Paul S. Graham

Last April, the Manitoba Legislature debated a resolution calling on the provincial government to “denounce Israeli Apartheid Week as divisive, promoting intolerance and undermining a balanced debate of the Israeli-Palestinian question.” The resolution was never put to a vote, but the debate was enlightening – perhaps in ways unintended by some of the debaters.

Those who spoke in favour of the resolution (from all three parties) argued that democratic  Israel could never be accused of practising apartheid and therefore that the term “Israeli apartheid” represented anti-Semitic hate speech.

No members spoke against the resolution, though Gord Makintosh came closest when he said “I do question the resolution’s intention . . .to formally denounce–that’s the wording–the speech of certain Manitobans on campus or anywhere, through unspecified means . . .” He concluded: “But to create a new function for provincial governments of the day in Canada to formally denounce and chill unwelcome speech–and this is unwelcome speech, I can tell you–from time to time should be very thoroughly and carefully debated in this Chamber. I am then at risk of being their next target. Manitoban supporters of Israel are then at risk of becoming a target and we should not be a party to that.”

Strikingly absent from the debate was any acknowledgment that those who use the term “Israeli apartheid” might have have some justification.  The resolution was not voted on because some members refused permission for it to be put to a vote. Surely some of them had contrary views but were unwilling or unable to express them.

All in all, the debate was extremely unbalanced and uninformed. Because this issue is likely to resurface in time for this year’s Israeli Apartheid Week, members and supporters of the Winnipeg chapter of Independent Jewish Voices Canada sent a letter to each member of the Manitoba Legislature that makes it clear that “Israeli apartheid” is a problem that is widely acknowledged and discussed by leading Israeli and South African politicians and scholars. I have reprinted it, below.

If you want to get in touch with your MLA on this issue, you can get contact information here.

Dear Member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly,

“If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”

These words were spoken by Ehud Barak, Israel’s Minister of Defense and a former prime minister, not by organizers of Israel Apartheid Week (IAW).

How can anyone denounce discussion of Israel and apartheid when a search of the University of Manitoba library catalogue indicates there are over 4,200 articles and 5 books on the topic? Senior Israeli scholars warn of a “creeping apartheid,” and of Israel having become a “Herrenvolk democracy.”

The attached material shows that the question of Israeli apartheid is out there in the most respected circles. It is too late for local pressure groups to ask members of Manitoba’s Legislative Assembly to pass a motion denouncing forums on Israel as an apartheid state. Doing so amounts to asking the legislature to condone censorship.

The discussion of Israel as (or becoming) an apartheid state is underway. An official denouncement by the Manitoba Legislature would amount to a serious infringement on free expression. In effect, students can read about Israeli apartheid in the library — but they should not discuss it. That is what denouncing IAW would mean.

On 15 April 2010 Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo) urged the Legislative Assembly to “denounce Israeli Apartheid Week as divisive, promoting intolerance and undermining a balanced debate of the Israeli-Palestinian question.” She argued that “the word ‘apartheid’ is offensive to victims of apartheid in South Africa and ignores that Israel is a strong democracy that respects the rule of law where citizens of all backgrounds vote and serve in elected office.”

As the attached comment by the Human Science Research Council of South Africa makes clear, South Africans are not offended by the word ‘apartheid’ but by seeing apartheid re-emerge in Israel. Leading voices in South Africa, such as Kader Asmal, Breyten Breytenbach, John Dugard, Antjie Krog, Mahmood Mamdani, Barney Pityana and Desmond Tutu, have named Israel an apartheid state and called for a boycott.

In response to her claim that IAW would promote anti-Semitism and may lead to harassment of Jewish students, MLAs might have noted that the President of the University of Manitoba, David Barnard, reported to the University Board of Governors that IAW in 2010 passed without any report of intimidation.

If this matter comes before the Assembly again, you need to know that apartheid is not an inflammatory, false, dishonest term used maliciously to malign the state of Israel. It is a term debated by former Israeli prime ministers, senior scholars teaching at Israel’s most prestigious universities, and respected scholars in North America.

The statements attached here, and others like them, are not intended to foster anti-Semitism or to vilify the state of Israel. They are carefully considered warnings that Israel itself will suffer if it continues down the road toward apartheid.

We have sent you this information to facilitate your becoming informed about the serious questions being asked by Israeli and non-Israeli scholars and politicians. This is not the time to dissuade students and faculty from organizing Israel Apartheid Week. Debate free of unwarranted constraints should be encouraged. The free expression of opinion on matters put before the public is a hallmark of genuine democracy.

