Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/ProposedChange

Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw an analogy between South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era and Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the Occupied Territories or Israel.

Those who use the analogy claim that Palestinians are not afforded the rights and privileges of Israelis and that Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories amounts to oppression. They may point to the physical separation between the two groups, or claim that Arab citizens of Israel receive second-class status.

Many of those who reject the analogy argue that it is political slander intended to malign Israel by singling it out, and say that legitimate Israeli security needs justify the practices that prompt the analogy. In relation to the situation within Israel itself, they also point to substantial rights that Arab Israelis share with their fellow citizens — including suffrage, the ability to hold public office, and freedom of speech—that were not available to the blacks of South Africa.

Overview
Comparisons between Israeli policies and apartheid have been made by groups and individuals, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and other South African anti-apartheid leaders, Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, leftist Israeli journalists,  the Syrian government, pro-Palestinian student groups in the UK, U.S., and Canada, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem.

Ian Buruma has argued that even though there is social discrimination against Arabs in Israel and that the "the ideal of a Jewish state smacks of racism", the analogy is "intellectually lazy, morally questionable and possibly even mendacious", as "[n]on-Jews, mostly Arab Muslims, make up 20% of the Israeli population, and they enjoy full citizen's rights" and "[i]nside the state of Israel, there is no apartheid".

Heribert Adam of Simon Fraser University and Kogila Moodley of the University of British Columbia, in their 2005 book-length study Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians, apply lessons learned in South Africa to resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They divide academic and journalistic commentators on the analogy into three groups:

Adam and Moodley also suggest that political actors such as former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak used the analogy "self-servingly in their exhortations and rationalizations" and that such actors "have repeatedly deplored the occupation and seeming 'South Africanization' but have done everything to entrench it."
 * "The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals."
 * "'Israel is Apartheid' advocates include most Palestinians, many Third World academics, and several Jewish post-Zionists who idealistically predict an ultimate South African solution of a common or binational state."
 * A third group which sees both similarities and differences, and which looks to South African history for guidance in bringing resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Hendrik Verwoerd, then prime minister of South Africa and the architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, said in 1961 that "The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand yearswhereas Jews have only lived there for three thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state." Israel was critical of apartheid through the 1950s and 60s as it built alliances with post-colonial African governments." For example, also in 1961, Israel voted for the General Assembly censure of Eric Louw's speech defending apartheid.

Idi Amin Dada, the racist former dictator of Uganda who killed between 300,000 and 500,000 Ugandans, expelled 80,000 Uganda's Asians and died in forced exile in Saudi Arabia in 2003, compared Israel to South African apartheid in the United Nations General Assembly in 1975.

Israeli academic and political activist Uri Davis, has written several books on the analogy, including Israel: An Apartheid State in 1987.

Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
In 2002 Anglican Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu wrote a series of articles in major newspapers, comparing the Israeli occupation of the West Bank to apartheid South Africa, and calling for the international community to divest support from Israel until the territories were no longer occupied. He drew from his own experience:

Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States, Camp David Accords negotiator, and Nobel Peace Prize winner and author of the 2006 book entitled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid has stated:

and:

Other prominent South African anti-apartheid activists have used apartheid comparisons to criticize the occupation of the West Bank, and particularly the construction of the separation barrier. These include Farid Esack, a Muslim writer who is currently William Henry Bloomberg Visiting Professor at Harvard Divinity School, Ronnie Kasrils, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Dennis Goldberg, and Arun Ghandhi,

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Agency (NSA) advisor to President Carter commented that the absence of a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid.

Yakov Malik, the Soviet Ambassador to the United Nations accused Israel--an ally of the US in the Cold War against the Soviets-- of promulgating a "racist policy of apartheid against Palestinians" following the imposition of Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the Six-Day War of 1967.

In 1973, the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It limited the definition of the "crime of apartheid" to "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group ... over another racial group ... and systematically oppressing them."

In 2002, the definition of apartheid was expanded by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The "crime of apartheid" was listed as one of several "crimes against humanity," and was defined as including inhumane acts such as torture, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset, argued that the West Bank and Gaza Strip separated into "cantons," and Palestinians required to carry permits to travel between them. Azmi Bishara, another Arab member of the Knesset, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid."

Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories", in an essay included in the anthology The Other Israel, Voices of Refusal and Dissent.

