Apartheid in Israel?

A little more than a year ago, I published this blog entry, exploring whether apartheid in Israel truly existed.

I should note here that I have never personally been to Israel, nor to any predominately Islamic nation, either, for that matter. 

Still, the topic is fascinating, and it also has come to dominate recent news headlines more even than it usually does. 

Since it has come back to dominate headlines once again, I have wanted to go back to these unfinished series of posts that I meant to publish last year. And it seemed fitting to start again with the blog entry that started it all, and which was the only real entry of substance that saw the light of day. I said that I would publish a blog entry on apartheid in Islam, but never did, even though I did a decent amount of research and had a fairly lengthy blog entry on the subject.




It took a while longer than I had originally wanted or expected it to, but I finally am publishing the blog entry examining whether or not there is apartheid in Israel. This is after Roger Waters, the noted former frontman of Pink Floyd and a solo artist of exceptional talent, was harshly and unfairly criticized for putting a Star of David on a flying pig (the flying pig has long been a feature of his live shows). He was blasted by many, who made the preposterous claims that he was a Nazi-sympathizer and an anti-Semite, among other things. This prompted me to write a blog entry expressing my outrage over how mindlessly some responded, with an automatic, unthinking, knee jerk response to even a little bit of criticism over Israeli policies. Far too often, those who defend Israel will systematically lump any criticism of Israel in with anti-Semitism, and this is grossly unfair and counterproductive to healthy and stimulating debate.

Israel, like every other country in this world, is far from being above criticism, and this blog entry is my attempt to prove it. I used some sources in writing this, and tried to be clear where I got my sources from throughout. Hopefully, I managed to be as thorough as I think.  One of the main sources that I used was from another very public figure who, like Roger Waters, received unfair and very harsh criticism for using one word in describing Israel's treatment to the Palestinians. That one word? Apartheid. Former President Carter used this word in the title to a book about the situation in the Middle East, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid". There were many who blasted him for this, who felt that he had gone way too far, and some even suggested that Carter had a "Jewish problem", with some assertions, even, that he was somehow anti-Semitic.

I did not believe it then (or now) about President Carter, and I don't believe it now about Roger Waters.

Therefore, I wrote my own piece about this situation, and have tried to examine whether or not there actually is a case against Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, I have primarily had to use the works of others, since I have never been to Israel or the Middle East.

Now, I should make a note here that while I believe Israel can indeed be fairly criticized for how it deals with Palestinians, the other nations in the region, all predominately Muslim, are also far beyond reproach. To that end, I intend to do another blog entry, also within a week, examining the case for prejudicial laws in at least some of these countries. In particular, the case against them may indeed be anti-Semitic (some nations outright had anti-Semitic laws in their books in times past). But more generally, many of the prejudices in these countries are extended to non-Muslims in general. For that matter, it seemed necessary to examine how women are treated (or rather, mistreated) in these nations.

But before that, here is the entry on the comparisons that some have made about present day Israel, and the era of apartheid in South Africa. You can make your own judgments as to whether or not such comparisons are fair:



So, the comparisons to the policies and overall treatment towards the Palestinians of present day Israel and the policies and overall treatment of blacks during the harshest days of the apartheid regime in South Africa have been in the news, once again.

With the preposterous and completely overblown and ridiculously exaggerated criticism of Roger Waters, in his using the Star of David on the flying pig that has long been a part of his show for many years now, there were claims of his being anti-Semitic.

Roger Waters responded, with a strong measure of indignation in his own right. That might happen when you criticize someone of being a Nazi. This is, in part, what Waters had to say, in this case, specifically about being labeled a Nazi sympathizer:

Not only did my father, 2nd Lieutenant Eric Fletcher Waters, die in Italy on February 18th 1944 fighting the Nazis, but I was brought up in post war England where I received the most thorough education on the subject of Nazism and where I was spared no horrific detail of the heinous crimes committed in the name of that most foul ideology. I remember my mother’s friends Claudette and Maria, I remember their tattoos, they where survivors, two of the lucky ones.  

