*Originally published in 2022 and preserved as part of our archive project.Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

Two A-words seem to have reached taboo status in discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To many left-leaning observers, annexation into Israel of territories held by the country since 1967 has long been anathema, and the fight against it gained much traction after the publication of the “Peace to Prosperity” plan by the previous US administration. The other word is apartheid, which has revived commotion since the publication on February 1, 2022 of Amnesty International's report “Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians”. Many commentators, certainly but not only on the right, were furibund at what was seen as yet another accusation of Israel. As is often the case, heighted emotions tend to polarize and obfuscate serene discussions about facts. That's why it is good to go through the global human rights NGO's hefty report (278 pages, 25 pages executive summary) and to have a second look at the situations that are qualified as “apartheid” in it.

While the report clearly defines “Israel” and the “Occupied Palestinian Territories”, as well as the international instruments applicable to them (first and foremost UN resolutions and the Oslo Accords), the discussion of the Arab and Palestinian populations lumps together areas under Israeli control before 1967 (Six-Day War) and after it. Certain circumstances may indeed be similar on both sides of the pre-1967 lines and questions concerning relations between Jewish and Arab groups have existed in the territory for longer, yet the legal and administrative structures set up by Israel are fundamentally different in the two areas. This is important because intention plays a role here, also according to the definition of apartheid in international treaties.

As regards Israel, the report presents an overview of Israeli legislation, statements by Jewish-Israeli politicians, and official decisions, in order to sustain the claim of an “intent to oppress and dominate the Palestinian people” (pages 63–72). It is correct that maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel has been an obsession for most Jewish Israelis and that, as a result, the status of Arab Israelis has been a subject of preoccupation and controversy. However, the existence of a Jewish state with a Jewish majority that respects minorities is exactly what was agreed on in the Partition Plan for Palestine, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1947. Also, as noted in the report (page 63), the Israeli declaration of independence grants “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants”. It is true that the equality principle has never been enshrined in the country's laws and that, in particular, the 2018 Nation-State Law raises questions as to whether equality can be effectively guaranteed if a person's status as a Jew or non-Jew is given prevalence over other matters. Nevertheless, nothing in Israel's laws state that they would apply differently to Jews and Arabs. If that were the case, the intent to establish or maintain a system of racial differentiation could perhaps be proven. But, as long as it is not, it cannot be presumed. It should also be recalled that Arab citizens of Israel possess the political right to vote, and the current Israeli government includes an Arab party.

Moving on from law to facts, it is undeniable that the socio-economic condition of Israel's Arab citizens is less enviable than the one of many Jewish Israelis. In this respect, at least two remarks are necessary to add to the picture. First, Israel's population is not only........

© E-International