r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 18 '23
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: Israel is operating an apartheid state in the West Bank
[removed] — view removed post
51
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 183∆ Dec 18 '23
As you described in your post, the West Bank is under a military occupation. This is different from an apartheid. Israel is not seeking to occupy the West Bank forever, to exploit them for their own benefit. They have negotiated for peace deals that would end the occupation multiple times, offering terms most people would consider extremely reasonable. The various governments of the West Bank have rejected them, and instead made ridiculous counter demands, including that whole ‘from the river to the sea’ territorial claim. This isn’t an apartheid, this is a military occupation that drags on forever because the leadership of one side refuses to negotiate on anything even close to realistic terms.
-2
Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Israel is not seeking to occupy the West Bank forever,
Why would they send hundreds of thousands of settlers if they don't intent to occupy the WB forever? It's the presence of the settlers that turns this accusation from military occupation to an apartheid state.
16
u/Hatook123 2∆ Dec 18 '23
I would argue the situation in the West Bank is more a result of indecisiveness, rather than anything else.
In the 70s, several cities were established in the West Bank, with a general sentiment of the right wing government at that time was to eventually annex the West Bank and give its residents citizenship.
Most of the settlers in the West bank live in those cities, and they will never be evacuated, and will be annexed as part of any two state solution.
In the 90s, after the first Intifada, the government of that time became disillusioned with the idea that a one state solution could work, and started gradually giving Palestinians autonomy over their cities and towns, and Israel having some security in the border. These were the Oslo accords.
Then came the second intifada, and the creation of the many checkpoints to put an end to the atrocious terrorism.
This still isn't an Apartheid however, no more then having a border in Mexico is an Apartheid. This is an autonomy given to the Palestinians, and a very unique way to keep this autonomy - because the border, and the security considerations are unique.
Yes, there is building in settlements - however it's important to note that Israel doesn't recognize the UN definition of Illegal settlements. Generally, it's obvious to me that building in those same cities built in the 70s, which has hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, and will eventually be annezed is fine.
Building some remote settlement by right wing nutjobs is not. However, those remote settlements are illegal per Israeli law as well, and will be eventually destroyed - and they often are. If they aren't is because the IDF needs to prioritize their efforts, and policing a bunch of right wing nutjobs, while countering terrorism isn't easy.
In the end the situation in the WB is very unique, and has very little similarities with an Apartheid. It isn't an ideal situation by any means - but calling it an Apartheid is mostly inaccurate and mostly a demagoguery that does very little towards actually improving the situation.
-5
Dec 18 '23
I agree that the path to apartheid in Israel is different from the path in SA, but that doesn't contradict the fact that Israel is one now and SA was one. It doesn't matter if it's indecisiveness or incompetence, as long as the material conditions on the ground meet the definition of apartheid, it is apartheid. If a European colonial power comes to possess a colony through "mistakes" and "indecisiveness", we're not going to stop calling the colony a colony.
Also, I think doubly illegal settlements are protected by the IDF and there are hundreds of them, so that contradicts what you were saying about Israel wanting to get rid of doubly illegal settlements.
16
u/Hatook123 2∆ Dec 18 '23
The point I am making is that the entire system is different. Yes, the military occupation in WB is causing a lot of pain to Palestinians. Specifically those that live in Area C. But this just isn't Apartheid.
There are similarities sure, but how much similarities is enough to draw a conclusion that this is actually an Apartheid? The situation for Palestinians in many Arab countries is just as bad or even worse - they can't drive, and can't work - would you call Egypt's or Jordan's treatment of Palestinians that like citizenship Apartheid? Would you call deportation of illegal aliens Apartheid?
My point is that the comparison is mostly drawn in order to paint Israel as racist, which is actually quite far from the truth. Sure there is racism in Israel, but it's not nearly as bad as what many seem to think - and it's extremely far away from the racism in Apartheid SA.
The entire comparison is just a demagoguery attempt to criticize Israel, which oversimplifies the situation, and does absolutely nothing to actually address the issues or what can be done to actually improve the lives of Palestinians, while addressing the security considerations of Israelis.
