Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Lying About Israel's Apartheid

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Lying About Israel And Apartheid by Joh Domingo http://www.israelshamir.net Benjamin Pogrund, Director of the Israeli Yakar Center for Social Concern, is
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2004
      Lying About Israel And Apartheid
      by Joh Domingo


      Benjamin Pogrund, Director of the Israeli Yakar Center for Social
      Concern, is invariably introduced as a former journalist of the `Anti-
      Apartheid' Morning Newspaper `The Rand Daily Mail', Johannesburg
      that closed its doors in the Mid 1980's. (It must be after 1985,
      because it was still going strong in 1985, when I left South Africa).
      He is also the author of How Can Man die Better: Sobukwe and
      Apartheid. He has recently published War Of Words, a History of
      Journalism in Apartheid South Africa. Pogrund makes much of the fact
      that he was `anti-Apartheid' whenever he presents his advocacy for
      Israel's `Right to Exist', and has consistently campaigned against
      equating Zionism and Racism. At the Conference against Racism in
      Durban in 2001, he lobbied extensively against the Zionism=Racism
      resolution, and today provides much of the rhetorical subject matter
      for Zionist lobby groups to utilize in their campaign to `debunk' the
      Zionism=Racism argument. On October 24th 2004, he published a piece
      in the Guardian entitled "Israel and the Apartheid Lie" which is not
      online. However, a reprint in the sister Newspaper The Taipei Times
      is, and is available at
      and is reproduced below.

      A little background about the liberal press in Apartheid South Africa
      is in order, because it seems that the title `anti-Apartheid' is
      being bandied about as if all liberal Newspapers in Apartheid South
      Africa were equal; indeed, that all `anti-Apartheid' reporters and
      Editors were the same. If `Apartheid' is used as a `swear word'
      according to Pogrund, then the word `anti-Apartheid' is being used to
      veil what was entirely a pro-White discourse; except that `White' in
      this case really meant liberal `White' people. They were decidedly
      anti-White Nationalists – `Good' Whites as opposed to `Bad' Whites.
      They were opposed to the `Bad White' men's Apartheid, but never
      supported `One Man, One vote'. Not even liberal icon, Helen Suzman,
      despite the perception, supported `One Man, One Vote'. [1]The kindest
      interpretation that could be placed on it is that they were against
      the worst manifestations of Apartheid. Benjamin Pogrund is today in
      the same camp he has always been in; he is for a kinder, gentler
      version of Apartheid; just don't call it `Apartheid', it is a swear

      The White liberal Press, with one notable exception, were entirely
      Eurocentric in their opinions. The exception being the `Daily
      Dispatch' in the Eastern Cape under the Editorship of Donald Woods,
      who published the opinion of Steve Biko under a pseudonym, after he
      was `banned' and political activity became unlawful for him.[2] There
      also existed several `Black' Newspapers, owned by Whites, who
      published severely censored Daily Editions that mainly dealt with
      Sport, and `Township' news. Around 1978, The Rand Daily Mail produced
      a `township edition', which in 1981 lead to the sacking of its
      editor, Allister Sparks, after the mainly Board decided that they
      wanted to focus exclusively on a White readership.[3]

      Pogrund, whose bio repeatedly posits that `he brought the words of
      Nelson Mandela and Robert Sobukwe to the Rand Daily Mail', is a
      FRAUD. I grew up in South Africa and lived the struggle from 1969 to
      1985, and NEVER came across the words of Nelson Mandela and Robert
      Sobukwe in any newspaper whatsoever. It was prohibited since 1961 and
      before. The only publications in South Africa that carried quotes
      from the Rivonia Trails were underground publications of the ANC, and
      more frequently by the pamphlets that were mass-produced by the Black
      Consciousness Movement. Hundreds of BC activists served jail terms
      for possession of these pamphlets; it was grounds for extended
      detentions without trail, and de facto evidence that you were ANC. No
      Jewish Journalist published a word of it in their White Newspapers.
      No picture of Nelson Mandela was ever published in a newspaper during
      and after the Rivonia Trails, until he was released in 1991. Black
      people in South Africa did not know what he looked like before then.
      There was no such a thing as an `Anti-Apartheid' White newspaper in
      Apartheid South Africa.[4]

