Juan Cole… Definitely Uninformed and Often Wrong

Juan Cole of “Ahmadinejhad really didn’t say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map” fame is at it once again. When it comes to Israel, Cole spends so much time twisting himself and distorting positions that it seems that the man would have to screw his pants on (h/t to Hunter S. Thompson) to get dressed in the morning. On his page “Informed Comment” (a misnomer if there ever was one) Cole writes: John Kerry admits Israeli Apartheid; and 5 Ways he is Understating It. In this article Cole gives us an fact free screed as to how Israel is an “Apartheid State” beginning with his inaccurate headline.

Where to start? Well let’s look at the Headline “Kerry admits Israeli Apartheid”. First of all that is NOT what Secretary Kerry did. What Kerry did do was say that were there to be a “One State Solution” there COULD be Apartheid (by the way, a term / position that runs directly contrary to terminology used by President Obama).
Here is Kerry’s statement:

“A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative,”…. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state. Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.”

Unless one has the reading comprehension of a small child, it is clear that Secretary Kerry is saying that should there be One State solution (which there is not); Israel would run the risk of becoming an Apartheid type state. What he did not say was “Israel is an Apartheid State”. So, from the very headline this article fails.

From here it simply gets more ridiculous. The entire premise of the article states that there is already a One State solution in place and that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are in fact Israeli Citizens who are treated as “second class citizens”. NOW, if Israel did annex the West Bank and Gaza and did not offer the right of franchise amongst other civil rights to all of its citizens one could make that argument but the Israelis have not done this. AND even if they wanted to ignore all of the security concerns and everything else exactly to whom would they be handing this land over too (but never mind that I guess)? So with that the entire analogy of conflating Israel to South Africa fails miserably.

Cole’s first argument is that Israel is creating “Bantustans” in the West Bank and Gaza (just like South Africa):

“South Africa created Bantustans as a way of denaturalizing Blacks, ensuring that they could not vote for the national government and were assigned citizenship only in their weak Bantustan.”

So, while on the surface there is a similarity to say the Bennett plan for this kind of solution, the Bennett plan is a plan created by a coalition member and not an official negotiating position of the Israelis at this point in time. But even so, this is only a surface similarity to the Bantustans created by the South Africans.  Why is that?

First of all Gaza is and always has been a separate district from the founding of Israel forward. It has been occupied by the Egyptians and by the Israelis and both nations no longer occupy it. It was not part of the original State of Israel but it has always been a hostile territory to Israel.  Moreover, Gaza is not under military rule of Israel. It is under military blockade (and rightfully so considering the regular attacks that are continually launched from Gaza) but, the streets there are not patrolled by Israeli troops and the Haniyeh Government does not answer to the Israelis. It was not a piece of land that was carved out of Israel by the Israelis and handed to the Gazans in the same way the Whites in South Africa carved out states for Blacks.

Second of all, The West Bank is the same situation. It is not and was not originally part of Israel or at least the Partition Plan that the U.N. used to establish Palestinian and Jewish homelands. The Israelis have installed a series of checkpoints in the West Bank and Israeli soldiers do patrol the area but given the security climate, that is understandable. I know in Cole’s world that Jews and Israelis are not allowed to defend themselves but here in reality we are and we do. Still, as mentioned above, the “Bantustans” (which don’t in reality – there’s that word again, exist) are not land carved out of a national territory that had already existed. The checkpoints exist due to security concerns. Last I or any checked a nation is certainly not obligated to allow people to attack it.

Cole’s second argument like his first once again falls flat when he argues:

South Africa instituted a “pass” system to control the movement of Blacks.

“Israel instituted a “permit” system to control the movement of Palestinians.”

Now wait… I didn’t realize that Palestinians who were citizens of Israel needed permits to move around inside of Israel. They don’t? Well golly…. Of course the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories are not citizens of Israel, they don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, and there have been a number of terror strikes against Israel originating from the Territories, is it any wonder why the Israelis would want security in these areas. Now in order to be analogous to South Africa, Israel would have to have those same checkpoints in place throughout its territory and only Israeli – Arabs would have to be subject to that as Blacks were in South Africa. However, that is simply not the case. So yet again Cole’s fact free article remains true to form.

Cole’s next argument again relies on fiction to try to make a comparison:

“In Apartheid South Africa, 80% of the land was set aside for white settlers.

Israel itself was ethnically cleansed of 750,000 Palestinians in 1948, and was designated “Jewish,” such that the expelled Palestinians (now millions strong) were denied the right to return to their homes.”

