Thank you Laura for putting yet more facts to paper.
It really sickens me how so many have gleefully jumped on the anti-semitic bandwagon and see no irony in the pernicious, destructive position they espouse and their supposed "be kind" BS mantra they try and foist down everyone's throat.
If only they could look in the mirror and see themselves for what they really are, namely very unkind, bigoted, fools.
I mean this with no disrespect, Laura, but I don’t think you’ve applied the same scepticism here that you’re asking readers to apply elsewhere. Watching Jews and Arabs work together does not, by itself, disprove the existence of apartheid any more than watching Black and White people work together would have disproved the existence of apartheid in South Africa. That’s a small sliver of evidence being asked to answer a much bigger question. Evacuation warnings matter, but they don’t alone settle the genocide question, and historical ties don’t settle modern disputes over displacement and settlements either.
The OCHA example is one that really doesn’t stack up for me. You challenge the settler-violence figures because broad categories may include injuries caused by Israeli forces, but the 2025 number you cite already separates them: 838 injured by settlers and 339 by Israeli forces. So that criticism doesn’t really challenge the figure you’ve quoted. This reads less like a fact-check than a case for Israel built from selectively framed facts.
The two sets of figures can't be neatly compared. The analysis of the OCHA figures spans a seven year period. The latest figure of 830 is for a period of less than a year. So I specifically say in the article that it is simply illustrative of the same quality of data. The settler violence narrative is buttressed by statistics which include things like a Jew visiting The Temple Mount. Clearly the overall figures are seriously opaque when they include legal visits to The Temple Mount alongside trespass with no violence. I do not have the answers on this, and I have tried to be clear about that. My initial research raises more questions than answers, but should cast some doubt on those topline figures. It's important to understand that. In no way I am I denying or minimised genuine cases of aggressive 'settler violence'.
Apartheid is an institutionalized system of racial discrimination and differentiation within a state. Separate voting, separate parliaments, separate spaces, etc. That's why it's called "Apartheid" - it means "apartness."
There is no institutional separation between Israeli citizens on the basis of their race. There is definitely discrimination, but that's not what we're talking about here. You might say, for example, that there's racial discrimination against Jewish Israelis within Israel, say, because Muslim Arab-Israelis are exempt from military service, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it? In fairness, there are definitely some court rulings and laws that are discriminatory or it can be argued they are discriminatory. This is true for about a billion countries that no one ever accuses of apartheid, and in any event, that's not what apartheid means).
The Palestinians _actually_ living under "Apartheid" aren't Israelis, which is why it's not apartheid.
They are subjected to different laws and rules because they are *foreigners*. Just like Canadians are to Americans. You can definitely make the case that there's apartheid-like conditions with regard to Jewish settlers and WB Palestinians, but that's a wholly different discussion.
What disproves the apartheid accusation in relation to Israel proper are Israel's laws (Basic Law: Human Dignity; Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, and the list goes on. These are the Israeli equivalents of constitutional rights. They were legislated into existence by Jewish majority legislators).
Please don't try to change my mind about this. I've been an Israeli legal-professional for the past 18 years. I've examined the matter very closely. Calling the situation in Israel "apartheid" isn't a legal opinion. It's propaganda. I'm not interested in relitigating that (pun intended). A discussion can definitely be had about WB Jews and Arabs.
You can, of course, talk about the suffering they go through without using a term that doesn't fit. WB and Gaza Palestinians suffer. Do you want to help them? Me too!
Demonizing Israel to fuel the violent resistance to its existence will not help - and has never helped - them get to a better place. I'm an Israeli and I want them to have a better life, too. I definitely don't want my country to oppress or control them. I just want them to collectively leave us alone.
If the Watermelon Club cared a smidge about actual flesh-and-blood-Palestinians more than it cared about annihilating my homeland, they'd actually improve their lives a great deal, and Israelis like me would gleefully help them.
Ironically, Israelis seem to care more about that than most "Pro-Palestinians" do.
If you're interested in the background to this Middle East conflict, I recommend David Hirst's book 'The Gun and the Olive Branch'. Hirst is the Guardian's former Middle East correspondent of the Guardian, which said of the book "[Hirst's] peerless reporting has earned him curses, expulsion and respect in virtually every country in the region".
And yes, Hirst does address the apartheid question. His conclusion, based on ample evidence? Apartheid exists but it is cleverly disguised.
Is this a subtle comment saying that David Hirst helped Israel’s enemies in their propaganda war against Israel?
Of course, the Guardian praised its own correspondent’s book. The New Republic, not known for being right of centre, described the same book as “the most malignantly anti-Israeli book ever to be published in English by someone who claims to be a serious commentator”.
Not at all. I found Hirst to be remarkably even-handed and evidence-based in his writing.
There is always plenty of PR and propaganda on both sides of any argument.
I wasn't aware of TNR's comment on the book. According to ChatGPT, the comment came from David Pryce-Jones, a British writer and Middle East commentator. ChatGPT's summary of Pryce-Jones' position on Israel is as follows:
"In short: Pryce-Jones was a distinctly pro-Zionist, pro-Israel conservative writer, who regarded Jewish statehood as legitimate and necessary and saw much of the hostility toward Israel as rooted in antisemitism and/or Islamist and Arab political traditions. His position was substantially closer to the Israeli right than to the contemporary liberal/left critique of Israel."
I'd be interested to get your views if and when you read Hirst's book.
Therein lies the central question which divides the two predominant views in the debate: is Jewish statehood legitimate?
Support for Israel’s antagonists is incompatible with an affirmative answer to that fundamental question.
And once a person denies the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel one is on the same side as Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran.
On the other side, if Israel’s existence is justified then it has a right to defend itself against adversaries who want to destroy it. Its existence is at stake in the face of such attacks.
Have you read Son of Hamas? There are some interesting insights into Palestinian views of the legitimacy of Israel in there.
Ah yes, this is the part where we ask "Is the apartheid in the room with us, right now?"
The sheer unhinged obsession with us is what I'll never get. As an Israeli it drives me crazy especially, given that I know what we're like, and we're just... not that important to be living rent-free in everyone's brains 24/7.
Apartheid will exist once there is a law that says that Arabs aren't allowed to vote or would have their own Knesset, to name but a few clear examples. But nah, the Talmudic-like traditions of playing "spot the Apartheid" in miles of Amnesty reports aren't going anywhere.
At the very least, they should have not appropriated our national pasttime, which is nitpicking and hair-splitting.
What a brilliant informative essay once again Laura, you are an education.
Thank you!
Thank you Laura for putting yet more facts to paper.
It really sickens me how so many have gleefully jumped on the anti-semitic bandwagon and see no irony in the pernicious, destructive position they espouse and their supposed "be kind" BS mantra they try and foist down everyone's throat.
If only they could look in the mirror and see themselves for what they really are, namely very unkind, bigoted, fools.
I mean this with no disrespect, Laura, but I don’t think you’ve applied the same scepticism here that you’re asking readers to apply elsewhere. Watching Jews and Arabs work together does not, by itself, disprove the existence of apartheid any more than watching Black and White people work together would have disproved the existence of apartheid in South Africa. That’s a small sliver of evidence being asked to answer a much bigger question. Evacuation warnings matter, but they don’t alone settle the genocide question, and historical ties don’t settle modern disputes over displacement and settlements either.
The OCHA example is one that really doesn’t stack up for me. You challenge the settler-violence figures because broad categories may include injuries caused by Israeli forces, but the 2025 number you cite already separates them: 838 injured by settlers and 339 by Israeli forces. So that criticism doesn’t really challenge the figure you’ve quoted. This reads less like a fact-check than a case for Israel built from selectively framed facts.
The two sets of figures can't be neatly compared. The analysis of the OCHA figures spans a seven year period. The latest figure of 830 is for a period of less than a year. So I specifically say in the article that it is simply illustrative of the same quality of data. The settler violence narrative is buttressed by statistics which include things like a Jew visiting The Temple Mount. Clearly the overall figures are seriously opaque when they include legal visits to The Temple Mount alongside trespass with no violence. I do not have the answers on this, and I have tried to be clear about that. My initial research raises more questions than answers, but should cast some doubt on those topline figures. It's important to understand that. In no way I am I denying or minimised genuine cases of aggressive 'settler violence'.
Apartheid is an institutionalized system of racial discrimination and differentiation within a state. Separate voting, separate parliaments, separate spaces, etc. That's why it's called "Apartheid" - it means "apartness."
There is no institutional separation between Israeli citizens on the basis of their race. There is definitely discrimination, but that's not what we're talking about here. You might say, for example, that there's racial discrimination against Jewish Israelis within Israel, say, because Muslim Arab-Israelis are exempt from military service, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it? In fairness, there are definitely some court rulings and laws that are discriminatory or it can be argued they are discriminatory. This is true for about a billion countries that no one ever accuses of apartheid, and in any event, that's not what apartheid means).