      Pogrund copyrights all his work, and maintains an archive of
      information that relates to his work in South Africa. But he also
      maintains an online collection of mainly public domain information;
      mainly about the Jewish `Black Sash' anti-apartheid group, and
      information about the ANC and the Rivonia Trails.[5] There seems to
      be no online record of his daily Journalistic work, and I cannot
      remember any of it. While I can still recall his byline in the Rand
      Daily Mail after all these years, it did not at the time strike me as
      being `anti-Apartheid', and reading him today, one can still decipher
      his `political opposition' tone. It was `progressive', only in the
      loosest interpretation of the term. From a Black point of View, it
      was firmly in the `establishment' camp. `Establishment' is Apartheid
      South Africa was for White privilege, and if it sought the
      dismantling of the `system', it was for doing it in a way that did
      not threaten white privilege. Pogrund, today, is more focussed; he
      wants to preserve Jewish privilege. White privilege in South Africa
      is a lost cause, and it explains his residence in Israel, where he
      can lobby for compassionate Zionist Racism.

      It is also important to recognize the role of South African Jewish
      liberalism in the dismantling of the Apartheid System; it is worse
      than negligible. While they have an impressive and carefully
      documented record of opposition to Apartheid, they have no record of
      actual achievements.[6] The South African Regime, while Racist, had a
      clearly defined policy of compassionate Apartheid. They sincerely
      believed in it, and were perplexed that Black people did not see that
      they had their best interests at heart. They were often dismayed at
      the practical effects of Apartheid. If there were some way to avoid
      its practical effects, and its worse effects, they would not have
      hesitated to make it policy. If they were a majority, as Jews are
      within the green line in Israel, the system would probably not have
      mirrored Zionism. A fundamental difference between liberal and White
      Nationalist opinion was that the former saw their subjects as human,
      while the latter saw them as sub-human, incapable of rational
      thought. Both saw them as being incapable of civilized behavior.

      This mirrors the major difference between the Likud/Labor wing on the
      one hand, and the Tikkun factions on the other. Black rioters threw
      rocks through the windscreens of the Nationalist `bakkies' and
      liberal BMW's (Break My Windows) without distinction. The symbolic
      target defended by the South African Defense forces was not the
      working class Afrikaner neighborhoods, but the mansions of Houghton,
      Helen Suzman's Jewish neighborhood (and, I would hazard a guess,
      Benjamin Pogrund's).

      South African Zionists furtively use the revolutionary credentials of
      people like Ronnie Kasrils as cover for their extensive revisionism
      when it comes to the anti-Apartheid struggle, while obliquely
      denouncing him in the Jewish press for his consistent views about
      Israel.[7]They also play on the sentimentality of the old-guard of
      the ANC, who eschew anti-Semitism precisely because of the
      involvement of Jewish people like Kasrils, Ruth First and Joe Slovo,
      and who formed the backbone of the Communist wing of the ANC, in the
      liberation movement. But, the younger generation ANC leaders, in the
      main, cut their teeth in the Black Conscious Movement within South
      Africa, and are not inclined to view South African Jewish liberal
      revisionism so tolerantly. They know the sacrifice made by their
      colleagues, and know that internal liberalism played a negligible
      role in the dismantling of Apartheid. [8]

      Zionism within Israel follows the predictable path of any Apartheid
      system, and Pogrund dissimulates excessively when he attempts to use
      his anti-Apartheid `credentials' as apologia for it. Iqbal Jassat, in
      an article in Mediamonitors about Pogrun, makes the observation:

      "he (Pogrund) goes even further by claiming that anyone who says that
      Israel is apartheid does not appreciate what apartheid was. Well, was
      there anyone better qualified than the architect of apartheid,
      Hendrik Verwoerd to recognize similar socio-political constructs in
      other countries?

      He observed that the Zionists "….took Israel from the Arabs after the
      Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with
      them, Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state." [Rand Daily
      Mail, 23 November 1961]". [9]

      The Rand Daily Mail is Pogrunds main claim to fame; surely he could
      not have missed the article?

