Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
February 20, 2008
In recent months there have been a number of charges of ‘apartheid’ levelled at Israel. (See, for example, the Dec. 24 posting about the John Minto column in The Press.) KBRM wrote and distributed the following article to NZ newspapers to counter the charges. It was rejected by all newspapers except The Press (Christchurch), which published it on March 14 with the following headlines:
Most integrated nation in the Middle East
Israel is often accused of apartheid, but RODNEY BROOKS and SHIMON JOFFE argue that citizens in that country have equal rights.
According to polls, most Israeli Arabs would rather remain in Israel than become part of a Palestinian state.
In the entire Middle East there is but one country where all citizens have full and equal rights, regardless of religion or race. Ironically, this country is Israel, the one country accused of ‘apartheid’. Let us examine the supposed ‘facts’ on which this accusation is based.
The first basis for the charge is that when Israel was created, the Arab population was ‘driven out’ in an act of ‘ethnic cleansing’. This is not true. In 1947, the United Nations voted to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into two independent states, one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted the partition but were immediately attacked by Palestinian Arabs and surrounding Arab nations who wanted it all. During the ensuing war there were civilian casualties on both sides, and yes, there were a few Israeli actions that shouldn't have been taken, but in general the Jewish forces tried to avoid civilian casualties while the Arabs tried to inflict them.
The result was that many Arabs fled from the war they had started, urged to do so by Arab leaders. Many also remained, and the 1.4 million Arabs now living in Israel — a much greater percentage of the population than the Maori in New Zealand — are a stark refutation of the ethnic cleansing charge.
The only ethnic cleansing that occurred, in fact, was in Jewish areas captured by the Arab armies, such as the Jewish Quarter of the Old City where Jews had lived for a thousand years, and in surrounding Arab nations which are now largely ‘judenrein’ (Jew-free). These Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel.
The second basis is the fence built by Israel along its borders that has been called an ‘apartheid wall’. This is not true. The fence (which is a wall in only a few places) was built strictly for security reasons. Israel was suffering several suicide bombings every month, but since the fence was (partly) constructed there have been only one or two attacks. While the route of the fence may be open to criticism (and as a result has been re-routed several times), the reason for the fence is beyond dispute: it is there to keep suicide bombers out, not to keep Palestinians in. Would anyone call the Great Wall of China — or even the fence along the US-Mexican border - an ‘apartheid fence’?
The third basis for the apartheid charge is that Arabs are discriminated against under Israel's legal system. This is not true. According to www.africanhistory.about.com, ‘What makes South Africa's apartheid era different to segregation and racial hatred that have occurred in other countries is the systematic way in which the National Party, which came into power in 1948, formalised it through the law’.
There is no systematic formalised discrimination in Israel. Arab citizens have the same rights as Jews, except that, out of respect for their national sentiments, they are not subject to compulsory military service. (However they have the right to volunteer, and a small number do, despite the resulting social ostracism they receive from other Arabs.) While Arabs generally live in Arab communities and Jews live in Jewish communities, this does not constitute apartheid.
One of the authors (Shimon Joffe) lives in Karmiel, a city in the Galilee that is surrounded by some suburbs and exurbs with an exclusively Jewish residential population, and also surrounded by many Arab communities where Jewish families do not live. Although residing elsewhere, Arabs are part of the daily life in Karmiel. Arabs and Jews operate businesses in and around Karmiel and move freely together around the city. Karmiel is an integrated community. Is there anything wrong with people who share a common language and culture living together in a homogeneous social community without racial or ethnic strife? It is commonplace throughout the rest of the world, and it is not called ‘apartheid’.
This is not to say that the lot of Arabs in Israel is ideal, and it has become less so since the second intifada. With Israel under constant attack by Arab terrorist groups and an Arab government that want to drive it into the sea, the loyalty of Arab citizens became badly stretched. Nevertheless, Arabs in Israel have it far better than similar groups in other countries during time of war. During WWII, for example, America and Canada interned over 150,000 citizens of Japanese and German descent. Even in New Zealand, people of German and Japanese descent were interned on Somes Island in Wellington harbour.
Arabs in Israel enjoy equal rights and walk the streets freely. They have freedom of religion, expression and association. They have representation at the highest levels of government and they benefit from the social, medical and education services provided by the Israeli state.
According to polls, most Israeli Arabs would rather remain in Israel than become part of a Palestinian state. So much for ‘apartheid’!
Dr. Brooks is chairman of Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast (www.kbrm.org.nz). Mr. Joffe, whose daughter lives in Balclutha, is a resident of Karmiel, Israel.