---

One Apartheid State Down, One to Go

---

       Israel is an apartheid state, or so a growing number of critics proclaim. Indeed, with South African apartheid done away with, Israel is apparently the only other state practicing apartheid worth mentioning. 46 of the top 50 results from a Google search for the phrase "apartheid state" are discussing modern Israel, not South African history¹⁰. The international divestment campaign against Israel for its alleged apartheid mobilizes more social awareness and concern than the one against Sudan for genocide. Apartheid is of course well deserving of divestments, boycotts, and anything else that brings it to an end, but the true magnitude of the crime should not be cheapened by recklessy hurling the accusation.

       After the accusation that Israel is a state practicing apartheid comes the ubiquitous rationale behind the charge - Israel is today like South Africa was then. The mantra that Israel resembles (or is worse than) South African apartheid continues to be parroted by the majority of critics and should therefore be clearly addressed. We need to understand what South African apartheid was, the extent to which it was implemented and enforced, and how it victimized on a daily basis those who had it imposed upon them. Only then can we determine if Israel is on its way to becoming an apartheid state, or as many claim, has already become one.

South Africa's Total Segregation

       The white apartheid government was a minority ruling over a far greater majority of indigenous black Africans and other non-whites. They started off as colonialists and traders who took the land through force of superior arms and offered little to nothing in terms of compensation to the natives. The apartheid National Party that began in 1948 was the final chapter to the story of unilateral South African conquest first by the Dutch and then the British. It was never recognized as a legitimate government by the international community.

       Perhaps the most striking feature of South African apartheid is the ability to follow the institutionalized racism tangibly with legal codes, acts, and ordinances. There was never a need to consider the National Party's racism in abstract terms based on perceived injustice, and seeing the oppression did not depend on subscribing to a particular ideology. It was objective racism clearly seen from any side where racial segregation and oppression was both the means and the end. To illustrate:

• “The Immorality Act of 1927 penalized sexual intercourse between ‘Europeans’ and ‘natives’ of the opposite sex. The Immorality Act of 1950 extended the prohibition to sexual intercourse between ‘Europeans’ and ‘non-Europeans’ and the Immorality Act of 1957 further forbade sexual activity falling short of intercourse, and at the same time increased the penalties to a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment.”¹



• The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Act “deemed null and void a marriage performed abroad between a male South African and a nonwhite woman.”²



• “The 1927 Native Administration Act contained a sinister provision, the so-called Hostility Clause” that penalized “Any person who utters any words or does any other act or thing whatever with intent to promote any feeling of hostility between Natives and Europeans …” Not enforced among white antagonists, “This gave the authorities the right to seize and destroy newspapers and books among the ‘natives’”.³ It also “gave the State President the power ‘to order any tribe, portion of a tribe, or individual African to move from one place to another and to remain in the area stated until permission to leave is granted.”⁴



• “The Population Registration Act classified individuals according to race, even if that led to the breakup of families; the measure also compelled individuals to carry identity cards indicating their race. The Group Areas Act enforced residential segregation, often compelling mixed nonwhites and Indians to relocate, even when that required the demolition of existing buildings. The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act mandated segregation at beaches, on buses, and in hospitals, schools, and parks. … The Illegal Squatters Act allowed unwanted indigenous peoples to be removed from urban areas (and, in fact, from many other locations), while the Abolition of Passes Act compelled Africans over the age of 16 to carry passes wherever they traveled.”⁵



• "The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act in 1953 ... sought to create separate social environments for the White and other population groups ... to determine who might use particular facilities. Accordingly, parks, places of entertainment, dining and hotel accommodation were all regulated and reserved for a single group. Hence it became impossible for a White person to drink a cup of tea with a Non-White person in any cafe unless they obtained a permit to do so ..."⁶



• "The Natives Resettlement Act of 1954 provided the mechanisms required to remove Africans from inner African freehold areas, while the existing legislation and its numerous amendments enabled the government to control virtually all aspects of African personal and community life."⁷ One specific result of this act resulted in the forced removal of Africans from Johannesburg.



• The Industrial Coalition Act reserved certain skilled labor to be performed by whites only.



• "... the Group Areas Act of 1950 assigned races to different residential and business sections in urban areas, and the Land Acts of 1954 and 1955 restricted nonwhite residence to specific areas."⁸



• The “Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill required all Africans to become citizens of various tribal homelands, even if they did not reside there.”⁹

       These examples only begin to scratch the surface of how engrained the total supremacy of whites over all non-whites was in the government of South Africa. There are many more. The following link archives hundreds of acts that supported the white domination over native Africans and other non-whites in South Africa: Apartheid Legislation.

       The net effect of these numerous discriminatory ordinances was total segregation and belligerent oppression of the non-white races by the white. Non-whites could not hold government positions, could not serve in the military, and could not vote. Blacks lived in different neighborhoods, attended different schools, went to different hospitals, ate at different restaurants, rode different buses, shopped at different stores, swam at different pools and beach areas, picnicked at different parks, read at different libraries, worshipped at different churches, attended different entertainment venues, and played on different playgrounds. They were ultimately rounded up from their already segregated neighborhoods into the infamous Bantustans.

       Further study of South Africa's history is of course required to fully appreciate the crime of apartheid, but enough has been touched on to make a general comparison.

