104 chapter two apartheid is defined as a crime under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and enforced long after the apartheid regime was defeated in South Africa, attests to the fact that apartheid is a system that can be practised by any state.130 Hence, while we can emphasize historical similarities between South African Apartheid and the Israeli model of apartheid, it is nevertheless important to adopt an account that reads apartheid as a political system and a crime that can be practiced by any state. Like the crimes of genocide, torture and slavery, crimes against of humanity and war crimes, apartheid is a crime that can be committed by any state, its members, representatives, institutions, structures and organizations. As outlined in Article II of the Convention on Apartheid, this involves: Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.131 Which includes: Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof.132 Of course, along with persecutions of “organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms because they oppose apartheid.”133 Denunciations of Israeli apartheid should therefore not be limited to a comparative framework or analogy. As we pointed out, unlike the South 130 Hazem Jamjoum, “Not an analogy: Israel and the crime of apartheid,” The Electronic Intifada, April 03, 2009, http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10440.shtml. 131 United Nations General Assembly, 2185th Plenary Meeting, International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, (A/RES/3068-XXVIII), November 30, 1973, Article II(c), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3c00.html. 132 Ibid., Article II(d). 133 Ibid., Article II(f).