My Mother spent the whole of the rest of her life, involved politically to make sure the future for her children and grandchildren, in fact for everyone’s children and grandchildren, black, white, Gentile, Jew, Latino, Asian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, et al, had no Sword of Damocles in the form of the despised Nazi Creed hanging over their heads.  I for my part, as best I can, have continued along my parent’s path. At the age of nearly 70, in the spirit of my Father and Mother and all they did, I have stood my ground, as best I can, in defense of Mistress Liberty. 

The Wall Show, so lamely attacked by you, is many things. It is thoughtful, life affirming, ecumenical, humane, loving, anti war, anti colonial, pro universal access to the law, pro liberty, pro collaboration, pro dialogue, pro peace, anti authoritarian, anti fascist, anti apartheid, anti dogma, international in spirit, musical and satirical.

But anyone who is familiar with Roger Waters and his works, and his thinking in general, knows better. And so, in refuting these absurd claims, those who defended Waters turned the spotlight back on those who defend Israel's actions so unquestioningly, that they automatically make the claim of anti-Semitism to those who dare to criticize Israel. But this is an extremist, knee jerk reaction in it's own right and, frankly, lends suspicion to the possibility that they are trying to stifle debate or closer examination of Israel precisely because there is something to hide. This is particularly true for the United States, where any criticism of Israel is often deemed extremist, and where those who do question Israel automatically seem to face questions regarding their feelings about Jews, and anti-Semitism.

Yet, inside of Israel itself, there is much more debate about the controversy regarding Israel's policies and treatment of Palestinians - a much healthier debate than exists in the United States. Perhaps this is hardly surprising, given the current political climate within the world's leading superpower, which has hardly sounded mature for quite a number of years now, and which, frankly, seems to be getting worse, not better.

One of the things about the long-standing hatred between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East is that it is hard to justify either side.

While I believe, in some measure, that apartheid really does exist in Israel, and that they use force far too easily and without apparent thought to the consequences, long term or short term, it must be said also that Muslims themselves hardly have shown reservations, by and large.

Until recently, there were predominately Islamic nations that did not allow Jews into their country. We're talking outright anti-Semitic laws here! And the main reason that the world has not sympathized with the Palestinians like they did with black South Africans is the generally unchecked hatred with which they hold Jews and Israel. Blacks in South Africa wanted to be a full part of that country, while Palestinians, as well as many other leaders of Islamic nations, have outright expressed their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map. And those are supposed to be the responsible politicians, the leaders of the land!

So, what does all this mean? It means that both sides seem to be more wrong in their approach to the other than they are right. That makes it hard to try and decipher when someone is justified, or unjustified, in the actions that they take.

South Africa seemed quite easy and transparent by way of comparison. It was not, there were some complications there as well. But generally, the legal system established there enforced an unfair system that benefited one race (the whites) at the expense of everyone else, but especially the black majority. Racism exists in every country, and that was one thing that white leaders kept pointing out as a means to deflect criticism of their policies and practices.

But they were wrong, because while it is true that racism existed in those, and in every, country, no other country in the eighties had racism as officially sanctioned policy save for South Africa. When racism is embedded in the laws, it is given a measure of credibility and official status that it not only does not deserve, but that the nation then has to go to extreme lengths to justify and enforce. That was what made all the talk out of Pretoria so damn offensive to so many people.

It is different in Israel, and different in majority Muslim nations. It is not so easy to isolate and criticize where the official policies are horrible and transparently wrong, since both sides have them. Also, they are not perhaps as transparent as they were in predominately Christian South Africa, where a minority of whites lived lives of extreme privilege, by design, at the expense of the overwhelming black majority.

For now, I will focus on Israel, one of the most powerful nations militarily in the region, and get to the Muslim nations later:

So, the question, then, of whether or not there is at least a form of apartheid, or some kind of system in place that bears strong similarities to apartheid as it looked like when it was the law of the land in South Africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy:


The analogy has been used by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy, some of which have also accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid. Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including Jewish-only settlements, separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. Some commentators extend the analogy, or accusation, to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class.


The comparisons between apartheid South Africa and de facto apartheid in Israel actually stemmed from the most iconic prime minister of South Africa during the apartheid years, the man who best articulated the National Party vision of a totally segregated South Africa, Hendrik Verwoerd. After Israel voted, along with much of the rest of the world, against South Africa in the United Nations, he dismissed the vote and said this, (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy):

"Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy



So, is this something that the Israelis should be concerned with? Will it have an impact on that nation? Possibly, since the calls for divestment and boycotts are becoming more numerous and more prominent. Here's the opening paragraph to an article "Israelis Are Beginning to See the Power of BDS" by Shir Hever, September 3, 2009:

In recent years, there has been a gradual growth in the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement, calling for putting economic pressure on Israel until it recognizes the rights of the occupied Palestinian people and puts an end to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/hever090309.html)



A number of years ago, President Jimmy Carter, a man that I personally admire, got into some major trouble and controversy over the title of his book, which was called: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

He was soundly and roundly condemned by many, and quickly, there were preposterous, knee jerk responses, such as allegations that Carter had a "Jewish problem", and even hints that he might be anti-Semitic. Of course, any time anyone criticizes Israel, at least here in the United States, they open themselves up, evidently, to charges of anti-Semitism, although that is obviously absurd. No country is perfect, and every country is at fault for some excesses and crimes. Yet, if you point this out about this one country, Israel, some will dismiss you as a Nazi. Does that sound even remotely reasonable? The thought or speculation that Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite is absolutely absurd and, frankly, laughable. There is no credibility to any such charges, period.

Carter was critical of Israel, and he did indeed liken the situation in present day Israel to the days past of apartheid in South Africa. There are many similarities in the manner in which the movement of Palestinians is controlled. I will add one more quote from that shortly. But he makes one very important distinction that is definitely worth mentioning. He tries to make it clear that, although the segregation may seem very similar, the reason for the segregation is different. Israelis, he notes, are not doing this out of racism, as they are often accused by Muslims. Rather, it is because some Israelis desire Palestinian land:


"I made clear in the book's text and in my response to the rabbis that the system of apartheid in Palestine is not based on racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land and the resulting suppression of protests that involve violence."

Maybe Israel is being held up to strictly western standards and values because, it is, a western country. When you strip away everything else, even the religious argument, Israel identifies more with the West, then with the rest of the Middle East, and vice versa. That much should be obvious.

In most western nations, however, there is a free press. Debate is not stifled, even about controversial subjects. There may be heated debate, granted. But there is debate, and this is true in regards to Israel, as well.

Yet, one trend that some (including President Jimmy Carter) noticed was that such healthy debate was generally, automatically stifled about this particular topic in the United States. Perhaps that is why Carter ran into so much trouble and protests when he dared criticize Israel.

If a blond-haired and blue-eyed former President of the United States could be easily dismissed (and frankly, I am not so sure if he was rightly dismissed), the fact that many South Africans seem to make the comparison may be more worrying to those who deny that apartheid actually exists in present day Israel. Here's Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu, who made the comparison with apartheid South Africa following a trip to Palestinian territory (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy):

"I have been to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of Apartheid. I have witnessed the humiliation of Palestinian men, women, and children made to wait hours at Israeli military checkpoints routinely when trying to make the most basic of trips to visit relatives or attend school or college, and this humiliation is familiar to me and the many black South Africans who were corralled and regularly insulted by the security forces of the Apartheid government."


But is it really that bad? After all, during the heyday of apartheid in South Africa, there were visible signs everywhere to remind you of the significance tat the white regime held racial segregation. In particular, many of these included what came to be known as "petty apartheid", the famous "Whites Only" signs for a whole range of public facilities, which included separate bathrooms, separate entrances to public buildings, separate buses, separate trains, separate beaches, separate neighborhoods, prohibition on interracial marriages and romantic relationships, and any other way that segregation could be enforced. When South Africa began to talk about reform, and well before they were ever serious about it, the very first thing that they did was to get rid of these ugly and highly visible signs of racial segregation, in an attempt to stall the process of reform. They dismantled the visible edifice of "petty apartheid", and claimed that this did indeed mean change had arrived in South Africa, even though the larger laws of "grand apartheid", the national legislation, was pretty much more of the same.

Surely, Israel has not reached that level just yet, right?

