A modest proposal for Israel-haters

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that there are an awful lot of people, some of whom are themselves awful, that positively hate the state of Israel. For a number of years, these Israel-haters were able to associate the conduct and policies of the State of Israel with Nazi Germany. However, such attempted associations are now generally regarded as an expression of anti-Semitism. They are even included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) provisional definition of anti-Semitism.

It is likely that this provisional (and its provisional nature is important in this article) definition came into being because some Israel-haters were accused of anti-Semitism. Since most Israel-haters come from the political left, they naturally denied being anti-Semitic, which is a form of racism, and demanded a precise definition of the term. Their motivation was motivated by hostility. They wanted to hate Israel, and thus Jewish people by extension, but to be able to do so while avoiding accusations of racism, as leftists are so quick to accuse non-leftists of racism because this is the only way they can secure any kind of advantage for their otherwise odious ideas and ideology.

Also, leftists being leftists, they demand that everything is defined and written down on a piece of paper, as can be evidenced by the ridiculous extent to which they conduct themselves with their absurd composite motions at Labour Party conferences. However the only reason for this is that leftists love to exploit loopholes. On this leftists are on a par with tax accountants, except that tax accountants are not odious in the way leftists are. This may be why no-one would trust Jeremy Corbyn to fill in their tax return. But I digress.

When leftists were effectively prevented from comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, it was inevitable that they would migrate, like the swallow, from Berlin to Pretoria, and settle on Apartheid South Africa as their next regime of choice with which to compare Israel. It was obvious. Only South Africa between the election of the National Party in the late 1940s and the release of Nelson Mandela in 1990 had an overtly and explicitly racist policy in place. But this creates a problem. Just as it is inevitable that Israel-haters would be prevented from using Nazi Germany to slander Israel (although some still do this, probably because they haven’t got the memo or they just don’t care), it is more than likely that Apartheid South Africa will also appear in the next iteration of the IHRA’s provisional definition. That’s the beauty of provisional definitions. They can change.

So, if you are a confirmed Israel-hater, here is a handy guide of regimes and slogans you can still use to slander Israel if Apartheid South Africa comparisons start to make you out to be a racist, and you don’t like being called a racist.

1. Confederate States of America (1861–1865)

• Term: “Slavery-System” or “Confederate-Style Oppression”
• Why Chosen: The Confederacy is infamous for its defence of slavery, a system of racial domination that resonates with accusations of systemic discrimination against Palestinians. Activists could compare Israel’s West Bank checkpoints or Gaza blockade to the Confederacy’s control over enslaved populations, framing it as a modern “slave-like” system.
• Application: “Israel’s policies enforce a Confederate-style oppression, subjugating Palestinians to a system of control akin to slavery.”
• Advantages: Evokes U.S. history, appealing to Western audiences; avoids Nazi parallels; aligns with racial justice narratives.
• Risks: Slavery’s specificity may weaken the analogy, as Israel’s policies don’t involve chattel slavery; could alienate U.S. audiences sensitive to Civil War comparisons.

2. Tsarist Russia (1721–1917, esp. late 19th century)

• Term: “Pogrom Policies” or “Tsarist Exclusion”
• Why Chosen: Tsarist Russia’s anti-Jewish pogroms and Pale of Settlement (restricting Jews to specific areas) could be inverted to frame Israel as imposing similar exclusionary policies on Palestinians (e.g., West Bank settlements, Gaza restrictions). “Pogrom” evokes state-sanctioned violence, aligning with critiques of IDF raids or settler attacks.
• Application: “Israel’s pogrom policies mirror Tsarist Russia’s exclusionary tactics, targeting Palestinians for systemic violence and displacement.”
• Advantages: Historically resonant; shifts focus from Nazi comparisons; “pogrom” is emotionally charged.
• Risks: Irony of comparing a Jewish state to an anti-Jewish regime could backfire, triggering anti-Semitism accusations; less globally recognised than apartheid.

3. Pol Pot’s Cambodia (Khmer Rouge, 1975–1979)

• Term: “Year Zero” or “Khmer-Style Eradication”
• Why Chosen: Pol Pot’s “Year Zero” aimed to reset society through forced displacement, cultural erasure, and mass killing (1.5–2 million deaths). Activists could compare Israel’s Gaza operations or West Bank demolitions to a “Year Zero” attempt to erase Palestinian identity.
• Application: “Israel’s Year Zero policies in Gaza seek to eradicate Palestinian culture and existence, akin to the Khmer Rouge’s societal reset.”
• Advantages: “Year Zero” is unique and evocative; avoids Holocaust parallels; aligns with displacement critiques.
• Risks: Cambodia’s genocide scale far exceeds Israel’s actions, weakening the analogy; may be seen as hyperbolic, risking credibility.

4. British Colonial India (1858–1947)

• Term: “Colonial Subjugation” or “Raj-Style Domination”
• Why Chosen: British colonial rule in India involved systemic exploitation, land confiscation, and cultural suppression, which activists could liken to Israel’s occupation and settlement expansion. The term “Raj” (British rule) carries global recognition and anti-imperialist weight.
• Application: “Israel’s Raj-style domination imposes colonial subjugation on Palestinians, mirroring British control over India.”
• Advantages: Appeals to anti-colonial narratives; widely understood; sidesteps Nazi or slavery comparisons.
• Risks: Colonial India’s scale and context differ significantly; may dilute focus on specific Palestinian issues.

5. Rhodesia (1965–1980)

• Term: “Rhodesian Segregation” or “Settler Supremacy”
• Why Chosen: Rhodesia’s white minority rule enforced racial segregation and land theft, similar to South Africa’s apartheid but less frequently cited. Activists could frame Israel’s settlements as “settler supremacy” akin to Rhodesia’s policies.
• Application: “Israel’s Rhodesian segregation entrenches settler supremacy, denying Palestinians equal rights.”
• Advantages: Parallels apartheid but less regulated; obscure enough to avoid immediate backlash; aligns with settler-colonial critiques.
• Risks: Rhodesia’s lesser global notoriety may reduce impact; risks conflation with apartheid debates.

6. Francoist Spain (1939–1975)

• Term: “Francoist Repression” or “Fascist Exclusion”
• Why Chosen: Franco’s regime suppressed regional identities (e.g., Catalans, Basques) through violence and cultural erasure, which could be likened to Israel’s policies toward Palestinians. “Francoist” evokes authoritarian control without Nazi connotations.
• Application: “Israel’s Francoist repression crushes Palestinian identity through systemic exclusion and violence.”
• Advantages: Avoids Holocaust parallels; “fascist” is emotionally charged; aligns with cultural suppression critiques.
• Risks: Franco’s regime focused on internal dissent, not ethnic displacement, limiting parallels; “fascist” may invite scrutiny.

7. Imperial Japan (1931–1945)

• Term: “Imperial Occupation” or “Manchurian Control”
• Why Chosen: Japan’s occupation of Manchuria and other territories involved brutal control, displacement, and resource extraction, which activists could compare to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. “Manchurian” evokes imperialist aggression.
• Application: “Israel’s imperial occupation mirrors Japan’s Manchurian control, exploiting Palestinian land and lives.”
• Advantages: Anti-imperialist resonance; distinct from apartheid; avoids Jewish-related tropes.
• Risks: Japan’s wartime atrocities (e.g. 1937 Nanjing massacre) are too extreme for credible comparison; less familiar to modern audiences.

What the Israel-haters do, as do other leftists, is to not critique something directly, but to put the thing into a box labelled, for instance, “racist” or “apartheid” and then proceed to bash the box. It is how the left succeeds in silencing those who disagree. It is much easier to bash the box rather than debate issues, and this is never more evident when leftists and Israel-haters (who are mostly leftists) discuss Israel.

For instance where the “apartheid” accusation falls down is that the military action taken by Israel against Hamas in no way resembles what Botha did against Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC). Also, the ANC never launched rockets against Johannesburg, nor did it attack a music festival to rape and murder adolescent girls. That would have got the ANC quite a bad press, and it is therefore odd that Hamas does not get a similar bad press, as the ANC would have got had it behaved like Hamas. An awful lot of journalists and news organisations simply seem to hate Israel.

So the analogy is weak. But that does not matter to the box-bashers, as it just compresses their hatred into a single and relatively well-known word, especially as Apartheid South Africa is a core part of the A-level History curriculum in the UK right now.

It is therefore inevitable that the “apartheid” analogy will fail. People who abhor the Israel-haters may use this article to predict how they will apply their rhetorical bile next. The Israel-haters can use this as a handy source for inspiration.

See? I have pleased both sides!

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.