THE MYTH OF ISRAELI APARTHEID: DR. ALAN MENDOZA

Apartheid is a strong word. It was a phrase born in one of the darkest chapters of history, in which a nation institutionalised and legalised racism.

It is a strong term that encapsulates great suffering. The victims of that suffering deserve that term to be preserved and used appropriately. It is not a word that should be bandied around easily.

There are some though, who choose to use that word today to describe the situation in Israel.

This was a transposition first imposed by extremists at the infamous UN conference in Durban, South Africa. A meeting to discuss the scourge of racism was – like too much of the UN – hijacked by those with political agendas, in particular Syria and Iran, to bash Israel.

Despite being warned by the Anti-Defamation League not to send senior diplomats, the US attended the conference only to pull out alongside Israel later. The US representative said simply that the conference had been “wrecked by Arab and Islamic extremists”.

Ever since that slur, the term Apartheid has stuck with Israel. Parroted by the far-left and frankly all too many people who ought to know better – many millions passionately believe that Israel is an “Apartheid state”.

Now we should be clear as to what that means.

Under Apartheid, Black South Africans were unable to vote; they were unable to participate in government jobs; they ate, slept, and lived separately from their white neighbours and compatriots.

Israel, like South Africa, is no racial hegemon. In fact, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs. But that is where the comparison ends.

Because Arab Israelis enjoy full and total rights as Israel citizens. They are entitled to vote and work anywhere – in fact, all state-owned firms must have one Arab Israeli on their boards. They work in the civil service, as judges, diplomats, military officers, and police chiefs. Almost every variety of government sector role has been held by an Arab Israeli.

They also enjoy, it should be said, a higher standard of living, higher incomes, more education, longer life-expectancy, more freedoms, and lower rates of both crime and corruption than their near-neighbours in Palestine.

And, now, following the latest election, the Arab-Islamist Raam party is to join the Israeli governmental coalition currently in formation as a full partner. They will do so alongside Yamina – a party that much of the Western media loves to deride as hateful and racist, but whose general views are no more Far Right than someone who supported Brexit in this country.

There can be therefore be no doubt that the new Israeli Government will – in part – be Arab-Israeli led. Assuming of course its survives a vote of confidence in the Knesset first.

All this makes claims of Apartheid, frankly ridiculous.

Under Apartheid, the ANC were not part of the Government, they were an illegal organisation.  Black South Africans not only could not vote they could not hold any high office whatsoever.

The situation in Israel could not be further from that of Apartheid South Africa. In fact, any comparison is just plain offensive to those that suffered the real horrors of Apartheid.

There are of course today two groups of Palestinians who are forbidden from voting – those living in the West Bank and Gaza. Denied elections by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – now in the 16th year of a four year term –  the only model for them at the top appears to be violence and corruption, with the extremism of Hamas in Gaza thrown in for good measure. But you don’t hear the likes of Iran and Syria focusing on the plight of these Arabs with offensive branding. And we are all entitled to wonder why.

Israeli politics has certainly been chaotic over the last two years – and proportional representation has scarcely been covered in glory as a system. But Wednesday’s historic moment has at least put to bed yet more of the lies told about Israel, and in a most decisive manner.

From the Director’s Desk
4th June 17.30

In the least surprising news of the week, Britain’s Community Security Trust charity released figures that showed May had been the worst ever month for Anti-Semitism incidents in the UK.

376 such cases were recorded, running the gamut from the physical assault of a rabbi, through a pro-Palestinian car rally where calls for Jews to be raped were broadcast on loudspeaker, to the more “usual” flotsam and jetsam of hate on the internet. The previous high of 317 incidents had occurred in July 2014, again unsurprisingly at the height of the last major Hamas-Israel conflict to have broken out.

For many years now, there has been a clear link between conflicts in the Middle East involving the Jewish state, and attacks on Jews overseas, the UK included. This is, mercifully, a phenomenon not really experienced by the other side in these conflicts. Nobody, for example, has attacked a British Muslim on account of Hamas rockets being fired against Israeli civilians as it would be patently ridiculous to hold British Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of their Muslim co-religionists in Gaza (leaving aside the obvious point of it being just plain wrong to engage in hate crimes of any kind).

So why then are the rules different when it comes to Jews and Israel?

The answer is of course complex, but it essentially boils down to this: Anti-Semitism is not only the oldest and most enduring hatred, but also the most adaptable. Hatred of Jews crosses all the normal boundaries that civilised people – or people who at least pretend to be civilised – attempt to construct in order to foster social cohesion in their societies. It also unites the most unlikely of coalitions stretching all the way from Far Right to Far Left, with Islamists and their fellow travellers thrown in for good measure. In short, people who should hate each other on paper frequently find themselves in full agreement in person when it comes to the question of hating the Jews. They will also seize on any issue – with the purported actions of Israel just the most recent example – to bring their hatred to bear in a way that would never be seen for any other minority.

All this does of course make Anti-Semitism a unique phenomenon and explains why it is correct for governments to treat it in a very different way to other forms of racism, which while equally horrific are more obviously dealt with. It also means that Anti-Semitism has an even more corrosive effect on social cohesion than most forms of racism, because the diabolical conspiracy theories required to sustain it require far more effort to propagate and frequently lead to far more aggressive and even eliminationist outcomes desired by the Anti-Semites.

It is for this reason that Western societies need to wake up and smell the coffee. We have been down the route before of thinking that Anti-Semitism starts and ends with the Jews. It doesn’t. There has never been an Anti-Semite in history who, having perfected their racist theories on one of the most vulnerable groups in society, then decides to stop with just the Jews.

The genie of extremism is most firmly out of the bottle. It is up to all of us to persuade our governments that it is in our common and urgent national interests to put it back before even more damage can be caused.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of the Henry Jackson Society.
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

Comments are closed.