Well, they do have separate neighborhoods, of course. That much is a given. But they have other visible signs of segregation, as well. In his controversial book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid", President Jimmy Carter said had this to say about the state of things as they existed in Israel:

"A system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy now being followed, although many citizens of Israel deride the racist connotation of prescribing permanent second-class status for the Palestinians. As one prominent Israeli stated, "I am afraid that we are moving toward a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arab subjects with few rights of citizenship. The West Bank is not worth it." An unacceptable modification of this choice, now being proposed, is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory, with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences, and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them." (p 215)


Famously (or perhaps, rather, infamously), there was that wall that Israel erected, effectively physically dividing Israelis from Palestinians, and allowing for greater control by Israeli forces of the influx of Palestinians. This wall has been roundly condemned by many around the world, and it has come to be known as "The Apartheid Wall". If you go to a search engine (pretty much any major search engine would do, I suspect) and type in "apartheid wall", you will get plenty of entries from various sources. If interested in this topic, I urge you to explore it further. Some of it, surely, is biased. But just the sheer volume of sources that focus criticism on this wall is enough to impress, and it makes you wonder if every single one of those articles can be from a prejudiced viewpoint, or if, indeed, there is something worth criticizing about this wall.

And more recently, they have instituted segregated buses for Palestinians. Here is a bit from an article about this, "Segregation claims over Palestinian-only buses", by Robert Tait, Jerusalem – 04 MARCH 2013 (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/segregation-claims-over-palestinianonly-buses-29106520.html):

"Israel has been accused of encouraging racial segregation after a new Palestinian-only bus service was launched following objections by Jewish settlers who claimed Arab passengers were "a security risk".

From today, Palestinians travelling to day jobs into central Israel from the West Bank will be urged to board special buses at a checkpoint instead of the regular services used by Israelis."

So, indeed, perhaps the case is made that there are segregated buses running inside of Israel, some for Jews, and some for the Palestinians. But is this automatically to be compared with the buses segregated by race in South Africa? Are there perhaps other arguments to be found here for why this should be so? It does indeed seem that there are segregated buses in Israel. Yet, does this genuinely mean that we have de facto apartheid in Israel? Not so, say some. According to this same article, there are some who argue in favor of it. Read below:

The transport ministry insisted the move was "designed to improve the service for Palestinians entering Israel".  

But some human rights groups called it "blatant racism" that resembled South African-style apartheid.

Here is some further examination:

Yirsael Maidad, a spokesman for the Jewish Settlers Council, said Israelis felt justified because of Israel's experience with suicide bombers. "Since we ride buses with Arabs every day in Israel, it's not a racist thing but for some strange reason, Arabs blow themselves up in buses and Israelis find that very unnerving," he said.  

"If you were to ask some young radical, he would say forcing Arabs to ride Israeli buses would be a form of colonialism. Having their own buses should be very much welcomed as part of a state-building process."

Source: http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/segregation-claims-over-palestinianonly-buses-29106520.html


Yet, despite that glossy interpretation, many others remain far more skeptical. In another article on the same topic, "Segregation and echoes of apartheid: Israel launches Palestinian-only buses" by Rachel Shabi from March 5, 2013, the author refutes this assertion that this segregated bus system is for the benefit of he Palestinian people, and claims it is designed specifically by Israelis to suit their own purposes. She states: (http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2013/03/segregation-and-apartheid-israel-launches-palestinian-only-buses):

This, we are ludicrously informed, is for the Palestinians’ own good – they will be more comfortable on their own buses, as opposed to the crowded Israeli-only vehicles. But setters, when interviewed, present a different story: that the policy is result of their complaints at having to share transport with Palestinians (because they are, by definition, a “security risk”).


She elaborates, based on her own experience:

Years before I acquired a scruffy-but-sturdy old car for reporting trips to the West Bank, I regularly used public transport – and it is no big secret that the system is already segregated. Large, air-conditioned, subsidised Israeli buses with bullet-proof windows glide Jewish passengers across the green line into the occupied West Bank. Getting from East Jerusalem into Palestinian towns is another story: on crowded transit vans functioning as mini-buses, ten passengers a piece, bumping through pot-holed, non-settler roads interspersed with Israeli roadblocks and checkpoints. The West Bank is already a grid of A-roads and B-roads, with Palestinians and Jewish settlers funnelled into either according to colour-coded ID cards and number plates. This unofficial system just got extra hardware, with the introduction of a new Israeli bus line, for Palestinians with the right permits, who erroneously believed they could use settler transport to get to their wage-slave jobs in Israel. And Israel says they still can do so, of course – except that drivers and border police have already indicated that Palestinians choosing the “wrong” bus will be directed to the right ones. Officially, there is no segregation. In practice, there plainly is.