We request that you reply to the above address to state your position on considering a motion in the Manitoba Legislature to denounce Israeli Apartheid Week or any forum on this topic in our universities.

Sincerely,

Derek Black, Lee Anne Block, Erin Bockstael, David Camfield, Elizabeth Carlyle, Anna-Celestrya Carr, Cheryl-Anne Carr, Thane Carr, Aviva Cipilinski, Howard Davidson, Marty Dolin, Mark Etkin, Fagie Fainman, Sid Frankel, Jesse Epp-Fransen, Mark Golden, Cy Gonick, Val Gaffray, Christopher Rigaux, Paul S. Graham, Sate Hamza, Bassam Hozaima, Ghassan Jundi, Krishna Lalbiharie, Brian Latour, Vera Lemecha, Zana Lutifyya, Marilyn McGonigal, Margaret Maier, Kathleen Matheos, Richard Menec, Glenn Michalchuk, Darrell Rankin, Christopher Rigaux, John Ryan, Harold Shuster, Gurdip Singh, Sofia Soriano, Marcia Stentz, Lisa Stepnuk, Daniel Thau-Eleff, Louise Waldman, Marguerite Warner, Michael A. Welch, Michael Welfley, Alon Weinberg, Monique Woroniak, Glen Wreggitt, Diane Zack

Enclosure

Israeli Prime Ministers, South African Leaders, Israeli and non-Israeli Academics Speak Out about Israeli Apartheid. Why Demonize Doing So in Manitoba?

Ehud Barak, Israel’s Minister of Defense and former Prime Minister of Israel:

“As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic,” Barak said. “If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.” [Quoted in “Barak: make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid,” Guardian, 03 February 2010.]

Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli Minister of Education under Yitzhak Rabin

“The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies.” [ Article appearing in Yediot Acharonot, cited and translated from Hebrew in The Scoop, from Middle East News Service]

John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Distinguished Service Professor, Political Science, University of Chicago:

“…there is not going to be a two-state solution. Gaza and the West Bank will become part of a greater Israel, which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Israelis and their American supporters invariably bristle at this comparison, but that is the future if they create a greater Israel while denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land.” [Mearsheimer, J. (01 August 2010). Sinking Ship. American Conservative.]

Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister of Israel:

“If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.” [Quoted in “The two state solution, or Israel is done for,” Haaretz, 09 November 2007]

Baruch Kimmerling (deceased), formerly Distinguished Research Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto and George S. Wise Professor of Sociology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem:

“… Israel [has] ceased being a true democratic state and became a Herrenvolk democracy. This term, coined to describe South Africa under Apartheid, describes a regime in which one group of its subjects (the citizens) enjoys full rights and another group (the non-citizens) enjoys none. The laws of Israel have become the laws of a master people and the morality that of lords of the land.” [Kimmerling, B. (2006). Politicide: The real legacy of Ariel Sharon. London: Verso, p. 39]

Oren Yiftachel, Professor of Political Geography, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel:

The [Gaza] disengagement has indeed made a significant difference to the political geography of Israel/Palestine, but a close examination reveals not a crossing of the watershed toward ending Israeli colonialism in favour of a two state solution but, rather, an Israeli policy of “oppressive consolidation,” a “politics of suspension,” and a perpetual probability of mutual violence. These have combined to create a political geographic order best described as “creeping apartheid.” [Yiftachel, O. ( 2005). Neither two states nor one: The disengagement and “Creeping Apartheid” in Israel/Palestine. The Arab World Geographer/Le Géographe du monde arabe Vol. 8, No 3, 125-129.]

Sciences Research Council of South Africa, South Africa’s statutory research agency:

“[D]iscriminatory treatment cannot be explained or excused on grounds of citizenship, both because it goes beyond what is permitted by ICERD [The Apartheid Convention] and because certain provisions in Israeli civil and military law provide that Jews present in the OPT who are not citizens of Israel also enjoy privileges conferred on Jewish-Israeli citizens in the OPT by virtue of being Jews. Consequently, this study finds that the State of Israel exercises control in the OPT with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid.” [Middle East Project of the Democracy and Governance Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa. (May 2009). Occupation, colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law, p. 22]

Is there such a thing as “Israeli apartheid” or is that term symptomatic of the “new anti-Semitism” that, according to Israel’s staunchest apologists, is stalking the world? While students in many Canadian universities are now preparing to hold another round of Israel Apartheid Weeks, the question is more than academic.

