Unless you have been living under a rock, you’ll know that Amnesty International released a vile report accusing Israel of ‘Apartheid’. Every informed and level headed person on the planet also knows it is a spiteful and false claim. In a recent ranking of the world’s democracies, Israel came in at number 23, which makes it one of the freest, most liberal and vibrant democracies on earth. Political leaders from the US, UK, Germany, Austria, Australia, the Czech Republic and Canada swiftly rejected Amnesty’s report.
The Amnesty report is even more obscene given that just across Israel’s northern border in Lebanon – there is an actual case of real Apartheid.
Most know that Amnesty followed HRW and B’tselem in spreading this libel, but many do not realise that this was not some ‘eureka’ moment for them all. Since 2001, they have all been working on Israel being labelled the new South Africa. Slowly but surely ramping up the volume with each passing year. It is one of the reasons that Amnesty has an obsession with attacking the Jewish state.
It is also important to understand their strategy has nothing to do with events in the real world. In fact, if you actually place Amnesty’s report next to reality – you will be left scratching your head. Just last year a broad coalition formed to become Israel’s new government – which even included an Islamist party. This total political inclusiveness is a key reason Israel’s saw a slight improvement between its ‘Democracy Index’ ranking in 2021 (23rd) and the one it received in 2020 (27th). Amnesty producing its report now, proves beyond much argument that they are working to a timetable that has nothing to do with what Israel does or does not do. That is a key message that those on the left should really pay attention to.
Following Amnesty’s publication, three key questions have surfaced:
- Why have Amnesty called the only democracy in the entire region an ‘Apartheid state’?
- Why are they picking on Israel?
- What do Amnesty mean by ‘Apartheid’?
It is only the last question that really matters. Because when you unravel the answer to that question – everything else becomes crystal clear.
200,000+ words and little meaning
The anti-Israel activist Ben White wrote a book about ‘Israeli Apartheid’ and has been smearing Israel for decades. White is one of the stars of anti-Israel activism and deliberately demonises Israel everywhere he goes. I mention him because of his manner of delivery.
I have watched and spoken to Ben White on numerous occasions. Once, even though he probably does not remember it – I sat down next to him at a roundtable event (in those ‘undercover’ days he would have known me as ‘John’) to discuss BDS strategy. What White does when he opens his talks, is throw ‘facts’ and ‘statistics’ at people in a barrage. Nobody listening can get their head around any of the complicated graphs they are shown, nor stop to analyse whether every piece of information is accurate. White drowns people in so much disinformation – they cannot see beyond the headlines that he gives them at the end. Because most of those in the audience are already sold on whatever it is Ben White is selling – they just sit in admiration of his ‘knowledge’ and accept whatever conclusion he provides for them. It is a great tactic.
Amnesty International just did exactly that in a 200+ page report containing over 200,000 words. They simply misdirected everyone under a mountain of nonsense.
Firstly – the elephant in the room. We have TWO accusations, not ONE. There is the Apartheid smear (also false) about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, and then there is the bigger one – that even if Israel were to withdraw from all the 1967 lands – Israel would still be an Apartheid state. It is important to understand this because it highlights just how bad the report is. What Amnesty International is saying is that if the Palestinians had a state of their own – if Israel withdrew from every inch of Gaza and the WB – Amnesty International would still consider Israel a pariah state. Leftists – take note.
Let me dismiss the lesser of the smears quickly – because leaving it in the air will just get in the way. You simply cannot believe in an ‘occupation’ and believe in ‘Israeli Apartheid’. If there is an ‘occupation’ – then at the root there must be an ‘occupied’ and an ‘occupier’. These labels are applied going by where one would have been standing on the morning of the 4th June 1967. They have absolutely nothing to do with race, Jews, Muslims, or any other criteria other than a historical geographical position. Within this paradigm an Israeli Arab could be an ‘occupier’ and his cousin could be part of the ‘occupied’. Calling this Apartheid is nonsensical. It is an ongoing conflict, and it is complex enough already. What makes the smear even worse is that the only reason Palestinians do not yet have a state of their own – is because they have rejected offer after offer.