In the same article, Rachel Shabi concludes:

What can we glean from this development, apart from that segregation is a numbing fact of life for Palestinians in the West Bank? That Jewish settlers rule, of course: they have the power to dictate policy, right down to the details of whom should be permitted to travel on which bus line. Also, that Israel’s pro-right supporters have a tough time saying “racial segregation” – even when it stares them in the face. Witness all the qualifying caveats about free choice and free passage and complicated security concerns that surround media reports of these new bus lines. And, finally: that Palestinian labourers from the West Bank are one more group example of daily subjugation. Only a small percentage of Palestinians are allowed into Israel to work, usually in construction – and these are the Palestinians you see crowded around Israeli checkpoints at the crack of dawn, crawling back with expired permits at night – dusty, defeated, glad for the vital work; another cog in the endless, punishing chain of Israel’s occupation profit machine.

Despite it not exactly dominating the news - particularly here in the United States - the notion that Israel is guilty of unfair and very harsh treatment is not necessarily an extremist position. Remember how much trouble Jimmy Carter got in for writing a book with the title "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid"? He cannot really be considered anti-Semitic (although some extremists on the other side began to hint at this), yet he received a lot of flack for daring to criticize Israel. He was blasted in the media by many for his critical stance of Israel (with a particular emphasis on the settlers who are occupying what are supposed to be Palestinian lands. I think he handled it fairly well, given the circumstances. He was President for a reason, you know.

He spoke about the popular perceptions of many Muslims about the situation in Israel, and how they automatically link it to racism. So, how is it different from the situation in South Africa? Well, according to President Carter:

"Many Arabs consider these distinctions to be a form of racism by which Israelis regard Palestinian Arabs as inferiors who are not worthy of basic human rights, often branding them as terrorists if they resist Israel's encroachments." p 77

Carter later elaborates:

"Israeli leaders have embarked on a series of unilateral decisions, bypassing both Washington and the Palestinians. Their presumption is that an encircling barrier will finally resolve the Palestinian problem. Utilizing their political and military dominance, they are imposing a system of partial withdrawal, encapsulation, and apartheid on the Muslim and Christian citizens of the occupied territories. The driving purpose for the forced separation of the two peoples is unlike that in South Africa - not racism, but the acquisition of land. There has been a determined and remarkably effective effort to isolate settlers from Palestinians, so that a Jewish family can commute from Jerusalem to their highly subsidized home deep in the West Bank on roads from which others are excluded, without ever coming in contact with any facet of Arab life." (p 189-190)


So, Jimmy Carter was critical of Israel. It seems to me that he tread carefully on the subject, while not being so overly cautious that he failed to actually criticize what he saw as wrong in Israel. He tread carefully in his criticisms. Could anyone expect less from a former President, who has a good idea of the full weight of his publicly stated opinions?

But that's just it. You literally have to be a former President in order to be taken seriously enough for anti-Israeli opinions to be taken even remotely seriously here in the United States. And yet, despite Carter's generally favorable popular reputation, and his tireless work as a peacekeeper the world over, there indeed were some - perhaps were many would be a more appropriate way of saying it - that did not take Carter seriously. Some who perhaps were afraid that he would be taken seriously, and thus, tried to discredit him with allegations of being anti-Semitic. But surely, there were some who automatically assumed that Carter himself had an extremist viewpoint that should be quickly dismissed, and not examined more closely. Any criticism of Israel in how it deals with Palestinians opens you up to charges of anti-Semitism, as if the two go automatically hand in hand.  I believe that is just wrong, and I'm certainly not the only one. Carter expressed this uniquely American hypocrisy, explaining that even in Israel, it is not sacrilege to question and criticize these policies. Only in America.

More recently, there was controversy in the past over protests over these Israeli policies, this time up north, in Canada, during the Toronto Film Festival.

Here is an article from Alternet about the controversy stirred when some prominent actors and artists began to acknowledge (that was how they put it) that apartheid did indeed exist in Israel:

Controversy Over Israel Waylays Toronto Film Festival As Israel attempts to rebrand itself at Toronto, many celebrities are voicing their disgust. 

