Home » Because Israel is not an apartheid state

Because Israel is not an apartheid state

by admin

I don’t think there is a term that infuriates and insults Israelis more than “apartheid”, or worse, being labeled an “apartheid state”. Apartheid is a vile and racist system that Israelis find deeply disgusting. It is contrary to everything we believe in and to our perception of ourselves, which is also expressed in the voices critical of the occupation who still believe in the “two state” solution.

Thus, when Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Tuesday publishes a lengthy dossier dubbed “the most comprehensive report so far on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians,” accusing Israel of committing “crimes against humanity,” Israel’s outraged reaction was predictable. The 213-page report, entitled “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution” claims that Israel “… expropriates, borders, forcibly separates and subjugates Palestinians by virtue of their identity” and that such actions “amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution”.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines apartheid as: “Racial segregation, in particular: a past policy of political, social and economic segregation and discrimination against the non-white majority in the Republic of South Africa.” The Encyclopedia Britannica describes it thus: “Apartheid (afrikaans by “separation”) is a policy that governed the relations between the white minority of South Africa and the non-white majority, sanctioning racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-whites. “

Perhaps more pertinent than dictionary definitions are the legal standards used to establish what constitutes apartheid. The International Convention on the Elimination and Suppression of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines it as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the dominion of a racial group of people over any other racial group, systematically oppressing it”. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002) defines crime “… inhuman acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity […] committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another or other racial groups, and in order to perpetuate that regime “.

See also  Ukraine-Russia, today's news | Zelensky fires regional command centers: 'Corruption in wartime equals treason'

HRW’s dossier shows two obvious flaws: first, it confuses “occupation” with “apartheid”. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza dates back 54 years. Palestinians living under military occupation see their rights violated and are not truly free. But this tragic reality does not constitute structural “apartheid”. It is the lasting result of the Israeli-Palestinian failure to reach an agreement. The occupation is not a racial conquest or a targeted colonial enterprise, but the default result of a war that Israel believed was defensive in 1967.

Second, the report does not distinguish between three groups: the first, the “Israeli Arabs”, a 20% minority living within Israel in its pre-1967 borders. They vote, pay taxes and enjoy all the civil rights granted to any minority in any democracy. So much so that the future Israeli ruling coalition could currently depend on the choices of two Arab parties. The second group is the 2.8 million Palestinians living in the West Bank under Israeli military control, but under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. The third group is made up of 1.9 million Palestinians residing in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, from which Israel withdrew in 2005.

Applying the same criteria to all three groups is a critical methodological error. To claim that all three groups are subject to intentional discrimination is just an exercise in intellectual laziness.

The inapplicability of apartheid runs deeper. First, the South African Afrikaners were Dutch colonialists who with supremacist ambitions took control of a country to which they had no right. Jews returning to the Land of Israel are not invaders. Afrikaners intentionally developed apartheid. The Israelis do not have such a goal. Then, no “racial” component, or “racial domination” ideology drives Israeli policies. Despite all the negative aspects of the military occupation, it is not based on a racial hierarchy. Third, since June 1967 Israel has repeatedly stated that its control over the Territories is temporary. That this reality has persisted is a disgrace, but it certainly does not stem from a lack of attempts to reach a political agreement with the Palestinians. Fourth, Israel has never annexed the West Bank and Gaza. If Israel were to annex the Territories and deprive Palestinians of their rights, apartheid could become a relevant term.

See also  “Topic”: Josef Fritzl – relocation and prospect of freedom?

Even with little regard for history and the political context, criticizing Israel’s occupation and treatment of Palestinians is legitimate. But to call it “apartheid”, implying structural, deliberate and racially motivated choices, is ridiculous.

* Israeli Ambassador, former Consul General in New York, columnist for Haaretz

(Translation by Sharon Nizza)

.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy