Apartheid

263
‘unified’ their countries during the 19 th century, it was now perceived as the Jews’ turn. The
projected homeland chosen by the Zionists was inhabited, but that was not seen as a major
obstacle in 19 th -century Europe – one of the most racist and genocidal societies that ever
existed – simply because that land was not in Europe, nor was it to any considerable extent
already inhabited by Europeans or European descendants.
The Jewish immigration into Palestine could be seen as the initial force leading to the
creation of modern Israel. Arabs feared that such immigration could result in a Jewish
government in Jerusalem, and thus they opposed the Zionist movement, and they
overwhelmingly still do so today.
Yet, there is more than just Arab self-interest that opposes Zionism. The great
revolutions in history, e.g. the French revolution of 1789, the defeat of national socialism, the
end of colonialism after World War II, the Filipino revolution of 1986, the ‘Velvet
Revolutions’ ending Communist Party rule in Eastern Europe, and the end of apartheid in
South Africa, have been described as the antitheses of Zionism, since they are based on
inclusion, on democratic ideals, on the equality of citizens and on the universality of human
rights and social progress. Zionism, on the other hand, is an ideology of exclusion, of special
rights for special people, of special rights and privileges for special citizens, due to their
ethnicity, and it is anti-democratic. Some of its intellectual roots lie in the most pro-genocidal
holy text ever produced, as far as I am aware, but more importantly in 18 th -20 th -century
western European thought, the most ethnicist and racist theories and prejudices ever
produced. 647
In a violent climate exacerbated both by British colonial rule and British favors to
Jews (as a way to divide and rule, similar to Belgian and German favors to minority Tutsis
during colonial rule in Rwanda), British ineptitude and inability to solve the brewing conflict,
violent acts between Arabs and Jews started being perpetrated over anticipated future
territorial control. By 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, told the British
Court of Inquiry that: ‘There should not be equality between the Palestinians and the
Jews...only Jews should be allowed to bear arms in Palestine.’ 648 This was to be implemented
rigorously in 1948 and has remained so to this day, except for the light firearms with which
the Palestinians were supposed to police themselves in the tiny ‘self-rule’ areas, the Neo-
Bantustans, after 1995. 649
The riots between the Arabs and the Jews intensified, to the advantage of the Jews, as
647 Bathish, R.: Zionism, Settlements, and the End of Israel, 2001. On the European Enlightenment roots of
Zionism, see Said 1992 (1979): 73-79. The Torah was not as important a justification to the relatively secularised
atmosphere of post-World War II Europe as European imperialist and racist thought still were.
648 Hadawi: Bitter Harvest – A Modern History of Palestine, 1990: 13; See also Davis, U.: Israel - An Apartheid
State, 1987: 2: ‘For the anti-Jewish racist...Jewish society must be segregated outside the body of Gentile
society; hence evacuation and, if necessary, annihilation. For the political Zionist, Jewish society must also be
segregated outside the body of Gentile society, in this case to Palestine, redefined and reified in Zionist ideology
as the Land of Israel...’
649 Ornan: Apartheid Laws in Israel: the Art of Obfuscatory Formulation, 1991. In the areas that have been
brought under nominal Palestinian control since 1995, there are now armed Palestinian security forces, expected
to rein in Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militants, but certainly no ‘Defense’ Force like the IDF, i.e. no tanks,
no attack helicopters, no combat aircraft, no heavy armored vehicles, no heavy artillery and no missiles, not to
mention ABC weapons (see Chapter I.1.3). Under the present Israeli negotiation demands, Palestine would be
the only country in the world condemned to such military weakness. Israel still assumes the right to deploy
armed forces almost anywhere on Palestinian territory ‘if a military threat arises’ and it is able to take military
control of all Palestinian areas within a few hours. See Taylor, P.: Mideast Summit - Issues, 2000. After the
outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000, West Bank Palestinian police was again disarmed by the
Israelis, whereas Gaza police were allowed to keep their handguns. In 2004, the Israeli cabinet started debating
whether to rearm the West Bank police, and to what extent Israeli security agency checks of each individual
Palestinian policeman was to go ahead. Spetalnick: Israel Puts Brakes on Guns for Palestinian Police, 2004. I am
personally not in favor of a Palestinian army, for the same reason that I am not in favor of any army. Here, I am
just pointing out the absurdity of Israeli ‘security’ demands.