How to think about ‘Israel Apartheid Week’

I am not an apologist for Israel. As an American diplomat and now as a university professor, I have often been critical of Israeli policies and practices, especially in the occupied territories. Most recently, I published an article in “The American Interest” on Israeli settlements that calls attention to the inner failings of Israeli rule of law when it comes to dealing with the settlements issue. I have also spoken publicly about other Israeli policies in the occupied territories, policies which are inconsistent with international legality and which have often resulted in humanitarian and other stress on the Palestinians.

But these criticisms of Israeli policies in the West Bank or Gaza are a very far cry from a sweeping indictment of Israel, an indictment which has become part of a broader, highly politicized effort to delegitimize the state itself. The State of Israel ranks high among the community of democracies, with protections for human and civil rights. Israel has a pluralist and open political system and an array of democratic institutions that safeguard basic freedoms and liberties. As with all democratic countries, Israel’s political system is a work in progress, with lively debate about the nature of the system, the role of religion, the rights of minorities and the like. It is far from perfect, but it is also a democracy.

Israeli policies in the territories it occupied in 1967 are an issue apart. Israel holds that its position in the territories derives not from an act of aggression but as a result of an act of self-defense. Some in Israel believe that as a consequence of the League of Nations mandate given to the British government after World War I, it has a claim to some of the territory it now holds. Some believe that Israel has a claim to these territories based on Biblical promises. In some cases, Israel or private Israeli citizens hold title to land in these areas.

Since 1967, there have been ongoing efforts to reach a peace settlement based on U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. This resolution is widely seen as requiring the exchange of territory for peace, and it mandates an outcome that produces secure and recognized boundaries. The story of Israeli-Palestinian interaction since 1967 is complex and highly charged. It touches upon international legality, occupation practices that have often caused humanitarian stress, terrorism and violence that have resulted in thousands of civilian casualties on both sides, and negotiations that have produced some stunning breakthroughs and disappointing failures.

Thus, it is equally wrong to be single-minded in condemnation of Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories as manifesting “apartheid,” as it is wrong to be single-minded in defending Israeli policies and practices. A far more nuanced approach was suggested by none other than the Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, in a speech on Feb. 2 at the Herzliya Conference. Barak uttered the “apartheid” word but he did so as a demon that Israel must avoid by making a fundamental choice about itself and its future relations with Palestinians. Barak said, “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel, it is going to be either non-Jewish or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”

Barak’s message to Israelis and their supporters was quite clear: For Israel to remain a vibrant democracy and a state with a Jewish majority, it will have to give up the occupied territories. It cannot remain a democracy if it holds the territories but denies Palestinians the vote, and it cannot remain a Jewish-majority state if it tries to assimilate the Palestinians currently under occupation.

I think Barak is exactly right, and I think the “Apartheid Week” activists are exactly wrong. Rather than pursuing the delegitimization of a democracy, those activists ought to focus on ending the occupation through negotiations based on Resolution 242. They — we — ought to be urging our government to play a determined leadership role in promoting peace and comity between Israelis and Palestinians.

Daniel Kurtzer is the S. Daniel Abraham Visiting Professor of Middle East Policy Studies at the Wilson School. He served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel during a 30-year career in the American Foreign Service. He can be reached at dkurtzer@princeton.edu.