In a recent piece on March 2nd Caroline Lucas put forward two incompatible positions.
First she put forward her support for dialogue with Hamas as long as Hamas recognises Israel:
“If the Palestinians can put together a government of genuine unity, based on tolerance, pluralism, and a commitment to previous peace process agreements that include the recognition of Israel, then it is the responsibility of the international community to accept it – regardless of whether or not it contains members of Hamas.”
Then she called Israel’s security barrier an “apartheid wall”.
The barrier was a response to terrorist bombers of the Second Intifada who deliberately targeted and killed hundreds of Israeli civilians inside Israel. Inside Israel (with some important exceptions, but with things moving in the right direction) Arab/Palestinian Israeli citizens, Jews and other minorities have equal rights. However, Israel’s conduct in its occupation of Palestinian lands and its dealings with Israeli settlers on the one hand and Palestinians on the other, are inherently racist. The separation and vastly different circumstances of Israeli settlers and Palestinians are blatantly obvious and appalling. The security barrier, while a response to terrorist incursions, was routed in such a way that it took in quantities of Palestinian land outside the Green Line. This deprived many Palestinians of their livelihoods. For example, the Palestinian village of Qalqilya, a longstanding site of attacks on Israel at its narrowest part (just 12km across), has become an encircled with a single Israeli-staffed passage to the outside world.
However, the term “apartheid wall” communicates a view that Israel and Palestine are, or should be, a single country, and this being the case, the barrier constitutes apartheid. I don’t think that Caroline Lucas tends to say that all borders constitute apartheid – only Israel’s.
It doesn’t make any sense to support recognition of Israel while in the same breath subtlely invalidating its existence. It’s no more possible to espouse peace without engaging seriously with the threats against Israel than it’s possible to espouse peace while turning a blind eye to the ongoing Israeli settlement activity.