Why Only One Side Gets the Apartheid Label
Israel is routinely accused of “apartheid” for defining itself as a Jewish state. Yet the proposed Palestinian Constitution openly defines a future Palestine as Arab, Islamic, and Sharia‑based — without a whisper of criticism from the same organisations. This double standard tells us more about the politics of the accusation than about the realities on the ground.
A Palestinian Constitution That Speaks Loudly — and Selectively
The Palestinian Authority’s new draft constitution is remarkably clear about the kind of state it intends to build. It doesn’t hide behind vague language or symbolic gestures. It spells out, in black and white, a national identity rooted in Arab ethnicity, Islamic religion, and Sharia‑based law.
Palestine is described as “part of the Arab homeland.”
The Palestinian people are “part of the Arab nation.”
Arabic is the only official language.
This is not a civic definition of citizenship. It is an ethnic one.
And the religious identity is just as explicit. Islam is the official religion, and Sharia is the primary source of legislation. Christianity is acknowledged; Judaism is not mentioned at all — not as a religion, not as a heritage, not as a protected minority.
For a document intended to guide a future state, the message is unmistakable:
This is an Arab and Islamic nation, constitutionally and structurally.
What Happens When We Apply HRW and Amnesty’s Own Standards?
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both accused Israel of apartheid using definitions so broad that they sweep up identity clauses, language laws, immigration policies, and symbolic national character.
So let’s take those same criteria — the ones used to condemn Israel — and apply them to the Palestinian draft constitution.
Identity as Domination
HRW argues that Israel’s Basic Law (“Jewish state”) shows intent to privilege one group.
By that logic, defining Palestine as Arab and Islamic is the same thing.
Systematic Privilege
Amnesty treats language, religion, and national identity as tools of domination.
The Palestinian draft privileges Arabic, privileges Islam, and excludes Jewish identity entirely.
Legal Supremacy
Sharia as the primary source of legislation creates a built‑in hierarchy of religious communities.
Under Amnesty’s framework, that is a textbook example of legal supremacy.
Exclusion of Minorities
Israel is accused of apartheid despite full political rights for Arab citizens.
The Palestinian draft offers no political rights, protections, or recognition for any Jewish minority that might live under its authority.
By HRW and Amnesty’s own definitions, the Palestinian draft constitution meets — and in some areas exceeds — the criteria they use to condemn Israel.
So Why the Silence?
If the standards were applied consistently, both organisations would be sounding alarms. But they aren’t. And the reasons have nothing to do with law.
The Narrative Requires a Villain
Israel is cast as the settler‑colonial oppressor.
Palestinians are cast as the indigenous oppressed.
This framing leaves no room for Palestinian discrimination or exclusion.
Ideology Over Analysis
In activist discourse, “indigenous” groups cannot commit apartheid.
This is a political assumption, not a legal principle.
Diplomatic and Financial Incentives
Calling a future Palestinian state “apartheid” would strain relationships with Arab and Muslim-majority governments — and with donors.
It would also invite accusations of Islamophobia.
Selective Scrutiny Is Built In
HRW and Amnesty do not apply their apartheid framework to:
Arab states
Islamic republics
Countries with ethnic‑national identity clauses
Countries with discriminatory nationality laws
Only Israel is examined through this lens.
A One‑Way Accusation Is Not Justice
Israel is condemned as an apartheid state because it defines itself as Jewish — even though it grants full political rights to all its citizens.
A future Palestinian state is praised and supported even though it is defined as Arab, Islamic, and Sharia‑based, with no recognition of Jewish rights at all.
When the same standards are applied to one side and ignored for the other, the accusation stops being a moral judgment and becomes a political weapon.
And that is why the apartheid label, as used today, is not only wrong —
it is fundamentally unjust.
Speak Your Mind