Posts
Is
this not apartheid?
By
Gideon Levy
| May 1, 2014
Is
Israel at risk of becoming an apartheid state, as John Kerry said on Friday, or
not, as he said on Tuesday?
Who knows? Given his feeble performance as U.S. secretary of state and his
disgraceful apology, maybe it no longer matters what Kerry thinks or says. Given
the aggressiveness of the Jewish lobby and the weakness of the Obama
administration, which capitulates to every “pro-Israel” whim, Israel doesn’t
need enemies with friends like these. Look what happened to its genuine friend,
who was only trying to warn it from itself.
What
a miserable secretary of state, up to his neck in denial. And how unfriendly to
Israel he is to retract his frank, genuine and friendly warning merely for fear
of the lobby. Now millions of ignorant Americans, viewers of Fox News and its
ilk, know that Israel is in no risk of becoming an apartheid state. They believe
the power of Hamas and the sophistication of Qassam rocket pose an existential
danger to Israel.
But
Kerry’s vacillations do not change the reality that shrieks from every wall.
From every West Bank Palestinian village, from every reservoir and power grid
that is for Jews only; apartheid screams from every demolished tent encampment
and every verdict of the military court; from every nighttime arrest, every
checkpoint, every eviction order and every settlement home. No, Israel is not an
apartheid state, but for nearly 50 years an apartheid regime has ruled its
occupied territories. Those who want to continue to live a lie, to repress and
to deny are invited to visit Hebron. No honest, decent person could return
without admitting the existence of apartheid. Those who fear that politically
incorrect word have only to walk for a few minutes down Shuhada Street, with its
segregated road and sidewalks, and their fear of using the forbidden word will
vanish without a trace.
The
history of the conflict is filled with forbidden words. Once upon a time, saying
“Palestinians” was forbidden, after that came the prohibitions against saying
“occupation,” “war crime,” “colonialism” or “binational state.” Now “apartheid”
is prohibited.
The
forbidden words paralyze debate. Did you let the word “apartheid” slip out? The
truth is no longer important. But no political correctness or bowdlerization,
however sanctimonious, can conceal reality forever. And the reality is an
occupation regime of apartheid.
The
naysayers can find countless differences between the apartheid of Pretoria and
that of Jerusalem. Pretoria’s was openly racist and anchored in law; Jerusalem’s
is denied and repressed, hidden beneath a heavy cloak of propaganda and
messianic religious faith. But the result is the same. Some South Africans who
lived under the system of segregation say that their apartheid was worse. I know
South Africans who say that the version in the territories is worse. But neither
group can find a significant difference at the root: When two nations share the
same piece of land and one has full rights while the other has no rights, that
is apartheid. If it looks like apartheid, walks like apartheid and quacks like
apartheid, it’s apartheid.
Israel
is an incipient apartheid state, just as Kerry I said on Friday. Kerry II, on
Tuesday, merely tried to blur and hide the truth for fear of the lobby. But
apartheid is in our future. If there won’t be two states, there will be only
one. If there won’t be a democratic, egalitarian state, a state of all its
citizens, then there will be an apartheid state. There is no other option. With
its actions, Israel is saying a firm “no” to the two-state solution. With its
fear of a non-Jewish state, Israel is saying no to a democratic, binational
state. Where does that leave us? With an apartheid state. As Naomi Shemer said
in her optimistic song “Mahar” (“Tomorrow”): If not today, then tomorrow, and if
not tomorrow, then the day after.
The
truth, off the record
Unlike
an audio recording, the tragedy that is gradually taking shape here won’t be
possible to rewind or erase.
Haaretz
Editorial | May 1, 2014
At
a G-20 conference in Cannes in November 2011, then-French President Nicolas
Sarkozy termed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “liar” and said he “can’t
stand” the Israeli leader. U.S. President Barack Obama responded, “You’re tired
of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day.” These rare quotes,
revealing truths that are usually kept from the public due to the rules of
diplomacy and political correctness, came to light only because the two
presidents didn’t realize that the microphones were still on.
Now,
it is John Kerry’s turn. In contrast to Sarkozy and Obama, the U.S. secretary of
state was caught revealing truths not about people, but about fundamental
issues. During a meeting of the Trilateral Commission last week, Kerry was
recorded as saying, “A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the
only real alternative. Because 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.” He also warned that a
stalemate in the peace process could lead to renewed violence in the
territories, while hinting that progress might be possible under a different
government: If “there is a change of government or a change of heart, something
will happen,” he said.
Kerry’s
frank statements weren’t the sort that diplomatic ears are accustomed to
hearing, and he was therefore subjected to a wave of political and personal
attacks for having made them. He was even forced to publicly express regret for
having used the word “apartheid,” saying, “If I could rewind the tape, I would
have chosen a different word.”
It’s
no accident that Kerry was forced to retract the term “apartheid” in particular.
There’s good reason for the sensitivity over comparisons of Israel with
apartheid-era South Africa: Aspects of apartheid already exist in Israel, and
they are liable to expand if the two-state solution collapses. But instead of
working to alter the country’s destructive direction, groups and individuals
that call themselves “pro-Israel” are trying to obscure the grim reality by
denying the “apartheid” label.
Kerry’s
“off-the-record” remarks essentially described reality: Israel cannot remain a
Jewish and democratic state without a two-state solution, a unitary state would
be an apartheid state, a stalemate in the peace process is liable to lead to
another intifada and a change in the composition of Israel’s government, and/or
the person heading it, is liable to change the picture. The troubling snapshot
of reality that Kerry presented must be altered by implementing a two-state
solution. For unlike an audio recording, the tragedy that is gradually taking
shape here won’t be possible to rewind or erase.
No comments:
Post a Comment