Why Liberal Zionist Groups Won’t Say “Apartheid”
JVL Introduction
Reactions of Zionist groups in the USA to the Amnesty Report, formally accusing Israel of committing the crime of “apartheid” in its treatment of Palestinians, are varied.
We have reported on the immediate reactions of the Israeli government and of groups like Aipac and the ADL: for them the report simply demonises Israel and fuels antisemitism.
Liberal Zionists are more cautious: they recognise the truth of large swathes of what is in the report but squirm about accepting it as a whole.
As Mari Cohen and Alex Kane show in this article for Jewish Currents, some are happy to use the occasion to denounce Israeli rule over Palestinians in the occupied territories, but caution that a disagreement over terminology (the use of the “A-word”) should not distract from the substance of the report.
“I just think that it ends up pushing more people out of the conversation.” Rabbi Jill Jacobs, the CEO of T’ruah.
But liberal human rights groups have a problem; human-rights groups in Israel, like B’Tselem and Yesh Din whom they respect greatly, now use the A-word without hesitation.
Joy Hill, a member of J Street’s National Leadership Circle is firmer in her response: “the more ‘moderate,’ ‘legitimate’ sources that use it [apartheid], the easier it’s going to be to move the government to be accountable. I have been working with J Street long enough to remember when the word occupation was still not cool to use if you wanted to build power with moderates.”
The debate in Britain seems less advanced. Or simply more head-in-the-sand. Maybe we missed the reaction of groups like Yachad, Jewish Labour Movement, Na’amod and others, but their silence is simply leaving the field to the hysterical rejectionism of the Board of Deputies.
This article was originally published by Jewish Currents on Thu 10 Feb 2022. Read the original here.
Why Liberal Zionist Groups Won’t Say “Apartheid
Pressed for specific disagreements with the use of the term, leaders of several prominent Jewish organizations focused on how its application might alienate their constituencies
Loading article text…
There is no such thing as a ‘liberal Zionist’. Apart from themselves, who else are they trying to kid?
I think the important thing here is said by the Union for Reform Judaism: “This is about how having a Jewish ethnic nation state founded in 1948 is the definition of apartheid and is illegal”, a statement they disagree with, despite its obvious truth (the first part anyway – I’m no expert in international law and don’t really understand what is meant by saying that a state is illegal)
It’s one thing to criticise a government or a government’s policy. Governments change, policies change. What we see now may be an aberration, may not last. But to say that the state of Israel was tainted with this from its very inception is to say that it’s a fundamental part of Israel. Which makes change a lot more difficult.
It is, of course. The clue is in the wording: “a Jewish ethnic nation state”. How could that not be racist? (In a similar vein, I often refer to the expulsion of Palestinians by armed Israeli groups in 1948 as Ethnic Cleansing, which it surely was, but which a lot of people find hard to accept, going through ludicrous linguistic and other convolutions to avoid the use of the phrase).
When people talk about existential threats to Israel, this is what is meant, a lot of the time. Not that the Jewish population will be driven into the sea (though they’ll say that) but that it will cease to be a Jewish ethnic nation state. Because if it wasn’t, what would it be?
That’s a serious question, by the way. It was possible in the 80s to envisage a South African nation without apartheid and, discarding some utopian or dystopian fantasies, these predictions more or less came true. But try that with Israel. Try imagining a state, probably not called Israel, that isn’t a Jewish ethnic nation state, stretching from the River to the Sea. A lot harder to do. Especially after you’ve discarded the utopian and dystopian fantasies.
This isn’t to say that such a change is impossible. But I do think we need to be honest about it. Israel is an Apartheid state and an enormous amount of this was inherent in decisions taken in 1948 or earlier. Including the Ethnic Cleansing of 1948. Start from there and solutions become possible. All you need is to apply rules of natural justice (or even international law).
“the democratic nation state of the Jewish people affording equal rights to all its citizens” said the NYJA, unable to see that you can’t have a democracy just for one group (Jewish people), exclude all others and then claim to be providing equal rights for all. But at least the argument is moving further towards the Palestinian people’s cause.