John Dugard, a South African professor of international law and an ad hoc Judge on the International Court of Justice, serving as the Special Rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories described the situation in the West Bank as "an apartheid regime ... worse than the one that existed in South Africa." In 2007, in advance of a report from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Dugard wrote that "Israel's laws and practices in the OPT [occupied Palestinian territories] certainly resemble aspects of apartheid." Referring to Israel's actions in the occupied West Bank, he wrote, "Can it seriously be denied that the purpose [...] is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them? Israel denies that this is its intention or purpose. But such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report."

Some Israelis have compared the separation plan to apartheid, such as political scientist Meron Benvenisti,  and journalist Amira Hass. Ami Ayalon, Israeli admiral and former leader of the Israel Security Agency criticized the model, claiming it "ha[d] some apartheid charertistics." Shulamit Aloni, former education minister, Israel Prize winner, and a former leader of Meretz, said that the state of Israel is "practicing its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population."

Palestinians living in the non-annexed portions of the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship or voting rights in Israel, but are subject to the policies of the Israeli government. Israel has created roads and checkpoints in the West Bank for security reasons, to prevent uninhibited movement of suicide bombers and militants in the region. According to the pro-Palestinian human rights NGO B'Tselem, such policies isolate some Palestinian communities. Marwan Bishara, a teacher of international relations at the American University of Paris, has claimed that the restrictions on the movement of goods between Israel and the West Bank as "a defacto apartheid system".

According to Leila Farsakh, associate professor of Political Science at University of Massachusetts Boston, after 1977, "[t]he military government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) expropriated and enclosed Palestinian land and allowed the transfer of Israeli settlers to the occupied territories: they continued to be governed by Israeli laws. The government also enacted different military laws and decrees to regulate the civilian, economic and legal affairs of Palestinian inhabitants. These strangled the Palestinian economy and increased its dependence and integration into Israel." Farsakh states that "[m]any view these Israeli policies of territorial integration and societal separation as apartheid, even if they were never given such a name."

Guardian journalist Chris McGreal has written, "[t]here are few places in the world where governments construct a web of nationality and residency laws designed for use by one section of the population against another. Apartheid South Africa was one. So is Israel." According to Juan Cole, "The end game for [Sharon] is the division of the West Bank Palestinians into three Bantustans completely surrounded by Israeli forces or settlements, and the maintainance of Gaza as a permanent slum that advertises Palestinians as wretched and dangerous...The horrible implications for the state of Israel is its descent into a permanent Apartheid state." John Dugard has argued that the West Bank is being fragmented into areas "which increasingly resemble the Bantustans of South Africa".

Former Italian prime minister Massimo D'Alema told the Israeli press in 2003 that in a visit to Rome, Prime Minister Sharon had "explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict" between Israel and the Palestinians. Akiva Eldar of Haaretz wrote:

The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem also alleges that the legal system is reminiscent of apartheid. B'Tselem wrote in 2004 that "Palestinians are barred from or have restricted access to 450 miles of West Bank roads, a system with 'clear similarities' to South Africa's former apartheid regime". In October 2005 the Israel Defense Force stopped Palestinians from driving on the main road through the West Bank; B'Tselem described this as a first step towards "total 'road apartheid'". Jimmy Carter has stated that the prohibition of Palestanians using this road "perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa."

On April 14, 2002, during Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, "launched after a spate of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians", the Israeli cabinet announced that it would construct "fences and other physical obstacles" to "prevent Palestinians crossing into Israel". This effort, which became the West Bank barrier, has been described as an "apartheid wall". Leila Farsakh argues that the barrier "is establishing a unilaterally defined Israeli border that encroaches on the 1967 boundaries and cuts Palestinian areas off from each another".

A permit and closure system was introduced in 1990 by the Oslo Accords, intended to reduce suicide bombings and other Palestinian violence. Leila Farsakh, states that this imposes "on Palestinians similar conditions to those faced by blacks under the pass laws. Like the pass laws, the permit system controlled population movement according to the settlers’ unilaterally defined considerations." In response to the al-Aqsa intifada, Israel modified the permit system and fragmented the WBGS [West Bank and Gaze Strip] territorially. "In April 2002 Israel declared that the WBGS would be cut into eight main areas, outside which Palestinians could not live without a permit." John Dugard has said these laws "resemble, but in severity go far beyond, apartheid's pass system".

The debate on the two-state solution
See also: Israel's unilateral disengagement plan

Some have also predicted that aspects of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan would also lead to apartheid-like conditions. These predictions are raised both by those who advocate a two-state solution and by those who advocate a one-state binational solution. These opponents of the plan generally agree with the principle of making territorial concessions, but object to the limited scope of the plan, which would leave much of the currently-occupied territory under some level of Israeli control.


