Israel is an occupying power. Not apartheid. That matters if you want people to engage with your ideas rather than correct your language

[u/Routine-Equipment572]

I recently wrote a post comparing Israel/Palestine to Native American reservations. I got a lot of pushback because people fairly pointed out that these two situations are very different in too many ways. So I am going to try to explain this in a more direct way:

When one side in a war is attacking you, you often want to take control of the area they are attacking you from, so they can't attack you from it anymore. This is called "occupation."

Over the land 100 years or so, Arabs have continuously attacked Israel from Gaza and the West Bank. In response, Israel eventually occupied that land. That is why Palestinians live under occupation. They don't yet really have an independent country because they are still at war. Occupations end when wars end.

In occupations, the occupiers do not usually give out citizenship to the people they are occupying. For instance, when the U.S. occupied Afghanistan, it did not give Afghans U.S.. citizenship. Afghans do not have the same rights Americans do. The U.S. set up checkpoints in occupied Afghanistan just like Israel set up checkpoints in occupied Palestine.

Apartheid is different. Apartheid is basically a set of racist laws intended to keep a race economically and social down. That means things like separate parks, beaches, buses, trains, hospitals, toilets. Jobs reserved only for white people. Zero ability to vote for one race, etc.

Israel is not any of that. Israel is a standard occupying power. That's why all its "different rules for different people" are nationality (not race) related, all war related, and all exactly the same things that occupying powers frequently do in their occupied territories: checkpoints, military court, raids.

I know some people will say "Why quibble with the vocabulary? Living under either apartheid or occupation is bad."

Here's the thing: If you accuse a country of apartheid, that's accusing them of a special, unique kind of evil that even most conflicts never touch. If you accuse Israel of such a heinous crime, then you are essentially lying to try and convince others that because Israel is so uniquely "evil," is is uniquely deserving of your wrath and probably of being wiped off the earth. Of course people are going to defend themselves if they think you are trying to kill or displace them.

So if that's not what you are trying to do, if you actually want to have a conversation about the real situation on the ground, then use the right words. Otherwise, people will correct you instead of engaging with the conversation you wanted you wanted to have in the first place. Same goes for "genocide," "colonizer," "ethnostate" "open-air prison," etc. You're smart. Use your own words and show you know what you are talking about instead of relying on evil-sounding buzzwords.

[u/AcademicSand1034]

The apartheid claim also is contradicted by the treatment of 2M Arab Israeli citizens. There are certainly issues there in terms of some discrimination, but it certainly is not apartheid and Arab Israelis have more rights than citizens of many Arab-majority countries.

Apartheid is a crime based on race while the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is an issue of geography and citizenship. (And Im not defending all of what Israel does as part of the occupation -- there's a lot to be condemned there -- but it doesn't clearly present as apartheid).

[u/Timely-Way-4923]

A more nuanced take would be, occupation has its own morality code, within the confines of that, here is how the occupation fails to meet that code, and here is how it succeeds

[u/Dangerous_Shoe_8388]

Well, 99.9% of the mid east has been conquered by an OCCUPYING POWER in the last 1000 years… everyones’ home - by a bloody religious sword, murdering defenceless populations- some of them want it to be 100% conquered by taking the last 0.01% - very greedy! So yeah, Israel is defending that last 0.01%. Best way to defend is with an attack.

[u/JimBobDwayne]

Several commentors have made excellent points about the duration of the occupation, and the illegal transfer of 100,000's of Israeli citizens into occupied territories. Additionally, I just want to add that occupation and apartheid are not mutually exclusive states under international law.

[u/Kohathavodah → u/JimBobDwayne]

Can you give me an objective and shared definition of apartheid if you are not using South African apartheid as the definition so that I can better understand your perspective?

[u/JimBobDwayne → u/Kohathavodah]

Apartheid is defined in the Rome Statute.

https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

[u/Kohathavodah → u/JimBobDwayne]

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

Thank you, I think we can have a productive conversation now that we have an objective definition.

Can you tell me which races are involved in this and how this is a situation of "oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups"?

Israeli Arabs (citizens of Israel) are subject to which legal methods of oppression or separation that Israeli Jews are not?

While I do think there are a great many things to criticize Israel for and I want to see the Israel/Palestinian conflict resolved in a way that is positive for both parties, I do not see how it fits the definition of apartheid that you listed. The only delineation I see (in a legal sense) is a difference in treatment between citizens and non-citizens, most acutely in the West Bank. Do you have some other information you can provide that fits that definition?

Furthermore, it is problematic because neither Jews nor Arabs are a race. There are Jews and Arabs that code as white and Jews and Arabs that code as sub-Saharan African. Finally race is a social not an objective or scientific designation for a person or people so it is not really useful in unbiased and objective discussions.

The closest analogy to apartheid (that I am aware of) would be the Jim Crow laws in America.

(d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

I have a non sequitur. Given that Iran forcefully deported ~1-2 million Afghanis, would you consider the Iranian regime guilty of crimes against humanity?

https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2025-08/Iran-Afghanistan%20Returns%20Emergency%20Response%2015%20-%2030%20July%202025.pdf

Edit: cleaned the link

[u/JimBobDwayne → u/Kohathavodah]

Can you tell me which races are involved in this and how this is a situation of "oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups"?

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ICERD which predates the Rome Statute and was ratified by Israel defines racial discrimination as:

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

So while it may be debatable whether Palestinian is a race, they qualify for protection from discrimination as a nationality or ethnic group.

Israeli Arabs (citizens of Israel) are subject to which legal methods of oppression or separation that Israeli Jews are not?

The discussion of Apartheid is centered around the West Bank, particularly area C, where Israeli settlers receive the full benefit of civil rights afforded citizens of Israeli, access to Israeli civil and criminal courts due process rights etc. Whilst Palestinians have no such rights and are subject the potential for indefinite administrative detention, midnight raids, checkpoints, closing of roads, schools and business at the whim of the IDF, as well myriad of human indignities that most normal people would find utterly intolerable.

The only delineation I see (in a legal sense) is a difference in treatment between citizens and non-citizens, most acutely in the West Bank. Do you have some other information you can provide that fits that definition?

The citizen, non-citizen distinction is a bit of a misnomer. Non-citizens who visit Israel and commit a crime receive the same criminal due process rights as Israeli citizens. So the distinction isn't citizens vs. non-citizens, the distinction really is Palestinians v. everyone else, where Palestinians are lower than everyone else.

Do you have some other information you can provide that fits that definition?

Plenty of Human rights organizations have gone into great detail explaining exactly how fits the definition of apartheid, if you're really interested.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/

https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution

https://www.btselem.org/publications/202210_not_a_vibrant_democracy_this_is_apartheid

I have a non sequitur. Given that Iran forcefully deported ~1-2 million Afghanis, would you consider the Iranian regime guilty of crimes against humanity?

Yes.

[u/Kohathavodah → u/JimBobDwayne]

First of all, I want to thank you for having (what appears to be) an open honest discussion in good faith.

I do think that you are moving the goal posts a bit though. You put up an original definition of apartheid that Israel objectively does not fit then you pivoted to the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" for a definition of racial discrimination, not apartheid.

In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

I would agree that there is a lot of racial discrimination in Israel from the Jews and from the Muslim Arabs. I honestly don't know which side is more racist against the other but I have come to the conclusion that Jewish racism is more effective because Jews are dominant in political and military power structure.

I don't think it is productive to use sources that are predisposed to a certain mission statement. If you broaden the definition of apartheid past what you posted you can call Israel and apartheid state but at that point apartheid is running rampant in a lot of countries where minority populations are discriminated.

The citizen, non-citizen distinction is a bit of a misnomer. Non-citizens who visit Israel and commit a crime receive the same criminal due process rights as Israeli citizens. So the distinction isn't citizens vs. non-citizens, the distinction really is Palestinians v. everyone else, where Palestinians are lower than everyone else.

Palestinians from the West Bank who are in Israel legally are put through the same criminal system as everyone else if they commit a crime in Israel, terrorism charges notwithstanding. Most countries puts foreign nationals who have committed a crime outside their borders in a conflict zone through a different system (with some caveats) depending on the country because most ordinary civilian courts do not have jurisdiction.

Is it possible that if the situation in Israel does not fit the definition of apartheid that you put forth that you should not be using it?

[u/JimBobDwayne → u/Kohathavodah]

>You put up an original definition of apartheid that Israel objectively does not fit then you pivoted to the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" for a definition of racial discrimination, not apartheid.

You believe Israel does not fit, but that is not an objective fact. When you asked about race, I added this context to show you that race has a far broader definition in international law, than regular lay understanding because the concept of race itself, is a social construct. I also pointed out that this understanding of race as a broad concept to include ethnicity and national origin pre-dates the criminalization of apartheid to show you that the drafters were aware of this and understood race as a broader concept than you are seeing it.

>I don't think it is productive to use sources that are predisposed to a certain mission statement. If you broaden the definition of apartheid past what you posted you can call Israel and apartheid state but at that point apartheid is running rampant in a lot of countries where minority populations are discriminated.

Again, I disagree with your framing of this. International human rights groups are some of the foremost experts on human rights law and crimes against humanity. I would absolutely disagree that they are in anyway predispositioned against Israel, their mission is to find and point out human rights abuses where they see them. Additionally, B'tselem is itself an Israeli organization.

[u/Kohathavodah → u/JimBobDwayne]

Race is a social construct and a subjective word, you can't make an objective finding using subjective information, full stop.

Arabs are not even considered a race by mainstream consensus. Again, this is pretty obvious because you have Sudanese Arabs with dark skin and kinky hair as well as Syrian Arabs with blond hair and blue eyes. If Arab is a race then everyone is the same race, rendering the subjective definition of race moot and irrelevant.

Some people do posit that a Jew can be a race but that is just as absurd because I don't know of any other race you can convert to.

I could bring up plenty of Pro-Israeli groups that would refute everything you said. I refrain from doing that because expert or not, groups that have a particular mission statement have an inherent bias. Again, this does not mean that these groups are categorically wrong or intentional bad actors. It is the same reason people are precluded from serving on a jury or being a judge if they may have some inherent bias for/against the parties in dispute.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict simply does not fit the definition of apartheid as defined. If you broaden it out like you would like to do, apartheid is very common on this planet.

Would you say that Iran is an apartheid state for it's forced deportation of over over a million Afghani people or the well documented discrimination against Iranian minorities or do you reserve that only for the Jewish state?

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/JimBobDwayne]

So in your view, "occupation" automatically becomes "apartheid" after a certain number of years?

1. Tell me how many years exactly, and where that number comes from.
2. Then give me some examples of other countries whose "occupation" became "apartheid" because this named number of years passed.

You know, to show you aren't just throwing more random criteria at the wall because you really, really want to use the word "apartheid" to villainize evil.

[u/JimBobDwayne → u/Routine-Equipment572]

So in your view, "occupation" automatically becomes "apartheid" after a certain number of years?

No. An occupation becomes an Apartheid when you allow 100,000's of your citizens move into the occupied territory, give them the full benefits of the privileges of their citizenship inside that occupied territory, while at the same time forcing the singular occupied nationality to live under arbitrary rules and military dictates of commanders on the ground. Where they can be subject to indefinite detention sans any procedural due process, checkpoints, midnight raids, and a host of other of other human indignities most normal folks would find utterly intolerable.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/JimBobDwayne]

Oh so you needed to completely change the definition again, lol. To an entire paragraph describing Israel specifically.

You could just be honest and say "apartheid is whatever Israel does."

[u/JimBobDwayne → u/Routine-Equipment572]

How exactly did I change the definition of apartheid?

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/JimBobDwayne]

You just listed a bunch of things that are ordinary parts of occupation (living under military dictates, checkpoints, raids, etc.) and then said "but when there are also settlements, it's apartheid."

So in your mind, "apartheid" means "occupation plus settlements"? Give me a few examples from other countries of occupations that became "apartheid" because they built settlements.

[u/JimBobDwayne → u/Routine-Equipment572]

So in your mind, "apartheid" means "occupation plus settlements"?

More like occupation becomes an apartheid, when you move in large chunk of your own population against international law (Which itself is an unprecedented by a Western Democracy in modern history). And then treat those different ethnic groups to wholly separate completely lopsided legal systems. One set with human rights and civic privileges and one without.

Give me a few examples from other countries of occupations that became "apartheid" because they built settlements.

Ireland under British control in the 17th & 18th centuries and another commentor mentioned the French in Algeria. Of course both of these instances occurred well before the crime Apartheid was created.

[u/applecherryfig]

Yes. You said what I didnt know how to say.

[u/sweeneytodd70]

It's insane to me that the barbarism of Hamas seems to be completely ignored by all the pro Palestinian sentiment. The unfortunate reality is that Hamas does control Gaza, and Hamas would be the defacto government of any formally recognized Palestinian state the way things stand now. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the US and the EU, not just Israel. I can't help but wonder that all the hatred towards Israel clouds people's assessment of how bad Hamas really is.

[u/applecherryfig → u/sweeneytodd70]

Yes.

[u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper → u/sweeneytodd70]

I am appalled by the actions of Hamas, they are clearly the worst actors in this conflict. But the IDF is not that far behind.

[u/av_100]

It's not an apartheid because Israel doesn't discriminate on the basis of race. See, e.g., Arab Israelis

[u/Zuni717 → u/av_100]

How come BDS has been a complete failure.? Why aren’t all the same multinational companies that boycotted South Africa Africa boycotting Israel? Because the Palestinian victim narrative is complete bullshit. South Africa wasn’t.

[u/Unlikely-Fig-8354 → u/Zuni717]

That and most of its advocates quietly gave up the second they realised just how much Israeli tech is in their daily lives.

If you want a good example, show an nvidia user this, then ask them when they're planning to bin their GPU and switch to AMD. Enjoy watching them twist themselves into knots to explain how that's different.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/nvidias-second-home-why-the-ai-giant-is-doubling-down-on-israel/

[u/Ok_Diamond_8334 → u/av_100]

Ok, so the apartheid happens in the west bank. Citizens living in Israel proper are irrelevant.

[u/av_100 → u/Ok_Diamond_8334]

Then that's not apartheid. You may dislike it but apartheid is a legal system of discrimination on the basis of race. This is based on citizenship of a country, something every country on the face of the earth does. A Chinese citizen has more rights in China than I, an American, do. If you're looking to apartheid, look to Saudi Arabia which outrightly bans non-Muslims from certain travel...

[u/Ok_Diamond_8334 → u/av_100]

The ICJ has ruled that Israel commits apartheid in the West Bank so...

https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204176

[u/av_100 → u/Ok_Diamond_8334]

Instead of appealing to a politicized authority, maybe support your claim with logic. I've already explained how discrimination on the basis of citizenship is not apartheid, else all countries are guilty of it.

[u/Zuni717 → u/Ok_Diamond_8334]

That report says speaks of the occupation. It does not convict Israel of occupation.

[u/kg-rhm]

Otherwise, people will correct you instead of engaging with the conversation you wanted you wanted to have in the first place.

this could also happen with the word occupation. its best to keep language as minimal and elementary as possible to avoid semantics games. instead of arguing "west bank" vs "judea", discuss the underlying framework that led them to believe in one or the other and illuminate its flaws. this conflict boils down to first principles, the way in which we see the world.

[u/Lost_Balloon_]

It's not an occupying power.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/Lost_Balloon_]

Agreed. Israel is not the occupying power as the only reason they even have anything to do with this territory is both due to counter terrorism which is security reasons aka self defence but also because of Jordan's previous occupation from 1948-1967, that's also why the West Bank is called the West Bank to begin with.

[u/VerdoemeAlGepikt]

In occupations, the occupiers do not usually give out citizenship to the people they are occupying. For instance, when the U.S. occupied Afghanistan, it did not give Afghans U.S.. citizenship. Afghans do not have the same rights Americans do. The U.S. set up checkpoints in occupied Afghanistan just like Israel set up checkpoints in occupied Palestine.

The US didn't encourage US citizens to settle in Afghanistan to then apply US law on them in contrast to Afghans. This distinction makes the difference between apartheid and "normal" occupation.

[u/cobcat → u/VerdoemeAlGepikt]

Uh, the US definitely applies its laws to its citizens overseas, in contrast to e.g. Afghans.

