Nov. 11, 2002
EDITORIAL: An apartheid
state?
According to Danny Gillerman, what peace between Israel and the Palestinians
requires are "leaders like [F.W.] de Klerk and
[Nelson] Mandela." Israel, he says, has had three
such leaders: Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Ehud Barak. And Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "may also be
the next de Klerk."
As for the Palestinians,
they "have not succeeded in producing a leader like Mandela." Yasser Arafat, he says, "betrayed and deceived his own
people."
Unexceptional
boilerplate, save in four respects. First, Gillerman
is the Israel's next ambassador to
the UN. Second, it is odd that a diplomat should stand in critical judgment of
his prime minister. Third, it is a slap in the face to the new foreign
minister, who alone among Israel's recent prime
ministers apparently falls short of Gillerman's de Klerk analogy. Fourth, the comparison to apartheid South Africa, however implicit, is
specious and damaging to the country's interests abroad.
The comparison between Israel and South Africa is, of course, nothing
new. "Israel and the old South Africa," wrote columnist
Liz McGregor in The Guardian, "illustrate the dangers of the state based
on ethnicity, where there is the notion of a particular ethnic group which
prospers at the expense of the perceived lesser races." Former minister Shulamit Aloni of Meretz noted recently that "if we are not an apartheid
state, we are getting much, much closer to it." And Amnesty International,
in its Durban declaration from last
year, called on the international community "to impose a policy of complete
and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid
state."
These remarks, plainly,
are attacks on Israel, two from sources
identifiably anti-Israel in their outlook. Gillerman's
is a different case. The former head of the Chambers of Commerce was trying to defend
Israel, not attack it. To say
that the Palestinians need a Mandela a former terrorist and national leader
capable of extending a sincere hand of friendship to his enemies is one of
those cliches that bears repeating. And to point out
that Arafat has fallen short of the mark is beyond cavil.
Yet there is danger in
facile analogies. If Arafat is to be a Mandela, then he must be operating in a
context similar to apartheid South Africa. Is this the case?
Legions of Israel's enemies, especially
in the Arab states, would have it so. But that ignores the fact that Israeli
Arabs, unlike apartheid-era blacks, participate actively in political life;
that Palestinians spurned the offer of a state because it failed to meet their maximalist demands; and that Palestinian groups such as Hamas wage war against Israeli civilians with the express
purpose of destroying the Jewish state.
The mention of de Klerk only compounds Gillerman's
error. If Rabin, Peres, and Barak were all de Klerks, were Binyamin Netanyahu, Yitzhak Shamir, and Menachem Begin and
Rabin and Peres in earlier incarnations P.W. Bothas? South Africa's apartheid leaders
professed a fascist ideology that held that a white minority had a right to
dominate its supposed racial inferiors. By contrast, successive Israeli prime
ministers have attempted in good conscience to dispose of disputed lands Israel came in possession of
during a war of self-defense, not aggression.
We hardly suppose that Gillerman intended his remarks to be taken this way. Asked
by The Jerusalem Post to clarify his statement, Gillerman
said he "in no way" compared Israel to South Africa, "but rather
[made] the point that while Israel has produced leaders
ready to make sacrifices for peace, it has not met a match on the Palestinian
side."
Fair enough. Still, if Gillerman is properly to represent Israel at the UN, he must do
better than suggest Sharon "may"
replicate de Klerk's achievement, as if judgment must
be reserved till a future date. The prime minister has not been dealt a hand conducive
to peace. It is not for him to be a de Klerk, but
rather a David Ben-Gurion, a Levi Eshkol, or a Golda Meir, defending Israel against wanton attack.
The most depressing
aspect of this episode is Gillerman's apparent
inability to anticipate the damage his remarks may cause, whatever his
intention. It has long been a favorite device of Israel's enemies and critics
to cite an Israeli historian Benny Morris is a favorite
to defend themselves against accusations of anti-Semitism. Gillerman's
thoughtless remarks will likely serve as another touchstone. Let's hope this
ambassador learns from his mistake.
The Jerusalem Post
