CJC says security of Canadians eroded by abolition of anti-terror measures

TORONTO - Canadian Jewish Congress expressed disappointment with the outcome of yesterday'sparliamentary vote abolishing two key measures from the Anti-terrorism Act (ATA).

"While we recognize that these sections of the ATA had specific impact on civil rightsin Canada, we believed that that the powers of preventive arrests and investigativehearings were critical elements of Canada's anti-terrorism regime. These powers maybe gone, but Canadians should not be lulled into a false sense of security - thethreat these provisions were intended to combat is most assuredly still with us,"said CJC President Ed Morgan.

"It was a decided strength of the Anti-Terrorism Act that it set its primary sightson the prevention of terrorist acts. Yesterday's vote weakens this capacity, andall Canadians should be concerned that our safety and security from both internationaland domestic terrorist attacks has been significantly eroded," Morgan added.

"What is also disturbing is the negative effect this decision will have on the AirIndia case and the families of the victims. This vote limits the ability of investigatorsto obtain what they believe to be relevant testimony which up to now has not beenforthcoming," he said.

"Going forward, we call on our elected officials to work cooperatively to formulatenew legislation to replace the two measures in order to effectively protect the securityof Canada. By doing so, they will show true leadership on the fundamental matterof combating terrorism, an issue which concerns all Canadians," Morgan noted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-30-

Contact:Wendy Lampert

National Director of Communications

Canadian Jewish Congress

159 - 124

That will be the score of the next federal election. Stephane Dion lost the election today. This was not a sign of leadership by any means. M. Dion played politics with the safety of Canadians. It is unfortunate. The next election will be about leadership. M. Dion will not pass the test of Canadians. As much as 65% of Canadians wanted these provisions renewed. M. Dion did not want to throw the Conservative Government a bone. This blatant partisanship is a shame. And it could very well lead to the death of our party.

To that end, the Government has lost to many votes. The Prime Minister has a responsibility to call an election now. The House obviously has no confidence in him. I just wish I could say he wouldn't undoubtedly win.

I will note though that not all Liberals voted with M. Dion on this. Those 4 MPs are as follows:
1) Irwin Cotler (MP for Mount Royal and former Attorney General) was absent
2) Bill Graham (MP for Toronto Centre and former Interim Liberal Leader) was absent
3) Paul Martin (MP for Lasalle-Emard and former Prime Minister of Canada) was absent
4) Tom Wappel (MP for Scarborough Southwest and associate member of the committe for Public Safety and National Security) voted for the provisions

Think about the importance of a few of those name choosing not to vote with our leader on this one. I would say it sends a very important message to the rest of the party that the party elite may very well not be behind M. Dion.

Canadian filmmaker to unveil 'lost tomb of Jesus'

I think this is just an interesting story.

CJC urges Parliament to take up Supreme Court challenge for effective, Charter-proofsecurity legislation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

February 23, 2007



TORONTO - Canadian Jewish Congress urges Parliament to take up today's Supreme Courtchallenge and pass new legislation within one year that replaces current securitycertificates with new law mirroring these provisions, while protecting the rightsof the accused under the Charter.

Recognizing that terrorism remains a clear and present threat to Canadian security,the Court has determined that the status quo with respect to the certificates prevailsin the interim.

"Security certificates have been vigorously defended by the previous Liberal governmentas well as the current Conservative government. What Canada needs most, in keepingwith the Charter, is an overall security régime whose first and best lineof defence against terrorism remains effective, timely surveillance and intelligenceto stop attacks before they happen," said Canadian Jewish Congress National PresidentEd Morgan.

"In the wake of today's decision, we urge the Parliament of Canada to pass new legislationto ensure that the state retains the necessary powers to deal with the security threatsthat certificates addressed while satisfying the Court's Charter of Rights concerns,"he added.

"As part of this process, we suggest that Parliament explore the United Kingdom'sapproach both to hearing procedures and rules of evidence in security cases as wellas to 'measures of control' such as house arrest and monitoring devices to avoidprolonged incarceration," Morgan said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-30-

Contact:Wendy Lampert

National Director of Communications

Canadian Jewish Congress

CJC urges Parliament to take up Supreme Court challenge for effective, Charter-proof security legislation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

February 23, 2007

CJC urges Parliament to take up Supreme Court challenge for effective, Charter-proof
security legislation

TORONTO - Canadian Jewish Congress urges Parliament to take up today's Supreme Court
challenge and pass new legislation within one year that replaces current security
certificates with new law mirroring these provisions, while protecting the rights
of the accused under the Charter.