September 22, 2009

by Richard Silverstein of Alternet

The Toronto International Film Festival is one of the world's foremost film events. It features starlets, klieg lights, red carpets and all the hoopla that goes along with the world of cinema.  

This year, the festival features Oprah Winfrey's much-ballyhooed film Precious, which won the People's Choice award. 

But this year also features a development never seen in the history of TIFF. In August, Canadian filmmaker John Greyson ignited a furor when he withdrew his film, Covered, in protest of TIFF's City to City spotlight on Tel Aviv (the metropolis is enjoying its 100th anniversary).  

The feting of Israel's premiere city at one of the world's most glamorous cultural celebrations was an idea dreamed up as part of a rebranding campaign announced with great fanfare by the Israeli foreign ministry. The project took on even greater urgency in the aftermath of the Gaza war, in which Israel's standing around the world took a severe beating. This is how the ministry came to include Tel Aviv's birthday bash as part of its rebranding strategy.  

A year ago, in the Canadian Jewish News, Amir Gissin, Israel's consul general in Toronto, announced the launch of Brand Israel, a million-dollar initiative funded and organized with three leading Jewish corporate leaders who champion a hard-line, pro-Israel political perspective.  

Among them is David Asper, scion of the clan that owns CanWest, theCanadian conservative media empire. CanWest owns conservative media properties like the Jerusalem Post and the New Republic (together with Marty Peretz). CanWest also donated $500,000 directly to TIFF.  

The goal of Gissin and his pro-Israel corporate supporters was to create a multimedia branding strategy that would present Israel to Canada and the world in the most favorable light possible by shifting attention away from Israel's wars and occupation and toward its contributions in the cultural, technology and medical sectors.  

One of the elements of the campaign was organizing the City to City spotlight on Tel Aviv:  

The consul general also alluded to other major plans for next year in his Brand Israel attack arsenal.  

He revealed the Dead Sea Scrolls are scheduled for exhibition in Toronto in 2009 and that plans are in the works for a major Israeli presence at next year's Toronto International Film Festival, with numerous Israeli, Hollywood and Canadian entertainment luminaries on hand.  

With the help of the Canada-Israel Cultural Foundation, Israel will also have a "significant presence" at this year's TIFF, he said.  

Greyson, in his protest letter to the festival -- and in the subsequent Toronto Declaration, signed by 1,000 international luminaries, including Naomi Klein, Danny Glover, Eve Ensler, Jane Fonda, Israeli filmmaker Udi Aloni, Ken Loach, Harry Belafonte, Julie Christie, Viggo Mortensen, John Pilger, Wallace Shawn, Alice Walker and David Byrne --  made clear that he was opposing neither the festival per se nor Israeli filmmaking.  

And contrary to the Hollywood counterattack launched against Greyson and the declaration, he never called for a boycott of either. He was opposed only to the City to City spotlight.  

In fact, Greyson says he has made a documentary profiling the most prominent Israeli anti-occupation activist, Ezra Nawi. The film will be screened in Toronto this month (not through TIFF), with financial assistance provided by the Israeli government. So nothing is quite as black-and-white as the opponents of the TIFF protest have made it.  

Some of the key supporters of the Toronto Declaration have paid a heavy price for their support. Naomi Klein, also a prominent supporter of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, was caricatured in a local Toronto newspaper as "hysterically" anti-Israel.


Danish-American actor Viggo Mortensen was at the Toronto International Film Festival. He signed  a document very critical of Israel, along with numerous other famous figures. This is a statement that he released shortly afterwards, explaining his actions further.

I signed the statement in question, along with people like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, and many other thoughtful citizens from various countries (including a number of Israelis) some of whom have suffered from very real censorship and blacklisting. The statement does not promote the boycotting or censorship of any artist or movie from Israel or anywhere else. Those who have attacked the statement with that accusation are simply spreading misinformation and, unfortunately, continuing the ongoing successful distraction from the issue at hand: the Israeli government’s whitewashing of their illegal and inhumane actions inside and outside their legal national borders. There was nobody outside the cinema objecting to anyone going to see "Ajami". In fact, there was nobody doing anything other than going to see this and other movies being shown at the Scotiabank complex, or just walking on down Toronto’s Richmond Street



Conclusion:

It seems to me fairly clear that, indeed, there is a case to be made against Israel, and the way that the Palestinians are treated. Anyone who has been paying attention to the news in the last decade or so will plainly see that, no matter what the government in power in Israel, the peace process, in particular the two-state solution that, at least in theory, everyone agrees to in principle, has been stalled time and time and time again. When that happens with such an alarming consistency, it is hard to deny that there is a trend, unless you really stubbornly refuse to see the forest, but just the trees.