      Pogrund makes a play at suggesting that the Zionism=Apartheid
      rhetoric posits Israel as an `emerging Apartheid', when clearly, as
      suggested by the architect of Apartheid in 1961, it was already an
      Apartheid system, and emerged simultaneously with Apartheid in South
      Africa. Both emerged directly from a British Colonial situation:
      Israel in 1947, Apartheid in 1948. They both emerged as a response to
      Native reaction to colonial conquest. In the case of South Africa, it
      was the inexorable migration of Africans to the cities, which
      threatened to `overwhelm' White society. In Israel, it was to
      establish a regime that protected the right of Jews to rule
      themselves in the face of a democratic threat from the non-Jewish
      population. Jews may be a majority within Israel today, but there is
      demographic parity within the area of the British Mandate. In 1947,
      Jews were a distinct minority in Israel, even within the Jewish
      partition area. The parallels are uncanny.

      `Revisionism' has become a dirty word, yet, if the record is being
      distorted, it should be put right. Falsifying the record, however, is
      dirty, especially when you proclaim yourself to be at the center of a
      major historical event. The Jewish community in South Africa has
      shown itself to be partial to arranging the historical record so as
      to present themselves as being front and center of the liberation
      movement in South Africa.[10] There is no denying that many Jews,
      often representing the Jewish Community, did their level best to
      alleviate the suffering of Black People during the Apartheid era.
      Some even went so far as to treat their domestic servants humanely.
      The Black Sash and Parliamentarians like Helen Suzman made careers
      out of criticizing Apartheid. But an examination of the record
      reveals a sordid particularism, and their apologia for Zionism
      exposes the hypocrisy of their opposition to White Afrikaner
      Nationalism (aka Apartheid).[11] Benjamin Pogrund's revisionism is
      particularly dirty, because he uses his documented opposition to
      White Afrikaner Nationalism, in order to defend Jewish Social
      Nationalism in Israel. In doing so he exposes the extent of his
      opposition to Apartheid; one should merely reflect on what effect
      Afrikaner Nationalists angry denunciations of the comparisons of
      Apartheid to Nazism had. Did he also denounce the linkage? He
      constantly uses the technique of comparing the vilest manifestations
      of Apartheid, with Israel's supposed saving graces. He compares
      Israel's anomalous Democracy with South Africa's anomalous Democracy,
      seemingly impervious to their parallel development. Through it all,
      we detect a desperate muddying of the waters. Is parliamentary
      accountability democracy? Is democracy the only system that holds
      parliamentarians and members of the government accountable? Pogrund
      seems to believe so, and uses the wand of democracy to provide a
      kosher sticker for one of the vilest social systems the west has ever

      Apartheid was a `democracy', every bit as `democratic' as Israel was.
      Apartheid was merely the natural democratic progression of the
      colonial regime that went before. In 1948, the ruling United Party
      (from which the Jewish dominated `Progressive Liberal Party' emerged
      as a breakaway faction in 1959) went to the election with a platform
      based on the report of the Native Laws Commission chaired by Judge
      Henry Fagan. The Commission argued that because of the mass migration
      of Africans to the cities, and the impoverishment of the Native
      reserves (the building block of the Apartheid Bantustan policy),
      total segregation was impossible. But they never called for social
      and political integration. The National party, led by Daniel Malan
      won the elections on a platform of total segregation.[12]

      If we are do a direct comparison between the development of
      Apartheid, and the development of Zionism, we can compare, in the
      first instance, the unity of representative political parties in
      each. The political parties in each country shared a unity of policy
      regarding the non-represented people. In both countries, non-
      represented people were to remain disenfranchised: a policy of both
      government and opposition representative parties. In Israel, as well
      as in South Africa, native people were excluded from the political
      process. Africans did not vote in parliamentary elections until 1994,
      after Apartheid voted to dismantle the system. Vast majority of
      Palestinians does not vote in parliamentary elections – only children
      of 1948' survivors have the right, while the refugees, and the native
      population of the West Bank and Gaza has no right of vote.

      Benjamin Pogrund makes much of this supposed distinction between
      Zionism (as represented in Israel) and Apartheid.

      "A crucial indicator of the status of Israel's minority is that Arabs
      have the vote black South Africans did not."

      Pogrund is utilising the legal sham of `occupied territories'
      versus `real Israel'; but all these territories are ruled by the jews
      and majority of non-jews has no right of vote. And in the South
      Africa, Blacks voted in 2002, and they did in 1994. Timing is
      crucial. Jewish parliamentarians, amongst others, became the de facto
      representatives of Africans in the Apartheid parliament. In 1972,
      Mixed Race and Indian Parties were allowed to contest elections for
      representation in separate `parliaments' - 'Tri-Cameral parliament'.
      In 1994, the ANC became the governing party in Apartheid South
      Africa, thereby abolishing Apartheid; Israel is still an Apartheid
      Zionist State. But hey, at least some Israeli Arabs can vote.

