The History of the Media Coverage of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Note: (This was written in early 2006, but this is still relevant as ever for those seeking an understanding of the roots of the current conflict.)
By Jaisal Noor
As the saying goes, there are always two sides to every story. The Israel-Palestinian conflict over the land historically known as Palestine is no different. On one side you have the Jews, a people brutally persecuted throughout their history. Their persecution culminated in the 20th century Holocaust resulting in six million European Jews being exterminated by the Nazis. On the other side you have the Palestinians, consisting of both Muslim and Christian populations. These people have been without a state since 1948, when a Jewish state was established in the UN Jewish Mandate, and have been living under a military occupation since 1967. While Jews maintain a Biblical right to their land, Palestinians argue that they had been living there thousands of years before the Zionists started arriving in the late 19th century. Also, they bring up that while Jews were being persecuted by Christians, they had always been welcome and protected in Muslim lands. The Jewish suffering had taken place at the hands of the Europeans, not the Palestinians.

Since the 1967 War, Israel occupied and started establishing settlements in the land promised to Palestinians, the West Bank and the Gaza strip. The problem is that according to International Law, and affirmed by U.N. Security Council rulings, it is illegal to acquire land through war and it is illegal to build settlements on those occupied lands. Although the Palestinians have received much moral support from the remainder of the world, this has done nothing to relieve them of the illegal occupation, land seizures, torture, and killings carried out against them by Israel. They have in turn committed their own unjustifiable acts in retaliation.

Throughout this time, the US mainstream media has been overtly biasedii through several means.iii The first method is achieved by largely ignoring the atrocities of Israel, while highlighting those of the Palestinians. The second is by ignoring and downplaying the US support for Israel. The third is by not providing a context in which the news unfolds, thus denying people an understanding of the situation. By inaccurately depicting the Israel-Palestine conflict, the media prevents a fair picture of situation from being created.

The entire portrayal of the familiar term ‘Peace Process’ is instrumental in understanding the bias. The reason the peace process was started, the reason Israel decided to reverse its previous position of not negotiating with the PLO, was the high price that it was paying for its brutal repression of the largely nonviolent Palestinian Intifada in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Because of the uprising, for the first time it became necessary for the Israelis to start peace talks. Culminating from a series of talks in the late eighties and early nineties was the Oslo Accords of 1993.

The press heralded the 1993 Oslo Accords as a breakthrough in the peace process. The reality of the situation was very different. All of the central issues for the Palestinians, including sovereignty, statehood, final borders, and the question of settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, and water were all deferred. Israel got acceptance and recognition from most of the Arab world and developed commercial, political or indirect relations with major Arab countries. In light of the so called breakthrough, the Palestinians were allowed to be pushed into the back of the minds of their supporters. All that the Palestinians actually got from Oslo was limited control of 17.2 % of the West Bank and Gaza, divided into 75 islands, all isolated by the Israeli-controlled territory and checkpointsiv. This self-rule was instituted by PLO leader Yasser Arafat. He acquiesced to Israeli demands by accepting Oslo, and following the standard colonial pattern, in many ways became a collaborator.

To maintain his usefulness to the Israelis, Arafat had to impose a harsh regime on those who he ruled. This rule only exacerbated the cycle of violence. As renowned British correspondent Robert Fisk explains, “Amnesty [International]’s own words were more eloquent than any reporter’s notes: “…killings of Palestinians by Israeli security services or settlers have led to suicide bombings and the deaths of Israeli civilians. These have led to waves of arbitrary arrest, incommunicado detention, torture and unfair trials [by Palestinian Security forces]. The Palestinian population have been the main victims of such violations…the Occupied territories have become a land of barriers, mostly erected by Israeli security services, between town and town and village and village.”v By not providing its readers and viewers of this essential understanding of this context, the American press obscured the public’s fundamental understanding of what was to unfold in the following years.

