Criteria for Inclusion

Jewish Dissent uses terms such as occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide as legal and factual descriptors, grounded in international law and recognised human rights bodies. The directory does not introduce independent moral judgements beyond those embedded in international law; these terms are applied in accordance with findings from courts, United Nations bodies, and accredited international organisations.

Sources: Detailed references are provided at the end of this page to ensure transparency and verifiability.

International law has long treated the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza as occupied Palestinian territory.

In its Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded that Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and must be brought to an end.

Following that opinion, on 18 September 2024, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution ES-10/24, which demands that Israel end its unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory within 12 months of adoption.

Jewish Dissent treats "occupation" not as a political label but as a baseline legal characterisation with concrete consequences under international humanitarian law.

Apartheid is defined in international law as a system of institutionalised domination and oppression by one racial group over another, maintained through inhumane acts, notably in the Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Multiple internationally accredited bodies have concluded that Israeli authorities are committing the crime of apartheid in their treatment of Palestinians, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, and United Nations Special Rapporteurs on human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.

Jewish Dissent uses the term apartheid because it reflects these legal conclusions, not as a rhetorical provocation.

Ethnic cleansing is a well-established descriptive term in international jurisprudence, referring to the forcible removal of a population from a territory through expulsion, coercion, or conditions made incompatible with continued life or return.

United Nations officials, Special Rapporteurs, and human rights organisations have repeatedly warned of mass displacement and demographic engineering affecting Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, describing these practices as ethnic cleansing or documenting conduct that meets the legal definition.

Jewish Dissent uses the term ethnic cleansing to describe sustained patterns of forced displacement where credible international bodies either employ that term or document the conduct with sufficient clarity.

Genocide is defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

In January 2024, the ICJ, in South Africa v. Israel, held that the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza is plausible and ordered provisional measures to prevent acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention.

In September 2025, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry found that Israel has committed genocide, as reported in an official press release by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Jewish Dissent uses the term genocide in line with these determinations and authoritative UN reporting, not as a moral accusation detached from law.

Jewish Dissent does not adjudicate international crimes. It relies on international legal definitions, official rulings of courts, and conclusions reached by globally recognised human rights bodies and UN mechanisms. Where legal determinations exist, they are named.

Operational Principle: The purpose of using these terms is descriptive accuracy, not escalation.

Entities are included in Jewish Dissent based on publicly documented Jewish dissent against practices constituting occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. Inclusion is determined solely by ethical clarity expressed in the public domain, not by inferred beliefs, ideological labels, or private opinions.

Dissent may take many forms, including:

• Public statements, writings, or publications
• Protests, advocacy, or institutional refusal
• Cultural, academic, or artistic interventions
• Actions carried out at identifiable cost

The directory recognises diverse strategies and expressions; what matters is the substance of opposition, not uniformity of language or approach.

To reflect differences in scope, strategy, and context, the Jewish Dissent directory adopts three categories of dissent for inclusion:

Purpose: To make public Jewish dissent visible, provide a resource for journalists and educators, and preserve a record that cannot be dismissed as exceptional.

Limits: The directory does not prescribe ideology, require labels, or manufacture consensus. It does not represent all Jews, speak on behalf of communities, seek to replace existing content and commentary, or convert individual dissent into collective identity.

• Entities may request removal or recategorisation; good-faith corrections are acknowledged.
• Third-party challenges are assessed case by case to maintain integrity.
• Inclusion is evidence-based, relying on verifiable public statements or actions.
• Private or speculative beliefs are not considered.