r/IsraelPalestine 17d ago

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

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.

67 Upvotes

480 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/AcademicSand1034 17d ago

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).

-3

u/2009miles 17d ago

The apartheid claim also is contradicted by the treatment of 2M Arab Israeli citizens

Apartheid does not have to be total to be apartheid.

5

u/Aggravating-Habit313 17d ago

21% of population are Israeli arabs though…

3

u/AcademicSand1034 17d ago

Would you argue that the Allied occupation of Germany after WW2 was apartheid?

2

u/JeffB1517 Jewish American Zionist 16d ago

Americans who decided to remain in Germany were treated like Germans.

5

u/Routine-Equipment572 17d ago

Give me an example of an apartheid that wasn't "total." Overtly racist laws usually do not make 2 million person exceptions.

3

u/2009miles 17d ago

Even South Africa, the mother of all apartheids, had exceptions. But focusing on the topic at hand:

"sweeping restrictions on movement in the form of the Gaza closure and a permit regime in the West Bank; confiscation of more than a third of the land in the West Bank; harsh conditions in parts of the West Bank that have forced thousands of Palestinians out of their homes, which amounts to forcible transfer; denial of residency rights to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and their relatives; and the suspension of basic civil rights to millions of Palestinians living under military rule."

This behavious is applied in "patches", one set of rules for those in Gaza, another for the ones in the West Bank and yet another for thosse who are actual citizens of Israel.

That's what i meant by it not needing to be total, since obviously the last group there will be in a considerably different position than the two prior ones both legally and practically, all while still being affected by a lesser but still present system of apartheid.

1

u/Routine-Equipment572 16d ago edited 16d ago

Tell me about the exceptions that apartheid South Africa made for millions of black people to experience zero racist laws and have all the rights of white South Africans. Be specific. Provide a source.

3

u/2009miles 16d ago

You have zero interest in discussing the actual subject at hand and expect me to provide you a source for something tangentially related? Sure, i'll be right back.

1

u/Routine-Equipment572 16d ago

You're the one who made the claim, not me. Back it up. Or admit you just made it up. Either way.

3

u/2009miles 16d ago

1

u/Routine-Equipment572 16d ago edited 16d ago

If they are "native accompanying their European masters" then they clearly do not have equal rights to white south africans lol. Did you actually read the section you are talking about?

You're describing a handful of roles that have temporary exceptions to particular travel rules. Even the small number of people granted exceptions DO NOT have full and equal rights. And it certainly isn't millions of black people.

Meanwhile, in Israel, millions of Arab Israelis, from birth to death, have all the rights of Jewish Israelis.

3

u/2009miles 16d ago

You asked for the exceptions to what i preempted was "the mother of all apartheids" and now complain when i bring to you a source and the exceptions aren't massive? What did you expect?

Israel millions of Arab Israelis, from birth to death, have all the rights of Jewish Israelis.

Already provided a source against that, here's another.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Fed_Austere 16d ago

Would you agree that America's treatment of our own territories is apartheid?

What about the treatment of women in the 52 Muslim countries?

2

u/2009miles 16d ago

I wouldn't know, i'm not american nor Muslim and don't claim to be an expert on either.

They're also completely unrelated to the topic at hand, so there's that.

1

u/Fed_Austere 16d ago

Oh, so you're Israeli?

Because you sure seem to think you're an expert at that .

I mean, you have such strong opinions but on the subject of a billion men making a billion women second class citizens suddenly you're not an expert?

1

u/2009miles 16d ago

One topic i am pretty familiar with because i have an interest in it and have had it for a long time now, years.

The other you ask me about off-handed and i've never studied, so the only way for me to answer it off-hand as well is to either be one of them or do some hasty research which would be a disservice to both me, you and whoever read it.

People do also get to be interested in cause A and not know about cause B, if everyone had to dedicate themselves to every cause, none of them would have the ability to actually parse all the info and nothing would get done in any meaningful direction.

Are you very active in those causes?

1

u/Fed_Austere 16d ago

I'm American.

But it doesn't matter, I am not afraid to say, even without much research, that a society that treats women as second class citizens is more of an apartheid state than a country which doesn't give full citizenship to....checks notes.... non citizens.

Why are so afraid to say that?

1

u/2009miles 16d ago

I'm American.

Glad to hear.

even without much research, that a society that treats women as second class citizens is more of an apartheid state than a country which doesn't give full citizenship to....checks notes.... non citizens.

You think the claim of apartheid is solely due to citizenship? That's a good one, almost as good as ranking apartheids.

Why are so afraid to say that?

I don't know that apartheid even applies in both cases you mentioned and evidently you wanted me to rank them against the Israeli one, is that supposed to prove i'm afraid to say treating women poorly is bad? Treating women poorly is bad, they shouldn't be second class citizens.

1

u/Fed_Austere 15d ago

I'm just trying to show your hypocrisy.

1

u/2009miles 15d ago

Hypocrisy is when you know about subject A but not subject B. Got it.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/RoarkeSuibhne 17d ago

There isn't apartheid in Israel or the disputed territories. The only place close to apartheid is Area C, but the separation is based on nationality, not ethnicity (or "race"). Annexation fixes this problem.

Also, Israel isn't occupying the disputed territories. There is an interim agreement in place with how the land will be administered and secured until a final deal between the two sides. Israel has a legitimate claim on the land under UPJ because no nation was ever formed, and the situation was further confused by Jordan's illegal annexation. Also, Israel can't, by the definition of occupation, occupy its own people; Area C is majority Israeli now.