This is the second of two articles.

WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE of the fact that Israel and South Africa share such close economic and military ties? In the United States, potential lines of political battle have been drawn, with many Black Americans and Jewish Americans choosing up against each other. The claim of some Blacks--as is frequently reflected in Black newspapers such as The Amsterdam News and The Black American--is that Israel, acting both in its own interests and as a surrogate for the United States, is an active participant in the maintenance of apartheid.

The existing evidence for this claim is abundant, and certain incidents keep the flame of protest especially high. In December 1981, for instance, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon spent 10 days in South Africa, and traveled to "operational areas" in Nambia, the place from which South Africa was launching attacks on Angola. (1) The more ordinary reports on Israel and South Africa are equally disturbing, such as the help Israel has provided South Africa in building huge electrified fences as an "anti-guerrilla" measure. (2)

Defenders of the Israeli alliance with South Africa charge that Israel is unfairly singled out, particularly by African and Arab nations who also trade with South Africa and countenance serious human rights abuses in their own countries. Moshe Decter in December 1976 wrote an American Jewish Congress study called "Arms Traffic with South Africa: Who is Guilty?" The report is useful because, although almost nothing is said about Israel, Decter details the economic and military collaboration of many other countries and concludes that compared with some other places, "Israel's military relationship with South Africa pales into insignificance."

Not so, Far from overshadowing Israeli ties, the links of the Western nations with South Africa show only that if enough attention is focused on the various culpable parties, they will expose each other in the hope of getting away scot free.

The more serious defenses of Israeli-South African ties deserve analysis. One argument is that Israel, isolated in the world, has no place to turn but to South Africa. The corollary of this view holds that, as Irving Howe put it, Israel's isolation in the world community is the result of anti-Semitism and the "skillful manipulation of oil" by Arab nations. (4) A similar view is advanced by the authors of the Ford Foundation's excellent study, South Africa: Time Running Out:

When the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), as part of its opposition to Western support of Israel, instituted its oil embargo against the West, it sought support from other international groups. An informal working alliance developed in the United Nations between anti-Israeli Arabs and the anti-apartheid forces of Black Africa. The result was a two-pronged attack against Israel and South Africa...Throughout the 1960s Israel pursued an active policy of friendship with Black Africa, and offered technical and economic aid...After the emergence of the alliance between Black Africa and the Arab world in 1973, however, many African nations broke off relations with Israel. (5)

THERE ARE SERIOUS flaws in the reasoning of both Howe and the Ford Foundation. First, the chronology is just plain wrong. Black African countries and movements were expressing a degree of opposition to Israeli policies long before oil politics became a factor. As far back as 1968, for example, Amilcar Cabral, an influential revolutionary from Guinea-Bisseau, had this to say:

We lament profoundly what the Nazis did to the Jewish people, that Hitler and his lackeys destroyed almost six million during the last World War. But we do not accept that this gives them the right occupy a part of the Arab nation. We believe that the people of Palestine have a right to their homeland. (6)

Even as far back as 1965, the position of Cabral's anti-colonial African movement was that

We are on the side of the Palestinian refugees and we support wholeheartedly all that the sons of Palestine are doing to liberate their country, and we fully support the Arab and African countries in general in helping the Palestinian people to recover their dignity, their independence and their right to live. (7)

The vehemence with which some African nations attack Israel in the U.N., then, is not simply a product purchased with Arab petrodollars. Perhaps a good deal of it is authentic disgust at Israeli policies toward Palestinians in the occupied territories, and at the South Africa connection.

But the vital question remains: is Israel being unfairly singled out for chastisement regarding its links with South Africa? In the end, the answer is probably "no."

The criticism that comes from Black African nations deserves special attention, given the fact that many of these nations conduct trade with South Africa themselves and do not allow important personal freedom to their own citizens. That such countries would attack Israeli support of the apartheid state season hypothetical at first glance. There are, however, a great many differences between their behavior and that of Israel.

No Black African nation comes close to Israel in the quantities of arms exported to South Africa. Between 1970 and 1979, Israel exported more major weapons than any other Third World country. And 35 percent of those weapons went to South Africa.

On a list of the dozen largest Third World exporters of major weapons between 1977 and 1980, Brazil ranks first, Israel ranks second and South Africa ranks third. No Black African country even makes the list. Between 1977 and 1980, Israel exported $367 million in major arms, accounting for 29 percent of all Third World major arms exports. And its biggest customer was South Africa. (8) The weapons industry constitutes the largest sector of the Israeli economy. By one Wall Street Journal estimate, 25 percent of the Israeli workforce is employed in military-related production. (9)

No Black African nation approaches the level of Israeli support for the apartheid state. Granted, many African developing countries must conduct trade with South Africa in order to survive, particularly the nations close to the South African border. But when levels of military advisors and arms sales are considered, Israel occupies a unique position, for which it appropriately is criticized.

Finally, it should be noted that Black Africa's most repressive regimes also share close military ties to Israel. Four of the worst governments to be found anywhere are those of Malawi, the Ivory Coast, the Central African Republic and Zaire--all of which enjoy strong Israeli support. In the Ivory Coast, an estimated 80 percent of all property belongs to the family of the president and a few of his friends. Israeli help in building luxury hotels in the Ivory Coast has drawn criticism. (10)

The self-proclaimed "emperor" of the Central African Republic, Bokassa, had the strong support of Shuman Gonen, an Israeli general and respected member of Israel's Herut party. Gonen reportedly tried to build up international support for the "emperor," whose bloody regime was eventually toppled. In Malawi, Israelis reportedly may even be training government squads that practice torture. (11) And news stories about the recent visits of Israeli defense officials to Zaire to set up arms and training arrangements often did not mention that Zaire's dictator, General Mobutu, is considered by some to be one of the most ruthless (and most corrupt) heads of state.

FOR AMERICANS, there is a need now for a dialogue on the Israel-South Africa link. The connection highlights a broader Israeli practice of arming repressive regimes throughout Latin America and Africa. This practice is actually a question of American policy, for two reasons.

First, there is the fact that American aid to Israel exceeds the amount we give to any other countries. For 1983, U.S. aid to Israel will amount to well over $2 billion--the equivalent of $625 for every Israeli man, woman and child. And since private donations to Israel from organizations such as the United Jewish Appeal are tax-deductible, the American subsidy is even higher. (12)

Second, there is the matter of Israel's status as a de facto U.S. proxy, a status closely related to the billions provided in aid each year. Recall that in 1975, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger '50 convinced Israel to support South Africa in its war on Angola--an act which the U.S. could not do itself without drawing domestic and international condemnation.

Much of the criticism Israel now encounters centers on its global role in providing arms and training to repressive regimes as a proxy of the United States. Consider the words of Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ya'akov Meridor at a speech delivered in August 1981:

We're going to ask you, the US government, not to compete with us in arms. We're very strong in arms production, not like the United States, but for the Third World and even for Europe we are starting to be strong. We are going to say to them, the Americans, don't compete with us in Taiwan, don't compete with us in South Africa, don't compete with us in the Caribbean or in any other countries where you couldn't directly do it...I even use the expression. 'You sell the ammunition and equipment by proxy. Your proxy.' (13)

Israel's policy, in short, is to arrange arms sales to places where the U.S. could not sell weapons and escape criticism. Not surprisingly, Israel herself takes the heat for arming dictators throughout Africa and Latin America.

The U.N. attacks on Israeli tries to South Africa will undoubtedly worsen so long as Israel continues to sell weapons to countries such as South Africa which the U.S. supports but will not arm directly. The United States, for its part, sustains the Israeli arms industry with its military aid. And the American government certainly is not averse to using Israel as a conduit to South Africa.

In the end, the current arrangement works against the interest of Israel: Israel builds up its military power, but it also incurs the ever-increasing wrath of the world. While the U.S. is a powerful backer, the recent histories of Vietnam and Iran suggest that even all-out American support can sometimes prove insufficient. And Israel, as so many have noted, can only lose a war once.

When Israel pushes to become a strong junior partner in arming repressive U.S.-backed Third World dictatorships, it draws international condemnation. Economic ties with South Africa begin to look increasingly odious.

Israel and South Africa have become strongly linked in the eyes of much of the world. It need not be that way. Possible solutions do not offer themselves immediately. But it should be sufficient merely to know that South Africa is an international symbol of the racism and naked brutality which only the worst cynics could believe will endure forever. Should Israel not successfully separate herself from the apartheid state, it may in the long run risk sharing the fate of South Africa.

1. Esther Howard, "Israel: The Sorcerer's Apprentice," in Middle East Research and Information Projects Reports, Feb. 1983, p. 24.

2. Schofield Coryell, "Israel, Marchand de Mort," (Israel, Merchant of Death). Afrique-Asie April 12, 1982; also see Howard, MERIP Reports, p. 24.

3. Moshe Decter, "Arms Traffic with South Africa: Who is Guilty?" American Jewish Congress, November 1976, p. 27.

4. Irving Howe, quoted in "Israel's Global Role: Weapons for Repression," by Israel Shahank, p. 9.

5. Ford Foundation, South Africa: Time Running Out. p. 307

6. Interview in Tricontinental magazine, Sept. 1968.

7. Opening address to Nationalist Organizations of the Portuguese Colonies in Dar-Es-Salaam, 1965.

8. Information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, cited in Howard, p. 22.

9. Wall Street Journal, Sept. 17, 1981, cited in Howard, p. 17.

10. Shahark, p. 23.

11. Ibid, p. 25

12. New York Times, July 10, 1983

13. Los Angeles Times, Aug. 18, 1581, Financial Times Aug. 18, 1981 (cited in Howard p. 22.)