Israel is an apartheid state

The fuller answer

11 sectionsJump to one

You are allowed to answer this one, and to answer it positively.

Start with the definition, because the definition is yours to state

Apartheid is a crime with elements, and you say what they are before you answer anything. The 1973 Convention and Article 7(2)(h) of the Rome Statute both require an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, plus the intention of maintaining that regime. Purpose is the hinge. Without it the same acts are other offences, with other names and other remedies.

That word was built narrow on purpose, by people who had to prove it in court.

Then name the move being made on it. Taking a term of art that South Africans made out of their own history, stretching it until it covers a permit system and a discrimination argument, and spending the moral charge without carrying the elements, is not a claim about Israel. It is a claim about the word. Say that plainly. You are not refusing the accusation, you are refusing to let somebody rewrite the offence while charging you with it.

Only then take the objection, and take it seriously, because it is serious.

The people who were actually there

Your best argument is a witness argument. Apartheid happened to people who are still alive, many of whom fought it, and most of them say this is not that.

Richard Goldstone is the strongest name you have. He is a South African judge who sat on the Constitutional Court that dismantled apartheid’s legal machinery. He also led the United Nations fact-finding mission on Gaza, a report Israel attacked ferociously. He is nobody’s advocate.

Writing in the New York Times in November 2011, he called the charge “a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony”, and added that “in Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute.”

He then set out what the thing itself involved. Black South Africans were denied the vote, forbidden to marry whites, and left “to bleed to death if there was no ‘black’ ambulance to rush them to a ‘black’ hospital”.

Kenneth Meshoe, a member of parliament who could not vote or hold office under the old system, says “I know what apartheid was, and Israel is not apartheid.” The anti-apartheid activist Rhoda Kadalie said the same.

One warning, because this line has a trap in it. Benjamin Pogrund reported on apartheid for the Rand Daily Mail and spent decades refusing the analogy. In August 2023 he wrote in Haaretz that he could no longer refuse it. Cite the witnesses without knowing that and somebody will produce Pogrund, and you will look as though you were hiding him. Get there first. The testimony is divided, most of it still runs your way, and his reversal turns on the West Bank, where you are conceding ground anyway.

What the test actually requires

The exact wording, so you can quote it rather than summarise it.

Two treaties define the crime. The 1973 Apartheid Convention, at Article II, covers inhumane acts “committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other”. The Rome Statute, at Article 7(2)(h), requires an “institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups”, and “the intention of maintaining that regime”.

Discrimination, however severe, is not this offence. The definition asks for an institutionalised regime whose purpose is domination, and an intention to maintain it. That is the hinge, and Goldstone put his finger on it: even in the West Bank, he wrote, there is “no intent to maintain” such a regime.

Say one thing first that does not help you. The Convention’s “shall include” wording is inclusive, not a limit, and anyone arguing the crime applies only to South Africa has misread it.

Three places, three answers

An advocate who defends Israel, the West Bank and Gaza with one argument loses. Three different bodies of law govern them and the honest answer differs in each. Make that separation out loud. Few people in the room will have heard anyone on your side make it.

Inside the Green Line

This part you can win, and specifics win it. Arab citizens are about 21 per cent of the population, 2.147 million of 10.178 million at the start of 2026.

They vote, and Arab parties have held Knesset seats since 1949. In 2021 one of them, Ra’am, joined a governing coalition and held the balance of power.

Salim Joubran became the first Arab permanent justice of the Supreme Court in 2004. From 2013 to 2015 he chaired the Central Elections Committee, where he barred Likud campaign advertisements he found racist. An Arab judge presided over the national election and censured the governing party. Khaled Kabub, the first permanent Muslim justice, was sworn in during 2022 and sits there now.

Then the professions, where the abstraction breaks down. By 2023 Arab citizens were about a quarter of Israel’s physicians, nurses and dentists, and roughly half of its pharmacists. Among physicians that figure was 8% in 2010. No apartheid system trains its subordinate group to treat the dominant one, then puts them in the same wards.

Concede the rest, because it is real. Adalah lists more than 65 laws it says discriminate directly or indirectly. The 2018 Basic Law on Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people reserves national self-determination to Jews, and the Supreme Court upheld it in 2021 by ten to one, the dissenting justice being the court’s only Arab member.

The line that survives a follow-up separates discrimination from domination. A minority with the vote, seats in the legislature and a place on the bench reviewing the government has a serious charge about equality, and a different one.

The population the charge imagines

Apartheid means one racial group dominating another, so ask who the ruling race is supposed to be. The picture in most heads is a white European settler population over a non-white indigenous one. Israel does not look like that.

Pew’s 2016 survey found 48% of Israeli Jews identifying as Sephardi or Mizrahi, with roots in Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, Iran and across the Muslim world, against 45% Ashkenazi. Give the caveat with it: the categories are self-reported, official records fold Sephardi into Mizrahi, and generations of intermarriage have left perhaps half in ethnically mixed families. Claim roughly half are not of European descent, and do not defend a decimal point.