      It is quite possible to compare Israel with South Africa, in 1972
      say, and find minute differences in Israel's favor. But compare
      Israel and South Africa during the period 1948-2004, and there is
      significant weighting in favor of Apartheid South Africa. In fact, on
      balance, South African Apartheid comes out significantly better on a
      number of indicators: freedom of movement, housing, education,
      medical benefits, employment, transport, property ownership and
      freedom of religion. South Africa's Apartheid Civil Rights record is
      abysmal, with wide disparity between the upholding of the civil
      rights of Blacks as opposed to Whites; but, there are many South
      Africans who count their blessings when they finally understand
      exactly what the Palestinians had been going through.[13]

      Pogrund uses deceptive and misleading statistics to bolster his case
      when doing his comparison on a number of these indicators, and I will
      deal with them in order.


      "The situations inside and outside the Green Line, the borders
      determined by the 1967 war, are intertwined but separate. First, the
      West Bank and Gaza. Israel is the occupier and no occupation is
      benign. Everyone is suffering -- Palestinians as victims and Israelis
      as perpetrators. Everyone suffers deaths and maimings."

      Here Pogrund attempts to gloss over the most glaring example of the
      politicide exposed by Israel's Apartheid system. The West Bank and
      Gaza, are not `occupied territories' but an extension of Israel's
      colonization of the entire British mandated area. They are
      only `occupied' in the sense that Israel wants the land, without the
      people. It varies from Apartheid's bantustans only by virtue of the
      fact that Israel is geographically small, while South Africa is
      large. If Israel was larger, it would have its bantustans, and there
      would not be a Arab in Israel. As it is, the clamor in Israel is to
      make Jordan its bantustan.

      He goes on to detail the differences between the `occupied
      territories' and the Bantustans. Apartheid invented the bantustans to
      pen the Africans into `defined reservoirs of labor'. Israel uses
      the `occupied territories' to `keep Palestinians out".

      But is that really the reason Apartheid invented the bantustans? A
      shortage of Labor was never, and is not now, a problem in South
      Africa. South Africa, and Israel, maintained a regime of separation
      for precisely the same reason: demographics. South Africa created the
      bantustan concept in order to deprive Black South Africans of South
      African citizenship. Israel maintains it is to prevent Palestinians
      in Palestine, from a common citizenship with Jews in Palestine;
      thereby nullifying the idea of Israel as a 'Jewish State'. [14] South
      Africans were deluded, but yet they still held out hope that it would
      somehow work. Israel is quite convinced they can pull it off,
      although I wonder how? I can't suppose they will use bogus `anti-
      Apartheid' journalist from a white South African newspaper to pull
      the wool over our eyes, can I?


      " … , Israel inside the Green Line. In South Africa pre-1994, skin
      color determined every single person's life: Where you were born,
      where you lived, which school you went to, which bus, train, beach,
      hospital, library, park bench and public toilet you used, with whom
      you could have sex, what you could study, which jobs you had and
      hence how much you could earn and ultimately, where you were buried."

      Apartheid was renowned for the regulations forbidding social
      interaction between the races. In many ways elements of this social
      separation persist today. But, Apartheid did not work … because
      Apartheid does not work. You could not separate the races; you could
      only separate racists. Most South Africans were not racists to the
      extent that they required minute regulation to enforce the pettier
      aspects of it. Pogrund should be aware that by 1970's South Africa
      began abandoning many of its 'Petty Apartheid' regulations.[15] The
      Immorality Act, forbidding miscegenation, was abandoned in the late
      1970's. The Group Areas Act was repealed in 1988. Blacks and Whites
      continued to freely intermingle in the streets, at parties, at work
      and in educational institutions. Far from being an integrated
      nirvana, South Africa was nevertheless an interracial society. It was
      not unusual to find Black people in numbers on the streets of the
      most exclusive White suburbs; even during the worst violence of the
      nationwide uprising; ongoing since 1976. Africans were never
      prevented from leaving Soweto, and even formerly White inner suburbs
      saw an influx of Black residents by 1980. This even though planted
      bombs was a way of life and regularly killed White people.

      This tortured list of distinctive differences provided by Pogrund,
      becomes even more so when one is forced to compare Israeli society
      against it. Surely he is not suggesting that they are inapplicable in
      Israel? Surely he is not suggesting that it matters not, whether one
      is born Palestinian, or Jewish, in the Jewish State?


      Apologists for Israel often refer to the differences between the
      demographics of Israel and South Africa to suggest that one is worse
      than the other. Palestinians in Israel are a minority: "In Israel,
      Arabs are approximately 20 percent of the population. In theory they
      have full citizenship rights but in practice they suffer extensive
      discrimination … ". South Africa's then Prime Minister, John Voster,
      in 1966, also claimed that `Apartheid' was merely `Separate
      Development … Separate but equal." The whole world laughed to his
      face. Zionists claim that it is `unequal' but `not separate.' It is a
      distinction without a difference, and equally laughable. It would not
      be `unequal', if it were not `separate'.

      Setting aside this consequential argument, is it really better, when
      a majority oppresses a minority, or worse? Is it a recommendation
      that you oppress, when there is no requirement for it? It is still an
      open challenge for purported Israeli Jewish Human Rights Champions,
      to champion the Right of Return for those Israeli Arabs, `legally
      equal citizens', to their former homes within Israel. It is the least
      they can do to salve their conscience. "Anyone who says that Israel
      is apartheid does not appreciate what apartheid was."

      Iqbal Jassat puts it well: "… Archbishop Desmond Tutu in a commentary
      published by the Guardian, observed that Israelis were `treating
      Palestinians in the same way the apartheid South African government
      treated blacks.'

      Testimonies from both the oppressor as well as the victim, provided
      separately over a time span of four decades, cannot be dismissed by
      suggesting that they knew nothing about apartheid!"[9]

      Pogrund continues along similar lines with: "Israel has a Jewish
      majority and they have the right to decide how to order the society,
      including defining citizenship." Because Jews are a majority in
      Israel, they have the right to exclude the minority. It is a demand
      to leave the geopolitical order of things in Israel as it is, and an
      argument to preserve the racist characteristics of the Jewish State,
      which Pogrund, while admitting to it, insists is not like Apartheid's
      racism. According to him, Israel is a democracy, and democracies vote
      on things like abandoning State Racism. He conveniently ignores that
      by this yardstick, the Apartheid regime was infinitely more
      democratic than Israeli Zionism, despite the ability of the minority
      Arabs to vote, because they actually voted to abandon the Apartheid
      regime. There seems to be absolutely no possibility that Israel will
      vote to abandon Zionism.

      To further bolster his argument, he uses the example of Saudi Arabia,
      which restricts citizenship. Presumably, we are to assume that Saudi
      Arabia restricts citizenship to Muslims, which is patently not the
      case. Saudi Arabia has thousands of non-Muslim workers, who have
      recently been granted the right to Saudi citizenship, if they have
      resided in the country for more than 10 years.[16] The exceptions, of
      course, are Palestinians, and Jews. This does not make Saudi Arabia a
      beacon of tolerance and democracy; but it must hurt when canards are
      shown to be just that, and you are fond of utilizing them. His
      equivalence falls short even when he utilizes such a poor example:
      Israel just does not stack up, even against the worse examples.

      He does not run out of bad examples: "as Burundi and Rwanda, or India
      in 1947, erupt into terrible violence. Greece has an estimated
      200,000 Roma who enjoy almost none of the benefits that other Greeks
      take for granted. Christians are targeted for attack in Nigeria,
      Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia and China"


      A crucial indicator of the status of Israel's minority is that Arabs
      have the vote black South Africans did not."

      And a crucial difference is that South Africa did not practice
      genocide on their Black people.

      "One (bad) example: Mosawa (The Center for Equal Rights for the Arab
      Population in Israel), acting on a recent law banning discrimination,
      has launched court action against a Web site offering jobs to Jews

      Benji, my man, South Africa abolished job reservation in 1979.[17]
      Surely you know that! It makes little difference, if an employer
      really wants to employ a member of a particular race. All
      this `democracy' only matters if the voters vote to abolish
      inequality and in the case of Israel, if they vote to dismantle
      the `Jewish State'. Blacks in South Africa were winning anti-
      discrimination lawsuits in the 1970's. They had the right to unionize
      by 1979. It made little difference, as it was the balance of power
      and the monopoly of resources that determined who was in charge.
      There was class, as well as racial politics at work.

      His life expectancy comparison is a monumental fraud. Manipulating
      such figures is a national pastime in Israel. Here, he posits that
      the difference between the life expectancy between Arabs and people
      in European countries is a negative 4.8 years (74.4 years as opposed
      to 69.6). The evidence suggests that it is despite Israel, rather
      than because of Israel. Life expectancy in the West Bank is now 71
      years from a 1967 low of 44 years, despite a concerted campaign by
      the IDF to lower it. Jordan's is 75 years. Arab mortality in Israel 7
      per thousand, and 33 per thousand in the West Bank. These figures
      would be significant if there were a wide discrepancy, absent that
      they signify nothing. South Africa used similar comparisons to veil
      the widespread Kwashiorkor and malnutrition in African communities.
      They always compared them to the most impoverished African States. A
      striking similarity between the apologist for Apartheid, and the
      apologist for Israel.


      Here Pogrund is more or less on the mark, the barrier has no
      comparison to anything found in the Apartheid regime. It is
      nevertheless an Apartheid wall. The worst that can be said is that is
      something that the Apartheid regime would have invented, if they had
      thought of it; which, is hardly a recommendation for Zionism. Israel
      justifies it on the grounds that it `saves Jewish lives'. But the
      White population of Apartheid South Africa stood at approximately 6
      million people; roughly equivalent to Israel's Jewish population
      (more or less) and suffered casualties which are as significant, if
      not worse, than those suffered by Israel. Yet, penning Black people
      into vast open-air prisons was never contemplated as a possible

      It has become fashionable for people to proclaim themselves to
      be `anti-Apartheid' and one would be hard-pressed to find anybody
      today, who was not `anti-Apartheid' in the South African Apartheid
      era. One merely had to exist, to have an opinion of it, one way, or
      another. But Apartheid had its champions, and could not have survived
      for so long without significant support. Not least of all was the
      support it received from Israel. The true test is the test of time,
      and time has exposed many of the `anti-Apartheid' activists for what
      they are. `Anti Apartheid' campaigner Peter Hain is now a champion of
      colonial exploitation and intervention in Iraq, and a vital cog in
      Tony Blair's neo-colonial regime. Helen Suzman believes in
      confronting racism, except when it means confronting Israeli racism.
      Alana Mercer decries racism in her homeland, but she does not mean
      Israel. Pogrund revises history, to portray himself as the champion
      that liberated Black people in South Africa. He pretended to do so
      then, and he pretends to be a humanitarian champion in Israel now.
      But, he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.


      [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%

      Suzman made her name criticizing the Apartheid regime, but were never
      heard her detailing precisely what her `liberal' beliefs entailed.
      She never directly champions `equal' political representation. This
      is one of the few instances where she reveals what she had in
      mind: "I used to be a fan of proportional representation, but I am
      not at all now I have seen it in action." Proportional representation
      is another form of `group rights', on which Apartheid was based. For
      decades she basked in the limelight as the de facto `proportional'
      representative' of Black rights in a White Parliament.

      [2] http://journ.ru.ac.za/rjr/Berger_story2.html

      First alluded to in the Movie `Cry Freedom', this detail is often
      left out of biographies of Donald Woods. It was revolutionary in the
      1970's South Africa to present black opinion in White Newspapers. But
      Biko was nothing, if he was not a revolutionary. Donald rapidly
      evolved from a `bleeding heart liberal' and became that most
      dangerous of individuals: a White Revolutionary Sympathizer. Pogrund
      was nothing of the sort; he gave his White liberal views, on Black

      [3] http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/AuthorBiography.aspx?

      Rand Daily Mail Editors seem to all fall under the spell. On the June
      2001, another former Rand Daily Mail Editor, Raymond Louw commented
      on the Racism in Israel being worse that the most extreme excesses of
      Apartheid. Allister Sparks caused a uproar when he similarly compared
      the situation in Israel to South Africa.


      He also wrote an article proposing a Single State Solution on 24th
      May 2004 based on the South African experience.


