Samizdata

Someone I know  recently put up on Facebook what I thought was an excellent commentary about the Israel situation, its history, the actions of those who have tried to destroy it, and the arguments used by those who say it is an illegitimate state. The commentator, whom I won’t name as this wasn’t made available outside his own circle of online contacts, made a number of astute points that I think are just too important not to be shared on a blog like this. A question I ask is why are no major Western politicians making these points? 

Apartheid in South Africa:

From 1948 until the early 1990s, apartheid in South Africa was a legally codified system that entrenched white minority rule over the black majority. It was characterised by:

• The removal of citizenship and voting rights from black South Africans;

• Legal racial classification of every individual, determining where they could live, work, go to school and whom they could marry;

• Enforced residential separation, with large‑scale forced removals to poor, remote “homelands”;

• Segregation of public facilities including hospitals, schools, beaches, transport and parks;

• Criminalisation of interracial relationships; and

• A web of pass laws controlling the movement of black South Africans.

This was an explicit racial caste system designed to preserve white supremacy.

The Situation Within Israel’s Recognised Borders

Inside Israel’s internationally recognised borders, about one fifth of the citizens are Arabs. They:

• Have full voting rights and are elected to the Knesset, sometimes holding ministerial positions;

• Serve as judges, including on the Supreme Court;

• Use the same hospitals, transport systems, beaches, restaurants, shops and parks as Jewish citizens;

• Have Arabic recognised along with Hebrew as an official language;

• Send their children to state‑funded schools and universities; and

• Operate political parties that campaign openly, including against government policies

There is no legal system of racial segregation. Social or residential clustering tends to be the product of history and community choice, not forced separation by law.

The West Bank and Gaza:

The governance of the West Bank and Gaza is more complex. Palestinians in the West Bank live under Israeli military law, while Jewish settlers there are under Israeli civil law. This dual legal framework is the result of the unresolved status of the territory and long‑running security concerns, not a codified system of ethnic superiority.

Gaza has been under the control of Hamas since 2007. Israel withdrew its settlers and military in 2005. Since then, security blockades have been imposed by both Israel and Egypt to restrict the smuggling of weapons and the movement of militants. The political and legal conditions in Gaza are dictated by an armed conflict and separation of governance, making the apartheid analogy inapplicable.

International Comparisons:

Other states have systems of ethnic preference or sectarian limits without being described as apartheid regimes:

• Malaysia privileges ethnic Malays through the *Bumiputera* policy, giving preference in education, business ownership and civil service;

• Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states impose restrictions on non‑Muslims, including on religious practice, political participation and property ownership;

• Lebanon denies many rights to Palestinian refugees, restricting their employment opportunities and property rights;

• Myanmar has persecuted the Rohingya Muslim minority, involving mass killings and expulsions;

• PRC suppresses Uyghur Muslim religion and culture through detention, forced labour and restrictions on family life; and…

None of these are routinely called apartheid states. The label is selectively applied.