Recognizing that terrorism remains a clear and present threat to Canadian security,
the Court has determined that the status quo with respect to the certificates prevails
in the interim.

"Security certificates have been vigorously defended by the previous Liberal government
as well as the current Conservative government. What Canada needs most, in keeping
with the Charter, is an overall security régime whose first and best line
of defence against terrorism remains effective, timely surveillance and intelligence
to stop attacks before they happen," said Canadian Jewish Congress National President
Ed Morgan.

"In the wake of today's decision, we urge the Parliament of Canada to pass new legislation
to ensure that the state retains the necessary powers to deal with the security threats
that certificates addressed while satisfying the Court's Charter of Rights concerns,"
he added.

"As part of this process, we suggest that Parliament explore the United Kingdom's
approach both to hearing procedures and rules of evidence in security cases as well
as to 'measures of control' such as house arrest and monitoring devices to avoid
prolonged incarceration," Morgan said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-30-

Contact:

Wendy Lampert

National Director of Communications

Canadian Jewish Congress

wlampert@on.cjc.ca

www.cjc.ca

Civil Liberty vs. Civil Security

We seem to have come to a very important moment in this minority parliament. That, of course, is the very recent discussion we have been having with regards to a pair of public safety provisions that M. Dion wishes to remove from the Criminal Code. Those being (1) an allowance of police to arrest a person they suspect is about to engage in terrorist activity, and (2) an allowance to close investigative hearings into possible or past terrorist attacks. This subject, much like the last debate that split the Liberal Party into factions -- same-sex marriage -- has forced all of Liberals to take sides. Unfortunately those sides are that of the left and right flanks of the party. However, that cannot be the case this time around.

I am going to be branded as right wing for what I am about to say. But I can assure you, that is certainly not the case. And those that know me know this to be true.

We cannot afford to side against the Prime Minister. And, as I have stated in past, we as Canadians (not as Liberals) can afford to ignore the issue of our security. This cannot be about liberty vs. security. That isn't because we are forced to chose, but because we can have both. We saw that during the Chretien-Martin years following 9-11. To allow police to have these provisions at their finger tips allows them to better secure our liberty. And that is what we have to do. We have to not chose between them, but to chose both of them. And that is exactly what we do by keeping these provisions.

Liberals Split on Terrorism

As seen here we Liberals appear to be spit yet again. But this admittedly is an area I find confusing. Now, I waited a few days to think this one over as I wasn't quite sure how to take it. Our new leader seems to think that we shouldn't be worrying about terrorism. Both of these provisions are important and necessary. It doesn't matter that they have never been used. It matters that in situations that they need to be used they are in existence. This is why Conservatives call us soft terrorism. And quite frankly, we are. This is not a joke. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of Canadian security. It seems for now only Bob Rae, Herb Dhaliwal, and a few others are aware of this. I hope M. Dion will wake up and soon join them.

Dion's speech to the Canada-Israel Committee

February 6, 2007

Remarks by the Honourable Stéphane Dion

Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy Dinner

I’m very happy to be here tonight, as the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Official Opposition, to toast the Canadian Jewish community and the friendship between Israel and Canada.

I, with all Canadians, would be much happier if the aspirations of Israelis – to find peace and security in a world of differences and conflict – were realized.

Here in Canada, when the United Talmud Torah school is attacked in my riding of St. Laurent-Cartierville in Montreal – its windows broken, its library burned – it is an attack on the values of every Canadian. When even one Canadian child is threatened because of her religion, we all feel the cold breath of intimidation. We can only imagine the insecurity that Israelis feel day after day.

By that same token, when Israel’s right to exist is threatened, it is an attack on the values of every democracy. In this way, Israel’s fight for existence is our fight; her struggle for peace and security is our struggle. The concept of "Tzedek, Tzedek Tirdof" – justice, justice shall you pursue – resonates in every culture.

That's why the Liberal policy on Israel and the Middle East is based on seven core principles.

We will continue to proudly support, as a cornerstone of our foreign policy, the right of Israel to exist in peace and security. Because any attempt to question that right is inexcusable.

We will continue to call, as a second cornerstone of our foreign policy, for a two-state solution, and negotiations to that effect. Because peace calls for an independent, democratic and secure Palestine beside an independent, democratic and secure Israel.

We will continue to support United Nations Resolution 242, which asserts the right of states to be free from threats or acts of force. When the current Iranian government threatens to "wipe Israel off the map," we can have no illusions about the seriousness of that threat, and the need to confront it.

We will continue to condemn terrorism – from whatever source, for whatever purpose, in whatever form. Because we must never be blind to the difference between right and wrong.

We will continue to support the push for democracy, human rights, good governance and the rule of law throughout the Middle East. Because Canada can and must use its influence to play a positive role in the world.

We will continue to push for fairness in the United Nations General Assembly, including our support for a single omnibus resolution on the peace process. Because one-sided resolutions serve the peace and security of no nation.

And finally, we will continue to combat racism, anti-Semitism, hatred and intolerance. I know the pain of learning that another school in my riding has been attacked, as was the case last month with the Muslim École JMC. Every Canadian, regardless of faith, deserves the right to send his or her child to school in safety.

These are the policies of the Liberal Party of Canada. And I commit to you tonight that these will be the policies of a Dion government.

I want to thank Irwin Cotler, and all the members of the Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel, for being such a force in expressing and advocating these policies.

Last year, this group, chaired by Anita Neville and Senator David Smith, and including in its ranks Susan Kadis and Raymonde Folco, called on the Government of Canada to establish a fund that would help at-risk communities cover the costs of security in their places of worship.

I am proud to be here as leader of the party that has a human-rights champion like Irwin Cotler in its caucus. The party that created the Canada-Israel Friendship Group; that was so lucky to have Herb Gray as our Deputy Prime Minister; that put Hamas and Hezbollah on the terrorist watch list; that pushed for fairness at the United Nations.

Supporting the right of Israel to exist in a secure and peaceful Middle East is not a Liberal cause or a Conservative cause; it is not, and it must never be. It is a Canadian cause; it is the common cause of every democracy.

That’s why I am so proud to be here tonight, not just as a Liberal but as a Canadian, to toast Israel and Canada's partnership with her.

Thank you so much.

Apartheid Analogy Fails for West Bank and Gaza

Neither does the apartheid analogy hold water in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, despite the undoubted hardships which Palestinians face in their day-to-day lives. Given the sizeable number of Israelis who support a withdrawal from some or all of these areas, as well as former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to disengage from all settlements in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, it is abundantly clear that Israel does not want to indefinitely rule over the Palestinian population of these territories. Israel’s stance in that regard was confirmed by its decision to sign the Oslo Accords, which created the Palestinian Authority, and in its peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan.

- In South Africa, around 12 million disenfranchised Blacks were crammed into Bantustans (impoverished autonomous homelands whose borders were designed to exclude economically viable land) to be used as a reservoir of cheap labor. Four of the 10 Bantustans were proclaimed ‘independent’ – meaning that residents lost even the handful of limited rights they had in South Africa – but were not recognized as such by foreign governments.

- Israel could not be further from imposing a Bantustan solution on the Palestinians. Not only has the Israeli government and the majority of the Israeli public accepted the idea of a Palestinian State but – as Israel has made clear in the past – genuine guarantees of security will result in important territorial concessions. Israel’s goal is to achieve both its own security and Palestinian self-determination. In direct contrast to the Bantustans, which were frozen in a legal no-man’s land, a Palestinian state will enjoy both international recognition and generous aid: recent pledges include $3 billion from the World Bank alone. Rather than being ruled by a puppet leadership appointed by Israel, the Palestinians elect their own leaders. Finally, it should be recalled that apartheid South Africa intended to deport all of its Black citizens into the Bantustans; in the case of Israel’s Arab citizens, such an idea is abhorrent to the vast majority of Israelis.

- The importance of Israel’s security was noted by Nelson Mandela, the symbol of the struggle against apartheid, who remarked, in 1999, that he could not conceive of Israeli withdrawal ‘if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders.

The world is rightly concerned about the humanitarian impact of checkpoints and curfews on the Palestinians. Such measures are driven not by a racist ideology, but, in the main, by legitimate security concerns on Israel’s part. These measures, along with the security fence, are the consequence of a campaign of terror by Palestinian groups such as Hamas and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, which, in deliberately targeting civilians, have claimed over 1,000 innocent Israeli lives.

