Israeli Apartheid and Combatting Antisemitism
Does Israel have an apartheid regime? If so, how do we acknowledge the crime and combat antisemitism.
Contents
- What is Apartheid? - We begin with a discussion about what apartheid is.
- The Background: The Israel-Palestinian Conflict and Apartheid - A brie overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
- The Case For Israel Committing the Crime of Apartheid - We will primarily use the legal opinions provided by Yesh Din with support from other sources where appropriate. We also look at additional claims made by Amnesty International.
- The Case Against Israel Committing the Crime of Apartheid - We will look at the work of Salo Aizenburg, Alan Johnson, Joshua Kern, Anne Herzberg and Eugene Kontorovich in the rebuttal phase.
- Is Israel committing the crime of apartheid? - The New Realist will argue that the crime of apartheid is being committed by Israel.
- Antisemitism and Apartheid - Finally, we determine how discourse on apartheid turns antisemitic under certain circumstances.
- Conclusion
What is apartheid?
Article II of 1973 United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and in Article 7(2)(h) in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998 define the crime of apartheid.
This description is based on the one found in the legal argument for Israel being an apartheid state in Yesh Din’s case, pp. 7-22 (2020).
Apartheid is a jus cogens, or peremptory norm, 'crime against humanity' in which a regime exists which systematically utilises the perpetration of inhumane acts committed against a racial group for the purpose to maintain domination and control over that racial group. The crime of apartheid is unique in that it entails the existence of such a regime as being illegitimate as acts preserving such a regime are criminal.
There is an absolute prohibition on the crime being committed, because that what a jus cogens crime is. This is the highest status a legal principle can have in international law. The only other crimes gaining the same status include prohibitions of genocide and the slave trade.
All the elements of the crimes must exist (at least under the Rome Statute). They are:
- Acts - Inhumane acts such as murder; extermination; enslavement; persecution; severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of internal law; rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence; forcible transfer of a population; and torture. This list is non-exhaustive.
- Context - Article 7(2)(h): “in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.”
- Purpose - Article 7(2)(h): “with the intention of maintaining that regime.”
Evidence of discrimination is insufficient for establishing whether an apartheid regime exists. We must demonstrate that an "institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination over a racial group" exists and that regime "intends on maintaining" its nature. The acts must be of sufficient severity and magnitude that we can viably call it a crime against humanity, though severity need not occur through physical harm.
Trevor Huddleston, an Anglican minister and critic of South African apartheid in 1955 stated that 'domination' equates to 'racial supremacy', or 'white supremacy' in the case of South Africa. The supremacy, not self-preservation, of the racial group is the defining feature of apartheid.
Dr Miles Jackson underlies the importance of intent in terms of maintaining the regime but establishing it as well. Under the Apartheid convention, we need only demonstrate the intent in establishing such a system of oppression; whereas, we must demonstrate acts which establish such a regime under the Rome Statute. We must establish the essential component of the crime - intent, while the Rome Statue also specifies we must demonstrate acting on that intent.
Race and International Law
Finally, a racial group is defined by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966) in Article 1.1 as:
In this Convention, the term " racial discrimination " shall mean any
distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Miles Jackson notes the problems with identifying racial groups on an objective basis preferring a subjective element of how they are viewed by perpetuators/victims with some objective components in support:
if a group is perceived and treated as a distinct racial group, it would qualify as a racial group in the meaning of the crime of apartheid. [Lingaas, C. Apartheid. 2015. pp. 101-2.]
This subjective perception of the 'racialness' of a group is integral. Lingaas argues that there is no objective basis in fact for the existence of races, but nevertheless racial crimes and racial discrimination exists. It is the subjective notion of a race existing which makes references to 'race' valuable in defining crimes like apartheid and genocide.
The Historical Background of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Making the Case For and Against Israel Committing Apartheid
History
In 1948, Israel declared its independence after the ending of the British Mandate rule over Palestine. A civil war between the Yishuv and the Palestinians existed prior to this call on independence. Upon Israel's declaration of independence at the end of the Mandate, the Arabs declared war on the new state pledging rhetorically for the annihilation of Israel. During this entire period, the Yishuv and Israel forcefully removed 70% of Palestinians from their home constituting the Nakba. Transjordan established sovereign control over the West Bank while Egypt militarily occupied the Gaza Strip. 700,000 Palestinians were refugees with no state.
In 1967, Israel began occupying the West Bank (as well as Gaza) after the Yom Kippur war. Israel begun building settlements inside the West Bank contravening the Geneva Convention IV by settling its own population inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). In 2000, the Palestinians launched a deadly uprising, called the Second Intifada, killing over 1000 Israelis and 3000 Palestinians in retaliation. In response, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and established a wall throughout the West Bank. Israel claims this wall is for security purposes protecting civilians from acts of terrorism after the Second Intifada; Palestinians claim that it racially segregates them from Israelis; and the ICJ ruled that it breached international law in which Israel boycotted legal proceedings. The number of settlements now means that there over 500,000 Israelis living in the West Bank as of 2024.
Accusations of Apartheid
Throughout Israel's history, it has faced accusations of being an apartheid Jewish supremacist state. Israel has always denied such accusations. Both the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the African National Congress (ANC) have argued that the crime of apartheid is being committed against the Palestinians by Israel.
Numerous humanitarian NGO’s have claimed that Israel is an apartheid state. These NGO’s include Amnesty International, B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and Yesh Din. All four contest when apartheid started. Amnesty International argued that Israel was always an apartheid state; Yesh Din believed 2020 was when the military occupation in the West Bank became an apartheid regime; and Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem proposed 2021 as the starting year. Finally, former head of the Mossad intelligence service, Tamir Pardo agreed with a petition signed by 2,000 Israelis, including former Speaker of the Knesset Avraham Burg and distinguished historian Benny Morris, stating that “Palestinians live under a regime of apartheid”.
However, the accusations all have different extensions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The NGOs, the PLO, and the ANC describe the entire regime in the land of Palestine as being an apartheid state. This includes Israeli territory within the 1967 borders - the Green Lines. In contrast, Tamir Pardo and Benny Morris assert that only the regime in the West Bank resembles South African apartheid in some facets. Tamir Pardo cites the fact that Israeli settlers in the West Bank are treat under civilian law while Palestinians are treat under military law in which their freedom of movement is severely restricted.