 * Desmond Tutu has advocated a two-state solution, saying, "Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders."


 * In January 2004, Ahmed Qureia, then the Palestinian Prime Minister, said that the building of the West Bank barrier, and the associated Israeli absorption of parts of the West Bank, constituted "an apartheid solution to put the Palestinians in cantons." He predicted that Israel's unilateralism could prompt an end to the Palestinian efforts towards a two-state solution, and instead shift favour towards a one-state solution.


 * When asked for comment on Qureia's statement, Colin Powell, then U.S. Secretary of State, responded by affirming U.S. commitment to a two-state solution while saying, "I don't believe that we can accept a situation that results in anything that one might characterize as apartheid or Bantuism."


 * Ehud Olmert, then Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, commented in April 2004 that, "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."


 * An academic paper by Professor Oren Yiftachel Chair of the Geography Department at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev predicted that Israel unilateral disengagement plan will result in "creeping apartheid" in the West Bank, Gaza, and in Israel itself. Yiftachel argues that, "Needless to say, the reality of apartheid existed for decades in Israel/Palestine, but this is the first time a Prime Minister spells out clearly the strengthening of this reality as a long-term political platform." . Yiftachel argued that the plan would entrench a situation that can be described as "neither two states nor one," separating Israelis from Palestinians without giving Palestinians true sovereignty.


 * Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli political scientist and the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, predicted that the interim disengagement plan would become permanent, with the West Bank barrier entrenching both the isolation of Palestinian communities and the existence of Israeli settlements. He warned that Israel is moving towards the model of apartheid South Africa through the creation of "Bantustan" like conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.


 * The Economist, in an article on the debate over withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, asserted that "Keeping the occupied land will force on Israel the impossible choice of being either an apartheid state, or a binational one with Jews as a minority."

Michael Tarazi, a Palestinian proponent of the binational solution has argued that it is in Palestine's interest to "make this an argument about apartheid", to the extent of advocating Israeli settlement, "The longer they stay out there, the more Israel will appear to the world to be essentially an apartheid state".

Allegations of apartheid policies inside Israel
93.5% of the land inside the Green Line is not held by private owners. 79.5% of the land is owned by the Israeli Government through the Israel Land Administration, and 14% is privately owned by the Jewish National Fund. Under Israeli law, both ILA and JNF lands may not be sold, and are leased under the administration of the ILA.

Journalist Chris McGreal reported that as a result of the government controlling most of the land, the vast majority of land in Israel is not available to non-Jews. In response, Alex Safian of the media watch-dog CAMERA has argued that this is not true -- according to Safian, the 79.5% of Israeli land owned directly by the ILA is available for lease to both Jews and Arabs, sometimes on beneficial terms to Arabs under Israeli affirmative action programs. While Safian concedes that the 14% of Israeli land owned by the JNF is not legally available for lease to Israel's Arab citizens, he argues that the ILA often ignores this restriction in practice.

Safian also noted that although there are formal restrictions on the lease of JNF land, which is privately owned by the JNF, "in practice JNF land has been leased to Arab citizens of Israel, both for short-term and long-term use. To cite one example of the former, JNF-owned land in the Besor Valley (Wadi Shallaleh) near Kibbutz Re'em has been leased on a yearly basis to Bedouins for use as pasture."

In March 2000, Israel's High Court ruled in Qaadan v. Katzir that the government's use of the JNF to develop public land was discriminatory due to the agency's prohibition against leasing to non-Jews. According to Alexandre Kedar of the Haifa University Law School "Until the Supreme Court Qaadan v. Katzir decision, Arabs could not acquire land in any of the hundreds of settlements of this kind existing in Israel..

The Israeli identity card, or Teudat Zehut, is required of all residents over the age of 16, indicate whether holders are Jewish or not by adding the person's Hebrew date of birth.

In a controversial article in the Guardian, journalist Chris McGreal reported that having indications of Jewish ethnicity on Israeli identification cards is "in effect determining where they are permitted to live, access to some government welfare programmes, and how they are likely to be treated by civil servants and policemen." The same article also compared Israel's Population Registry Act, which calls for the gathering of ethnic data, to South Africa's Apartheid-era Population Registration Act. Similar religion-identifying cards exist in several other Middle Eastern Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, both of which have been accused of apartheid partially based on such identification.

