Apartheid label fits Israel

Wilson School professor Daniel Kurtzer on this same page

We believe there are several problems with these arguments.

First, beyond asserting that such a belief is “single-minded,” Kurtzer failed to explain why he thinks Israel’s policies in the West Bank are not analogous to those of apartheid. We, however, find the similarities between both systems simple to see.

The U.N. definition of apartheid includes “any legislative measures” that deny members of a racial group certain rights. Among these are the right to work, the right to “freedom of movement and residence,” and the right to “freedom of opinion and expression.”

Israel limits all of these rights. Checkpoints restrict freedom of movement within the Palestinian areas, causing workers great difficulty in reaching their jobs. Disparities in infrastructure, including a system of separate roads, further contribute to the separate and unequal standards of living of Palestinians and Israelis. Those who protest against these human rights violations often face arrest simply for exercising their freedom of speech. Nonviolent demonstrators are regularly held for indefinite periods of time without facing charges or standing trial, and they are sometimes tortured.

The U.N. definition of apartheid also includes “the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group.” The wall that Israel has erected effectively appropriates almost 10 percent of the Palestinian West Bank for Israel, separating farmers from their fields and thus from their livelihood.

Israel’s apartheid policies are recognized as such by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who, having endured apartheid for most of his life, is well equipped to recognize it elsewhere. Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his struggle against apartheid in South Africa. In 2002, he said that what he observed in the occupied territories “reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa."

Second, those of us who participate in the struggle for Palestinian rights and freedom do not wish to delegitimize Israel itself, but rather its apartheid-like occupation of Palestinian territories. We believe in a two-state solution, where both Israel and Palestine can coexist as independent nations. Furthermore, some of us are involved in this movement precisely because we are Jewish Zionists who believe that the continuation of these policies constitutes a major threat to Israel’s long-term existence.

Finally, Kurtzer’s suggestion that, to end the occupation, activists should merely urge the United States to “play a determined leadership role” in starting negotiations again is surprising, as one would expect a different recommendation from someone who has firsthand experience of the last 20 years of failed U.S “leadership” in this issue. Those who sincerely support a two-state solution must at last confront the inescapable evidence that the Israeli government will not — and probably cannot — remove hundreds of thousands of settlers from their homes in Palestinian land unless forced to do so under the intense pressure of the United States government and the international community. We do not need another futile decade of U.S diplomacy, but rather an immediate decision on the part of President Barack Obama to refuse Israel any more military aid and political support until Palestinians are allowed to be free in their own country. To do anything else is to repeat the mistakes of the past and invite the unnecessary bloodshed that will inevitably follow them. This external pressure is the formula that worked in South Africa, and it was driven by boycotts, protests and divestments at college campuses across the United States — in other words, activism.

When the Princeton Committee on Palestine and Amnesty International hold a protest today in front of Frist Campus Center, raising a 16-foot-tall wall to represent the wall dividing the West Bank, we will be taking part in the global movement for Palestinian freedom. Yet we know that demonstrations and columns alone are not sufficient to convey the intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so rather than simply telling you how to think, we aim to inspire you to further research, further thought and, we hope, further action in support of freedom. For we believe that as Americans and Princetonians, we can — and indeed must — play a part in finally bringing this conflict to an end and averting four more decades of war and suffering.

Yoel Bitran, a sociology major from Santiago, Chile, is president of the Princeton Committee on Palestine. Megan Hogan is a sophomore from Morristown, N.J. Flora Massah is a freshman from Mason, Ohio. They are all members of the Princeton Committee on Palestine. They can be reached at ybitran@princeton.edu, mmhogan@princeton.edu, fmassah@princeton.edu respectively.

Correction: A previous version of this article misquoted Daniel Kurtzer's column as calling the belief that Israel is an apartheid state "simple-minded" when, in fact, he called it "single-minded."