Zionism with Stephen Darori: Jared Sacks a Self-hating' Jew's and self proclaim...

Zionism with Stephen Darori: Jared Sacks a Self-hating' Jew's and self proclaim...: The below Co-opt was written by the Jared Sacks and published in the Mail & Guardian. The worst type of Anti Semite is a Jewish One . K...

Jared Sacks a Self-hating' Jew's and self proclaimed .Anti Zionist's Guide to answering Zionist talking points

The below Co-opt was written by the Jared Sacks and published in the Mail & Guardian. The worst type of Anti Semite is a Jewish One . Know your enemy's arguments better than they do. Sacks counter arguments are with reading and thinking about. Personally I think Sacks touches are simplistic and are based on a Utopian Fantasy that does not exist in Zion or for that matter anywhere in the Middle East.

I am disturbed by Sacks ignorance. Sure Hamas and it side kick terrorist cronies favor a One State Solution . That will only happy Mr. Sacks if the Jewish Population in Greater Israelis annihilated as the PLO and Hamas covenants call for .... is that what you want and are advocating Jared Sacks. ... another Holocaust and Mr Sacks ... absolutely no party in the Palestinian-Israeli Solution now believe that the Two State Fantasy still is possible. The Two State Solution was an  academic  solution put forward by Shimon Peres  blazer squad of assistants... Uri Savir, Yossi Belllin, Avrum Burg, Amnon  Rubinstain, Ramon, Yossi Sarid , etc all of whom had their 5 minutes in the spotlight ( some a lot more as Members of the Knesset) and then fading a back into the obscurity of academia.There were already too many impediments and even more today. There are almost 600,000 Jews Living in the Shomron and Judea + 350,000 living over the Green Line in Jerusalem and that figure increased by 6-8% annually..

Zion has never entered into direct discussions with Hamas or Fatah  and will never negotiate their demise with terrorist organisations .Israel doesnot negotiate with terrorist. No in the past.Not in the presence. Never in the future.

A 'self-hating' Jew Guide to answering Zionist talking points

30 JUL 2014 00:00 JARED SACKS

A growing number of Jews in Israel and around the world are standing with the Palestinians in their struggle for justice in the Gaza conflict.

I grew up being indoctrinated by Zionists throughout my life. As a child, I was told that the state of Israel is somehow “necessary” to prevent another Holocaust. I was also told that Palestine/Israel was empty and uninhabited when Jews began emigrating there in the late 1800s, and was still sparsely populated after World War II. I was taught that the Jews are a chosen people with the right to their own homeland.

Eventually, however, I started to see the contradictions and began questioning this ideology.

Every time I make my views on Zionism heard, there is a backlash from Zionist Jews who know me and who take it as their responsibility to educate me – as though I am somehow naive about the history of the colonisation of Palestine.

I often hear arguments such as, “… but Hamas uses children as human shields” or “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East”. Eventually, when these arguments are addressed, I’m inevitably dismissed or declared a “self-hating Jew”. But as someone born into a Jewish background, with the knowledge of thousands of years of persecution that this entails, it is also my obligation to identify with the persecution of others – especially if it is being done in the name of my ethnic identity.

When on the receiving end of Zionist-based arguments, I believe it is important to respond fully by putting the violence in the necessary historical context of a long history of Western colonialism and imperialism, rather than an exception to this story.

This is the only way to really understand why there are no two equal sides to the conflict, which is an issue of oppression and resistance to that oppression.

Rebutting Zionist arguments
Here is a condensed and oversimplified summary that one can use to answer an apologist for the Zionist occupation of Palestine.

1) At its core, we have to see Zionism as a nationalist ideology – the belief that a certain people or nation is superior; in other words “the chosen people”. It is not different to any other type of nationalism except that, in this case, the ideology is sometimes buttressed by religious justifications as well. All forms of nationalism that are based on a dominant culture that identifies a particular race or ethnic group as superior to another is by definition racist. Afrikaner nationalism in South Africa is a good example of this type of ethnocultural ideology and what happens when it gains state power.

2) We must also recognise that before the British took control of the area now named Palestine/Israel, it was under the control of the Ottoman Empire. So it is true that there was no such country called “Palestine”. However, it is also true that there was no country called South Africa before the Dutch arrived.

But just like in South Africa, there were lots of people there – the area was highly populated.

Who lived there at the time? There were a few Jewish and Druze communities who had lived there for thousands of years but, for the most part, the populace was almost entirely made up of Muslims and Christians who today identify as Palestinians. The combination of Jews, Druze, Christians and Muslims who lived in the area before the British took over can together be considered the indigenous population of Palestine as they had been there for thousands of years.

3) Zionism was begun in earnest in 1897 by a small group of European Jews organised around their leader Theodor Herzl. Herzl wanted a Jewish-only homeland. But in the aftermath of the Holocaust, Zionism took greater root and resulted in hundreds of thousands of European and Middle Eastern Jews, and later millions of Eastern European Jews, moving to Palestine. This mass influx of people was similar to the settler-colonialism of the Dutch and British as well as other European countries that colonised countries in Africa and the Americas. Settler-colonialism must be understood as the core of the conflict.

4) The British encouraged Jews to colonise the Palestinian protectorate to act as a buffer between the indigenous population and the British political system. This was done in the same way as Indians were used as a political buffer in many settler colonies such as Kenya. However, this backfired for the British when Zionist organisations began an armed campaign against the British, which included acts of terrorism against the local Muslim and Christian population.

5) The two-state solution must be recognised as a nationalist solution and therefore racist. It is the equivalent of South Africa being divided into a white state and a black state. These divisions were the aims of South African apartheid as well as settler colonialism in general. Anticolonial thinkers such as Frantz Fanon and Mahmood Mamdani have written in depth about the separate white and black colonial states operating together to serve the political and economic interests of whites. The two-state solution has been constructed to ensure that Israel maintains the land and natural resource gains of their colonialism.

6) The ideal solution, I believe, is for a single state – not based on religion and ethnicity, but with a constitution that guarantees equal rights for all. This single state would include what is now Israel and all of the occupied Palestinian territories. It must include the right of return for all Palestinians who used to live within those borders.

That is the only non-racist solution to the conflict, even though it accepts Jews who emigrated to and colonised Palestine as legitimate residents. This model was the ANC’s solution to colonialism and apartheid. It was also the Pan Africanist Congress’s solution (though the PAC always maintained that it reserved the right to the land for blacks first and foremost). The original Palestinian resistance through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s favoured a one-state solution.

Much of Palestinian civil society still favours this solution. Both Fatah and Hamas favour this solution. Israel as a racist Jewish-first state has no place in a world based on equal rights for all.

7) That said, while the one-state solution is the ideal solution, the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders might be a feasible compromise despite its acquiescence to racist nationalism. Much of Palestinian society and both Hamas and Fatah are willing to agree to a two-state solution because they may see it as the only viable option. However, the reality of massive and growing Israeli settlements in the West Bank are quickly making a two-state solution a practical impossibility.

8) The Israeli state is content to prop up Fatah as a representative of the Palestinians even as Fatah loses more and more of their popular legitimacy. Fatah is known to be a corrupt organisation, and much of its leadership has been co-opted by Israel. It only survives because Israel strengthens it financially, politically and militarily. Hamas is problematic in many respects and certainly isn’t a progressive organisation, but they do have popular legitimacy.

9) The Palestinian resistance against Israel’s occupation is not only up against the Israeli army, which by itself is one of the strongest armies in the world. Israel is allied with the United States and Egypt – and the fact that Fatah and Hamas are effectively ignored by the majority of Arab states, which do not dare risk their cosy relationships with the US, means they are economically and politically isolated. For instance, the eight-year blockade against Gaza would be weakened significantly if Egypt were not complicit.

10) The war in Gaza needs this background. Some months before the current fighting started, Hamas and Fatah put aside their differences and formed a unity government. They know that the only way to negotiate a solution – even a two-state solution – is to unite politically so that together they can represent all Palestinians in negotiations with the Israeli state.

11) The Israeli political establishment, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, rejected this unity government and broke off the peace talks. It threatened to withhold all aid to the Fatah government in the West Bank if it did not break off the pact with Hamas – which Israel labels “terrorists” – to avoid genuine negotiations. To Fatah’s credit, it refused Netanyahu’s demands. The pact favoured Fatah and would essentially give it political control over Hamas in negotiations with Israel.

12) This is why Netanyahu used the killing of three Israeli teenagers, for which he falsely blamed Hamas, as a pretext for outright repression in the West Bank. This sparked the recent Gaza fighting. It should be noted that almost every time there is progress in peace negotiations, Israel typically attacks Gaza or Hezbollah-controlled parts of Lebanon.

13) Based on the fact that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied territories that are economically and politically controlled by Israel – and where there is no freedom for its residents – I believe they have the absolute right to fight for that freedom. I personally do not think Hamas’s rockets are a productive strategy of resistance, but it still has the right to respond in such a manner – as does any liberation movement against colonialism.

14) Based on this sociopolitical history, the argument over whether or not the Israeli army employs a disproportionate use of force is largely irrelevant. It is a situation of colonisation, where Palestinians are resisting the occupation of a coloniser, and therefore any act maintaining the occupation is by definition disproportionate and illegitimate. Yet it is still worth stating the latest statistics – at the time of writing – to show where most of the violence is coming from:

• The Israeli army has killed more than 1 283 Palestinians. According to the United Nations, approximately 80% of those killed are civilians.
• A UN agency is housing 167 269 displaced Palestinians.
• Rocket fire from Gaza has killed two Israeli civilians and a Thai migrant worker.
• About 43 Israeli soldiers have been killed in combat, all as a result of the army’s ground invasion.
• More Gazan children were killed in the first week of bombing than the total number of Israelis killed by Hamas rockets in the past 13 years.
• Israel has bombed schools, hospitals, a clinic for the disabled, a UN refugee centre and more.

15) The standards claimed by Zionists against the “terrorists” have no basis. Warning Gaza residents that their home or hospital or school is about to be bombed is a useless endeavour. It is a superficial way of making them look as though they’re conducting the war in a humanitarian way. But it doesn’t stop the increasing deaths because the residents of Gaza have nowhere to escape.

16) The argument that Hamas is using human shields has no weight. There is no evidence that this is actually occurring en masse. Gaza is tiny – about the size of the Cape Flats. It is one of the most densely populated places on the planet. There is no place where Hamas could stockpile arms away from a population centre. Furthermore, the Israeli army could also be accused of using human shields. Israel is so militarised that nearly every Israeli bus or fast-food joint has armed soldiers – soldiers are ubiquitous in Israeli society.

Yes, it is tragic that Palestinian children are growing up learning about the virtues of violence firsthand, but that is the nature of the occupation and the world in which we live. When I was a child, my family took me on tours of army bases in the US and in Israel so we could see the “amazing” military force they have. In retrospect, that too was disgusting.

17) The most disturbing part of this saga is the assertion that an Israeli life is worth much more than the life of a Palestinian. Zionists want to try to turn the tables and blame it all on Hamas. Yet who is really killing whom? The numbers of the dead and injured speak for themselves: at least 800 Palestinian civilians to only three Israeli civilians – 266:1.

18) Given all the above, supporting the political and economic isolation of Israel is the only way that people of conscience outside Palestine-Israel can pressure the Israeli government not only into stopping the massacre of Gaza but also into relinquishing its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

The issue is not really about extensive violence or lack of peace. When the Israeli army is not bombing Gaza, Israel and the occupied territories are relatively safe places to live when compared with much of Latin America or South Africa.

The call for peace negotiations is a decoy. Instead, the issue is oppression stemming from occupation and colonialism. Hamas’s supposed terrorism (the real terrorism actually comes from Israel) is a nonissue and merely an excuse for Israel to continue its occupation. Colonial subjects have every right to resist as every legitimate anticolonial movement has done so in the past.

It is up to Israel to relinquish its occupation. And it is up to people of conscience to support the Palestinians to force Israel to relinquish their occupation. It is that part of the conflict that is simple and there is no moral equivalence there.

19) If one is not able to see this conflict as one that is about colonialism and therefore not an issue of a two-sided conflict but about the resistance of people against occupation and oppression, then it is simply because one is emotionally connected to Zionist ideology.

It is sad that many Jews have not yet learned about the pitfalls of nationalism, particularly after it ravaged our people during the Holocaust. When the Nazis forced more than 400 000 Polish Jews into a tiny corner of Warsaw that became known as the Warsaw Ghetto, many residents of the ghetto began an armed resistance campaign.

Some of the Jewish survivors of this resistance, including Chavka Fulman-Raban, have denounced the occupation on a similar basis – comparing the open-air prison that Jews were forced into in Warsaw with the effective imprisonment of 1.8-million people in Gaza.

When we as Jews say “never again” to another Holocaust, it must hold for all people, not just Jews. I, for one, will never keep quiet while my people are complicit in the subjugation of anyone else, particularly when it is based on racist and nationalist ideology. It is, however, encouraging that an increasing number of Jews in Israel and worldwide are standing with the Palestinians in their struggle for justice.

Zionism with Stephen Darori: Yiddish Compliments of People

Zionism with Stephen Darori: Yiddish Compliments of People:  Yiddish has many ways to say something nice about someone… Aishet Chayil: Today, the term "woman of valor" is reserved for...

Yiddish Compliments of People

 Yiddish has many ways to say something nice about someone…

Aishet Chayil: Today, the term "woman of valor" is reserved for women who are activists, philanthropists, and community leaders… even if the text of the 33rd chapter of Proverbs praises a homemaker extraordinaire, a Martha Stewart type, as exemplary.

Badchan: This the high-spirited, genial, clever emcee of a Jewish wedding reception, who moves the guests from one aspect of the event to the next, calls up those who are to speak, and generally keeps the party rolling. Can be generalized to a skilled host of, say, the Oscars.

Balebus: From the Hebrew "ba'al habayit," or "master of the house," and pronounced "Bahl-a-BUS." This is a gracious, welcoming, and considerate host.

Ba'alabusteh: The female equivalent, a hostess. But this term is usually reserved as extremely high praise, for "the hostess with the mostest."

Berye: A virtuoso, an absolute master of one's art or craft.

Boychik: An Americanism, meaning a cute little boy.

B'shert: One's predestined, fated soulmate.

Bubbeleh: One of the most endearing terms of endearment ever, it literally means "little doll."

Chavruta: One's Talmud study-buddy, who often becomes one's BFF.

Chochom: From the Hebrew word for "wisdom," a sage.

Gaon: A title of high respect reserved for the great Talmud scholars and yeshiva heads of the age.

Gadol Hador: Literally meaning "great of the generation," one whose scholarship is combined with a moral rectitude that causes this person to be considered a true leader, a shining light.

Kemfer: Literally, a fighter… but one who fights for a cause; an activist.

Lamed Vovnik: "One of the 36." Jewish tradition has it that the world is allowed to exist due to the merits of 36 living individuals. No one knows who they are, so it is incumbent upon us to treat everyone- no matter how insignificant they may seem to us- as one of these 36. One is called a "Lamed Vovnik" if their actions are so pious as to make it obvious that they must be one of the 36.

Landsman: Someone from the same part of the Old Country as you are. But one is called that as a compliment if he or she helps you on that merit alone, and is otherwise a stranger.

Macher: It means "maker," but an English equivalent might be "a mover and a shaker." One, often pillar of the community, who can "make a few calls" and make major things happen.

Mayven: An expert, a "go-to" person on a particular subject. Often used as an insult for a know-it-all who supposes himself an expert on every subject.

Mechayeh: Only sometimes used for a person, it means "that which gives life" (the root word is "chai"). A cold glass of lemonade on a muggy August day, or someone who has that effect.

Mensch: One of the highest words of praise in all of Yiddish, it literally just means "man." To Yiddish speakers, it means one who represents the highest, best qualities of humanity- not just a human, but a humanitarian. One need not be learned to be a mensch, but considerate in the extreme.

Mishpacha: While the word means "family," it can be used to encompass those friends who feel like family: "Of course your friend can join us! She's mishpacha already."

Oytser: Yiddish for "treasure." A sweetheart, the love of one's life. (NOTE: Make sure not to confuse this word with "oyster.")

Pits'l: "A little piece," used to mean a small, adorable child, as in the English "little bit."

Posek: A rabbi whose decisions are so sought-after and highly regarded that they have the force of precedent. More generally, someone whose opinion- be it legal, medical, technological, etc.- you trust implicitly.

Pupik: Belly button. Yet another word for a cute kid.

Rav, Rebbe: Terms of endearment for one's rabbi.

Schtarker: Related to the word "stark," this is a strong, even muscle-bound, person. Someone you'd want to help you move to your new place.

Shayna Maidel: A "maidel" is a "maiden," but a "shayna maidel" is a pretty one. Most often used by bubbies for their own granddaughters.

Talmid chochom: Not just a "chochom" (see above), but an especially impressive one, who combines both native intelligence and deep study to possess true wisdom.

Tumler: Literally, a "tumbler," and so an "acrobat." But it has been generalized to include all manner of jesters, jokesters, and physical comedians (think Chris Farley, not Chris Rock).

Tzadik: Take a "tamid chochom" (see above) and who is also a "mensch" (see above) and you have a "tzadik." It is someone who possesses both scholarship and compassion in excess.

Tzutzik: An ambitious person, one who is admired for industriousness. A hustler, in the positive sense.

Yingel: A "young-ling." Also a cute kid- but not a baby, more a toddler.

Zeiskeit: Literally, "sweetness." Someone so sweet, they are the very definition of the word. Again, usually used for children.

The list of Yiddish compliments makes clear what the values of Judaism are- while having a big brain is highly regarded, the highest of praises are reserved for those with big hearts. As Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel observed: "When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I am old, I admire kind people."

There is incitement that is done by the [Palestinian] leadership and you see it in the Palestinian media. Other than that I don’t see a source that is guiding the terrorism.

– Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, IDF Chief of Staff, February 9, 2015.2

The latest wave of Palestinian violence against Jews is something new, an insidious wave of seemingly un-orchestrated attacks, perpetrated by unlikely assailants, and generally untraceable to any particular organization. They were also characterized by brutality, viciousness and randomness, and the purposeful use of the knife, to drive home the intent of bringing a new and unrelenting wave of slaughter to the Jews; a message to all Israelis that neither they, nor their children, will ever be able to live in this land in peace.

The Palestinian president and those under his authority are indeed instructing young Palestinians what to do. Not sending them into battle as soldiers, but goading them into action through deliberate messaging, distortion and fabrication, sometimes stated openly by senior Palestinian officials, but mostly insidiously, aimed at keeping the conflict alive and portraying the Palestinians as the victims in a whitewash of terror.

There is a guiding hand in all this, the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian faction that leads it, Fatah. What is being witnessed today is the end-game of a strategy adopted by Fatah in 2009 and culminating in Mahmoud Abbas’ speech to the UN General Assembly on September 30, 2015, when he announced that the Palestinians are no longer bound by the Oslo (peace) Accords.

A television broadcast that sends a youth on his/her mission of death is part of a carefully calibrated policy of incitement and cynicism, which has brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a new level, one that generates terror without fingerprints, but which adroitly serves Fatah’s strategy of an endless war of attrition, by varying means, against Israel.

While the current wave of violence has succeeded in placing the Palestinian issue back on the international agenda to some degree, it has lost the Palestinians a valuable asset: the Israeli political center. Israelis have lost trust in the Palestinians and their leaders, even those Israelis who believe that Israel should relinquish the territories as part of a peace agreement between the sides.

No society can live in fear and with anarchy at its doorstep, where suspicion lurks at every turn.

And no society can live with and tolerate the hatred being spewed against them, via social media and other means, with calumnies and lies reminiscent of the dark days that led to even darker days in the not-too-distant past of the Jewish people.

Israel will learn and adapt to this new situation as it has done in the past. The question is whether the Palestinian leadership will do the same and come around to understanding that the monster they have created, a generation of children led to believe in the culture of death, is not in their own best interest.

Israel can control the damage, but only Fatah and the PA can end it, and it is they, the Palestinian leadership, who have to do so if the path to negotiation and conciliation is to be opened again, and this endless and senseless wave of violence extinguished.

Zionism and Israel Illiteracy among under 30 yearsolds in the Us and elsewhere in the Diaspora is at an all time low

Forty-five years ago in New York, a 20-something Malcolm Hoenlein had a remarkable meeting with Israeli deputy prime minister Yigal Alon, who chose Hoenlein, already a proven leader, to deliver a message to American Jewry.

\Back then, Alon’s message was clear: “Tell American Jews, keep your money here [in the US], if you’ll invest it in Jewish education. You’ll do more for Israel’s future if you raise your generations and invest the money there. Don’t give it to Israel.”

At the time of the meeting, Hoenlein was the founding executive director of the Greater New York Conference on Soviet Jewry, and fresh from his role as the chairman of the North American Jewish Student Network, which he’d also helped establish.

Alon’s words were not heeded, and today more than $2 billion in Jewish philanthropic money reaches Israel annually — and the US day school network is crumbling while ignorance of Israeli and Jewish

“The problem is, if we didn’t send the money here [to Israel], they would not invest it in Jewish education,” said Hoenlein, who since 1986 has served as the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, an umbrella organization of some 50-plus Jewish groups.

He told this anecdote and many others in a recent mostly off-record two-hour meeting in The Times of Israel’s Jerusalem offices ahead of the Conference’s annual meet-up.

Hoenlein, a one-time educator himself, bemoaned the ignorance so prevalent among the very populace that is being targeted by anti-Israel activists — college students.

The roots of these students’ Israel illiteracy are there before they hit campus, Hoenlein said, even though many, if not most, Jewish young adults aged 18-27 have participated in some kind of Israel experience program.

Birthright, he said, cannot be the only solution for “young people, who don’t know much, whom we ignore as Jews for the first 18 years of their lives, and send them to Israel for two weeks, and say we can make them Jews and educate them to do everything.”

The world’s first GPS — the Bible

Hoenlein said that if young Jews are to sustain their association with the Jewish community, it is important that they appreciate Judaism’s beauty and tradition. Educators must utilize other aspects of Israel, including archaeology, to contextualize Jewish history and make it tangible.

“They find a stone with a carving of the menorah that somebody who was in the Temple drew, and then just threw away, saying, ‘I’m not schlepping this home.’ You find all the things that for a hundred years they’d looked for, all of a sudden, now, everything tangible proof. Irrefutable because it’s there — you can go and touch it and see it,” he said.

A seal impression of King Hezekiah unearthed in the Ophel excavations at the foot of the southern wall of the Temple Mount, conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Institute of Archaeology (ourtesy of Eilat Mazar; photo by Ouria Tadmor)

“Who talks to our young kids and says, ‘You have doubts? You want to know our history? Here, take a Bible — it’s a GPS.’ Just go into the City of David, into Jerusalem, into the tunnels, the digs. How can you ignore this? God is sending you a message that for 2,000 years he hid all these things. And now, our generation gets it, and we just sit there and say, ‘Oh well, another thing and so what?'”

Hoenlein cited studies that, he said, “show that young Jews know very little.”

“They don’t know the history and don’t do much better than non-Jews on a lot of these questions. You ask them what happened in 1948, they have no clue. You ask them who Ben-Gurion is, 80 percent of them don’t know. Ask them who Natan Sharansky is, they don’t know,” he said.

“The biggest danger we face is a historic danger that Moshe Rabbeinu already pointed out — that the greatest danger to the Jewish people is apathy, indifference and ignorance,” said Hoenlein.


‘The greatest danger to the Jewish people is apathy, indifference and ignorance’

According to a November 2015 report from the Israel Literacy Measurement Project, over half of Birthright Israel applicants polled do not have “the requisite knowledge to participate in productive conversations about Israel.”

The team of Brandeis University researchers who worked on the study reported feeling “surprised that Jewish graduate students, including some who were training to become Jewish professional leaders, lacked some of the foundational knowledge that would equip them to engage in Israel-related activity and education.”


Perhaps even more surprising is the minimal impact of a serious grade-school Jewish education on students’ performance: Students who had Jewish education (part-time, day school, or both) got 47% of answers correct on average, compared to 42% among those who had no Jewish education.
‘When you don’t believe in something, you’ll fall for anything’

Such ignorance on key points in Jewish and Israeli history, Hoenlein said, is particularly dangerous today, when the battle for public opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fought in so many liberal forums on campus, including the gay rights movement and Black Lives Matter.


Anti-Israel protesters disrupt an event with the Jerusalem Open House at the LGBTQ Task Force’s Creating Change Conference in Chicago, Friday, January 22, 2016. (YouTube screenshot)

“We really have a generation who are ignorant — there’s a country song that when you don’t believe in something, you’ll fall for anything. And they fall for anything because they don’t know anything. They don’t have any kind of core foundation,” he said.

That may be the result of a Jewish education that is limping along on what seems like its last legs in all but the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities. Day schools, which were once the core of formative Jewish education, are in widespread financial trouble or deemed unaffordable for an increasing cross-section of American Jews.

A merger of five North American Jewish day school organizations and networks was announced in January. Representing more than 375 schools from across the denominational spectrum, the new organization proclaimed that the merger “recognizes that a combined day school organization will more effectively meet the diverse needs of local schools by pooling the talent, expertise and resources originally dispersed among its founding agencies.”


American Jewish day school students studying outside. (Courtesy of Hillel Day School/JTA)

Hoenlein said some will see the merger as signaling a decline, but perhaps it can strengthen their efforts. Still, there are few programs currently available to “arm” students before reaching the anti-Israel frontline on campus, although the Conference of Presidents has pushed for the creation of an upcoming high school curriculum of Israel study from Bar-Ilan University.

“When kids come to campus, for the most part they are not prepared to respond,” said Hoenlein. “Anti-Semitism and anti-Israel movements on campus are a very serious issue. That 75% of American Jewish kids said they’ve experienced or witnessed anti-Semitic events on campus — it should be an alarm bell for all of us, but it’s not.”

According to a July 2015 report using Birthright applicants’ data, three-quarters of students polled reported hearing anti-Semitic comments on campus. The most commonly heard statements were that Jews have too much power (52%), that Israelis behave “like Nazis” toward Palestinians (44%) and that the Holocaust was a myth or exaggerated (37%).
Time to ‘shake things up from the bottom’

Hoenlein warned that even off campus, American Jews are not “immune from physical dangers.” He reported seeing an anecdotal increase in hostility against American Jews.

“In France 80% of the attacks go unreported. I’m saying to you the same thing is true in America. Is it a plague? No. Is it France? No,” said Hoenlein, but it’s a different America from a decade ago.


‘In France 80% of the attacks go unreported. I’m saying to you the same thing is true in America’

Now is the time to “shake things up from the bottom,” said Hoenlein, to offer Jewish students more options for engagement — before they disengage unilaterally.


Lack of engagement of American Jewish youth has a ripple affect on any potential reliance Israel may have on their future support. A July 2015 Jewish People Policy Institute report noted glaring discrepancies between younger (under 30) and older American Jews’ attitudes to the threats against Israel.

Asked if Israel’s enemies constitute an existential threat, only 70% of the under-30 participants said yes, versus almost 90% of older participants.

One explanation for the decline in almost unilateral support for Israel is found in aBrandeis study, “US Jewish Young Adults React to the Gaza Conflict.” Published just after the 2014 Gaza war, it concluded that young Jewish adults show “nuance and the ability to think of both sides” in the Israel-Hamas conflict. The report also cited other data pointing to a trend that American Jews aged 18-29 are disproportionately liberal in their political views (two-thirds), in comparison to the broader US population of the same age group (one-third).

Prof. Leonard Saxe, head of Brandeis University’s Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, explained that findings to The Times of Israel in 2014, saying, “People thought what Israel did was justified and felt a strong connection to the country. But, at the same time, they were as concerned about the loss of Palestinian lives as Israeli lives.”


A Palestinian man rides his horse through the rubble of buildings, reportedly destroyed during the 50-day war between Israel and Hamas in the summer of 2014, in Gaza City on July 21, 2015 (AFP PHOTO / MOHAMMED ABED)

This nuanced look at the conflict is found on campuses today, where many students remain unwilling to give blanket support to a pro-Israel group that “ignores” the Palestinian struggle. And for his part, Hoenlein doesn’t expect students to be staunchly pro-Israel on every issue.

“But legitimate criticism doesn’t lead to ostracism, legitimate criticism should lead to engagement. The issue is, do you know what the basic facts are? Do you understand the threats that Israel faces? And do you understand the context in which these things are happening?” he said.

When students do have a grasp of the facts behind the complex nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, then they can be critical, said Hoenlein.


‘In most cases, you ask them about the things that they are protesting, and they haven’t got a clue’

“But in most cases, you ask them about the things that they are protesting, and they haven’t got a clue,” he said.

There are several groups on campus that harness ambivalent Jewish students’ desire for activism, including the more extremist Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine. But there is also the more moderate, but critical of Israel, campus wing of J Street, an organization Hoenlein labeled as “fringe” at The Times of Israel meeting.

“J Street offers an opportunity that shows that Jewish students do want to have an association with the Jewish community. They want to have something. So we have to provide a constructive one for them,” he said.

“I believe in the smorgasbord approach: We have to give something to every student so that he should find a way into the community, into Jewish life. It means that there will be some things that we’re more comfortable, some things that we’re less comfortable with. And hopefully it can be done through Hillel,” said Hoenlein.

“But we can’t bend the truth; we can’t sacrifice the truth to increase our appeal,” he added.

With the perspective of a Jewish leader who has been serving for half a century, Hoenlein said it’s easy to get a headline if you’re critical of Israel. “Man bites dog, you know.”

“If you support Israel, you just get knocked,” he said. “It’s okay, it’s a price worth paying.
”

Israel and the Apartheid Analogy

Israel and the apartheid analogy is a comparison between Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era, or a comparison of the Israeli concept of hafrada (separation) with the South African concept of apartheid^[1] or the crime of apartheid.

The analogy has been used by some scholars, United Nations investigators, and human rights groups critical of Israeli policy.^[2][3] Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including the ID system, Israeli settlements, separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens around many of these settlements, military checkpoints, marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheaper labour, Palestinian West Bank exclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories, resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, contrary to international law.^[4] Some commentators extend the analogy to include treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class. ^[12]

Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is factually,^[13] morally,^[13] and historically^[14] inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel.^{[1][15][16][17]} Opponents state that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel. They argue that though the internal free movement of Palestinians is heavily regulated by the Israeli government, the territories are governed by the elected Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders, so they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa.^[18][19][20]

With regard to the situation within Israel itself, critics of the analogy argue that Israel cannot be called an apartheid state because unlike South Africa which enshrined its racial segregation policies in law, Israeli law is the same for Jewish citizens and other Israeli citizens, with no explicit distinction between race, creed or sex.^[23]However, others believe that even if Israeli law does not make explicit distinction between categories of citizens, in effect it privileges Jewish citizens and discriminates against non-Jewish, and particularly Arab, citizens of the state, by creating benefits for IDF service, which is not mandatory for Arabs (but is optional).^[24][25][26]

History of the analogy[edit]

In 1961, the South African prime minister, and the architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, Hendrik Verwoerd, dismissed an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations, saying, "Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude ... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."^[27] Since then, a number of sources have used the apartheid analogy in their examination of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In 1967, after the Six-Day War, David Ben-Gurion stated that unless Israel managed to 'rid itself of the territories and their Arab population as soon as possible,' it would become an apartheid state.^[28] In the early 1970s, Arabic language magazines of the PLO and PFLPcompared the Israeli proposals for a Palestinian autonomy to the Bantustan strategy of South Africa.^[27] In 1979 the Palestinian sociologist Elia Zureik argued that while not de jure an apartheid state, Israeli society was characterized by a latent form of apartheid.^[29] The analogy emerged with some frequency in both academic and activist writings in the 1980–90s,^[30] when Uri Davis, Meron Benvenisti, Richard Locke and Anthony Stewart employed the analogy to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

In the 1990s, the analogy gained prominence after Israel, as a result of the Oslo Accords, granted the Palestinians limited self-government in the form of thePalestinian Authority and established a system of permits and checkpoints in the Palestinian Territories. The analogy has gained additional traction following Israel's construction of the West Bank Barrier.^[27] By 2013 the analogy between the West Bank and Bantustans of apartheid-era South Africa was widely drawn in international circles.^[31] Also in the United States, where the notion had previously been taboo, Israel's rule over the occupied territories was increasingly compared to apartheid.^[32][33]

Hafrada[edit]

Main article: Hafrada

Hafrada (Hebrew: הפרדה‎ literally "separation") is the official description of the policy of the government of Israel to separate the Palestinian population in Palestinian territories from the Israeli population.^[34][35][36] In Israel, the term is used to refer to the concept of "segregation" and "separation",^[37][38] and to the general policy of separation the Israeli government has adopted and implemented over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.^{[39][40][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]} The word has been compared to the term "Apartheid" by scholars and commentators.^{[40][46][47][48]}

The Israeli West Bank barrier, (in Hebrew, Geder Ha'hafrada or "separation fence")^[39] the associated controls on the movement of Palestinians posed by West Bank Closures;^[39][41][49] and Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza have been cited as examples of hafrada.^{[39][41][49][50]} Aaron Klieman has distinguished between partition plans based on "hafrada", which he translated as "detachment"; and "hipardut", translated as "disengagement."^[51]

Since its first public introductions, the concept-turned-policy or paradigm has dominated Israeli political and cultural discourse and debate.^[34][38][39]

In 2014, United Nations Special Rapporteur Richard A. Falk used the term in his "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967".^[52][53][54]

International analysis[edit]

Analysis by Adam and Moodley[edit]

Heribert Adam of Simon Fraser University and Kogila Moodley of the University of British Columbia, in their 2005 book-length study Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians, argue the controversy over terminology arises because Israel as a state is unique in the region. Israel is perceived as a Western democracy and is thus likely to be judged by the standards of such a state. Western commentators, too, may feel "a greater affinity to a like minded polity than to an autocratic Third World state."^[55] Israel also claims to be a home for the worldwide Jewish diaspora^[55] and a strategic outpost of the Western world that "is heavily bankrolled by U.S. taxpayers" who can be viewed as sharing a collective responsibility for its behaviors.^[55] Radical Islamists, according to some analysts, "use Israeli policies to mobilize anti-Western sentiment",^[55] leading to a situation in which "(u)nconditional U.S. support for Israeli expansionism potentially unites Muslim moderates with jihadists".^[55]

Adam and Moodley note that Jewish historical suffering has imbued Zionism with a subjective sense of moral validity that the whites ruling South Africa never had: "Afrikaner moral standing was constantly undermined by exclusion and domination of blacks, even subconsciously in the minds of its beneficiaries. In contrast, the similar Israeli dispossession of Palestinians is perceived as self-defense and therefore not immoral."^[56] They also suggest that academic comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa that see both dominant groups as "settler societies" leave unanswered the question of "when and how settlers become indigenous", as well as failing to take into account that Israeli's Jewish immigrants view themselves as returning home.^[57] "In their self-concept, Zionists are simply returning to their ancestral homeland from which they were dispersed two millennia ago. Originally most did not intend to exploit native labor and resources, as colonizers do." Adam and Moodley stress, "because people give meaning to their lives and interpret their worlds through these diverse ideological prisms, the perceptions are real and have to be taken seriously."^[58]

Adam and Moodley argue that notwithstanding universal suffrage within Israel proper, if the occupied Palestinian territories and settler presence are considered part of the entity under analysis, the comparison between a disenfranchised African population in apartheid South Africa and the Palestinians under Israeli occupation gains more validity.^[59]

Adam and Moodley also argue that "apartheid ideologues" who justified their rule by claiming self-defense against "African National Congress (ANC)-led communism" found that excuse outdated after the collapse of the Soviet Union, whereas "continued Arab hostilities sustain the Israeli perception of justifiable self-defense."^[60]

Adam and Moodley contend that the relationship of South African apartheid to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been misinterpreted as justifying suicide bombing and glorifying martyrdom. They argue that the ANC "never endorsed terrorism", and stress "not one suicide has been committed in the cause of a thirty-year-long armed struggle, although in practice the ANC drifted increasingly toward violence during the latter years of apartheid."^[61]

Analysis by international legal team[edit]

In 2009, a comprehensive 18-month independent academic study was completed for the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa for the South African Department of Foreign Affairs on the legal status of Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.^[62] The specific questions examined in the study were whether Israeli policies are consistent with colonialism and apartheid, as these practices and regimes are spelled out in relevant international legal instruments. The second question, regarding apartheid, was the major focus of the study. Authors and analysts contributing to the study included jurists, academics and international lawyers from Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, South Africa, England, Ireland and the United States. The team considered whether human rights law can be applied to cases of belligerent occupation, the legal context in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and related international law and comparative practices. The question of apartheid was examined through a dual approach: reference to international law and comparison to policies and practices by the apartheid regime in South Africa. Initially released as a report, the report was later edited and published in 2012 (by Pluto Press) as Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Regarding international law, the team reported that Israel's practices in the OPT correlate almost entirely with the definition of apartheid as established in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. (The exception was the Convention's reference to genocidal policies, which were not found to be part of Israeli practices, although the team noted that genocide was not the policy in apartheid South Africa either.) Comparison to South African laws and practices by the apartheid regime also found strong correlations with Israeli practices, including violations of international standards for due process (such as illegal detention); discriminatory privileges based on ascribed ethnicity (legally, as Jewish or non-Jewish); draconian enforced ethnic segregation in all parts of life, including by confining groups to ethnic "reserves and ghettoes"; comprehensive restrictions on individual freedoms, such as movement and expression; a dual legal system based on ethno-national identity (Jewish or Palestinian); denationalization (denial of citizenship); and a special system of laws designed selectively to punish any Palestinian resistance to the system.

Thematically, the team concluded that Israel's practices could be grouped into three "pillars" of apartheid comparable to practices in South Africa:

The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews".

The second pillar is reflected in "Israel's 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel's extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians".

The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group."

Crime of apartheid and Israel[edit]

See also: Crime of apartheid

In 1973 the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.^[63] The ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group ... over another racial group ... and systematically oppressing them".^[64] In 2002 the crime of apartheid was further defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as encompassing inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime".^[65]

In a 2007 report, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine John Dugard stated, "elements of the Israeli occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law" and suggested that the "legal consequences of a prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid" be put to the International Court of Justice.^[66]

In 2009 South Africa's statutory research agency the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) published a legal study finding that, "the State of Israel exercises control in the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid." (See under above section,'Analysis by International Legal Team'.)

In 2010 United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine Richard A. Falk reported that criminal apartheid features of the Israeli occupation had been entrenched in the three years since the report of his predecessor, John Dugard.^[67] In March 2011, Falk said, "The continued pattern of settlement expansion in East Jerusalem combined with the forcible eviction of long-residing Palestinians is creating an intolerable situation ... [and] can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing."^[68]

The question of whether Israelis and Palestinians can be said to constitute "racial groups" has been a point of contention in regard to the applicability of the ICSPCA and Article 7 of the Rome Statute. Political writer Ronald Bruce St John has argued that in regards to the ICSPCA Israeli policy in the West Bank cannot technically be defined as apartheid, because it lacks the racial component. However he then states that with the 2002 introduction of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "the emphasis shifts to an identifiable national, ethnic or cultural group, as opposed to a racial group," in which case "Israeli policy in the West Bank clearly constitutes a form of apartheid with an effect on the Palestinian people much the same as apartheid had on the non-White population in South Africa."^[63] The HSRC's 2009 report states that in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Jewish and Palestinian identities are "socially constructed as groups distinguished by ancestry or descent as well as nationality, ethnicity, and religion". On this basis, the study concludes that Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs can be considered "racial groups" for the purposes of the definition of apartheid in international law.^[62]

Activists for Palestinian rights have accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid.^[69] For example, in 2006, at the UN-sponsored International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People, Phyllis Bennis, co-chair of the International Coordinating Network on Palestine, alleged that the crime of apartheid is being committed by Israel.^[70] Likewise, Zahir Kolliah of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid has argued that the indigenous Palestinian population lives under an apartheid regime settler colony as described by the ICSPCA.^[71]

In contrast, according to former Judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa Richard Goldstone, the situation in Israel does not conform to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute. As examples, Goldstone pointed to the facts that Israeli Arabs vote, have political representation in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on the Israeli Supreme Court, and that Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment. According to Goldstone, in Israel equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal, and inequities are often successfully challenged in court.^[72]

Israeli citizenship law[edit]

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law was passed by the Knesset in 2003 as an interim emergency measure after Israel had suffered its worst ever spate of suicide bombings^[73] and after several Palestinians who had been granted permanent residency on the grounds of family reunification took part in terrorist attacks in Israel.^[74] The law makes inhabitants of Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and areas governed by the Palestinian Authority ineligible for the automatic granting of Israeli citizenship and residency permits that is usually available through marriage to an Israeli citizen. This applies equally to a spouse of any Israeli citizen, whether Arab or Jewish, but in practice the law mostly affects Palestinian Israelis living in the towns bordering the West Bank.^[73] The law was intended to be temporary but has since been extended annually.^[75][76]

According to Amnon Rubinstein, a backer of the citizenship law, there are many international precedents for banning citizens of an enemy country in wartime, and with Hamas, which runs the Palestinian Authority, refusing to recognise Israel, that label applies to the Palestinian Authority.^[73]

In formulating the law, the government cited security concerns that terrorist organizations try to enlist Palestinians who have already received or will receive Israeli documentation and that the security services have a hard time distinguishing between Palestinians who might help the terrorists and those who will not.^[77] A representative for the State, said in court, "In the past two years, 27 people who had applied for permission to join their spouses in Israel were directly involved in attempted or actual attacks."^[76]

In the Israeli Supreme Court decision on this matter, Deputy Chief Justice Mishael Cheshin argued that, "Israeli citizens [do not] enjoy a constitutional right to bring a foreign national into Israel ... and it is the right—moreover, it is the duty—of the state, of any state, to protect its residents from those wishing to harm them. And it derives from this that the state is entitled to prevent the immigration of enemy nationals into it—even if they are spouses of Israeli citizens—while it is waging an armed conflict with that same enemy."^[78]

The law was upheld in May 2006, by the Supreme Court of Israel on a six to five vote. Israel's Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, sided with the minority on the bench, declaring: "This violation of rights is directed against Arab citizens of Israel. As a result, therefore, the law is a violation of the right of Arab citizens in Israel to equality."^[79] Zehava Gal-On, one of the founders of B'Tselem and a Knesset member with the Meretz-Yachad party, stated that with the ruling "The Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegated us to the level of an apartheid state."^[80] The law was also criticized by Amnesty International^[81] and Human Rights Watch.^[82] In 2007, the restriction was expanded to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.^[76]

Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley cite the marriage law as an example of how Arab Israelis "resemble in many ways 'Colored' and Indian South Africans".^[6] They write: "Both Israeli Palestinians and Colored and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorities as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their access to land or allocates civil service positions or per capita expenditure on education differentially between dominant and minority citizens."

In June 2008 after the law was extended for another year, Amos Schocken, the publisher of the Israeli daily Haaretz, wrote in an opinion article, that the law severely discriminates when comparing the rights of young Israeli Jewish citizens and young Israeli Arab citizens who marry, and that its existence in the law books turns Israel into an apartheid state.^[83]

Political rights, voting and representation, judiciary[edit]

In Israel[edit]

See also: Arab citizens of Israel and List of Arab members of the Knesset

Israel's Declaration of Independence called for the establishment of a Jewish state with equality of social and political rights, irrespective of religion, race, or sex.^[84]The rights of citizens are guaranteed by a set of basic laws (Israel does not have a written constitution).^[85] Although this set of laws does not explicitly include the term "right to equality", the Israeli Supreme Court has consistently interpreted "Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty"^[86] and "Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (1994)"^[87] as guaranteeing equal rights for all Israeli citizens.^[88] According to the 2010 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, Israeli law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, and the government effectively enforced these prohibitions.^[89]

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states, "Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel with equal rights" and "only legal distinction between Arab and Jewish citizens is not one of rights, but rather of civic duty". However a number of official sources acknowledge that Arab citizens of Israel experience systematic discrimination in many aspects of life. Israeli High Court Justice (Ret.) Theodor Or chaired the Or Commission, which noted that discrimination against the country's Arab citizens had been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, had been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and had also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert criticised in 2008 what he called "deliberate and insufferable" discrimination against Arabs at the hands of the Israeli establishment.^[90]

According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, Israel maintained the full range of normal equal rights found in Western liberal democracies, and in specific issues "generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas," and the government had done "little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens".^[91] Reports of subsequent years also identified discrimination against Arab citizens as a problem area for Israel, but did not repeat the assertion that Israel had done little to reduce discrimination.^[92] Before 2004, too, there had been some significant improvements in Israeli Arab rights. For example, there has been a steady extension of Israeli Arab rights to lease or purchase land formerly restricted to Jewish applicants, such as that owned by the Jewish National Fund or the Jewish Agency. These groups, established by Jews during the Ottoman period to aid in building up a viable Jewish community in Ottoman Palestine, purchased land, including arid desert and swamps, that could be reclaimed, leased to and farmed by Jews, thus encouraging Jewish immigration. After the establishment of the state of Israel, the Israel Lands Authority oversaw the administration of these properties. On 8 March 2000, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that Israeli Arabs, too, had an equal right to purchase long-term leases of such land, even inside previously solely Jewish communities and villages. The court ruled that the government may not allocate land based on religion or ethnicity and may not prevent Arab citizens from living wherever they choose: "The principle of equality prohibits the state from distinguishing between its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality," Chief Justice Aharon Barak wrote. "The principle also applies to the allocation of state land.... The Jewish character of the state does not permit Israel to discriminate between its citizens."^[93] Commenting on this ruling, the British philosopher Bernard Harrison has written, in a book chapter dealing with the "apartheid Israel" accusation: "No doubt much more needs to be done. But we are discussing, remember, the question of whether Israel is, or is not, an 'apartheid state'. It is not merely hard, but impossible, to imagine the South African Supreme Court, under the premiership of Hendrik Verwoerd, say, delivering an analogous decision, because to have done so would have struck at the root of the entire system of apartheid, which was nothing if not a system for separating the races by separating the areas they were permitted to occupy."^[94]

Some observers have accused Israeli officials of partiality, for example being more lenient on Jews who kill Arabs in Israel, as compared to Israeli Arabs who kill Jews in Israel.^[95]

In Gaza and the West Bank[edit]

Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, areas occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and deemed to be occupied territory under international law, are under the civil control of the Palestinian Authority, and are not Israeli citizens. In some areas of the West Bank, they are under Israeli security control.

In 2007, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reported that Palestinians and Israeli settlers in the occupied territories are subject to different criminal laws, leading to longer detention and harsher punishments for Palestinians than for Israelis for the same offenses.^[96] Amnesty International has reported that in the West Bank, Israeli settlers and soldiers who engage in abuses against Palestinians, including unlawful killings, enjoy "impunity" from punishment and are rarely prosecuted. However Palestinians detained by Israeli security forces may be imprisoned for prolonged periods of time, and reports of their torture and other ill-treatment are not credibly investigated.^[97][98][99]

John Dugard has compared Israeli imprisonment of Palestinians to policies of Apartheid-era South Africa, saying "Apartheid's security police practiced torture on a large scale. So do the Israeli security forces. There were many political prisoners on Robben Island but there are more Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails."^[100]

Community settlements legislation[edit]

In the early 2000s, several community settlements in the Negev and the Galilee were accused of barring Arab applicants from moving in. In 2010, the Knesset passed legislation that allowed admissions committees to function in smaller communities in the Galilee and the Negev, while explicitly forbidding committees to bar applicants on the basis of race, religion, sex, ethnicity, disability, personal status, age, parenthood, sexual orientation, country of origin, political views, or political affiliation.^[101][102] Critics, however, say the law gives the privately run admissions committees a wide latitude over public lands, and believe it will worsen discrimination against the Arab minority.^[103]

Population Registry Law[edit]

Chris McGreal, The Guardian's former chief Israel correspondent, compared Israel's Population Registry Law of 1965, which requires all residents of Israel to register their nationality, to South Africa's Apartheid-era Population Registration Act, which categorized South Africans according to racial definitions in order to determine who could live in what land. According to McGreal, the Israeli identification cards determine where people are permitted to live, affects access to some government welfare programs, and has impact on how people are likely to be treated by civil servants and policemen.^[104]

Land and infrastructure[edit]

Yossi Paritzky, a former Israeli minister, has used the apartheid analogy to describe a proposed bill that banned non-Jewish citizens of Israel from purchasing land privately owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF).^[9] The JNF has long insisted that its lands be sold only to Jews, due to the fact that the land was purchased with money from Jewish donors for the purpose of settling Jews in Israel. Noam Chomsky, American professor of linguistics and political activist, has stated, "if you look at the land laws, and decode it all, what it amounts to is that about ninety percent of the land inside Israel is reserved to what's called 'people of Jewish race, religion and origin' ... That's in the contract between the state of Israel and the Jewish National Fund, which is a non-Israeli organization, which, however, by various bureaucratic arrangements, administers the land.... All of this is covered up enough so that nobody can say, "Look, here's an apartheid law."^[105]

In 2006, Chris McGreal of The Guardian stated that as a result of the government's control over most of the land in Israel, the vast majority of land in Israel is not available to non-Jews.^[104] In 2007 in response to a 2004 petition filed by Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz ruled that the policy was discriminatory, it has been ruled that the JNF must sell land to non-Jews, and will be compensated with other land for any such land to ensure that the overall amount of Jewish-owned land in Israel remains unchanged.^[106]

Representative of a Palestinian view is that of Leila Farsakh, associate professor of Political Science at University of Massachusetts Boston, according to whom, after 1977, "the military government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) expropriated and enclosed Palestinian land and allowed the transfer of Israeli settlers to the occupied territories: they continued to be governed by Israeli laws. The government also enacted different military laws and decrees to regulate the civilian, economic and legal affairs of Palestinian inhabitants. These strangled the Palestinian economy and increased its dependence and integration into Israel." Farsakh says, "[m]any view these Israeli policies of territorial integration and societal separation as apartheid, even if they were never given such a name."^[107]

Henry Siegman, a former national director of the American Jewish Congress, has stated that the network of settlements in the West Bank has created an "irreversible colonial project" aimed to foreclose the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. According to Siegman, in accomplishing this Israel has "crossed the threshold from 'the only democracy in the Middle East' to the only apartheid regime in the Western world". Siegman argues that denial of both self-determination and Israeli citizenship to Palestinians amounts to a "double disenfranchisement", which when based on ethnicity amounts to racism. Siegman continues to state that reserving democracy for privileged citizens and keeping others "behind checkpoints and barbed wire fences" is the opposite of democracy.^[108]

John Dugard has compared Israel's confiscation of Palestinian farms and land, and destruction of Palestinian homes, to similar policies of Apartheid-era South Africa.^[100]

Travel and movement[edit]

See also: Palestinian freedom of movement

Palestinians living in the non-annexed portions of the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship or voting rights in Israel, but are subject to movement restrictions of the Israeli government. Israel has created roads and checkpoints in the West Bank with the stated purpose of preventing the uninhibited movement of suicide bombers and militants in the region. The human rights NGO B'Tselem has indicated that such policies have isolated some Palestinian communities and state that Israel's road regime "based on the principle of separation through discrimination, bears striking similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994".^{[109][110][111]} The International Court of Justice stated that the fundamental rights of the Palestinian population of the occupied territories are guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that Israel could not deny them on the grounds of security.^[112] Marwan Bishara, a teacher of international relations at the American University of Paris, has claimed that the restrictions on the movement of goods between Israel and the West Bank are "a de facto apartheid system".^[113] Michael Oren argues that none of this even remotely resembles apartheid, since "the vast majority of settlers and Palestinians choose to live apart because of cultural and historical differences, not segregation, though thousands of them do work side by side. The separate roads were created in response to terrorist attacks – not to segregate Palestinians but to save Jewish lives. And Israeli roads are used by Israeli Jews and Arabs alike."^[114]

David Saks claims that the comparison of Israel's policies in the West Bank (Gaza having been evacuated in 2005) is fundamentally false, since Israel and the Palestinian territories are in a state of war, with Israeli population centers continuously bombarded from Gaza. Saks says that the Israelis have responded to this situation with checkpoints, curfews, security fences, segregated road systems, military incursions, and other similar measures, which impact negatively on the everyday life of ordinary Palestinians, and indeed, he says, it is legitimate to demand of Israelis that they not go further than is necessary in ensuring their safety. However, he asserts it is false to accuse the Israelis of apartheid-like strategies when they are facing military threats that have no parallel in pre-1994 South Africa.^[115]

Huwwara Checkpoint, one of many Israelicheckpoints and closures (dismantled 2011^[116]) that restricted the movement of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and have been compared to the apartheid pass laws.^[117][118]

A permit and closure system was introduced in 1990. Leila Farsakh maintains that this system imposes "on Palestinians similar conditions to those faced by blacks under the pass laws. Like the pass laws, the permit system controlled population movement according to the settlers' unilaterally defined considerations." In response to the al-Aqsa intifada, Israel modified the permit system and fragmented the WBGS [West Bank and Gaza Strip] territorially. "In April 2002 Israel declared that the WBGS would be cut into eight main areas, outside which Palestinians could not live without a permit."^[107] John Dugard has said these laws "resemble, but in severity go far beyond, apartheid's pass system".^[118]

B'Tselem wrote in 2004, "Palestinians are barred from or have restricted access to 450 miles of West Bank roads, a system with 'clear similarities' to South Africa's former apartheid regime."^[119]

In October 2005 the Israel Defense Forces stopped Palestinians from driving on Highway 60, as part of a plan for a separate Road Network for Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank. The road had been sealed after the fatal shooting of three settlers near Bethlehem. As of 2005, no private Palestinian cars were permitted on the road although public transport was still allowed. B'Tselem described this as a first step towards "total 'road apartheid'".^[120] In 2011, Major General Nitzan Alon abolished separate transportation systems on the West Bank, permitting Palestinians to ride alongside Israelis. The measure has been protested by settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians could be a security concern; some women cited sexual harassment as an issue ("What parent would allow his daughter to travel on a bus full of Arabs?" an interviewee mused).^[121] The IDF order was reportedly overturned by Moshe Ya'alon who, in response to pressure from settler groups, issued a directive, operative from December 2014, that would deny Palestinians passage on buses running from Israel to the West Bank. Instead they would be restricted to a route far from settlements through the Eyal checkpoint near Qalqilya. The measure affects Palestinians who travel towards Ariel on the Trans-Samaria highway.^[122][123] The decision was said to be made on security grounds, though according to Haaretz military officials state that Palestinian use of such transport poses no security threat. Justice Minister Tzipi Livini asked the Israeli Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to examine the ban's legality and Weinstein immediately demanded that Ya'alon provide an explanation for his decision.^[124] Israeli security sources were quoted saying the decision had nothing to do with public buses and said that the goal was to supervise the entrance into and exit out of Israeli territory, thereby decreasing the chance of terrorist attacks inside Israel. Critics on the left described the policy, which would make using Israeli buses very cumbersome to Palestinians, as tantamount to apartheid, and something that would render Israel a pariah state.^[125]

Criticism of Israeli policies on similar grounds has arisen from, among others, Haggai Alon, a senior defence advisor. In an interview with Haaretz, Haggai Alon, an adviser to the then Israeli defence minister Amir Peretz, claimed that the army was "carrying out an apartheid policy" and was "emptying Hebron of Arabs, setting up roadblocks without anyone knowing where and how many, Judaizing the Jordan Valley and cooperating openly and blatantly with the settlers".^[126] On 29 December 2009 Israel's High Court of Justice accepted the Association for Civil Rights in Israel's petition against an IDF order barring Palestinians from driving on Highway 443. The ruling should come into effect five months after being issued, allowing Palestinians to use the road.^[127] According to plans laid out by the Israeli Defence Forces to implement the court's ruling, Palestinian use of the road is seen to remain limited.^[128] In March 2013, the Israeli Afikim bus company announced that, as from 4 March 2013, it would be operating separate bus lines for Jews and Arabs in the occupied territories.^{[129][130][131]}

Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian legislator and former presidential candidate, said that apartheid was the only word to describe Israel's creation of separate roads for Palestinians, its discrimination in allocation of water, ongoing settlement construction, and differences in per capita income between Israelis (both Jewish and non-Jewish) and Palestinians. He also asserted that the US-sponsored peace process gave Israel time to "continue settlements building, to continue having the checkpoints and restrictions, to continue creating this apartheid system".^[132] The World Bank found in 2009 that Israeli settlements in the West Bank (which amount to 15% of the population of the West Bank) are given access to over 80% of its fresh water resources, despite the fact that the Oslo accords call for "joint" management of such resources. This has created, according to the Bank, "real water shortages" for the Palestinians.^[133] In January 2012, the Foreign Affairs Committee of theFrench parliament published a report describing Israel's water policies in the West Bank as "a weapon serving the new apartheid". The report noted that the 450,000 Israeli settlers used more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians, "in contravention of international law", that Palestinians are not allowed to use the underground aquifers, and that Israel was deliberately destroying wells, reservoirs and water purification plants. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said the report was "loaded with the language of vicious propaganda, far removed from any professional criticism with which one could argue intelligently".^[134] A report by the Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies concludes that Israel has fulfilled the water agreements it has made with the Palestinians, and the author has commented that the situation is "just the opposite of apartheid" as Israel has provided water infrastructure to more than 700 Palestinian villages.^[135][136] The Association for Civil Rights in Israel concluded in 2008 that a segregated road network in the West Bank, expansion of Jewish settlements, restriction of the growth of Palestinian towns and discriminatory granting of services, budgets and access to natural resources are "a blatant violation of the principle of equality and in many ways reminiscent of the Apartheid regime in South Africa". The group reversed its previous reluctance to use the comparison to South Africa because "things are getting worse rather than better", according to spokeswoman Melanie Takefman.^[137]

West Bank barrier[edit]

Main article: West Bank Barrier

In 2003, a year after Operation Defensive Shield, the Israeli government announced a project of "fences and other physical obstacles" to prevent Palestinians crossing into Israel.^[138][139] Several figures, including Mohammad Sarwar, John Pilger, Mustafa Barghouti and others have described the resultant West Bank barrier as an "apartheid wall".^{[140][141][142][143][144][145]}

The barrier has been called an "apartheid wall"^[146] by Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network. Israeli officials describe the barrier, constructed in 2002, as a security fence, limiting the ability of Palestinianterrorist groups to enter Israel and making it difficult for them to carry outsuicide bombings.^[147]

Supporters of the West Bank barrier consider it to be largely responsible for reducing incidents of terrorism by 90% from 2002 to 2005.^[148][149] Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, stated in 2004 that the barrier is not a border but a temporary defensive measure designed to protect Israeli civilians from terrorist infiltration and attack, and can be dismantled if appropriate.^[150] The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the barrier is defensive and accepted the government's position that the route is based on security considerations.^[151]

The International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 in an advisory opinion that the wall is illegal where it extends beyond the 1967Green Line into the West Bank. Israel disagreed with the ruling, but its supreme court subsequently ordered the barrier to be moved in sections where its route was seen to cause more hardship to Palestinians than security concerns could motivate.^[152]

In January 2004, Ahmed Qureia, then the Palestinian Prime Minister, said that the building of the West Bank barrier, and the associated Israeli absorption of parts of the West Bank, constituted "an apartheid solution to put the Palestinians in cantons".^[153] Colin Powell, then U.S. Secretary of State, commented on Queria's statements by affirming U.S. commitment to a two-state solution, while saying, "I don't believe that we can accept a situation that results in anything that one might characterize as apartheid or Bantuism."^[154]

Malcolm Hedding, a South African minister who worked against South African apartheid and Executive Director of the Christian Zionist organisation 'International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem', said that the West Bank barrier has nothing to do with apartheid and everything to do with Israel's self-defense. He said that Israel has proven its desire to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians while granting political rights to its own Arab citizens within a liberal democratic system, but that the Palestinians remain committed to Israel's destruction. By contrast, he says, it was a tiny minority in South Africa that held power and once democracy came, the National Party that had dominated the masses disappeared.^{[155][156][157]}

Education[edit]

See also: Education in Israel

Sign in front of the Galil school, a joint Arab–Jewish primary school in Israel

Separate and unequal education systems were a central part of apartheid in South Africa, as part of a deliberate strategy designed to limit black children to a life of manual labor. Some disparities between Jews and Arabs in Israel's education system exist, although they are not nearly so significant and the intent not so malign.^[104] The Israeli Pupils' Rights Law of 2000 prohibits educators from establishing different rights, obligations and disciplinary standards for students of different religions. Educational institutions may not discriminate against religious minorities in admissions or expulsion decisions, or when developing curricula or assigning students to classes.^[158] Unlike apartheid South Africa, In Israel, education is free and compulsory for all citizens, from elementary school to the end of high school, and university access is based on uniform tuition for all citizens.^[159]

Israel has Hebrew-language and Arabic-language schools, while some schools are bilingual. Most Arabs study in Arabic, while a small number of Arab parents choose to enroll their children in Hebrew schools. All of Israel's eight universities use Hebrew.^[104]In 1992 a government report concluded that nearly twice as much money was allocated to each Jewish child as to each Arab pupil.^[104] Likewise, a 2004 Human Rights Watch report identified significant disparities in education spending and stated that discrimination against Arab children affects every aspect of the education system. Exam pass-rate for Arab pupils were about one-third lower than that for their Jewish compatriots.^[104] A 2007 report of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed concern over the existence of separate Arab and Jewish sectors may amount to racial segregation, and recommended that mixed Arab–Jewish communities and schools, and intercultural education should be promoted.^[160] In a 2008 report Israel responded that parents are entitled to enroll their children in the educational institution of their choice, whether the spoken language is Hebrew, Arabic or bilingual. It also noted that Israel promotes a variety of programs that promote intercultural cooperation, tolerance and understanding.^[161] In 2007, Israeli Education Ministry announced a plan to increase funding for schools in Arab communities. According to a ministry official, "At the end of the process, a lot of money will be directed toward schools with students from families with low education and income levels, mainly in the Arab sector."^[162] The Education Ministry prepared a five-year plan to close the gaps and raise the number of students eligible for high school matriculation.^[163]

1.  Clark, Jeanne Ellen. Engaging the Apartheid Analogy in Israel/Palestine. Willamette University. p. 5
2. Jump up^ Davis, Uri (2003). Apartheid Israel: possibilities for the struggle within. Zed Books. pp. 86–87. ISBN 1-84277-339-9.
3. ^ Jump up to:^a b Shimoni, Gideon (1980). Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910–1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp. 310–336. ISBN 0-19-570179-8.
4. Jump up^ e.g. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, John Dugard, A/HRC/4/17, 29 January 2007, pp. 3, 23 [1]
5. Jump up^ Uri Davis, Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, Zed Books, London 2004 pp. 51f
6. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians PDF, University College London Press, p. 15. ISBN 1-84472-130-2
7. Jump up^ The A Word: Israel, Apartheid and Jimmy Carter,CounterPunch 19 December 2006
8. Jump up^ Power and History in the Middle East: A Conversation with Ilan Pappe Logos Journal, vol 3 no 1, Winter 2004
9. ^ Jump up to:^a b c "Our Apartheid State". Accessed: 4 April 2011. "The third racist decision was the one that banned Arab citizens of Israel from purchasing national land. Well, not all land, but only a part of it — Jewish National Fund land."
10. Jump up^ Sarid, Yossi. "Yes, it is apartheid". Haaretz. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
11. Jump up^ "In day-long Security Council meeting, Palestine observer says Israeli security wall involves de factoannexation of occupied land". Retrieved 26 March2010. "How can these Israeli war crimes be appropriately described?" he asked. "Is this classic colonization? We believe it is worse than that. Is this a new apartheid system? We believe it is worse than that. It is a combination that has drawn upon these two ugly phenomena, amounting to the lowest level thinking of racist colonizers."
12. Jump up^ Please see references:^{[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]}
13. ^ Jump up to:^a b "A High Holidays Resource Guide" (PDF).The Jewish Federations of North America. Israel Action Network. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
14. Jump up^ "NGO 'Apartheid State' Campaign: Deliberately Immoral or Intellectually Lazy?". NGO Monitor. 22 March 2010. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
15. ^ Jump up to:^a b The Apartheid Propaganda Gerald M. Steinberg
16. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Alan Dershowitz, The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace (New York: John Wiley, 2009), pp. 20–25, 28–29, 36, 44–48
17. ^ Jump up to:^a b E.g., see Sabel, Robbie: "The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False charge of Apartheid" at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2009. Global Law Forum, at:http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=110; David Matas, Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism (Toronto: The Dunburn Group, 2005), pp. 53–55
18. ^ Jump up to:^a b "Truth, Lies & Stereotypes" (PDF).StandWithUs. Retrieved 29 December 2006.
19. ^ Jump up to:^a b Bard, Mitchell G. "Myth and Fact: Apartheid?". Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara / Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved8 November 2006.
20. ^ Jump up to:^a b Mitchel G, Bard (2008). "Israel Is Not An Apartheid State". Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved5 April 2008.
21. ^ Jump up to:^a b It's Not Apartheid Michael Kinsley, The Washington Post, 12 December 2006
22. Jump up^ Israel has its faults, but apartheid isn't one of them The Washington Post Richard Cohen, 2 March 2010
23. Jump up^ Please see references:^[20][21][22]
24. Jump up^ Munayyer, Yousef (23 May 2012). "Not All Israeli Citizens Are Equal". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 April 2014.
25. Jump up^ Laor, Yitzhak (17 January 2012). "Israeli Arabs have never been equal before the law". Haaretz. Retrieved 11 April 2014.
26. Jump up^ White, Ben (20 December 2011). Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy. Pluto Press.
27. ^ Jump up to:^a b c The Empire's New Walls: Sovereignty, Neo-liberalism, and the Production of Space in Post-apartheid South Africa and Post-Oslo Palestine/Israel. Andrew James Clarno. 2009. p. 66–67
28. Jump up^ Shourideh C. Molavi,Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel,BRILL 2013 p. 99, n. 118.
29. Jump up^ Elia Zureik,The Palestinians in Israel: A Study in Internal Colonialism, Routledge & K. Paul, 1979 p. 16:'While official de jure apartheid of the African variety does not exist in Israel, national apartheid on the latent and informal levels ... is a characteristic feature of Israeli society.' cited by David Lyon 'Identification, colonialism, and control: surveillant sorting in Israel/Palestine', in Elia Zureik, David Lyon, Yasmeen Abu-Laban (eds.), Surveillance and Control in Israel/Palestine: Population, Territory and Power, Routledge 2011 pp. 49–65, p. 58
30. Jump up^ Shourideh C. Molavi, Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel,BRILL 2013 p. 99
31. Jump up^ Settler policy imperils Israel's foundations,Financial Times, 21 February 2013: "Faced with widely drawn international parallels between the West Bank and the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa, senior figures in Mr Netanyahu's Likud party have begun to admit the danger."
32. Jump up^ Obama urged: act tough on Israel or risk collapse of two-state solution (The Guardian, 19 March 2013)
33. Jump up^ Palestinians draw parallels with Mandela's anti-apartheid struggle (The Guardian, 12 December 2013 "Comparisons between the former regime in South Africa and the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories have become relatively commonplace—not just by Palestinians and their supporters, but also among Israelis and the international community."
34. ^ Jump up to:^a b Gideon Levy (4 November 2000). "Republished as an excerpt of the original 28 October 2000 article in the Courrier International, under the title Au fil des jours, Périphéries explore quelques pistes – chroniques, critiques, citations, liens pointus : Israël-Palestine, revue de presse". Périphéries. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Gideon_Levy" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
35. Jump up^ According to the Milon and Masada dictionaries, hafrada translates into English as "separation", "segregation", "division", "severance", "disassociation" or "divorce". Milon: English Hebrew DictionaryAlcalai, Reuben (1981). The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary. Masada.
36. Jump up^ Undoing and Redoing Corpus Planning, Michael G. Clyne, p.403, "In the Language of "us" and "them" we could have expected an undoing when an integrative policy of the two communities was introduced. Obviously the [Peace] Process moves in the opposite direction: separation. Actually, one of the most popular arguments use by the government to justify its policy is the "danger" (“the demographic bomb”, “the Arab womb") of a “bi-national state" if no separation is made: the Process is thus a measure taken to secure the Jewish majority. The term ‘separation’ ‘’hafrada’’ has become extremely popular during the Process referring to fences built around Palestinian autonomous enclaves, to roads pave in the Territories exclusively for Israelis to the decrease of the number of Palestinians employed in Israel or allowed to enter into it altogether. The stereotypes of the Palestinian society as backward" have not changed either."
37. Jump up^ Beyond the Two-State Solution: A Jewish Political Essay, Yehouda Shenhav, "Israel's present separation policy – known in Israel as hafrada, a Hebrew Word which can mean both segregation and separation – is a natural continuation of the cultural-political position designed by the new nostalgia and of the demographic project, which constitutes the continuation of the war through other means."
38. ^ Jump up to:^a b Esther Zandberg (28 July 2005). "Surroundings: Separation Seems to Have Spread Everywhere".Ha'aretz. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
39. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Eric Rozenman (April & May 2001)."Today's Arab Israelis, Tomorrow's Israel: Why "Separation" Can’t Be the Answer for Peace in Policy Review". Hoover Institution. Retrieved 2007-03-17.Check date values in: |date= (help) Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Eric_Rozenman" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Eric_Rozenman" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
40. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Jeff Halper, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). "Nishul (Displacement): Israel's form of Apartheid". Retrieved 2007-03-17. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Jeff_Halper" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
41. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Alain Epp Weaver (1 January 2007). "Further footnotes on Zionism, Yoder, and Boyarin". Cross Currents. Retrieved 2007-03-18.
42. Jump up^ Mazin B. Qumsiyeh (28 June 2006). "Discussion on: Searching for Peace in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict" (PDF). Institute of Strategic and Development Studies, Andreas Papandreou,University of Athens. Retrieved 2007-03-18.
43. Jump up^ "Transcript from broadcast of The McLaughlin Group". The McLaughlin Group. Taped 24 May 2002 & broadcast 1 to 2 June 2002. Retrieved2007-03-22. Check date values in: |date= (help)
44. Jump up^ Ben Shani (19 January 2007). ""The Result of the Hafrada Policy is Quiet in Hebron, But All Await the Storm" (Hebrew)". Nana.co.il Magazine (original from Channel 10 News).
45. Jump up^ Fred Schlomka (28 May 2006). "Toward a Third Intifada". Common Dreams (originally published inThe Baltimore Sun).
46. ^ Jump up to:^a b James Bowen (28 September 2006). "Making Israel Take Responsibility". Retrieved 2007-03-22.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "James_Bowen" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
47. Jump up^ Cultural Autonomy in Contemporary Europe, edited by David J. Smith, Karl Cordell, "The Hebrew term Hafrada is the official descriptor of the policy of the Israeli Government to separate the Palestinian population in the territories occupied by Israel from the Israeli population, by means such as the West Bank barrier and the unilateral disengagement from those territories. The barrier is thus sometimes called gader ha'hafrada (separation fence) in Hebrew. The term Hafrada has striking similarities with the term apanheid, as this term mean 'apartness' in Afrikaans and Hafrada is the closest Hebrew equivalent."
48. Jump up^ [2], Sunday Herald, 28 May 2006, "Even among Israelis, the term 'Hafrada', 'separation or apartheid in Hebrew' has entered the mainstream lexicon, despite strident denials by the Jewish state that it is engaged in any such process."
49. ^ Jump up to:^a b Neil Sandler (11 March 2002). "Israel: A Saudi Peace Proposal Puts Sharon in a Bind". Business Week Online.
50. Jump up^ Tanya Reinhart (22 March 2004). "Israeli policy in Gaza: Sharon's Disengagement". Center for Research on Globalization.
51. Jump up^ Aaron S. Klieman (15 January 2000). Compromising Palestine: A Guide to Final Status Negotiations. Columbia University Press. p. 1.ISBN 0-231-11789-2.
52. Jump up^ [3], 13 January 2014, A/HRC/25/67, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967
53. Jump up^ Times of Israel
54. Jump up^ Reuters
55. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Heriber, Adam & Moodley, Kogila. op cit. p. xiii.
56. Jump up^ Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. xv.
57. Jump up^ Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. 22.
58. Jump up^ Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. 25.
59. Jump up^ Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians (2005) excerpt PDF, University College London Press, p. 20f. ISBN 1-84472-130-2
    Second-class citizenship: "Above all, both Israeli Palestinians and Coloured and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorities as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their access to land or allocates civil service positions or per capita expenditure on education differently between dominant and minority citizens."
    "Mandela's vision succeeded because it evoked a universal morality. Common ideological and economic bonds existed between the antagonists inside South Africa. An outdated racial hierarchy eventually clashed with economic imperatives when the costs exceeded the benefits of racial minority rule in a global pariah state. In the Israeli case, outside support sustains intransigence. Only when the colonial policies of occupation embarrass and threaten their stronger patrons abroad or can no longer be so easily contained inside (as apartheid racial capitalism did in the Cold War competition) can outside pressure on Israel be expected. This turning of the tables will impact the Israeli public as much as outside perception is affected by visionary local leaders and events. Despite gains in global empathy, Palestinians are still at the mercy of a superior adversary in every respect, which even a Mandela would not have been able to overcome. In this impasse, hope is offered by Israeli progressive moral dissent on the Left as well as opportunistic calculations on the Right that the occupation harms the occupier. Israel has the capacity to reach a meaningful compromise, but has yet to prove its willingness. The Palestinian mainstream has the willingness, but lacks the capacity, to initiate a fair settlement."
60. Jump up^ Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. xvi.
61. Jump up^ Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. x.
62. ^ Jump up to:^a b Middle East Project of the Democracy and Governance Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (May 2009). "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law". Cape Town, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council: 17–22. Archived from the original on 22 June 2009. Retrieved14 October 2011. ... practices in South Africa are not the test or benchmark for a finding of apartheid elsewhere, as the principal instrument which provides this test lies in the terms of the Apartheid Convention itself. (pdf 3.0 MiB) The report does not represent an official position of the HSRC. South African Academic Study Finds that Israel is Practicing Apartheid and Colonialism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, May 2009.
63. ^ Jump up to:^a b Ronald Bruce St John (1 February 2007)."Apartheid By Any Other Name". Foreign Policy in Focus. Retrieved 26 April 2010. In 1973, the UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
64. Jump up^ United Nations (30 November 2006). "International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid" (PDF). Retrieved 25 April2010. For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts....
65. Jump up^ United Nations (2002). "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Part 2, Article 7"(PDF). pp. 5–6. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
66. Jump up^ Dugard, John. "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, John Dugard"(PDF). p. 3. The international community has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights—colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation. Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. At the same time elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States? It is suggested that this question might appropriately be put to the International Court of Justice for a further advisory opinion.
67. ^ Jump up to:^a b Falk, Richard (30 August 2010). "Situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967". A/65/331. United Nations General Assembly. Retrieved 28 October 2010.
68. Jump up^ Falk, Richard (8 July 2011). "The tactic of arresting Palestinian children". al Jazeera English. Retrieved11 July 2011.
69. Jump up^ MacAllister, Karine (Summer 2008). "Applicability of the Crime of Apartheid to Israel". BDS and the Global Anti-Apartheid Movement. BADIL. Retrieved16 March 2014.
70. Jump up^ "United Nations International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People". 7 September 2006.
71. Jump up^ Kolliah, Zahir (25 February 2007). "The South African Connection". Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid. Archived from the original on 10 October 2007. Retrieved 3 March 2010.
72. ^ Jump up to:^a b Israel and the Apartheid Slander
73. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Who's a citizen? Israel.(Israel's citizenship laws). The Economist (US). 20 May 2006
74. Jump up^ Right praises, Left slams High Court rejection of petitions against Citizenship Law. The Jerusalem Post. 13 January 2011
75. Jump up^ Ben Lynfield. "Marriage law divides Israeli Arab families". Christian Science Monitor.
76. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Families fight 'racist' Israeli citizenship lawHeather Sharp BBC News Tuesday, 9 March 2010
77. Jump up^ Dan Izenberg (15 May 2006). "High Court upholds law denying Palestinian spouses Citizenship". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2 September 2006.
78. Jump up^ "Israel's 'Demographic Demon' in Court". Middle East Report Online. 1 June 2006.
79. Jump up^ Macintyre, Donald (15 May 2006). "'Racist' marriage law upheld by Israel". Jerusalem: The Independent. Retrieved 17 April 2010.
80. Jump up^ Left appalled by citizenship ruling at The Jerusalem Post by Sheera Claire Frenkel
81. Jump up^ Amnesty. Israel and the Occupied Territories: Torn Apart: Families split by discriminatory policies
82. Jump up^ Human Rights Watch. Israel: Don't Outlaw Family Life
83. Jump up^ Amos Schocken (27 June 2008). "Citizenship law makes Israel an apartheid state". Haaretz. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
84. Jump up^ "Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948". The Knesset, Israel's parliamentry body. Retrieved29 June 2007.
85. Jump up^ Basic Laws – Introduction
86. Jump up^ Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty
87. Jump up^ Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (1994)
88. Jump up^ The Arab Citizens of Israel
89. Jump up^ 2010 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories
90. Jump up^ Stern, Yoav (12 November 2008). "Olmert decries 'deliberate and insufferable' discrimination against Arabs". Haaretz. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
91. Jump up^ Israel and the occupied territories
92. Jump up^ Israel and the occupied territories (2005)
    Israel and the occupied territories (2006)
93. Jump up^ Qadan v. Israel Lands Administration, HCJ (Israeli Supreme Court) 6698/95, 8 March 2000, as cited by Alan Dershowitz, The Case for Israel (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), p. 157, n. 7 (see p. 253).
94. Jump up^ Bernard Harrison, The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion(Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), p. 133.
95. Jump up^ Israel: One law for all? (Al Jazeera, 13 January 2010)
96. Jump up^ "Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Israel".CERD/C/ISR/CO/13. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 14 June 2007. Retrieved28 October 2010.
97. Jump up^ "Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories". Amnesty International. 2008. Retrieved 16 May2010.
98. Jump up^ "Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories | Amnesty International Report 2009". Report2009.amnesty.org. Retrieved 16 May 2010.
99. Jump up^ "Israel has established a system of segregation and discrimination, in which two populations living in the same area are subject to different systems of law (...) In Africaans they call it apartheid."
100. ^ Jump up to:^a b Apartheid and the occupation of Palestine (Al Jazeera, 4 November 2011)
101. Jump up^ http://www.nevo.co.il/law_word/law14/law-2286.pdf
102. Jump up^ Jack Khoury (14 September 2011). "Israel's High Court orders Jewish Galilee town to accept Arab couple". Haaretz. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
103. Jump up^ New Israeli laws will increase discrimination against Arabs, critics say. 24 March 2011. Edmund Sanders, Los Angeles Times.
104. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} McGreal, Chris (6 February 2006)."Worlds apart". The Guardian (London). Retrieved5 May 2010.
105. Jump up^ "Interview with Noam Chomsky" Safundi, Volume 5, Issue 1 & 2 April 2004 , pp. 1–16, by Christopher Lee
106. Jump up^ Pfeffer, Anshel; Stern, Yoav (24 September 2007)."High Court delays ruling on JNF land sales to non-Jews". Haaretz. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
107. ^ Jump up to:^a b Farsakh, Leila. "Israel an apartheid state?",Le Monde diplomatique, November 2003
108. Jump up^ Imposing Middle East Peace (The Nation, 7 January 2010)
109. Jump up^ "1 Forbidden Roads Israel's Discriminatory Road Regime in the West Bank" (PDF). B'tselem. Retrieved 3 May 2013.
110. Jump up^ Forbidden Checkpoints and Roads at B'Tselem
111. Jump up^ Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-semitism and the Abuse of History. University of California Press. 2008. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-520-24989-9. Retrieved 3 May 2013.
112. Jump up^ see ICJ Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) paragraphs 127 and 128
113. Jump up^ Bishara, Marwan. "Israel's Pass Laws Will Wreck Peace Hopes". Retrieved 21 October 2006.
114. Jump up^ "Israel isn't, and will never be, an apartheid state". Los Angeles Times. 17 May 2014.
115. ^ Jump up to:^a b David Saks, Israel, Democracy, and the Apartheid Myth, Midstream, Winter 2010.
116. Jump up^ Israeli forces begin the removal of infrastructure of the Huwwara. Bahrain News Agency. 10 February 2011
117. Jump up^ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory (2009). "West bank movement and access update: November 2009"(PDF). United Nations.
118. ^ Jump up to:^a bhttp://www.fairelectionsinternational.org/countries/mideast/palestine/4426.html Israelis adopt what South Africa dropped, John Dugard
119. Jump up^ "Forbidden Roads: The Discriminatory West Bank Road Regime". B'Tselem. August 2004. Retrieved2 November 2006.
120. Jump up^ McGreal, Chris. "Israel accused of 'road apartheid' in West Bank", The Guardian, 20 October 2005.
121. Jump up^ Elhanan Miller, 'At West Bank rally, settlers demand Palestinian-free buses', The Times of Israel 7 September 2014.
122. Jump up^ Chaim Levinson,'Ya'alon bans Palestinians from Israeli-run bus lines in West Bank, following settler pressure,' Haaretz 26 October 2014.
123. Jump up^ Spencer Ho, 'Directive to keep returning West Bank workers off Israeli buses,'The Times of Israel 27 October 2014.
124. Jump up^ Revital Hovel and Chaim Levinson,'AG orders Ya'alon: Explain why Palestinians banned from Israeli-run buses in West Bank,'Haaretz 27 October 2014.
125. Jump up^ Tovah Lazaroff, Left-wing screams apartheid over new security edict for Palestinian laborers,Jerusalem Post 26 October 2014.
126. Jump up^ Rapoport, Meron (27 May 2007). "The spirit of the commander prevails". Haaretz. Retrieved 16 March2014.
127. Jump up^ Route 443: West Bank road for Israelis onlyB'Tselem
128. Jump up^ Despite court ruling, Palestinian use of Route 443 likely to be limited (Haaretz, 10 May 2010)
129. Jump up^ Levinson, Chaim (3 March 2013). "Israel introduces 'Palestinian only' bus lines, following complaints from Jewish settlers". Haaretz. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
130. Jump up^ Dawber, Alistair (3 March 2013). "Israel's Palestinian-only buses prompt apartheid comparisons". The Independent. Retrieved3 March 2013.
131. Jump up^ Tait, Robert (3 March 2013). "Israel launches Palestinian-only buses amid accusations of racial segregation". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 3 March2013.
132. Jump up^ "Palestinian Realities" Edited Transcript of Remarks by Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, 18 June 2008
133. Jump up^ Assessment of restrictions on Palestinian water sector development, Sector Note April 2009,http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWESTBANKGAZA/Resources/WaterRestrictionsReport18Apr2009.pdf
134. Jump up^ Ravid, Barak (17 January 2012). "French parliament report accuses Israel of water 'apartheid' in West Bank". Haaretz. Retrieved 17 January2012.
135. Jump up^ "Government slams French water 'apartheid' report". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 19 January2012.
136. Jump up^ Gvirtzman, Haim. "The Israeli–Palestinian Water Conflict: An Israeli Perspective" (PDF). Mideast Security and Policy Studies (94).
137. Jump up^ Civil rights group claim Israeli occupation is "reminiscent of apartheid" (The Independent, 7 December 2008)
138. Jump up^ United Jerusalem – Historical Perspectives – 4/13/2002
139. Jump up^ 'The Security Fence Facts & Figures Dec 2003' (mfa)
140. Jump up^ "Israel: West Bank Barrier Endangers Basic Rights", Human Rights Watch, 1 October 2003.
141. Jump up^ Alan Blenford, "Degree of separation", The Guardian, 30 September 2003, 14.
142. Jump up^ Mohammad Sarwar, 'No one sees policy as credible', The Independent, 4 August 2006.
143. Jump up^ John Pilger, "John Pilger rejects the Law of Silence", New Statesman, 11 April 2005
144. Jump up^ Mustafa Barghouti, quoted in Horsley, William."Europe mulls new role in Middle East", BBC, 13 December 2006.
145. Jump up^ "The Apartheid Wall", Al Jazeera English, 8 December 2003
146. Jump up^ "Anti-Apartheid Wall" Campaign Founded byPalestinian Environmental NGOs Network
147. Jump up^ Various aspects of the security fence project onIsrael's Ministry of Foreign Affairs site
148. Jump up^ Wall Street Journal, "After Sharon", 6 January 2006.
149. Jump up^ Boehlert, Eric. "Fence? Security barrier? Apartheid wall?", Salon.com, 1 August 2003. Retrieved 1 January 2007.
150. Jump up^ "Statement by Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom", Israeli Foreign Ministry, 17 March 2004.
151. Jump up^ The Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice Beit Sourik Village Council vs. The Government of Israel and Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank. (Articles 28–30)
152. Jump up^ At Israeli Barrier, More Sound Than Fury (The New York Times, 8 October 2005)
153. Jump up^ "Qureia: Israel's unilateral moves are pushing us toward a one-state solution". Haaretz. Reuters. 9 January 2004. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
154. Jump up^ PMO rejects Palestinian assertion on right to declare state, Haaretz, 11 January 2004. Retrieved 26 June 2006.
155. ^ Jump up to:^a b http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178431592520&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter^{[dead link]}
156. Jump up^ SPME: Malcolm Hedding: Israel and Apartheid
157. Jump up^ Malcolm Hedding (11 March 2010). "Expose 'apartheid' charge's real agenda". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
158. Jump up^ "חוק זכויות התלמיד באנגלית – Pupils' Rights Law". Cms.education.gov.il. Retrieved 16 May 2010.
159. Jump up^ Susser, Asher. Israel, Jordan, and Palestine: The Two-State Imperative. 2011. University Press of New England. p. 130
160. Jump up^ ODS Team. "Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under Article 9 of the Convention". United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Retrieved 16 May 2010.
161. Jump up^ ODS Team. "Ods Home Page" (PDF). Daccess-dds-ny.un.org. Retrieved 16 May 2010.
162. Jump up^ Or Kashti (6 March 2007). "Israeli Arabs to get greater school funding, settlements less". Haaretz. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
163. Jump up^ Israel's education woes, YNet, 21 September 2010, by Tomer Velmer
164. Jump up^ Yitzhak Benhorin (25 November 2008). "UN General Assembly president calls for boycott of Israel". Ynetnews. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
165. Jump up^ "Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction". The Nation. 26 January 2009. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
166. Jump up^ Kaufman, Gerald (12 July 2004). "The case for sanctions against Israel". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 5 May 2010.
167. Jump up^ UN summit: Boycott Israel (YnetNews, 31 August 2007)
168. Jump up^ www.parliament.uk, Daily Hansard – Westminster Hall, 26 Jun 2007 : Column 63WH "Middle East Peace Process"
169. Jump up^ Hamas seeks new Gaza policy from Egypt