Recently, the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties (MARL) published a piece by David Matas that condemned the concept of Israel Apartheid Week and argued for its prohibition from Canadian universities. I was offended that a human rights association would be party to an attack on free speech, and less than impressed with Matas’s arguments.

I’m therefore pleased to offer a rebuttal by Howard Davidson. Howard is Associate Professor, Extended Education, at the University of Manitoba and a member of Independent Jewish Voices (Canada). He’s also a vigorous anti-war activist and in my view a real champion of human rights — one who MARL should publish if it wishes to retain its claim to supporting human rights.

Banning Israel anti-apartheid weeks at universities, A Reply to David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel, B’nai Brith

By Howard S. Davidson

“If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
Ehud Barak, Israel’s Minister of Defence, February 2010

“There is no apartheid in Israel,” writes David Matas, senior legal counsel for B’nai Brith. Those who claim otherwise are propagandists, anti-Semites and their fellow travelers who organize events like Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) on campuses in order to advance a malicious “fantasy” contrived to vilify Israel and intimidate Jewish students.

Last year, attempts to ban IAW were rebuked when university presidents asserted the right of students to organize IAWs as long as these events did not violate university policy on maintaining a respectful environment on campuses. Following IAW at the University of Manitoba, President David Barnard reported to the university’s Board of Governors that IAW proceeded without incident. Nonetheless, Matas insists that student forums on Israel and apartheid are intended to foster anti-Semitism and must be banned.

In a presentation to the Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, on 21 October 2010, subsequently published by the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties,[1] Matas argues that the “charge of apartheid against Israel is one of a barrage of anti-Zionist accusations levied against Israel. Anti-Zionism by definition is rejection of the existence of the Jewish state. That rejection is the denial of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.” He goes on to state, “The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is connected to anti-Semitism both in substance and in form.”

These are serious accusations made in defence of a dangerous undertaking. If they are false, they represent a threat to a democratic society that cherishes freedom of expression and the right to peaceful dissent. The matter comes down to this: Is discussion of Israel and apartheid a legitimate topic of political and academic discourse or is it, as Matas claims, a “fantasy” perpetuated to incite hatred against Israel? For Matas Israel and the Jewish people are one, therefore, any unfounded criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.

Given the gravity of his argument and his rich legal experience, one should expect a thoughtful presentation of his position. Instead, he offers up a ruse: hiding from view the legitimate discourse on Israel and apartheid. In fact, far from being a malicious “fantasy,” the subject is a matter of discussion and grave concern for Israeli leaders and academics in and outside Israel.

Because apartheid regimes have proven to be untenable, to say nothing of immoral, the threat of becoming an apartheid state invites disaster. Oren Yiftachel, professor of Political Geography, Ben Gurion University, has called this “creeping apartheid.”

“The [Gaza] disengagement has indeed made a significant difference to the political geography of Israel/Palestine, but a close examination reveals not a crossing of the watershed toward ending Israeli colonialism in favour of a two state solution but, rather, an Israeli policy of ‘oppressive consolidation,’ a ‘politics of suspension,’ and a perpetual probability of mutual violence. These have combined to create a political geographic order best described as ‘creeping apartheid.’”[2]

Israel’s current minister of defence and former prime minister, Ehud Barak, has warned Israelis, “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic…. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”[3]

Barak’s fears were also expressed by Israel’s previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert: “If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.”[4]

This view was stated by John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Distinguished Service Professor, Political Science, University of Chicago. Mearsheimer co-authored with Stephen Walt The Israeli Lobby. I am certain that Matas vehemently disagree with Mearsheimer’s analysis of the lobby; however, he cannot paint Mearsheimer as an anti-Zionist, anti-Semite, or someone seeking to incite intimidation and hatred. If Matas read reviews of The Israel Lobby in Foreign Affairs (e.g., L. Carl Brown, September/October 2006) or Dmitri K. Simes’ article in the National Interest, [5] he knows about Mearsheimer’s pro-Israeli credentials. Mearsheimer wrote in the American Conservative:

“…there is not going to be a two-state solution. Gaza and the West Bank will become part of a greater Israel, which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Israelis and their American supporters invariably bristle at this comparison, but that is the future if they create a greater Israel while denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land.” [6]

Others claim that Israel has already become an apartheid state, the position taken by organizers of Israel Apartheid Week and shared by Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli Minister of Education under Yitzhak Rabin. Aloni wrote, “The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies.” [7]

I could quote others who agree. For the sake of brevity I’ll leave it with this comment by Baruch Kimmerling (deceased), formerly Distinguished Research Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto and George S. Wise Professor of Sociology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem:

“… Israel ceased being a true democratic state and became a Herrenvolk democracy. This term, coined to describe South Africa under Apartheid, describes a regime in which one group of its subjects (the citizens) enjoys full rights and another group (the non-citizens) enjoys none. The laws of Israel have become the laws of a master people and the morality that of lords of the land.” [8]

A search of the University of Manitoba library catalogue brings up 17 titles on Israel and apartheid. It is reasonable to assume this would be true of other university libraries. Thus, students are free to research the subject but presidents are being asked to prevent students from organizing discussions on the topic. Or would Matas seek to have these books removed from the libraries on the ground that they are not on a legitimate topic but are propagating a malicious fantasy?

In a democracy Matas is welcomed to express a different opinion (a freedom he would deny to others). That said, he should think twice about claiming that those who believe apartheid in Israel is a clear and present danger are nothing more than anti-Semites.

The only evidence he offers to prove there is no apartheid in Israel is to dismiss any comparison with South African apartheid. As we have seen in the statements quoted here, the South African comparison is frighteningly valid.

Matas contrives his proof by defining apartheid in the narrowest possible terms (i.e., “the denationalization of blacks”). Since Palestinians have not been denationalized there is no apartheid. He neglects to mention a more authoritative definition of apartheid than his own, one provided by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ICC defined apartheid as a crime against humanity “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.” [9] Do South Africans think this describes the situation in the occupied territories?

Archbishop Desmond Tutu thinks it does. Other leading South Africans expressing the same opinion are Breyten Breytenbach, John Dugard, Antjie Krog, Mahmood Mamdani, and Barney Pityana. It is the conclusion of a report on Israel’s practices in the occupied territories by the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, South Africa’s statutory research agency:

[D]iscriminatory treatment cannot be explained or excused on grounds of citizenship, both because it goes beyond what is permitted by ICERD [The Apartheid Convention] and because certain provisions in Israeli civil and military law provide that Jews present in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories] who are not citizens of Israel also enjoy privileges conferred on Jewish-Israeli citizens in the OPT by virtue of being Jews. Consequently, this study finds that the State of Israel exercises control in the OPT with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid. [10]

Stating that Israel is (or is becoming) an apartheid state names an impending/horrific state-of-affairs that calls for the immediate end of occupation and respect for Palestinians’ right for self-determination. It is clear from the range of statements cited here that an extensive discourse has emerged on Israel and apartheid.

It is my hope you will become familiar with this discourse and use that knowledge to challenge the ruse being used to convince university presidents to ban Israel Apartheid Week. Freedom of expression and the tradition of dissent make up the life blood of a democratic society.

Howard S. Davidson is Associate Professor, Extended Education, University of Manitoba and member of Independent Jewish Voices (Canada). He can be reached at ijvwinnipeg@gmail.com.

Notes:

[1] The article by David Matas may be seen at http://www.marl.mb.ca/content/hate-speech/banning-israel-anti-apartheid-weeks-universities-david-matas

[2] Yiftachel, O. ( 2005). Neither two states nor one: The disengagement and “Creeping Apartheid” in Israel/Palestine. The Arab World Geographer/Le Géographe du monde arabe Vol. 8, No 3, 125-129. Retrieved 16 November 2010 http://www.geog.bgu.ac.il/members/yiftachel/new_papers_eng/Yiftachel%20in%20Arab%20World%20Geographer.pdf

[3] Quoted in “Barak: make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid,” Guardian, 03 February 2010. Retrieved 16 November 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/barak-apartheid-palestine-peace

[4] Quoted in “The two state solution, or Israel is done for,” Haaretz, 09 November 2007. Retrieved 17 November 2010. http://www.haaretz.com/news/olmert-to-haaretz-two-state-solution-or-israel-is-done-for-1.234201

[5] Simes, D. K. (2006). Unrealists. The National Interest, 84(Summer), pp. 5 – 10.

[6] Mearsheimer, J. (01 August 2010). Sinking Ship. American Conservative. Retrieved 17 November 2010. http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/aug/01/00010/

[7] Article appearing in Yediot Acharonot, cited and translated from Hebrew in The Scoop, from Middle East News. Retrieved 15 December 2010 Service http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0701/S00070/shulamit-aloni-there-is-apartheid-in-israel.htm

[8] Kimmerling, B. (2006). Politicide: The real legacy of Ariel Sharon. London: Verso, p. 39.

[9] Quoted from the Wikipedia web page. Retrieved 24 December 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

[10] Middle East Project of the Democracy and Governance Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa. (May 2009). Occupation, colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law, p. 22 . Retrieved 16 November 2010 http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Document-3227.phtml

This, just in, from Peace Alliance Winnipeg . . .

Today Peace Alliance Winnipeg sent a letter to Christine Melnick, Manitoba’s Minister of Water Stewardship, expressing concern over remarks attributed to her in the Winnipeg Jewish Review that indicated it was unacceptable for the Brandon NDP Women’s Association to endorse the Winnipeg speaking engagement of George Galloway. If you wish to express your opinion to Minister Melnick, her email address is minwsd@leg.gov.mb.ca. We would appreciate it if you would send a copy to Peace Alliance Winnipeg as well.

December 2, 2010

The Honourable Christine Melnick
Minister of Water Stewardship

Dear Ms. Melnick,

I am writing to express the concerns of Peace Alliance Winnipeg with regard to a statement attributed to you by Ms. Rhonda Spivak in her recent Winnipeg Jewish Review article entitled “Brandon NDP Women’s Association Endorses Galloways Speech in Winnipeg Nov 26.” The article can be found at [link to article].

In that article, you appear to disapprove of the decision of the Brandon NDP Women’s Association to endorse the George Galloway meeting and your statement: “I want to ensure people that the Manitoba NDP is taking this incident very seriously and are already looking into the matter” seems to imply some action may be taken against the Association for its decision.

I am writing to you out of concern for two very basic concepts – freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

I am not aware of any policy of the provincial NDP prohibiting its members or organizations from engaging in or otherwise supporting events such as the one the Peace Alliance Winnipeg hosted on November 26. That event, as you know, featured Mr. George Galloway and we extended an invitation to all MLA’s, the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to attend and hear his views.

You did not avail yourself of the opportunity and yet, in Rhonda Spivak’s article, the clear and unmistakable impression is that you found the meeting inappropriate for support by members of the NDP. Without knowing the content of Mr. Galloway’s remarks, you were quick to issue statements against the Brandon NDP Women’s Association.

Over 400 people attended the meeting. The audience was comprised of people from every background including Jews, Arabs, Muslims and First Nations. They heard, as you could have, George Galloway’s impassioned denouncement of racism, his support for justice for the Palestinian people and his refutation of the slanders of his support for terrorism. They were able to draw their own conclusions – as you could have.

Considering that you and several of your colleagues attended a rally held on Jan. 8, 2009 at the Asper Centre in support of “Operation Cast Lead” your quick condemnation of George Galloway without hearing him is indeed a double standard.  “Operation Cast Lead” resulted in international condemnation of that action by none less than the United Nations and its Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict headed by Justice Richard Goldstone.

The Goldstone Report can be found at [link to report].

Mr Galloway was right when he said in his speech that the struggle of the Palestinians has faced enormous distortions in the media and through official policy. Your actions are another example of this, as were those of Nancy Allen this past summer when she reacted to a complaint by B’nai Brith to a question on a provincial examination.

Mr. Galloway’s international stature and knowledge of the issue is such that his tour of Canadian cities was bound to break through the campaign of disinformation. No doubt some found this threatening to official policy of support for a system of apartheid. What is disturbing is that NDP policy now seems to embrace unquestioned support for every action by Israel and condemnation of any action that is critical of Israeli policy.

Notwithstanding whatever you perceive to be the interests of the NDP and, it follows, the Provincial Government on this matter, your position is indefensible as a matter of freedom of conscience and free speech. Closed minds, hyperbole and jingoism are the greatest barriers to peace. This is exactly how Canadians have become mired in a war in Afghanistan that they do not want and have ensured that the people of Afghanistan will not be better off. We should all learn from that tragic mistake before we become mired in a conflict in the Middle East. Mr. Galloway warned of that as well.

We would appreciate hearing your views on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Glen Michalchuk, Chair
Peace Alliance Winnipeg