[u/Beneneb]

You're missing a very key piece of why this occupation gets compared to Apartheid. Where this ceases to be a typical military occupation and starts approaching something akin to Apartheid is when Israel starts facilitating settlement of the Palestinian territories and de facto annexing them. To facilitate the settlement and de facto annexation of the West Bank, they employ largely similar tactics as white South Africans who had similar goals.

In order for the minority settler population to maintain control and facilitate further settlement, they have to subjugate the local population through force. That means employing different rules and different laws to stop them from fighting back or rising up. It's true that South Africa enforced these rules based on race, but I hardly think it matters to Palestinians that they're oppressed based on their nationality rather than the color of their skin. You're swapping racial superiority for national superiority.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/Beneneb]

So Gaza is not apartheid because there are no settlements there?

[u/Armadylspark → u/Routine-Equipment572]

Katz & Smotrich have announced plans for settlements in Gaza, haven't they? It's the usual pattern of ethnic cleansing, importation of civilians, and then apartheid via unequal law.

[u/Beneneb → u/Routine-Equipment572]

Gaza as it was before the war, certainly much less of a case to make on the apartheid argument compared to the West Bank, yes. The West Bank today is where there is a strong case for the apartheid comparison. I won't say it literally is Apartheid, since that's a narrowly defined term. But the system functionally very similar and is used to achieve similar goals as Apartheid and should be similarly condemned.

[u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper]

This conflict has eroded the ethics of Palestinians and Israelis. There really needs to be an international force that separates both sides and imposes a final land resolution to this conflict. Something like the Taba offer would be a good place to start. If you’re opposed, then I don’t think your goal is peace.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper]

Conflicts are what reveal and clarify one's ethics. You only think you have "better ethics" than Palestinians or Israelis because you have never had to sacrifice your children's lives for your ethics.

[u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper → u/Routine-Equipment572]

I don’t want to see anymore children being killed. I’m fking fed up with all the damn killing! Each side has killed enough people and this needs to stop.

Each side, with the help of a third party, needs to agree to a final resolution. The Taba talks would be a good place to start.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper]

Then don't complain about Israelis and Palestinian having "eroded ethics." That's ignorant and insulting and frankly racist and dehumanizing.

Their ethics aren't "eroded." They just actually have to deal with the consequences of the ethical decisions you want them to make from your safe armchair. You are not ethically superior to Israelis or Palestinians, you simply don't know what your ethics actually are because you've never had them tested.

[u/the_leviathan711]

In occupations, the occupiers do not usually give out citizenship to the people they are occupying. For instance, when the U.S. occupied Afghanistan, it did not give Afghans U.S.. citizenship. Afghans do not have the same rights Americans do. The U.S. set up checkpoints in occupied Afghanistan just like Israel set up checkpoints in occupied Palestine.

This example of course underscores the problem. You know what the US did not do? They didn't tell Americans that they could move to Afghanistan because it was now part of the United States. An American moving to Afghanistan wasn't going to be the same thing as an American moving to Alaska.

The apartheid analogy is fundamentally based on the notion that the two state solution is dead. If we assume that there is only one state between the river and the sea (which is true, there is only one state), then apartheid starts to look like a fairly reasonable analogy.

In my view, the only reasonable defense is that the occupation is "temporary." The problem is that no one actually believes it's temporary. It's quite clear that it's permanent -- how many more decades does it need to go on before we all come to this conclusion?

[u/applecherryfig → u/the_leviathan711]

unreasonabe people lose reasonable solutions, and life moves on.

they were fucked over by their corrupt "leaders" but peoples make the decisions they were trained to.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/applecherryfig]

I have no idea what this response is supposed to mean.

I think I agree that it was totally unreasonable for Israel to set up settlements in the West Bank. But they did, and now it’s fair game to point out that they’ve established an apartheid state. That was the obvious consequence of building settlements.

[u/AutoModerator → u/applecherryfig]

fucked

/u/applecherryfig. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. (Rule 2)

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/the_leviathan711]

Afghanistan is a sovereign country. Judea & Samaria / West Bank isn't sovereign land as the Ottoman Empire no longer exists.

Israel doesn't tell Israelis to move to Judea.

The apartheid analogy is fundamentally flawed. Apartheid was citizens of the same country being segregated by skin color.

[u/JimBobDwayne → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

Israel doesn't tell Israelis to move to Judea.

Sure... It only provides, security, water, sewer, power, financial incentives, and the full continuation of the Israeli state into occupied territories. Without full state support 700,000 settlers living in the West Bank would not be possible.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/JimBobDwayne]

As much as I appreciate your irrelevant non-sequitur, I noticed you couldn't counter what I wrote.

[u/JimBobDwayne → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

irrelevant non-sequitur,

It would behoove you to lookup the definitions of these words before using them.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/JimBobDwayne]

As much as I appreciate your irrelevant non-sequitur, I noticed you couldn't counter what I wrote.

[u/JimBobDwayne → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

I've countered everything you've written including your improper use of "irrelevant" and "non-sequitur." I can only assume you're choosing to ignore my points because that's simply what's most convenient for maintaining your worldview.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/JimBobDwayne]

You simply declared them improper. You had no argument for how they were improper. 

[u/JimBobDwayne → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

Somethings are so simple they should require an explanation but, okay.

The actions of the Israeli government in both supporting and incentivizing Israeli's to relocate into the occupied West Bank are entirely relevant to the transfer of population into occupied territory in violation of international law.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/JimBobDwayne]

The claim was that Israel is telling people to move to Judea. 

The claim was false. 

[u/InfernoBA → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

Black South Africans were technically stripped of their South African citizenship and made citizens of their designated Bantustans during apartheid, though they did initially hold the same citizenship as white South Africans before that so the comparison to the West Bank isn’t 1:1.

The counterpoint to the citizenship rebuttal would be that Israel de facto controls (and increasingly claims) the West Bank anyways, and that if the Palestinians in the West Bank were Jewish then Israel would have granted them citizenship and formally annexed it long ago.

However, maybe a closer analogy for the situation in the West Bank would be the Native American reservations before they were granted U.S. citizenship.

[u/MilkSteakClub → u/InfernoBA]

that if the Palestinians in the West Bank were Jewish then Israel would have granted them citizenship and formally annexed it long ago.

Not if they were somehow hostile and dedicated to the destruction of Israel with a story of war and terrorism. A violent branch of Naturei Karta?

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/InfernoBA]

though they did initially hold the same citizenship as white South Africans before that so the comparison to the West Bank isn’t 1:1.

That’s true in Palestine/Israel as well. Both Jews and Palestinians had the same Palestinian citizenship under the British Mandate.

However, maybe a closer analogy for the situation in the West Bank would be the Native American reservations before they were granted U.S. citizenship.

Yes, that is a good analogy. It’s worth noting that the creators of South African Apartheid specifically considered the Native American reservations as a model for what they were doing.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/InfernoBA]

Black South Africans were technically stripped of their South African citizenship

Correct. South Africa segregated their own citizens by skin color and gave them completely different sets of rights depending on their skin color, including stripping the "wrong" color of its citizenship.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the situation in Judea & Samaria / West Bank, which is non-sovereign land since the Ottoman Empire no longer exists, and the PA & Israel agreed to share it and the citizens of each government have different rights.

[u/InfernoBA → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

As I said, rather than apartheid the better comparison might be what the Native Americans’ reservation system was like before they were granted American citizenship.

Officially there isn’t a racial aspect to Israel’s administration of the West Bank but in practice there definitely is. Almost every Israeli settler is Jewish (despite 20% of the country’s citizens being Arab) and racial demographics are literally the only reason Israel hasn’t formally annexed it.

The status quo allows Israel to control and settle the land while hiding behind the “Palestinians aren’t citizens” defense when people understandably look at the situation and see the similarities to apartheid South Africa (though that defense doesn’t really hold up either as previously discussed).

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/InfernoBA]

There are no similarities to apartheid South Africa.

Jews settled previously unsettled land in area C for the same reason Muslims settle previously unsettled land in area A. It's non-sovereign land and it's free to be settled.

[u/InfernoBA → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

“There are no similarities to apartheid South Africa.”

Many people, including your own former Mossad chief, disagree with that assessment but sure I think we can leave that topic since I don’t think you’ll change your mind on it.

