Someone I know recently put up on Facebook what I thought was an excellent commentary about the Israel situation, its history, the actions of those who have tried to destroy it, and the arguments used by those who say it is an illegitimate state. The commentator, whom I won’t name as this wasn’t made available outside his own circle of online contacts, made a number of astute points that I think are just too important not to be shared on a blog like this. A question I ask is why are no major Western politicians making these points?
Apartheid in South Africa:
From 1948 until the early 1990s, apartheid in South Africa was a legally codified system that entrenched white minority rule over the black majority. It was characterised by:
• The removal of citizenship and voting rights from black South Africans;
• Legal racial classification of every individual, determining where they could live, work, go to school and whom they could marry;
• Enforced residential separation, with large‑scale forced removals to poor, remote “homelands”;
• Segregation of public facilities including hospitals, schools, beaches, transport and parks;
• Criminalisation of interracial relationships; and
• A web of pass laws controlling the movement of black South Africans.
This was an explicit racial caste system designed to preserve white supremacy.
The Situation Within Israel’s Recognised Borders
Inside Israel’s internationally recognised borders, about one fifth of the citizens are Arabs. They:
• Have full voting rights and are elected to the Knesset, sometimes holding ministerial positions;
• Serve as judges, including on the Supreme Court;
• Use the same hospitals, transport systems, beaches, restaurants, shops and parks as Jewish citizens;
• Have Arabic recognised along with Hebrew as an official language;
• Send their children to state‑funded schools and universities; and
• Operate political parties that campaign openly, including against government policies
There is no legal system of racial segregation. Social or residential clustering tends to be the product of history and community choice, not forced separation by law.
The West Bank and Gaza:
The governance of the West Bank and Gaza is more complex. Palestinians in the West Bank live under Israeli military law, while Jewish settlers there are under Israeli civil law. This dual legal framework is the result of the unresolved status of the territory and long‑running security concerns, not a codified system of ethnic superiority.
Gaza has been under the control of Hamas since 2007. Israel withdrew its settlers and military in 2005. Since then, security blockades have been imposed by both Israel and Egypt to restrict the smuggling of weapons and the movement of militants. The political and legal conditions in Gaza are dictated by an armed conflict and separation of governance, making the apartheid analogy inapplicable.
International Comparisons:
Other states have systems of ethnic preference or sectarian limits without being described as apartheid regimes:
• Malaysia privileges ethnic Malays through the *Bumiputera* policy, giving preference in education, business ownership and civil service;
• Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states impose restrictions on non‑Muslims, including on religious practice, political participation and property ownership;
• Lebanon denies many rights to Palestinian refugees, restricting their employment opportunities and property rights;
• Myanmar has persecuted the Rohingya Muslim minority, involving mass killings and expulsions;
• PRC suppresses Uyghur Muslim religion and culture through detention, forced labour and restrictions on family life; and…
None of these are routinely called apartheid states. The label is selectively applied.
All of which is a very long way of saying what we all know – the animus among large sections of Western societies to Israel and anything it does is driven entirely by antisemitism, not the application of any principled ideological/moral framework.
Jim – true, but it’s worth reviewing the arguments now and then, just in case some wokester removes their fingers from their ears and stops going ‘lalalalala’ long enough to hear them.
The main Islamic objection to Jews in Israel is not that they run an apartheid system, but that they are allowed to live.
JP,
I am allergic to Powerpoint but that is an excellent set of bullet points. Calling Isrel an “Apartheid State” is just the same thing as the lazy use by many who declare anything they don’t like “fascist”.
W.H. Hutt explained, in “The Economics of the Colour Bar” that Apartheid developed from the demands of white trade unions to exclude black competition – demands that went back all the way to the 1920s (if not before) – indeed the Communist Party of South Africa was originally on the side of white rule “Workers Unite and Save a White South Africa” – and the leaders of the “Rand Revolt” (white Communists – and racialists, they hated blacks) went to the gallows (to be hanged) singing “The Red Flag”.
Later the Communist Party switched sides and, by the 1950s (the so called “Freedom Charter” – which is really a Tyranny Charter) controlled the African National Congress and so on – so when the ANC came to power in 1994 what happened afterwards, the gradual collapse of South Africa, was inevitable – as the ANC (once a GOOD organisation) had been, decades before, systematically infiltrated and taken over by Marxists.
bobby b – yes there is no “Aparthied” in Israel, but Jews and Christians are free there, and Islam objects to that as their freedom violates Islamic Law – which holds that infidels must pay the infidel tax and do so in due humiliation (in various ways) in order to feel themselves subdued.
It must also be made clear that Islam places no special value on places such as Tel Aviv – yes it claims them, but on the same basis that it claims London or New York, namely that Allah (the God of Islam) supposedly created the world, and the faithful followers of Allah must have authority over the world.
Morally apartheid was wrong.
However, it is quite impressive how relatively prosperous and advanced South Africa was under that regime, especially considering it was under sanctions and had other countries both East and West conspiring against it. They had a sophisticated military and defence industry. The current South Africa is fully integrated into the world economy and treated very well by both Western and non-Western states. In theory it should be flourishing but it is falling apart, and is a crime and murder capital. Its ruling party are a bunch of black mafia chieftain factions who almost went to war with one another a few years ago. South Africa’s military can barely police the Cape Flats today, never mind do much else.
My Mrs is from South Africa (English descent, grandparents went over in the 1950s), but she has no wish to go back as there’s no work and the violence against women is particularly bad. She came to UK on ancestral visa and once she qualifies for UK citizenship we plan to apply for it for her.
Well that will give you another year or so….
Slightly OT, but since when has that stopped anyone? 🙂 There is an Afrikaner Youtuber called Willem Petzer who makes videos chronicling the history and present of South Africa. A number of his family members have been murdered he tells us. Here is a sample video from his English-language channel.
Martin – what was needed in South Africa was neither apartheid or what there is now. What was needed in South Africa is what is needed everywhere else – private property based liberty, for everyone regardless of race. But, alas, what Constitutional protections there were have been “interpreted” out of existence by intellectually corrupt judges
Judges who are closer to John Rawls than they are to Sir Edward Coke or Sir John Holt.
Ben David – Britain is not as bad as South Africa, Martin will do what he can to make sure that he and his wife survive the bad times that are coming to Britain – and I hope he succeeds. I am a dead-man-walking – but that does NOT mean that other people are.
Mr Ed – I know the YouTube channel you mention. He gives a grim account of South Africa – I wish it was not true, but I think it is true.
This is true, but was never on the cards in an ANC controlled South Africa. What has happened is South Africa has gone from an unjust society to anarcho-tyranny. Would say much the same about Rhodesia and French Algeria (although modern Algeria may just be straightforward ‘tyranny’ than anarcho-tyranny). They were unjust societies, but what replaced them was tenfold much worse.
However, it is quite impressive how relatively prosperous and advanced South Africa was under that regime, especially considering it was under sanctions and had other countries both East and West conspiring against it.
It is “quite impressive” up until you realise that like the Old South of the US after Reconstruction, it and created a bitter legacy that various forces were able to exploit. I mean, given the phenomenal mineral wealth and riches of agriculture, it would not be hard for a moderately competent government to oversee a prosperous place. So yes, SA flourished for a few decades; because of sanctions and hostility, it had to become self-sufficient in arms manufacturing and churned out decent kit. But apartheid was an abomination and violation of individual liberty every bit as obnoxious as segregation in the Old South of the US.
I know several South Africans and they are getting out of the country. The place is a corrupt mess.
Martin and Johnathan Peace – it is indeed very grim in South Africa.
But there is something else that is very grim – something that must be faced.
There was not slavery or Jim Crow laws in, say Minnesota – yet racial and ethnic divides are very much making themselves felt there, in what has been a Social Democrat style State for at least 70 years.
And there have never, at any time, been Segregation laws in Britain – indeed there have been anti discrimination laws (which themselves could be argued to be a violation of Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech) for 60 years here – yet racial and ethnic tensions are growing as the demography of the country changes.
It may be that racial and ethnic tensions are not the result of past injustices – but, rather, are just what happens.
That, if (if) true, would be very unfortunate.
On the positive side – race relations appear to be fairly good in South Carolina (the State of Calhoun and other dreadful defenders of slavery) – especially in Charleston, ironically the main slave importing port. And in Florida – another ex slave State.
So perhaps there is hope.
Perhaps it is not past injustices that cause racial hatred – but, rather, ideology – indoctrination.
Compare, for example, the island of Jamaica in the 1950s to a few decades later – less than one human life time.
The island of Jamaica of the 1950s was a socially conservative society with a very low murder rate.
A few decades later Jamaica was a chaotic place with a very high murder rate.
Jamaica was just as black in the 1950s as it was later – so biological race was not a factor.
And the Jamaicans of the 1950s were a lot closer to slavery than modern Jamaicans are – so it was NOT past injustices that led to the modern explosion of crime.
What had changed was the ideas in the minds of human beings.
They had been taught (yes taught) that their poverty was due to “exploitation and oppression” – and violent crime was the natural result of such indoctrination.
Whether it is Jamaica, South Africa, Britain or Minneapolis – it is SOCIAL JUSTICE (the pushing of these evil doctrine by both the education system and the media – especially the entertainment media) that is the poison.
If there is to be a decent society, anywhere, the evil of “Social Justice” (this poison of the mind – this “mind virus”) must be defeated.
In America I think it’s quite notable that a lot of recent immigrants to America are fueled with animus towards the white majority, despite having never experienced slavery, segregation, Jim Crow etc. Mamdami was born in Uganda, Ohmar in Somalia, etc. Hard to claim legacy of Jim Crow is responsible here.
Martin – agreed.
Former generations of immigrants were filled with gratitude for America, but these modern (post 1965 Immigration Act – and post 1960s welfare schemes, and 1960s Social Revolution) people are filled with HATRED, actual hatred, for America – and for Western Civilization.
And it is not a few individuals – for example “the Squad” of members of Congress are elected by vast numbers of voters, who know, know very well, the terrible evil that these members of the House of Representatives stand for.
Mr Mamdami in New York City is also not some unknown figure – on the contrary his hatred for Western civilization in general, and for the United States in general, has been well exposed – and yet he has a great deal of support from voters, both immigrants and white trust-fund-kids – indoctrinated by the far left education system and media (including the entertainment media).
To quote Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz “I do not think we are in Kansas any more Toto” – many millions of people in Western countries (both immigrant and native born) want the West utterly destroyed, and us either dead or enslaved.
Every so often the main-stream-media come out with puff piece articles about what beliefs “unite us” – the truth would be a blank sheet of paper, no beliefs “unite” people in America, Britain or many other Western nations.
We are divided, we are foes (enemies) – indeed, talking of the general population inhabiting these lands, there is no “we”.
It is not a good situation.
If the US was more like France, I think the Civil Rights era, including the liberalisation of immigration laws and Great Society programmes etc would constitute a new Republic so to speak (you could point to other times in American history when the Republic radically changed as well). With the Civil rights revolution seeping into everything (it spread abroad to America’s allies – a lot of similar legislation starts to come in Britain from the 1960s too), it will just corrode at America unless it is excised.
In America I think it’s quite notable that a lot of recent immigrants to America are fueled with animus towards the white majority, despite having never experienced slavery, segregation, Jim Crow etc. Mamdami was born in Uganda, Ohmar in Somalia, etc. Hard to claim legacy of Jim Crow is responsible here.
Maybe not directly, but centuries of slavery and a century after that of treating black people like dirt does not exactly create fertile soil for social harmony. It also depends on what immigrants you are talking about. I don’t read stories of Vietnamese Boat People, for instance, having a grudge against their adopted nation. Cuban and Venezuelan immigrants don’t, judging by those I have met in Miami.
Paul: It may be that racial and ethnic tensions are not the result of past injustices – but, rather, are just what happens.
Well, the idea that tensions “just happen” also depends on what ethnic/religious differences and features are involved. Not all that long ago in US history, Irish immigrants weren’t treated very well and were portrayed as drunks and louts; the Jewish immigrants from Russia/Eastern Europe had their woes, ditto Italians.
I think the key problem in states such as Minnesota and a few others are, to be blunt, around clusters of Muslims, and since 9/11 and all the rest of it, things have gone bad to worse. The same can be seen in the West Midlands of the UK, and parts of major French cities, etc.
It is an Islamic thing, in the main, in Europe anyway.
Martin – yes the America of 1960 is indeed totally different from the America of 2025.
The modern Republic is like the Roman Republic after Clodius (not the younger Gracch – as most history textbooks mistakenly state) introduced free food for the Roman mob.
But it is not just Food Stamps (introduced in 1961) or government subsidies for health care – ZERO per cent of the Federal budget in 1960 – now 30% of the entire Federal budget (yes almost one tax Dollar in three goes on health care – and it is rising).
There is also, as you say, such things as the Civil Rights statutes – which led to companies (in fear of being sued for “racism”) having unofficial quotas for jobs – i.e. no longer employing people on merit.
Ayn Rand was one of the people who predicted where the 1964 Act would lead – against the denials of Senator Humphrey who introduced it.
By the way it would be interesting for Senator Humphrey to return to this Earth – and been shown around his beloved Minneapolis.
What has happened to this city might make him revise his opinions – rather radically.
And perhaps he could be introduced to the delightful Mr Keith Ellison Attorney General of Minnesota – who mixes Marxism and Islam (logically incompatible – but he mixes them anyway).
Johnathan Pearce – then why are race relations better in Charleston, a main entry port for slaves, than they are in Chicago – which never had slavery?
And why are race relations so awful in Britain – did we treat black and brown people “like dirt”?
Race relations were not always awful here – the more “anti racist” laws and policies are pushed, the worse race relations get.
I think the recent example of Lenny Henry was quite telling. On paper there’s a guy who should be a poster child for successful ethnic integration and multiculturalism/multiracialism. Yet his recent demands for whitey to be shaked down trillions for reparations exposes what he truly thinks of Britain. BBC friendly version of Robert Mugabe.
It’s not just Muslims either. Have we got such short memories that we forget that Black Lives Matters was exported to the UK as well during the 2020 Summer of Hate as well? (I know a lot of people, especially because it was wrapped up with COVID lockdowns at the time, would rather forget that era as some mad fever dream)
Paul,
You ask why race relations are so “awful”? Well, I don’t think the U.K. has a race problem. It has a culture problem. And, to be very specific, a politicised Islamist problem created by large-scale immigration without any meaningful incentives to assimilate.
To the extent that race is an issue today, I’d argue that it’s inflamed by the postmodern Left seeking to exploit and build a culture of grievance. I don’t see a problem among, say, Indian immigrants to the U.K.
To repeat: the issue is culture. Remember what Tom Sowell said.
Martin: with BLM, that was definitely a grievance culture issue, stoked by the Left (see previous comment).
Lenny Henry is a rich guy and successful, and playing the grievance culture card has served him well. He’s a leftist, and always has been. I don’t know how representative he is of the Afro-Caribbean community as a whole.
Amen. 100%. Same as . . . well, anywhere.
Johnathan Pearce – then why are race relations better in Charleston, a main entry port for slaves, than they are in Chicago – which never had slavery?
Assuming it is possible measure what is meant by “race relations” in this case, I cannot answer whether one city has it much worse than the other. Chicago has been a violent town for a long time, going back to the Prohibition period and before. What happens there today is down to political corruption and the cultural issues I mention before. It is worth noting that many of those poor black sharecroppers who left the South before and after WW2 went to the Northern cities such as Chicago in pursuit of work. To some extent, they may have taken some of their resentments with them, to the extent that can be measured.
When it comes to Chicago, by the way, I think of the insights of an outstanding University of Chicago figure, Thomas Sowell, a great man indeed, who has cut through the blanket assumptions people tend to make about different races and their ability to get along with each other, or not, and as you know, Paul, he identifies culture and specific traits of conduct as being the key, covering everything to family composition, attitudes towards work, etc. https://www.hoover.org/research/thomas-sowell-facts-against-rhetoric-capitalism-culture-and-yes-tariffs
Anyway, we are some way off the original topic. I’d imagine that one reason why non-Jewish citizens of Israel are happy to integrate is that they can see they have a far better opportunity for advancement than before.
Johnathan Pearce – race relations are less bad in Charleston South Carolina than they are in Chicago.
As for Britain – yes there is a conflict with Islam – which is indeed not a race (it is a religion and a legal system, and philosophy, which has been in conflict with the non Islamic world for 14 centuries), but, tragically, race relations are getting worse.
The endless “anti racist” laws and policies produce racial hatred – and, I strongly suspect, are designed to do so.
For example, volunteers used to look after much of the work of the Chicago Museum of Art – but, several years ago now, those unpaid volunteers were told to go away.
Not because they cost too much money, they were unpaid, and not because they did a bad job – they did a good job.
They were told to go away (they were “let go”) because-they-were-white.
They were also female – but that did not save them.
They violated “equity” by being white – just as in Britain people violate “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion” (EDI the British version of DEI) by being white.
Johnathan Pearce – race relations are less bad in Charleston South Carolina than they are in Chicago.
And what in your view is the cause or the causes of this? Why is this hatred of white people in parts of the world getting worse? As I have already suggested, it seems to me that this is down, as far as I know, to ideas that we can lump under such headings as “leftism”, critical race theory and various theories of oppression, a passive-aggressive victim grievance culture, and so on. Much of this comes out of academia and radical leftist politics – often held by white people, ironically enough – and ideas of separatism (Malcolm X, and various race hustlers such as Al Sharpton – also an anti-semite, by the way). This is about the kind of ideas and assumptions that develop in our culture, our schools and universities.
Unfortunately, while segregation of the Old South is dead as a legal institution, segregation seems to be encouraged today by people who constantly fixate on race. Look at how Martin Luther King’s point about character trumping skin colour enrages today’s race activists. This is also made far worse in a zero-sum environment of limited opportunities and a State with the powers to dispense favours. It also explains why this issue often cuts deepest in academia, such as seen in the arguments about positive discrimination in Harvard recently.
It is worth noting, however, that BLM and certain other groups appear quite discredited these days. I hope so.