The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law, passed by the Knesset on 31 July 2003, forbids married couples comprising an Israeli citizen and a Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza Strip from living together in Israel. The law does allow children from such marriages to live in Israel until age 12, at which age the law requires them to emigrate. The law was originally enacted for one year, extended for a six month period on 21 July 2004, and for an additional four month period on 31 January 2005. "On 27 July 2005, the Knesset voted to extend the law until 31 March 2006, with minor amendments." The law was narrowly upheld in May 2006, by the Supreme Court of Israel on a six to five vote. Israel's Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, sided with the minority on the bench, declaring: "This violation of rights is directed against Arab citizens of Israel. As a result, therefore, the law is a violation of the right of Arab citizens in Israel to equality." Zehava Gal-On, a founder of B'Tselem and a Knesset member with the Meretz-Yachad party, stated that with the ruling "The Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegated us to the level of an apartheid state."

Adam and Moodley cite the marriage law as an example of how Arab Israelis "resemble in many ways 'Colored' and Indian South Africans." They write: "Both Israeli Palestinians and Colored and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorities as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their access to land or allocates civil service positions or per capita expenditure on education differentially between dominant and minority citizens."

President Carter has reiterated the point that his "use of 'apartheid' does not apply to circumstances within Israel."


 * Regarding the title of his book Carter says: "It's not Israel. The book has nothing to do with what's going on inside Israel which is a wonderful democracy, you know, where everyone has guaranteed equal rights and where, under the law, Arabs and Jews who are Israelis have the same privileges about Israel.  That's been most of the controversy because people assume it's about Israel. It's not.


 * "I've never alleged that the framework of apartheid existed within Israel at all ... . So it was a very clear distinction."

Criticism
Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity. Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all other Israelis, whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc. These rights include suffrage, political representation and recourse to the courts. Israeli Arabs are represented in the Knesset (Israel's legislature) and participate fully in Israeli political, cultural, and educational life. In apartheid South Africa, "Blacks" and "Coloureds" could not vote and had no representation in the South African parliament..

The features of petty apartheid do not exist within Israel, according to Benjamin Pogrund:

Arab Israelis are eligible for special perks, as well as affirmative action. The city of Jerusalem gives Arab residents free professional advice to assist with the house permit process and structural regulations, advice which is not available to Jewish residents on the same terms.

StandWithUs, a pro-Israel advocacy organization, has also stated that

Unlike South Africa, where Apartheid prevented Black majority rule, within Israel itself there is currently a Jewish majority.

The allegation was made at the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism. The conference was criticized by the United States and Israel, who described it as disproportionaly and unfairly demonizing and delegitimizing Israel. The resolution was not supported by a single Western country. Both Australia and Canada made statements accusing the conference of "hypocrisy". For example,

Critics of the claim that Israel is racist argue that, unlike apartheid, Israeli practices, even if they deserve to be criticized, are not prompted by racism. Benjamin Pogrund writes:

Jimmy Carter and Raja G. Khouri, who support the apartheid analogy, concur that the Israeli policies in question are not motivated by racism.

British journalist Melanie Phillips has criticized Desmond Tutu for comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa. Having made the comparison in an article for The Guardian in 2002, Tutu stated that people are scared to say the "Jewish lobby" in the U.S. is powerful. "So what?" he asked. "The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust." Phillips wrote of Tutu's article: "I never thought that I would see brazenly printed in a reputable British newspaper not only a repetition of the lie of Jewish power but the comparison of that power with Hitler, Stalin and other tyrants. I never thought I would see such a thing issuing from a Christian archbishop ... How can Christians maintain a virtual silence about the persecution of their fellow worshippers by Muslims across the world, while denouncing the Israelis who are in the front line against precisely this terror?"

In December, 2006, Maurice Ostroff of the Jerusalem Post criticized Tutu for being well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided: "If he took the opportunity during his forthcoming visit to impartially examine all the facts, he would discover - to his pleasant surprise - that accusations of Israeli apartheid are mean-spirited and wrong-headed... He would find that whereas the apartheid of the old South Africa was entrenched in law, Israel's Declaration of Independence absolutely ensures complete equality of social and political rights to all inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race, or gender.

Norman Finkelstein, an assistant professor of political science at DePaul University and author of numerous books relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and anti-Semitism such as Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (1995), The Rise and Fall of Palestine: A Personal Account of the Intifada Years (1998), The Holocaust Industry (2003), and Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History  (2005), defends Carter's analysis in Palestine Peace Not Apartheid as (in his view) both historically accurate and non-controversial outside the United States: "After four decades of Israeli occupation, the infrastructure and superstructure of apartheid have been put in place.  Outside the never-never land of mainstream American Jewry and U.S. media[,] this reality is barely disputed." Finkelstein cited historian Benny Morris, a widely quoted scholar on the Arab-Israeli conflict, twice as one of the "informed commentators" that supports Carter's apartheid analogy. Morris replied to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America that "Norman Finkelstein is a notorious distorter of facts and of my work, not a serious or honest historian. ... As to the occupied territories, Israeli policy is fueled by security considerations (whether one agrees with them or not, or with all the specific measures adopted at any given time) rather than racism (though, to be sure, there are Israelis who are motivated by racism in their attitude and actions towards Arabs) — and indeed the Arab population suffers as a result. But Gaza's and the West Bank's population (Arabs) are not Israeli citizens and cannot expect to benefit from the same rights as Israeli citizens so long as the occupation or semi-occupation (more accurately) continues, which itself is a function of the continued state of war between the Hamas-led Palestinians (and their Syrian and other Arab allies) and Israel."

In an op-ed for the Jerusalem Post, Gerald Steinberg, Professor of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University, argued that "Black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid, in contrast, Palestinians are dependent on Israeli employment due to their own internal corruption and economic failures."

In "It's Not Apartheid", published in Slate (subtitled: Jimmy Carter's moronic new book about Israel") and the Washington Post (subtitled: "Carter Adds to the List Of Mideast Misjudgments"), columnist Michael Kinsley states that Carter "makes no attempt to explain [the use of the loaded word 'apartheid']" which he calls "a foolish and unfair comparison, unworthy of the man who won -- and deserved -- the Nobel Peace Prize..."

Citing what he calls "the most tragic difference," Kinsley concludes: "If Israel is white South Africa and the Palestinians are supposed to be the blacks, where is their Mandela?"


 * Further information:Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

The Human Rights Council, at which John Dugard made his allegations, has been criticized by the United States, Kofi Annan, and several other nations for demonizing Israel, having passed eight resolutions condemning Israel, and none condemning any other country. In a speech that was banned from being put on the Human Rights Council's record, the leader of the NGO UN Watch said that (Arab) dictators in control of the council had turned the original dream of the Human Rights council into a "nightmare", by focusing only on Israel so as to ignore what was going on in their own countries (such as the genocide in Darfur).

Supporters of the West Bank barrier consider it to be largely responsible for reducing incidents of terrorism by 90% from 2002 to 2005. Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, stated in 2004 that the barrier is not a border but a temporary defensive measure designed to protect Israeli civilians from terrorist infiltration and attack, and can be dismantled if appropriate. The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the barrier is defensive and accepted the government's position that the route is based on security considerations.

David Matas and Jean-Christophe Rufin argue that the term is inaccurate, dangerous, and used as a rhetorical device to isolate Israel. They also call it antisemitic, and potentially a means to justify acts of terrorism.

Ian Buruma, Professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism at Bard College, New York, finds the comparison to be "intellectually lazy, morally questionable, and possibly even mendacious." Though he disagrees with Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in his view:

In 2002, in response to a proposed academic boycott of Israel, Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, said that the analogy of Israel to South Africa at the time of apartheid, "is both grotesque and offensive". Juan Cole also wrote "The supporters of the European academic boycott often make an analogy to South Africa and its apartheid policies. Yet while Arab Israelis are discriminated against in many ways in Israeli society, there is nothing like apartheid.

David Matas, senior counsel to B'nai Brith Canada, argues that the starting point for anti-Zionists is the "vocabulary of condemnation", rather than specific criticism of the practises of Israel. He writes that "any unsavoury verbal weapon that comes to hand is used to club Israel and its supporters. The reality of what happens in Israel is ignored. What matters is the condemnation itself. For anti-Zionists, the more repugnant the accusation made against Israel the better." Because apartheid is universally condemned, and a global coalition helped to bring down the South African apartheid regime, anti-Zionists "dream of constructing a similar global anti-Zionism effort", writes Matas. "The simplest and most direct way for them to do so is to label Israel as an apartheid state. The fact that there is no resemblance whatsoever between true apartheid and the State of Israel has not stopped anti-Zionists for a moment."

In 2003, South Africa's minister for home affairs Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi said that "The Israeli regime is not apartheid. It is a unique case of democracy". According to Fred Taub, the President of Boycott Watch, "[t]he assertion ... that Israel is practicing apartheid is not only false, but may be considered libelous. ... The fact is that it is the Arabs who are discriminating against non-Muslims, especially Jews."