"Resembling" South African Apartheid Since 1993

       Accusations that Israel is an apartheid state began, with some earlier exceptions, about the same time as South African apartheid was collapsing. For example,

• Le Monde's Leila Farsakh says that "Despite their initial differences, apartheid South Africa and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have become similar since 1993."¹²



• "Comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa were once a fringe phenomenon. Since the start of the second intifada in September 2000, however, they have become a staple of anti-Israel propaganda."¹¹



• This Magazine's Sue Ferguson explains, "The idea of Israeli apartheid emerged in the final years of the white South African regime ... That view gained currency with the international left in the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban ..."¹⁴



• The activist site Stop The Wall says "The usage of the term Apartheid has become more widespread in relation to Palestine particularly due to the naming in Palestine of the Apartheid Wall since the Wall's inception in the year 2002."¹³



• Another activist group, Israeli Apartheid Week has completed its fifth annual Apartheid Week event in 2009, dating their concern about Israeli apartheid back to 2004.⁴

       Note that these comparisons were not popular in 1976 when the UN provided a universal definition of apartheid that could be applied to any state practicing it, but only after South African apartheid was done away with. The reason, I believe, is simple; a side-by-side comparison between Israel and a functional South African apartheid regime would have been seen as asinine by any casual observer. Any racial injustices going on in Israel would have been overshadowed by daily events in South Africa and the campaign would not have gained the social traction it enjoys today.

       The idea that Israel, a country affording its minority groups full rights in governmental and civil sectors, resembled what was happening in South Africa would have been mocked and rightly so. Only after the "poster state" for apartheid has passed into the history books does a comparison between the two stand a chance of being taken seriously.

       Right out of the gate there are two structural differences between South African apartheid and the state of Israel:

1. In South Africa a small minority of whites dominated a vast majority of native blacks. Since the formation of the Israeli state the Jews have been a majority within it and continue to be so today.



2. The ruling white apartheid regime was a continuation of unilateral colonial conquest and was never recognized or accepted by the international community. Conversely, Israel was created by the international community and immediately recognized by both the world's superpowers.

       These facts do not take much effort to point out, but their significance should not be taken for granted. Indeed, these two differences alone are enough to distance Israel from South Africa's apartheid so much that the very analogy begins to lose meaning. But we need not stop here for there are many other differences, each one of which advances any discussion between South African apartheid and Israel toward an exercise in contrast rather than comparison.

       Israeli Arabs can hold government positions, serve in the military (although not required like most Jews), and vote. Israeli Arabs are not relegated to Arab-only neighborhoods or kept out of Jew-only neighborhoods. Arabs are allowed to attend schools with Jews, get treated at the same hospitals as Jews by Arab or Jewish doctors, eat at the same diners and restaurants, ride the same buses, shop at the same stores and malls.

       Israeli Arabs can swim at the same pools and beaches, picnic at the same parks, read at the same libraries, worship at the same churches, attend the same entertainment venues, and play on the same playgrounds. There are no Bantustans waiting for Israeli Arabs. They have freedom of movement throughout the country and have the freedom of assembly. Arabic is one of the country's official languages.

       In short, Israel's Arabs enjoy all the freedoms that were denied to South Africa's blacks while suffering none of the enforced segregation policies imposed upon them. Those who make claims that Israel resembles South African apartheid are forced to pervert reality on two fronts; first belittling the South African experience while simultaneously falsifying Arab disenfranchisement in Israel. Despite the substantial departure Israel has clearly taken from South African apartheid, we will nonetheless review the most popular examples that illustrate why, in the opinions of the critics giving them, Israel resembles an apartheid state.

Footnotes:
¹  Robertson, Ian, and Phillip Whitten. Race and Politics in South Africa. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1978. 146.
²  Cottrell, Robert C. South Africa: A State of Apartheid. Arbitrary borders. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2005. 102
³  Cottrell, Robert C. South Africa: A State of Apartheid. Arbitrary borders. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2005. 26
⁴  South African Democracy Education Trust. The Road to Democracy in South Africa. Cape Town: Zebra Press, 2004. 354
⁵  Cottrell, Robert C. South Africa: A State of Apartheid. Arbitrary borders. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2005. 86-87
⁶  Christopher, A. J. The Atlas of Apartheid. London: Routledge, 1994. 143
⁷  Christopher, A. J. The Atlas of Apartheid. London: Routledge, 1994. 103
⁸  Africana Encyclopedia. Apartheid, Social and Political Policy of Racial Segregation and Discrimination Enforced by White Minority Governments in South Africa from 1948 to 1994
⁹  Cottrell, Robert C. South Africa: A State of Apartheid. Arbitrary borders. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2005. 103
¹⁰  Google search for "apartheid state" run on March 24, 2009
¹¹  Kadalie, Rhoda and Bertelsmann, Julia I. Franchising "Apartheid": Why South Africans Push the Analogy. March 2008.
¹²  Farsakh, Leila. “Israel: An Apartheid State?” Le Monde Diplomatique, November 2003
¹³  "Apartheid Wall," Stop the Wall
¹⁴  Ferguson, Sue. "Tear Down that Wall!" THIS Magazine. September-October 2007.