Description
The paper investigates the (international) politics of labeling, categorizing and interpreting contested political processes and violence. Empirically, it concerns the current debates surrounding propositions that Israel commits the crime of apartheid. While this conclusion has been reached by several Israeli, Palestinian and international NGOs in recent years, their claims have been strongly refuted by a number of state officials, public figures and organizations. According to many observers, these debates present a watershed moment in discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the global stage due to their public visibility. This paper relies on critical analysis of the available reports by various non-governmental organizations (arguing both in favor of and against labeling Israel as an apartheid state), statements by their representatives, and public reactions to these propositions, to discuss how are notions of neutrality, bias and expertise employed in these debates. In doing so, the paper contributes towards the scholarship on epistemic practices in international politics by showing how expertise-based projects rely on novel sources of authority when they become publicly discussed and scrutinized.
