There is a consensus that Israel is an apartheid state

Ehud Barak, Israel’s then defence minister warned in 2010 that “as long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel, it is going to be either non-Jewish or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.” This argument was made again in 2014 by John Kerry as US secretary of state.

Three years later, Boris Johnson, when he was UK foreign secretary, said much the same thing.

After a four-year investigation, Amnesty last week became the latest human rights organisation to level that charge, concluding that Israel operated a “system which amounts to apartheid under international law”, The Guardian wrote.

It said that the UN security council must “impose targeted sanctions against Israeli officials implicated”, and demanded an arms embargo on Israel. Amnesty also called for the perpetrators of apartheid to be “brought to justice” through the international criminal court. This is the world’s biggest human rights organisation; its conclusion shows the discussion is becoming embedded in international forums.

There has been an emerging consensus that the term “apartheid” can be applied to Israel in a way distinct from the system seen in the old South Africa. The charge has also been broadened – for some, in a heretical way. It is not just applied to areas under military occupation but used to characterise Israel’s command of the land from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea, the report highlighted.