Prof. Mohammed S. Wattad, Zafed Law School
As part of the CIJA’s (Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy in Canada) campaign against the Apartheid Week in Canada, I was invited this year for a tour of speeches and talks in Canada, which took place at the University of Manitoba, University of Alberta, University of Calgary, University of Victoria, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. Further lectures I provided before the Jewish community and the Hillel’s students at the relevant university campuses in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Victoria and Vancouver.
In the course of presenting my lectures, I urged the audience to launch mutual discussions and dialogues on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than establishing counter separate panels, whereby one argues for Israel as constitutional democratic state and the other perceives Israel as a state of apartheid regime. It has been my contention that although acts of discrimination against its Israeli Arab citizens and against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have occurred, Israel is not an apartheid regime. The fact that certain discriminatory practices might resemble practices that took place under the South Africa Apartheid regime – such as separate treatment for Israeli Arab citizens at the Ben Gurion Airport – does not imply in itself the existence of an apartheid policy in Israel. This is true especially in light of the fact that the state of Israel has established a very powerful constitutional democratic regime – although not so perfect – led by the very constitutional judicial review of the Israel Supreme Court – principles as developed by the Supreme Court of Israel which has been judicially reviewing the smallest details of governmental and parliamentary polices.
Furthermore, I have argued against calls for boycotting Israeli academia on the basis that there cannot be the kinds of dialogues I am proposing if one side is boycotted, which is antithetical to both freedom of speech and academic exchange.
During these very intensive ten days of lectures around several campuses on Canada, I was faced with the Apartheid Week’s lecturing events on various campuses. Making a very strategic move by deciding to attend all these events from the audience side, I came to realize that those who argue of Israel as a regime of apartheid – even if they have a good argument, and I do not believe so – still do not have sufficient evidence, based on the reality and facts on the ground in Israel. Among the weirdest arguments against Israel I heard of Israel granting its Arab population a different marked passport than the one granted to Israeli Jews. Moreover, it has been argued that a regime of segregation exists in Israel public transportation, public educational institutes etc. Such arguments only prove that the presenters of Israel as a regime of apartheid lack the basic knowledge of what have been taking place in reality.
The basic theme of my lectures has been that of tolerance, patience, and proportionality. I have argued that good faith, honest self-criticism by both sides of the conflict is the key for possible true vision of peace in the Middle East; whereas hypocrisy, rhetoric, polemics and misrepresentation only perpetuate constant conflict and misunderstanding in the region.
Additonal materials on Prof. Wattad’s presentations:
