ISGAP strongly rejects the biased antisemitic tropes found within Amnesty International’s recent report, “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity”. The bending of history and facts in this report is a prime example of how contemporary antisemitism manifests itself, with the sole goal of dismantling the only Jewish State.
ISGAP Fellows have prepared a number of resources that counter the report’s antisemitic claims.
Responses in official statements
The report’s central charge of apartheid has been rejected in official statements of representatives of several democratic governments:
- The President of the Czech Republic, H.E. Milos Zeman wrote to the President of Israel, H.E. Isaac Herzog, “I am horrified about such a strong antisemitic stand and I completely condemn such unilateral statement” (unofficial translation Tweeted by the Czech Embassy in Israel).
- The Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated in a Tweet on 3 February 2022:
“We do not consider the use of the term “apartheid” in the context of the Middle East conflict to be appropriate. The serious crime of apartheid refers to a specific context. We reject the application of this term to the State of Israel.” - The US Ambassador to Israel, Thomas Nides, said in a Tweet on 1 February 2022: “Come on, this is absurd. That is not language that we have used and will not use.”
- The US State Department spokesman, Ned Price, said in his daily briefing for reporters on 2 February 2022: “we reject the view that Israel’s actions constitute apartheid.”
- German Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Christopher Burger, stated on 2 February 2022: “We reject expressions like apartheid or a one-sided focusing of criticism on Israel. That is not helpful to solving the conflict in the Middle East.”
- A spokesperson for the Australian Foreign Minister stated: “We do not agree with the report’s characterisations of Israel.”
- A spokesperson for the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office stated “We do not agree with the use of this terminology.”
- The UK Government’s adviser on antisemitism, Lord Mann, said with regard to the report: “It is time for Amnesty to receive some training in what antisemitism is.”
- US President Biden’s nominee for the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, Professor Deborah Lipstadt, similarly said in evidence to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “I found the language used in that report more than ahistorical. I found it unhistorical. Branding Israel an apartheid state is more than historically inaccurate. I believe it’s part of a larger effort to delegitimize the Jewish state. Such language, I see it spilling over onto campuses where it poisons the atmosphere, particularly for Jewish students.
Numerous organisations representing Jewish communities have expressed concern that the report will promote antisemitism:
- The President of the World Jewish Congress, Ronald S. Lauder, stated: “The report does absolutely nothing to offer a constructive way forward and has no real interest in promoting the human rights of Palestinians or advancing peace and a lasting two-state solution. It will only serve, like previous similar prejudiced reports, to fuel the fires of antisemites under the guise of political correctness.”
- The President of the European Jewish Congress, Dr Moshe Kantor, said: “It is clear from the tone and language used that they are seeking the end of Israel, and are using all of their supposed good name and diplomatic capital to launch a full-frontal attack against the Jewish State. That they use the terminology of ‘apartheid’ while Israel’s Arab citizens sit in the Knesset, are ministers in Israel’s current government and sit as judges on the country’s Supreme Court, shows just how disingenuous and twisted this imagery is. These are extremist political activists disguised as human-rights advocates, and their obsessive focus on Israel should dispel any notion of objectivity, neutrality or accuracy. This report will become a weapon used against Jews around the world. We have seen that every time that there are high-profile attacks against Israel with these types of scurrilous lies, people think Jews everywhere should be made responsible for it. As a result, Jewish students and members of the academia will be forced to express fealty to these distortions, and attacks against Jews and Jewish institutions will increase. None of the authors of the report will be able to ignore the direct line from their work with a rise in antisemitism.”
- The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), American Jewish Committee (AJC), B’nai B’rith International, and the Jewish Federations of North America stated: “This libelous document resorts to baseless ‘apartheid’ accusations against Israel, among other distortions. In so doing, the report commits a double injustice: It fuels those antisemites around the world who seek to undermine the only Jewish country on earth, while simultaneously cheapening and downplaying the horrific suffering that was a result of apartheid in South Africa.”
- The Chief Executive of B’nai Brith Canada, Michael Mostyn, said: “By singling out only the indigenous Jewish people as unworthy of self-determination in their own land, the report reveals the antisemitic line of thinking behind the unconscionable bias in this document. As antisemitism continues to grow in Canada and worldwide, Amnesty’s over-the-top and wildly inaccurate rhetoric, including fabrications of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, are certain to embolden those already predisposed towards Jew-hatred.”
- The President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Marie van der Zyl, and the Chair of Britain’s Jewish Leadership Council, Keith Black, wrote: “At a time of rising attacks on Jews around the world, Amnesty’s report is not just an attack on the state of Israel. It is an attack on the very concept and existence of Jewish sovereignty and on the Jewish people. Its misrepresentation and twisting of reality will reliably stir up and inflame hatred where Jews are most vulnerable. But as we have seen in Yemen, the rights and welfare of Jews are of little interest to this organisation. By this report, Amnesty has shown that it is not worthy to bear the name of a once noble enterprise.”
