Is Israel an apartheid society?

Page last updated 23 Oct 2015

Introduction

The use of the term “apartheid” to describe Israel is now common in the Palestine solidarity movement. There has been a stormy debate, over a decade and more, as to whether it is helpful to use the term in the Israeli context – see the apartheid section of our “Israeli Society and Politics – What kind of society?” page for arguments for and against its use.

Critics say the analogy is plain wrong and therefore its use can only be malign: to delegitimate, demonise and apply double standards to use Sharansky’s 3-D test of criticism of Israel (see Introduction to Is criticism of Israel antisemitic?) that goes beyond what is acceptable. Ultimately, for many of these critics, the use of the term “apartheid” is antisemitic.

Those who argue for applying the term to Israel generally acknowledge the differences from the South African case but argue that a wider definition of apartheid, enshrined in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, UN General Assembly Resolution 3068, 30 Nov 1973, covers the Israeli case well. South Africans, too, have been prominent in drawing analogies between living under the two regimes and their voices have been important. In particular, it is experience at the checkpoints that has led South Africans to say that it is “worse than apartheid”. For in South Africa, while non-whites had to carry passes, there was generally freedom of movement in the sense that you could go anywhere unless and until you were called on to produce your pass. Control in general was by post hoc police raid, in a general search for “illegal” migrants in urban areas where they were not supposed to be. Control over movement within Palestine and between Palestine and Israel is far more rigorous and rigidly totalitarian on a daily basis than it was under South African apartheid.

The use of the term “apartheid” to draw analogies from South Africa about strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been criticised because the social forces at work locally, regionally and internationally are so different. The one analogy made that finds a wide response is the boycott call. Memories of the success of the Boycott South Africa movement are strong (even if its effect is over-rated) and there is no doubt that the apartheid analogy is used to bolster support for a similar strategy with regard to Israel. But BDS – Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions – has much deeper roots than simply being a copycat version of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Boycotts against injustice have long historical roots (remember the origins of the term lie in the refusal of the Irish Land League to harvest crops on the estate where Captain Boycott was land agent in 1880). It is therefore not an antisemitic singling-out-Israel-unfairly campaign in inspiration, though some have tried to argue that it is this in effect (especially with regard to the academic boycott campaign). See BDS and antisemitism for more on this.

The articles below, all posted on the JfJfP website, give links to those who use the analogy to mobilise support and those who argue against it. It is the reality they all describe that delegitimises Israel, rather than whether “apartheid” is the best term to capture this reality…

1. Tutu urges Presbyterians to name Israel an apartheid state
Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, JfJfP 15 Jun 2014