Now… for a second let’s remember that history actually exists and it is not some made up story as Cole wishes it was.

First of all, according to the U.N. Partition plan Israel was to be 17.5% of the Original Partition. Of that land:

“Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.”

Not even of the 17.5% of the original Mandate was there any land set aside for “Jews only”. But the weak comparison to South Africa is not the most egregious part of this statement.  The most egregious part of this is the claim that 750,000 (and now millions of) Palestinians were “ethnically cleansed”. First of all the “millions” claim is based on a unique count that the U.N. assigns only to Palestinian refugees. No other refugees in the world can share this status. Not the almost 900,000 Jewish refugees from the Arab countries that came to Israel or any other refugees that exist in the world. Just the Palestinians get to do this.

Second of all, even according to Benny Morris’ book 1948 (considered one of the foremost works on this issue); many refugees were not actually “cleansed”. There were instances of that and in cases where the villagers had peace treaties with Haganah forces but were still driven out; I do believe that those people should have a right to compensation for their losses. But in most cases, the civilian populations either left in flight of the war or left as a result of hostile action against the IDF. I understand why someone would leave a war zone but if one leaves a war that one’s side started, and one is either an active or sympathetic participant on the losing side then one pretty much loses their “right” to return. The Israelis of the Yishuv had no obligation to allow hostile forces who were sniping convoys from villages or actively working against them to return to those villages. Again, suicide is not something that Israel is obligated to do.

And again we see Cole really stretching the “Apartheid” comparison when he says:

“In Apartheid South Africa, Blacks from the Bantustans could not attend universities designated for whites”

But in Israel, Israeli citizens whether they are Arab or Jewish can attend Israeli Universities. Again, to attend Israeli Universities, one must be an Israeli citizen in most cases (with exceptions for foreign exchange students). Palestinians in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens, so really Israel has no obligation to allow them to attend Israeli Universities. No nation’s educational system has an obligation to allow people that are not citizens attend their colleges. Israeli Universities are also not “designated for Whites” (or Jews as Cole means), all Israelis are allowed to attend.
Now none of this is meant to “whitewash” problems that Arab Students face when attending school in Israel. There certainly are problems with the system. But to compare it Apartheid South Africa is to diminish just how horrible real Apartheid was.
Finally Cole, ends up his embarrassingly fact free column with this:

“South African Apartheid forbade marriages between people of different ethnicities.

Israelis of Jewish and Palestinian heritage cannot intermarry in Israel. Two Israeli citizens of different ethnic heritage can marry abroad and return to Israel. But Israeli-Palestinians who marry Palestinians from the Occupied West Bank are not allowed to bring their spouse to Israel. The same problem is not faced by Israeli Jews who marry squatters on the Palestinian West Bank.”

Unlike South Africa where this was a system designed to keep Black and White South Africans from marrying this is not the case in Israel. The system (one, I think is awful) was designed so that only Orthodox Jews can have State licensed / performed marriages. It is a stupid law for the year 2014 but it is not designed to discriminate against Palestinians. For instance, I cannot get married in Israel because my wife is not Jewish. I would have had to go to Cyprus or Europe or the U.S. for a civil marriage. The system sucks (pardon my language) but it is not a “racist” system, it is just very much behind the times.

As for Palestinians marrying someone from the Territories, the Israeli position while sad is understandable given the fact that again Israel is under no obligation to grant citizenship or residency to anyone that is not a citizen. Can Israelis marry someone from the territories and bring them to Israel? Nope. Is that objectively fair? No. Is it Apartheid? Not by a long shot.

In the end, Cole’s farce of an article should be satire. Sadly it is not. To compare Israel to South Africa is a joke. In South Africa Whites were 12% of that nation’s population. In Israel Jews are 77% of the population. Blacks as a population were completely disenfranchised. Arab-Israelis are not. Blacks were segregated in every sector of society. Israeli-Arabs are not. Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. I am pretty sure that South Africa is NOT the ancestral homeland of the Dutch or British White people.

One can agree with the point being made by John Kerry or not. I happen to think Kerry chose an unfortunate word “Apartheid” to make his point. I think his concern is valid but even with a One State solution; one would still be fairly far away from accurately using the term Apartheid and having that term mean anything.