Commentators have identified examples of the falsity of the report
- Referring to an earlier analysis by Josh Kern and Anne Herzberg, NGO Monitor points out under the heading “Amnesty’s legal claims” that the report distorts the very terms of the definitions given to apartheid in international instruments in order to cover the report’s (false) portrayal of Israel. The distortion is manifest and it seems clear that it is deliberately dishonest.
- An article by Rabbi Dr Moshe Goldfeder also notes Amnesty International’s distortion of the definitions of apartheid in international legal instruments and points out that the concoction of a special definition of “apartheid” to catch the Jewish state is itself an antisemitic action.
- Dr Alex Safian, Research Director of CAMERA, demonstrates the falsity of the report’s claims of land discrimination and dispossession. He also addresses the report’s misleading claims relating to Israel’s Law of Return; its omission of a highly material sentence from a quotation of former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu; and an allegation that a Palestinian medic was wilfully killed that ignores evidence to the contrary.
- Marie van der Zyl, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and Keith Black, Chair of Britain’s Jewish Leadership Council, point out that the report’s misleading claims regarding infant mortality are a travesty of the true position, which is that Israel has an outstanding record of reducing infant mortality and extending life expectancy of both Arab Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Further statistics on the extraordinary improvements in the health and welfare of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip under Israeli rule are contained in an earlier article by Professor Efraim Karsh.
- Bassem Eid tweeted “Amnesty International is lying about Israel. As a Palestinian peace activist and founder of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, I’m here to set the record straight: Israel is not an apartheid state.”
- Yoseph Haddad, an Israeli Arab and CEO of the NGO, Together – Vouch for Each Other, wrote: “As much as some may wish to use terms taken from other times to deem Israel an illegitimate country, a lie is a lie and reality cannot be distorted. Israel offers equal rights to all its citizens, regardless of religion or ethnic origin. This is not just the letter of the law but also the practice – and you will find Israeli Arabs across Israeli society, in hospitals, courts and high-tech companies virtually everywhere. Even within the Israeli government! According to Amnesty, Esawi Frej, the Israeli Minister for Regional Cooperation, is a citizen under an apartheid regime. Just as with Salman Zarka, Israel’s Covid Czar. One cannot forget Osila Abu Assad, who just yesterday was appointed Israeli District Court judge, or the chairman of Bank Leumi, the largest bank in Israel, Samer Haj Yahya, all of whom are Arabs, allegedly living under apartheid rule.”
- In another article Yoseph Haddad said “I can’t stand by and let these lies be spread by organizations like Amnesty International for its own political gain. The accusation of “apartheid” is a serious one and should never be used as a political tool to demonize a country that you don’t like.” He also drew attention to a poll showing that 81% of Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel over living in the US or in any other Western country. Our organisation has similarly mentioned a Palestinian poll showing that 93% of Palestinians in East Jerusalem prefer to live under Israeli rule than under the Palestinian Authority.
- Lorena Khateeb tweeted: “As an Israeli Arab citizen, I condemn @amnesty report. I grew up studying and working with Muslim Christians, Druze and Jews, we all put together the Israeli puzzle, despite the challenges, we enjoy equal rights and even work to fix what is not.”
- Amjad Taha, a British-Bahraini social media influencer, tweeted “We just visited #Israel and saw the state’s harmonious coexistence of many ethnic groups. Arabs, Muslims, Druze, and Christians participated freely in all enterprises. We saw Palestinians living in peace and prosperity in East Jerusalem. The #Amnesty report is a forgery #AmnestyLies.”
- The mendacity of the report results in particular from the extreme bias of the personnel engaged by Amnesty International, as described in a report by David Collier published in December 2019. We suspect that David Collier’s report was brought to the attention of Amnesty International at that time, yet no action appears to have been taken to remedy the serious matters which it sets out.
The Amnesty International report contains numerous other false and misleading statements. We reserve the possibility of preparing a fuller analysis if the Charity Commission tells us that this would assist their examination. However, the analyses and comments mentioned above should suffice to show its impropriety and public disbenefit, and should prompt an investigation of the conduct of the Trustees of the Amnesty International Charities in sponsoring it.
We note that a petition to withdraw charitable status from Amnesty International charities in view of the report has so far received more than 2000 signatures, and that political figures have suggested that the Charity Commission should investigate:
- Michael Fabricant MP told the Jewish Chronicle: “Some of the statements made by Amnesty International are highly questionable, if not immoral, and this is something the Charity Commission needs urgently to look at.”
- Lord Carlile said: “As a lifelong Amnesty supporter, I am disappointed they have produced a report that is so overtly political and can only cause damage to the efforts being made by governments and individuals to secure conciliation between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens of Israel. This is on the very edge of their permissible role as a charity.”