The Palestinians _actually_ living under "Apartheid" aren't Israelis, which is why it's not apartheid.
They are subjected to different laws and rules because they are *foreigners*. Just like Canadians are to Americans. You can definitely make the case that there's apartheid-like conditions with regard to Jewish settlers and WB Palestinians, but that's a wholly different discussion.
What disproves the apartheid accusation in relation to Israel proper are Israel's laws (Basic Law: Human Dignity; Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, and the list goes on. These are the Israeli equivalents of constitutional rights. They were legislated into existence by Jewish majority legislators).
Please don't try to change my mind about this. I've been an Israeli legal-professional for the past 18 years. I've examined the matter very closely. Calling the situation in Israel "apartheid" isn't a legal opinion. It's propaganda. I'm not interested in relitigating that (pun intended). A discussion can definitely be had about WB Jews and Arabs.
You can, of course, talk about the suffering they go through without using a term that doesn't fit. WB and Gaza Palestinians suffer. Do you want to help them? Me too!
Demonizing Israel to fuel the violent resistance to its existence will not help - and has never helped - them get to a better place. I'm an Israeli and I want them to have a better life, too. I definitely don't want my country to oppress or control them. I just want them to collectively leave us alone.
If the Watermelon Club cared a smidge about actual flesh-and-blood-Palestinians more than it cared about annihilating my homeland, they'd actually improve their lives a great deal, and Israelis like me would gleefully help them.
Ironically, Israelis seem to care more about that than most "Pro-Palestinians" do.
Laura asks:
WHY IS ISRAEL LOSING THE PR WAR?
If you're interested in the background to this Middle East conflict, I recommend David Hirst's book 'The Gun and the Olive Branch'. Hirst is the Guardian's former Middle East correspondent of the Guardian, which said of the book "[Hirst's] peerless reporting has earned him curses, expulsion and respect in virtually every country in the region".
And yes, Hirst does address the apartheid question. His conclusion, based on ample evidence? Apartheid exists but it is cleverly disguised.
Is this a subtle comment saying that David Hirst helped Israel’s enemies in their propaganda war against Israel?
Of course, the Guardian praised its own correspondent’s book. The New Republic, not known for being right of centre, described the same book as “the most malignantly anti-Israeli book ever to be published in English by someone who claims to be a serious commentator”.
Not at all. I found Hirst to be remarkably even-handed and evidence-based in his writing.
There is always plenty of PR and propaganda on both sides of any argument.
I wasn't aware of TNR's comment on the book. According to ChatGPT, the comment came from David Pryce-Jones, a British writer and Middle East commentator. ChatGPT's summary of Pryce-Jones' position on Israel is as follows:
"In short: Pryce-Jones was a distinctly pro-Zionist, pro-Israel conservative writer, who regarded Jewish statehood as legitimate and necessary and saw much of the hostility toward Israel as rooted in antisemitism and/or Islamist and Arab political traditions. His position was substantially closer to the Israeli right than to the contemporary liberal/left critique of Israel."
I'd be interested to get your views if and when you read Hirst's book.
Therein lies the central question which divides the two predominant views in the debate: is Jewish statehood legitimate?
Support for Israel’s antagonists is incompatible with an affirmative answer to that fundamental question.
And once a person denies the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel one is on the same side as Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran.
On the other side, if Israel’s existence is justified then it has a right to defend itself against adversaries who want to destroy it. Its existence is at stake in the face of such attacks.
Have you read Son of Hamas? There are some interesting insights into Palestinian views of the legitimacy of Israel in there.
ChatGPT and other AI sources frequently express the same biases as the sources they look at.
In other words, on any contentious subject, take what AI tells you with a pinch of salt.
"cleverly disguised."
Ah yes, this is the part where we ask "Is the apartheid in the room with us, right now?"
The sheer unhinged obsession with us is what I'll never get. As an Israeli it drives me crazy especially, given that I know what we're like, and we're just... not that important to be living rent-free in everyone's brains 24/7.
Apartheid will exist once there is a law that says that Arabs aren't allowed to vote or would have their own Knesset, to name but a few clear examples. But nah, the Talmudic-like traditions of playing "spot the Apartheid" in miles of Amnesty reports aren't going anywhere.
At the very least, they should have not appropriated our national pasttime, which is nitpicking and hair-splitting.