In 2004, Jean-Christophe Rufin, former vice-president of Médecins Sans Frontières and president of Action Against Hunger, recommended in a report about anti-Semitism commissioned by French Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin that the charge of apartheid and racism against Israel be criminalized in France. He wrote:

In 2004's The Trouble with Islam Today, Irshad Manji argues the allegation of apartheid in Israel is misleading. She writes that there are several Arab political parties; Arab-Muslim legislators have veto powers; and that Arab parties have won overturned disqualifications. She points to Arabs, like Emile Habibi, who have been awarded prestigious prizes. She also states that Israel has a free Arab press; road signs bear Arabic; Arabs live and study alongside Jews; and claims that Palestinans commuting from the West Bank are entitled to state benefits and legal protections.

Benny Morris, one of the most widely quoted scholars on the Arab-Israeli conflict, told CAMERA:

Morris later added: "Israel ... has not jailed tens of thousands of Arabs indiscriminately out fear that they might support the Arab states warring with Israel; it did not do so in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 or 1982 — despite the Israeli Arabs' support for the enemy Arab states."

Other views
Human rights violations exist in other nations, including Arab majority states critical of Israel, and yet, Adam and Moodley suggest, Israel receives disproportionate scrutiny for a number of reasons. For its Jewish majority and Arab citizens, Israel is a Western democracy and is judged by the standards of one; similarly, Western commentators feel "a greater affinity to a like minded polity than to an autocratic Third World state." Israel also claims to be a spiritual home for a worldwide Jewish diaspora. Israel, which "is heavily bankrolled by U.S. taxpayers," is a strategic outpost of the Western world who can be viewed as sharing a collective responsibility for its behaviors. Radical Islamists "use Israeli policies to mobilize anti-Western sentiment." "Unconditional U.S. support for Israeli expansionism potentially unites Muslim moderates with jihadists." As a result of these factors, the West Bank Barrier &mdash; nicknamed the "apartheid wall" &mdash; has become a critical frontline in the War on Terrorism.

Adam and Moodley add that many Israelis are Holocaust survivors and their descendants, and are therefore expected to be particularly careful not to repeat ethnic discrimination, noting that the anti-Apartheid resistance that formed against South Africa was disproportionately Jewish. This argument is also made by Ali Abunimah, creator of the Electronic Intifada website and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. Abunimah writes that "[m]any liberal Zionists were active in the antiapartheid struggle and cannot accept that the Israel they love could have anything in common with the hated apartheid regime."

At the same time, Adam and Moodley note that Jewish historical suffering has imbued Zionism with a subjective sense of moral validity that the whites ruling South Africa never had: "Afrikaner moral standing was constantly undermined by exclusion and domination of blacks, even subconsiously in the minds of its beneficiaries. In contrast, the similar Israeli dispossession of Palestinians is perceived as self-defense and therefore not immoral." They also suggest that academic comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa that see both dominant groups as "settler societies" leave unanswered the question of "when and how settlers become indigenous," as well as failing to take into account that Israeli's Jewish immigrants view themselves as returning home. "In their self-concept, Zionists are simply returning to their ancentral homeland from which they were dispersed two millenia ago. Originally most did not intend to exploit native labor and resources, as colonizers do." Adam and Moodley stress that "because people give meaning to their lives and interpret their worlds through these diverse ideological prisms, the perceptions are real and have to be taken seriously."

Adam and Moodley also argue that Afrikaner leaders who justified their policies by claiming to be fighting against ANC communism found that excuse outdated after the collapse of the Soviet Union, whereas "continued Arab hostilities sustain the Israeli perception of justifiable self-defense."

Adam and Moodley argue that notwithstanding universal suffrage within Israel proper, "if the Palestinian territories under more or less permanent Israeli occupation and settler presence are considered part of the entity under analysis, the comparison between a disenfranchised African population in apartheid South Africa and the three and a half million stateless Palestinians under Israeli domination gains more validity."

Adam and Moodley contend that the relationship of South African apartheid to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been misinterpreted as "justifying suicide bombing and glorifying martyrdom." They argue that the ANC "never endorsed terrorism," and stress that "not one suicide has been committed in the cause of a thirty-year-long armed struggle, although in practice the ANC drifted increasingly toward violence during the latter years of apartheid."

Adam and Moodley conclude their book by arguing that

White supremacist David Duke, Holocaust denier and Paul Grubach of the Institute for Historical Review, have both described Israel as an apartheid state.