The Case For Israel having an apartheid regime
The New Realist will focus on the cases made by Yesh Din with support from B'Tselem with additions found in the Amnesty International report of 2022.
Yesh Din and B’Tselem argue that over time Israel’s regime in the OPT has turned into an apartheid regime. Alongside that Israel has been de facto annexing the West Bank raising a case that a single apartheid regime exists from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. B'Tselem categorically supports the notion that a single regime organised on the principle of Jewish supremacy exists, whereas Yesh Din only states the case is plausible.
In contrast, Amnesty International argues Israel has always been an apartheid state. It ties the notion of Israel being a Jewish state with existence of a regime advocating for Jewish supremacy.
Yesh Din, Michael Sfard's and B’Tselem’s Case that Israel has an Apartheid Regime
Michael Sfard argues that each of three necessary aspects of Apartheid - acts, context, and purpose - exist.
Context
There exists a regime undertaking a belligerent military occupation in the West Bank enacting military laws on the Palestinian people and that this regime forms the constituent basis of an apartheid regime. It forms this constituent basis of an apartheid regime because the nature of the regime discriminates against Palestinians denying them their basic human rights, such as equality under the law, in favour of the interests of Israeli settlers who are colonising the land in violation of international law. On top of the vast discrepancy in rights, natural resources are utilised for the benefit of Israeli settlers over the Palestinian population.
The rights of Palestinians in the West Bank are significantly inferior to that of Israeli settlers. Even though security precautions under an occupational regime explains some of the limitation of rights, the underlying principle is Jewish hegemony or domination in the West Bank. This is demonstrated through the colonisation of the West Bank with Israeli settlers, which breaches the law of occupation which denies the occupier the right to settle its civilians in occupied territory; the desire for the annexation of the West Bank as declared by the 37th Israeli government; demographic engineering; inhumane acts; and the limited capacity for the Palestinian Authority in granting and enforcing civilian rights for Palestinians.
Yesh Din in its 2023 legal opinion asserts that Israel is engaged in demographic engineering of the West Bank. Israel and the settler movement encourages Jewish immigration to the West Bank providing significant resources for investing in the infrastructure of settlements. In contrast, the military regime denies Palestinians the same opportunities for development going so far as expropriating public and private Palestinian land for the use of Jewish settlers. Israel's military regime frequently exercises numerous and peremptory powers.
The military regime also denies Palestinians the right of resistance, including non-violent forms. Military law prohibits demonstrations, rallies and marches. The military regime suppresses dissidence through administrative detention and criminalisation of political association.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) is effectively under occupation itself and it has a limited capacity for granting and enforcing civilian rights itself. These limitations include areas such as: air space and flight paths, foreign relations, external security, Jerusalem, areas under the jurisdiction of settlements and Israelis. The military regimes dominates the Palestinian Authority stopping it from exercising its limited power and enforcing them. The regime violates Palestinian rights with them having no equality under the law.
Israeli settlers, who amount to 18.7% of the population, exploit the West Bank's natural resources for their own benefit at the expense of the interests of the Palestinians. Israel has veto rights over the use of water and the electromagnetic spectrum. As of 2013, the regime allocated 99.76% [674,459 dunams] of public land to the settlers with the other 0.24% [1624 dunams] allocated for Palestinians, who faced forcible population transfers. The regime dispossesses only Palestinians from their land. Settlers use 70% of the water.
Marco Longobardo
As argued by Marco Longobardo and Miles Jackson, under international law there is no reason for thinking that military occupations preclude the crime of apartheid from being committed. Longobardo further argues we should interpret laws regarding apartheid in terms of the law of occupation. A legal occupation can curtail rights of the occupied for military purposes, e.g. security, however these cannot undermine rights such that inhumane acts constituting the crime of apartheid occurs. The prohibition of apartheid is absolute.
The law of occupations requires the following:
- occupation does not transfer sovereignty of the occupied territory to the occupier
- the occupier has a duty of trusteeship ensuring it administers the territory for the benefit of the occupied population
- the occupation must be temporary
Israel has violated every single of these parameters of the law of occupation. The 37th Israeli government proclaimed its intention for annexing the West Bank in full which violates both the first and third conditions. The nature of the dual legal system in the West Bank with the domination that Israelis have over Palestinians, as evidenced with settler violence in the West Bank violates the second. It is summarised best as shown in paragraph 69 of Yesh Din's 2023 Legal Opinion:
69. The prohibition on apartheid applies in the context of military occupation as well. The laws of occupation do permit curtailing the political liberties of the occupied population and taking measures that impinge on its rights where the occupier’s military needs require it or in keeping with local laws for the purpose of maintaining public order. In this sense, it is lex specialis, which trumps other laws of more general application. However, when measures are taken against the civilian population as part of oppression whose purpose is unrelated to the occupier’s military needs, but as part of the system that institutionalizes domination of the occupied population by the occupier’s population, the law of occupation cannot serve as justification for such discrimination.106 As noted, Israeli policy in the occupied OPT is designed mainly to advance Jewish dominance in the West Bank, and while some of the harmful measures used against the Palestinian population are predicated on legitimate military needs, the basic motive for many of them is protecting and preserving the Jewish hegemony created by Israel.
Israel is demographically engineering the West Bank in preparation for its annexation. Until very recently, Israel has deflected such accusations but the Nation State Basic Law and the opening paragraph of the proclamation of the 37th Israeli government's makes its maximalist ambitions clear. These violate the laws of occupation serving no military purpose other than enacting the Judaising of the West Bank. Security is ultimately a cover for expanding Jewish hegemony, even if some precautions are necessary under the laws of occupation.
B'Tselem argues that the entire land of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is organised on the principle of Jewish supremacy. The military regime in the West Bank is part of a single holistic regime throughout the land of Palestine. Israeli citizens have the same rights inside the Green Lines as outside them, in contrast Palestinians have a different set of rights within the Green Line, in the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli law effectively segregates Jews and Arabs discriminating against the latter. Arabs face constant threats in exercising their political rights.
Purpose
The 37th Government declared its desire for annexing the West Bank denying the Palestinians their fundamental right to self-determination in the region designated to them under international law. The laws of occupation do not condone such a denial on security precautions because occupations are temporary.
In combination, we have seen extensions of primary Knesset legislation to Area C of the West Bank. These extensions impact education, tax, tax breaks, crime registration integration and expropriation of Palestinian land through the Regularisation Act of 2017. Even though such actions do not necessarily constitute de facto annexation per se we are seeing a partial extension of Israeli sovereignty into the West Bank. The more this process ensues, the sooner a full de facto if not de jure annexation will take place. Gradually the West Bank is getting annexed into Israel itself.
Inhumane Acts
The primary inhumane act performed, as defined in the Rome Statute, is persecution. Article 7(2)(g) defines persecution as “intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.”
Acts of Persecution
- Denial of political rights - effectively suspended as they lack the freedom to protest, politically organise themselves, and participate in their governing system. Occupational regimes, legally, can deny such rights if done temporarily. However the 37th Israeli government intent for annexing the territory makes the occupation illegal while transgressing the Apartheid convention.
- Dual legal system - the existence of a dual legal system, like the denial of political rights, is not in itself contravening the law of occupation. However, there is no necessity for a dual system because Jordanian law should apply throughout the entire West Bank. The dual system exists as the result of colonisation, not the military goals of the occupation. Furthermore, the dual system denies basic rights such as due process, freedom of movement, privacy and family right, and Palestinian minors being treat under military law like an adult. This legal system denies the Palestinians an ability for reaching full development.
- Denial of Development - the military has control over local planning with no Palestinian representation. The regime severely discriminatory against Palestinians granting Israeli settlers 99.76% of public land, ensuring the Palestinians cannot develop as a people.
- Physical Separation of Israelis and Palestinians - International law prohibits the separations of people irrespective of their desires and wants. This becomes clear when you use Article 2(d) from the Apartheid Convention as a means of interpreting Article 7(2)(g) from the Rome Statute. The regime bans Palestinians entering settlements, bans Palestinians entering Special Security Areas (SSA's), "cause" is needed for entry into Israeli and Palestinian areas, and the separation fence are all examples of racial separation.
- Expropriation and dispossession of land - the passing of the Regularisation Act (2017), settler violence forcing Palestinian to leave their land, and the expropriation of private land.
- Persecution of Regime Critics and Opponents - Yesh Din argues that the regimes inflicts some violence on Palestinians aimed at denying them their political rights, not establishing security from terrorism. Prohibitions on political activities occurs. The regime words security provisions vaguely such as: '[W]ords of praise, sympathy or support for a hostile organisation, its actions or objectives," and "identification with a hostile organisation, with its actions or its objectives or sympathy for them, by flying a flag, displaying a symbol or slogan or playing an anthem or voicing a slogan."
Acts of Forcible Transfer
The regime uses demographic engineering as a means of 'Judaising' the West Bank. Examples include setting up a Palestinian Population Registry during the Second Intifada separating the populations of the West Bank and Gaza. However, the information was frozen with no ability to correct or change it. In 2007, the military forcefully removed "illegal aliens" lacking a military permit into Gaza. The regime transferred entire communities in Susiya (1986), the Jahalin tribe and communities living within the Firing Zone 198.
Settlers violence towards Palestinians in the West Bank has increased substantially since the far-right government of Benjamin Netanyahu and October 7th, 2023. OCHA reports the killings of 554 Palestinians between 7th October 2023 and 15th July 2024, including 131 children. It also reports that there have been over 1000 attacks on Palestinian healthcare throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), which includes Gaza. ReliefWeb reports that 600 structures have been destroyed since the start of 2024 displacing 75 people. On top, Nur Shams Refugee Camp has had building destroyed by military bulldozers.
Amnesty International's Case that Israel is an Apartheid State
Israel's Law of Return is discriminatory because it only allows Jews the right to immigrate to Israel while denying Palestinians a right to return from the Nakba. Knesset legislatures have never turned Israel's Declaration of Independence, which called for "complete equality of social and political rights", into a Basic Law effectively making it part of Israel's quasi-constitution. The Nation State Law only grants the right of self-determination to the Jewish people.
Throughout the history of Israel, the identity of it as a Jewish state has always been clear resulting in an attitude of domination over Palestinian inhabitants. A separate and unequal citizenship order existed while denying the Palestinian families the ability to reunite after the Nakba.
In 1958 Israel passed a Basic Law which allows prohibition of political parties and actors from participating in election to the Knesset if they have objectives or take actions that would deny Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; or support armed struggle and hostile actions against the State of Israel. The Supreme Court has overturned efforts for making such bans on Israeli Arab parties and politicians. Nevertheless, they cannot change or challenge the Jewish majority over Palestinian minorities.
Amnesty International also reports of "systematic, unlawful and arbitrary killings with near total impunity" since occupying the OPT in 1967. These killings took place outside of a military context including situations such as "suppression of protests, arrest raids, when enforcing travel and movement restrictions, and conducting house and search operations.” Israel's military regime has killed journalists, human rights recorders and medics.
Conclusion
Yesh Din and B'Tselem conclude that Israel is an apartheid regime though there are differences in the geographic extent of the regime. The oppressive nature of the military regime, the demographic engineering within the West Bank and the dual system of laws enforcing the separate status of Palestinians from Israelis utilising the inhumane act of persecution establishes the existence of an apartheid regime. Amnesty concludes that Israel has always been an apartheid regime due to the fact it is a Jewish state which practices discriminatory policies such as the right to return for Jews.
The Case Against Israel being an apartheid regime
The New Realist will focus on rebuttals by Alan Johnson, Salo Aizenberg, Eugene Kontorovich and other sources.
Salo Aizenberg
The Meaning of the Word ‘Racial'
Salo Aizenberg argues that all the NGO’s have twisted the meaning of the word ‘racial’ utilising a troublesome and convenient application of the ICERD definition of racial discrimination, as defined above, so that includes nationalities and ethnicities. Instead, we should use the dictionary's definition of race discounting Jews and Palestinians. Consequently, the crime of apartheid cannot apply.
The Rome Statute Article 7(2)(h) defines persecution in terms of ‘racial’, ‘political’, ‘ethnic’, ‘national’, ‘cultural’, ‘religious’, and ‘gender’. This point applies similarly with the definition of genocide as well. In comparison, the definition of apartheid only refers to ‘racial’. Aizenberg suggests the term ‘ethnic’ and ’national’ are not interchangeable in contrast to ICERD’s definition of racial discrimination. There is clear intent in the Rome Statute that ‘ethnic’, ’national’ and ‘racial’ are distinct terms meaning different things.
Anne Herzberg
Joshua Kern and Anne Herzberg argues that ICERD's definition is inapplicable in cases of international criminal law, while agreeing the subjective traits of 'racialness' define what is and isn't a racial group (see pp. 47-8). It concludes that the NGO reports, specifically the HRW report, fails in establishing the applicability of this key aspect. In Neo-Orientalism: Deconstructing Claims of Apartheid in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Kern and Herzberg note that in Israel, Israelis consider Palestinians a nationality not a race [pp. 78-9]. Likewise, Israelis do not consider the Beduin, Druze, and Circassians in racial terms. Consequently, the crime of apartheid is inapplicable.
The Definition of Apartheid is no longer based on the South African Model
The Rome Statute and other instruments abstract the definition of apartheid away from the South African case. The NGOs suggest that we can detach the crime from its origins and apply it to situations entirely different to ones like in South Africa. Aizenberg believes that legal precedent suggests an analysis of the crime of apartheid in South Africa should form a constituent basis for any arguments for it elsewhere. However, the NGOS don't analyse and use that precedent in their arguments [cf. Aizenberg].
Western countries didn't ratify the 1973 Apartheid Convention which specifically focussed on the South African case. In agreement with Carola Lingaas, Kern and Herzberg state any regime of accused of apartheid must make a direct comparison with South Africa. Relying on the definition provided in legal texts alone is insufficient and contrary to the intentions of the Convention which had South Africa directly in mind (pp. 27-8).
Furthermore, Eugene Kontorovich notes "the very essence of apartheid was the physical separation – apartness – of people based on a legislated racial hierarchy. There are no racial or ethnic hierarchies in Israeli law." Both legal definitions don't specify the necessity of a legislated racial hierarchy. The definitions abstract away an essential feature of apartheid rather than making the crime applicable to other areas of the world.
Evidence against a regime of domination
Regularisation Law
In Neo-Orientalism: Deconstructing Claims of Apartheid in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Kern and Herzberg cite the Israeli Supreme Court struck down Regularisation Law because it violated Palestinians right to property and equality contravening the demand of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. In delivering the verdict, Chief Justice Hayut noted that the laws of occupation still grant right to those occupied.
“In Chief Justice Hayut’s view, one purpose of the Law was entrenching settlement in the West Bank through retroactive regularisation of illegal construction on land that is not government property. She held that this was not a proper purpose since it required a sweeping validation of manifestly illegal conduct on private land, which constituted a severe violation of the rule of law.” [pp.65-6]
Anne Herzberg
Roads
The Israeli Supreme Court disallowed a total ban on Palestinians cars as it exceeded the military commander's authority. However, the court allowed the regular screening of cars so the protection of settlers was viable.
Justice Beinisch on the Beit Sira case made the following remarks about policies about roads which could be interpreted as segregation:
Even if we take into account the fact that absolute segregation of the population groups travelling on the roads is an extreme and undesirable outcome, we must be careful to refrain from definitions that ascribe a connotation of segregation, based on the improper foundations of racist and ethnic discrimination, to the security means enacted for the purpose of protecting travellers on the roads. The comparison drawn by the petitioners between the use of separate roads for security reasons and the apartheid policy and accompanying actions formerly implemented in South Africa, is not a worthy one. The policy of apartheid constituted an especially grave crime and runs counter to the basic principles of Israeli law... It was a policy of racist segregation and discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin ... Not every distinction between persons, under all circumstances, necessarily constitutes improper discrimination, and not every improper discrimination is apartheid.
Kern and Herzberg note that under the law of occupation it is essential requirement that the occupation force bring about law and order and such acts constitute part of that. On p.71, we then get another example in which the security of travellers was the primary focus not the racial segregation between two peoples.
Conclusion
Kern and Herzberg argue that:
Israel’s application of the humanitarian provisions of the law of belligerent occupation may be viewed as reasonable. Measures that discriminate between individuals through application of provisions of international humanitarian law should also not be considered oppressive per se. There is a distinction between the Israeli-Palestinian case and the South African in that whereas in South Africa there was nothing that reasonably could be said to have impinged upon the ability of all South Africans to enjoy their fundamental rights equally absent the policy of apartheid, in the Israeli-Palestinian case it is the context of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and separate citizenships reflecting Palestinian and Israeli separate nationalities, that give rise to differential treatment. Such treatment’s qualification as “oppressive” must necessarily take this context into account. [pp.73]
Cherry-picking Clauses from ICERD
Yesh Din and HRW do not refer to article 1.2 in ICERD which stipulates:
2 This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or references made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.
The argument goes Article 1.2 clearly makes the definition of racial discrimination inapplicable because the Palestinians in the West Bank are not citizens of Israel.
Alan Johnson
Amnesty's First Analytical Error: Confusing a Jewish state with a racist state
Alan Johnson argues that nation states are normal, and that Israel is the nation state for the Jewish nation. Manipulating demographics through control measures, such as immigration policy, is typical of nation states. Israel’s efforts in wanting a Jewish majority state are exercises in the same vein, otherwise Israel would cease being the nation state for the Jews. The consequence of Israel enacting Amnesty’s suggestions would be a rejection of Jewish national self-determination, an enshrined human right.
A Jewish state needn’t define Jews based on the halakhic tradition. Israel is a democratic state which enshrines rights for minority groups. He also cites the hypocrisy in not calling out the Palestinian constitution which calls for an ‘Arab nation’ and deems the religion of the Palestinians ‘Islamic’.
Amnesty’s Second Analytic Error - Erasing the 100-year war on the Jews
Amnesty International decontextualises the history of the conflict as means of demonising Israel. They ignore the Palestinians attitude towards Zionism causing breaches of the peace on a frequent basis. It also ignores the history of the peace process and Palestinian rejections of multiple offers of the peace.
The significance is that in a military occupation there are just reasons for reducing the rights of the occupied for security reasons. Israel faces existential security threats from the OPT from militant groups which would seek the annihilation of Israel. Amnesty ignores claims about ‘terrorism’ as irrelevant to the report, yet they are an essential component to understanding the realities of what’s going on in the West Bank.
Amnesty infers apartheid from Israel launching attacks on Gaza without mentioning that they were establishing deterrence to stop continual rocket fire on Israeli territory by Hamas. Israel restricts goods flowing into Gaza which Hamas, a genocidal organisation seeking the annihilation of Israel, uses for military purposes.
Amnesty doesn’t refer to the 2011 Palmer Commission which stated that naval blockade on Gaza was necessary for Israel's security.
Factual Errors
Amnesty International report makes many factual distortions about the relationship between Israel and Israeli Arab citizens. It implies heavily that the existence of racially discriminating policies and inequality within Israel towards Arabs proves the existence of an apartheid state. It ignores statements from Mahmoud Abbas from the Ra’am party in the Knesset who states that “Israel is not an apartheid state”. Issawi Frej an Arab member of the Meretz stated, "there were many problems in Israeli society but being an apartheid state wasn’t one of them."
Eugene Kontorovich notes Palestinians created the Palestinian Authority, meanwhile the apartheid regime created the "Bantustans" because of their perceived puppetry to Praetoria.
Amnesty gets the West Bank wrong
Alan Johnson argues that many of the restrictive acts committed in the West Bank, even against medical personnel, is the result of terrorism threats. The Wall exists as a means of protecting Israel from terrorist threats such as the suicide bombing off pizza shops, and the Dolphinarium discothèque.
Is Israel committing the crime of apartheid?
The New Realist values objectivity and the virtues of science the most. With that in mind, it concludes that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid within the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Furthermore, recent changes in who administers the apartheid regime constitutes outright annexation.
As pronounced on the date of publication by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israel is guilty of violating Article 3 of ICERD, cf. §229. The New Realist fully agrees with the ICJ's advisory opinion. An apartheid regime based on racial segregation exists throughout the entire land of Palestine/Israel. The arguments against deeming Israel an apartheid state are thoroughly unconvincing.
First, there are no convincing moral or legal reasons why we cannot abstract away the particular attributes of the South African case while attaining the essence of the crime. In fact, the New Realist believes that the Rome Statute, et al., hasn't abstracted away enough. It's not clear why race should be a critical part of the crime. Why not religious segregation separating people based on their religious beliefs while breaching their fundamental right? Why not based on sexual orientation? Race was a particular motivating factor for the South African case. However, the critical part of the crime is the existence of a regime which systemically breaches the fundamental human rights of someone based on an identifying characteristic.
Second, the arguments against the existence of a regime based on domination are not persuasive. The arguments ignore critical information about the distribution of land and natural resources which clearly show a highly systemic discriminatory practice in favour of Israeli settlers. The arguments also do not explain that Israeli settlers shouldn't be in the OPT in the first place. The laws of occupation clearly proscribe that occupations cannot allow transfer of the occupiers nation to the occupied land. The arguments do not consider that settlers illegally invading their land, i.e. the OPT, would naturally meet resistance. Even in the case of lawful occupations, the occupied still have a right to resistance against such regime. Even though the genocidal terror of Hamas and other Palestinian organisations are genuine threats to security, it doesn't follow that Palestinians resisting are necessarily terrorists.
Third, both sides regularly engage in discourse featuring racial and ethnic undertones. Some Israelis see the Palestinians as Arabs whose true origin lay in the Arabian peninsula and not Palestine. Likewise, Israelis see Palestinians as a nascent nation born out of reaction to Zionism, rather than as an indigenous people. These arguments are racial and ethnic in nature. Likewise, Palestinians engage in similar arguments suggesting that Ashkenazi Jews actually originated from the Khazar Khaganate, in the Caucasus, not Palestine. The original Zionist's were predominately Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe alongside some influential Western European Jews such as Theodor Herzl. All these examples demonstrate a racialised conception of the other, even if not immediate obvious.
Fourth, the factual errors pointed out do not sufficiently undermine the argument for there being an apartheid regime. Let's take Mahmoud Abbas' assertion to heart. It was clear from the context he was talking about Israeli territory within the green lines. However, the NGO's argue that the apartheid regime covers the entire land including the West Bank and Gaza. Abbas' statement is evidence for thinking that solely within the territory of Israel there is no apartheid regime. However, the ICJ in their advisory opinion
The New Realist does agree with Alan Johnson's claim that a Jewish state must be racist state are highly problematic. Slovakia is an ethno-nationalist state which many generally do not consider it racist. As long as such states do not violate the fundamental human rights of citizens and non-citizens of that state, there is nothing inherently racist or illegal about such entities. Questioning whether such states should exist for political purposes, e.g. the undesirability of ethno-nationalist states, are legitimate, but they are not arguments such a state is apartheid. Socialists and anarchists deem even civic nationalism as undesirable undermining class consciousness and legitimising an oppressive state.
Antisemitism and Apartheid
When is it antisemitic accusing Israel of the crime of apartheid?
Introduction - The New Antisemitism and Theories of Meaning
The New Antisemitism involves utilisation criticism of Israel as a veil for antisemitic acts or criticism of Jews. The New Realist holds this does in fact occur. After the Holocaust, antisemitism rightfully became a huge taboo throughout Europe. Israel's establishing in 1948, however, gives antisemites an outlet for their Jew hatred through criticising Israel as a proxy for Jews. Likewise, we apply this logic to Zionism as well. Labelling Zionism as an inherently supremacist ideology can insinuate that's the case because Jews are inherently supremacist in nature - a classic antisemitic trope.
Nevertheless, Israel and Zionism are open to criticism like any other state and ideology. These criticisms can be very harsh, especially when grave violations of humanitarian law occur, for instance when the crimes of apartheid and genocide are committed. The mere fact Israel is a Jewish state does not preclude it from committing acts of genocide or other serious breaches of humanitarian law.
However, severe criticism aimed at a state can become discriminatory in nature. For instance, thinking that Russia's genocide of the Ukrainian people makes them genocidal barbarians worthy of destruction is itself discriminatory and genocidal in characterisation. Likewise, acts against Israel that would cause severe irreparable harm towards Jews can themselves be considered antisemitic. Those glorifying Hezbollah destroying homes in Haifa are antisemites. The same applies for those glorifying the genocidal massacre on October 7th who not only are antisemites but genocide apologists as well!
Which brings us to the question - when does criticism of Israel become antisemitic? We'll use two different theories of meaning when answering this question:
- pragmatic theory of meaning - our attention focuses on how the use of language translates into meaning. Our utterances of words, sentences, gestures and other non-verbal means of communication within a specific context are what's important here.
- analytic theory of meaning - logical proposition are either true or false with a single definitive meaning. We're focussed on how language represents the 'logical picture of the world', on how menacing signifies our understanding of the world itself.
