Discussion of Israel’s apartheid and genocide is muted by the threat of accusations of antisemitism from those who lobby aggressively on behalf of Israel, and now increasingly by state action. This year has seen the arrest and deportation of pro-Palestinian students at Columbia University (NY), an unprecedented police raid on a Quaker Meeting House in London, police harassment of journalists, and the arrest and harassment of the public protesting the proscription of the group Palestine Action.
Former UK Supreme Court judge, Lord Sumption, said in an interview with Haroon Siddique of the Guardian that he had “warn[ed] of threats to free speech, which the former judge said included expressions of pro-Palestinian sentiments”.
Later, Lord Sumption said:
“I think that supporters of the Palestinian cause have had a rough time in a number of European jurisdictions, notably Germany, where there’s been direct – and government – moves to suppress that strand of thought altogether. We haven’t got anywhere near as close to things as that… but there’s certainly been a lot of calls, for… toughness on pro-Palestine demonstrations which assume, without actually saying, that it’s perfectly obvious that support for Palestine is wrong. I don’t think it’s wrong.”
It is becoming increasingly difficult to explore the following three questions openly for fear of running up against accusations of antisemitism.
Is Israel an apartheid state?
For decades, Palestinian territory has been occupied and fragmented, while the Israelis have built settlements and roads for their own purposes. Living in segregated communities, Palestinians are subject to a brutal occupation, passing through checkpoints just to move around their country. For years, many have drawn comparisons with apartheid in South Africa.
The “crime of apartheid” is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as “inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”.
In 2022, Amnesty International produced a detailed report explaining why Israel should be recognised as an apartheid state and should face economic sanctions. In an interview after the report was published, Sir Keir Starmer, then leader of the opposition, simply dismissed the report, saying he disagreed with it.
In 2024, the Bishop of Gloucester, Rachel Treweek, visited Palestine. An article she wrote on her return concludes:
“In the past I have been wary of using the word apartheid to describe the situation in Palestine-Israel but having seen even more starkly how life is now in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, I wish to stand alongside other individuals and groups, not least Christians, in boldly naming apartheid.”
Yet it seems that few in our media or political class are prepared to describe Israel as an apartheid state, perhaps because an apartheid state cannot also be described as a democracy.
Is Israel committing genocide?
When pressed as to whether Israel is committing genocide, government ministers answer glibly that this is a matter for the courts. The response given by the Prime Minister in at Prime Minster’s Questions in Parliament on 13 November 2024, was particularly superficial:
“Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind):…the Prime Minister stated that he has never referred to the atrocities happening in Gaza as a genocide. Will he share his definition of genocide with the House?
“The Prime Minister: It would be wise to start a question like that by a reference to what happened inOctober of last year. I am well aware of the definition of genocide, and that is why I have never described this or referred to it as genocide.”
To help identify where there is a risk of genocide, Genocide Watch founder Gregory Stanton set out the ten stages listed below.
From the images and footage of victims and perpetrators that have been circulated widely over the past 23 months, many can identify the stages at which these characteristics are met.
The International Court of Justice has already instructed governments to take immediate action to prevent genocide occurring in Gaza, but ministers continue to supply arms to Israel and support it with logistics and surveillance.
Is the UK liable for reparations?
The level of damage inflicted by Russia on the towns and cities of Ukraine prompted the World Bank Group to report in February 2024 that:
“The Government of Ukraine, the World Bank Group, the European Commission, and the United Nations currently estimate that as of 31 December 2023 the total cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine is $486 billion over the next decade.”
Human Rights Watch has declared that reparation is owed to all victims of gross human rights violations in Palestine and Israel:
“Third countries that provided offensive weapons to the parties to the conflict despite awareness of gross human rights abuses – including among others Germany, Iran, Italy, the UK, and the US as the largest arms supplier – should contribute to reparation. The home countries of businesses that have contributed to or benefited from Israel’s military campaign in Gaza should also ensure reparation for businesses’ roles in violations. Governments should commit to support and assist Palestinians’ return to their communities in Gaza, the West Bank, and in Israel, and third states and others should support compensation as needed.”
The British are starting to acknowledge injustices perpetrated during their imperial past. In many museums, art galleries and stately homes, alongside portraits of the powerful, there are references to their involvement in the theft of resources and the exploitation of people.
Much of what has happened in Palestine can be traced back to the decision of the three British statesmen David Lloyd George, Arthur Balfour, and Winston Churchill, key British leaders involved in the Mandate period who encouraged the colonisation of Palestine by giving the Zionist leader a guarantee that the British would not allow the Palestinian people to have representation.
The paintings depicting Lloyd George, Balfour, and Churchill in the National Portrait Gallery make no mention of this, and it is ironic that the statues of Lloyd George and Churchill, who denied the Palestinian people the right of representation, stand at the entrance to the House of Commons.
What will happen when the fighting stops?
The governments of Israel, the UK, and the US appear determined to legitimise the settler project. Many other nations believe that there should be a just solution for the Palestinian people. The political debate about what a just solution for Palestine would look like remains muted, but some faith communities have gone further. The Iona community in Scotland has produced a position paper on Israel/Palestine, calling for actions that include:
- “Decolonisation with an active, peacemaking, reconciliatory, and reparative process;
- international pressure through the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement;
- churches, denominational and local, to move beyond passive concern to action … too often they are given charity without justice;
- morally responsible investment of church-based funds and encouragement to churches to challenge any misuse of religion that promotes oppression or supremacism;
- the rejection of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism;
- the rejection of any characterisation of Palestine and Israel as “a conflict” when the struggle is far from equal;
- now, in 2025, as we see the crimes of genocide and witness mass murder, mass injury, domicide [destruction of homes], ecocide [widespread destruction of the environment], eliticide [targeted killing of educated or professional groups], scholasticide [targeted destruction of schools or educational systems] and planned land theft, we dismiss the claim that this is self-defence”.
While the UK, US, and Israeli governments will find such suggestions unpalatable, the millions who see daily images of the slaughter and starvation of Palestinians via global news coverage and social media circulation would welcome this fresh thinking should they ever hear of it.
It is vital that the restrictions that seek to curb the debate are lifted so that those who represent us, or seek to do so, can have a more balanced discourse without the fear of persecution or legal action. Members of the Labour Party are still not allowed to discuss the party’s adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism at constituency or branch meetings.
Comments? We want to hear them. Please write to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
