Amnesty International and BDS: Israeli apartheid, a misleading comparison

At the beginning of February 2022, Amnesty International (AI) declared Israel an "apartheid state", justifying it on the basis of its alleged discriminatory treatment of the Palestinian population, which, according to them, is subjected to a system of oppression and domination.

However, the 182-page report appears to have a number of shortcomings, falling into the common denominator of using comparison and analogy as a weapon to solve a problem with a history of more than 70 years, which in turn has led to the Holy Land being one of the most unstable places in the world for 75 years.

Such a comparison seems to be a double-edged sword against the Palestinian population; as we have seen, such tactics have failed before. Activist movements such as Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), which has also used such a comparison to fulfil its strategy, has not only backfired, but has acted to the detriment of a state-to-state solution, something that AI's new initiative aims to do.

Making accusations such as: “Massive confiscations of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forced relocations, restrictions on movement, and denial of nationality and citizenship are elements of a system that, under international law, amounts to apartheid (...) with violations of rights that constitute a crime against humanity, according to the definition of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)”, request the ICC to include the crime of apartheid in its investigations and urge the States that exercise universal jurisdiction to judge the State of Israel are a serious mistake.

The strategy is unclear and the tactics are wrong. In this case, to go back to the comparative, and on the basis of what Sun Tzu said in the best strategy book of all time, such a statement is nonsense. Sun Tzu said: "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat", such a statement by IA will fail as BDS has already done by comparing South African apartheid with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. First, because it is not known what is really intended (strategy) and, second, because employing tactics by analogy is not the right thing to do either.

Among the reasons why the BDS movement failed to make such a comparison and claim to declare Israel an apartheid state was its dubious South African analogy.

According to experts in the field such as Norman Chomsky, BDS fails in its archetype by claiming to install an activist model like the South African one. The South African case was developed in a totally different context, which is why an attempt to replicate it is a utopian one that may increase the sense of irritation and despair of a falsely deluded Palestinian society.

"Take the South African analogy, constantly cited in this context. It is highly dubious. There is a reason why BDS tactics were used for decades against South Africa, while the current campaign against Israel is limited to Boycott and Divestment: in the former case, activism had created such overwhelming international opposition to apartheid that individual states and the UN had imposed sanctions decades before 1980, when BDS tactics began to be widely used in the United States. By then, Congress was legislating sanctions and overriding Reagan's vetoes on the issue".  Therefore, such statements seeking sanctions against the State of Israel seem nonsensical.

In addition to these sanctions, a process of disinvestment had already begun in 1960 that disrupted the economy. In contrast, US investment and new powers are flowing into Israel. "Spokespersons for the BDS movement may believe they have reached their South African moment, but that is far from accurate. And for tactics to be effective, they must be based on a realistic assessment of the real circumstances." 

Israel does not evidence a dependence on the Palestinian population as was the case in South Africa where white nationalists needed the black population. The Palestinian population is not the country's workforce; however, the Bantustans were, and so the nationalist government devoted resources to sustaining and seeking international recognition for them. In contrast, Israel seeks to establish boundaries with Palestinian society. To move towards a South African model is to move to a context where conditions were fertile ground for such outcomes, yet for Palestinians, such activism is an unnecessary sterilisation.

Cuba was decisive in South Africa; the end of apartheid and the liberation of black Africa in general would not have been possible without such a "Saviour". Cuban forces were able to drive the South African aggressors out of Angola; they were a key factor in liberating Namibia from their brutal control; and they made it abundantly clear to the apartheid regime that its dream of imposing its rule over South Africa and the region was turning into a nightmare. In Mandela's words, the Cuban forces were a key factor in shattering the myth of the white oppressor's invincibility; it was the turning point for the liberation of the African continent and of an apartheid-scourged South Africa.

Cuban power brought 70,000 highly skilled aid workers, scholarships in Cuba for thousands of Africans, social investment and much more. The Palestinians could not expect such heroism, nor could BDS promise it.

So, similarly, as International Relations and Middle East expert Alberto Priego explains at length, the comparison between racist South Africa and the current state of Israel could not be more unfortunate as the situations are not comparable.

Although the Doctor goes into more detail in analysing, explaining and demonstrating such a claim. The main reasons why drawing such an analogy is a gross error is the simple fact that Israel is a democratic state, (from its origins) while racist South Africa was not.

Moreover, it is worth noting that the social marginalisation to which the Palestinian population is subjected would not be comparable to that suffered in South Africa. "The 21 per cent white population marginalised the 70 per cent black population living in the country. In Israel, the 21 per cent of the population that is Arab has absolute freedom to move around the country and intermarriage is a daily reality".

Another factor that prevents such a comparison is the issue of Palestinian political rights. There have been Arab MPs since 1948, just as today they hold ministerial positions and there are even Islamist parties linked to the Muslim Brotherhood that are part of the government coalition.

Finally, and to conclude emphatically, although there are other circumstances no less important, we must not forget that in Israel there is judicial protection against human rights violations that prevents such actions from going unpunished, whereas in racist South Africa there was none.

The philosopher Heraclitus enlightened us with a great quote that said: "You shall not bathe twice in the same river", so talking about apartheid in Israel means pretending that the water does not flow and sticking to a context and circumstances that will not allow us to find a solution to the conflict.

Jacobo Salvador Micó Faus, criminologist, analyst in terrorism and researcher in anti-Semitism.

Bibliography

1 Juan Carlos Sanz, “Amnistía Internacional declara a Israel Estado de “Apartheid”", El País, (1 de febrero de 2022): https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-02-01/amnistia-internacional-califica-a-israel-de-estado-de-apartheid.html

2 José Ramón Ayllón. El arte de la guerra. Sun Tzú (Madrid: Ediciones Martínez Roca, 2014).

3 Norman Chomsky, “On Israel-Palestine and BDS, The Nation, (2014): https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/israel-palestine-and-bds/

4 Ibidem

5 Ibidem

6 Nelson Mandela, “África tiene una gran deuda con cuba”, El viejo topo, (2018): https://www.elviejotopo.com/topoexpress/discurso-de-nelson-mandelael-26-de-julio-de-1991/

7 Alberto Priego, “Por qué Israel no es un “Estado Apartheid”, Vozpópuli, (5 de febrero de 2022): https://www.vozpopuli.com/

8 Ibidem.