The press depicted this period as the time of the Peace Process, a process that was improving the situation for the Palestinians. Instead, after Oslo the situation got significantly worse for the Palestinians. Between 1991 and 2000, the number of Israeli settlers doubled from 200,000 to 400,000, a flagrant violation of the terms of the Oslo agreement. The people living under occupation were subjected to increasingly harsh treatment, as they watched the peace process stutter and fail. By the year 2000, things were getting desperate. After last-ditch efforts at Camp David and Taba, talks were suspended without any significant deals as new governments took power in the United States and Israel. After seven years and virtually no real progress, all that was needed was the slightest spark to the powder keg of their denied aspirations for the situation to explode.vi

This came in the form of Ariel Sharon, in September 2000. He marched onto the third holiest site in Islam, the Haram al-Sharif. Accompanying was one thousand troops and leaders of a group that wanted to destroy the Mosques, and replace them with Jewish temples. According to George W. Bush, Sharon is "a man of courage and peace," reported the Washington Post on January 5, 2006. It is instructive to note, this was stated with no comment. If one examines his record, not mentioned by the press, one sees a very different picture. One has to again go to a foreign journalist to get the history on the man held “personally responsible”vii by his own government’s investigation for his role in the massacres of up to 1,700 civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. This was a wound still fresh in the minds of the Palestinians.viii

The result of Sharon’s visit was the second Palestinian Intifada, a rebellion that continues to this day. The Intifada, started with unarmed rock throwers attacking Israeli troops. The Israeli troops responded with deadly force. Noam Chomsky, writing in the May 2002 issue of a London-based magazine Red Pepper, makes a very powerful point as he cites the American response, and the press’s refusal to report it. In the days following the start of the Intifada “Israel used US helicopters to attack civilian targets, killing 10 Palestinians and wounding 35, hardly in "self-defense." [President] Clinton responded with an agreement for "the largest purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade" (Ha'aretz, 3 October, '01), along with spare parts for Apache attack helicopters. The press helped out by refusing to report the facts” Unbelievably, one has to go to the Israeli or British press to discover this fact. This self-censorship in the American press continued throughout the Intifada.

As the second Intifada grew, so expanded the Israeli response. These responses took three main forms: illegal killings, tortures, and house demolitionsix. According to the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the occupied Territories, B’Tselem, 3,386 Palestinians have been killed since September 2000, 1,008 of them were classified as combatants, and 676 of them were children. During the same period, 992 Israelis were killed, of those, 309 were security forces and 118 were children. Amnesty International writes that “Israeli security services have routinely tortured Palestinian political suspects on the occupied territories”x. B’Tselem counts that 4170 Palestinian homes have also been destroyed since the beginning of the second Intifada.xi

In multiple cases, these activities were downplayed, while their Palestinian responses, such as suicide bombings, drew much more prominent coverage. Importantly, the noted connection between Israeli attacks and Palestinian response is left out. For example, the internationally acclaimed website Electronic Intifada, notes that CNN exclusively uses Israel figures of killings and demolitions, totally ignoring the corresponding reports compiled by B’Tselem. The disparities are shocking. Where as …Israel claims that during … 13–24 May 2004 “ that 40 "armed [Palestinian] militants" and 12 Palestinian civilians were killed, and 56 buildings were demolished… During the same period, fieldworkers from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, based in Gaza, recorded that "56 Palestinians, 45 of whom are civilians, including 10 children, were killed and at least 200 others were injured".xii

These have only been a few examples of how the press misrepresents the facts of the Israel-Palestine debate. As demonstrated, the media downplays the actions of Israel, ignores the US support for the occupation, and denies the reader a context for the unfolding events that it covers. These combine to give the average American citizen a very biased and distorted understanding of the situation.

The media does this because the policy makers in Washington have decided that it is in America’s best interests to support Israel. In America, it is the media’s job to propagandize the public to get it to go along with government policy. This is important because America is a democracy and ultimately the government is responsible to its constituents.

Before one can talk about the media, one must understand its role in a democratic society, and to do this, one has to understand the different meanings of the word democracy. There are two starkly different conceptions. First, there is the dictionary.com definition: a democratic society exists when the citizens have a meaningful impact on how their country is run. Second, there is the working definition: Democracy exists when the country is run in the interest of the members of the business party, the “‘specialized class’, [who] manage in the ‘common interests’ [that for some reason] ‘very largely elude public opinion.”xiii The public is allowed to vote for either faction of the business party, thereby participating in this democracy.

The working definition came into existence after the turn of the 20th century. Working through popular movements, the public began exerting some control in the government. Simultaneously, the strength of these popular movements made it impossible for the government to continue imposing its will onto the public with the old-fashioned techniques of fear and intimidation. Thus, the media became vital to those in power because its role became to, “ensure that the ‘great beast,’ as founding father Alexander Hamilton called the public, [did] not stray from its proper confines”xiv. The means of acquiring knowledge were to be controlled by corporations, which were in the hands of the specialized class. This corporate controlled media would limit public discourse to ensure that the public would agree with the decisions made on its behalf.

It is important to understand that this is necessary because the public’s actual interests are very different than those of the specialized class. Once alternatives to the corporate controlled press were eliminated, the public’s means of acquiring knowledge would become very narrow. The term propaganda was invented the same time that the alternative to the mainstream, the working-class press, was eliminated from American society. This working-class press has a strong, well-documented history, and had a circulation comparable to the corporate press in America until the 1930s.xv When such alternatives to corporate media sources are absent, “the legitimization of existing authority and power relations is more readily maintained, and the myths that act to place primary reason in abeyance (i.e., the inherent good of the “free market,” economic competition, U.S. nationalism, [or support for Israel]) are invariably perpetuated…”xvi

The working-class press was aware of this new trend, and “according to Yale University labor historian David Montgomery, condemned what they called the "bought priesthood," referring to the media, the universities and the intellectual class, that is, the apologists who sought to justify the absolute despotism that was the new spirit of the age: “gain wealth, forgetting all but self”.xvii The independent press was powerless to oppose this trend, and its ability to represent popular movements and provide an alternative to the corporate media was destroyed.

“In 1920 there were 700 cities” in the U.S. “with competing dailies.” By 1986, however, despite a doubling of the population, “there were only a dozen cities with competing dailies.xviii The ideological battle to oppose the new ‘spirit of the age’ was also lost. By 2004, the media was controlled by just six intertwined corporations.xixTo sum up the defeat, one can quote “Nobel Prize winning economist James Buchanan, [who]writes 'what each person seeks [today]…is mastery over a world of slaves.'"xx

It is also important to understand why the specialized class has decided that unwavering support of Israel is in America’s national interests. For example, Israel has been a crucial ally in crushing radical nationalism in the Middle East, thereby securing energy resources in the area.xxi Because of its favorable status, it is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. A revelation of what the money is used for may render the public against this funding. This money is used for Israel’s expansionist policies which include but not limited to the "security wall" Israel has built over the years dividing Palestinian lands into little "Bantustans" & Palestinian cross traffic between their own lands then becomes subject to Israeli control via check posts. A fully informed public might oppose this if a debate is ever allowed to exist. The media ensures that this debate will not happen.

Also, the Israel Lobby is a very powerful force in Washington that does all it can to swing policy in favor of Israel.xxii Israel is the only Jewish state in the world, and was created in large part as a safe-haven for the Jews. Evangelical Christians, who also have religious ties to Israel, are among the strongest supporters of the Jewish state.

Oil has played the dominant role in guiding US policy in the Middle East for over 50 years. Resulting from these policies have been enormous profits for US companies. Furthermore, whoever controls the oil resources of the Middle East has a stranglehold and veto power over the world’s economic centers that are dependent on it, specifically Asia and Europe. As Asia and Europe continue to assert their independence from US policy after the end of the Cold War, and threaten to challenge America’s global hegemony, control over Middle East energy resources is become increasingly important in maintaining American power. xxiii

After its creation, support for Israel was originally mild, but it quickly reached unprecedented levels after the 1967 war. During this war Israel effectively crushed the Arab armies and along with it Arab-nationalism.xxiv This was very important because this Arab-nationalism was threatening US-Saudi oil corporations in the region. After defeating these forces, Israel found itself in a very favorable relationship with the US government.