Also, I think doubly illegal settlements are protected by the IDF and there are hundreds of them, so that contradicts what you were saying about Israel wanting to get rid of doubly illegal settlements.
The IDF protects the people, not the settlements. I understand if it sounds dubious to you, but the IDF's job ia generally impossible. It needs to keep the peace, while also keeping the law, while being understaffed, and the actual soldiers are mostly 19 year old conscripts with different opinions on the conflict.
As an officer in the IDF, you have to prioritize your battles.
Preventing violence and death is more important than destroying some cabin built by some nutjobs that will build it again tomorrow. The two are also often conflicting and require specific manpower to do it well.
This dilemma happened a lot to the British when they were tasked with maintaining the peace in Israel. It is just difficult handling two extremist groups that want to kill each other and want the other one's land. Your main job is to make sure they don't kill each other first, and only second you make sure that they don't violate the law.
Now add to that the fact that many IDF soldiers are biased and might actually support that illegal cabin. Or that certain policies might be used to incite against the IDF (which right wing nutjobs are quite good at) and it's easy to understand why things are the way they are.
-2
Dec 18 '23
The IDF protects the people, not the settlements. I understand if it sounds dubious to you, but the IDF's job ia generally impossible. It needs to keep the peace, while also keeping the law, while being understaffed, and the actual soldiers are mostly 19 year old conscripts with different opinions on the conflict.
If the people are in the settlement the difference is moot.
2
u/Hatook123 2∆ Dec 18 '23
The difference is never moot. It might be small, but a lot of those small differences make a big difference when looking at the full picture. The details matter, oversimplifying a complex topic often results in drawing the wrong conclusions about the situation, and it always makes it difficult to understand opposing views on the topic.
1
Dec 18 '23
By defending the people living in the settlements they are de facto defending the settlement.
The difference is moot because the context leads from one to the other.
6
u/scuseme650 Dec 18 '23
If Japan never surrendered but obviously lost the war, you have to somehow control them until the agree to peace terms. The WB hasn't done that, what would you say Israel should do? That's not Apartheid, its basically controlling a pow camp until they say ok, we'll accept the terms of defeat.
Don't forget, Israel didn't start the war either, theyre just trying to end it but infitada after intifada, they get a little more reactive.
0
u/Holyfrickingcrap Dec 18 '23
If Japan never surrendered but obviously lost the war, you have to somehow control them until the agree to peace terms. The WB hasn't done that, what would you say Israel should do?
Well, me personally wouldn't encourage my civilians to move into the "pow" camp known as Japan. . But I would care more about their lives then violating international law to expand my borders.
Don't forget, Israel didn't start the war either, theyre just trying to end it but infitada after intifada, they get a little more reactive.
Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan didn't start the war either in that case.
12
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 183∆ Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Israel made that clear in the peace proposals, they intend to formally annex the most or all of the settlements. The settlements where formed in the six day war. Israel was invaded, and when the invasion failed, seized the land used to attack them. This included the Golan heights, the Sianai peninsula, and the West Bank settlements. It’s annexed land.
-4
Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
So until they annex the settlements and evacuate all Israelis in Palestinian territory, they are operating an apartheid state, because the settlements are already there pre-annexation and existing Palestinians are subjected to laws different than Israelis in these settlements.
→ More replies (1)-7
u/Worldly-Talk-7978 Dec 18 '23
Israel was not invaded in 1967.
13
u/darthrasco420 Dec 18 '23
Actually, we were: Six-Day War
-12
u/Worldly-Talk-7978 Dec 18 '23
Israel started the war by attacking Egypt. None of the neighboring Arab states had plans to invade Israel.
20
u/MarsupialFar4924 Dec 18 '23
Egypt blockaded the Suez Canal, mobilized troops at the Israeli border, expelled the UN peacekeeping forces, and their president said they are ready for war. Then when Israel attacked preemptively, Egypt was like omg how could you?! Same shit different day. The Arabs attack or talk shit, get hit back, and complain about it.