Some analysts argue that Israeli policy is also informed by its need to secure a Jewish majority within defined borders. It is perhaps more accurate to say that Israel wishes to safeguard its democratic character and its status as a haven for the Jewish people. Permanent occupation of another people who wish to rule themselves is, therefore, not an option, which is why Israel has committed itself to disengagement and future negotiations.

Behind the Green Line

This is being posted after a couple moderately large events in Canadian politics. So before I begin, let me just congradulate those that were elected in the recent Ontario by-elections -- specifically Michael Chan, the newest Liberal MPP in Markham. Now, let us go behind the Green Line.

In 1948, just as the white regime in South Africa was creating the legal framework for apartheid, Israel’s leaders, having survived a war of extermination waged by the Arab countries, anchored the new Jewish State in the principles of democracy. The Declaration of Independence stated: ‘The State of Israel… will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based upon the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’

Of course, that doesn’t mean that no national or ethnic group in Israel has suffered from discrimination. Many Arab citizens of Israel complain, often with justification, about unequal allocation of resources; about the fact that 13 percent of land in Israel is administered by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and cannot be leased to Arabs under that body’s covenant (neither Jews nor Arabs may buy JNF land); about their exclusion from the military service required of Jews and members of the Druze minority, which they argue means they can never be regarded as full citizens; about the impact of the security fence on the Palestinian population, particularly in and around Jerusalem.

Jewish communities, too, have claimed discrimination in Israel. Many Jews from Arab countries or from Ethiopia have said that they do not receive the same educational or career opportunities afforded to Jews of European origin; some representatives of these communities also say that their native cultures and traditions are not respected.

None of this makes Israel unique. In fact, the reverse is true – all democracies have faced claims of discrimination at one time or another. One thinks of African-Americans in the U.S. or, more recently, Roma gypsies in the newly emerged democracies of Eastern Europe. Moreover, any assessment of Israel’s record on discrimination needs to recognize the following points:

- Israel’s citizens enjoy full equality before the law. This includes not only Jews from a vast array of ethnic and racial backgrounds – including many who would have been the victims of apartheid had they lived in South Africa – but the Muslim and Christian Arabs who make up one-fifth of the population.

- Unlike Blacks in apartheid South Africa, Arab citizens of Israel have full political rights. They vote and participate in the political process, with Arab Knesset representatives across the spectrum, from the Communist and Arab nationalist parties through to the Likud. Salim Jubran, an Israeli Arab, is a judge on Israel’s Supreme Court.

- In Jerusalem, the 120,000 Arab residents of the city are entitled to Israeli citizenship, but the vast majority have retained their pre-1967 Jordanian passports and therefore remain in Israel on the basis of permanent resident ID cards. In both 1996 and 2005, Arab Jerusalemites were permitted to vote in elections to the Palestinian Authority. The extraordinarily low turnout on both occasions was duly noted by observers. In the case of the post-Arafat elections in 2005, disillusionment with PA corruption, as well as the decision of the Palestinian Election Commission that all but 6,000 of the voters had to cast their ballots outside of Jerusalem, were the main reasons cited for the turnout.

- Israel is one of the few countries in the Middle East and wider Islamic region where Christians, as well as Muslims and Jews, can freely worship. This stands in contrast with Saudi Arabia, where Islam is the only religion permitted, and with Iraq and Pakistan, where Christians have faced attack from Islamist terror groups.

- Arab students and professors study, research, teach and – above all – argue and debate on all of Israel’s university campuses. At Haifa University, selected for a boycott by Britain’s Association of University Teachers (AUT), some 20 percent of the student body is Arab.

No reasonable person would dispute that discrimination is not a problem in Israel. But the nature and scale of the discrimination is not exceptional. And discrimination is not the same thing as apartheid.

