and systematically oppress the occupied population.

Mr Dugard is a South African professor of international law assigned to monitor Israeli human rights abuses.

He has extensively studied apartheid in South Africa and has compared it to what he saw under Israeli rule.

Special rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the UN secretary general to present reports on human rights to the organisation.

Their findings do not represent UN policy.

In a new report, Mr Dugard says: "Israel's laws and practices certainly resemble aspects of apartheid".

He points to what he describes as "unashamed discrimination" against Palestinians in favour of Israeli settlers.

"It is difficult to resist the conclusion that many of Israel's laws and practices violate the 1966 Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination," says the report.

"House demolitions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are carried out in a manner that discriminates against Palestinians.

"Throughout the West Bank, and particularly in Hebron, settlers are given preferential treatment over Palestinians in terms of movement (major roads are reserved exclusively for settlers), building rights and army protection and laws governing family re-unification".

The report ranges widely over the events of the past year and focuses on the Israeli military assault on Gaza during the summer.

This came after Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier, who they are still holding.

The army also described its campaign as an effort to stop the firing of crudely-made rockets from Gaza into nearby Israeli towns and villages.

Militant groups like Islamic Jihad often describe these attacks as retaliation for army raids and killings.

During the reporting period, two Israelis died and 30 others were injured in these random Palestinian attacks on civilian targets, and Mr Dugard says that they clearly constitute war crimes.

'Controlled strangulation'

But his report also condemns the two Israeli offensives launched to counter the missile threat from Gaza.

Four hundred Palestinians died, and some 1,500 were injured - many of them civilians. Three Israeli soldiers were killed.

Mr Dugard says that this was a "grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate" response that led to the army committing "multiple war crimes".

He also criticises the very tight controls that Israel maintains over the flow of goods and people in and out of Gaza.

These add to the poverty-stricken territory's chronic economic problems - contributing to mounting levels of unemployment and desperation.

Mr Dugard says that Israel is imposing a policy of "controlled strangulation" that is helping to give rise to a failed state on its doorstep.

The Israelis argue that their border controls around Gaza are necessary for security reasons.

Militants have attacked crossing points in the past, and a suicide bomber recently emerged from Gaza and killed three civilians in the Israeli resort city of Eilat.

And more broadly, Israel has dismissed Mr Dugard's report as being one-sided.

A foreign ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said that it was a product of what he called "rank politicisation" of the UN's human rights apparatus.

"This is the promoting of partisan, one-sided political attitudes which frankly don't serve the interests of anyone who is seriously interested in human rights," Mr Regev said.

Number of comments per page
  
 
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
© 2005-2024 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]