After this moment, Israel became entwined with national interests specifically because it could help secure US-control of the oil in the Middle East. The US similarly supported the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the Saudi royal family in Saudi Arabia, because they could be depended on to secure control of the oil. The US government, as well as the media, ignored the crimes of these corrupt and brutal rulers. As long as these tyrants provided oil, they were not criticized in the US media in order to not jeopardize the close relationship the US enjoyed with these regimes. For example, just as criticism of Israel is absent today, it was unacceptable of Saddam Hussein when he was an ally. His barbaric acts of cruelty against his own people only became an issue and were reported in the press only after he fell out of grace with the US.xxv

Beyond the oil, support for Israel is necessary because it has been an important ally during the Cold War conflicts. For example, it supplied weapons to the Apartheid South-African regime and to the Contra terrorist forces that were attacking Nicaragua from Honduras. This was important, because despite the media’s shoddy reporting, the heinous crimes of those receiving US aid angered the public so much that grassroots movements were able to pressure Congress to pass laws in order to stop their funding. The public had strayed out of its confines, so the US government, still of course acting in the best interests of the public, used Israel as a conduit for the transfer of these weapons.

Another factor in suppressing dissent against US policy against Israel is the powerful pro-Israel Lobby in Washington. Professors John Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, professor at Harvard University recently published an 80-page paper The Israel Lobby in the London Review of Books. Because this article is largely critical of the large influence of this lobby, its US publisher refused to print it. The two professors bring up the issue of the pro-Israel lobby primarily because they feel that US support for Israel is now hurting US national interests.

According to Walt and Mearsheimer, the Lobby, as they refer to the groups that advocate support for Israel, is considered the second most powerful lobby in America after the American Association of Retired People. It uses its tremendous influence to stop debate of policies involving Israel. One of these policies is to fund both the Democrat and Republican parties, thereby buying their support. It also extensively pressures the media to portray Israel in only a good light. Some key supporters of Israel that are in Congress are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who stated in September 2002 that ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.’ xxvi“Evangelical support for Israel dates to the 19th century, when Christian Zionists called for the return of Jewish exiles to Palestine to fulfill biblical prophecies.”xxvii Many prominent Americans are Christian Evangelists and support Israel’s expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Such figures include Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives.

The Lobby’s power in the legislative branch is very important, as Walt and Mearsheimer establish: “A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent.”

After the Walt and Mearsheimer piece was published, it was immediately labeled as anti-Semitic in the America media. The resulting hysterics within the US accused the authors of anti-Semitism because they dare to suggest that a pro-Israel lobby even exists. The actual arguments were, of course, dismissed without comment. On the other hand, it had a mixed reception in Israel; it would seem that the US media is more staunchly pro-Israel than Israel is.xxviii For example, writer and former Israeli Knesset member Yuri Avneri wrote in response to the piece: “The findings of the two professors are right to the last detail. Every senator and congressman knows that criticizing the Israeli government is political suicide. If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 U.S. senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith.”xxix

As has been well documented throughout modern US history, the media in the country tends to go along unquestioningly with the government’s policy decision. Its role is essential because those in power believe that national interests elude public opinion. Overall, the media inaccurately portrays the Israel-Palestine conflict because at the moment unconditional US support for Israel is considered to be in the national interests. Policy makers have come to this decision and in American society it is the media’s job to sell this to the public. By avoiding and skewing the debate, the media assures that the public is both kept ignorant of the facts, and that an educated debate is impossible.

In order to solve this problem, the corporate media must once again have an independent counterpart. Once this is created, the corporate media’s automatic support of government decisions will no longer remain unchallenged. By restoring an alternative press that is outside the reach of private power, critical mainstream debate will resume once again, and the public will be able to evaluate for themselves if the government is acting in its interests.

What is specifically needed is a grassroots campaign to end the monopolistic control of the media by corporations. This must be combined with pressure applied to both the Democrat and Republican parties, forcing them to pass this reform. It is imperative to recall that no movement has had any success without an extensive grassroots organization behind it. This includes the movements that brought upon universal suffrage, the end to slavery, women’s right to vote and civil rights. All the values that we hold dear as Americans were fought and struggled for and would not exist if the public did not force them through the government. This struggle will be no different.