Further Pre-Emption for Garth Turner

Of course I'd like to continue the posts on Israel, but I feel I have to weigh in on the biggest issue in Canadian politics today. So, Garth Turner is now a Liberal. Let me just say that I have nothing against floor-crossing. It is a part of politics and Garth Turner, Wajid Khan, and David Emerson all have the right to do what they did (even if Emerson's was slightly more underhanded in method Turner's was slightly less). However, I must go against the Liberal grain on this one. Garth Turner becoming a Liberal makes little to no sense policy-wise. The man is pretty much a libertarian, except for the fact that he is massive environmentalist. More to that, he has expressed symptoms of social conservatism as well. We can pull out the "big tent" slogan if we like, but including Garth is a pretty wide tent. That said, I am more than happy to see the Liberal ranks grow. Its simple politics. More people = more votes. And that is what this is about from the Liberal point of view. What is it about from the Garth point of view? More money for an election? I don't buy it. Had he joined the Green Party, I'm sure they would have jumped at the opportunity to fund their best chance at victory. The only thing Garth gets out of being a Liberal is sitting on committee and potentially sitting in Government again. Of course, everyone wants to sit in Government. Its been said that for a political party, the worst day in Government is still better than the best day in Opposition. But I believe this is more about the committees. Garth said from the day he left the Conservative Party that what he will miss most of all will be sitting on the finance committee. This is a way back on for him. If he had joined the Greens, he could not have done that. They would have need 15 (I believe) seats to get the ability to assign committee members. That is unlikely to happen while Garth is still in the House. What this comes down to is just unfortunate. I've always been a supporter of independents. I think it takes balls to sit outside a party banner. But Garth's decision shows that the restriction put on independents in the House can prove to be too much for some of them, thus forcing them to latch on to the closest party available to them. For Garth that was the Liberal Party.

Having said all that, I welcome the Liberal Party of Canada's newest Member of Parliament, Garth Turner.

Pre-Empted for the Day of Action

While I would like to finish my recent posts regarding Israel, I am afraid that will have to wait a day as it occurs to me that tomorrow is the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) Local Day of Action. With that in mind, todays post will be about that.

The CFS argues that a moderate increase in post-secondary tuition fees has limited the ability for Ontario students to attend university and college. However, what they neglect to mention to students is that since the election of the Dalton McGuinty Liberal Government it has become easier than ever for students to attend Postsecondary Education. Moreover, they neglect the McGuinty Government gaurantee that no qualified Ontario student will be denied entrace to a College or University due to lack of financial resourses.

Here's why...

Improvements to upfront grants and student aid
- $1.5 billion of the McGuinty's Government's $6.2 billion Reaching Higher plan is being invested into improvements in student aid.
- The Government has reintroduced upfront assistance into OSAP. Grant assistance is being extended to students who come from families with incomes up to $75,000, helping out around 60,000 first and second year student from low and middle income families.
- The threshold for interest relief has been increased by 5%, helping an addition 6,000 students per year.
- Student debt has been limited to a maximum of $7,000 per year.
- A $500 annual allowance has been intorduced to compensate for computer and computer-related costs.
- Students have also seen an increase of 27% in their weekly student allowance, translating into $75 per week.
- Recognition of the additional needs of students -- changes to OSAP's books and supplies allowance -- almost doubling in some areas. Such a change will benefit an estimated 145,000 students.
- The Ontario Trust for Student Support has made $50 million available every year to match private and corporate cash donations to college and university endowment funds to make additional grants and bursaries available.

Tuition Framework
- The current tuition model is a regulated framework with capped tuition rates.
- No institution will be able to increase tuition fees without signing on to the Student Access Guarantee and must show a direct correlation with an improvement in the quality of education.

3 to 1 Comparisons
- For every $3 the McGuinty Government is investing in the Reaching Higher Plan, student are only asked to invest $1.
- The PC Government (1995-2003) took away 15 cents for every dollar invested by students.

Improving Quality and Access
- The McGuinty Government has established the Higher Education Quality Council to monitor and ensure improvement to both quality and access to all of Ontario's post-secondary institutions.
- For the time, the McGuinty Government is providing a three-year funding allocation to colleges and universities, with an historic investment of $4 billion the year, rising to $4.3 billion by 2008-2009 to help Ontario post-secondary insititions.
- The Government is investing $1 million this year and $2 million each subsequent year from its Reaching Higher plan to celebrate excellence in teaching at post-secondary insititution. Up to 100 of Ontario's best faculty will be honoured each year with the Leadership in Faculty Teaching Awards. Winners will receive a total of $20,000 over two years to encourage continued excellece in the classroom setting.
- The McGuinty Government has met and greatly surpassed it target of 50,000 but creating 86,000 new in post-secondary institutions in the past three years.
- The McGuinty Government has begun establishing scholarships that will help Ontario's college and university students broaden their learning experience by completing a portion of their studies abroad. In 2006-2007, more than 150 of the new Ontario International Education Opportunity Scholarships will be available to eligible students valued at up to $2,500 each.
- The McGuinty Government is investing $65.3 million in 2006-2007 -- an increase of $20 million since 2004-2005 -- to help small, northern and rural colleges provide high quality programs in their communities.
- The McGuinty Government invested $15 million in 2006-2007 to help post-secondary institutions deliver programs that improve access to post-secondary opportunity for francophones, aboriginals, persons with disabilities and those who would be the first in their families to attend college or university. The amount will increase $55 million 2009-2010.

