User:Silence/Apartheid

The term apartheid is most commonly used in reference to the South African apartheid, a former official policy of political, legal, and economic racial discrimination against nonwhites. However, the term has also come into general usage to refer to any policy or practice involving the discriminatory separation of different groups, especially where racial segregation is involved. This usage is controversial and disputed; as there is little international agreement on how to establish standards for what constitutes officially-sanctioned apartheid, the term is considered by some to be a mere political epithet outside of a historical South African context.

Legal definition
According to the International Criminal Court, "'The crime of apartheid' means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalised 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".

Allegations of class apartheid
China's houku system of residency permits, which has effectively discriminated against China's 800 million rural peasants for decades, has been been described as "China's apartheid". According to Jiang Wenran, acting director of the China Institute at the University of Alberta, this system has been "one of the most strictly enforced "apartheid" social structures in modern world history. He states "Urban dwellers enjoy a range of social, economic and cultural benefits while peasants, the majority of the Chinese population, are treated as second-class citizens."

India's treatment of its lower-class dalits has been described by UNESCO as "India's hidden apartheid". According to Rajeev Dhavan, of India's leading English-language newspaper The Hindu, "casteism is India's apartheid which will continue in its most vicious and persistent forms for decades to come." Eric Margolis has claimed that India "frantically tr[ied] to prevent its caste system, which is often called ‘hidden apartheid" from being put on the agenda of the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban.

Growing inequities in the economic and social status of Afro-Brazilians in Brazil have been described as "social apartheid". According to São Paulo Congressman Aloizio Mercadante, a leading member of Brazil's leftist Workers' Party (PT), "Just as South Africa had racial apartheid, Brazil has social apartheid." The exclusion of youth (particularly street youth) from Brazilian society has also been described as "social Apartheid". Carlos Verrisimo states these two inequities are often inter-related, and Cristovam Buarque, Governor of the Federal District from 1995 to 98, Minister of Education from 2003 to 2004, and currently PT senator for the Federal District argues that "Brazil is a divided country, home to the greatest income concentration in the world and to a model of apartation, Brazilian social apartheid." The Nation has described Brazilian president Lula as "fighting to bring the poor of Brazil out of economic apartheid".

Allegations of sexual apartheid
The term gender apartheid, sometimes called sexual apartheid, is used to describe sexist gender discrimination, and particularly strict sex- or gender-based segregation.

Afghanistan, under Taliban religious leadership, has been charactered as a "gender apartheid" system where women are segregated from men in public and do not enjoy legal equality or equal access to employment or education. Iran has also been accused of implementing a "gender apartheid" system at the behest of religious leaders. Saudi Arabia's practices against women, like those of Iran, have been referred to as "gender apartheid" and "sexual apartheid". Saudi Arabia's treatment of religious minorities has also been described as "apartheid". Until March 1, 2004, the official government website stated that Jews were forbidden from entering the country.

In 2006 Marina Mahathir, the daughter of Malaysia's former Prime Minister, and a campaigner for women's rights, described the status of Muslim women in Malaysia as similar to that of Black South Africans under apartheid. She was apparently doing so in response to new family laws which make it easier for Muslim men to divorce wives, or take multiple wives, or gain access to their property. Mahathir stated ""In our country, there is an insidious growing form of apartheid among Malaysian women, that between Muslim and non-Muslim women." According to the BBC, she sees Muslim Malaysian women as "subject to a form of apartheid - second-class citizens held back by discriminatory rules that do not apply to non-Muslim women." Her comments were strongly criticized: the Malaysian Muslim Professionals Forum stated "Her prejudiced views and assumptions smack of ignorance of the objectives and methodology of the Sharia, and a slavish capitulation to western feminism's notions of women's rights, gender equality and sexuality," and Dr Harlina Halizah Siraj, women's chief of the reform group Jamaah Islah Malaysia said "Women in Malaysia are given unlimited opportunities to obtain high education level, we are free to choose our profession and career besides enjoying high standard of living with our families."

The term has also been used to describe differential treatment of women in institutions such as the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church. See, for example, Patricia Budd Kepler in her 1978 Theology Today article "Women Clergy and the Cultural Order".

