-Hank Pin
The wall display on the Quad during Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) seems to have generated quite a lot of discussion. From Mr. Deuc’s piece Apartheid Wall Tells 1,000 Lies to Ms. Addato’s Israel is Not an Apartheid State, people seem to have a real issue with using the word “apartheid” to describe the situation faced by the “only liberal democracy in the Middle East.” As someone who respectfully disagrees with their positions, I would like to briefly discuss the reasons why people do consider the apartheid analogy to be apt.
The wall display on the Quad during Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) seems to have generated quite a lot of discussion. From Mr. Deuc’s piece Apartheid Wall Tells 1,000 Lies to Ms. Addato’s Israel is Not an Apartheid State, people seem to have a real issue with using the word “apartheid” to describe the situation faced by the “only liberal democracy in the Middle East.” As someone who respectfully disagrees with their positions, I would like to briefly discuss the reasons why people do consider the apartheid analogy to be apt.
Let’s first, then, discuss what exactly is apartheid. Rome Statue of the International Court defines apartheid as “inhumane acts…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.” Without a doubt, in the Occupied Territories, the systematic oppression of the Palestinian people is the daily reality, from house demolitions, raids, to unjust arrests of children. The question then, is whether or not this form of systematic oppression can be called “apartheid.” Following the Oslo Accords in 1992, Palestinian areas in the West Bank have practically become islands in an area crisscrossed with settler-only roads and exclusively Jewish settlements that Palestinians cannot live in.
Area A, or areas that are supposedly under the control of the Palestinian Authority (which seems to act as a subcontractor of the Occupation more and more each day), composes only 18% of the West Bank and, for all intents and purposes. Gaza, supposedly no longer occupied after the unilateral disengagement of 2005, lacks meaningful autonomy, with Israel still maintaining control over its borders, power, territorial waters, and electricity. Despite the veneer of sovereignty provided by Oslo, Palestinian areas are nothing more than isolated Bantustans, with no real sovereignty and surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructures, and military.
For the Israeli settlers, the situation is quite different. As Israeli citizens, they, unlike the Palestinians of the West Bank, are not subject to military rule. Instead of being tried in the military court system, they have access to the Israeli civilian court, with their rights and privileges protected. They do not have to endure the humiliation that Palestinians have to go through at the checkpoint, or have their children dragged off in the middle of the night for detention. While the nearby Palestinians have to struggle with water, settlers in nearby settlements can enjoy swimming in a pool. Even when it comes to settler violence, the army, more often than not, turned a blind-eye while imposing numerous restrictions on the Palestinians who endured the attacks. The reality on the ground is there are two separate and unequal systems operating in the Territories: a preferential one for Israelis, and a discriminatory one for the Palestinians.
Now, many are probably objecting to what I am writing on the basis that the Occupation is supposed to be “temporary,” with a final status agreement just ahead, along with the creation of a Palestinian state. However, has the State of Israel treat the Palestinian territories as area ruled under a temporary occupation? Contrary to international law, there are now more than 500,000 Israeli settlers living in the Occupied Territories. Furthermore, these Israeli settlements continue to expand, with the government doubling the amount of settlement housing construction in 2013. Prime Minister Netanyahu even go as far as claiming that Ariel, a settlement with a population of 18,000 deep within the West Bank, is an integral part of Israel and “capital of Samaria.” These settlements, permanent in nature, clearly show the blatant disregard towards the status of the Palestinian Territories as “occupied.” Let’s not kid ourselves for one moment: no Israeli government is going to uproot the 500,000 settlers living in the Palestinian Territories; no Israeli government will evacuate Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim, or Gush Etzion. Creating a viable Palestinian state, with territorial continuity and sovereignty, is no longer possible.
With every year, the IAW has generated more debates and discussions on the problem of Palestine. Only a few years ago, the discussion on this campus was still on whether or not the Occupation exists. Now, we are discussing whether or not the word “apartheid” can be used to describe Israel’s system of oppression in the Palestinian Territories. Mr. Deuc expresses his hardship trying to pass the wall that was placed on the quad. However, the real hardship is that endured by the Palestinians who are separated from their land and their community by the wall, who find themselves suffering from institutional oppression despite being natives of the land. It is about time that we talk about the ugly reality on the ground: the separate and unequal treatment of two populations living in the same land.
