ROBIN SHEPHERD: APPALLING BROADSIDE ATTACK ON ISRAEL BY LEADER OF THE UJA IN THE UK
http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/
In an astonishing re-run of the most controversial moment in British pro-Israel advocacy for many years, Mick Davis, the man at the centre of that storm, has launched a second broadside defending his judgement in warning of the prospect of Israel becoming “an apartheid state”.
Mr. Davis, who is chairman of the United Jewish Israel Appeal and chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, made his original remarks in November last year. Among the formal UK Jewish leadership there was a mixed reaction –see here for comments by supporters and opponents — while the Israeli embassy issued a scathing protest and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and its supporters reacted with jubilation.
In this week’s Jewish Chronicle Mr. Davis sought to clarify his remarks as follows:
“… I said clearly that Israel was not an apartheid state. I reject any comparisons between Israel today and apartheid, an analogy which is often used as a stick to beat Israel. I did say that if the world came to believe that a two-state solution was not possible and that a single unitary state (“a one-state solution”) was seen to be the only way forward, then that unitary state may be characterised as an apartheid state as you would have a minority ruling over the majority – or at least a majority of Palestinian non-citizens in the West Bank and Gaza. The international pressure for full civic rights for all, including the right to vote, would be enormous and would mean the end of Israel. This is not a new or controversial point. Prime Minister Olmert said as much in 2007 as did Defence Minister Barak last year”.
Unless forced to do so it is my policy not to get involved directly in the internal affairs of the UK Jewish community over discussion of Israel since Jews and non-Jews face a different calculus of risk. For example, as a non-Jew defending Israel I will never be accused of dual loyalties, (though I am accused of pretty much everything else!). The wider debate about Israel, however, is an entirely different matter. And since, as Mr. Davis acknowledges, the apartheid analogy is such an insidious and dangerous weapon in the arsenal of Israel’s opponents I would like to offer some thoughts from a purely analytical perspective on why it is so wrong to raise it in the Israeli context, and why it always will be under any future scenario:
1) As a political system, apartheid refers to the institutionalised policy of racial segregation which existed in South Africa between 1948 and 1993. The central principle underpinning apartheid was a belief in the inherent, genetic superiority of white people over black people. In the absence of that principle, apartheid would not have existed. Since there is no equivalent to this white supremacism in the Israeli case today or in any imaginable future, apartheid is impossible in Israel.
2) “Apartheid” is a word from Afrikaans and is the only word from that language to have successfully made it into the English speaking world’s political lexicon. It approximates to “separateness” in the English language. Given that Palestinians in the West Bank and Israelis in the West Bank live separately because of the threat of terrorism and because of the absence of a final status peace agreement, this has provided the spurious basis on which the charge of “apartheid” has been made against Israel.
3) It is clear, however, that the use of the term by Israel’s opponents is dishonest, hateful and propagandistic since if they meant “separateness” they could say “separateness”. Why use a term from Afrikaans which is also centrally concerned with white supremacism? Do they usually use terms from Afrikaans in their political discourse? Of course not. The term is used to leverage mass hatred of the Jewish state and to promote its isolation and destruction.
4) It is true that apartheid is sometimes used in a vulgar or opportunistic manner in other contexts. For example, a search for use of the term “educational apartheid” in the English speaking world over the last 12 months on my (Factiva) database yielded 1,094 results. It is also true that some Israeli politicians, such as Ehud Barak, have (very occasionally) been foolish enough to use the term apartheid in the Israeli case themselves. But this is a purely opportunistic usage against political opponents inside Israel, where there is no campaign of deligitimisatiion as such. It is the use of the term outside Israel that really does the damage.
5) Although in the South African case the minority ruled the majority, this was not the core objection of the international community to South African apartheid. If whites had been in a majority, the white supremacist system would have been equally objectionable and would have been just as much an apartheid system. The mere fact of a minority ruling a majority says nothing about whether a system like apartheid exists or not. There are myriad examples throughout history (and today) of racial, religious or ethno-linguistic minorities ruling majorities. This does not mean that they approximate to apartheid in any way shape or form.
6) The dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is a national conflict which need never have arisen in the first place had the Arab/Palestinian side accepted internationally brokered peace deals such as the United Nations partition plan of 1947. There is no equivalent in the South African case.
It would be quite possible to expand this list extensively. But internalisation of these key points should be sufficient to understand why there is never any justification for labelling Israel an apartheid state and never will be.
The great danger now is that a failure adequately to recognise the inappropriateness of the use of the term apartheid may hand huge victories to Israel’s opponents, particularly if it spreads into the Foreign Office and further afield in government. If that happens, we enter an entirely new phase. Watch this space.
Tags: apartheid, Israel, mick davis
This entry was posted on Monday, February 14th, 2011 at 12:01 pmand is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through my RSS feed.
6 Responses to “Major controversy erupts again as top UK Jewish leader reaffirms apartheid-Israel discourse”
- Jean Says:
February 14th, 2011 at 1:23 pm And 7) : Israel is no longer in Gaza, so why keep counting Palestinians from the Gaza strip as part of the same problem? Why not count the population of Egypt then?
That is a way of assuming that Israel still “occupies” the Gaza Strip, which it does no longer.
Now, remove the population of the Gaza Strip from the equation, as it should be, and the democraphic apartheid-or-two-state dilemma essentially disappears.
Israel should still leave most of the West Bank for its own sake, probably, but the apartheid peril is exagerated. - Joshua Says:
February 14th, 2011 at 3:33 pm Mick Davis writes:“When faced with these manifestations, I speak out, as all Jews should speak out. And when we do, we use our language as Jews and not that of our enemies – for it is the call of an ancient people for justice and fairness. We should never flinch from doing so. It strengthens us.”
One word immediately springs to mind: HYPOCRISY.
1) Glencore International AG ‘controls 40% of Xstrata stock and has appointed the Xstrata CEO, Mick Davis.’
2) ‘Xstrata plc (LSE: XTA, SIX: XTAN) is a global mining company headquartered in Zug, Switzerland and with its registered office in London, United Kingdom.’
3) About Glencore:
i) ‘ABC radio has also reported that Glencore “has been accused of illegal dealings with rogue states: apartheid South Africa, USSR, Iran, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein”, and has a “history of busting UN embargoes to profit from corrupt or despotic regimes”.[3] Specifically, Glencore was reported to have been named by the CIA to have paid USD 3,222,780 in illegal kickbacks to obtain oil in the course of the UN oil-for-food programme for Iraq. The company denied these charges, according to the CIA report quoted by ABC.’
ii) ‘According to an Australian Public Radio report, “Glencore’s history reads like a spy novel”.[3] The company was founded as Marc Rich & Co. AG in 1974 by now-billionaire commodity trader Marc Rich, who was charged with tax evasion and illegal business dealings with Iran in the U.S., but pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001.[4] He was never brought before U.S. justice before his pardoning, therefore there was never a verdict on these charges. In 1993 and 1994, Rich sold all of his majority share in Marc Rich & Co. AG back to the company.[5] The enterprise, renamed Glencore, is now owned and run by his inner-circle of associates, including former Glencore CEO Willy Strothotte and present CEO Ivan Glasenberg. In 2005, proceeds from an oil sale to Glencore were seized as fraudulent, in an investigation into corruption in the Republic of Congo.’
Source: Wikipedia
- Cynic Says:
February 14th, 2011 at 5:04 pm You ask Why use a term from Afrikaans which is also centrally concerned with white supremacism?One should look into the behaviour of Desmond Tutu and his relationship with the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center where he is described as the International Patron of Sabeel.
Actually one should further back in Tutu’s life and his attitude to Jews when just an ordinary bishop. - max Says:
February 15th, 2011 at 12:45 am A concise reminder of the limits to the meaning of apartheid and of the word’s seemingly unlimited power.And hats off to Joshua!
Now, with the Israeli population greater than that of Arab inhabitants of the disputed territories and growing faster, I’m at a loss to see what Mick Davis is driving at, particularly with the phrase “or at least a majority of Palestinian non-citizens in the West Bank and Gaza”. Is the man lacking in numeracy as well as literacy?
- Jon Says:
February 15th, 2011 at 12:25 pm Mick David, Mike Leigh, Miriam Margolyes, Lindsey Hilsum: All Jews or people of Jewish lineage who seem to take pleasure and satisfaction from badmouthing Israel and by extension, Jews.Perhaps there is a psychological term for this behavior?
Only in England. Is it that in their non-Jewish social circles they receive some kind of accolades from the Ascot set?
- Another Joshua Says:
February 15th, 2011 at 12:33 pm Robin , well explained. “Separateness” doesn’t have that ring to it as the word apartheid does. Mick Davis no doubt will start to bend his explanations to say that he doesn’t mean “apartheid” when he says apartheid, if pushed. And then we will all be confused.What’s wrong with him saying: “If the Arab population continues to grow at the present rate, without resolution to the conflict, Israel could become unstable and that there is likely to be more social unrest in future if the communities find it difficult to live together? I was wrong to use the word apartheid, which is a word so often misused. Having come from South Africa, I should know better. I’m sorry.”
There! It’s not insulting and it is closer to the truth and that would have been the end of it.
Joshua, well researched. Hypocrisy is one word for this unprincipled type, but I doubt, because of his feeling of self-importance, that he is capable of seeing any connection.
Leave a Reply
Comments are closed.