This movement will require is the participation of vast numbers of citizens, talking, educating and debating each other on the merits of this proposal. As soon as the movement is unified, it will demand that the government carry out its wishes, and because America is a democracy, the government will have to comply.

The exact demands and program of the movement will have to be conceived democratically, but they will likely follow a plan that will balance the influence and reach that the corporate media has with independent media. This includes news reporting in television and print, the basic ways that public educates itself and forms its views of the world.

To determine how the organization is run, elections will be held on the local level. Communities will decide what group of people will oversee the management of their local news media. These independent groups of citizens will oversee production, ethics, publication and distribution.

All the various branches of the federal government shall carry out the enforcement of this initiative. The forms of checks and balances currently in place are perfect for dismantling the monopolistic corporate control and making sure that transition to public ownership is smooth. The judicial branch will make sure that the reforms are upheld. The executive branch will be responsible for carrying out the reform. And legislative branch, both on a national and local level will be responsibly for passing further supporting laws as necessary. Funding will be carried out through public donations and taxpayer subsidies dollars if shortages occur. This will be maintained through creation of foundations created in Congress or local bodies.

An excellent example and possible model of independent media is the nonprofit organization Democracy Now. As it’s website www.democracynow.org, states, “Democracy Now! is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations. We do not accept advertisers, donations from corporations, or donations from governments. This allows us to maintain our independence.”

The show’s guests include experts with varying beliefs, and its goal is to provide an independent voice that the public can rely on to get the full story on issues. Views that contradict that of policy makers are openly debated on Democracy Now. For example, Democracy Now draws from a vast array of sources when covering the Israel-Palestine conflict. Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Robert Fisk who are prominent critics of Israeli policy are regularly featured on Democracy Now while rarely getting coverage in the mainstream press.

While it serves as an outlet for critics of US policy, it also balances its coverage with features and debates with proponents of US policy. For example, the show recently broadcast a debate between pro-Israeli Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky, and a short while later a debate between Norman Finklestein and Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami. Citing experts and academics from a variety of backgrounds allows it to give its viewers, listeners and readers a much more complete and picture of the conflict than allowed in the corporate controlled press.

As Chomsky and Edward Herman in their seminal study on the mass media, Manufacturing Consent, conclude: “The organization and self-education of groups in the community and workplace, and their networking and activism, continue to be the fundamental elements in steps toward the democratization of our social life and any meaningful social change. Only to the extent that such developments succeed can we hope to see media that are free and independent.” xxx

Once the independent media’s voice is able to reach the general American public, it will be able to hold the government responsible, in reference to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The result will be accurate cover both Israeli and Palestinian actions, fair depictions of US support for Israel and a complete historical context for the public.

They will show how actions of Israelis and Palestinians don’t occur in a vacuum, and encourage a fair debate of policies. It will expose false claims of anti-Semitism, which currently is the term applied to any critic of Israeli policy. The coverage will also include reports of non-partisan agencies such as human rights groups.

The current trend of one-sided Congressional votes in Israel’s favor will be examined. The United Nations General Assembly, Security Council, World Court’s rulings and decisions will no longer be dismissed with contempt or ignored. And finally, the media will be able to expose pressure by Israel lobby on the media and government

Lastly, the media will be able to provide a historical context in which the news unfolds. The history of the conflict and major figures, such as Ariel Sharon will no longer be censored. The term ‘Peace Process’ will be able evaluated and history of US and Israeli involvement with creation and funding of extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which eventually became Hamas, will be looked into.

By placing checks on those in power, a reasonable debate over policies will be forced to occur. Politicians will not be able to rely on the media to automatically agree with their decisions, may be forced to rethink policies, to prove to the public what their actions are in the best interests of their constituents.

“As Judge Gurfein ruled in supporting the right of the New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers, a properly functioning democracy needs "a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press that must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know”. xxxiSuch a press has not existed in the United States since the labor press was destroyed in the 1930s, but it is not out of the realm of possibility for this phenomenon to reemerge.

i Charles D. Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict(New York: ST. Martin's Press, 1988)

ii Edward Said, gifted Palestinian scholar made two breakthroughs in his works Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism, in which he at length documented the prevalence of the racist stereotypes and characterizations of Arab people in Western scholarship and culture.

iii Although not uniformly biased against Palestinian, the media’s overall depiction of them in reporting has been thoroughly documented by media watch dog groups, such as Counter-Punch. http://www.counterpunch.org/kchristison0819.html

iv Rashid Khalidi,"The United States and Palestine" in Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Periolous Path in the Middle East(Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.

v Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 333.

vi Ibid, 4

vii http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/kahan-commission-contents.html

viii Robert Fisk “When Journalists Refuse to tell the Truth about Israel”, The Independent, April 17 2001, Independent.co.uk

ix9 Norman G. Finkelstein. "Why can Economic Boycott of Israel is Justified" Aftenposten. 1/14/2006

x www.amnesty.org/resources/pdf/ combating_torture/sections/section2-1-2-2.pdf


xi http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Releases/20060104.asp


xii http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1187.shtml


xiii Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival (Boston: South End Press 2003 )

xiv ibid 13

xv Noam Chomsky "Democracy and Education." Mellon Lecture Hall. Loyola University, Chicago . 19 Oct 1994.

xvi James F. Tracy, “Smile while I cut your throat” Journal of Communication Inquiry 25:3 (July 2001): 298-325. Sage Publications.

xvii Ibid 15

xviii Ibid 16

xix Ben Bagdikian The Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.

xx Ibid 15

xxi Rashid Khalidi “The United States and Palestine” in Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America’s Perilous Path in the Middle East(Boston: Beacon Press, 2004)

xxii Norman Finkelstein “Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.

xxiii Noam Chomsky “Israel Lobby?” (Zmag.org, March 28, 2006)

xxiv Charles D. Smith, Palestine and The Arab-Israeli Conflict (New York, S Martin’s Press, 1988)

xxv Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 333.

xxvi John Mearsheimer Stephen Walt The Israel Lobby in the London Review of Books

xxvii Bill Broadway, The Evangelical-Israeli Connection, the Washington Post, March 27, 2004.

xxviii Tom Regan, Israeli media condemn, discuss report on US-Israel ties. Csmonitor.com March 24, 2006

xxix Alexander Cockburn “The Uproar Over The Israel Lobby” The Free Press. May 5, 2006. http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2006/1368

xxx Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent.Pantheon Books, 1988

xxxi ibid 30.

Defining an Occupation: Voices about Apartheid in the Palestinian Territories

By Jaisal Noor

Recently the United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockman joined a growing number of international figures when he equated Israeli policies with that of apartheid South Africa. “Although different,” he said, “what is being done against the Palestinian people seems to me like a version of the hideous policy of apartheid. That can not, should not, be allowed to continue.”

D’Escoto Brockman also suggested that, “the U.N. should consider following the lead of a new generation of civil society, who are calling for a similar non-violent campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel to end its violations”

The comparison of the Israeli occupation to apartheid remains a controversial one, especially within the United States. Recently Palestinian-Canadian activist Diana Buttu and South African anti-apartheid activist Reverend Eddie Makue completed a two week, anti-apartheid speaking tour through eleven U.S. cities. Their trip was sponsored by the organization, U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. I asked them to discuss the link between apartheid South Africa and the conditions in Palestine, the reasons behind their tour and their advice to activists hoping for change under the Obama administration. Here is an excerpt of the interview.

Jaisal Noor: Could you briefly describe apartheid in South Africa for those not familiar with it? Why do you find it important to make a link between apartheid in South Africa to the conditions in Palestine today?

Eddie Makue: Apartheid in South Africa was a formalized system of discrimination based on race, where the official policy of the government was separating people in society. The main sufferers under the system were the native black people of the country who particularly suffered separation under the basis of land, and on the basis of the movement of people in the country through some very rigid laws that were developed. And important to note is the fact that the system was rejected by the world calling it a crime against humanity. The rulers of the apartheid system considered themselves a law unto themselves and refused to be judged by any people, other then themselves.