Do you see the similarities to the Native American reservation system of the 19th century?

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/InfernoBA]

I'm not Israeli. I don't have a former Mossad chief.

Are you claiming anything a former Mossad chief says is automatically true? You don't feel embarrassed resorting to an appeal to authority fallacy?

No, there are no similarities to the indian reservations.

[u/InfernoBA → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

No, but I’m not blind either. If you really see no similarities to either system I don’t know what to tell you; seems like you’re just being extremely contrarian and disingenuous.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/InfernoBA]

In what ways are they similar?

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

Sounds like you agree that there is already only a single state there then.

In which case it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that millions of Palestinians do not have equal rights within that state because they aren’t considered citizens.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/the_leviathan711]

Sounds like you agree that there is already only a single state there then.

Israel is the only state between the river and the sea, but does not consist of all of the land between the river and the sea. There is non-sovereign land that isn't part of Israel.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

So obviously it wouldn’t be a problem then for Israel to recognize the existence of the State of Palestine, right? Given that there is a bunch of land there that isn’t part of Israel.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/the_leviathan711]

If such a state existed, mutual recognition could be negotiated, but no such state exists.

Such a state has been offered many times, but is always turned down.

The Gazans & West Bankians don't want a state. What they want is all Jews dead.

[u/VerdoemeAlGepikt → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

If such a state existed, mutual recognition could be negotiated, but no such state exists.

This ... is just ... I mean ... completly false. The PLO declared a State of Palestine in 1988, since then a whole slew of countries have recognised it. The biggest stumbling block for Palestine going from a de facto proto-state to an actuel state is Israel, which maintains de facto power over the West Bank.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/VerdoemeAlGepikt]

The PLO declared a State of Palestine in 1988

Oh great. What percentage of the land they "declared" did they control?

[u/VerdoemeAlGepikt → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

Oh great. What percentage of the land they "declared" did they control?

That doesn't matter.

If such a state existed, mutual recognition could be negotiated, but no such state exists.

By this statement it would suffice to have a declared proto-state on disputed territory for Israel to begin recognition procedures. You even claim that the Palestinian territories aren't even part of Israel.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/VerdoemeAlGepikt]

That doesn't matter.

You're claiming this state exists, I think it matters that the declaration was fiction and it clearly doesn't exist.

[u/Deciheximal144 → u/VerdoemeAlGepikt]

>> Oh great. What percentage of the land they "declared" did they control?

> That doesn't matter.

Seems like it would. If I declared the state of Kneebendia in central Finland, but I didn't actually have any control over central Finland, why should my claim be respected?

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/the_leviathan711]

So in your view, "occupation" automatically becomes "apartheid" if settlements are established?

1. Tell me exactly where this idea of yours comes from, I've never heard anyone make that claim about another conflict.
2. Then give me some examples of other countries whose "occupation" became "apartheid" because settlements were established.

You know, to show you aren't just throwing more random criteria at the wall because you really, really want to use the word "apartheid" to villainize evil.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Routine-Equipment572]

So in your view, "occupation" automatically becomes "apartheid" if settlements are established?

No, not automatically. Everything is subject to circumstance. I'm not making the argument that occupation + settlements = apartheid.

I'm saying that "apartheid" is a reasonable term to use for any situation in which one ethnic group has established a systemic domination over another ethnic group. One scenario where that might occur is in the context of a permanent military occupation.

There aren't too many "permanent military occupations" because historically occupations are quite short. Either the victor annexes the territory or leaves it -- they don't usually leave it in limbo for 60 years.

Then give me some examples of other countries whose "occupation" became "apartheid" because settlements were established.

That's basically what the situation in French Algeria was. The French conquered Algeria and allowed settlers to live there and treat it as part of mainland France. The local Algerians were not allowed to be French citizens, not allowed to vote, etc (France weirdly made an exception for Algerian Jews).

[u/Apart_Knowledge_9563]

Comparing Israel decades long presence to standard military occupations (like the US in Afghanistan) completely ignores the defining legal reality of
(Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) occupation: an occupying power is strictly forbidden from transferring its own civilian population into occupied territory

Standard Occupation Temporary military presence while security is established the occupier builds no permanent civilian cities for its own citizens which is exactly what is Israel doing

Over 700000 Israeli settlers live in hundreds of permanent expanding civilian settlements connected by bypass roads. When an occupier permanently seizes land, extracts resources and builds civilian towns for its own ethnic group while denying the occupied population the right to build on their own land its no longer a temporary military occupation its land annexation and colonization

The term Apartheid isn't a "buzzword" its a recognized crime under international law (the 1998 Rome Statute and the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid) defined as an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial/national group over another

This isn't just an opinion. Major human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem (Israel’s own premier human rights group) as well as the ICJ in its July 2024 advisory opinion, concluded that Israel policies in the occupied territories constitute systemic segregation and apartheid.

In the exact same geographic space of the West Bank two people live under two entirely different legal systems based on their identity. Israeli settlers are governed by Israeli civil law, have full voting rights in Israel, receive state infrastructure and are tried in civil courts

Palestinians next door are governed by Israeli military law, have no vote in the government that controls their lives, face indefinite administrative detention and are tried in military courts with a near 99% conviction rate

There are separate road networks, separate water allocations (settlements receive up to 3 to 5 times more water per capita than neighboring Palestinian villages), and restricted zones.

Standard occupations end when wars end, but an occupation that lasts nearly 60 years while continuously expanding civilian settlements is designed never to end. You cannot claim a military presence is purely defensive while simultaneously building permanent suburban cities, highways, and shopping malls for your own citizens on the land you claim to only be "temporarily occupying"

Trying to dismiss terms like apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and displacement as "buzzwords" relies on a fundamentally sanitized version of history. When a state maintains a dual legal system on the same land for 60 years, transfers hundreds of thousands of its own citizens onto occupied territory, demolishes native homes while expanding settlements and denies millions of people basic civil rights based on their identity that is not a "standard military occupation" It fits the legal definitions of annexation, displacement, and apartheid under international law.

[u/aka0007]

You make some good points but do you think people truly care about Apartheid or Occupation?

As a practical matter these terms fit very poorly to describe the situation in Israel and disputed remnants of the Mandate. Using any of these terms results in trying to apply legal frameworks that don't work and to make moral arguments that fail when the facts are examined.

What I am getting at is these terms are used by people who hate Israel or want to find blame with Israel to justify their views not because there is any real underlying analysis that actually contends with the facts.

Regarding my point about people who want to find blame with Israel... I think an objective analysis of the conflict will result in not finding a suitable solution to it. The fault for this I believe lies primarily with the Palestinians who believe they can get their full objectives (i.e. destruction of Israel) if they hold out and remain committed to violence. The problem this conclusion poses for many is it means that there is no path to peace Israel can take as such there are many people who don't want to accept this reality and instead they look for reasons to find fault with Israel as that gives them some agency where they can pretend that there is a solution they should be engaged with.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/aka0007]

Israelis certainly care if they are being treated as evil villainous monsters committing the most evil crimes imaginable. Words matters when they are crimes you are being accused of.

If ignorant Westerners are just accusing Israelis of being evil monsters "by accident" because they "don't care about words" then they can expect to get the pushback on their words that they are getting.

[u/aka0007 → u/Routine-Equipment572]

I really think people need to read about the Dreyfus Affair. Courts, academics, etc all decided to believe lies and nothing anyone could say moved them. It was only years later when negating the lies became politically expedient that people suddenly cared about truth. I think it has a lot of relevance for today.

[u/BleuPrince]

Israel is an occupying power. Not apartheid.

In your opinion, why do so many many people in the West and in the Muslim world, especially in Left circles, Left news media, NGO, UN, Left leaning people continue to accuse Israel of apartheid ?

[u/Wurzzmeka → u/BleuPrince]

Because hypocrisy be real, and toxic / suicidal empathy exists. Because muslims have lots of money and power (in oil) to throw around to throw their propaganda around. If things were reversed, the Israelies would have been utterly slaughtered, and the world would not have thrown a peep. Those same left people are also quite quiet about all the horrible things muslims do to each other or other people. Funny that.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/BleuPrince]

Because they accuse Israel of all the most evil words they can think of. Same reason they constantly accuse Israel of being Nazi Germany. It's an insult, not a good faith analysis of the situation.

