The need for Israel Divestment

The Need for Campus Divestment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, these same leaders, including Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Ronnie Kasrils, and Breyton Breytenbach, continue to be driven by these same fundamental principles, and as a result, have caused a stir in the international community with their recent declarations that Israel’s occupation of Palestine bears the same markings of apartheid South Africa.

By Fadi Kiblawi for Palestine Chronicle

The system of de facto and de jure racial segregation that officially shaped South Africa’s political and social structure throughout most of the 20th century institutionally came to be known as apartheid with the election of the Afrikaner National Party in 1948.

The defining factor of this system was the delineation of one race from another in the domestic policies of the state. Blacks were refused the right to vote, prohibited from most public political, economic and social sectors, and subjugated to a barrage of stringent laws and regulations; all with the intent of maintaining white domination while extending racial separation.

The downfall of this racist regime can be duly accredited to the resistance of the brave leaders of the anti-apartheid struggle, despite the costly repercussions that they faced.

Driven by an innate moral clarity, these heroes were dealt torture, death, and indefinite incarcerations, in their aspirations for a future in which social justice and equality reign superior.

Today, these same leaders, including Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Ronnie Kasrils, and Breyton Breytenbach, continue to be driven by these same fundamental principles, and as a result, have caused a stir in the international community with their recent declarations that Israel’s occupation of Palestine bears the same markings of apartheid South Africa. Kasrils, a Jewish leader, went as far as labeling Israel’s apartheid as worse than that of South Africa’s, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for disinvestments from companies that contribute to the Israeli market.

These allegations have been met with a waive of skepticism, mostly from American Jewish organizations, denying the associations.

However, these cries have lacked factual basis, avoided addressing the defining characteristics of Israeli apartheid, or wrongfully implied racial inferiority in attempts to vilify the Palestinian people.

The most common argument that attempts to differentiate between Israeli policies and those of the apartheid government is that the former is a democracy whereas the latter denied blacks the right to vote. This argument holds no weight, as, while it is true that Israel’s Arab citizens do have the right to vote, 3.6 million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza live under Israeli jurisdiction, yet are denied this right, in what is effectively “taxation without representation.”

The previous argument is one of many that attempt to support Israel’s race-based socioeconomic and political structure by avoiding addressing those policies that clearly differentiate between Jews and non-Jews, and thus contribute to the classification of Israel as an apartheid state.

From an international perspective, where the borders are recognized as those in 1948, there are two degrees of apartheid. Within the borders, Israeli laws stratify ethnic groups, to the disadvantage of Arab citizens.

To ensure a demographic majority within the voting citizenry, Israel allows only the immigration of Jews to the state, excluding even the ethnically cleansed indigenous population from reentering.

Meanwhile, they tokenize the maintained 20% Arab citizenry in order to waive a banner of democracy, despite their refusal to allow equal protection of all citizens under the law, a fundamental principle of any democracy.

The second degree of apartheid is more clearly seen, in the Occupied Territories. Here, through a systematic expulsion of Palestinians, expropriation of land, house demolitions, and construction of Jewish-only settlements and roads, the Palestinian population has been isolated into little cantons, identical to the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa, in attempts to strip them of their political identity.

From an Israeli perspective, every governmental map (search “map” in Israel’s government website) delineates the borders of the state as those including the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. This signifies an Israeli recognition of the fact that they are controlling 4.6 million Palestinians within their borders, denying approximately 80% of them the right to vote.

Somehow we are expected to ignore these facts with unqualified assertions of Israeli democracy.

On top of this, Israeli claims that they are fighting a war on terrorism, ensuring their national security, or defending themselves against a nation that wants to erase its existence are smokescreens to detract attention from the real problem, being Jewish domination of a religiously diverse region.

These assertions show an uncanny resemblance to the same rhetoric that was used by the white, racist apartheid government of South Africa in their attempts to maintain power.

In both cases, the arguments attempt to vilify an entire population in a racist guilt by association to small minority extremist elements that mar every society, including Israel’s.

As the South African example has taught us, nothing can justify apartheid, and excuse inequality along religious lines, including against the indigenous, at the expense of religious or racial ultra-nationalism of one sector of the population.

The two largest benefactors to ending South African apartheid were the amount of international pressure that was amassed against it, and the emergence of a leader of the ruling party who made sacrifices against the wishes of his class, yet in the interest of justice and equality. The latter could not have existed without the former, thus increasing the importance of the role of the international community.

On that front, in the U.S., the most tangible anti-apartheid movement was the divestment campaign that hit college campuses and local governments from coast to coast. The University of Michigan played a vital role in this, after being one of the first Universities to divest in 1983.

On October 2000, the University continued its tradition of social activism, beginning the first divestment from Israel campus campaign, holding numerous demonstrations and bringing a divestment resolution to the student government.

The importance of the campus divestment campaign cannot be underestimated. It was this campaign in the 1980s that coerced Congress, after nearly 40 years of recognizing and complying with the apartheid government, to pass the anti-apartheid bill that cut ties to South Africa, and in turn paved the way for a political revolution.

This same course of action must be taken against Israeli apartheid.

The facts show clearly and undeniably that Israel’s political dynamics have resulted in a segregation and separation of ethnic and religious classes, and a subjugation of non-Jews to both an internal and settler colonization.

Until we tackle this problem, the Palestinian people, who have proven over the past 54 years to be the most resilient in the face of oppression and injustice, will continue their struggle, and violence will continue to drain the region.


Reader supported Palestine Chronicle needs your backing to continue. Please participate in our "suggested subscription" campaign: "Whatever you can afford", $25.00 per year , Or kindly mail your or subscription request to (Palestine Chronicle, PO Box 196 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-0196, USA)