The New Realist will use both with the objective of making clear of how the use of language signifies meaning alongside how the logical representation of the world signifies meaning. These two needn't coincide. Consider the following example: "I'm hungry". In the analytic theory of meaning, the proposition means precisely that. The subject of the proposition has the property of being hungry. In the pragmatic theory of meaning, in contrast, the subject may have been ironic winding up a party host checking up on their guests.
The pragmatic theory resembles the philosophy of later Wittgenstein found in his Philosophical Investigations, while the analytic theory resembles the early Wittgenstein found in the Tracatus Logico-Philosophicus. The later Wittgenstein describes better how languages work in practice, while the early Wittgenstein seeks a logically perfect language in which everything uttered is clear. The New Realist will juxtapose both theories with the aim of enforcing clarity.
Is it antisemitic accusing Israel of apartheid?
The New Realist will analyse different propositions determining whether the evidence suggests they are antisemitic or not. We'll be using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism and the Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism (JDA) in tandem.
Accusations of Apartheid
Proposition I - "Israel has an apartheid regime in the West Bank and East Jerusalem"
Under both the IHRA's and JDA's definitions, this proposition is not antisemitic. It is a proposition about the world, which is true. If stating what's true is discriminatory, then we are living in a polity with no respect for freedom of speech and action.
The JDA's position on this matter is clear cut, but the IHRA's needs more elaboration. On the one hand, an empirical observation that Israel is utilising an apartheid regime in the OPT should fall under the passage "however, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." South Africa and China in Xinjiang have undergone apartheid, for instance.
However, we also get this statement: "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour." The indefinite article is important. One can assert that the State of Israel is a racist endeavour while denying that a State of Israel is one. It should be clear that Proposition I don't fall foul of this example in the working definition.
Antisemitism Violations: N/A
Proposition II - "Israel is an apartheid state"
This proposition is false. There are no such entities as apartheid states in international law. Only apartheid regimes exist. Like in proposition I, it makes no assertions about a State of Israel being a racist endeavour.
Antisemitism Violations: N/A
Proposition III - "Israel is the only apartheid regime/state"
This proposition is certainly false. South Africa was an apartheid regime and China's treatment of the Uighur's in Xinjiang would also satisfy the definition of apartheid. However, the proposition itself isn't antisemitic.
Those uttering it may have a latent antisemitic mindset, though. Why single out the Jewish state? Perhaps ignorance is the reason. Perhaps a latent cultural antisemitism is at work.
Antisemitism Violations:
- "What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in which “the Jews” possess hidden power that they use to promote their own collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that “the Jews” control governments with a “hidden hand,” that they own the banks, control the media, act as “a state within a state,” and are responsible for spreading disease (such as Covid-19). All these features can be instrumentalised by different (and even antagonistic) political causes" - JDA
- "Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and international finance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded speech is a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these guidelines." - JDA
- "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions." - IHRA
If Israel is being singled out suggesting it's a unique evil that no other state suffers from this would be consistent with these guidelines. However, ignorance should also be considered as to whether an antisemitic motive is occurring. Antisemitic acts needn't be carried out by antisemites.
Proposition IV - "Apartheid is a consequence of the application of the Zionist ideal"
This proposition focuses on the application of Zionism and is in fact true. Israel is the application of the "Zionist ideal" and engages in apartheid against the Palestinian people. Purely as a statement about the world, Proposition IV is both true and not antisemitic.
However, antisemites will utter these words implying that Proposition V is in fact correct. Antisemites will even use this fact weaponising it against Jews denying them their right to national self-determination. Jews have committed the crime of apartheid therefore legitimising the notion they no longer deserve a state. Antisemites are using apartheid as a means of attacking the rights of the Jewish nation as a counterweight to the power of the Holocaust in justifying those rights to many in the West.
It is how the statement is used, though, which makes it antisemitic. The actual claim itself is not antisemitic. When people are uttering such words in a matter-of-fact way, they're likely not being antisemitic. However, in a polarised political environment, contextual factors must be looked at to see whether delegitimising Jewish national rights is being advocated or implied.
Antisemitism Violations:
- "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination ..." - IHRA
- "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." - IHRA
- "Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews." - IHRA
- "Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel." - JDA
All these must be judged on the contextual factors. The mere utterance itself isn't sufficient for demonstrating antisemitism has occurred. Just like with Proposition III, we must ascertain whether dehumanising stereotypes of the Jews being uniquely evil in nature is underpinning how the utterance is being used.
Proposition V - "Apartheid is a necessary consequence of Zionism"
Note the differences with proposition IV. First, there is no reference to the application of Zionism, but to the ideology itself. Second, it asserts that apartheid is "necessary". In other words, you cannot apply Zionism without apartheid. We're now in the position of firm anti-Zionism.
Zionism is a heterogeneous ideology featuring many elements: liberalism, conservatism, socialism, national conservatism, fascism, communism, revisionist Zionist, and theocratic Zionism. Some of these variants are explicitly supremacist, e.g. Kahanism, or are compatible with supremacism, e.g. national liberalism, national conservatism, revisionist Zionism, theocratic Zionism, etc. Others are not supremacist and simply seek the national self-determination of the Jewish people in their ancient homeland while respecting the rights of the Palestinians.
The term 'necessary' is highly problematic in this proposition. What do we mean by 'necessary'? There are different senses of necessity, including logical necessity, legal necessity, political necessity, etc., with all substantially changing the meaning of the proposition.
Political necessity simply means it was the only political choice available which is contextual based on the circumstances of the day. Ideological necessity, to the contrary, implies that context is not a relevant factor. Benny Morris, for instance, argues that it was a political necessity that Israel and the Yishuv ethnically cleansed Palestinians during the Nakba. The Jews needed a state after the Holocaust. You can't have a substantial undercurrent in your country that seeks to overthrow your rule as evidenced by the 1936-9 riots and the beginning of the civil war. Ilan Pappé, on the other hand, argues that it was ideological necessity which drove the Zionists to undergo Plan Dalet. Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine because they had population transfers ingrained in their mindset.
Historical necessity suggests a teleological view of history which is the flaw of historicism. There are some laws of history at work which govern what happens when the Jews get a nation. Some advocates of the apartheid occupation regime argue that is necessary because of a combination of the past behaviours of the Palestinians, e.g. the Second Intifada, and political necessity because of the security concerns of the Israeli public. People, however, frequently confuse historical necessity with historical inevitability. This matters because some anti-Zionists will argue that the effective historical necessity of the Zionist enterprise engaging in ethnic cleansing, etc., alongside the talk of 'population transfer' demonstrates the ideological necessity of supremacist action. Such arguments are flawed if its historical inevitability, not necessity, which is what's being argued. Erroneous thinking ends up justifying prejudice, not justice.
