During the past two decades, many respected individuals and organizations designated the regime Israel has established in the occupied Palestinian territory—the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza—as a form of apartheid. A small subset of these individuals and organizations designated the regime Israel presided over in the whole of “historic Palestine”—i.e., from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea—as apartheid.
This writer for a long time hesitated to go beyond the broad consensus that designated the oPt an apartheid regime while leaving open the proper legal description of the regime inside the Green Line. However, while researching a lengthy legal appendix to “Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom,” this writer was persuaded that the entire area from the “river to the sea” should be denoted an apartheid regime. The basis of this conclusion was simple and straightforward: A) the defining feature of an occupation under international law is that it is temporary; if it is not temporary, then it constitutes an illegal annexation; B) after more than a half-century of Israeli “occupation,” and after repeated declarations by the Israeli government that it didn’t intend to withdraw from the oPt in conformity with international law, the only reasonable inference was that the oPt had been de facto annexed, regardless of the formal legal label Israel attached to them; C) Israel “from the river to the sea” thus constituted a single entity; if the presiding regime disenfranchised or severely qualified the citizenship rights of its non-Jewish population, then it constituted an apartheid regime.
The respected Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem, has now officially reached this conclusion: “[T]he entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is organized under a single principle: advancing and cementing the supremacy of one group—Jews—over another—Palestinians”; “A regime that uses laws, practices and organized violence to cement the supremacy of one group over another is an apartheid regime.”
The B’Tselem position paper focuses on four aspects of Israeli apartheid. Two aspects—Jewish-only immigration and Jewish-only land development—operate in the whole of this Jewish supremacist state, and two aspects—blockages to freedom of movement and to political participation—are qualitatively more pronounced in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.
It is this writer’s opinion, however, that, repellent as are these features of the Israeli regime, the aspect that most manifests its Jewish supremacist character is the worthlessness it attaches to Palestinian life. As B’Tselem and other major human rights organizations have documented on literally a daily basis, Palestinians are routinely murdered with impunity by private Israeli citizens, civil police, and military personnel. These murders evoke no interest, let alone protest, from the Israeli-Jewish public.
The worthlessness attached to Palestinian life was put vividly on display during the Great March of Return in Gaza. A UN Commission of Inquiry found that “demonstrators who were hundreds of meters away from the Israeli forces and visibly engaged in civilian activities were intentionally shot. Journalists and health workers who were clearly marked as such were shot, as were children, women, and persons with disabilities”; it also found “reasonable grounds to believe that the Israeli security forces killed and maimed Palestinian demonstrators who did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to others when they were shot.” Israel’s former Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, declared during the protracted killing spree, “Israeli soldiers did what was necessary. I think all our soldiers deserve a medal.”
The B’Tselem position paper and the reaction to it cast a tantalizing light on the on-going (or, more exactly, non-going) proceedings at the International Criminal Court. The point currently being adjudicated in the ICC is whether “Palestine” constitutes a state. (Only a state can file a complaint with the Court.) The B’Tselem paper correctly asserts that “the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited power with Israel’s consent,” and that Israel retains over Palestinians “control of immigration, the population registry, planning and land policies, water, communication infrastructure, import and export, and military control over land, sea, and air space.”
A lawyer backing Jewish supremacy, Eugene Kontorovich, alleges, in opposition to the B’Tselem paper, that the Palestinians have their own government, which makes any talk of apartheid “inapplicable.” But obviously, they do not, which makes all talk of apartheid most applicable. Amusingly, distinguished lawyers from around the world submitted amicus briefs to the ICC arguing that the PA was impotent and therefore didn’t qualify as a state able to file a complaint. Now, in the face of B’Tselem’s position paper, these advocates for Jewish supremacy are forced to argue that Palestinians possess their own government so Israel can’t be an apartheid state!
On the other hand, amicus briefs by the Palestinian side argued that the PA exercised a gamut of robust powers and therefore did qualify as a state under international law. This, of course, was ludicrous. The better argument would have been that, if Palestine is not a state, that’s because Israel has been brutally denying Palestinians their internationally enshrined right to self-determination, and therefore the ICC should not reward Israel’s lawbreaking by denying the Palestinian complaint. In any event, a senior PA official, the corrupt Nabil Shaath, reacted to the B’Tselem paper by confidently asserting, “There is no country in the world that is clearer in its apartheid policies than Israel.” But if Israel is an apartheid state, what does that make him and his PA if not a collaborator (Bantustan) subagent of it?
As a practical-political matter, it is questionable whether denoting Israel an apartheid regime will advance the cause before the broad public. Apartheid in South Africa was extinguished three decades ago. The historical memory of most people is short. True, apartheid is a discrete crime under international law, but Israel has committed so many internationally recognized crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, that the addition of one more to the bill of indictment won’t make much difference.
To denote Israel a Jewish supremacist state, however, will compellingly resonate in public discourse and rattle the Jewish supremacist representatives and supporters of this state. This terminology now carries the imprimatur of B’Tselem. The establishment media invariably enters the caveat, “Hamas, which calls for the destruction of the state of Israel,…” Henceforth, supporters of Palestinian rights should at every possible occasion bring home the point, “Israel, which is a Jewish supremacist state,…” “Benjamin Netanyahu, the Jewish supremacist prime minister of Israel…,” “the Anti-Defamation League and the British Board of Deputies, which support the Jewish supremacist state of Israel,…” If taken to task on this point, the simple reply should be, “But one of Israel’s leading human rights organizations has concluded that Israel is organized around the principle of Jewish supremacy.”
To pile on to the criticism of NPR, I didn’t hear the story about the B’Tselem report on the radio — Misterioso here cites Israel-Palestine News as saying that it was never broadcast — but I did look it up on the website because I wanted to see how Daniel “both sides” Estrin covered it. And his story does not disappoint. After summarizing the B’Tselem report, Estrin writes:
And what are the thoughts of many, or at least some, Palestinians?
Here are all the individuals that Daniel “both sides” Estrin quotes:
No quotes from Palestinians. Not even a general summary of how “many Palestinians” view their situation.
Now that I look at it, that description of NGO Monitor as “an Israeli watchdog of pro-Palestinian groups” is pretty creepy, isn’t it? When do you ever read about, say, “a Chinese watchdog of pro-Tibetan groups”, “a Turkish watchdog of pro-Kurdish groups”, “an American watchdog of pro-Islamic groups”, or “a Palestinian watchdog of pro-Israeli groups”?
Interview with Amira Hass in Jewish Currents from 2019 –
https://jewishcurrents.org/apartheid-is-israels-desired-reality/
Apartheid Is Israel’s “Desired Reality”… Israel is now developing more and more ways to confiscate the land beyond the separation barrier. Supposedly, the barrier was built for security reasons, but it was built deep into the West Bank, so there are large areas between the separation wall and the Green Line (the ‘67 border) that are Palestinian land. At first, Israel promised that Palestinians would be able to reach their land to cultivate it. But especially in the last four years, they’ve developed all sorts of new regulations and procedures that prevent Palestinian people from reaching their land. But Israelis and settlers can travel there, can hike there normally, and they stop seeing it as Palestinian land.
Finkelstein always has an independent view. I very much appreciate that!
I don’t agree that the apartheid accusation is just one other accusation next to those for other crimes. There are two reasons for this:
Media bias: CNN and NPR are afraid to say “Apartheid” out loud (israelpalestinenews.org)
“Media bias: CNN and NPR are afraid to say ‘Apartheid’ out loud”Israel-Palestine News, Jan. 15/21
“As is standard practice in American mainstream media, CNN & NPR buried a major story critical of Israel so deep, it’s almost like it never happened.” by Kathryn Shihadah
EXCERPT:
“On January 12, the respected Israeli human rights group B’Tselem released a bombshell report entitled ‘This is Apartheid: Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.’
“The ‘apartheid’ label is big news – especially from an Israel-based organization. It is relevant to every American because our government gives Israel $10 million a day in aid.
“Those familiar with the Israel-Palestine issue have known for years that Israel is an apartheid regime – but also know that the bias in mainstream media has led to a shortage of deep reporting on stories critical of Israel (If Americans Knew has been reporting on it since the organization’s inception).
“We were therefore surprised to see the websites of several major media outlets report on this documentation of apartheid about ‘America’s closest ally.’ The websites of both CNN & NPR contained articles on the topic. Associated Press (AP) also produced a report which was picked up by a number of news organizations.
“For a moment, we wondered, is our country finally waking up to the reality of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians? Is mainstream media willing to tell hard truths about the so-called Jewish State after all these years?
“It’s not that easy. Israel has called the shots in mainstream media for years, as If Americans Knew has revealed: “A study of 50 years of headlines in 5 top newspapers finds that media coverage of Israel-Palestine favors Israel by providing more overall coverage, more positive coverage, & greater access to Israeli voices than to Palestinian ones. Much of this can be attributed to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby.”
“While CNN and NPR have websites, they are primarily broadcast media, so the litmus test for stories that matter is whether they make it on the air.
“In both cases, the ‘Israeli apartheid’ story did not make the cut.
“So while both outlets carried news of the B’Tselem report, it was essentially ‘buried’ where audiences rarely look.”
1 of 2
Israel is losing the fight to obscure its apartheid character | Middle East Eye
“Israel is losing the fight to obscure its apartheid character”
By Jonathan Cook, Middle East Eye, Jan.14/21
“New report by rights group B’Tselem will make it harder to smear Israel’s critics as antisemites for arguing that Israel is a racist state”
EXCERPT:
“For more than a decade, a handful of former Israeli politicians and US diplomats identified with what might be termed the “peace process industry” have intermittently warned that, without a two-state solution, Israel is in danger of becoming an ‘apartheid state’.
“The most notable among them include Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, two former Israeli prime ministers, and John Kerry, who served as former US President Barack Obama’s secretary of state. Time is rapidly running out, they have all declared in the past.
“Their chief concern, it seems, was that without the alibi of some kind of Palestinian state – however circumscribed and feeble – the legitimacy of Israel as a ‘Jewish and democratic state’ will increasingly come under scrutiny. Apartheid will arrive, the argument goes, when a minority of Israeli Jews rule over a majority of Palestinians in the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan controlled by Israel.
“The apartheid threat has been wielded by the so-called ‘peace camp’ in hopes of mobilizing international pressure on the Israeli right, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The goal has been to force it into making sufficient concessions that the Palestinian leadership agrees to a demilitarized statelet, or statelets, on fragments of the original Palestinian homeland.
“Meanwhile, demographic trends have continued apace, and the Israeli right has ignored all warnings, preferring to pursue their Greater Israel ambitions instead. But strangely, the apartheid moment never arrived for the Israeli peace camp. Instead, its expressions of concern about apartheid fizzled into silence, as did its once-vocal worries about a Palestinian demographic majority.” (cont’d)
.