Most of all, the McGuinty Government's $6.2 billion infusion into postsecondary education is the single largest investment in this sector in over 40 years, with over $1.5 billion more for student aid, and 86,000 new space since 2002-2003. Looks like the CFS wasn't paying attention.

Why there's no comparison with Israel

Apartheid was a unique system. Those who lived under apartheid rule were governed by its rules and conventions every minute of every day. In Israel and the territories, there are tensions and divisions over citizenship, ownership of land and human rights – basic elements which one recognizes in the apartheid model. But to turn such recognition into affirmation that Israel practices apartheid defies logic and poses a basic question: Why, out of all the countries in the world in which national, religious or ethnic minorities claim discrimination, is Israel selected for the apartheid label?

There are two components to the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state: historical and legal. The Palestinian version of the 1948 war provides the historical justification for apartheid analogy. According to this narrative, Jewish settlers with a grand colonial purpose grabbed the territory of the indigenous Arab population, expelling the majority and marginalizing the minority which remained. Since that time, the State of Israel is accused of having practiced systematic discrimination against its Arab citizens and of ruling mercilessly over those Arabs living in the territories captured during the 1967 war.

In legal terms, the argument continues, Israel bears a striking resemblance to apartheid South Africa. Therefore, the argument concludes, Israel is a paradox: it claims to be both a Jewish state and a democratic state, but does not accept that one precludes the other. By entrenching and reinforcing its Jewish majority through a combination of legal, political and military measures, Israel is said to have imposed an apartheid system upon its non-Jewish population.

The argument is a dramatic one. To many people in the human rights community, it is seductive as well. It is also wholly false. I will explain why tomorrow in part three of this series I appear to be doing.

Apartheid: What was it?

In 1994, one of the modern era’s most heinous forms of social organization came to a peaceful end. In the new South Africa, apartheid was no more. Black and white South Africans, along with the outside world, celebrated the demise of a system which, in the Afrikaans language, means “separateness” and “apartness.” The racial separation and discrimination inherent in the principle of apartheid was enshrined in 1948, when South Africa’s National Party came to power. Convinced of their racial and moral superiority, the white architects of apartheid imposed what former President F.W. de Klerk, looking back on apartheid, called a “manifest injustice” on the Black population.

That injustice was not confined to just denying the vote to Black South Africans. It was rooted in law. Dozens of laws were enacted by the apartheid regime to enforce segregation, among them:

The Group Areas Act – Passed in 1950, this enforced physical segregation by creating different residential areas for whites, blacks and other racial groups, such as Asians and those of mixed race (known as “coloreds”).

Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act – Passed in 1949, this forbade individuals from different racial backgrounds from marrying each other. Through this law, and through the Immorality Amendment Act of 1950, which prohibited sexual relations between whites and blacks, the apartheid regime echoed the infamous Nuremburg Laws of Nazi Germany, which discriminated between Jews and those of “pure” German origin.

Bantu Education Act – Passed in 1953, this law stunted the intellectual and creative development of Black children by gearing their education to reinforce their subservient social position (Hendrik Verwoerd, later to become South Africa’s Prime Minister, used the phrase “in accordance with their opportunities in life”). An extension to University Education Act in 1959 banned Black students from attending white universities and created separate higher education institutes for Blacks, whites, Asians and “coloreds.”

Reservation of Separate Amenities Act – Passed in 1953, this law provided the icons of the apartheid regime: signs on public buildings, transport and other amenities which declared ‘Europeans Only’ or ‘non-Europeans Only’. The law specified that public facilities had to separated on racial grounds and did not require these facilities to be of equal standards.

Suppression of Communism Act – Passed in 1950, this law used such a wide-ranging definition of “communism” that any meaningful act of opposition to apartheid was banned.

Through these and a host of other laws, apartheid South Africa was able to tightly regulate, and therefore discriminate against, its Black population: where they lived, with whom they could engage in social contact, what they were permitted to study, what they were allowed to say.