On September 14, the UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLFI) Charitable Trust hosted a webinar titled “The Accusation of Israel as an Apartheid State,” featuring a presentation by Arizona State University Law Professor Orde Kittrie on the mandate of the new United Nations Commission of Inquiry (COI) created by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Among other things, Professor Kittrie explained how the UNHRC and Humans Rights Watch (HRW) err in defining apartheid and how, under any definition, Israel’s actions cannot be characterized as apartheid. In May 2021, UNHRC established the new COI, which is poised to designate Israel as an apartheid state and pressure the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Israel for this crime. As Professor Kittrie pointed out, the scope of the COI, which is charged with investigating Violations in the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel is much broader than that of any previous commission on similar issues, and is therefore likely to be more dangerous. The COI will publish its first annual report in June 2022. International law recognizes two definitions of apartheid, one contained in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (the “Anti-Apartheid Treaty”) and the other in the ICC Rome Statute. Both define apartheid as “inhuman acts” and “systematic oppression and domination” committed “by one racial group” against “any other racial group” (emphasis added). Race thus is key. The definition of apartheid is so specific that, aside from South Africa, no other country has ever merited the designation. As Professor Kittrie explained, apartheid is irrelevant to the Israel-Palestine conflict because neither Jews nor Arabs are racial groups. There are Jews and Arabs of every race both inside and outside of Israel. Indeed, influential organizations like the International Committee of Red Cross have dismissed the notion that “apartheid” plays a role in the Israel-Palestine conflict for this very reason. Drawing on the work of HRW, however, the COI seeks to redefine the term “apartheid” to mean systematic discrimination based not only on race, but also on nationality, ethnic origin, or gender. This new definition is designed to change international law so that the COI can target Israel. Notably, HRW and UNHRC have not applied this definition to any other actors who may merit such consideration. As Professor Kitire further explained, Israel’s conduct cannot be characterized as “apartheid” even under HRW’s expanded definition. Israeli Arabs have more political liberties than many other Arab-majority countries as is evidenced by the high number of Israeli Arabs who are members of various professions and political positions of power in Israel. The COI can be expected to demonize the State of Israel in an attempt to ostracize it within the community of nations and ultimately to “asphyxiate” it. Professor Kittrie urged allies of Israel to mount a substantive counter to the apartheid charge and to reject HRW’s illegitimate and legally unsound definition of apartheid. In addition, Professor Kittrie urged the international community to work to counter the massive political pressure on UNHRC to target Israel. A recording of the webinar can be viewed here.