Published: 3 June 2022
Last updated: 4 March 2024
DAVID KNOLL takes issue with Dov Waxman’s analysis of Amnesty’s apartheid allegation against Israel
In the opinion piece published by The Jewish Independent entitled Amnesty’s Apartheid Accusation – A wake-up call that will only get louder, Dov Waxman writes, “What is already clear, however, is that such accusations, whether helpful or not will only become more frequent and more widespread in the years to come, if the Israeli occupation continues and the conflict remains unresolved.”
The first issue to be addressed in response, is why make the apartheid accusation? As Waxman recognises, the apartheid accusation is effective because it immediately creates a negative word picture around the State of Israel.
That the historical comparison with South Africa is false, and the factual foundation flimsy and easily debunked, still leaves the accuser with what is known in marketing parlance as a first mover advantage. It is designed to reinforce sympathy for the Palestinian Arab population living in the occupied West Bank.
Complete unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank may satisfy some urge for moral conduct, but it is a complete misreading of the causes of the conflict to think this would end the slanders against Israel.
A tight security regime is imposed by Israel in order to protect her citizens from violence. At the same time, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority persecute dissent with force towards their own people.No reasonable person would suggest we not sympathise with those suffering from these actions.
Contrast these conditions with Arabs in Israel, who vote, sit as part of the current Government, and hold various high offices, including on the Supreme Court of Israel.
The second issue is would a Palestinian nation state in the West Bank lead to no or less invective against Israel?
Waxman explains the ongoing hostility towards Israel as a response to the Israeli civilian and military presence in the West Bank.
But the hostility predates the very formation of Israel, itself perceived as a “catastrophe”. As Benny Morris observed, the Arab world and particularly the Palestinians viewed this as a “cosmic injustice” which had to be undone.
An end to settlement activity or even the complete unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank may satisfy some urge for moral conduct, but it is a complete misreading of the causes of the conflict to think this would end the slanders against Israel and the Jewish people, let alone facilitate a lasting peace.
The ultimate issue is how can the conflict be resolved? The peace puzzle, of course, has many moving parts, but, pursuing the apartheid allegation, paradoxically, is contrary to the interests of the Palestinians.
Imagine instead leaders of the Palestinian people giving up the claim that a new Palestinian state is to flow “from the river to the sea” and for both Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate secure and safe borders for both.
These would be based on confidence building measures which necessarily include an end to the use of both terror and antisemitic invective on the one side, and staunch enforcement measures on the other.
May our prayers for peace be heard by all those with an interest in genuine peaceful co-existence across the Middle East.
