The Christian Solution

C   S  
Home Page   About TCS   Contact Us   Document Library  
April 2017 AD

Apatheid Israel

"The authors reject the accusation of anti-Semitism in the strongest terms.

the question of whether the State of Israel is constituted as an apartheid regime springs from the same body of international human rights law and principles that rejects anti-Semitism: that is, the prohibition of racial discrimination."

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Jews will call anyone and everyone an antisemitic Nazi.

Now even now the entire world is labeled antisemitic.

The Jews created United Nations as "the recognized authority on human rights law"  established the Nuremberg trials to try Germans, establishing antisemitism as a crime against human rights.
What is antisemitism?  Antisemitism is a specific discriminatory, segregation and/or systemic domination, SPECIFICALLY AGAINST JEWISH ETHNICITY ONLY.

Well, that is also the generalized definition of the crime of apartheid -- stripped of Jewish Privledge for their own specially named crime.

Jews do not like the fact that they have now been indicted of the crime of apartheid by the same United Nations they run to every time in defense of their own protection against bullies.

Once again, charges of antisemitism and Nazism against the UN show one of two things.

Either the word Nazi and antisemitism has lost all meaning if everyone is defined as Nazi and antisemitic.  (Israel itself is a member of the UN as well)

Or, the rest of the world are perfectly normal and there is something terribly wrong with Israel.

We take the latter belief.

UN's Frankenstein Creation

the situation in Israel-Palestine constitutes an unmet obligation of the organized international community to resolve a conflict partially generated by its own actions.

That obligation dates formally to 1922, when the League of Nations established the British Mandate for Palestine as a territory eminently ready for independence as an inclusive secular State, yet incorporated into the Mandate the core pledge of the Balfour Declaration to support the “Jewish people” in their efforts to establish in Palestine a “Jewish national home”. 

Later United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions attempted to resolve the conflict generated by that arrangement, yet could not prevent related proposals, such as partition, from being overtaken by events on the ground.

If this attention to the case of Israel by the United Nations appears exceptional, therefore, it is only because no comparable linkage exists between United Nations actions and any other prolonged denial to a people of their right of self-determination.

UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Israel was began by the forerunner to the United Nations, the League of Nations, and was formally recognized by its successor, the United Nations.

In this, Israel is indeed unique among nations.

They created the institution that created them. 

More than any other nation, the nation of Israel is the responsibility of the United Nations.

In creating Israel, with a nod to the noble principles of self-determination, the United Nations made a solemn promise to Palestinian Arabs, and that promise was a two-state partition - Jew and Arab -  where Palestinian Arabs would have their own destiny and a right to their own self-determination independent of the Jewish Crusaders of 1948 AD.

As every Arab knows, the UN has blatantly failed Arabs.

Every Arab child knows, the UN has allowed Israel to dominate the entire region.

Back then, Israel did not condemn the international body which gave it legitimacy.

Quite to the contrary, the United Nations, with the same pastel colored flag as Israel, was pushed by Jews as the model of the New World Order, Phase II, they wished to build after they had completed the establishment of the New World Order, Phase I   back in 1917 AD following the fall of the Christian World Order.

UN Apartheid Report

This report concludes that Israel has established an apartheid regime that
dominates the Palestinian people as a whole. Aware of the seriousness
of this allegation, the authors of the report conclude that available evidence
establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of policies and
practices that constitute the crime of apartheid as legally defined in
instruments of international law.

The analysis in this report rests on the same body of international human rights law and principles that reject anti-Semitism and other racially discriminatory ideologies, including: the Charter of the United Nations (1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965). The report relies for its definition of apartheid primarily on article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973, hereinafter the Apartheid Convention):

The term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to... inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Indeed, please pay attention here.

The very definition of Antisemitism is "Apartheid specifically toward Jews."

If a non-Jew were to inhumanely racially discriminate and segregate Jews to establish and maintain domination over Jews and to systematically oppress them, that is antisemitism as well as apartheid.

If we are to be equal under the law, then Jews too cannot inhumanely racially discriminate and segregate themselves from others in order to systematically dominate and oppress those others.

