Debate at University of Massachusetts Rooted in Anti-Israel Logic

On April 26th, the far left group Students for Justice in Palestine sponsored a debate at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. The topic of the debate was, “Is Israel an Apartheid State?” Arguing the positive was Nate Kelty, self described socialist. The group he represents was formed in 2001 at UC Berkeley. They push for divestment and boycott of Israel. SJP has been banned on several campuses following violent anti-Israel protests which included the seizing of buildings and at least one group member being charged with aggravated assault of a police officer. Even the use of the phrase “apartheid” in their literature is point for controversy with African-American groups finding the use of it to be “not only false, but offensive.”

[youtube CpSenK1Ub4M nolink]

Having lived in both South Africa and Israel I will try to shed some light on the topics at hand.

Mr. Kelty starts off by defining the word apartheid. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court it is a “crime against humanity” that is “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” He then begins to go through a litany of supposed proofs that Israel is indeed an apartheid state.

I’m not going to get into the discussion of whether or not “Palestinian” is a national group. Suffice it to say that, historically speaking, it is not, but it is accepted as such today. I will, though, address some of the more egregious statements made. They fall into three main categories: Outright lies, Willful Distortions and Ivory Tower Wishful Thinking.

Israel is, unapologetically, a Jewish state. Without taking into account the natural yearning of every nation for self-determination, the Jews have a very concrete reason for needing their own state. Not a multicultural everyone-fits-in state, but a state for the Jews. From ancient history until the modern day, the nations of the world have tried to exterminate the Jews. Less than 70 years ago half of the worlds Jews were slaughtered while many nations stood aside and did, at best, nothing. Liberal democracies turned back boats of Jewish refugees seeking asylum from the gas chambers of Auschwitz, knowing full well that those returned to the shores of Europe were destined for destruction. Leading up to the destruction of the Jews of Europe, many Jews saw the proverbial writing on the wall and emigrated. Many hoping to throw off the shackles of two thousand years of bitter oppression came to the desolate sands of Palestine. Following World War Two they were joined by the remnant of a remnant and, 63 years ago, Israel was born. Never again would the Jewish people leave themselves to the mercies of an uncaring world.

That is the reason for Israel’s Law of Return. This is the law stating that any Jew, anywhere in the world, can step foot in Israel and immediately receive citizenship, knowing that there is one nation in the world that will stand up for him. This is the law that the U.N., which stood by while millions of Jews were slaughtered in Europe, which did nothing as hundreds of thousands of Jews were driven out of their homes in Arab countries following the founding of the Israel, decried as racist.

As far the displacement of Arab residents during Israel’s war of Independence, this was not, in most cases, done by Israeli forces. The vast majority of Arabs left the area of their own free will. Most of the wealthier Arabs left even before the major hostilities broke out. Many others left at the behest of the invading armies who refused to accept the UN partition or any compromise with the nascent Jewish state. Still others left simply to avoid being near the fighting. Many of this latter group were actually chased down and returned to their villages by Israeli forces who promised that they would be safe. Let the record show that the entire “Palestinian Refugee” issue is almost entirely self-inflicted by an Arab leadership who refused to have anything to do with Israel.

On the topic of building permits and home demolitions, there are applicable laws on the books. Kelty quotes the virulently anti-Israel group “Peace Now” to state that 94% of building permits for Palestinians were denied. The unfortunate fact here is that the overwhelming majority of Palestinian building is done without any request for a building permit from any authority. Meanwhile, the Civil Administration of the Judea and Samaria occasionally put demolition. Except in the most egregious cases, or when there is a clear security issue, these are almost never carried out. For most of 2009-2010,100% of building permits by Jews were denied, even for houses with existing permits

Another issue Kelty brought up was that of separate roads. The issue of opening roads only to Jewish traffic (or only to Palestinian traffic) is simply a security issue. Following the signing of the Oslo Accords the majority of these roads were open to all traffic. Jews were not allowed to travel into areas under the total control of the Palestinian Authority, but Arab traffic was free to make its way along any path it wished. As terror attacks increased in the years following the accords, bypass roads were built that would allow Jews to travel to and from their homes without fear of being attacked. This certainly doesn’t fall under the definition of “systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Unless, of course, you mean that keeping Jews alive is done with the intention of maintaining that regime.

