With a recent Israeli ground incursion into Gaza, renewed settlement activity in the West Bank, a daily barrage of rockets into Israeli towns on the Gaza border, and a shooting of eight Jewish students at a Jerusalem rabbinical seminary, tensions in the world’s favourite conflict zone continue to escalate. The students passionately attached to the conflict wonder what we can do to create the greatest quality of life. One thing is clear: conciliation will come when both sides rant and roar for a common goal, rather than perpetuate absurd mischaracterizations.
“Apartheid” is a fallacious term, one that lacks any legitimacy when employed in a continued campaign to garner support for the Palestinian cause.
The word “apartheid” has been relegated to the list of unspeakable evils, approaching the ranks of Nazism and segregation. Employing “apartheid” to describe the Palestinian condition can serve to either reinforce the beliefs of the converted or act as a buzzword to attract public attention. Both of these are unethical and counter-productive.
If activists want Israel to change its ways, intentionally vilifying the state will no more appeal to the hearts of Israelis than suicide bombers and Qassam rocket attacks.
The simple fact is that the term attempts to de-legitimize any sort of separation in Israel or foundation for a majority Jewish state. This is something few educated in Jewish and European history will support, and for good reason.
Persecution affects every minority group on the globe, but the Jews are exceptional in one way. For nearly every ethnic group there exists a homeland— a place of refuge where tolerance will not shift with political stability. There are countless Christian and Muslim states; there are countries where Buddhists are the majority, where Hindus are, and so on.
The unfortunate pattern of Jewish existence has been relative prosperity followed by persecution. Life in North America is comfortable—but both Canada and the United States failed to take Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. Since 9/11, both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism have been on the rise worldwide.
The state of Israel remains the only country in the world where any Jew can find sanctuary if the tides of tolerance once again turn against the Jewish people.
This is why a two-state solution is necessary.
It may be outside traditional moral convention, but sometimes political reality must take precedence over philosophical idealism. The Jewish people must have control of their own destiny.
There’s no doubt there have been many casualties in this struggle. While 1948 created many refugees, displacing Israelis to recompense displaced Palestinians is hardly just.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and there have been wrongs on both sides. This debate must effectively and efficiently uplift the status of the Palestinian people.
This does not single Israel out as the principle violator of human rights or oversimplify the situation by applying a loaded label.
Many of the points of contention— checkpoints, security issues, illegal settlements—exist because Palestinians lack statehood. Moreover, while the state of Israel bears the brunt of world criticism for the Palestinian condition, Arab neighbours, such as Jordan, are guilty of massacre and neglect.
Accusing Israel of apartheid will no more endear Jews than accusing Hamas of Islamofascism will endear Palestinians. Extremism on both sides must end. Moderates must reclaim the debate and, hopefully, one day bring about peace.
