Just when you thought it was over, heres a new opinion on Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW). I, too, came back from spring break expecting the discussion to have dissipated, only to find yet another criticism of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in the op-ed section of the Daily. First, let me be clear that I am not a member of SJP. I find that their tactics during IAW are an example of activists preaching to the choir. The demonstrations and events only seem to resonate with those inclined toward their cause, while students who are uninformed or neutral tend to be put-off by IAW. Having said that, the many op-eds published in the Daily are evidence alone that IAW resulted in campus dialogue. To claim that SJP has inhibited such discussions is, in my view, inaccurate.
Even more worrisome, however, is the persistent claim that the application of the term apartheid to Palestine is offensive to those who really endured apartheid, namely black South Africans. While not popular in American political discourse, the apartheid analogy is given more credence in other parts of the world. The portrayal of Israeli Apartheid as a fringe argument that is offensive to those who were victims of actual apartheid is a great inaccuracy. Certainly, there are some South Africans who might object to the comparison, but many prominent leaders and groups have expressed solidarity with Palestine.
As noted in Haaretz two weeks ago, Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu said, I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces ... their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government.
Hes not the only one. The African National Congress, the political party of Nelson Mandela and the current ruling party of South Africa, issued a press release titled ANC in solidarity with the people of Palestine supporting Israeli Apartheid Week. It read in part, The ANC is proud to join the over 75 South African organizations, trade unions, civil society groups, schools, universities, religious communities, NGOs and other formations in participating in this years 10th International Israeli Apartheid Week.
In addition, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the largest trade union federation in South Africa that represents 1.2 million workers, has supported a boycott of Israel. The President of COSATU even said, As someone who lived in apartheid South Africa and who has visited Palestine, I say with confidence that Israel is an apartheid state.
These South Africans are not the only people aware of Israeli apartheid. Nobel Prize winner and former United States President Jimmy Carter would agree with Desmond Tutu and the ANC. In fact, in 2006 he published a book titled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. In a Jan. 25, 2007 interview with NPR, President Carter said, Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank ... This is a word thats a very accurate description of the forced separation within the West Bank of Israelis from Palestinians and the tool of domination and oppression of Palestinians by the dominant Israeli military.
The list goes on and on.
I bring up these examples not to trivialize those who were personally offended by IAW, but to make a suggestion to those who were offended on behalf of black South Africans: If you want to be an ally to the people of South Africa speak with them, not for them.
I am also shocked by how many people have argued that SJP has inhibited campus dialogue. Would these many op-eds, letters to the editor and discussions with fellow students happen if it werent for IAW? We are still talking about it, and it happened over two weeks ago! It seems quite ironic to argue that SJP inhibited campus dialogue by responding with an op-ed in the Daily, the primary conduit for campus dialogue. Whether you like SJP or not, is this increased discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not a result of IAW? Some of the most productive conversations I have had with people who I disagree with have been as a result of IAW.
More troubling is the double standard that exists when it comes to the expectation of supporting dialogue. None of the SJP critics I have encountered who deride the organization for failing to engage pro-Israel groups have made the same criticisms of Friends of Israel or Hillel. In fact, Hillel as a national organization has a political stance on Israel that precludes chapters from holding events with groups that are in favor of BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions). 12
