Israel’s own internal debate
Israeli and Jewish figures who invoke — or reject — the word
Long before the NGO reports, senior Israeli figures used “apartheid” — usually as a warning about where the occupation could lead if a two-state solution failed, not as a description of the present. Others, including the South African-Jewish jurist Richard Goldstone, argue the label is categorically wrong for Israel proper.
PM Ehud Olmert’s “South African-style struggle” warning
29 November 2007Genuinely contestedWhat happened
Returning from the Annapolis peace conference, sitting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz that Israel would be “finished” if the two-state solution collapsed and Palestinians shifted to a struggle for equal voting rights — a striking use of the analogy by an incumbent Israeli leader.
If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights… then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished. (Ehud Olmert, 2007). [Flag: frequently quoted out of context to imply Olmert called Israel an apartheid state — it was a warning about a future risk.]
Under each definition
Olmert invokes the concept prospectively; he makes no present-tense finding under the Convention.
A warning, not a determination of the crime’s elements.
He uses the South African analogy directly, but as a cautionary trajectory, not a current equivalence.
This is the analogical/warning sense of the word par excellence.
The case that the label applies
That an Israeli PM reached for the apartheid analogy shows the comparison isn’t merely external propaganda; it reflects a real demographic-and-rights dilemma recognized at the top of Israeli politics.
The case against
Olmert framed apartheid as a future risk to avoid, not a present reality — the opposite of a finding that Israel is an apartheid state; using his warning as proof of present apartheid inverts his meaning.
In their words
The Jewish organisations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us, because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents.
Justice Richard Goldstone rejects the label
31 October 2011Genuinely contestedWhat happened
Richard Goldstone — the South African Jewish jurist who authored the UN’s Gaza fact-finding report and had prosecuted apartheid-era crimes — wrote a New York Times op-ed rejecting the apartheid characterization of Israel while acknowledging the West Bank is “more complex.”
While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations. (Richard Goldstone, 2011)
Under each definition
Goldstone holds the Convention’s racial-domination test is not met, especially inside Israel.
He cites the Rome Statute text and says “nothing … comes close.”
His central point is that the South African benchmark makes the analogy false.
He concedes “apartheid” can carry a broader meaning; he simply rejects it here.
The case that the label applies
Goldstone addresses Israel proper but, critics note, largely sidesteps West Bank discrimination in residency, land and planning — the very areas where later HRW/Amnesty/ICJ analyses concentrate the apartheid/segregation finding.
The case against
Inside Israel, Arab citizens vote, sit in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court, and share hospital wards — features absent from South African apartheid’s racial disenfranchisement; the West Bank is governed by occupation/security law, not a racial-domination statute.
In their words
In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute.
What Justice Goldstone does not address are the myriad of issues associated with Israel’s discriminatory practices towards its Palestinian citizens… such as restricting their access to residency rights, land ownership, urban planning…
The verdicts above are how each definition would most likely classify this situation — illustrative guidance, not court rulings. Only South Africa is beyond dispute; every other legal characterization is attributed to the body that made it. The lenses diverge most on the treaties’ phrase “racial group” and on the difference between a legal finding and a moral analogy. See the Definition tab for each definition’s full text. Inclusion is documentation, not a finding.