Delink Israel and South Africa

To the Editors of the Crimson:

The central issue regarding the forum on Israeli-South African ties is not the question of academic freedom, however compelling those theoretical arguments may be. The critical problem is that academic and media equations of Israel and the apartheid regime of South Africa, have become not only acceptable, but even quite fashionable. When in 1975, despite Western condemnation, the UN General Assembly declared Zionism "a form of racism and of racial discrimination," through an Arab State, Third World, and Soviet bloc majority coalition, Israel's very existence became a crime against international law, while ethical notables such as Libya, Iraq and Syria were still deemed "peace-loving." Moreover, through this process of UN moral inversion, Israel and South Africa could now "legitimately" be equated in the meetings of the Palestine National Coucil. Fourteen years later, Israel- South Africa "academic" forums appear at Harvard and earn the defense of Professor Sidney Verba. This disquieting and largely ignored process can only call into question our own commitment to the truth.

What is the truth? Israel has consistently publicly condemned the policy of apartheid. South Africa's white minority officially denies equality to its Black majority. Israel's Jewish majority (83%) extends full legal equality to its Arab minority (17%). The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens. Israel, as legal military authority since 1967 is forbidden from changing their status. Yet under Israel's control, the Palestinians enjoy greater social, economic and educational standing than in any part of the Arab world; though unfortunately, Israeli attempts to improve housing conditions in the territories have been blocked by the PLO, which values the refugee camps as a symbol of its cause.

What of Israel's diplomatic relations with South Africa? Israel's commercial ties comprise just 1% of South Africa's total trade, the majority of which is with France, Great Britian, West Germany, the United States, and several Black African nations. Israel recently implemented a program called "Building a Nation" to bring Black South African leaders of labor unions, trade associations, and political organizations to Israel for training in community organization. Israeli 1987 legislation prohibits any future arms sales to South Africa, and severely curtails cultural, athletic, scientific, and other ties with Pretoria, while Italy and Great Britian continue selling tanks, armored vehicles and missiles to South Africa. Moreover, South Africa receives almost half its crude oil from Saudia Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Egypt, and Iran. Recent allegations of Israeli-South African nuclear ties have been stifled by the October 27 State Department declaration that the U.S. has "no indication of U.S. missile technology transfers from Israel to South Africa.

What legitimate comparisons, then, can be drawn between Israel's vibrant democracy and South Africa's brutal tyranny? None. Why do we not see forums comparing South Africa to Sudan, where civil war places Islamic north versus the black-Christian and animist south? Why no forums comparing South Africa to China, where the entire people of Tibet were recently forced to assimilate? Simple. The proponents of the Israel-South Africa analogy are not interested in condemning South Africa. They gear their statements, in the tradition of the 1975 UN resolution, toward the delegitimization of the Jewish state. Whether Harvard should allow such nonsensical lies to gain a hearing at the Divinity School seems trivial compared to the far more dangerous trend of equating Zionism as racism through the Israel-South Africa analogy. Let us not forget the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., an ardent supporter of the state of Israel, who warned that anti-Zionism often acts as a shield for anti-Semitism. Glen I.A. Schwaber '91