Israel’s rush towards apartheid will exact an unbearable price

Some of my formative years were spent in South Africa during apartheid. Decades later, after the world forced its dismantlement in 1994, I served there as Israel’s ambassador. I am therefore doubly pained to write that since the formation of our current government, Israel is speeding those processes which turn it at least into a “threshold apartheid state”.

Previously, our response to accusations of apartheid had two main parts. Within the Green Line (Israel’s borders after the War of Independence in 1948), Arab citizens have equal rights. Beyond it, in the territories which it has controlled since the Six Day War in 1967, Israel complies with international laws of “belligerent occupation”, a status which it recognizes and is, by definition, temporary. The government systematically undermines both claims.

Until it came into power two years ago, Israel did not officially negate the possibility of territorial compromise, in the spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 242 which Israel adopted. We would point to past agreements, state that we yearn for a reliable partner and emphasize that in the meantime, Israel complies with international law.

That law decrees that an occupying power may not move populations from its sovereign territory into occupied territories and vice versa, except for security needs. Israel therefore made sure that any decision regarding the territories, from expanding a settlement in Judea to building a road in Samaria, was made by the security establishment. As time passed and settlements grew in number and size, that line became less convincing, but we persisted.

The appointment of Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich as an additional minister in the Ministry of Defense changed that. The authority vested in him is a declaration that Israel’s actions in the territories are henceforth subject to civilian considerations. Israel thus openly flouts its international obligations towards the territories it controls.

To that must be added the speedy implementation of changes, such as legalizing outposts which were illegal even by Israeli law, and the hope-expectation of that double minister that 2025 will be the year of sovereignty, meaning that the West Bank will become part of Israel.

None of this is surprising. The current coalition guidelines negate the possibility of territorial compromise. If previous coalition agreements sometimes mentioned our historical rights to the Land of Israel, a word was added. That right is now “exclusive.” From the river to the sea, it is all ours, only ours, one unit. The Green Line is history.

If there are no negotiations nor will there be, if efforts are made to expand settlements in the territories, if the Green Line is erased, and if Israel is a democracy, then all the people under its rule should be subject to the same laws. This is not the case. For example, recently Minister of Defense Israel Katz said that Jews who are suspected of terrorism will no longer be held under administrative arrest, as there are other means to deal with them.

Translation: as in apartheid South Africa, it is not the alleged crime but the perpetrator’s group identification that determines the authorities’ actions. There is one set of rules for Jews, another for Arabs. A law for Whites, a law for Blacks. One had freedom of movement, the other needed permits and encountered roadblocks. Most importantly, only those with a particular skin color could vote. Others were subject to the will of the rulers.

This is not the place to discuss the moral aspects of such a regime or to describe the limitations that South Africa placed on democratic institutions and values, such as freedom of expression, in order to enable apartheid to continue; I will stick to the practicalities. None of those leading us to annexation has provided an answer, acceptable to any but themselves, on the proposed civil and human rights of the residents of the territories.

Other Israelis are invited to learn how the sanctions imposed on apartheid South Africa affected it. They should then ask themselves what might happen to Israel as a result of a policy that will leave millions without rights, and ask if it is worth the price.

The greatest critics of this government will agree that not all who face us are angels, and will confirm the world’s hypocrisy regarding Israel. That does not exempt us from having a thorough look at our actions and from the need to understand the consequences of becoming a country that operates outside the boundaries of international agreement.