According to the JDA, this proposition is not antisemitic, which is made clear here:
"Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants 'between the river and the sea,' whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form."
The JDA's position has merits but also denies another sense in which apartheid may be necessary. Antisemites may argue that Zionism is supremacist because the Jews themselves are supremacist which will naturally show up in their national ideology. Such a view would be blatant antisemitism because it stigmatises the Jews. When people argue that Zionism is supremacist in highly charged debates, or in which an antisemitic culture is prominent, then the firm claim of modern anti-Zionism becomes antisemitism.
What about the IHRA, though? Proposition V risks violating the following example:
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour."
Are anti-Zionists deniers of the Jewish right to self-determination? Not necessarily. They may accept "the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour" while also supporting Jewish national self-determination through other means. The right to self-determination doesn't imply a right to a state. The Kurds don't want a state, because they're influenced by the libertarian socialism of Abdullah Öcalan, but they do want national self-determination.
The vast majority of Jews worldwide are Zionists who believe a Jewish state is necessary for enacting the Jewish right to national self-determination. Zionists do have a point as to whether anti-Zionists can be fully committed to supporting Jewish national self-determination while in practice denying those very Jews the means in which they wish to exercise it.
Should the Jews abandon Zionism and the State of Israel if through national self-determination the Jewish people decided in exercising their right to national self-determining through Zionism? Consequently, is rejecting Zionism effectively a denial of, and/or desire for reversing, the Jewish right to national self-determination as practiced by Jews in reality?
Potential Antisemitism Violations:
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour. - IHRA
- "Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions." - IHRA
- "It is racist to essentialize (treat a character trait as inherent) or to make sweeping negative generalizations about a given population. What is true of racism in general is true of antisemitism in particular." - JDA
Proposition VI - "Apartheid is a necessary consequence of Jewish people acting on their right to self-determination"
This is antisemitic, according to both the IHRA and JDA. Zionism as an ideology and the actions of Zionists are no longer the focus, but on the nature of the Jewish people itself which is inherently discriminatory.
Antisemites will exploit Propositions III, IV and V by essentialising the demonic character of the acts of apartheid onto the Jewish people as a whole. Even, though, this proposition doesn't explicitly demonise Jews, it does make them responsible.
Antisemitism Violations:
- Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. -IHRA
- What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in which “the Jews” possess hidden power that they use to promote their own collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that “the Jews” control governments with a “hidden hand,” that they own the banks, control the media, act as “a state within a state,” and are responsible for spreading disease (such as Covid-19). All these features can be instrumentalized by different (and even antagonistic) political causes. - JDA
Consequences of Acknowledging Apartheid
Proposition VII - "The apartheid regime must end"
In line with international law, the crime of apartheid faces an absolute prohibition. Apartheid regimes must cease. This is the pursuit of legitimate justice which cannot be discriminatory by nature. The proposition is vague, however, covering any type of action which would cease the regime even if those actions were antisemitic. The proposition is not inherently antisemitic. So, we can make it clear what meanings are and are not antisemitic, we will analyse this in more detail through other propositions.
Antisemitism Violations: N/A
Proposition VIII - "The apartheid regime must end by withdrawing the occupation forces and settlements from the West Bank while recognising the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people"
This is the proposition advocated by the ICJ in its advisory opinion. There is nothing inherently antisemitic about this. The Advisory Opinion does not justify the use of violence against Jews. The presence of Jewish settlers in the West Bank violates the Laws of Occupation. The opinion does not advocate for violence in relocating the settlers.
Is it rejecting the Jewish right to national self-determination by not recognising the claim of some Jews to the West Bank, or Judaea and Samaria? No. The right to self-determination doesn't automatically justify claims to land, especially when they're competing claims.
Even though this proposition doesn't advocate for a two-state solution, this is the one closest to its spirit. International law places the onus on Israel fulfilling its legal obligations by ending the occupation. Israel negotiating in good faith for a two-state solution will win it international allies and help ensure a peaceful settlement is beneficial to Israel's interests.
Those who argue that this proposition is antisemitic are saying that applying international law to Israel is antisemitic. Such an argument must demonstrate that the very nature of the laws themselves discriminate against the Jewish people. These laws apply to everyone, though. Those enforcing said laws may be do so in a discriminatory fashion with focus on Israel and a lack of focus on Russia's actions in Ukraine. However, that would not make said laws unjust or antisemitic. Those laws are only antisemitic if you believe it's antisemitic denying the Jewish claim to Judaea and Samaria. That sounds like propaganda legitimising an irredentist nationalism.
Antisemitism Violations: N/A
Proposition IX - "The apartheid regime in the West Bank should be ended through force"
This proposition is deliberately vague. Palestinians do have the right of resistance including by force because they are victims of an illegal and belligerent occupation. However, such resistance must conform to the rules of international humanitarian law. Hamas' genocidal attack on October 7th was a blatant violation of humanitarian law as Human Rights Watch recently found highlighting extensive war crimes and crimes against humanity on the day.
Proposition IX.A - "The apartheid regime in the West Bank should be ended through legitimate force in accordance with international humanitarian law"
This is not antisemitic. Attacking military forces under just war theory is not antisemitism simply because most of the military forces are Jews. Consequently, it does not violate the following from the IHRA:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Violent resistance would harm Jews, but not necessarily be antisemitic. The key here is the motive and underlying psychology of the attack. Are Palestinians resistors fighting an occupational regime who just so happen to be Jewish? Or, are they attacking the occupational forces because they want to target Jews in particular? The latter, though legal because they're attacking military targets, would still constitute discriminatory acts. By being discriminatory acts, those acts of resistance may cease being legal.
Proposition IX.B - "The apartheid regime in the West Bank should be ended through all the force necessary including attacking Israeli (Jewish) civilians"
This is blatant antisemitism by both the IHRA and JDA definitions. Even if the Israeli citizens killed are not Jews, those victims may still have been victim of antisemitic war crimes, even crimes against humanity. The victims of antisemitism needn't be Jews.
One of the big problems in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is identifying when acts of violence are the result of legitimate resistance and when they are the result of antisemitic prejudice. Likely, the answer is some are examples of both at the same time. Antisemitic motives exist while legitimate resistance against occupying forces occur. Such motives make it easier targeting civilians if necessary.
