On February 3, the UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLFI) Charitable Trust hosted a webinar titled “Amnesty International’s Latest Attack on Israel.” Professor Abraham Bell explained that Amnesty International UK’s recent report alleging Israel is responsible for apartheid has been dismissed outright by the Biden administration and others as “absurd”. He identified flaws in the report’s allegations and discussed Amnesty International UK’s wider agenda. Professor Bell asserted AI UK’s report is not the product of research or legal analysis. Instead, he said, it relied on anti-Israel facts based on wrong or incomplete evidence, took evidence out of context, and did not indicate what sources it used to support its claims. For instance, he pointed to Amnesty UK’s claim that there was an Israeli state plan to evict seven Palestinian families from homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem. Bell stated that AI UK framed a simple scheduled Supreme Court hearing in a property dispute brought by private plaintiffs as a plan by Israeli authorities. The report alleges that Israel’s policies constitute apartheid against Palestinians. While it is internationally agreed that apartheid is unlawful, Bell explained that there is no agreed-upon definition of apartheid. There have been two treaties that tried to create a definition of apartheid, he noted, but both have been controversial, and Israel is not a party to or bound by either. Bell said this left Amnesty UK with the need to create its own definition of apartheid. “What’s worse,” he said, “is they have to create a definition that’s at odds with anything that would conceivably be within the common understanding of apartheid.” Because there is no agreement on what constitutes apartheid, Bell used the only universally accepted example of apartheid to discuss AI UK’s claims. “There is one clear case, that everyone knows of, of apartheid in this world, that is apartheid South Africa,” said Bell. In comparing the policies and practices present in apartheid South Africa to Israel, Bell noted that no policies exist in Israel that are like that of apartheid South Africa. He listed some of the practices of apartheid South Africa, including laws against marital or sexual relations between people of different races; separate parallel facilities for people of color, or in some cases, no facilities for people of color at all; race-based restrictions on political involvement; race-based restrictions on higher education; and race-based restrictions on purchasing land in over eighty percent of the country. He then went on to explain how none of those practices or policies existed in Israel. Bell asserted that Amnesty and other human rights organizations impose different standards on Israel than other countries. For instance, he noted that Amnesty UK attacked Israel for providing Jewish people with a right to move to Israel. However, Bell argued, many countries have diaspora populations that they give preference to in immigration, and no others have been critiqued. Bell noted that Amnesty International’s authority has declined due to repeated scandals of bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, and bullying in their international offices and on social media platforms. Amnesty International employees have been caught saying false, anti-Israeli, and anti-Semitic things on their personal platforms, yet no actions have been taken against the individuals responsible. As a result, Bell asked if there should be an investigation into Amnesty International’s reputation instead of Israel’s. With the report already being heavily criticized internationally, Bell commented, it is sure to hurt Amnesty International’s legitimacy as a human rights organization. You can watch the full webinar here.