What we find in Palestine in the moment is that there are very many similarities with apartheid South Africa in the sense that again it is a formalized institutionalized separation practiced by the Israeli authorities against the people of the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Where there are a whole range of mechanisms, like for example the apartheid wall, the use of the military and Israeli police in order to prevent the free movement of the Palestinian people, and that is — like in the case of apartheid South Africa — done against the will of the people that are the victims of the system.

JN: Why did you decide that now was the time for an anti-apartheid tour in the United States?

EM: We never anticipated that America with its own bad civil rights record would reach a situation where a black person would be appointed as the president. We believe that it is therefore appropriate at this time, when these changes are happening in the United States that this tour be undertaken.

When you talk about strategy — we have learned that often when the people lead that the leaders follow. [It’s essential] to build a critical mass the same way that the people of the United States supported anti-apartheid movements, that the people will again stand up to the challenge

Diana Buttu: This issue of apartheid is becoming quite mainstream in the U.S. In Israel itself, Israeli leaders are talking about how this is a case of apartheid. They are not willing to recognize that it is apartheid, but they are saying that is increasingly tending towards that direction.

JN: How might the situation be affected by president-elect Barack Obama’s appointments to key foreign policy positions. Which individuals poised to join Obama’s inner circle are you most concerned about?

DB: The appointment of Rahm Emanuel indicated to me that he simply doesn’t get it. Here is a person who has voted in favor of every single pro-Israel resolution since he’s been in office. The same individual who has even voted in favor of war in Lebanon, a war that was condemned by human rights organizations around the world. In addition to the fact that he has served in the Israeli army. It kinda just doesn’t get any worse than that in terms of being hawkish when it comes to Israel. So his appointment indicates to me either that Barack Obama is simply not interested in dealing with this issue or that if he is, going to deal with the issue, that he is going to take the same position that the Clinton [administration] took, which was to continue to blame the Palestinians, which he already did during his election campaign, to continue to put more pressure on the Palestinians to concede even further on their territory, to accept this apartheid framework, so that is very alarming.

What I think it then calls for activists to do is really start pushing the framework of apartheid and start demanding that a different framework and different approach be used when it comes to addressing this issue.

The solution is not to simply put an Israeli leader and a Palestinian leader in a room together and just pray and hope they get along. There is an occupation here; there is a denial of freedom and there is an apartheid system — not just for the Palestinians who are living in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip — but also for the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel as Israel defines itself as a Jewish state.

So the challenge for activists is not to just be content with idea of people sitting in a room, nor is it to be content with framework of negotiations that has been put forward by the Clinton administration, but to really start to push for global change in terms of the way that people are addressing this issue. Start demanding equality for the Palestinians. And this is why we have focused on the same tools that have worked in South Africa, that of boycott, divestment, sanctions. The three tools that worked in South Africa worked in the sense that it got global awareness as being tools that could similarly work to get more global awareness and push for an end to the apartheid that Israel is carrying out.

JN: What are some specific ways for activists to get involved?

DB: One of the tools that worked in South Africa was getting universities and colleges with investment funds to divest from those companies that were doing business with apartheid South Africa and so to there’s been a growing movement within the United States to push for the same thing. An initiative that is happening in New York is protesting Lev Leviev, who has a number of diamond stores in the New York area. This is an individual who himself has been funding a lot of the settlements and promoting this idea of Israeli-only roads, Israeli only housing in the West Bank. There have been a number of protests put on by Adalah-NY [The Coalition for Justice in the Middle East] in order to protest the work he is doing. Also, one of the tools that worked in Ireland was that people stopped consuming food coming from apartheid South Africa. If you look with bar codes beginning with a number 9-7-2 those are Israeli products.

EM: The two companies identified with the Campaign to End the Occupation to stop doing business with Israel are Caterpillar and Motorola, not only in cell phones, but supplying fuses for the bombs and equipment for the observation which inhibits the free movement of the people in the Occupied Territories. When we look at Caterpillar, we are encouraging people to look at the shares that they hold in Caterpillar, so that they don’t support through shareholding the companies operations in the Occupied Territories; but secondly also for people to attend meetings because they have shares in the company and to raise the concerns with regard to the way in which Caterpillar is conniving with the Israeli Defense Force in the destruction of the homes of people in the Occupied Territories.

When we talk about Motorola, we are requesting people to hang up on Motorola and there is a website, hanguponmotorolla.org. And in that particular initiative, we are saying to people that they can stop buying Motorola cell phones because Motorola is allowing its surveillance equipment to be used in the situation there and successes have been achieved before with Motorola where they supplied similar equipment to apartheid South Africa and also recently to Burma and the pressure from the consumers have made a difference, and we are requesting for that to continue.

—

Although he also is critical of the occupation, South African anti-apartheid activist and poet Breyten Breytenbach rejects equating Israeli policy to apartheid. I asked him to explain his position.

JN: In your 2002 open letter to [former-Israeli prime minister] Ariel Sharon, you said that Israel’s actions should not be equated with apartheid. Do you still hold that opinion? Why or why not?

Breyten Breytenbach: There are obviously many similarities between the laws, beliefs and practices that defined apartheid, and the Israeli policies pertaining to the occupied territories of Palestine — and even, to an extent, to Palestinians living in Israel as Israeli citizens. The informing principle in both instances is racism, born from Western colonialism; the essential purpose is economic exploitation and territorial theft; the instruments are segregation and state terrorism — death, humiliation, incarceration, etc.

My objection to equating Israeli policies to apartheid are as follows: It does not advance our understanding of the specificity of these historical and political phenomena (and a pre-condition for effective resistance is to clearly see the enemy ideology and politics for what they are). In this regard, I have said many times that “apartheid” was not “Nazism.” These facile equations may have some propaganda impact — because we all recognize the international revulsion caused by apartheid. And referring to the “known” is a shortcut in trying to make a statement and a bid for support, but we in effect weaken our case because the differences (in method or scale or even intention) can be too easily pointed out and thus undermine the purpose of our denunciations.

Each one of these horrendous paradigms are defined enough in their own specificity and history for us not to need facile equations, which take the place of deeper and closer analysis and understanding. The purported similarities between apartheid and Israeli/U.S. policies also suggest that similar tactics can be used to combat them — I think this is only marginally true. The historical context of these two phenomena are different and the international perceptions and thus possibilities of mobilizing solidarity are not the same either, despite lip service condemnation. The Israeli state is effectively supported from abroad, especially by the USA and significant parts of Europe — for geopolitical, financial and cultural or religious reasons — which was not the case with the SA [South Africa] regime, at least not to the same extent. Finally, in important ways the Israeli occupation actions are worse than those of apartheid — the hatred, the cynicism, the cruelty, the need to humiliate … are more intense and “intimate” than anything we ever saw during apartheid. And then, of course, the Palestinians have neither an ANC [African National Congress], nor a figure of the stature of Nelson Mandela.

JN: What actions must Americans take to help end the Israeli occupation?

BB: For obvious reasons, the USA is the power that could help end occupation and the bringing about of justice — equitable territorial partition (If the “two states” solution is adopted, although I believe that there should be enough political courage and moral imagination to bring about a single-state accommodating both communities), restitution, the return of the exiles, an end to land grabs and blockades, etc.

It could do so because of the intertwinement of U.S. and Israeli interests at both national and personal or community levels, and because of Israeli dependence on the U.S. Israel’s economy is largely artificial, a “war economy” fueled by American aid. What American citizens can do is for them to decide. Greater solidarity from Americans — exchanges, making the situation known, explaining that the Israeli occupation is pivotal to an understanding of the recurrent larger conflicts in the region, having more Americans physically present in the occupied territories to help build, to bear witness, to be “shields” if necessary — all of these will be useful, as long as it is clear that these acts of solidarity are not instrumentalized by religious differences or confrontations and are not anti-Semitic, either implicitly or overtly.

There is always the temptation to demonize the other, the “enemy” — and this is not only stupid, but ultimately self-defeating. No two peoples are as similar and have as much of a shared communality as the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is why it is also so very important for Americans to work with Israeli activists and opposition or even resistance groups, of whom there are quite a number.