Crime of the State of Israel

The legal approach to the matter of apartheid adopted by this report should not be confused with usage of the term in popular discourse as an expression of opprobrium.

Seeing apartheid as discrete acts and practices (such as the “apartheid wall”), a phenomenon generated by anonymous structural conditions like capitalism (“economic apartheid”), or private social behaviour on the part of
certain racial groups towards others (social racism) may have its place in certain contexts. However, this report anchors its definition of apartheid in international law, which carries with it responsibilities for States, as specified in international instruments.

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

What an eye-opener this report is.

The Nazi antisemitism the world opposed was a State action.

The antisemitism you and I are constantly accused of by Jews is nothing more than a derisive put-down of an individual and cannot be a crime of either Apartheid or the Jewish preferred name for Apartheid of Antisemitism, as neither are the action of a State or Nation.

The charges against Israel are the United Nations rightfully under its charter of policing the State of Israel, one of its own. (Which if applied to our own country is why I oppose the UN)

The charges of antisemitism against you and I are simply bullying tactics to get you and I to shut up.

Can there be any doubt that Israel was created from the start as an ethnically-centered nation and Palestinians have been on the losing end of the stick?

Charge #1:
Control of all land for the benefit of Jews only

The Israeli Basic Law (Constitution) mandates that land held by the State of Israel, the Israeli Development Authority or the Jewish National Fund shall not be transferred in any manner, placing its management permanently under their authority. The State Property Law of 1951 provides for the reversion of property (including land) to the State in any area “in which the law of the State of Israel applies”.

The Israel Lands Authority (ILA) manages State land, which accounts for 93 per cent of the land within the internationally recognized borders of Israel and is by law closed to use, development or ownership by non-Jews. Those laws reflect the concept of “public purpose” as expressed in the Basic Law. Such laws may be changed by Knesset vote, but the Basic Law: Knesset prohibits any political party from challenging that public purpose. Effectively, Israeli law renders opposition to racial domination illegal.

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

This website has long noted that the founders of Israel were predominantly Communist Russian Jews, and Communism does not recognize the right to property; however, this site was unaware until this report, and shocked to learn that this tenet of communism was still practiced by the nation of Israel.

Control of land, both agriculturally and urban, through lease from the government, which prohibits the use, development or lease by non-Jews is racial domination.

Nazi Germany appropriated the lands and possessions of Jews, which caused the international community to war with Germany.

Charge #2:
Immigration policy for the benefit of Jews only

Demographic engineering is another area of policy serving the purpose of maintaining Israel as a Jewish State.

Most well known is Israeli law conferring on Jews worldwide the right to enter Israel and obtain Israeli citizenship regardless of their countries of origin and whether or not they can show links to Israel-Palestine, while withholding any comparable right from Palestinians, including those with documented ancestral homes in the country.

The World Zionist Organization and Jewish Agency are vested with legal authority as agencies of the State of Israel to facilitate Jewish immigration and preferentially serve the interests of Jewish citizens in matters ranging from land use to public development planning and other matters deemed vital to Jewish statehood.

Some laws involving demographic engineering are expressed in coded language, such as those that allow Jewish councils to reject applications for residence from Palestinian citizens.

Israeli law normally allows spouses of Israeli citizens to relocate to Israel but uniquely prohibits this option in the case of Palestinians from the occupied territory or beyond.

On a far larger scale, it is a matter of Israeli policy to reject the return of any Palestinian refugees and exiles (totalling some six million people) to territory under Israeli control.

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Jews whose ancestors have not lived in Palestine for over 2,000 years are allowed a no-questions immigration into Israel; which even has a special word, aliyah.  Meanwhile, Palestinians who liked in Israel for generations and were made into refugees through war are not allowed under national law to return.

The Jews of Nazi Germany were refugees of war and the international community expected them to be treated humanely.  Six million Jews dispossessed and now 6 million Palestinians dispossessed.

Charge #3:
Conspiracy Scheme of an Apartheid Regime

This report finds that the strategic fragmentation of the Palestinian people is the principal method by which Israel imposes an apartheid regime.

It first examines
how the history of war, partition, de jure and de facto annexation and prolonged occupation in Palestine has led to the Palestinian people being divided into different geographic regions administered by distinct sets of law.

fragmentation operates to stabilize the Israeli regime of racial domination over the Palestinians and to weaken the will and capacity of the Palestinian people to mount a unified and effective resistance.

Different methods are deployed depending on
where Palestinians live.

This is the core means by which Israel enforces apartheid
and at the same time impedes international recognition of how the system works as a complementary whole to comprise an apartheid regime.

Since 1967, Palestinians as a people have lived in what the report refers to as four “domains”, in which the fragments of the Palestinian population are ostensibly treated differently but share in common the racial oppression that results from the apartheid regime.

Those domains are:

1. Civil law, with special restrictions, governing Palestinians who live as citizens of Israel;

2. Permanent residency law governing Palestinians living in the city of Jerusalem;

3. Military law governing Palestinians, including those in refugee camps, living since 1967 under conditions of belligerent occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip;

4. Policy to preclude the return of Palestinians, whether refugees or exiles, living outside territory under Israel’s control.

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Techniques of Divide and conquer are the primary means the criminal nation of Israel uses to control the Palestinian people.

Dominion #1
Israeli Citizen vs. Israeli Nationality

Domain 1 embraces about 1.7 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel. For the first 20 years of the country’s existence, they lived under martial law and to this day are subjected to oppression on the basis of not being Jewish. That policy of domination manifests itself in inferior services, restrictive zoning laws and limited budget allocations made to Palestinian communities; in restrictions on jobs and professional opportunities; and in the mostly segregated landscape in which Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel live. Palestinian political parties can campaign for minor reforms and better budgets, but are legally prohibited by the Basic Law from challenging legislation maintaining the racial regime.

The policy is
reinforced by the implications of the distinction made in Israel between “citizenship” (ezrahut) and “nationality” (le’um): all Israeli citizens enjoy the former, but only Jews enjoy the latter.

“National” rights in Israeli law signify
Jewish-national rights.

The struggle of Palestinian citizens of Israel for equality and civil reforms under Israeli law is thus isolated by the regime from that of Palestinians elsewhere.

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Jews often tell outsiders that Palestinian citizens are treated exactly the same as Jewish citizens.

Turns out that this is typical Jewish word-smithing.

Citizenship in Israel does not entail the all-emcompassing meaning of citizenship the West is accustomed to. 

Citizenship in Israel is the bare minimum of basic rights one is entitled to have to live in Israel.

Full rights for Jews are conferred through their Israeli nationality rights.  These are not talked about.

Thus you can see a young Jewish man carrying a sub-machine gun down the road, but you will not see a Palestinian carrying such a gun... perhaps a dead Palestinian, but not a live one.

Dominion #2
Permanent Resident of Jerusalem

Domain 2 covers the approximately 300,000 Palestinians who live in East
Jerusalem, who experience discrimination in access to education, health care, employment, residency and building rights.

They also suffer from expulsions
and home demolitions, which serve the Israeli policy of “demographic balance” in favour of Jewish residents.

East Jerusalem Palestinians are classified as
permanent residents, which places them in a separate category designed to prevent their demographic and, importantly, electoral weight being added to that of Palestinians citizens in Israel.

As permanent residents, they have no legal
standing to challenge Israeli law.

Moreover, openly identifying with Palestinians
in the occupied Palestinian territory politically carries the risk of expulsion to the West Bank and loss of the right even to visit Jerusalem.

Thus, the urban epicentre o
f Palestinian political life is caught inside a legal bubble that curtails its inhabitants’ capacity to oppose the apartheid regime lawfully.

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

With status far below that of Jewish-only Israeli Nationality and Jew/Arab Citizenship, is the Palestinian Permanent Resident.

America has Permanent Residents, but they are not "Permanent".

American permanent residents can apply to become citizens after a few short years.

In America, the children born in America of permanent resident parents are automatically citizens. Children and grand-children born in East Jerusalem are born permanent residents with no recorse to any status beyond permanent resident.

Israel pursues efforts to weaken the Palestinians politically and contain their demographic weight in several ways. One is to grant Palestinians in East Jerusalem the status of permanent residents: that is, as foreigners for whom residency in the land of their birth is a privilege rather than a right, subject to revocation.

A privilege easily taken away for the slightest offense, allowing the Palestinian to be expelled from Jerusalem.

Dominion #3:
Martial Law in Gaza and the West Bank

Domain 3 is the system of military law imposed on approximately 4.6 million Palestinians who live in the occupied Palestinian territory, 2.7 million of them in the West Bank and 1.9 million in the Gaza Strip.

The territory is administered in a manner that fully meets the definition of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention: except for the provision on genocide, every illustrative “inhuman act” listed in the Convention is routinely and systematically practiced by Israel in the West Bank.

Palestinians are governed by military law, while the approximately 350,000 Jewish settlers are governed by Israeli civil law.

The racial character of this situation is further confirmed by the fact that all West Bank Jewish settlers enjoy the protections of Israeli civil law on the basis of being Jewish, whether they are Israeli citizens or not.

This dual legal system, problematic in itself, is indicative of an apartheid regime when coupled with the racially discriminatory management of land and development administered by Jewish-national institutions, which are charged with administering “State land” in the interest of the Jewish population. In support of the overall findings of this report, annex I sets out in more detail the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory that constitute violations of article II of the Apartheid Convention.

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

No self-determination or jury of your peers is happening in either the West Bank or Gaza.

They are under Jewish Martial Law with exemptions for Jews.

Every inhuman act listed in the convention against apartheid is routinely and systematically practiced by Israel in the West Bank.

Dominion #4:
Refugees have no rights whatsoever

Domain 4 refers to the millions of Palestinian refugees and involuntary exiles, most of whom live in neighbouring countries.

They are prohibited from returning to their
homes in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory.

Israel defends its rejection
of the Palestinians’ return in frankly racist language: it is alleged that Palestinians constitute a “demographic threat” and that their return would alter the demographic character of Israel to the point of eliminating it as a Jewish State.

The refusal of the right of return plays an essential role in the apartheid regime by
ensuring that the Palestinian population in Mandate Palestine does not grow to a point that would threaten Israeli military control of the territory and/or provide the demographic leverage for Palestinian citizens of Israel to demand (and obtain) full democratic rights, thereby eliminating the Jewish character of the State of Israel. Although domain 4 is confined to policies denying Palestinians their right of repatriation under international law, it is treated in this report as integral to the system of oppression and domination of the Palestinian people as a whole, given its crucial role in demographic terms in maintaining the apartheid regime.

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Jews have a legal "right to return" even though none of them nor any of their ancestors have stepped on foot in Israel for 2,000 years.

Per the laws of the United Nations, refugees have a right to return.

But under Israeli law, Palestinian refugees have no right of return.

These groups of Palestinians were already illegally dispossessed by ethnic cleansing during the 1948 independence and 1967 war, itself a violation of international law, are now further criminally victimized by not being allowed to return after the war's end, also in violation of international law.

Coming or going, Jews are international criminals.

Fallacy of Israel as
"The Only Democracy in the Middle East"

Article 7 (a) of the Basic Law: Knesset (1958), for instance, prohibits any political party in Israel from adopting a platform that challenges the State’s expressly Jewish character:

A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
  (1) Negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State (emphasis added)

Voting rights lose their significance in terms of equal rights when a racial group is legally banned from challenging laws that perpetuate inequality.

An analogy would be a system in which slaves have the right to vote -- but not against slavery.

Such rights might allow slaves to achieve some cosmetic reforms, such as improved living conditions and protection from vigilante violence, but their status and vulnerability as chattels would remain.

Had South Africa allowed a small percentage of blacks to vote but told them that they could not run for office to try to eliminate white majority rule, then what would be the purpose of their having a right to vote?

Israeli law bans organized Palestinian opposition to Jewish domination, rendering it illegal and even seditious.

But bottom line, in the grand scheme of things,  with  the totality of the Palestinians deprived of their right to vote from East Jerusalem, from the West Bank, from Gaza, and from outside Israel in refugee camps, the majority cannot vote.

If the majority in Israel cannot vote,

then you cannot call Israel a democracy.

Trump's Duty to Ostracize Israel

States have a collective duty:
(a) not to recognize an apartheid regime as lawful;
(b) not to aid or assist a State in maintaining an apartheid regime; and
(c) to cooperate with the United Nations and other States in bringing apartheid regimes to an end.

-- UN Report - Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Whites in South Africa split blacks up by multiple tribes and placed each into their own Bantustan, where split and divided, they were insured not to have any power and influence over whites.

The Jewish-led international community thought it perfectly moral back then to place a Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) program against South Africa. This BDS program was successful and the white apartheid system was abolished.

Today, apartheid in Israel is not considered immoral, but the moral BDS movement against  apartheid Israel is what is called immoral.

Indeed, as expected, Israel condemns this report of their crimes against humanity.

Jews claim a special privlege here.

They claim Palestinians want to kill them and rape their daughters.

Boo-Hoo!!!   Who cares???

Such racist fear mongering by whites of concern that blacks would murder them and rape their daughters fell upon deaf ears for whites in South Africa did it not?

Donald Trump claims that Israel has no greater friend than him. Which tarnishes the United States, as after release of this UN report, supportting Israel is equivalent to supporting Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa.

The United States should participate in Boycott, Divestiture and Sanctions (BDS) until Israel once again becomes a legitamate nation worthy of being called a friend of the United States.


The most damning aspect of the new report by the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), which accuses Israel of being an apartheid state, is not the unearthing of allegedly long-discredited equations of Zionism with racism and apartheid.

Rather, it's that the authors have used the scalpel of international law and the seemingly moribund International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid to create a new matrix of analysis of the occupation, its generative dynamics, and likely future path that will prove extremely hard for even Israel's most ardent defenders to refute in the coming years (PDF).

The report, Israeli Practices Towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid, immediately gained notoriety when the head of ESCWA, Rima Khalaf, was forced to resign after the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres denounced the report and asked for it to be removed from the Commission's website.

Khalaf, a Jordanian national with extensive government and international experience who was a primary force behind the Arab Human Development Report series which has been highly critical of Arab regimes and the broader regional systems of governance, had to know that heralding the report as the first ever UN one to explicitly describe Israel as an apartheid and "racial state" would bring her downfall at ESCWA.

And indeed, not only was the report disavowed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and, it seems, removed on his orders from the Commission's website, Khalaf did resign shortly thereafter.

This begs the question of what she hoped to accomplish by framing the report thus. Although it seems to be removed from the ESCWA's website (only the executive summary is accessible), the full report can be downloaded here.

As the journalist Ben White explains, the new report is a detailed analysis of Israeli legislation, policies and practices that enable Israel to "operate an apartheid regime" that "dominates the Palestinian people as a whole" and as such is a "crime against humanity under customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court".

The report describes a panoply of practices, techniques and legal and administrative mechanisms by which Israel maintains a system that segregates Palestinians from Jews on both sides of the Green Line and outside Israel/Palestine based on membership in specific ethno-religious groups.

What makes the report even more controversial is that unlike most accusations of apartheid-like behaviour, which are limited to the Occupied Territories, it accuses Israel of engaging in apartheid even against Palestinian citizens of the state and Palestinians outside the country.

According to Virginia Tilley, professor at the University of Illinois - one of the report's principal authors - her team was mandated or tasked with understanding "if there was one regime that was bringing all these policies [through Israel/Palestine and abroad] into a coherent whole".

Is Israel an apartheid state?

While accusations of apartheid still shock the American ear, Israelis from Holocaust survivors to prime ministers have long warned that the country was or risked becoming an apartheid state.

South Africans, too, have debated the issue; while some prominent figures such as Judge Richard Goldstone, who chaired the controversial report into the 2008-09 Gaza War, declared that "in Israel, there is no apartheid", other scholars and activists, from the Human Sciences and Research Council and Desmond Tutu to prominent Jewish intellectuals such as Lisa Ohayon and David Theo Goldberg - one of the world's pre-eminent theorists of race - have documented how "the legal structures of apartheid and Israel map on to each other in very disturbing ways" and have little hesitation lableling Israel's "separation barrier" an "apartheid wall" in purpose and function.

I would invite readers to study the voluminous final report of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and compare it to the regular reports on the occupation, not merely by international human rights organisations but by the US State Department and Israeli Jewish organisations' reports as well, and ask them to decide for themselves how closely Israeli policies resemble those of the South African apartheid state.

Yet, however important historically and morally, comparisons with South Africa were, for the report's authors, beside the point.

The only "benchmark" that matters today is whether Israel's actions fall within the parameters of the Crime of Apartheid as defined by international covenant and the International Criminal Court (PDF).

And the report argues "with clarity and conviction that Israel is guilty of the international crimes of apartheid as a result of the manner in which it exerts control over the Palestinian people".

More specifically, Tilley explains that "the main finding was that what looks like different policies are in fact part of one policy. The core purpose is to preserve Israel as a Jewish state, and that requires an overwhelming Jewish majority to ensure that Palestinians could never vote in any way that would alter the laws privileging the Jewish people over other people in the state. And we found that the ways different segments of policy work together … all coordinate that central core purpose."

Crucially, the report deploys a striking new term, the "strategic [elsewhere: geographic and juridical] fragmentation of the Palestinian people," to describe the main method through which Israel imposes an apartheid regime, with Palestinians divided into four groups who live in four "domains": Palestinian citizens of Israel against whom 'civil law' is deployed to restrict their freedom; Palestinians in East Jerusalem governed by ever more exclusionary 'permanent residency laws'; Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who live under belligerent occupation; and Palestinians living as refugees or in exile who are precluded by law and policy from returning to their homeland.

Each group is oppressed through "distinct laws, policies and practices" that together constitute the larger regime of apartheid in Israel/Palestine.

Hypocrisy and the BDS

Not surprisingly, Israeli officials were quick to question ESCWA's credibility, given its  membership of 18 Arab countries excluding Israel despite its location in western Asia (unlike Tunisia, for example) and the fact that the human rights records of most members are little better than Israel's.

But hypocrisy is literally written into the fabric of the UN, and is in fact on display every time the US vetoes a Security Council resolution condemning Israel's prosecution of its interminable occupation, or Russia vetoes a resolution that might force Bashar al-Assad to stop murdering his people by the thousands.

This reality doesn't change the fact that with the report now part of the UN record, the chances increase that the General Assembly or other bodies will request a ruling from the ICC or International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of the occupation.

The report provides a strong case for the argument that the goals and conduct of the occupation are illegal, and thus that states, international organisations, and civil society are obligated to impose sanctions and other punitive measures to compel Israel to bring its actions into compliance with international law.

Most strikingly, however, the report concludes by calling explicitly for "broaden[ing] support for boycott, divestment and sanctions initiatives among civil society actors".

In bringing BDS directly into the legal conversation, the authors are opening the way for the ICC or ICJ to affirm the legitimacy of such tactics under international law.

As Israel moves inexorably towards annexing the West Bank, and with it the confrontation of apartheid in its barest form, the questions raised by the report will become impossible to avoid.

In that regard, Rima Khalaf and the report's authors have done Israelis, Palestinians and the world community a favour by calling for a clear determination by the highest international tribunals as to the nature of Israel's rule over some five million Palestinians in the occupied territories and millions more living in the shadows of exile, and its responsibilities going forward.

With such clarity at hand, a pathway towards a just and peaceful future for both peoples might finally come into view.

Mark LeVine is a professor of Middle Eastern History at University of California, Irvine, and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Lund University.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

You can read further at The Problem
You can read further at Guide to "Checks and Balances"
You can read further at The Solution
Write us at

Article located at:

Last Hope for America
Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
Church and State

The Christian Solution             First Release: March 15, 2008