Last week, Israel held elections to elect 120 members of its parliament, known as the Knesset. Although he lost his majority, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still in power for the time being. It was not the diminution of Netanyahu's coalition that caught my eye. It was that Arab citizens of Israel came out to vote in droves. That's quite the development for a country that is frequently accused of apartheid.
Apartheid is not a synonym for "country whose policies I strongly dislike." Much like with the word genocide, apartheid has a specific definition. So perhaps it's worthwhile to ask what apartheid is and whether Israel’s actions fall under that definition.
Historically, apartheid refers to a system of institutionalized racism that existed in South Africa. In Afrikaans, apartheid means "apartness." International provides a more precise definition of apartheid. Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as inhumane acts committed within an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intention of maintaining that regime.
In other words, apartheid is not interchangeable with discrimination, racial prejudice, or unequal treatment. It involves something much more sinister: a systematic, institutionalized system of racial domination. As we will see shortly, that distinction matters. Here are but a few reasons as to why Israel does not constitute an apartheid state.
1. Voting rights. As we saw last week, Arab citizens of Israel have the same right to vote in national elections as Jewish citizens. The can elect representatives to the Knesset and participate in determining the country's government. For much of the 20th century, black people in South Africa were not given such a right.
2. Political representation. Arab citizens can establish political parties, run for office, and serve in the Knesset. Arab political representation dates back to Israel's first parliamentary elections in 1949. Since then, Arab-led parties like the Hadash, Balad, and Ra'am have won parliamentary seats. There have also been Arab ministers in the Israeli government, such as Raleb Majadele and Issawi Frej.
3. Citizenship. Arab citizens of Israel possess Israeli citizenship, including the right to an Israeli passport and the legal protections and privileges that accompany citizenship.
4. Judiciary. Arab citizens can serve as judges in Israeli courts. About 8 percent of the judiciary consists of Israeli Arabs. Israeli Arabs can also bring legal challenges against the Israeli government.
5. Freedom of movement. Arab citizens of Israel are not confined to racially designated residential areas or restricted from traveling throughout Israel.
6. Employment. Israeli Arabs can participate in virtually every sector of Israeli economic life. There is no general legal prohibition against their entering particular professions because they are Arab. It helps explain why Arab Israelis constituted 25 percent of Israel's physicians; 27 percent of nurses; 27 percent of dentists; and 49 percent of pharmacists.
7. Civil rights. As Freedom House reminds us, Israeli Arabs enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the right to organize politically. They can criticize the government, protest its policies, and advocate for fundamental changes to the country.
Black people under apartheid in South Africa did not have any of these rights that Arab Israelis have in Israel. Israel is run by humans, so it's going to be an imperfect nation, like all others. But Israel's actions are the antithesis of apartheid. Calling Israel an apartheid state does a service to those who have suffered under actual apartheid.
You might be thinking that even if one were to concede the points about Arabs in Israel proper, what about the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza? In general, Arabs residing in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens, which is why they do not receive rights as Israeli citizens, much like I as an American citizen cannot claim rights as a citizen of any other country.
With Gaza, the Israeli Defense Forces withdrew in 2005. Hamas subsequently seized control in 2007. It was only through Hamas' heinous and brutal October 7 attack on Israeli civilians with rape, murder, kidnapping, and torture that led to the current conflict in Gaza. If Hamas didn't attack Israel that day, there would be no conflict or Israeli military presence in Gaza.
The West Bank is more complicated. Under the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority has quasi-authority under Areas A and B of the West Bank, while Israel has control over Area C of the West Bank. Whether Israel's presence in the West Bank is disputed. I cover an argument showing Israel's legal and historical claims (see Part I and Part II).
And what of the checkpoints and security barriers? The point of such measures is to prevent terror and havoc in Israel proper that was seen during the Second Intifada. These measures must e considered int he context of the ongoing conflict, terrorism, and legitimate security concerns. We can get into whether they are excessive , but security measures unto themselves do not establish the systematic racial oppression and domination required in the legal definition of apartheid.
This brings us to a larger point: discrimination is not apartheid. Arab citizens of Israel can and do experience discrimination, disparities in public investment, socioeconomic disadvantages, and occasional political hostility. But you want to know something? These problems are not unique to minorities or disenfranchised people in Israel. Discrimination exists in virtually every country on some level, including the most prosperous and democratic nations in the world. If disparity and discrimination or racial prejudice qualified as apartheid, then the word becomes meaningless. If one were to apply that ridiculous standard to everyone, nations like Canada, Norway, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom would also have to be considered apartheid states.
I know that understanding the meaning of words was never a forte of the pro-Palestinian side, but words and their definitions matter. Governments should be charged by actions, not politically charged words that anti-Semites use to malign the Jewish state. Apartheid defines a specific system of institutionalized racial domination. Israel does not fit that definition by a long shot. Calling Israel an apartheid state constantly doesn't make it so. It simply trivializes the real apartheid and turns a serious legal and moral concept into a nasty political weapon. Like all countries, Israel has its problems, but apartheid isn't one.