      [4] http://africanhistory.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-banned.htm

      [5] http://www.crl.edu/areastudies/CAMP/collections/Pogrund.doc

      [6] http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/38771/index.php

      The link is tongue in cheek. Liberals claim nothing less than being
      the linchpin that underpinned liberation of Black South Africa. They
      did not actually do anything, except annoy the Conservative National
      party with their incessant nagging. No prisoners were released, no
      laws were changed; not one liberal reform was implemented until the
      total surrender of the Apartheid regime to the historical imperative.
      It is always argued that `International opinion' caused the
      capitulation, but sometimes, some things are just not worth the
      bother. The country was becoming ungovernable.

      [7] http://www.shmuley.com/index.php?section=article&id=62

      Jews as the personification of perpetual, pre-eminent victims: "Want
      to see Apartheid? I'll show you Apartheid"


      [8] http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,,2-1630-

      [9] http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/10832/

      [10] http://www.lib.uct.ac.za/jewish/biblio.php3?srcid=2

      [11] http://www.google.com.au/search?

      [12] http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/specialprojects/Luli/Place-in-

      [13] http://www.juancole.com/2002_12_01_juancole_archive.html#85322725

      "At a conference in South Africa, State Minister Ronny Kasrils,
      himself a Jew, condemned Israel's treatment of Palestinians and said
      it was actually worse than the Apartheid government's treatment of
      blacks in South Africa had been."


      The obvious similarities do not escape the observant. Tanya Reinhart
      has an irritating habit on insisting on her perceptiveness.

      "All blacks were considered citizens of Bantustans, making
      them "foreigners" in South Africa and deprived
      of their electoral and social rights.

      The situation created by the Gaza and Jericho agreement, signed this
      May (1994) in Cairo, is almost identical."

      [15] http://au.encarta.msn.com/text_761561373__1/Apartheid.html

      [16] http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2004-daily/23-10-

      [17] http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa081.html

      "With the Industrial Conciliation Acts of 1979 and 1981, South
      African labor law was largely deracialized."


      Published on TaipeiTimes

      Israel and the apartheid lie

      Saying that apartheid lives on in Israel is a potent but vicious lie
      that could diminish the value of the term

      By Benjamin Pogrund

      Monday, Oct 25, 2004,Page 9

      South Africa's apartheid died in 1994, but the word is alive: Israel
      is accused of being "the new apartheid" while its founding ideology,
      Zionism, is attacked as "racism." How true are these accusations?
      Mere repetition, however frequent, widespread and fervent, does not
      in itself give them validity.

      Describing Israel as an "emerging apartheid" gathered force in the
      run-up to the UN anti-racism conference in Durban in August 2001 and
      was given aggressive expression there. However, after pressure by
      democratic countries, the subsequent conference of governments
      expunged virtually every attack on Israel from its final document.
      The Sept. 11 destruction a few days later pushed the "new apartheid"
      campaign to the back burner. But in Chicago, Ramallah, Johannesburg,
      London, Cairo, Sydney, the phrase is increasingly heard.

      If the apartheid label is appropriate, it provides a potent political
      weapon. If, however, the usage is wrong it reduces the vile system of
      racism perpetrated in South Africa to just another swear word. It
      also raises questions about the motivation of those who apply it.
      Clear purpose can indeed be discerned in the efforts to make the
      apartheid stigma stick: To have Israel viewed as, and declared,
      illegitimate. That is, to challenge its right to existence -- and to
      ensure that Israelis are made unwelcome abroad and that it becomes
      politically correct to boycott Israeli products and to discourage
      investment in the country.

      The situations inside and outside the Green Line, the borders
      determined by the 1967 war, are intertwined but separate. First, the
      West Bank and Gaza. Israel is the occupier and no occupation is
      benign. Everyone is suffering -- Palestinians as victims and Israelis
      as perpetrators. Everyone suffers deaths and maimings.

      The word "Bantustan" is often used in an accusatory way to describe
      Israel's policy about a future Palestinian state. Bantustans were the
      tribal mini-states created as a means of depriving the black
      population of citizenship in "white" South Africa. The common element
      between Israel and the apartheid state is control, seen especially in
      restrictions on freedom of movement so too is the grabbing of land.

      But the root causes are different. White South Africans invented the
      Bantustans to pen black people into defined reservoirs of labor,
      being allowed to leave only when working for white South Africa. The
      Israeli intention is the opposite: To keep out Palestinians, having
      as little to do with them as possible.

