Apartheid is the right word for Israel
Kerry’s address, delivered on April 25 in New York, was supposed to be a private affair, but a reporter who had crashed the event nevertheless reported the comments the following Sunday. Although Kerry’s remarks were couched in elaborate diplomatic qualifications, the description nevertheless went viral.
Kerry was not the first to refer to Israel in that way, but he probably was the first American official to do so while still in office. In addition, 2014 being an election year in the US, his opponents and rivals seized upon the comments to curry favor with the pro-Israel lobby in the US and discredit him and the Obama administration during the election campaign. Republicans and Tea Party hopefuls, even some Democrats, jumped on the wagon of denouncing Kerry.
Faced with the shrill and orchestrated outcry by the Israeli lobby, Kerry later backtracked somewhat. The US State Department issued an apology the following day saying that he Kerry had used the “wrong word” in comments to a closed-door meeting of the Trilateral Commission of private sector leaders from North America, Europe and Asia. It was interesting that he did not retract the general thrust of his idea, only that he used the “wrong” word.
Despite Kerry’s attempts to soften the impact of his comments, “apartheid” is the right characterization of the Israeli system, especially if the stalemate with the Palestinians continues and Israel continues to rule millions of Palestinians, who are disenfranchised politically, economically and socially.
Most people around the world have already come to the same conclusion as Kerry has, including some senior Israeli officials from left and right. For example, former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak was more blunt than Kerry. In February 2010, while serving as Israel’s minister of defense, Barak warned that the failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish majority or an “apartheid” regime: “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
Earlier, a more conservative Israeli politician had also warned Israelis of a similar fate. In November 2007, then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview with an Israeli newspaper that Israel was “finished” if it forced the Palestinians into a struggle for equal rights. In particular, if the two-state solution collapsed, Israel would “face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.”
Outside Israeli mainstream politics, most people have believed for some time that Israel is already an apartheid state, or getting very close to it.
It is important to classify the Israeli system in this manner because the classification has serious legal, political and diplomatic consequences. First of all, apartheid is defined as a crime against humanity. Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity in its Article 7 and includes “apartheid” among them in section (j) of that article. It defines it in the second part of the article as “The ‘crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”
In many ways, this definition implicates Israel already, although some of its supporters would argue that it does not. Human rights groups, in and outside Israel, have documented the laws passed by Israel and the actions it has taken in the occupied territories to disenfranchise Palestinians. They leave no doubt that the Israeli system possesses all the important characteristics of an apartheid system.
As Israel stonewalls in the peace negotiations, while continuing its oppression of the Palestinians and isolating them in Bantustan-like communities surrounded by clusters of settlements and a separation wall, it could become a replica of South Africa during apartheid years, or worse, if that can be imagined. In addition to political and legal disenfranchisement, the bifurcated system for access to land, water and jobs makes the similarities between the two regimes more compelling.
The disenfranchisement is completed by land confiscation and destruction of Palestinian livelihoods, all of which imposed by military force. Discrimination in the so-called “right of return” is another case in point: Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, millions of Palestinians have been expelled or denied the right of return to their homes, while millions of Jews have been encouraged and supported by the state to emigrate to Israel and the occupied territories.
In 2007, John Dugard, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine, said in a lengthy report about the situation in the occupied territories: “Elements of the Israeli occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law.” He suggested that the “legal consequences of a prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid” be put to the International Court of Justice.
The current discussions in Israel about adding more restrictions on Israel’s Arab citizens and declaring a state for Jews only, should convince the few remaining doubters that Israel has become an apartheid state.
Email: [email protected]
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point of view