A deliberate tragedy from inception, will we learn?
It’s helpful that this discussion is taking place – not long ago, it would have been impossible to imagine! The more common and accepted the term “apartheid” becomes, the easier it is to argue a lot of other related things and to move towards the sort of international campaign that helped topple the white regime in South Africa.
It’s a slow process, but we’re definitely moving in the right direction!
To dismiss the use of the world ‘apartheid’ when it is the one word that sums up so much what is happening in Israel, and then to find instead other terminology which can be summarised in that one word, feels very odd to me, though I get that there are political considerations here which touch on the ability to argue against Israel’s policies with Jews who are still struggling with their consciences as they try to decide where they should stand.
Personally, I think that while the word ‘apartheid’ is entirely appropriate to describe Israel’s situation, it is not alone sufficient to describe the situation in Palestine. What is happening in Gaza and the West Bank warrant descriptions of their own: ‘ghettoisation’ in the case of Gaza and ‘expansionism; in the case of the West Bank.
The case against Israel is clear: it is a shame that there is this perceived need to frame that case in language which makes the situation look less dangerous and damaging than it really is.
Stephen Flaherty says he felt in the 1980s it was possible to believe in a non-apartheid future for South Africa … By contrast, I expected a bloodbath, one that would eventually be won by the majority population but only after horrible suffering for all South Africans. The peaceful transition of South Africa is a miracle I’m everlastingly grateful for but don’t understand.
It seems to me Israel’s state as a nation and Israel’s position in the world are very much like South Africa’s were. I hope for a miracle there too but can’t see any more reasons to expect one than I did for South Africa.
There are the same very powerful supports for continuing oppression within and outside Israel as there were in South Africa. Trade and cultural sanctions against Israel and the world’s increasing disapproval of Israel’s conduct may eventually wear down the supports for continuing oppression .. but when? It seems to me that something else needs to change; and the nature of that “something else” is still completely unknown.
Linda, I was never that pessimistic about South Africa. Perhaps I was naive, but I figured a bloodbath could be avoided. I believed, basically, that the rhetoric of Nelson Mandela and the ANC was true. And I was right.
But the numbers were there. White South Africans were only about 10% or so of SA’s population and, once resistance became serious, the change to democracy was never in doubt. That being the case, the ANC could afford to be magnanimous in victory and avoid the temptations towards revenge and ethnic cleansing. The white South Africans knew this. In some ways, Mandela was a better man than they deserved.
In Israel/Palestine, it’s less clear cut. Sure, you can find people like Marwan Barghouti to play the role of a Palestinian Mandela (including, unfortunately, being imprisoned for the past 20 years). But the numbers are different. If we count from the River to the Sea, there are approximately equal numbers of Israelis and Palestinians.
Bi-national (or bi-ethnic) states like that are rare and the ones that do exist – Lebanon, Bosnia, Northern Ireland – aren’t promising examples (though we should also mention Belgium). Basically, the Israelis are trying to hold down half their population by force. This is a lot more possible than holding down 90% of a population by force, as South Africa found out.
Israel unquestionably has the military might to do this, but doing so causes political vulnerabilities, which we need to exploit. Paradoxically, external help is far more needed by the Palestinians than it was for South Africans and is also a lot harder to get – cue constant accusations of antisemitism. It would be wonderful if the BDS campaign had support anywhere near to the boycott of South African goods in the 80s. It would be wonderful for Israel to be expelled from the Olympics, World Cup and any other international sporting competitions, as South Africa was. But attempts to do this – like the UCU attempt to instigate an academic boycott of Israel – are undermined by accusations of antisemitism and the Hasbarah.
Without this, I’m pessimistic about the future. I’m even pessimistic that “Trade and cultural sanctions against Israel and the world’s increasing disapproval of Israel’s conduct may eventually wear down the supports for continuing oppression” They seem to be able to live with the world’s opprobrium and the world seems content to trade with them.
Thanks for a more extended analysis of the issues, Stephen. You mention key factors I didn’t know about and / or hadn’t taken into account.