Debate is about occupation, not Israel's moral character

Debate is about occupation not moral character of Israel

May 1, 2014

 

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz

 

West Palm Beach, FL.

In the Mideast, the “apartheid” controversy is the latest distraction from political problem solving.

If there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming an ‘apartheid state’, Secretary of State John Kerry opined last Friday. Kerry spoke in a recent meeting of the Trilateral Commission.

Seeking a “second opinion”, I asked a US political science professor emeritus what he thought of Kerry’s statement. The professor, who prefers to be anonymous, was clear: I think he was right - I'm sorry he felt forced to apologize.  If "apartheid" is taken to mean one ethnic group depriving another of basic human rights and treating them as a subclass, then "apartheid" would correctly describe the situation if Israel were to continue to take over Palestinian territories and absorb the local populations into a single state.

Our hard working and well meaning Secretary has taken bold steps to try to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict over the last nine month. But in defending himself Kerry may have sent mixed messages. While he apologized for the use of the term apartheid, he reminded his critics that he was not the first to use the “A” word. In fact, President Carter wrote a book on this subject. Israel’s earliest leaders like Moshe Dayan and Aba Eban called for a two-state policy.  The positions of Israeli Ex-Prime Ministers Olmert and Ehud Barack implied the risk of apartheid drift.  Five former Israeli national security chiefs cautioned against the continuation of the occupation in a recent film which won international acclaim: The Gatekeepers.

Unfortunately, Kerry’s apology may have sounded to some as a confession: if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution.

It is sad that Kerry is the third top American official in the current administration to be intimidated for speaking his mind on Israel’s occupation policies. During his first term President Obama spent precious political capital in confronting Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding “illegal Israeli settlements”. The president quickly learned the limits of his ability in shaping US foreign policy on Israel. He no longer talks about the settlements or of “difference” with Netanyahu.

The second US leader to be Israel- trained was US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. The ordeal Hagel received from Israel and its US allies in defending his candidacy for the Defense post left him a clear message: in Congress Israel is first.

Now Kerry is the third top leader in this administration to pay dearly for speaking the truth on Israel’s risks of continuing to live with an occupation that is likely to undermine its security, its Jewish character and ultimately its democracy.

It might help for Israelis to realize that it is the occupation - neither the absence of democracy nor the character of Israel’s society- which is being challenged to change. Naturally, the occupation is a social system which breeds violence and engenders inequality between the occupied and the occupier, whether it is in setting up standards of security, defining political freedoms, provision of social opportunity or maintenance of defense.

The debate of the Arab Israeli conflict is often derailed, like the peace process is derailed, by word spin. The real issue is the cost of the occupation to the occupier and the occupied, not how prone Israel is to becoming an apartheid state.

Reference to apartheid should not be an automatic label of ill will to Israel.