When it comes to Arabs in Politics, Kelty’s arguments are at their most laughable. Every Arab citizen of Israel has the right to vote, but most of them choose not to exercise this right. Many of them are members of the left wing Labor party and their voices have driven the primaries in that party for the last decade. Currently Ayoub Kara, a Druze, holds a Deputy minister portfolio in the current coalition. Raleb Majadele became a full Minister in 2007. Salim Joubran, an Arab, has been a permanent member of the Israeli Supreme Court since 2004. He is on record as categorically denying the statement that Israel is anywhere close to being an apartheid state. Abdel Rahman Zuabi also briefly served on the court. Arabs have been appointed as Ambassadors and Consuls from Israel and sent around the world. Major General Hussein Faras commands Israel’s Border Police and Major General Yosef Mishlav served as head of the Home Front Command, both members of Israel’s Druze community. While it is true that no Arab party has ever been included in a ruling coalition, this might have something to do with the fact that the Arab parties have declared outright that they are in favor of the destruction of the Jewish state. They are so outright in this position that Azmi Bashara, head of the Balad party and one time candidate for Prime Minister, is still wanted for High Treason for passing information to the Enemy During Time of War.

Then there is the case of an outright lie. Kelty makes the claim that it is illegal for Arabs to celebrate the “Nakba.” For those that didn’t make it through the whole video or didn’t catch that bit, “Nakba” is Arabic for disaster. It is “celebrated” on, of course, Israeli Independence Day. In March, the Knesset passed a law making it illegal for state funded bodies to sponsor or celebrate “Nakba.” Private Citizens who wish to commemorate the founding of the State however they wish are still allowed to do so. I do not see why a country has to pay for people to get up and say that the founding of that country is the worst thing that ever happened. That strikes me as simple logic and nothing to do with oppressing racial groups.

On a final note, Kelty does make one other egregious factual error. He tries to paint the picture of Pre-Zionism Israel/Palestine as an idyllic world where Jews and Arabs got along in wonderful harmony, and it wasn’t until those evil White European Zionist Jews showed up to horribly oppress the poor Palestinians (who refused to be recognized as such until the mid 1950s) in the late 1800s. Nothing could be further from the truth. From inception of Islam in the 7th century through the Crusades, the Mamluk period and into the Ottoman rule, Jews were treated as second class citizens when they weren’t outright massacred. For example, in the 1830s, the Jews were massacred by Muhammed Ali, Pasha of Egypt.

A point of note that Kelty’s interlocutor mentioned, and that Kelty said was of no consequence, I believe, does push to the heart of the issue. The other nations in the region are all serial human rights violators. The institutionalized laws on their books are exponentially worse than any accusation that can be thrown at Israel. In most of these countries, selling land to a Jew is punishable by death. In Saudi Arabia, being Jewish is a capital crime. Yet Kelty and his ilk never call for sanctions against them; they never call for divestment or boycott. There can be only a few explanations for this. In a best case scenario they see Israel, a western style democracy, as a soft target, one that actually cares. If this is the reason, then Students for Justice in Palestine are no more than base cowards. They are unwilling to challenge real evil when they see it, so feel the need to assuage their guilt by bringing down the only defender of human rights in the area. The other option is much bleaker. They have an animus towards the Jewish state, one that they do not have towards other actors in the reason, they then must transfer their own racism on to others to cover up the fact that they are guiltier of the crimes of which they seek to accuse others.

The Jewish state is just that, a State for the Jews. She is magnanimous to those who would live in peace with her, support her and commit themselves to defend her and her institutions. With that, every citizen of Israel is equal in the eyes of the law. Israel walks a very fine line, between its classical Liberal Democratic roots and its need to survive in a very hostile world, where a sizable percentage of its population has no problem with violently tearing down the very institutions that protect them unlike their brethren in the surrounding countries.

I would like to thank Nicole Pearce and Andrew Staroska from Truth About Bills for filming the video and bringing it to my attention.

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.