An Open Letter to Roger Waters

Dear Mr. Waters,
As a fan of Pink Floyd and of your music in general I have to tell you that I was severely disappointed in the letter you wrote to try to convince Alicia Keys NOT to perform in Israel.  I would be very remiss if I did not tell you that your letter is full of contradictions and outright falsehoods.
You write:

“We are all part of the same old story, nothing has changed since the bad old days of apartheid South Africa and Segregated America. We must stand united with all our brothers and sisters against racism, colonialism, segregation and apartheid.

Please, Alicia, do not lend your name to give legitimacy to the Israeli government policies of illegal, apartheid, occupation of the homelands of the indigenous people of Palestine.

Others may try to persuade you that by playing in Israel you may magically effect some change; we know that this is not true, appeasement didn't work with South Africa and it has not worked in Israel. I know I tried it ten years ago, things have only got worse.

I appeal to you to join the rising tide of resistance. Join the many millions of us in global civil society who stand together on the side of justice and peace for all humanity. "We shall overcome one day."

Well, first of all Roger… things have changed, and in this case NOT for the better. You talk about standing with “brothers and sisters” against racism, and apartheid and you talk about “global civil society” that is standing for peace and justice for all humanity… Apparently though, you seem to forget the Jewish people when you talk about “all humanity”.

For instance, you mention that Israelis are occupying the “homelands of the indigenous people of Palestine”, well are not the Jewish people indigenous to the area known as Palestine / Israel? And if so, why do you deny the Jewish people their legitimate rights to self-determination in their ancestral homeland? If you do deny that Jews are indigenous to the area known as the Palestine district, where do you think they originated?

But when you talk in support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) you should realize that this is a movement that denies the Jewish People their legitimate rights to self determination and instead favors only the rights of the Palestinian people.

You talk of peace and justice but understand that neither the Palestinian polity nor the Jewish polity, accepts what you propose. HOWEVER, Israel (the country you demonize in your letter) is on record offering peace agreements time and time again, only to be rebuffed by the Palestinians that you claim to represent. Did you know that the Palestinian Polity overwhelmingly REJECTS a One State Democratic Solution that guarantees equal rights to Jews? Yep… they do. Don’t take my word for it though – please look at the results of the PSR Poll 47 from the Palestinian Center for Survey and Research in Ramallah.

Look in section 5 regarding The Peace Process. Here are the findings on this:

Talk has recently increased about the inevitable failure of the two state solution and the need to demand the formulation of a solution based on the establishment of one state in all Palestinian areas and Israel, one in which Arabs and Jews enjoy equality. Do you support or oppose this view?

Support: 29%
Oppose: 70%

(Note vote is not in original form due to formatting issues but the question is the exact wording - J.S.)

 And there we have it… 70% of the Palestinian Polity OPPOSES a state where Arabs and Jews enjoy equality. So do you support Democracy here, and if not, what kind of government do you support? Also, if not, how do you square that with your rhetoric?

So really, wouldn’t you say that the program that you support and called for by Palestinian Civil Society one is the one that reflects colonialism and apartheid? I mean, you are telling us to support Palestinian political dreams. Well, here they are in a poll of Palestinians by Palestinians. So how do you square this with your talk about justice for humanity Mr. Waters?

Then you talk about Apartheid. Roger, do you know what Apartheid is? I get that it is the hip word to use when talking about Israel, but, really how accurate is that term? I mean you do know that South Africa was a country that was ruled by a minority government that practiced the most severe forms of segregation and oppression? In South Africa Whites were only 12% of the population, but in Israel, Jews are 73% of the population.

Further… Arabs are not precluded from being part of Israeli society, unlike in South Africa, Arabs can and do vote including having ministers in Government, justices on the Israeli Supreme Court and so forth. Do you know that Omar Barghouti, the head of the movement you support got his Masters at Tel-Aviv University? In South Africa Black and White Students were not allowed to mix.

The failed analogy goes on and on.

Finally Mr. Waters, do you really want to bring Alice Walker into this? I mean, I realize that Ms. Walker is a famous and well received author but did you know that Ms. Walker also supports the insane, and frankly racist writing of David Ickes? Again, don’t take my word for it. How about you read for yourself:

http://alicewalkersgarden.com/2013/02/human-race-get-off-your-knees-i-couldnt-have-put-it-better-myself/

Here is just a little slice of Ms. Walkers feelings:

It’s an amazing book, HUMAN RACE GET OFF YOUR KNEES, and reading it was the ultimate reading adventure.  I felt it was the first time I was able to observe, and mostly imagine and comprehend, the root of the incredible evil that has engulfed our planet.   A lot of it is how shall we say: shocking, beyond belief (but not really, if you don’t get too scared), stunning, profound.  The deconstruction of language is breathtaking, the interrogation of symbols startling.  Magical, in a way.  I kept going:  Oh, so that’s why….  You will too.
The Reptilian space beings whose hybrid (part human, part reptile) descendants make our lives hell in Paradise were blue eyed devils to Malcolm X,  the devil himself to my Christian parents, who never talked about eye color, which I think was not only prudent but wise,  although they seemed clear enough about his sex, and as demons in many other religions, including the non-religion, Buddhism, where the advice is often to invite them in until they go away.  But maybe these were other kinds of demons.  Not the ones controlling not just you, but everything.

Is this the company that you want to keep – people insisting that White’s and Jews are some alien hybrid Reptillian race bent on suppression of the planet?

Roger, I would suggest that before you send out requests like the one you did, you look at the hypocrisy contained in your letter. You claim to be for “human rights and justice for all humanity”. Aren’t we Jews human? OR maybe you subscribe to David Icke’s theories as well?

Please just look at the data for the side that you support. I am not sure how any of what you support measures up to your rhetoric and words to Ms. Keys.

Regards -

When the "A" Word is Simply NOT Appropriate

Amongst critics of Israel as of late, there has been a stepped up effort to label Israel as an "Apartheid State". Now this meme has been circulating around the Far-Left for a while and now it has been picked up by the Rightist Haters as well in their unholy alliance with the leftist fringe. It has become yet another distortion in the anti-Semitic quiver of weapons against Israel and by extension the Jewish people.

According to the dictionary "Apartheid" means:

1: racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa

2: separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

But it means much more than just "racial segregation" or "separation". Apartheid has come to be associated specifically with the brutal segregation of races that took place in South Africa. It has gone beyond being a just a word and has become a term associated with a criminal regime that created racial separation on the perceived basis of racial superiority. Nothing more, nothing less. MOREOVER, the word came to symbolize an oppressive minority population holding a vast majority population in thrall and using that population as close to slave labor. And that is the image that those who would de-legitimize Israel want to promote concerning not just Israel but of Jews in general.

And how best to promote this meme... by simply repeating it over and over again (btw, we see this same defamation on the other side of the political spectrum by Republicans and those suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome but, this article / diary is not about that). But also by cherry picking quotes from Israeli and Jewish leaders / writers and carrying them completely out of context.

But this is the problem with using the "A" word. It is such a charged word that it renders any discussion of the issue meaningless. It reduces the discussion to a simplistic, cartoon like version of two children saying "Yes, You Are" and "No, I'm Not -  you are". In general using the term "Apartheid" to describe the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows either an amazing ignorance of the situation or an incredibly deceptive, Machiavellian streak in one's political life.

NOW... before anyone goes on to talk about how the Israelis use the term when talking about themselves that is completely a contextual thing. Just as some Israelis will call other Israelis "Nazi's", and they do, there is a whole other context where people talking about themselves will say harsher things to make a point. That, though, is another topic regarding language. BUT these Israelis in the Jewish establishment that do use the "A" word use it in a far different manner than those (both Jewish and non-Jewish) do.

Even then I think it important NOT to use that term because the situation in the Territories between Jews and Palestinians (and even should Israel annex the Territories) is very different from the racially charged premise of South Africa and it's relations of Whites and Blacks. First let's look at these differences:

1. In South Africa Whites were 12% of the total population. In Israel proper Jews (the supposed minority group) are approx. 76% of the population. Even with the Annexation of the West Bank, Jews would still be 55% of the population in Israel.

2. In South Africa, Blacks were not allowed any integration whatsoever with their fellow South African White citizens. Pools, Education, drinking fountains, even bathrooms were completely segregated. Blacks had no place in South African political life and were not even allowed a vote. On the other hand, in Israel, Arabs and Jews attend school together (in mixed neighborhoods), Israeli Arabs are not segregated at restaurants or for medical care or in public beaches. Arabs vote and participate in the Israeli government and have three parties in the Knesset that represent their interests. In fact, when Israel annexed Jerusalem, Arabs were offered the opportunity to become full Israeli citizens and they refused. I don't think during Apartheid that Blacks were ever offered that opportunity.

3. Israel was not created on a basis of racial superiority nor is the idea of a Jewish Homeland or State based in an ideology of superiority. The Palestinians that live in Israel are not seen as "sub-human" by law despite what some of the nuttier Rightists spout. Israel was formed as a recognition of the need of the Jewish people after being scattered to the "four corners of the Earth", to be able to express their legitimate right to self determination. AND it was recognized that the Jewish People should have this homeland in part of their ancestral lands in the Middle East.

I cannot imagine that the Dutch or British colonists heading for South Africa felt that they were actually returning to their "roots". I mean, last I checked White people were not really from anywhere near there. And while they had their reasons for going there in the first place their treatment of the black population there was solely based on racial memes. I cannot imagine that the South African Declaration of Statehood had these words in them:

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

From the Israeli Declaration of Establishment of State.

But let's take the "worst case scenario" and assume that something like the Bennett plan (HaBayit HaYehudi) or the Rightists in Likud gets their way and Israel decides to annex the Occupied Territories. That still could not be considered "Apartheid. One may disagree with it and find it morally wrong (as I do). One would have a good case arguing that the disenfranchisement  of a sector of the population would destroy the very notion of "Jewish Democracy", and be a clear violation of human rights and they would get no argument from me whatsoever. BUT.. It would still not be apartheid. For instance, under the Bennett Plan (a plan that I vehemently stand against), the Palestinian population in Area C and Jerusalem would be granted full Israeli citizenship whether they chose to exercise it or not. Area's A & B would be under autonomous control of the Population and would not have any local Israeli presence (though this does resemble the concept of "Bantustans" that the South African Apartheid regime enacted).

Even the reasoning behind such extreme measures does not measure up to the term. While I would never and will never agree that these are necessary steps, the fact of the matter is that Zionism is simply not about the subjugation of other peoples. It is about the necessity of the Jewish people to have a State and Homeland. I would further argue that the measures for forced security that the Bennett Plan or what Likud-Betainu offer are severely oppressive and in my mind pose a threat to the integrity of the State, they are not based on some notion that Jews as people are superior and that Arabs should not have rights (as neither plan takes away rights of Arab Israelis) despite what a small minority in both of those groups believe.

Still, the Apartheid government of South Africa never offered any of the Black Population full citizenship or equal citizenship as it did to White South Africans.

The situations and charged verbiage of "Apartheid" simply don't match up to the reality of the situation no matter what anyone wants to call it. Thus, the term "Apartheid" when used here should be completely and totally rejected for the canard that it is. It simply is inapplicable to the situation.

Moreover, I would say that the majority of the opposition to Israel's existence IS based on anti-Semitism and a feeling that Jews as a people are intrinsically inferior. I say this from both reading AND from personal experience. Certainly there are a few deluded individuals who think that they can create a society based on total equality in an Arab run polity in Palestine however, there simply is no background nor historical precedence to back this idea up.

 More disturbing is this poll from the Palestine Research Center which finds only 27% of Palestinians support a One State solution where Jews and Arabs would be equal, where 51% of respondents support attacks on Israeli civilians inside of the "Green Line" and where if elections were held today Hamas (an organization that has as part of it's charter that Israel should be destroyed and all Jews should be hunted down and killed) would win.

So, honestly, unlike Whites in South Africa, Jews in Israel DO face an existential threat to their nation and very lives.

I do want to make clear though that despite my rejection of the use of the term "Apartheid" this does NOT mean that I think the situation as it exists is either tenable nor moral. Further, I believe that disenfranchisement of a large portion of the population of a nation IS oppression and unjust. I think that it destroys the very fabric of the concept of Israel (or at least what Israel's founders envisioned), and I think it goes a ways towards destroying the nation of Israel itself.

And to the critics of this... I don't care what the Arabs do or don't do in their own societies. I am not one of them, that is for them to reform or not - it's up to them not me. What I do care about is how we as Jewish people deal with ourselves and our situation. THAT is my concern. I think that becoming like our enemies simply defeats the purpose of what I believe and that belief is that we need to be the best we can be as both a society and as individuals. I do not want to treat others as I would not want to be treated. I want to strive for the nation that Ben-Gurion envisioned when he sought a nation that would be "a light unto all nations".

Use of the term "Apartheid" for the Israeli Palestinian situation is simply intellectual laziness and exposes complete weakness in persons argument. I believe that it is important that we fight the "Apartheid meme" with all of our abilities and with logic and reason. Even when those who use it obviously are not drawing parallels to South Africa, it is important that we simply but forthrightly stand up against that meme. It is simply wrong to use that term and for this situation highly inappropriate.