Politics
Is Israel's treatment of Palestinians a form of apartheid?
The era of apartheid in South Africa is one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century.
The word itself has become shorthand for systems of oppressive rule around the world — and even before the current war in Gaza unleashed a massive wave of demonstrations, it was an increasingly popular refrain of pro-Palestinian activists.
But does the term apartheid accurately describe how Israel has treated Palestinians?
Here’s a look at the issue, a long-running debate among human rights experts.
What is the origin of the word apartheid?
In 1948, the newly empowered National Party in South Africa instituted a racial hierarchy to ensure dominance of the white descendants of Dutch colonizers. The party named the system apartheid, which in the Afrikaans language means “the state of being separate.”
A litany of laws and regulations enforced rigid divisions among whites, Blacks, Indians and mixed-race “coloreds,” dictating where people could live, work, go to school and even whether they could interact.
At the bottom of the hierarchy was the Black majority, which was relegated to geographically small “townships” away from city centers. Black South Africans were banned from owning property, voting and attending certain schools.
The government did not hesitate to use force to brutally and sometimes lethally repress opposition to the system, which became entrenched as much of the rest of the world was moving away from formal segregation laws and colonialism.
How did the term come to be used outside South Africa?
In 1973, the United Nations established the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
In doing so, the U.N. broadened the definition of apartheid. No longer just an oppressive system in a single country, it now referred 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.”
Separately, another U.N. convention, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, was used to broaden the word “race,” as contained in the original definition of apartheid, to include ethnicity, descent and national origin.
In 1993, the International Criminal Court reaffirmed apartheid as a crime against humanity and established the possibility of individuals being held responsible.
The United States was among a handful of countries that did not ratify the 1973 convention or other efforts to crack down on apartheid. U.S. officials argued the definitions were weak, and the U.S. has been generally reluctant to join international justice missions for fear its own people would be prosecuted.
How did apartheid come to be associated with Israel?
Israel sided with the United States in not ratifying the convention, in part because it began facing accusations that it was becoming an apartheid state.
Most of the criticism came from Palestinians and others in the Arab world, but some originated from Israel’s own leaders. In 1976, then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said the then-nascent right-wing movement that pushed Jewish settlers into what was supposed to be Palestinian land was a “cancer” and an “acute danger” to Israel’s democracy.
He warned that it would lead to apartheid, a specter raised in later years by his successors Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert.
In the last several years, as the Israeli government has moved further to the right, the apartheid label has gained currency among activists, including progressive Jews.
“There can be no democracy with occupation,” Sharon Brous, a prominent Los Angeles rabbi, said in her Yom Kippur sermon last September, addressing the question of whether Israel could fairly be called “an apartheid state.”
If the right-wing Israeli government succeeds in its attempts to strip the judiciary of its power, she said, “it will become increasingly difficult if not impossible to defend Israel from that characterization.”
So is Israel an apartheid state?
After more than two years of research and arduous debate on the question, experts at Human Rights Watch released a 200-plus-page report with an answer to that question.
Citing Israeli officials who stated that they were determined to maintain Jewish Israeli control “over demographics, political power and land,” the organization found that “authorities have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity.”
It concluded that in Gaza and the West Bank — which together are home to 5 million Palestinians — “these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”
It did not include Israel proper, where 2 million or so Palestinians are Israeli citizens and make up about a quarter of the country’s population.
Why do rights groups make a distinction for Palestinian citizens of Israel?
In Israel proper, Palestinians are a vast underclass, with higher rates of unemployment and a lower overall standard of living than Jewish Israelis. But they have served in the Israeli parliament and on the Supreme Court and officially have the same legal rights as any citizen.
That is a crucial difference from apartheid, which refers to a codified system of subjugation that goes far beyond other forms of discrimination.
How does that compare to the West Bank?
The situation is much different in the West Bank, which has been occupied by Israel since 1967. Troops are deployed throughout the territory, where Palestinian officials have only nominal authority.
The hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers who have constructed and occupied villages — in violation of international law — receive protection from the army, move about freely and are subject to an Israeli civilian legal system.
Palestinians, on the other hand, face restrictions on where they can go, lose their land to settlers and routinely fight what they describe as onerous bureaucracy to secure the building permits granted easily to settlers. There are even separate roads for Israelis traveling through the West Bank.
Moreover, a Jewish settler who breaks the law goes to a civilian court and often receives minimal punishment while a Palestinian is sent to a military court often without due process, international and Israeli human rights groups say.
Supporters of Israel resist the apartheid label, arguing that the system is necessary for security reasons.
“The South African system of apartheid was driven by unambiguous racism where people were separated in every aspect of their daily lives on the basis of their skin color,” said Jonathan Harounoff, communications director for the Jewish Institute for National Security in America, a Washington advocacy group.
“In the West Bank, on the other hand, any restrictive policies there in place toward Palestinians are not race- or religion-based. They are purely driven by security concerns as a result of past acts of terrorism that led to loss of Israeli life.”
What about Gaza?
Defenders of Israel say the case against using the apartheid label is even easier to make in the Gaza Strip, because Israel pulled out of the coastal enclave in 2005.
