Apartheid and the Future of Israel/Palestine

20 Sep


[Prefatory Note: There has been lots of discussion prompted by the release of a report jointly authored with Prof. Virginia Tilley, a study commissioned by the UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA), and given by us the title, “Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid.” The interview, associated with my current visit to Belgium and France to speak on various aspects of the analysis and implications of the report, brings up to date the controversy generated at the UN by its release a few months ago, and by the willingness of the UN Secretary General to bow to U.S. pressure and order the removal of the report from ESCWA website. The interview questions were posed by veteran Middle East correspondent, Pierre Barbancey, and published in l’Humanité, Sept. 6, 2017.]






The Report was commissioned by the UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia in 2016 at the request of its Council, which has a membership of 18 Arab states. Professor Virginia Tilley and I were offered a contract to prepare a report on the applicability of the crime of apartheid to the manner in which Israeli policies and practices affected the Palestinian people as a whole, and not as in previous discussions of the applicability of apartheid, only to those Palestinians living since 1967 under Israeli occupation. The originality of the Report is to extend the notion of apartheid beyond the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and investigate its applicability to Palestinians living in refugee camps in neighboring countries, to those Palestinians enduring involuntary exile abroad, and to those existing as a discriminated minority in Israel.


2) What are the conclusions of the ESCWA Report?


The most important conclusion of the Report was that by careful consideration of the relevant evidence, Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid as defined in the 1976 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid with regard to the Palestinian PEOPLE AS A WHOLE, that is, Palestinians living under occupation as refugee and in involuntary exile, and as a minority in Israel are all victimized by the overriding crime. The Report also found that Jews and Palestinians both qualify as a ‘race’ as the term is used in the Convention, and that Israel to sustain a Jewish state established by ‘inhuman acts’ a structure of oppressive and discriminatory domination by which the Palestinians were victimized as a people.


A second conclusion of importance is that the Rome Statute governing the International Criminal Court considers apartheid to be one type of ‘crime against humanity,’ which does not necessarily exhibit the same features as pertained to the apartheid regime in South Africa, the origin of the concept and crime, but not a template for its subsequent commission.


A third conclusion is that given the existence of apartheid, sustained to maintain a Jewish state in Palestine, all sovereign states, the UN, and civil society all have a legally grounded responsibility to take all reasonable steps of a nonviolent character to bring the commission of the crime to an end.


A fourth conclusion is that the Report is an academic study that draws conclusions and offers recommendation on the basis of a legal analysis, but it is not a duly constituted legal body empowered to make formal findings with respect to the allegations that Israel is guilty of apartheid.






We experienced two contradictory sets of reactions.


From ESCWA the report was received with enthusiasm. We were told it was the most important report that ESCWA had ever published, with by far the largest number of requests for copies.


At the UN, the report and its authors were strongly attacked by the diplomatic representatives of the United States and Israel, with the demand the UN acted to repudiate the report. The Secretary General instructed the Director of ESCWA to remove the report from its website, and when she refusing, she tendered her principled resignation explained in an Open Letter to the Secretary General. It should be appreciated that this was an academic report of international law experts, and never claimed to be an official reflection of UN views. A disclaimer at the outset of the Report made this clear.




The status of the report within ESCWA is not clear. As far as I know the report itself has not been repudiated by ESCWA. In fact, it has been endorsed in a formal decision of the 18 foreign ministers of the ESCWA countries, including a recommendation to other organs of the UN System that the findings and recommendations of the Report be respected. Beyond this, the report has altered the discourse in civil society and to some extent, in diplomatic settings, making the terminology of ‘apartheid’ increasingly displace the emphasis on ‘occupation.’





This is an inappropriate and even absurd allegation. The BDS Campaign is directed against Israeli policies and practices that violate international law and cause great suffering to be inflicted on the Palestinian people. It has nothing whatsoever to do with hostility to Jews as persons or as a people. The allegation is clearly designed to discredit BDS and to discourage persons from lending it support or participating in its activities. It is an unfortunate and irresponsible use of the ‘anti-Semitic’ label designed to manipulate public opinion and government policy, and inhibit activism.




I know there have been efforts in Europe and North America to criminalize support for BDS, but so far as I know, no formal laws have yet been brought into existence, and no indictments or prosecutions, outside of Israel and France, have taken place. I am not entire clear as to what has happened in Israel along these lines, although I know that Israel has been denying BDS supporters from abroad entry into the country.




My experience as UN Special Rapporteur in Occupied Palestine on behalf of the Human Rights Council was both frustrating and fulfilling. It was frustrating because during my six years as SR the situation on the ground and diplomatically worsened for the Palestinian people despite the documented record of Israeli human rights abuses. It was fulfilling because it enabled a forthright presentation of Israeli violations of basic Palestinian rights, which had some influence on the discourse within the UN, building support for corporate responsibility in relation to commercial dealing with Israel’s unlawful settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as shifted some of the discourse within the UN from ‘occupation’ to ‘settler colonialism’ and ‘apartheid.’


It was also something of a personal ordeal as I was constantly subject to defamatory attacks by UN Watch and other ultra Zionist NGOs and their supporters, also organizing efforts to have me dismissed from my UN position and barred from lecturing on university campuses around the world. Fortunately, these efforts failed by and large, but they did have the intended effect of shifting the conversation from substance to auspices, from the message to messenger.



The1947 partition resolution [GA Res. 181] was part of the exit strategy of the British colonial administration in the mandate period that controlled Palestine after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the conclusion of World War I. This approach was flawed in several basic respects: it neglected the will of the majority Arab and non-Jewish domestic population, and imposed a solution to the conflict without consulting the inhabitants; it also within its own terms failed to secure Palestinian rights or its sovereign political community, or even to uphold international humanitarian law. The UN never effectively implemented partition, and thus gave Israel the de facto discretion to impose its will on the entire territory of Palestine, including the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians in the 1947 War, which overcame the demographic imbalance, and allowed itself to be branded to this day as ‘a democracy,’ even being hailed as ‘the only democracy in the Middle East.’ The US and Europe played a crucial geopolitical role in producing these developments, which rested on an Orientalist mentality lingering in the West.



It is difficult to envision the future at this stage, yet it is clear that the Palestinian national struggle is continuing both in the form of Palestinian resistance activities and by way of the international solidarity movement, of which the BDS Campaign is

by far the most important undertaking. In my judgment until there is exerted enough pressure on the Israeli government to change course drastically, signaled by a willingness to dismantle the laws and procedures associated with the current apartheid regime used to subjugate the Palestinian people, there is no genuine prospect for a political solution to the conflict. Such a change of course in South Africa occurred, against all expectations at home and abroad, and partly in response to pressures generated by this earlier version of an international BDS campaign. My hope is that as the Palestinian people continue to win the ongoing Legitimacy War, this pattern will eventually be repeated, leading after a prolonged struggle to a sustainable peace between these two peoples based on the cardinal principle of equality. This will not happen, tragically, until there is much suffering endured, especially by Palestinians living under occupation, in refugee camps and involuntary exile, and as a discriminated minority within Israel. This Palestinian ordeal has gone on far too long. Its origins can be traced back at least a century ago when in an undisguised colonial gesture of the British Foreign Office pledged its support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in historic Palestine to the World Zionist Movement in the form of the Balfour Declaration (1917). The competing national narratives of what transpired over the subsequent century tell different stories, each with an authentic base of support in the relevant community, but only the Palestine narrative can gain present comfort from the guidelines of international law, above all, the inalienable right of self-determination




13 Responses to “Apartheid and the Future of Israel/Palestine”

  1. Beau Oolayforos September 22, 2017 at 12:09 pm #

    Dear Professor Falk,

    Certainly, your hope is our hope, that as the Palestinians gradually win Legitimacy, that the apartheid structures will crumble. And as the two-state model risks becoming increasingly untenable, people will look to O. Barghouti’s and others’ vision of a unified, pluralistic, and truly democratic state.

    Another nation that has been awaiting justice for at least a century are the Kurds. If memory serves, they were promised something in the Treaty of Versailles. And now, as they near an independence referendum, so many people are hollering “Wait! Not now!” Since Official Israel is actively supporting independence, perhaps they should be reminded of the parallels.

    • Laurie Knightly September 23, 2017 at 5:21 pm #

      Beau, I think you are referring to Treaty of Lausanne…..

      • Richard Falk September 25, 2017 at 2:49 am #

        Actually, Laurie, I think it was the earlier Treaty of Sevres, but I may be wrong as I am relying on my porous
        memory while ‘on the road.’ With greetings, Richard

      • Laurie Knightly September 25, 2017 at 7:28 am #

        Yes, they were included in the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 but lost out in the replacement Treaty of Lausanne 1923. Ataturk…..

    • Mike Thompson October 9, 2017 at 7:16 am #

      Actually, Beau, In 1924 Britain, France and Turkey (Tzarist Russia had gone!) were conducting talks to define the post WW1 borders.