Sexual apartheid is also a term specifically used by some same-sex rights advocates to describe a legal system that "subjects lesbians and gays to separate and unequal treatment in terms of the laws governing sexual behaviour, marriage, employment, child adoption, membership of the armed forces and so on." The concept of "sexual apartheid" is used to argue against legal discrimination in age of consent between heterosexual and homosexual sex and the non-recognition of same-sex marriage or the advocacy of civil unions as a substitute are cited.

Allegations of racial apartheid
While there is no existing Australian government policy that segregates Aborigines, their poor socio-economic conditions typically leave them somewhat segregated from the rest of Australian society. This situation has led a number of commentators and civil rights groups to characterize the situation as "Apartheid". In fact, Australia's government policies are viewed by some as the original impetus for the Apartheid system in South Africa.

Canada's treatment of its native peoples has been described as "Canada's Apartheid". In 1966, Thomas Berger stated: "The history of the Indian people for the last century has been the history of the impingement of white civilization upon the Indian: the Indian was virtually powerless to resist the white civilization; the white community of B.C. adopted a policy of apartheid. This, of course, has already been done in eastern Canada and on the Prairies, but the apartheid policy adopted in B.C. was of a particularly cruel and degrading kind. They began by taking the Indians' land without any surrender and without their consent. Then they herded the Indian people on to Indian reserves. This was nothing more nor less than apartheid, and that is what it still is today."

In the 1980s, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations compared Canada's practices to Apartheid, and stated "Perhaps the most severe and yet overlooked example of discriminatory practices towards Canadians is to be found in the treatment of our own indigenous people, the Native Canadians". Canada's citizenship laws (described as "apartheid laws") did not grant full citizenship to native peoples until 1985. Even in the 21st century, according to Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, "Economically, socially, politically, culturally, we have come to accept a quiet apartheid that segregates, and thus weakens, native and non-native society", and in 2004 the Canadian Taxpayers Federation describes Canada's Indian Act, and reserve system for native Indians, as "Apartheid: Canada's ugly secret".

Soviet propaganda often used the term "apartheid" as a political epithet during the Cold War, in order to contrast the "rotting capitalism" as colonialist and racist, with declared advantages of Marxism-Leninism such as proletarian internationalism. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the pejorative is still being used in the political discourse, for example to describe national problems within Russia, or the status of ethnic Russian minority in the Baltic states   or the situation in Crimea.

France
Muslims in France have recently been accused of apartheid due to their unwillingness to integrate into the French society. Many Muslim quarters in France are no-go areas for non-Muslims, and even the police avoids them. An internal security agency in France reported in 2004 that 300 communities across the country were marked by Islamic fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and violence, coupled with hatred of France and the West. Some Muslims are already calling for the imposition of sharia in predominantly Muslim districts; in some areas, they have imposed Islamic dress, chase away French shopkeepers selling pork and alcohol, and shut down cinemas on the basis that they are "places of sin". 

Israel
The phrase "Israeli apartheid", or the description of Israel as an "apartheid state", is a controversial method of criticizing Israel's policies by drawing an analogy between the policies of the Israeli government towards Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel to those of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations. Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and a political epithet used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel.

The analogy was used as early as 1987 by Uri Davis, an Israeli-born academic and Jewish member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in his book Israel: An Apartheid State (ISBN 0862323177), which provided a detailed comparison of Israel and South Africa. The highly controversial World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa adopted resolutions describing Israel as an "apartheid state". The term was subsequently used by the South African cleric Desmond Tutu in the articles he published following his visit to Israel.

The term "Israeli apartheid" has been used by groups protesting the Israeli government, particularly student groups in Britain, the United States and Canada, where "Israeli apartheid week" is held on many campuses. It has been widely used by Palestinian rights advocates and also by some on the Israeli Jewish left. It has also been used by neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups such as David Duke and Jew Watch.

Several left-wing Members of the Knesset (MKs) have also drawn an analogy between Israeli policies and apartheid, such as Zehava Gal-On of the Meretz party, who said of an Israeli Supreme Court ruling upholding the country's controversial citizenship law that "the Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegated us to the level of an apartheid state". Similarly, Shulamit Aloni, a former Meretz leader and Israeli Education Minister has said "If we are not already an apartheid state, we are getting much, much closer to it."

The term has also been used by three prominent South African Anti-Apartheid activists: Archbishop Desmond Tutu ; Mahatma Ghandi's grandson, Arun Ghandi, who grew up in Durban, SA and now runs the MK Institute for nonviolence ; and Christopher Brown, with the Christian Peacemaker Teams.

The term is often appropriated by those attempting to advance political goals, such as sanctions against Israel or disinvestment in Israel. It is meant to establish a link between political anti-Israel campaigns, on the one hand, and human-rights campaigns against apartheid-era South Africa, on the other.

Comparison
Proponents of this term argue that while Israel grants some rights to Arabs living in Israel within its pre-1967 borders, its policies towards Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are analogous to the apartheid policies of South Africa towards blacks, for the following reasons:


 * Israel has created roads and checkpoints that isolate Palestinian communities, which is seen as a parallel to Apartheid South Africa's Bantustans.
 * The government of Israel has termed its policy of disengagement Hafrada, which literally means "separation".
 * Palestinians who live in Israeli-occupied territories (with the exception of East Jerusalem) do not have Israeli citizenship or voting rights in Israel, but they are under Israeli occupation and subject to the policies of the Israeli government and its military.
 * 93% of the land inside the Green Line is owned by the Jewish National Fund and the Israeli Lands Authority and isreserved for Jews.
 * Israel has constructed "Jewish-only" settlements in the West Bank, which preclude "some of the most fertile land and richest water resources in the West Bank" from the "indigenous population".
 * The Israeli West Bank barrier is referred to by detractors as the Apartheid Wall for its impact on the Palestinian population in the West Bank.

Proponents of this term often claim discrimination against Israeli Arabs. And in a recent article ("Sharon and the Future of Palestine," NY Review of Books, 12/2/04, Henry Siegman quotes Nahum Barnea, Israel's most respected political commentator: "[Israel] is not yet the South Africa of apartheid, but is definitely from the same family."
 * Jews can easily gain Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, yet Palestinians who fled or were driven out, may not have the Right of return.
 * Arab municipalities receive less than one fifth the funding that is given to their Jewish counterparts.
 * The government of Israel often refuses to grant permits to build or repair homes, and fails to provide electricity, water, health services, education, roads, or any other infrastructure. One of the consequences is that 70% of Negev Desert Bedouin (Arab) infants are not fully immunized and one third are hospitalized within their first year of life.

Criticism
Critics of the phrase argue that calling the country an "apartheid state" or referring to "Israeli apartheid" is incorrect for a number of reasons.


 * With the exception of Arabs residing in East Jerusalem, the Israeli Arab minority have voting rights and are represented in the Knesset (Israel's legislature) whilst in apartheid South Africa, Blacks could not vote and had no representation in the South African parliament.
 * The features of legal petty apartheid do not exist in Israel. Jews and Arabs use the same hospitals, Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, Jews and Arabs eat in the same restaurants, and Jews and Arabs travel in the same buses, trains and taxis without being segregated.
 * The comparison between Israel and South Africa is fictitious and is made in an attempt to demonize Israel as a prelude to an international boycott campaign. The long term goal is to pressure the United Nations to impose economic sanctions against Israel.
 * The analogy "demean(s) Black victims of the real apartheid regime in South Africa."
 * Zionism is not a manifestation of European colonialism.
 * Black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid whilst Palestinians rely on employment in Israel due to the economic failures and corruption of the Palestinain Authority.
 * Equating Zionism with apartheid is propaganda used to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks and deny Israelis the right of self-defence by demonizing the construction of the West Bank security barrier with the name "Apartheid wall".

Some critics of the term such as Dr. Moshe Machover, professor of philosophy in London and co-founder of Matzpen, argues against the use of the term on the basis that the situation in Israel is worse than apartheid. Machover points out some significant differences between the policy of the Israeli government and the apartheid model. According to Machover, drawing a close analogy between Israel and South Africa is both a theoretical and political mistake.

Northern Ireland
Many Irish nationalists and republicans have described Northern Ireland as being a gerrymandered or even apartheid state, on the grounds that it was created to ensure a built-in Protestant minority, resulting in discrimination against Catholics in government, education, housing and employment. One legacy of this has been that most state schools in Northern Ireland are either Protestant or Catholic, although there now also a number of integrated schools. This has often exacerbated religious, political and cultural differences between the two comunities.

Between 1922 and 1972, Northern Ireland was governed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, which was Protestant-dominated, while at local government level, electoral boundaries were devised to create Protestant majorities. The outbreak of the Troubles led to the imposition of direct rule by the British government, which has since sought to introduce power sharing between unionists and nationalists.