Why does it keep getting stalled? Well, there are surely many reasons for it. But there is hardly any denying that it does, indeed, keep getting stalled.

Also, Jewish settlers keep going into Palestinian lands. There is fighting, there are tensions, and nobody is backing away from the fight. That seems to include the Israeli government.

That increases the tensions, of course. And the emphasis for Israelis seems to always remain controlling the Palestinians, one way or another. Controlling means restricting, and more and more often, we are hearing examples of how Palestinians have an increasingly difficult time simply moving from one part of the country that they live in to another.

So, is there indeed a case that a form of "apartheid", unofficial but de facto, exists in Israel today.

Well, it certainly seems so. When you have a Nobel Peace Prize winner like Bishop Desmond Tutu making such comparisons, it might be time to look at the allegations more seriously. When you have the ex-President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, who also happens to be another Nobel peace Prize recipient, likening the situation to apartheid in South Africa, it is time to examine the situation more closely. When the momentum for divestment and sanctions starts to grow at the clip that it is currently growing, it is time to start really looking into matters.

Carter made a point that may, or may not, be an important distinction, when he mentioned that the segregation that exists is not necessarily due to racism.

But be that as it may, even if that is the truth, the fact of the matter is that there is a group, the Palestinians, living under the boot of another group, the Israelis. The Israelis do things to increase the control of movement of Palestinians, such as build walls and organize segregated buses.

It is the height of hypocrisy and absurdity to label those critical of Israel as anti-Semites or Nazi sympathizers. Roger Waters received a lot of bad press recently, largely for being critical of Israelis.Before him, former President Jimmy Carter also ran into hot water when he drew the same comparisons that what was being practiced in the occupied territories was, indeed, a form of apartheid. But criticizing Israel does not make either Carter or Waters, (or Mortensen, or many of the other critics of Israel) somehow anti-Jew. that is a simple and mindless tactic employed by some with obviously vested interests simply to stifle debate, to deflect criticism of what indeed appear to be unfair practices.

Like it or not, much of what is going on in Israel today bears a real resemblance to apartheid in South Africa. Increasingly, however, many are becoming more critical of Israel over time, precisely because of these practices that seem to come too close to what was practiced by the white minority regime in South Africa. That such actions are being taken seems to be less and less of a debate. There is proof all over the place, and it really comes down to whether or not you are willing and able to open your eyes to this. We can debate about what the motivations are for it. Whether or not it is the result of racism, or some desire for land, is open for debate. But what seems increasingly clear is that the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians is that of master and servant. That is what South Africa looked like not that long ago, before the end of apartheid. And whenever any nation begins to draw such comparisons, it is only fair to expect some harsh (and I think, largely, fair) criticism to follow.




Articles about the Toronto Film Festival:

http://www.alternet.org/story/142776/controversy_over_israel_waylays_toronto_film_festival/

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/09/mortensen-israel-uses-toronto-to-whitewash-illegal-and-inhumane-actions.html



General articles found online about Israel and comparisons of Israeli treatment of Palestinians to the treatment of blacks by the white minority government during the days of official segregation in Apartheid South Africa, and some mention of possible organized action to start boycotting and divestments in regards to Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/13007#.UYYf6rVORic

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-campaign-against-israel-work




Articles about Palestinian-only buses "Segregation claims over Palestinian-only buses" by Robert Tait Jerusalem of Independent.ie (March 4, 2013):

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/segregation-claims-over-palestinianonly-buses-29106520.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2013/03/segregation-and-apartheid-israel-launches-palestinian-only-buses

http://stopthewall.org/segregated-roads-infrastructure-apartheid


http://original.antiwar.com/cook/2010/05/15/us-funds-israels-apartheid-roads-plan/


http://stop30billion-seattle.org/SegregatedRoads.htm


http://visualizingpalestine.org/infographic/segregated-roads-west-bank