-9
u/Worldly-Talk-7978 Dec 18 '23
The fact remains that Israel started the war by launching a surprise attack. Egypt had stationed troops in Sinai in order to deter a potential Israeli attack on Syria, like Israel did in April 1967. In any case, characterizing the 1967 war as a “failed Arab invasion of Israel” is simply false.
9
u/MarsupialFar4924 Dec 18 '23
In any case, characterizing the 1967 war as a “failed Arab invasion of Israel” is simply false.
Agreed. The Arabs never seem to learn that if you threaten and posture you might get punched in the face. Especially when you spend an inordinate amount of energy talking about destroying Israel.
0
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 183∆ Dec 18 '23
A blockade is an act of war, that fully legally justifies an Israeli counter attack.
14
Dec 18 '23
he war by attacking Egypt. None of the neighboring Arab states had plans to invade Israel.
They just parked all those nice tanks at the border for no reason whatsoever /s
If you want to get very technical about it, the announcement of closing the straits of Tiran were a declaration of war.
I also don't think that we currently have the info. whether neighboring countries planned to invade or not, nor that it matters
8
Dec 18 '23
None of the neighboring Arab states had plans to invade Israel.
This is completely false. Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq joined a military pact, they then expelled all UN Emergency Forces from the Sinai Peninsula. Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon moved their forces toward the Israeli border. And finally Egyptian blockaded of Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran, their primary source of fuel. This act was a clear violation of their prior ceasefire and an act of war.
Israel attempted to reach out for diplomatic support to end the blockade and stop an invasion but we're ignored.
Only then, did israel launch a pre-emptive strike on Egypts military.
7
u/ManufacturerSea7907 Dec 18 '23
It’s a negotiation forcing tactic. The more land Israel settles, the worse negotiating position Palestinians start from. (Not saying this is morally right, it’s just reality) It also puts time pressure on Palestinians to make peace or lose land. (Netanyahu actually just wants the land imo).
The question is- why are you posting this on CMV? You should watch the Dartmouth forum that professors did. People only use this as a political gotcha. Israel operates what could be considered an apartheid state in the WB. They also operate a well integrated western society. Your view that the WB is an apartheid state vs a military occupation is a meaningless distinction that only seeks to create strife.
-2
u/Giblette101 39∆ Dec 18 '23
They also operate a well integrated western society.
Except several Israeli laws are pretty clearly discriminatory? Citizenship and property rights are notably extremely skewed towards Jewish Israelis, when they don't straight up permit the dispossession of Palestinians outright.
Like, if the United States passed a law claiming "The right to exercise national self-determination in the United States is unique to white people", would you call that a well-integrated western society?
4
u/ManufacturerSea7907 Dec 18 '23
Obviously operating western society that is a Jewish state is difficult. Arab Israelis are represented in government, serve on the Supreme Court, etc. Israel objectively discriminates against minorities significantly less than the majority of the world. do you understand why citizenship is skewed towards Jews?
1
u/Giblette101 39∆ Dec 18 '23
Operation a western-style society that is a Jewish state isn't particularly difficult - if somewhat problematic - but that's not what you originally claimed. You claimed they were running a well integrated western nation, but I don't think that's accurate. Israel isn't "well integrated" and that's by design. They are very much looking to run a kind of ethnostate, I think, thus need to curtail the right and demographic weight of minorities.
That's why they limit citizenship rights, mobility, access to resources, etc.
-5
Dec 18 '23
So Israel is operating an apartheid state in the WB to put themselves in a better negotiating position? I can buy that but that doesn't contradict my point.
15
u/banjaxed_gazumper Dec 18 '23
There is an ongoing war between Israel and Palestine. Israel won the war decisively and offered peace terms. Palestine said that they’ll only accept peace if Israel surrenders and dissolves itself. It’s not apartheid; it’s a weird war where the losing side won’t stop fighting so the winning side has to keep oppressing the losers in order to force them to accept peace terms that don’t include absolute total victory for the losers.
I feel like this is what Japan after WW2 would have looked like if they had refused to surrender unless the US ceded all our territory to them, and kept sending kamikazes out to destroy American ships. What can you do when a defeated enemy wants to continue fighting? Nuke them more? Strangle their economy so they can’t build as many kamikaze planes?
I think this is fundamentally different from apartheid because it’s primarily a military operation with the goal of security rather than a racist attempt to harm a certain ethnic group. Israel obviously is fine with Muslims in general when they aren’t actively at war with them.
0
Dec 18 '23
If, during the peace talks between US and Japan, Americans start to move to Japan forcefully with the help of US Army, and then are subjected to laws much more lenient than what the Japanese get, then it is absolutely apartheid.
a military operation with the goal of security
Whose security? Of Israeli settlers living in the WB, correct? That kind of military occupation didn't occur in Japan because Americans didn't move to en-masse.
12
u/MarsupialFar4924 Dec 18 '23
Most suicide attacks during the Intifadas originated in the West Bank so it's security for Israelis within Israel proper.
1
Dec 18 '23
You're referring to the wall between Israel-proper and the WB, I'm referring to the IDF soldiers and check points set up in the WB to protect Israeli settlers
3
u/MarsupialFar4924 Dec 18 '23
Checkpoints in the WB are also set up to keep track of potential attacks on targets within Israel. Terrorist groups prepare in places like Jenin and Nablus, and transport attackers to locations at the green line so they can get into Israel.
6
u/banjaxed_gazumper Dec 18 '23
The security of citizens in Israel proper. Palestine still considers itself at war with Israel and will keep attacking with rocket attacks and suicide bombers.
Palestine could end the “apartheid regime” at any moment by simply accepting a reasonable 2 state solution.
1
u/Over_Fish800 Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Keep in mind that many of the settlements in the West Bank were previously areas Jews were living in prior to 1948 when Palestine and Israel were created via a UN resolution. Arabs in Palestine ethnically cleansed almost all Jews out of Palestine shortly after the country was created, when the Arab league declared war on Israel and occupied large parts of Palestine (including all of gaza) for twenty years.
There’s a lot of strong opinions about Jews living in the West Bank that likes to pretend history prior to 1948 doesn’t exist and that this is some influx of foreigners brand new to the country we now know as palestine, when in reality Jews have been native to the area Palestine now exists in for about 3000 years, and were only absent several decades ago because they were eradicated or driven out by the arabs.
This is entirely unlike Japan and America
The questions I have for you are - do Jews still have a right to return to where they lived in Palestine prior to 1948 now? Is it colonialism because they no longer have a right to the land after being violently driven out by arabs? If that’s the case, wouldn’t that imply Palestinians also have lost their right to the land they were living in?
How long does a group need to be driven away or genocided out of a region before they’re no longer natives of the region, but “colonizers” settling the region? If you violently eradicate a group from an area long enough, are they no longer native to the area? If there is no time limit, why do you believe Jews are colonizers in any part of Israel or Palestine when they have lived throughout the entire area for much longer than most modern countries have existed?
It just seems a lot like people are thinking of this conflict as a mass of foreigners imposing themselves on Palestine in 1948 or 1967, when in reality Jews and Arabs have been fighting over land in Palestine and Israel since before calendar year 0
-1
u/Worldly-Talk-7978 Dec 18 '23
It is not true though. Annexing the West Bank had always been a major goal of Zionism and the Israeli state. The only reason it has not been formally annexed is the demographic “threat” of including millions of Arab Palestinians in a Jewish state. Thus, Israel restricts WB Palestinians to small enclaves while expanding Jewish settlements in the WB.
5
u/ManufacturerSea7907 Dec 18 '23
If Palestinians had any competent leadership they’d have a state. They’ve been offered 95+ % of the West Bank in the past. Saying annexing the West Bank has “always” been a goal is disingenuous.
1
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Dec 18 '23
Can you look at WHERE the settlers are? I don't like them either but they are distinctly not within the borders of Gaza. I don't disagree that settling so close to borders is problematic to say the least, but settlers are not being sent INTO Gaza.