Resistance is this grey area in which legitimate violence is nevertheless antisemitic and consequently deserving of condemnation. Essentially, being a victim of apartheid does not legitimise antisemitic attitudes and actions among the oppressed.
Legitimising Jewish civilians as targets of war involves more than just attacking Jews because they're Jews. The attackers are holding Jews responsible for the actions of their state.The citizens of Israel are not responsible for maintaining of the apartheid regime, even though by the democratic norms of the country they do facilitate it. Citizens are not responsible for the actions of government officials.
Antisemitism Violations:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion - IHRA
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews - IHRA
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel - IHRA
- Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality - JDA
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel - JDA
Proposition X - "The State of Israel should be abolished because it has committed the crime of apartheid"
This is not inherently antisemitic. However, the means of it dissolution and the impact it would have on the Jewish right to national self-determination determines if it is or isn't antisemitic. In theory, it is not antisemitic. In practice, those actions would be antisemitic.
Proposition X.A - "The State of Israel should be constitutionally abolished because it has committed the crime of apartheid, and replaced with a democratic state recognising equal rights for all"
The JDA would not categorically not consider this antisemitic. The IHRA definition, in contrast, doesn't address this adequately. The proposition is not necessarily a denial of Jewish national self-determination in principle, though perhaps in practice. It does not advocate violence. Instead, it calls for constitutional reform which is compatible with variants of Zionism. By the IHRA definition, this proposition should not necessarily constitute antisemitism yet common perception of the definition suggests that it should.
Proposition X.B - "The State of Israel should be constitutionally abolished because it has committed the crime of apartheid, and replaced with a democratic state recognising equal rights for all with all those rejecting a move either getting killed or forcefully removed from the land"
This proposition is antisemitic because it is a de facto call for either the genocide or ethnic cleansing of Jews. Israeli Jews will not be accepting a binational state proposal or anything like it anytime soon. The first part of the second clause about wanting a democratic state is preamble giving a soft touch to a horrific proposition.
One of the problems in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that Israelis are suspicious that Palestinian who advocate for a binational state, say proposition X.A, when in fact they mean proposition X.B. In other words, they use the discourse of legitimate equal rights for all as a mask for their true intention which is the forceful removal of Jews from the land of Palestine. Ultimately, we should use objective facts as a means of discerning what's true and be wary of potential nefarious intentions from either side in the conflict. Palestinians will accuse Israelis of having nefarious security concerns which were a mask for committing the crime of apartheid. We shouldn't prejudge that one side in the conflict is necessary right and just while denying that for the other side. Even when grave acts of injustice have occurred, e.g. ethnic cleansing and apartheid, it doesn't follow that the victims are righteous. It merely follows they are victims of grave injustice.
Antisemitism Violations:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion - IHRA
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor - IHRA
- Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality - JDA
Proposition XI - "The State of Israel should be destroyed because it has committed the crime of apartheid"
This proposition is a call for the destruction of a nation-state. The epithet "destroy" signifies a violent action ceasing the existence of something. Those who would gaslight us into thinking Proposition XI merely means Proposition X.a with just a rhetorical flourish deserve condemnation. Even if sincere, those utilising genocidal language are utterly irresponsible and deserving of being called out for antisemitism. Free speech carries responsibilities with it.
Antisemitism Violations:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion - IHRA
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor - IHRA
- Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality - JDA
Conclusion
Our analysis has also shown some weaknesses in the IHRA Working Definition which needs dealing with. If the IHRA clarify what denying Jewish national self-determination entails, we can then see whether it remains suitable for use in the modern day. Does the theoretical acceptance, but effectual rejection, of the right of enacting Jewish national self-determination constitute antisemitism? This question goes to the heart of finding a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinians conflict.
Israel is committing the crime of apartheid. As B'Tselem pronounced in 2021: there exists "a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea - this is apartheid". The ICJ's Advisory Opinion confirms this and the question that naturally should arise is: how do we enact justice and peace while ending the apartheid regime? What does it mean for Jews to have self-determination? What doesn't it mean for Jews to have self-determination? Where does Israel as a polity for Jews begin and a policy enforcing Jewish supremacy begin? Will withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza stop the apartheid? Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 which has been a disaster for all involved, except ultranationalists on all sides.
Gareth Mawer
As argued earlier, the New Realist also highlighted how the conflict features a strong genocidal dimension. Naturally some of this arises because of Israel's apartheid regime. However, from October 7th it is also clear that Hamas and other Jihadists forces within Palestine are also genocidal in nature. The genocidal actors Hezbollah and Iran empower the militant jihadists further. Dismantling the apartheid regime is not as simple as getting rid of the Jewish supremacist occupation.
Regards the subject matter of this essay, the utilisation of accusations in political discourse primarily determines whether it is antisemitic or not. The accusation itself is not only based in fact but fundamental for understanding the crime Palestinians have endured. It is totally unacceptable labelling apartheid discourse inherently antisemitic because it causes harm to the victim of that crime. The New Realist believes in equality. It is not equal whitewashing the grave injustice one people face so another needn't look themselves in the eye and ask - what have we become?
Given the extreme nature of the crime of apartheid, we should take extra precautions in ensuring such accusations do not inform an antisemitic world view. In hating the crime, we end up hating those who committed the crime. When dealing with nation-states, we end up blaming Israelis and apologists for Israel. The knock-on effect of this hate is prejudice.
This is an unfortunate byproduct of calling out apartheid for what it is. Antisemites will feel empowered. For the first time since before the Holocaust, they can freely attack Jews weaponising the crime. Acknowledging Israeli apartheid needn't result in supporting antisemites. The New Realist accepts Israel is committing both apartheid, and genocide, yet sees the continual existence of a Jewish national homeland with sovereign border and self-determination in a state as fundamental for the Jewish people.
We must stop believing that making strong accusations against the State of Israel is antisemitic. If Zionists truly want Israel to be just a normal state, then it must accept that people will criticise it vehemently especially when its actions are deserving of such treatment. Zionists have always faced a paradox, according to historian Michael Bremmer. They simultaneously want a model state that all would look up to, and a normal state treated like any other. Israel must be a beacon of light and virtue, while an ordinary nation at the same time. So far it is ordinary for all the wrong reasons. It joins the long list of states involved in the most horrific crimes that humanity can enact on each other. Let's change it together!