Not an Analogy: Israel and the Crime of Apartheid

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Not an Analogy: Israel and the Crime of Apartheid

by Hazem Jamjoum

Excerpts

Israel and the Crime of Apartheid

In terms of law, describing Israel as an apartheid state does not revolve around levels of difference and similarity with the policies and practices of the South African Apartheid regime, and where Israel is an apartheid state only insofar as similarities outweigh differences. In 1973, the UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (General Assembly resolution 3068 (4) - entered into force 18 July 1976 - the year of the Soweto uprising in South Africa and the Land Day uprising in Palestine) with a universal definition of the crime of apartheid not limited to the borders of South Africa. The fact that apartheid is defined as a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court(5), which entered into force in 2002 - long after the Apartheid regime was defeated in South Africa - attests to the universality of the crime.

While the wording of the definition of the crime of apartheid varies between legal instruments, the substance is the same: a regime commits apartheid when it institutionalizes discrimination to create and maintain the domination of one 'racial' group over another. Karine Mac Allister, among others, has provided a cogent legal analysis of the applicability of the crime of apartheid to the Israeli regime.(6) The main point is that like genocide and slavery, apartheid is a crime that any state can commit, and institutions, organizations and/or individuals acting on behalf of the state that commit it or support its commission are to face trial in any state that is a signatory to the Convention, or in the International Criminal Court. It is therefore a fallacy to ground the Israeli apartheid label on comparisons of the policies of the South African Apartheid regime, with the resulting descriptions of Israel as being 'Apartheid-like' and characterizations of an apartheid analysis of Israel as an 'Apartheid analogy.'

<snip>

The second point worth reiterating is that Israel's regime of apartheid is not limited to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In fact, the core of Israel's apartheid regime is guided by discriminatory legislation in the fields of nationality, citizenship and land ownership, and that was primarily employed to oppress and dispossess those Palestinians who were forcibly displaced in the 1948 Nakba (refugees and internally displaced), as well as the minority who managed to remain within the 'green line' and later became Israeli citizens.(8) Israel's apartheid regime was extended into West Bank and Gaza Strip following the 1967 occupation for the purpose of colonization, and military control over the Palestinians who came under occupation. Using again the example of South Africa, the crime of apartheid was not limited to the Bantustans; the whole regime was implicated and not one or another of its racist manifestations.

The analysis of Israel as an apartheid state has proven to be very important in several respects. First, it correctly highlights racial discrimination as a root cause of Israel's oppression of Palestinians. Second, one of the main effects of Israeli apartheid is that it has separated Palestinians - conceptually, legally and physically - into different groupings (refugees, West Bank, Gaza, within the 'green line' and a host of other divisions within each), resulting in the fragmentation of the Palestinian liberation movement, including the solidarity movement. The apartheid analysis enables us to provide a legal and conceptual framework under which we can understand, convey, and take action in support of the Palestinian people and their struggle as a unified whole. Third, and of particular significance to the solidarity movement, this legal and conceptual framework takes on the prescriptive role underpinning the growing global movement for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/31-15

[GoesTo11]

1. Occupation is different than apartheid

The article's charge boils down to the fact that status of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is different than the status of Palestinian and Jewish Israeli citizens (who have almost identical legal treatment other than military service obligations). That is apartheid if you accept that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel, but otherwise it's a product of occupation. Not to defend occupation, but the legal issues are entirely different. The article claims to be about international law, but doesn't give any real legal argument. Neither does its source article.

[HamdenRice]

2. South Africa's leading experts on apartheid toured Israel/WB & agree-it's like apartheid

but worse.

These are South Africans who were some of the foremost legal experts on apartheid during the apartheid years. It's pretty obvious that they are very similar, but as the South Africans concluded, the situation in I/P is actually worse.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Desmond Tutu called it apartheid

and he ought to know.