Reviewing From Apartheid to Democracy (April 2026)

The authors, Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man and Sarah Leah Whitson, are both journalists and human rights advocates with close ties to DAWN (Democracy for the Arab World Now), a Washington-based nonprofit organization that promotes democracy, human rights, and political reform in the Middle East and North Africa. DAWN was founded by Jamal Kashoggi whose work as a journalist and human rights activist ended abruptly with his gruesome assassination, allegedly directed by Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, in 2018. Omer-Man is a former editor with +972 Magazine and before that with the Jerusalem Post. Whitson is a human rights lawyer who prior to being the Executive Director of DAWN was the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa Division.

Omer-Man’s and Whitson’s book, Apartheid to Democracy: A Blueprint for Peace in Israel-Palestine, published in 2025, is an attempt to offer an alternative to the Oslo process, which they argue has been “negotiated under the skewed and coercive power dynamics of permanent military occupation” and was therefore “no longer a relevant framework for resolving the situation in Israel-Palestine,” particularly in light of the Gaza War. The authors present a detailed, preliminary blueprint with

practical steps to transform an undemocratic, de facto one-state reality into a democratic, rights-respecting regime with equality for all peoples under its control and to afford both Jewish Israelis and Palestinians the opportunity to exercise self-determination in one, two, or more states if they choose.

Their thesis is simple, straightforward and, for some, controversial. They propose a three-year Transition under a caretaker government broadly representative of a conflicted Israel-Palestine, what the authors refer to in their book as the Territory.(1) During the Transition, the Israeli occupation of the OPT, the Occupied Palestinian Territory,(2) is to end and the system of apartheid that allocates differential rights based on ethnic and religious identity markers is also to be terminated.

What is different about their proposal is that governance issues are to be postponed until the rights issues associated with the occupation and apartheid have been resolved during the Transition phase. It is in the post-Transition phase that the authors believe the power asymmetries established and maintained by occupation and apartheid will give all peoples of the Territory a reasonable opportunity to exercise their democratic preference for the type of new state they will be governed by—one state, two state, federation, confederation or consociation. What is non-negotiable are the democratic features of universal suffrage and equality before the law, where the Guiding Principles of the Transition will re-fashion the Basic Laws so that they “enshrine democracy and equality.”

In the Oslo process and previous peace efforts, the issues of occupation and apartheid have been deferred until after peace negotiations, this being the preferred strategy of Israel and the U.S. The authors argue that with military occupation and apartheid intact, the bargaining position of Palestinians is unfairly and substantially weakened. More importantly, the denial/curtailment of Palestinian freedom under the systems of military occupation and apartheid puts Palestinians in the awkward position of having to negotiate for fundamental human rights. Expect strong resistance from Israel and the U.S. to the authors’ prioritization of ending the occupation and apartheid.

To the question, ‘Why now?’ In their book, the authors cite the opportunity provided by the confluence of many significant developments since the Hamas massacre on October 7th and the ensuing war against Gaza by Israel aided financially, militarily and politically by the U.S. The following are consequential features of the political landscape that the authors have considered in deciding to submit their Blueprint for discussion:

• South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) charging Israel with genocide in the Gaza Strip (December 2023)
• The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the illegality of Israel’s military occupation and its system of apartheid (July 2024)
• The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense, Yoav Gallant, on charges of war crimes committed during the Gaza War (November 2024)
• The addition of Canada, France, the U.K., Portugal and Australia to the list of United Nations (UN) member states officially recognizing the State of Palestine at the opening of 80^th session of the UN General Assembly (September 2025).
• The positive examples of South Africa (end of apartheid, 1994) and Northern Ireland (end of The Troubles, 1998), each with long histories of conflict and each once written off as hopeless cases.

For the authors, it is the ICJ's 2024 Advisory Opinion that is key for the post-Oslo world. As the ICJ’s opinion demands that Israel end its 'crimes,' i.e., its refusal to accept the rules and determinations of international law, it forms the basis for the principal thesis of the Blueprint, viz., that Israel must end its illegal occupation of the OPT and its apartheid regime throughout the Territory before any peace and governance negotiations can have any meaning.

Whether the time is finally ripe for a permanent end to occupation and apartheid and the wars and violence in the Territory remains to be seen. Jewish supremacy, (uncompromising Zionism) and unconditional U.S. support(3) coupled with the absence of a neutral great power(4) are the principal obstacles that the Blueprint faces, though extremists on both sides can be expected to sabotage any attempt to bring lasting peace to the Territory.

Furthermore, Israel remains committed to total victory, i.e., domination over the Palestinians, so ending military occupation and apartheid are non-starters. For Jews, the very terms ‘occupation' and ‘apartheid) are contested. At issue for Jews is a bona fide sense of insecurity, and Jewish supremacy (through Zionism) is the only sure way for Jews to feel safe in their homeland. On the Palestinian side, the leadership is not only weak but it is also corrupt, and this leaves the Palestinian people with few good reasons to trust the Jewish state or their own leaders.

I see no urgent reasons for Israel to buy into the Blueprint. Israel has long been a pariah state in the eyes of much of the world—but not that part of the world that matters (North America and Europe)—and yet it has not just survived but thrived. Israel is not interested in winning a popularity contest in the UN General Assembly, not when it commands a permanent veto in the UN Security Council. U.S. support is unshakable for a number of reasons—geopolitical, religious, economic, cultural and racial. European support is fairly reliable for the same reasons. Germany is especially indebted to the Jewish state on account of it having perpetrated the Holocaust and got off easy. Much of Europe is also indebted to Israel for taking their Jews after World War II.

From a moral standpoint, the Blueprint is compelling, but not compelling enough for those in power to willingly cede power. At one point, the authors stumble over the one thing that could change the power balance—violent instability. Thus, the authors write

In Israel-Palestine, the levels of political violence experienced by Palestinians, particularly during the ongoing war in Gaza, may well have reached a level where they are prepared to accept a new alternative. Jewish Israelis have not reached a point where their personal experience of violence has led them to seriously consider alternative political visions, but continued war, disorder, and insecurity may.

In other words, Israel would only consider following international norms if the state breaks down and can no longer protect Jews. A mass exodus of wealth and human capital would likely flow from Israel. But before the collapse of the Israeli state, a totalitarian regime would probably emerge, ruthlessly enforcing unfreedom beyond anything imaginable even in a land so long condemned to military occupation and apartheid.

The following reads like a script for the only way the authors’ Blueprint vision could become reality.

[A] willingness to consider an alternative to occupation and apartheid rule can emerge if Israelis find themselves embroiled in domestic upheaval and violence sufficient to disturb their own security and stability and international sanctions and isolation that heighten their insecurity and instability. For that to represent a moment of “ripeness,” it will require Jewish Israelis to reimagine and expand their thinking to include manifestations of national self-determination that are not mutually exclusive to Palestinian national self-determination. Jewish Israelis will likely only start to question that belief if they come to the conclusion that the Jewish state is no longer able to provide security, stability, and prosperity for Jews.

Despite the number and magnitude of the challenges that the Blueprint faces, the authors have the remarkable tenacity and optimism to detail an articulate and well-thought-out draft of a solution that may well contribute to something positive. Two crucial final thoughts stressed by the authors are: first, that whatever solution emerges it must be a local solution and not one imposed (mandated) from outside and second, that active and meaningful engagement from both Jews and Palestinians is a sine qua non for success.

_____

Endnotes

NB: these are the reviewer’s reflections and ought not to be attributed to the authors.