Daily Tar Heel - Opinion
Apartheid comparison overstates the reality
By: Charles Dahan
1/29/08

Many supporters of an independent Palestinian state are able to engage in productive debates and rational discussions about the Israel-Arab conflicts.

Unfortunately, a radical fringe at UNC hijacked this discussion. Speakers and presentations of Palestine Week compare the Palestinian situation to apartheid. They replace emotional tales that exist on both sides of the conflict for actual reasoning and resort to counterproductive and illegitimate historical comparison that illustrates their ignorance and bigotry.

The images of the conflict are well-known. Arab-controlled regions regularly complain of disproportionate uses of force during conflicts, the inconveniences of checkpoints and the bulldozing of homes previously inhabited by suicide bombers.

Israelis complain of the Arab states electing entities such as Hamas and Hezbollah that refuse to recognize their existence and Arab parents encouraging their own children to strap explosives and shrapnel to their bodies to kill Israelis on buses and trains.

Arabs complain of ambulances stopped at checkpoints while Israelis note those ambulances are occasionally explosives-filled suicide bombs. Both sides attempt to create an image of victimization and, to varying degrees, might possess a legitimate claim.

No honest observer would attempt to identify the root of any individual Arab-Israeli war. The creation of the disputed territories, however, is not up for debate. In 1967, Egypt and Jordan created an alliance agreeing to enter any battle the other fought. In May 1967, Egypt dispelled United Nations peacekeepers from the region in the run-up to an invasion of Israel - a battle Israel initiated to take the position of the aggressor. Despite Israel's offer, Jordan's King Hussein refused a non-aggression pact with Israel and entered the conflict with Egypt. The Six Day War ended with Israel capturing the territory from which the peacekeepers were dismissed - territory on which neither side previously laid claim.

During the 2006 conflict, Hezbollah militants stormed Israeli villages, fired missiles from declared civilian infrastructure (buildings without inhabitants or, conveniently for firing rockets, windows) and launched rockets into Israel to divert attention away from their plot to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Ironically, a UN compound lies in between Israel and Lebanon to deter future conflicts.

Comparing the conflict in Israel to the struggle of blacks in South Africa is not only incorrect; it is disgusting. Apartheid consisted of complete repression and the lack of any recognition of the rights of blacks, who made up 90 percent of the nation's population. Blacks in South Africa never possessed the option of eradicating UN peacekeepers who enforced their sovereign areas and never allied with foreign forces to attempt to destroy the entire South African state.

Israeli Arabs may purchase land in Israel and hold full voting rights, educational opportunities flourish (20 percent of the Haifa University student body and faculty are Arab) and certain areas - such as the city of Bethlehem, the temple mount and East Jerusalem - are either completely off-limits to Jews or entry is strongly discouraged. The press in Israel is free and more critical of its own government than any in the world.

Apartheid and the Palestinian cause share few institutional similarities. Apartheid denied any opportunities - economic, social or political - to South African blacks who were violently oppressed and fully dominated for nearly five decades. Those who drum up support for a cause by leeching off of the name of such a system are intellectually lazy at best and, through marginalizing the struggle of a truly dominated people, racist at worst.

[Access the original article]