Yes, It’s Israeli Apartheid. Even Without Annexation
JVL Introduction
An opinion piece in Israel’s Premier liberal daily, Haaretz doesn’t pull its punches
Its author, Michel Sfard, a legal activist in Israel, writes about the Israeli apartheid regime:
“Apartheid was made a crime so as to defend the heart of human morality as defined after World War II: the notion of our common humanity. A regime that denies and subverts this idea is an illegitimate regime that must be brought to an end.
Not all of us Israelis are guilty of the crime of apartheid, but we are all responsible for it, and it is our duty to stop the crime being committed in our name…”
The article deserves wide circulation.
But beware: if you link to it you might find yourself at the end of a Labour Party Notice of Investigation…
This article was originally published by Haaretz on Thu 9 Jul 2020. Read the original here.
Yes, It’s Israeli Apartheid. Even Without Annexation
Loading article text…
Excellent article, occupation is perfectly legal so long as it is only temporary, thus the occupation of conquered territory after a war such as happened when Germany was defeated, but because Israel has occupied Palestinian territories for 53 years and has no intention of leaving then de facto annexation has already happened. The settlement enterprise is flourishing, another grave war crime in breach of the Geneva conventions, the Rome statute [ICC] and in the opinion of the World Court [ICJ The Wall Case 2003] by 15 Judges to 0 found to be illegal. The Israelis are storing up a world of hurt which will bite them hard in the future.
Great article, and I can – and will – link to it because I can’t be thrown out of a party of which I am not a member – what a privilege!
It’s so sad to fear sharing the truth. What has become of democracy? Will we ever see one?
The article has interesting and useful information, but I am not convinced by either the definition of Apartheid that is used (even if it is has origins in the International Criminal Court), or by the implication – the discussion being confined to the West Bank – that Apartheid doesn’t exist within the 1948 borders.
The definition above says nothing about whether the intention to maintain permanent, systematic oppression and domination is enshrined in law or not. I would say that institutional racism is permanent, systematic oppression and that there is an intention to maintain it, despite the hand-wringing of sections of the ruling class. That is the situation in Britain and the United States. Of course, both still apply racist laws, especially concerning immigration (and – increasingly – voting rights in the USA, and possibly here soon), but I think there is still a difference with Israel. The USA – when it had a more systematic set of racially exclusive laws – could possibly have been classed as an Apartheid state as well.
Internally, Israel has an Apartheid system too. The recent article on the JVL web site by Jonathan Cook on the Jewish National Fund is enough to show that. Israel defines itself as “the” Jewish state, which gives the game away. This is important, as it raises questions about the legitimacy of the state and the Zionist project.
Cogent article. In a way, we Diaspora Jews are also responsible for this situation, given that, as Philip Ward points out above (11 July at 09:35), Israel is “the” Jewish State. This creation of an apartheid state is being done in all our names. Indeed, calling Israel “the Jewish State” helps deflect criticism, as any adverse comments can be deemed “anti-Semitic”.
Things have come to a pretty pass when Labour Party members are afraid to speak out. If my activism costs me my Labour-Party membership, so be it.
I find it disgraceful that you often get a more balanced view of the British “anti-Semitism” issue from the Israeli press – particularly Ha’aretz – than from the British press. This is because the British press couldn’t give a toss about anti-Semitism, but do want to stitch up the Left of the Labour Party
Anyone who pines for a return to the Right in the Labour Party should wach the two documentaries currently being shown on the BBC, One is about Murdoch and the other about Iraq and the aftermath of the invasion in 2003. Has the BBC deliberately shown these programmes together? They are linked. New Labour prostrated itself before Murdoch in order to gain power. He took advice form him about invading iraq. This was the consequence of a move to the Right. The horrors inflicted on the Iraqi people are partly at least the fault of a LABOUR Prime Minister. He is respnsiblle for the current situation in the Middle East and the rise of ISIS. New Labour could have changed our country forever with its huge majority. Instead it chose to further strengthen Thatcherite neo-liberalism. The austerity of the last 10 years is partly a result of that decision. I am ashamed to say Blair was member of my Party. He is national disgrace. John Major was a far better man when he showed Murdoch the door for demanding a change of policy. Those members who want a return to “moderate” policies should take note of what happened. Do they want a similar Labour Government? Do they want a Party that will not implement change? What is the point of such a Government? It is no use gaining power if power is not used for real change. I voted for Starmer but I have real doubts already about the direction the Party is taking
Surely the term “apartheid” applies to the totality of the Palestinian territories controlled by the Israeli state.It’s scope can not be limited just to the West Bank . The position of Palestinians living in Israel are not identical to the position of Palestinians living in the “Occupied Territories”. However they are both the product of a system of Jewish settler colonialism established at their expense.