The Central Bureau of Statistics counted 177,600 Ethiopian Israelis in 2024. About 155,000 Druze are citizens, conscripted like Jewish Israelis and holding Knesset seats; in 2007 one of them, Majalli Wahabi, stood in as acting head of state. More than 250,000 Bedouin citizens live in the Negev.

Give the limits yourself. Around 35 Bedouin villages remain unrecognised, without water, electricity or building permits. The Palmor report, a 2016 Israeli government inquiry, found institutional discrimination against Ethiopian Israelis in policing, welfare and schooling, and Mizrahi Israelis have their own record of disadvantage. None of this touches the West Bank, an argument about a territory and two legal systems, not about who lives inside Israel. Use diversity as though it answers the whole charge and you will be caught.

The West Bank is the hard part

Do not pretend otherwise. Two legal systems run in one territory, allocated by nationality. Israeli citizens in settlements are tried in civilian courts, Palestinians in the same territory under military orders in military courts. That is set out at length by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

So the credible position is not denial but status, and two lawyers help here.

Alan Baker was legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry and helped negotiate the Oslo agreements. He argues the West Bank has “never been determined by any authoritative and binding legal document, treaty, resolution, or declaration to be Palestinian”. On that reading this is a contested interim condition, not a settled racial order, and both parties agreed to negotiate its end.

Eugene Kontorovich adds the comparative point, which opponents least expect. His study in the Journal of Legal Analysis examined eight long-term occupations governed by the Geneva Conventions, from Northern Cyprus to Crimea. Settler populations grow in all of them, and in none of the others is that called the treaty violation it is said to be here. And the Palestinian Authority, unlike a Bantustan, is recognised by most countries and functions outside Israeli control.

Say the limit yourself. The status argument holds while the final status is unresolved, it is no defence of the arrangement, and it weakens every year the arrangement lasts.

The “racial group” question

Do not rest on the claim that Jews and Palestinians are not races. It sounds like a technicality and it has an answer ready. Tribunals have accepted that a targeted group can be defined by how perpetrators construct it. The racial discrimination convention covers descent and national or ethnic origin.

Go back to purpose instead, where your best authority is not on your side of the argument. Judge Georg Nolte of the International Court of Justice wrote separately in July 2024. He called Israel’s policies in the occupied territory undoubtedly discriminatory and disproportionate. He then held that apartheid requires maintaining an institutionalised regime of domination to be the only reasonable inference from the conduct. He identified two other possible purposes, security considerations and the illegal aim of asserting sovereignty. The Court lacked the information to rule either out.

Cite it by name: a judge of the International Court is harder to dismiss than a government spokesperson.

Gaza, handled separately and shortly

Israel removed its settlers and soldiers in 2005 and Hamas took control in 2007. Since October 2023 the position has changed repeatedly. This will go stale first, so check it before use and say you are describing something in flux.

Ask what the word is for

The word arrives with a remedy attached, and nobody is ever asked to describe it. That is the question to put, and it is the one the frame exists to avoid.

Apartheid was not reformed. It was dismantled, and the state built on it was replaced by a different state on different constitutional foundations. That is what the word means when it is applied honestly, and it is why the word is chosen over discrimination, over occupation, over any term that ends in a negotiated border.

So ask. What replaces it. One state between the river and the sea, with what majority, under what constitution, with what protection for seven million Jews who would be voted into a minority for the first time since 1948, enforced by whom. Ask what happens to them if that arrangement fails, because the region has a recent record on the point: the Jewish communities of the Arab countries, Baghdad, Cairo, Tripoli and Sana’a among them, were reduced from 851,000 people in 1948 to a few thousand inside two decades, under constitutions that promised equality.

None of that is rhetorical. It is answerable, and some people can answer it. Ask it evenly and wait. A charge with no described remedy is a verdict looking for somebody to carry it out, and saying so calmly is stronger than any denial.

The lines

“The judge who ran the UN inquiry into Gaza is South African, and he called this charge false and malicious. Start with him, not with me.”

“Apartheid has elements. An institutionalised regime of racial domination, and the intent to maintain it. Take me through them.”

“Which of the three do you mean, Israel, the West Bank or Gaza? My answer is different for each.”

“Around half of Israel’s Jews descend from families from Iraq, Yemen, Morocco and Iran. Who is meant to be the ruling race?”

“I’m not going to tell you there’s one legal system in the West Bank. There are two. The question is whether that’s occupation or apartheid, and those have different tests.”

“You want it dismantled. Say what replaces it, and say what happens to the seven million Jews in it. I’ll wait for that answer.”

This approach can backfire, and here is where. Conceding the West Bank point will sometimes be reported as agreement and clipped that way, so put the distinction in the same breath rather than the next one. Leaning on the witnesses invites somebody to produce Pogrund, which is why you raise him first. And if you are not willing to be quoted saying two legal systems operate in the West Bank, do not make this argument. Saying you are not the person to answer costs far less.