There were too few Jewish settlers in Gaza to justify Israeli occupation, officials said at the time. The withdrawal, which soon left Gaza under the control of the militant group Hamas, freed up more Israel forces to patrol the West Bank.
Rather than occupy Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade on it. With help from Egypt — which usually blocks its sole border crossing with the enclave — Israel uses its military to control land, air and sea access.
But Human Rights Watch and others argue that the blockade itself is a form of apartheid, because it maintains the domination of one ethnic group over another.
What does all of this have to do with the war?
For some pro-Palestinian activists, the word provides context — if not justification — for the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas that started the war and killed about 1,200 Israelis. After all, Black South Africans and their supporters used violence on occasion to fight for their freedom.
Israel, however, maintains that the Hamas violence was so extreme, including the rape or sexual abuse of a number of women, along with its taking of more than 200 hostages, that it does nothing to further the cause of Palestinian statehood.
With no clear end in sight, the war is one of the deadliest chapters in a conflict that began eight decades ago. Israel has vowed to continue its retaliatory invasion of Gaza until it destroys Hamas — a campaign that Gaza health authorities say has killed more than 23,000 Palestinians.
When the fighting eventually subsides, the United States wants Palestinians to take the lead in postwar Gaza administration, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel will continue its renewed occupation of the impoverished territory for the foreseeable future.
That would be likely to strengthen the argument of those who accuse Israel of being an apartheid state.
What are the long-term prospects for an end to the debate over apartheid?
Kenneth Roth, who was executive director of Human Rights Watch from 1993 to 2022 and oversaw production of the report on apartheid, said that Israeli authorities have long insisted that ending discriminatory policies depended on peace negotiations.
But three decades on, with no real peace process in motion, that explanation “lacked credibility,” Roth said.
Israel has continued to support Jewish settlements in the West Bank, constructing “bypass roads” accessible only to the settlers and expanding military checkpoints — moves that Roth and others say all but eliminated the possibility that the West Bank could someday become an independent, contiguous Palestinian state.
“What’s left is Swiss cheese,” he said.
Experts said Israel will be left with only two ways to shed the apartheid label: allowing the creation of a Palestinian state or granting equal rights to all Palestinians under its control.
Politics
Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
transcript
transcript
President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.
-
“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”
By Jackeline Luna
March 5, 2026
Politics
DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing its investigation into former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen in the final months of his administration — focusing on pardons and commutations — though a senior official said Biden is unlikely to face criminal exposure.
A senior DOJ official told Fox News the autopen investigation is ongoing and not closed, adding investigators are reviewing clemency actions taken in the final months of the Biden administration.
The official also pointed out, however, that the use of an autopen by a sitting president is “established law.”
The issue under review is whether the autopen was used in violation of the law, specifically, whether Biden personally approved each name included on pardon and commutation lists.
A framed portrait shows former President Joe Biden’s signature and an autopen along “The Presidential Walk of Fame” outside the Oval Office of the White House. (Andrew Harnick/Getty Images)
“These types of cases are tough. Executive privilege issues come into play,” the official said.
What is also clear, the official indicated, is that the target of any potential prosecution would not likely be Biden.
“It’s hard to imagine how [Biden] could be criminally liable for pardon power,” the senior DOJ official said.
BIDEN’S AUTOPEN PARDONS DISTURBED DOJ BRASS, DOCS SHOW, RAISING QUESTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY BINDING
The use of the autopen by former President Joe Biden remains under investigation. (AP Photo)
The official noted that one reason the former president would be unlikely to face charges stems from a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that originally involved current President Donald Trump but would also apply to Biden.
“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States in 2024.
“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”
Sources familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s team continues to review the Biden White House’s reliance on an autopen, contradicting a recent New York Times report that indicated the investigation had been paused.
DOJ SIGNALS IT’S STILL DIGGING INTO BIDEN AUTOPEN USE DESPITE REPORTS PROBE FIZZLED
President Donald Trump has pushed for consequences for former President Joe Biden’s alleged use of the autopen. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)
Trump has pushed for consequences over the autopen controversy, alleging on social media that aides acted unlawfully in its use and raising the prospect of perjury charges against Biden.
Biden has rejected those claims, saying in a statement last year he personally directed the decisions in question.
“Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”
The House Oversight Committee has homed in on Biden’s clemency actions, including five controversial pardons for family members in the final days of his presidency, citing what it described as a lack of “contemporaneous documentation” confirming that Biden directly ordered the pardons.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The committee asked the DOJ to investigate “all of former President Biden’s executive actions, particularly clemency actions, to assess whether legal action must be taken to void any action that the former president did not, in fact, take himself.”
Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
Politics
Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out
SACRAMENTO — Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.
Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.
His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.
“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.
Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.
“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”
Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.
But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.
“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”
Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.
“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.
Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.
Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.
“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.
Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.
“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”
Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”
Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.
During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.
“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.
That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.
A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.
Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.
“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”
Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.
“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”
Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.
Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.
While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.
Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.
“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”
Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Wisconsin4 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Maryland5 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Florida5 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Oregon7 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling