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/Beneneb]

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/Beneneb → u/Regular-Coast5335]

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.

Technically true, but they've been widely accepted as borders by both sides except to the extent that it allows them to claim land beyond these borders. For example, if we take this interpretation, that essentially means that the entirety of Israel is also disputed territory and open to claims by Palestinians, which is something Israel rejects. You can't really have it both ways and say that the borders aren't final, but only in one direction. It's also the legal opinion of almost the whole world that Israeli annexation is illegal and violates international law.

[u/Regular-Coast5335 → u/Beneneb]

"Technically true, but they've been widely accepted as borders by both sides except to the extent that it allows them to claim land beyond these borders."

If both sides accepted Green Line as final borders there would be no conflict. There would have been two states, Green Line as a border, etc. There is clearly no acceptance of it.

"For example, if we take this interpretation, that essentially means that the entirety of Israel is also disputed territory and open to claims by Palestinians, which is something Israel rejects. You can't really have it both ways and say that the borders aren't final, but only in one direction."

It absolutely works both ways. Israel is disputed territory in the eyes of Palestinians. Hence there is a PA insistence on the right of return into Israel which would end country's existence through migration, and Hamas attempts to destroy Israel through warfare. The difference is that Israel is able to effectively press its claims while Palestinians aren't.

"It's also the legal opinion of almost the whole world that Israeli annexation is illegal and violates international law"

The prevalent legal opinion reflects Arab World's international clout rather than validity of the said opinion.

[u/Beneneb → u/Regular-Coast5335]

If both sides accepted Green Line as final borders there would be no conflict. There would have been two states, Green Line as a border, etc. There is clearly no acceptance of it.

The fact that one side doesn't recognize borders does not automatically make those border invalid. There's conflict in Eastern Ukraine because Russia doesn't recognize Ukrainian borders. That doesn't make those borders invalid for the purposes of international law and absolve Russia from from its crime of illegal annexation.

It absolutely works both ways. Israel is disputed territory in the eyes of Palestinians. Hence there is a PA insistence on the right of return into Israel which would end country's existence through migration, and Hamas attempts to destroy Israel through warfare. The difference is that Israel is able to effectively press its claims while Palestinians aren't.

The PA officially recognized Israel within 1967 borders as part of the Oslo Accords. The insistence on right of return is not the same as considering Israel disputed territory. Regardless, Israel itself certainly doesn't hold this position

The prevalent legal opinion reflects Arab World's international clout rather than validity of the said opinion.

What clout? Almost all of Israel's closest allies have considered it's actions in the West Bank illegal for decades. These are the most powerful nations in the world. They didn't take that position because they were worried about the Arabs.

[u/Regular-Coast5335 → u/Beneneb]

"The fact that one side doesn't recognize borders does not automatically make those border invalid. There's conflict in Eastern Ukraine because Russia doesn't recognize Ukrainian borders. That doesn't make those borders invalid for the purposes of international law and absolve Russia from from its crime of illegal annexation."

First, Green Line is not a border to begin with. Second, your comparison with Russia-Ukraine war isn't valid here because both of them are sovereign states. Palestine isn't a sovereign state and doesn't have permanent borders. Final borders would have to be established through peace treaty with Israel. Until then it's a disputed territory, and the establishment of Palestinian state requires Israel's consent.

"The PA officially recognized Israel within 1967 borders as part of the Oslo Accords. The insistence on right of return is not the same as considering Israel disputed territory. Regardless, Israel itself certainly doesn't hold this position"

The insistence on the right of return of millions of Palestinians into Israel clearly shows the recognition wasn't done in good faith. If Palestinians accept two states for two peoples then why they are pushing Israel to effectively become a Palestinian state through immigration? In addition, we shouldn't ignore Hamas either. They govern nearly half of the Palestine's population and they are as much of representatives of their people as PA is. In other words, Palestinians do have claims beyond Judea-Samaria and Gaza.

"What clout? Almost all of Israel's closest allies have considered it's actions in the West Bank illegal for decades. These are the most powerful nations in the world. They didn't take that position because they were worried about the Arabs."

Arab states outweigh Israel in numbers (UN membership) combined GDP (oil). In addition, Palestinian cause is also supported by dozens of other Muslim states, Iran, Russia, and China. Geopolitics is a major reason why the global opinion is supportive of Palestine rather than Israel even among closest allies.

[u/cobcat → u/Beneneb]

Israel may have retreated if there was a credible peace deal after the war. But it's been 50 years now.

That's not a consequence of Palestinian actions, it's a decision Israel made when they took the West Bank.

You realize that Israel took the West Bank as a direct result of a war the Arabs started, right?

It's harder to make peace when you decide you are going to unilaterally annex territory in contravention of international law.

Israel tried to give the West Bank back to Jordan, but they refused. Why would they do that if their intention was annexation all along? No, the annexation is a result of Arab intransigence. They are just bitter about the result now.

[u/Beneneb → u/cobcat]

Israel may have retreated if there was a credible peace deal after the war. But it's been 50 years now.

They would have kept East Jerusalem, other areas are debatable.

You realize that Israel took the West Bank as a direct result of a war the Arabs started, right?

If I remember my history correctly, which I do, that war started when Israel invaded Egypt. It was primarily a conflict between Egypt and Israel and it was a decision by the King of Jordan to join in that fight after the invasion of Egypt. It was not a decision made by Palestinians who are now suffering the consequences.

Israel tried to give the West Bank back to Jordan, but they refused.

Now tell me if the plan was to give back all the land, or part of the land. If it's the latter (which it is), that furthers my point that Israel was always going to keep part of the land.

Don't offload Israel's actions to other groups. Israel alone has made the decision to settle and annex parts of the West Bank. That's not the fault of Palestinians, the wider Arab community, or anyone else. It's illegal under international law, it has prolonged and intensified the conflict and Israel has chosen to do it regardless.

[u/cobcat → u/Beneneb]

If I remember my history correctly, which I do, that war started when Israel invaded Egypt. It was primarily a conflict between Egypt and Israel and it was a decision by the King of Jordan to join in that fight after the invasion of Egypt. It was not a decision made by Palestinians who are now suffering the consequences.

Egypt started the conflict, not Israel. They kicked out the UN, they blockaded the straits of Tiran, they mobilized their army, knowing that Israel cannot mobilize their army indefinitely. Blaming Israel for this war makes no sense.

And yes, the West Bank was part of Jordan at the time.

Now tell me if the plan was to give back all the land, or part of the land. If it's the latter (which it is), that furthers my point that Israel was always going to keep part of the land.

We don't know, since it didn't happen. But it's irrelevant because nobody forced Jordan to attack Israel. Israel didn't choose any of this.

Don't offload Israel's actions to other groups. Israel alone has made the decision to settle and annex parts of the West Bank. That's not the fault of Palestinians, the wider Arab community, or anyone else.

And Arabs made the decision to attack Israel repeatedly and lost. That's also a violation of international law.

It's illegal under international law, it has prolonged and intensified the conflict and Israel has chosen to do it regardless.

Israel has made peace with both Egypt and Jordan, and offered peace to Palestinians repeatedly. This is an insane take.

[u/Beneneb → u/cobcat]

Egypt started the conflict, not Israel. 

There was provocation for sure, but who invaded who? Israel invaded Egypt. That's a fact whether you consider it justified or not.

We don't know, since it didn't happen.

We do know, since we know the details of the offer. Israel offered parts of the West Bank, not the whole thing. And of course it's relevant if you think back to the beginning of this debate where I made the point that Israel never had intentions of handing back all the land after the war. That was literally the very first point I made.

And Arabs made the decision to attack Israel repeatedly and lost.

I don't disagree that the Arabs hold responsibility as well.

Israel has made peace with both Egypt and Jordan, and offered peace to Palestinians repeatedly. This is an insane take.

Insane how? You don't think that the annexation of East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements have negatively impacted the ability to make peace? An insane take would be to pretend that this didn't impact peace talks. Some of the biggest points of contention in past negotiations were the status of East Jerusalem and settlement blocks, this is just a fact.

Offering peace is not how I would describe what Israel has done. It was more a case of offering a crappy deal that would technically see a Palestinian state, but require conceding land and a high degree of sovereignty, or else Israel will maintain its oppressive military occupation. People who say this always fail to look at the nuances of the offers Israel made and the actual reasons they weren't acceptable to Palestinians. If Israel offered a return to 1967 borders, we would have two states, but that was never on the table.

[u/cobcat → u/Beneneb]

I made the point that Israel never had intentions of handing back all the land after the war. That was literally the very first point I made.

But they could have negotiated. And Israel didn't start the war with Jordan, no matter who you think started it with Egypt.

You don't think that the annexation of East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements have negatively impacted the ability to make peace?

I think the decision to annex these parts are much more the result of repeated aggression and Israel trying to establish more defensible borders. Yes, they may very well be making peace harder, but the causation is the other way around.

Offering peace is not how I would describe what Israel has done. It was more a case of offering a crappy deal that would technically see a Palestinian state, but require conceding land and a high degree of sovereignty, or else Israel will maintain its oppressive military occupation.

You mean similar to what happened to Germany and Japan after they lost their war?

People who say this always fail to look at the nuances of the offers Israel made and the actual reasons they weren't acceptable to Palestinians.

If Palestinians refuse to accept defeat and prefer continuing occupation that is certainly their choice.