We can argue over international law and whether the territories are ‘occupied or ‘disputed’, we can all struggle to find a workable solution that isn’t scuppered by Palestinian intransigence and Islamist extremists – but there is certainly no room around the table for empty smear campaigns that rely on offensive and wildly inaccurate terminology.
…and misleading articles
These two separate accusations allow for an enormous amount of misreporting. One of the most glaring lies in the media came unsurprisingly from the Guardian which ran an article suggesting that some Israeli leaders also think *Israel* is an Apartheid state. They mention Yossi Sarid (talking about the ‘occupation’), Ehud Barak (didn’t say it at all – but suggested it could happen) and Michael Ben Yair (talks about the ‘occupation’). These are all left-wing voices referring to the possible implications of failure to find a solution with the Palestinians. It was disgraceful for the Guardian to imply that they agree with Amnesty’s findings about Israel. Michael Ben Yair – in the very article the Guardian links to, suggests that Israel is ‘progressive and liberal’. This is shameful reporting from the Guardian – but deliberately misleading those who do not know enough to understand is exactly how these lies are spread.
But I digress – putting aside the secondary smear – let us deal with Amnesty’s key claim.
When Amnesty sent out the embargoed version – it contained a smoking gun. In the Executive Summary they claimed that Israel’s ‘Apartheid’ began with its birth (lower part of image). When there was initial outrage – and prior to publication – Amnesty changed the sentence to hide the evidence (upper part of image).
Amnesty state explicitly that the problems in Israel go back to the state’s founding in 1948. It is worthwhile remembering that Israel came about through a rejection by the Arabs of the UN partition plan, a civil conflict fuelled by genocidal comments from Arab leaders – and an invasion by several Arab states upon the departure of the British. When the dust settled, the Jews had survived (they’d lost 1% of their entire population in the conflict) – and Israel had withstood the first of many brutal attacks. At the report’s heart then, by suggesting that the problem began with Israel’s birth – Amnesty are not just sorry the Jews survived – they now want everyone to punish the Jews for surviving.
Amnesty don’t think it is Apartheid
So what ‘Apartheid’ does Amnesty thinks exists in Israel? Actually – they don’t believe it exists at all. I’ve read the report and there is no way anyone truly believes the Apartheid label applies to Israel. Amnesty even tell us that in the report when they write that they do not seek to argue that Israel’s ‘Apartheid’ is even ‘analogous’ to South Africa:
If it is not even analogous – why on earth use the word?
Amnesty use the word only because of the effect they hope it will have. And in order to do so – they needed to do a ‘Ben White’ and make sure nobody in the audience understood what they are talking about. Hence a 200,000+ word document, overburdened with one-sided, non-factual, or irrelevant information, that butchered every definition and every human rights law relevant to the situation.
We know that Amnesty has misrepresented ‘facts, laws and definitions’. We are aware they butchered quotes, spread lies, revised history, and downplayed all the terrorist attacks on Israel. And we also know from CAMERA that the report is full of gobsmacking pieces of non-factual propaganda. Amnesty even appropriated the identity of proud Arab Israelis and called them ‘Palestinians’ (against their wishes) – to help blur the lines even further.
But it still leaves the question unanswered. If Amnesty’s ‘apartheid’ doesn’t actual mean ‘apartheid’ – then what does it mean?
Amnesty’s definition of ‘Apartheid’ means ‘Jewish majority rule’
These are some of the problems in Israel inside Amnesty’s ‘Apartheid’ report:
- The report makes clear that they have a problem with Israel’s ‘law of return’ which is the basis of the world having a refuge for Jewish people (page 82).
- Amnesty has a problem with Hebrew being the dominant language (page 212).
- They have a problem with Jewish majority state control (throughout the document).
- Amnesty has a problem with the Jewish state ‘owning’ its own land (throughout the document).
- It has a problem with urban renewal projects (throughout the document)
- Amnesty has a problem with the Jewish state building towns to house Jewish refugees and immigrants (page 146)
- It has a problem with a Jewish majority anywhere – referring to the impact of that majority as ”Judaization’ (example page 22)
- Amnesty has a problem when the Jewish state embarks on social and economic development programs (page 153)
- Amnesty has a problem with normal economic restraints (such as a state not having enough money to invest as much as it should – see investment on classrooms on page 213)
- It has a problem with there being more ‘Jewish localities’ than non-Jewish ones (page 146).
- Amnesty scream ‘Apartheid’ when they see a housing shortage (you know, like we have in the UK)
The bottom line is this: Amnesty International have a problem with a Jewish majority state – period.
Maybe this single sentence highlights the problem best (from page 213):
‘In 2016, only 526 classrooms were built in Arab localities, compared to 2,171 built in the Hebrew education system’
That is nonsensical because Arabs are approximately 20% of the population and yet Amnesty are complaining when Israel gave them 24% of the new classrooms – outrageously using it as an example in a report about ‘Israeli Apartheid’. But it does highlight what the real problem is. Israel has a Jewish majority – and to the Islamists that is an unacceptable state of affairs. This is not about individual rights – which are equal throughout Israel. Amnesty’s demand is far more sinister. Amnesty is saying that as a minority group the Arabs should be on an equal footing with the majority – in all areas.
So if the 80% of Jews have 2171 new classrooms – so should the 20% of Arabs have 2171 new classrooms. If not – it is ‘Apartheid’. Arabic should be on an equal status to Hebrew – if not, it is Apartheid.
If you do not believe me – look at the NGO Adalah. They are mentioned 156 times in the Amnesty report. Adalah actually holds a database of what they call ‘discriminatory laws’ and it is frequently referenced by NGOs like Amnesty. The database is even used as a reference twice in the report. A few years ago I looked at the Adalah database and wrote a report exposing it as a scam. According to Adalah – even things like the flag, state emblems and Jewish holidays are discriminatory.
Now while Amnesty do not explictly use these examples – they rely 156 times on the NGO that produced them. Amnesty’s sources all want Israel gone – and they want a Muslim majority nation to take its place. This is why Amnesty can claim Apartheid has existed since 1948. It is all about the Jews actually enjoying the trappings of their own majority status.
Wanting to destroy Israel
Being in the majority comes with perks. Most people will speak the same language as you, worship the same god as you and celebrate the same holidays as you. A nation’s culture is shaped by the majority. Christmas day is a big holiday in the UK – not so much in Saudi Arabia. The UK’s flag and many of the state’s emblems carry a cross – which you won’t tend to find on the state emblems in Indonesia. Nothing of this is untoward. The UK is not an Apartheid state because Easter is celebrated with a public holiday – and Ramadan isn’t. And inside pre 1967 Israel – this is what Amnesty are calling ‘Apartheid’ – this is what they want to tear down. They want to destroy the Jewish state.
So remember, when you see Amnesty say ‘Apartheid’ – what they mean is democratic representation inside a Jewish majority state. And when they say they want to ‘end it’ be in no doubt that they are talking about the deliberate destruction of the only democratic nation in the MENA region.
Why are they doing it? – Simply because the Islamist / hard-left alliance have taken a firm grip of what was once Amnesty’s soul.
Support the fight against antisemitism
My research is unique and hard hitting. It also depends on community support. I have many ongoing projects looking at antisemitism wherever it hides. Help me fight antisemitism in 2022 – there is so much work to do.
We have to fight back against the spread of antisemitism and the lies of anti-Zionism. The results speak for themselves and for seven years I have been exposing hate and creating headlines.
I battle back against those who seek to revise history and I expose antisemitism wherever it is found. I fight when others don’t. Please help If you can, please consider making a donation. Your help makes it all possible.
You can make PayPal donations using the donate button below.
Or by using my Paypal.,me account.
If you wish to provide regular monthly support outside of PayPal you can also do this via my Patreon page
Every contribution is truly appreciated