      All the borders we see today were imposed by Britain and France, Kurdistan was always a separate Viliyet (Region) of the Ottoman Empire.

      They all wanted complete control of Kurdistan (which would have been better for the Kurd`s) instead the compromise was to take a third each irritating the Kurd`s of course.

      Part of the selfish interests of Britain particularly, where artificial countries were created with compliant Arab puppet leaders doing as they were told.

      It was chaos from the beginning, it still is!

      P.S. If it`s a Kingdom, it`s a British creation.

  2. Laurie Knightly September 23, 2017 at 2:45 pm #

    Since the ESCWA report, the label ‘apartheid’ has become much more prevalent when discussing the disgraceful situation of Palestine’s indigenous population. This is a very positive sign. Whereas a backlash has occurred, it reveals the subterfuge necessary to defend Zionism and its repercussions. In 7} of this essay, Falk states that the conversation moved from substance to auspices, message to messenger. Auspices? I’d say moved from substance to abstruseness.

    As the 100th anniversary of the Balfour approaches, the British not only refuse to recant in any way but are renewing their vows in Israel with Lord Roderick Balfour, the 5th Earl of Balfour who ‘reminisced fondly’ regarding his ancestor’s ingratiating letter. The British Foreign Office stated that it does not intend to apologize for the Balfour Declaration [as has been suggested] but that they are “proud of our role in creating the state of Israel. The task is now to encourage moves toward peace.” No call for justice….. Peace means total Palestinian submission – which is very peaceful.

  3. Kata Fisher September 24, 2017 at 7:06 pm #

    Professor Falk, I am Afraid that Current nationalist self-determinations will come to nothing. In addition to that, also will cause grave problems for the future of those people’s/ people’s tribes. They have to have be moving in self-determinations, but something has to be moving for them,too. At least they must have Special Rapporteur/s and also most have to be doing their change / pursuits in Juridic Person. After all they must accomplish something that should we lastingly worth-while. Otherwise they will accomplish evil, and future will bring regretful dooms. Also, do you know how would 21 century be if all systems would become diplomacies? Possibly legit democracies? I had reflection anout that — but I do not understand any further on that.

    • Richard Falk September 25, 2017 at 2:53 am #


      This is not a coherent comment. I am sure you have something relevant on your mind, but
      it does not come across. Think of your readers so that they might understand more clearly
      what it is you are trying to express.

  4. ray032 September 30, 2017 at 9:08 am #

    I came across new perspectives Today.

    A Jewish atonement for Zionism

    “Not by Might, nor by Power”: The Zionist Betrayal of Judaism
    By Moshe Menuhin. (1893-1983)
    Originally published as The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time, Exposition Press, 1965;

    Not by Might, nor by Power is a methodical and chronological (and to a significant extent autobiographical) survey of Jewish nationalism, beginning with its various manifestations throughout biblical and post-biblical history, and including its modern incarnation – Zionism – an offshoot of 19th century European political nationalism.

    Menuhin devotes the majority of the book to the presentation of historical information peppered with pertinent quotes from Zionist and other world leaders, which reveal a premeditated and systematic plan for the Jewish colonization of the land known then as Palestine – now Israel – alongside a brutal ethnic cleansing of its indigenous people – the Palestinians.

    Not by Might, nor by Power is an act of dissent born of pain, love, outrage, shame and a fundamentally Jewish desire for atonement.

    Then he said to me, this is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts (Zechariah 4:6)

    Moshe did his own Aliyah and time in Palestine from 1904-1913. and lived through the beginnings of political Zionism, soon becoming an ardent anti-Zionist. He was one of the 1st to be labelled a “self-hating Jew.”

    Below is the long link to the sample Introduction, Preface, and Part 1 from Amazon & Kindle

    Mondoweiss Review

  5. truthaholics October 3, 2017 at 12:38 pm #

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “The competing national narratives of what transpired over the subsequent century tell different stories, each with an authentic base of support in the relevant community, but only the Palestine narrative can gain present comfort from the guidelines of international law, above all, the inalienable right of self-determination”


  1. Apartheid and the Future of Israel/Palestine | Global Justice in the 21st Century « Middle Eastern Eye - September 20, 2017

    […] Source: Apartheid and the Future of Israel/Palestine | Global Justice in the 21st Century […]

  2. Apartheid and the Future of Israel/Palestine | Veterans News Now - October 2, 2017

    […] Source: Global Justice in the 21st Century […]

  3. Apartheid and the Future of Israel/Palestine - Veterans Day 2017 - October 2, 2017

    […] Source: Global Justice in the 21st Century […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: