The use of the word apartheid to describe Israel’s treatment of Palestinians just keeps growing. David Rothkopf, the former editor of Foreign Policy, baldly states that Israel is an apartheid state in a piece published by Haaretz last weekend.

The “demise” of the two state solution has made it untenable not to talk about Israeli apartheid, even inside the Washington establishment.

Ken Roth was attacked by Israel supporters because he said that Israel’s conduct fosters antisemitism in the west. But he joins a long list of distinguished writers who have said the same, including Hannah Arendt, Nathan Glazer, and Eric Alterman. Glazer warned long ago that Israel’s political dependence on American Jews for immunity over violations of international law could make other Americans “hostile” to American Jews.

Hillel Halkin moved to Israel from the U.S. 50 years ago because he believed in the Zionist vision. Now the author confesses that the project failed because it could not deal with the central question, Palestinian demands, and he was naive when anti-Zionists made that argument to him years ago. Today the country is going off a rightwing-religious “cliff” — a quarter of all nonreligious Israelis between ages 18-24, and half of all religious ones, think Israel’s Palestinian citizens should be stripped of the right to vote!

An excellent piece in the Nation this week by Michael Massing documents that Ken Roth–the man who affixed the apartheid label on Israel as head of Human Rights Watch in 2021 — lost out on a fellowship at Harvard’s Kennedy School last year because of his criticism of Israel. Massing quotes Roth and a Kennedy School official saying the offer from a human rights center at the school was withdrawn because of the Israel issue. Then Massing identifies several pro-Israel donors he suggests had influence over the dean, Douglas Elmendorf.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Jewish supremacist who serves as police minister in the new Jewish supremacist government of Israel, today made a provocative visit to the “Temple Mount” — the Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem — that ought to alarm the world. Some Jewish Israeli extremists, including some in Ben-Gvir’s camp, actually want to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock shrine. These extremist views are not typically represented in the western media.

“The New York Times” realized it had to report the year-end casualty statistics for Palestinians in the West Bank, the highest toll since 2005.
So it looked for a way to shift attention away from the major perpetrators — the Israeli military and Jewish settler/colonists — and put it on the Palestinians.

In two reports from Israel, NPR’s Daniel Estrin interviews three Jewish Israelis about the conflict and Zero Palestinians and characterizes the outgoing government as “liberal” when it killed hundreds of Palestinians this year. Estrin also grants prominence to fears about the new government banning soccer games on Saturday. Such reporting, based entirely inside the Israeli Jewish experience, reflects anti-Palestinian framing and ought to be an embarrassment to any mainstream American outlet.

It was big news when Elon Musk suspended the Twitter accounts of at least nine tech journalists last week (over alleged dox-ing) and then reinstated them this week after Twitter users demanded their reinstatement. But in yet another demonstration of anti-Palestinianism in the U.S. mainstream, there has been scarcely any attention given to the arbitrary suspension of Said Arikat, a fixture at the State Department briefings as the longtime Washington correspondent for Al-Quds newspaper, a Palestinian publication.

The new UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, has recently come under attack by a host of pro-Israel actors, including the supposedly free Israeli press. 

Israel’s steady lurch to the right is a predictable outcome for a country founded on Jewish supremacy and discrimination against Palestinians. 

This election could also be viewed as the outcome of longstanding antidemocratic forces, an inheritance from fascistic leaders like Vladimir “Ze’ev” Jabotinsky, rabbis like Meir Kahane,  the unwillingness of sequential Israeli governments (left to right) to control a violent and rabid settler movement, and even the consequences of the Zionist movement itself which preached not only Jewish nationalism, but Jewish supremacy.