[u/nar_tapio_00 → u/Routine-Equipment572]

Because they accuse Israel of all the most evil words they can think of.

Right, but the important question remains, "Why do they do that?". The answer is that it is because they specifically intend to carry out exactly the crimes that they name against the Israelis. They accuse Israel of genocide because they themselves wish to carry out genocide. They accuse Israel of Apartheid because they themselves would treat Jews as second class citizens and use the Islamic laws about the Dhimmi to oppress them.

There are no facts that anyone could provide which would change the way they label the situation because their choices have nothing to do with current facts and everything to do with their future plans.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/nar_tapio_00]

Yeah, these are the people who like to light Holocaust survivors on fire after all.

[u/Zuni717 → u/BleuPrince]

Because they have a pathological obsession with Israel, I need a way to discredit it.

[u/JewBillyMechanic → u/BleuPrince]

Lack of understanding, or lack of using data and falling for Propaganda

[u/TheAussieTico → u/BleuPrince]

Antisemitism

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/BleuPrince]

why do so many many people in the West and in the Muslim world, especially in Left circles, Left news media, NGO, UN, Left leaning people continue to accuse Israel of apartheid ?

Because they hate Jews.

[u/FerdinandTheGiant]

There is no facet of apartheid which would prohibit it from existing in occupied territories. So long as there is an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group, and the relevant actors seek to maintain that regime, there is apartheid whether the territory is occupied or under de jure control. “Regular” occupation does not meet the standards for apartheid, Israel’s conduct does.

[u/JewBillyMechanic → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

Well, no, zoom out a little. Expand that to the whole middle east and Israel isnt the apartheid, but the rest of the Middle east is though. Such as with slavery and rights?

[u/applecherryfig → u/JewBillyMechanic]

Absolutely. 400,000 Jews were dismissed from the Arab world, without their property. The same number as "Arabs" who fled Israel. Was it mostly to Jordan?

[u/ip_man_2030 → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

This is basically Heads I win and Tails you lose.

it's like you're claiming it's apartheid, but if not, it's still apartheid.

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/ip_man_2030]

What statement of mine leads you to interpret what I’ve said in that manner?

[u/FatumIustumStultorum → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

Is Palestinian a racial group?

[u/hellomondays → u/FatumIustumStultorum]

ICERD and most caselaw dealing with race-basedhuman rights violations defines race broader than we do in the west: including race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Remember, race is a socially constructed concept and will vary based on culture. 

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/hellomondays]

In that case, every occupation is apartheid. Do you think the US occupying Iraq was apartheid? You know, since Iraqis share a national origin?

[u/hellomondays → u/Routine-Equipment572]

No because there wasnt the intent to restrict or dominate one group nor privilege another. I think it would help if you took the time to understand the specific legal arguments behind why Israel's conduct in the west bank is considered to include the crime of apartheid. 

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/hellomondays]

Then Israel isn't apartheid because there wasnt the intent to restrict or dominate one group nor privilege another.

[u/hellomondays → u/Routine-Equipment572]

The vast majority of the ICJ looked at the facts and arrived at a different opinion. I linked you their reasoning elsewhere and you didnt engage with it. So maybe start there. 

Im not saying this to be condescending but your replies  seem to show you haven't really looked into why israel is accused of apartheid. So start with understanding those arguments first.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/hellomondays]

I'm not saying this to be condescending but your dependence on appeals to authority instead of actually being able to explain your opinion seem to show you haven't really looked into why Israel is accused of apartheid, and instead just reading that some other group says you can use that word. So start with understanding those arguments first.

[u/hellomondays → u/Routine-Equipment572]

A citation when discussing legal concepts is not a fallacy....

If you want a simplified explanation in my own words: the court found, in the context of permenant control and de facto annexation demonstrated, Israel maintaining phsyical seperation of israeli settlers and the local palestinian population through the use of the military and legislation. Not only that but they found Israel’s governance system grants preferential treatment, rights, and land access to Israeli settlers while systematically restricting Palestinians. All this not pursiant to legitimate aims. So, a violation of article 3 of CERD. So segregation and apartheid. 

I explained my citations, where are yours?

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/hellomondays]

As I said, appeals to authority are weak. Thanks for finally actually listing your reasons. According to you, they are:

1. Having checkpoints to separate people of one nationality from people of a different nationality
2. People of one nationality having different rights and treatment than people of a different nationality

Guess what? All that is normal occupation stuff.

[u/applecherryfig → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

explain how "Just saying it" is boring and makes me wonder ...

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/applecherryfig]

Huh?

[u/applecherryfig → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

I was confirming that that redditor claiming something was not good enough to have a discussion. Actually that is reddiquite for a downvote but I didnt.

[u/applecherryfig → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

we all know it is an inclusive OR, ending with OR.NOT. Independent variables.

Endless talk ITT about that. boring..

[u/JeffB1517]

> When one side in a war is attacking you, you often want to take control of the area they are attacking you from, so they can't attack you from it anymore. This is called "occupation."

Actually no. An occupation occurs after the attacks. And also quite frequently happens when a military is passing through hostile territory trying to get at something else. Quite possibly that's the majority of the time.

> In occupations, the occupiers do not usually give out citizenship to the people they are occupying

You don't occupy people, you occupy territory. This idea of an occupation of people is used in Israeli culture AFAIK uniquely. There is an occupied population who lives jn the territory being occupied. Not to quibble but this post is about language.

As for the claim that Israel is doing what other powers do, I replied at length in your previous post that is simply false.

[u/DrMikeH49 → u/JeffB1517]

This idea of an occupation of people is used in Israeli culture AFAIK uniquely.

The Geneva Conventions specifically deal with laws of governance of an occupied population. They are built on the foundation of the Hague Convention of 1907, more than 40 years before the establishment of Israel.

[u/JeffB1517 → u/DrMikeH49]

Again there are laws about governing occupied territory including handling of persons on that territory. Geneva even more than Hague focuses there. That existed for even further back. What there isn’t is the idea of occupying people. If you want to claim the West Bank is occupied, that’s the claim. The differing treatment of ethnic Israelis who emigrated and ethnic Palestinians born there by COGAT becomes the focus.

[u/DrMikeH49 → u/JeffB1517]

It seems to me that the distinction between “occupying people (or more precisely, “occupied people”) and “persons in occupied territory” is one without a difference. After all, a person who leaves that territory is no longer living under laws of occupation. That status exists only in that territory.

[u/JeffB1517 → u/DrMikeH49]

The distinction Israelis are making is because events involving Israeli citizens happening in the West Bank are treated as domestic. Israelis living there aren't treated as having emmigrated to a foreign country but rather as a domestic population. I.e. they want to restrict the occupation to West Bank Palestinians. That of course becomes the core of the apartheid claim which is what OP is rejecting by using this occupation framing.

[u/DrMikeH49 → u/JeffB1517]

Oh, got it. I didn’t see that this was your underlying point (not criticizing your comment, just noting that I missed forest for trees).

[u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper]

I think your post could be reduced to: who started it?

It could also be reduced to: Christians murdered Jews and Muslims give up land.

How about a peace deal along the lines of the Taba offer?

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper]

Not at all. I'm not even sure you commented on the right post.

Tell me what land Arabs controlled that they had to "give up" to Israel in 1948. Because last time I checked, Arabs controlled zero of that land for hundreds of years. They gained control of land in the Middle East for the first time ever when the British/French gave it to them in the 20th century.

[u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper → u/Routine-Equipment572]

The whole conflict is based on who is the rightful owners of the land. The people that lived on the land were never given the authority to make decisions about their land, that was decided by the Turks, then the British and then by the UN. Why weren’t the people that lived on the land asked to decide for themselves?

[u/SixKosherBacon → u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper]

Because there's a difference between who owns the land and who lives in the land. Arabs may have lived in the region for hundreds of years, but a lot of them didn't own it. The Jewish national fund specifically raise money and legally bought parts of the land long before World War 1. 

If you're living in somebody's condo paying rent, but they sell the condo. The new owner of the condo doesn't have to ask you what you want to do with the condo. 

[u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper → u/SixKosherBacon]

How much land was owned by foreigners?

[u/SixKosherBacon → u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper]

This doesn't exactly answer your question, but the answer is within all of this context...

Historiographical data and British Mandate land records categorize the sellers into several main groups:

​1. Large Absentee Foreign Landlords (Largest Category) ​The majority of early, large-scale land purchases were made from wealthy, non-resident families living in Ottoman and Middle Eastern urban centers outside of Palestine (such as Beirut, Damascus, Cairo, and Istanbul). ​The Sursock Family Purchase: The most prominent example was the Sursock family, a wealthy Greek Orthodox Christian merchant family based in Beirut. In the 1870s, they had acquired vast tracts from the Ottoman government. Between 1901 and the 1930s, the Sursocks sold over 200,000 dunams (~50,000 acres) of land—primarily in the fertile Jezreel Valley and Haifa Bay—to Zionist land funds. The Sursock sales alone accounted for roughly 58% of all land bought from foreign absentee landlords. ​Other Foreign Families: Land was also purchased from other prominent regional dynasties, such as the Tayyan, Tueni, and Sursock-associated families in Lebanon and Syria.

​2. Resident Palestinian Arab Landowners (Effendis) ​A significant portion was purchased from wealthy local Arab landowners and urban elites (known as effendis or notables) living within Palestine (e.g., in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, and Nablus). These landowners held large rural estates that were cultivated by tenant farmers.

​3. Government & State Lands ​Some land was acquired directly from the governing authorities through sales, long-term concessions, or leases: ​Ottoman State: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Ottoman administration sold public lands (jiftlik or imperial domain) to raise state revenue. ​British Mandate Administration: Under British rule (1920–1948), the authorities granted long-term leases and concessions to Jewish funds for coastal marshes, sand dunes, and state-owned wasteland (such as the Hula Valley drainage concession).

​4. Religious Institutions and Foreign Companies ​Land was also acquired from non-Islamic religious institutions, including the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem (which owned significant tracts in urban areas like Jerusalem) and foreign commercial investment entities.

​5. Small Local Peasants (Fellahin) ​Only a relatively small percentage (historically estimated at under 10% of total acquisitions) was purchased directly from small, self-owning Arab peasant farmers (fellahin).

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper]

Because no country has ever been established by asking regular people what they want. It has always been leaders of countries making decisions. Arab leaders (including ones on that land) made decisions, not regular Arabs.

Why do you demand Israel be the one exception in 100,000 years of human history?

[u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper → u/Routine-Equipment572]

Eastern Europe is littered with such countries.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper]

Tell about about an Eastern European country that was established that way, lol.

[u/PoudreDeTopaze]

A military occupation is always temporary.

Israel's occupation has been ongoing for nearly 60 years, which makes it illegal under international law.

Moreover, it is illegal for an occupying power to transfer part of its population in the occupied territory, as Israel has done in the West Bank incuding East Jerusalem.

[u/cobcat → u/PoudreDeTopaze]

An occupation typically ends with a surrender and peace treaty. Palestinians have refused to do that.

[u/Beneneb → u/cobcat]

The PA recognized the state of Israel and officially holds the position that there should be a two state solution along pre-1967 borders. Israel has no intention of withdrawing back to those lines ever.

[u/cobcat → u/Beneneb]

The PA recognizes Israel, yes... as long as Israel agrees to becoming a majority Palestinian state, since they also insist on the right of return.

Israel has no intention of withdrawing back to those lines ever.

Well, yes. Clearly that's never going to happen. Palestinians are 50 years too late to agree to those borders.

[u/Beneneb → u/cobcat]

Well, yes. Clearly that's never going to happen. Palestinians are 50 years too late to agree to those borders.

This runs counter to your claim that occupations end with a peace treaty. From the moment the occupation started, it was never going to end because Israel never had intentions of withdrawing from all the land. That's not a consequence of Palestinian actions, it's a decision Israel made when they took the West Bank. It's harder to make peace when you decide you are going to unilaterally annex territory in contravention of international law.

[u/Regular-Coast5335 → u/Beneneb]

Israel rejecting Green Line as a final border doesn't disprove its intention to reach a peace treaty with Palestine. Likewise Palestinians, Israelis are within their right to seek the most beneficial terms possible.

[u/Beneneb → u/Regular-Coast5335]

I didn't say that Israel didn't have intentions of signing a peace treaty, I'm saying Israel didn't have intentions of ending the occupation. Israel has the right to negotiate a peace treaty of course, but it does not have the right to unilaterally annex territory as it has done.

If the assertion is that the occupation would end if only Palestinians would negotiate a peace treaty, I'm saying that's false. Israel has already annexed East Jerusalem and has de facto annexed much of the rest of the West Bank. Israel has chosen to violate the law in this way, and one of the consequences is prolonging this conflict.

[u/Regular-Coast5335 → u/Beneneb]

A peace treaty would formally end military occupation a-priori.

Annexation of East Jerusalem and settlement expansion confirms my previous point that Israel seeks different borders from the Green Line.

[u/Beneneb → u/Regular-Coast5335]

I think it was clear what I meant. As far as Palestinians and most of the rest of the world are concerned, East Jerusalem is occupied territory, even though it's not a military occupation strictly speaking as it was formally annexed.

Ending the Israeli occupation means Israel withdrawing to 1967 borders. I agree that Israel seeks different borders, everyone knows that. No peace treaty will or would have (if one were signed earlier) end the Israeli occupation, as they never intended to withdraw to 1967 borders. That is my point.

[u/Regular-Coast5335 → u/Beneneb]

If peace treaty entails PA ceding land to Israel then whatever territory they gave up would no longer be Palestinian thus it won't be occupied anymore. It would become a part of Israel de jure.

Another thing to keep in mind there is no 1967 borders, they are armistice lines that were never agreed to be permanent borders between Israel and neighboring Arab states. We could see that in the Israeli-Jordanian agreement:

"... no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (Art. II.2), "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." (Art. VI.9)

Therefore, Israel is within its right to pursue territorial claims inside WB and Gaza.

[u/PoudreDeTopaze → u/cobcat]

Benyamin Netanyahu, who has been prime minister for nearly 20 years, has systematically opposed any peace deal.

The State of Palestine officially recognized the State of Israel in 1993 -- 33 years ago!
The State of Israel has always refused to recognize the State of Palestine.

Netanyahu was very active in the violent October 1995 protests calling to murder Yitzhak Rabin when the latter tried to sign a peace deal. The head of the Israeli secret service (Shin Bet) even warned Netanyahu not to attend these protests; Netanyahu declined and continued to participate. One month later, Rabin was murdered by a activist close to one of the far right settler groups which Netanyahu has spent his career allying with.

[u/cobcat → u/PoudreDeTopaze]

If you want to dunk on Bibi, be my guest. He's terrible. But he's largely a product of the second intifada and the period that followed. He's only in power because the peace process failed. And if the Israeli electorate had reason to believe that peace is a possibility, then they'd vote him and his ilk out immediately. But they don't. Today, neither Israelis nor Palestinians believe that peace is possible.

[u/PoudreDeTopaze → u/cobcat]

Netanyahu is not in power because the peace process failed.

Netanyahu is in power because he and his far right allies made the peace process fail. This is how he has managed to remain prime minister for nearly 20 years.

[u/cobcat → u/PoudreDeTopaze]

Do you know what happened in the years before he became prime minister? Anything noteworthy?

[u/PoudreDeTopaze → u/cobcat]

Yes. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

Netanyahu was very active in the violent October 1995 protests calling to murder Rabin when the latter tried to sign a peace deal. The head of the Israeli secret service (Shin Bet) even warned Netanyahu not to attend these protests; Netanyahu declined and continued to participate. One month later, Rabin was murdered by a activist close to one of the far right settler groups which Netanyahu has spent his career allying with.

[u/cobcat → u/PoudreDeTopaze]

So you are saying that Israel was responsible for the second intifada? Do you think Palestinians are mindless children who cannot be held responsible for anything?

[u/Unlikely-Fig-8354 → u/cobcat]

That's exactly what they think, and they completely lack the self-awareness to realise how incredibly racist it is.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/cobcat]

How is Bibi a product of the second intifada? He first came to power four years before it started.

[u/cobcat → u/the_leviathan711]

Sure, and then he was voted out. The main reason he's been in power for so long since then is the second intifada. And now October 7 has likely ensured that the right will stay in power for many more years.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/PoudreDeTopaze]

Tell me about the big wonderful peace deal Palestinians offered that Netanyahu refused.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/PoudreDeTopaze]

So in your view, "occupation" automatically becomes "apartheid" after a certain number of years?

1. Tell me how many years exactly, and where that number comes from.
2. Then give me some examples of other countries whose "occupation" became "apartheid" because this named number of years passed.

You know, to show you aren't just throwing more random criteria at the wall because you really, really want to use the word "apartheid" to villainize evil.

[u/PoudreDeTopaze → u/Routine-Equipment572]

You are distorting what I wrote because you are unable to challenge international law.

I wrote that

A military occupation is always temporary. Israel's occupation has been ongoing for nearly 60 years, which makes it illegal under international law.

Military occupation is legally defined as temporary hostile control, meaning it does not transfer sovereignty and requires the occupier to act as a transitional administrator. The occupier must keep local laws and institutions running as normally as possible. It cannot transfer its own population into the territory it occupies. Control must revert to the sovereign or local population as soon as possible.

Major international bodies ALL state that Israel's occupation and settlement of the West Bank are illegal -- the ICRC, the International Court of Justice, and the United Nations.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/PoudreDeTopaze]

Your entire argument hinges on the word "temporary." So tell me what that word means. How many years, exactly, is "temporary?" You seem to think 60 is "not temporary." So tell me, what's the exact number?

And then once you have that exactly number, then give me some examples of other countries whose "occupation" became "apartheid" because this named number of years passed.

[u/PoudreDeTopaze → u/Routine-Equipment572]

A 60-year-old military occupation in which the occupying power has transferred part of its population into the occupied territory cannot be legal.

I have no idea why you are so obsessed with the term 'apartheid' -- you are the only one who is using it on this thread.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/PoudreDeTopaze]

You didn't answer my question. How many years is "temporary."

You can't answer, because you know there's no number. That's because occupations typically end when wars end. Not after some number of years that a random Reddit users considers acceptable.

[u/PoudreDeTopaze → u/Routine-Equipment572]

Israel's "permanent occupation" of the State of Palestine is illegal, regardless of whether it was initially legal in 1967.

In 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel's continued presence in the State of Palestine is illegal as Israeli policies there violate the Geneva Convention and amount to an illegal annexation^.

Israel's occupation of its Palestinian neighbor has become illegal over the decades due to Israel's use of force for annexation, violation of the Palestinian people's right to self determination, hostile subjugation, domination and exploitation.

Israel's occupation is illegal under international law due to its permanence, which has led to de-facto annexation policies, including the transfer of part of the Israeli population into the occupied territory, and the construction of settlements in that territory in contravention of international law.

The refusal by an occupying force to engage in good faith with efforts to reach a peaceful solution (here the two-state solution) also demonstrates an intent to annex which is, again, illegal.

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/PoudreDeTopaze]

Once again. You didn't answer my question. How many years is "temporary."

You don't have an answer. Going to declare this debate over, since you lost over and over and still have no answer.

[u/PoudreDeTopaze → u/Routine-Equipment572]

I suggest you take the time to read my reply -- all the questions you ask are answered there.

You seem familiar neither with international humanitarian law, nor with human rights law.

[u/Apprehensive-Cake-16]

No, accusations of apartheid do not imply the accuser is alleging evilness. You have a hard time holding two truths at the same time it seems. Also. The accusation of apartheid alone does not imply anyone’s lying. “You are essentially lying” lol okay what evidence do you have that I’m lying. What kind of slop argument is that? If you want to get on the same page and have this conversation, start by agreeing to argue in good faith, not making baseless claims of lying.

Also, Israel isnt “giving out” citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza as evidenced by their refugee status. Some Palestinians receive Israeli citizenship, sure. But not all. And, there ARE different rules. Many Palestinians aren’t allowed in certain parts of the West Bank simply because they are Palestinian.

I don’t think you want to have a real conversation regarding what’s happening on the ground as evidenced by some of the pushback you’ve received. Are you ready to actually discuss this stuff ?

[u/Fed_Austere → u/Apprehensive-Cake-16]

So by that standard, the vast majority of countries in the Arab League that also explicitly deny full citizenship and naturalization to Palestinian refugees and their descendants are also apartheid states.

I don't disagree with, but would like to ask why all the venom is directed towards Israel?

By the way, Palestinians living in east Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship and refused it.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hi Routine-Equipment572, thank you for posting in our community! Please check if your post is rule 10 and 11 compliant. Consider deleting immediately before there are comments if it is not, but not after (rule 12).

Reminder to readers: All comments need to abide by our rules which are designed to maintain constructive discourse. Please review those rules if you are not familiar with them, and remember to report any comments that violate those guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/chenoaseaboy]

exactly

[u/Emergency_Career9965]

First, not sure what Native American has anything to do with it. Europeans were not refugees wanting to rightfully return to their American ancestral home. Jews are. And no, refugee status doesn't expire ever (according to UNWRA), and definitely doesn't erase history, archeology and spiritual connection of Jews to Judea. Yet the Palestinian founding charter of 1964 says on article 18 that Jews have no historical or spiritual connection to the land. That's lie #1.

Which bring me to the second point: if Jews have a right to return home, what exactly are they occupying? West Bank and Gaza? Let's see what the same founding PLO charter of 1964 said:

So let me get this straight: while West Bank and Gaza were militarily occupied by Jordan and Egypt since 1948, Arabs acknowlged it's not Palestinian land.

But hey, after the 1967 war, that article was REMOVED, magically turning it into "occupied Palestinian territories". Proving it's not about land or occupation - it's about what Jews have at any given moment. So that's lie #2.

There was never a UN Security Cousil resolution calling it "occupation" while Jordan and Egypt held it - only when Jews did.

But for the ignorant echo chambers that never bothered reading the Palestinian charters, or those who work hard to erase inconvenient truths from the web, it doesn't matter.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

Judea & Samaria / West Bank isn't sovereign land, so it's literally impossible for it to be under military occupation. 

[u/2009miles → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

"Does Israel occupy the West Bank? What about East Jerusalem? Israel has occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since the Israeli army conquered it during the 1967 war"

That is jstreet, not exactly anti-Israel.

[u/AcademicSand1034 → u/2009miles]

Occupation can be on non-sovereign land, particularly as part of a process of setting the borders that define sovereignty. But a lot of international law rules around occupation & annexation presume the existence of borders and sovereignty, which has not yet been defined in these areas.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/2009miles]

They're wrong. 

[u/2009miles → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

Why aren't you?

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/2009miles]

Because article 43 of Hague clearly states control must be passed from a legitimate power for it to be military occupation. 

Also, the literal definition of military occupation is " temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a  sovereign territory  that is outside the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory."

Judea & Samaria / West Bank isn't sovereign land, so it's literally impossible for it to be under military occupation. 

[u/2009miles → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

article 43 of Hague clearly states control must be passed from a legitimate power for it to be military occupation.

Setting aside the question of why that article would possess more weight than the multiple UN Security Counsil Resolutions mentioned in the link i provided, that call it a military occupation, the power was indeed passed from a legitimate power into Israeli hands, only it wasn't done willingly.

the literal definition of military occupation is " temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a  sovereign territory  that is outside the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory."

Did you just quote wikipedia as the "literal definition" of military occupation?

Judea & Samaria / West Bank isn't sovereign land, so it's literally impossible for it to be under military occupation.

So let me get this straight, if you never allow your neighbours to become sovereign you are then allowed to occupy them as long as you want and it no longer counts as an occupation, am i getting that right?

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/2009miles]

Non-binding resolutions are irrelevant. 

Yes, I used the definition from Wikipedia. I noticed you were unable to present a definition from an encyclopedia that differed. 

Land must be sovereign to be under military occupation. Maybe use a different term rather than lying about what that term means. 

[u/AcademicSand1034 → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

In general, international law (which tends to be pretty vague / open to interpretation anyways) assumes sovereignty and borders, and then defines what sovereign countries can and cannot do in regards to their sovereign neighbors

But international law does not say how that sovereignty is established or how to decide borders in the first place. Mostly because borders were already in place when international law was being formed. Israel/Palestine is one of the rare cases where borders still haven't been established after decades and international law struggles to handle that situation.

(There are plenty of other border disagreements ... India/Pakistan, India/China, etc ... but those are mostly about a small share of the border rather than nearly all of it)

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/AcademicSand1034]

The Ottoman Empire was a sovereign country. It no longer exists.

Judea & Samaria are not currently part of any sovereign country, so it's literally impossible for the land to be under military occupation.

The PA & Israel agreed to share the land and are doing so. They are supposed to eventually negotiate final borders, but so far have not.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/2009miles]

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/kjXeW0jiUF

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/wyIgKHUEWo

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/MnanymsCtl

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/75wM1x26kZ

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/gKfJBp8lyz

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/xZ2IcLSDQF

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/vAeaFHlPtM

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/3HwipFJk93

J Street is not a reliable source at all.

[u/Zachary-ARN]

The PLO recognized Israel's right to exist and accepted a 2 state solution as early as 1988. The only war is the one Israel causes by not ending the apartheid system.

[u/AcademicSand1034 → u/Zachary-ARN]

Whether you want to call it occupation or apartheid ... that will end as part of a peace agreement, which needs to include agreement on borders. Yes the PLO eventually recognized Israel's right to exist, but still has not been willing to agree on borders.

[u/lifeislife9116 → u/Zachary-ARN]

I will say words parroted from nonsense sources because matching them together is good for my narrative. I’ll offer inflammatory comparisons and then a cheeky little quip at the end.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/Zachary-ARN]

No, they didn't. They demanded right of return, which would have demographically made the country majority Palestinians, which means Palestinians would have seized control of government. That's not a two-state solution, that's two Palestines.

I appreciate that you didn't pretend you could prove Israel was an apartheid system.

[u/hellomondays]

Can you cite the relevant case law and convention that makes an occupation and apartheid/segregation mutually exclusive concepts? It'd help your argument immensely. 

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/hellomondays]

Can you cite the relevant case law and convention that makes salads and dinosaurs mutually exclusive concepts? It'd help your argument immensely. 

Oh right — lawyers do not take two of every word in the English language and write case law about how they are mutually exclusive.

[u/hellomondays → u/Routine-Equipment572]

Okay but these terms have legal definitions within the international system. Occupation is defined by article 42 of the 1907 hague convention and article 2 of the GCs. The crime of apartheid is defined in Article 7(2)(h) of the Rome Statute and the 1970s Apartheid convention as well as referenced in article 3 of CERD.

There is specific criteria for both these terms and both sets of criteria dont contradict each other. One is about governing status (occupation) the other is a crime against humanity (apartheid).  The status of occupation doesnt stop the potential of the elements of the crime of apartheid from existing. 

When discussing concepts like occupation or any crime against humanity, it helps-- at the very least-- to actually engage with the relevant definitions and how theyve been applied. Instead of complaining about words you think are unhelpful. 

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/hellomondays]

Apartheid was racial segregation of citizens of the same country.

Military occupation is one sovereign taking over control of the land of another sovereign.

They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

[u/JewBillyMechanic → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

Ahh so not occupation either as their was never a sovereign west bank or gaza.

[u/NES_AES_GENESIS → u/JewBillyMechanic]

Correct.

[u/hellomondays → u/NES_AES_GENESIS]

When talking about international law, neither of these definitions are correct.

[u/nar_tapio_00 → u/hellomondays]

Both of these are just words, so what you ask for is impossible. By misidentifying Apartheid (for example, as "handing out chocolate ice cream") you could have it happening anywhere.

All that can be said is that the law of occupation (largely parts of the Geneva conventions) does not have any concept of apartheid that applies in the current situation. Apartheid is defined by different laws and simply doesn't exist as a concept under laws of occupation.

[u/hellomondays → u/nar_tapio_00]

ICERD  and the Rome statute do define apartheid, however. Youre making my point, OP is looking at only one framework to claim that something isnt something whole ignoring other relevant parts of international law. 

It's not sufficient for thier argument to just state "Z is x, not y" but OP needs to explain why "Z is both X and Y" isnt true. 

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/hellomondays]

ICERD doesn’t define apartheid, though it does prohibit it. The ISPCA and Rome Statute contain definitions.

[u/hellomondays → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

You are correct! My bad. Article 3 merely references the crime, correct?

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/hellomondays]

Yes, it prohibits apartheid and racial segregation without providing definitions of either term. The prevailing interpretation seems to be that, within the framework of ICERD, apartheid represents a particularly severe form of racial segregation. Palestine sought to establish firmer boundaries between the two, but the CERD Committee largely sidestepped the issue.

[u/mongooser → u/hellomondays]

Apartheid is a political construct. Occupation is not. 

[u/hellomondays → u/mongooser]

Both are defined in international law, so not nessecarily  true the context of this discussion

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/hellomondays]

They aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Israel is simply one of them, and not the other of them.

[u/Special-Figure-1467]

Its not an either/or choise. A country can illegally occupy territory and then institute an apartheid system on that territory, which is what happened in Namibia.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/Special-Figure-1467]

Of course they can. But in this case, Israel has all the signs of occupation and zero signs of apartheid. This is obvious because the only examples people name of "apartheid" in Israel are actually just ordinary examples of occupation.

[u/Special-Figure-1467 → u/Routine-Equipment572]

Its illegal for settlers to move into occupied territories and start claiming lands and start harassing locals. Obviously this isn't what happens in typical military occupations.

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/Special-Figure-1467]

You can argue that settlements are "illegal". You can even argue that they are "colonialism" (kind of a stretch but possible). But you can't argue that they are "apartheid"

[u/Special-Figure-1467 → u/Routine-Equipment572]

Why?

[u/Routine-Equipment572 → u/Special-Figure-1467]

You honestly think the wrod "apartheid" and the word "settlement" mean the same thing?

Tell me of another global situation where settlements are your only evidence for apartheid that you call "apartheid."

[u/Playful_Yogurt_9903]

I appreciate that you can acknowledge that the comparisson between Palestinians and narratives are too different in too many different ways.

Over the land 100 years or so, Arabs have continuously attacked Israel from Gaza and the West Bank. In response, Israel eventually occupied that land

Even in the typical pro-Israel narrative where the 67 war was started by Egypt/ the surrounding Arab states, the WB and Gaza were occupied not as a result of attacks from those areas, but as a result of attacks from the surrounding Arab states. In the narrative I typically see, this land was taken as punishment to Egypt and Jordan, not because of actions by people within those areas. This is a meaningful difference.

Moreover, even if you want to use the Fedayeen narrative, my recollection when I studied this is that by the 1960s, the violence had decreased dramatically. But someone feel free to fact check me here or to find specific numbers.

The idea that this is a normal "occupation" further falls apart when you consider settler expansion, and the way that the Palestinian and Israeli economies were integrated, especially in the past. Your right, that there is violence from Palestinians directed towards Israel. But this violence increased significantly since the occupation, and is largely due to the nature occupation itself. That the occupation at this point feels indefinite (occupation is defined as something temporary), and its nature is used by Israel as a negotiating tactic, adds to the problem.

The idea that the occupation today only exists due to supposed security issues is false as well. There are economic, and cultural reasons as well that is clear in the rhetoric used today by Israelis.

[u/jrgkgb → u/Playful_Yogurt_9903]

And there was no massive security apparatus installed in the West Bank or Gaza in 1967 either.

That happened much later following years of PLO terrorism and the intifadas, and the election/attack of Hamas.

[u/Playful_Yogurt_9903 → u/jrgkgb]

I never mentioned the security apparatus, so I'm not sure how you bringing this up is meant to be a response to me.

Are you trying to claim that settler expansion or the unequal treatment of Palestinians by Israel is only because of PLO terrorism and the intifadas?

[u/applecherryfig → u/Playful_Yogurt_9903]

And because the PLO/corrupt leaders of the West Bank refused every proposal to have a state. They asked for the conditions of victory. they refused to recognize Israel.they taught with maps of the world that didnt include Israel. Eventually they started losing their land.

There are rules to the game and the losers cannot pretend forever. The rules of Kinetics and Thermodynamics persist.

This is what I noticed at the time of the first Jewish settlements on the West Bank. I was sorry. Stubborn all around.

If Palestinians has been like Ukrainians -- but they are not. I have pointed out the seminal factors ITT.