      Second, Israel inside the Green Line. In South Africa pre-1994, skin
      color determined every single person's life: Where you were born,
      where you lived, which school you went to, which bus, train, beach,
      hospital, library, park bench and public toilet you used, with whom
      you could have sex, what you could study, which jobs you had and
      hence how much you could earn and ultimately, where you were buried.

      In Israel, Arabs are approximately 20 percent of the population. In
      theory they have full citizenship rights but in practice they suffer
      extensive discrimination, ranging from land use, diminished job
      opportunities and lesser social benefits, to reports of a family
      ordered off a beach. None of this is acceptable, and particularly in
      a state that prides itself on its democracy. Discrimination occurs
      despite equality in law and is buttressed by custom -- but it is not
      remotely the South African panoply of discrimination enforced by
      parliamentary legislation. Anyone who says that Israel is apartheid
      does not appreciate what apartheid was.

      Nor does "Zionism is racism" stand up to scrutiny. Israel has a
      Jewish majority and they have the right to decide how to order the
      society, including defining citizenship. If the majority wish to
      restrict immigration and citizenship to Jews, that might be
      undesirable in universalist terms but it is their right, just as it
      is the right of Saudi Arabia not to allow Christians as citizens. Yet
      it is also clearly unfair to give automatic entry to Jews while
      denying the "right of return" to Palestinians who fled or were
      expelled in the wars of 1948 and 1967. This unfairness is a tragic
      consequence of war, which again is anything but unique to Israel.

      The Jewish state was born in pain: It was attacked and Arabs suffered
      mass dispossession in the war for survival. The many thousands of
      Arabs who remained in Israel now constitute a sizeable minority. Most
      countries have minorities; the question is how they deal with them.
      Some, such as Burundi and Rwanda, or India in 1947, erupt into
      terrible violence. Greece has an estimated 200,000 Roma who enjoy
      almost none of the benefits that other Greeks take for granted.
      Christians are targeted for attack in Nigeria, Malaysia, Sri Lanka,
      Pakistan, Indonesia and China.

      A crucial indicator of the status of Israel's minority is that Arabs
      have the vote black South Africans did not. Certainly, Arab citizens
      lack full power as a minority community, but they have the right and
      the power to unite among themselves and to ally themselves with
      others. Change is possible in Israel, and is happening. One example:
      Mosawa (The Center for Equal Rights for the Arab Population in
      Israel), acting on a recent law banning discrimination, has launched
      court action against a Web site offering jobs to Jews only.

      Health is a visible indicator of progress. In South Africa in 1985
      life expectancy was 71 years for white people and 61 years for black
      people. In Israel, the gap between Jews and Arabs in the 1980s was
      2.3 years; in the 1990s it was 1.2 years. And life expectancy for
      Arab males, at 74.4 years, compared with 69.6 for the white majority
      in European countries.

      Critics dub the separation barrier that Israel is building
      the "Apartheid Wall." The barrier, supported by most Israelis in the
      hope of gaining security against suicide bombers, is being used as a
      cover to seize land from Palestinians -- it is the cause of
      immeasurable suffering. Machiavellian, a land grab, misperceived or
      thieving the barrier might be, but it's not apartheid.

      Underlying everything is the nature of Israeli democracy. That in
      turn depends on the conception of the Jewish state. Which in turn
      depends on the definition of who is a Jew. Each is evolving.

      Meanwhile, visionary, courageous leadership is lacking. Palestinians
      undermined the Oslo accords by continuing violent attacks; Israel
      undermined the accords by continuing to build on the West Bank and

      The spurious "apartheid" and "Zionism is racism" accusations confuse
      and distract. Instead, South Africa's experience should be put to
      positive use. What can be learned? For Israel, that armed might and
      oppression cannot crush a people's spirit and passion for freedom.
      For Palestinians, there is the African National Congress's switch to
      armed struggle in 1961, with the decision not to kill civilians: This
      proved crucial in persuading white people that they had nothing to
      fear in negotiating with the ANC. And the most basic South African
      lesson of all, contact across the lines of division: To create trust
      so that an agreed future can be forged between Jewish Israelis and
      Arab Israelis, and between Israelis and Palestinians.

      Benjamin Pogrund is director of Yakar's Center for Social Concern in
      Jerusalem. He was deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg,
      and is author of books on Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe, Nelson Mandela
      and the press under apartheid. This article is abridged from a
      seminar paper.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.