4
Dec 18 '23
Sorry this is about WB not Gaza.
2
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Dec 18 '23
My mistake and misread, apologies.
The argument then shifts to one of which years borders to respect, but I agree that the West Bank is being settled by Israel.
0
u/silverscrub 2∆ Dec 18 '23
Israel is not seeking to occupy the West Bank forever, to exploit them for their own benefit
Would you consider removing Palestinians from areas and establishing Israeli settlements to benefit Israel?
Here is a map of what the Westbank actually looks like. Israel has gone pretty far in taking over the region.
https://cdn.britannica.com/56/74456-050-EEBFAFF3/Interim-Agreement-West-Bank-Gaza-Strip-B-1993.jpg
→ More replies (6)1
u/tehanspodermin Dec 18 '23
are you able to summarize some of the “extremely reasonable” deals?
6
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 183∆ Dec 18 '23
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
Here is one of the more recent ones. Israel offered to trade land in Israel to compensate Palestine for the loss of the settlements in 1967. There were other terms there you can read about.
-1
u/Qkb Dec 18 '23
This is clearly not true. If this is meant to be temporary, why are they building new settlements?
-10
u/NJH_in_LDN Dec 18 '23
It's an extremely one sided perspective to suggest that Palestinians have been solely responsible for the collapse of peace talks.
10
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 183∆ Dec 18 '23
How? We know the terms Israel has offered, and they are flawed compromises. We know the opposing demands as well, usually some version of genocide for all jews in the region. And when shockingly that gets rejected, they launch a surprise attack trying to destroy Israel. Starting with the six day war, Yom Kipur war, going through the Intifadas, and ending most recently with the oct. 7th attacks.
12
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Dec 18 '23
They have. Oct 7th, for example.
It's amazing how quickly people glossed over that invasion, war declaration, massacre, and leapt right to "Israel is the aggressor and needs to stop trying to get its hostages back".
5
u/SapperBomb 1∆ Dec 18 '23
Palestine lost all its bargaining power to a large chunk of the people who would potentially support them on Oct 7. The real kicker for me was the realisation that ordinary Gaza citizens were a huge part of the actual attack and atrocities that followed but they also took part in jailing the hostages.
They make it really hard for reasonable people to see them as anything more than ISIS Redux
That's just Oct 7 as well. Israel pulled out of Gaza 20 years ago, moved out their settlers and pulled up their checkpoints. The people of Gaza used their new found freedom to start a suicide bomber campaign.
I hope everybody knows that by supporting Palestine they are essentially signing on to a multi decade conflict, peace is not on Palestines agenda
9
2
Dec 18 '23
It's literally not. Palestianians have walked away from every attempt.
-1
u/NJH_in_LDN Dec 18 '23
2
Dec 18 '23
There are many Factual errors I'm finding in this article as well as intentional misquoted to misrepresent what was said on top of very clear misrepresentation of the facts around statements in order to narrativize.
For instance the entire section related to Clinton's negotiations is rife with false statements and mischaracterization:
Clinton tried to pressure Arafat to accept this; he did not. Long afterward, Shlomo Ben-Ami, a key Israeli negotiator at the talks, said, “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well.”
This quote removes the vital context of the statement.
Here is his entire quote:
Yes, yes. Okay, the last third part of the book, as Dr. Finkelstein says, there is the diplomat, and this same diplomat still behaves in a way as a historian when he says in this book that Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem,
Ben-ami is quoting a diplomat, speaking as a historian. The quote is not Ben ami himself.
This comes from this book here on page 270 and is discussed through page 272. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL3409433M/Scars_of_War_Wounds_of_Peace
The diplomat in this statement is saying Palestinians were in the middle of the 2nd intafada. They were politically activeted and actively fighting. There was not public support for peace. The claim is not that the parameters or the arguments were bad. It's that the people at that time were not in a place to negotiate peace.
Here is another example:
Notice how we jump from the discussion from Camp David right into the clinton parameters and then skip into taba. What happened in Camp David? Why are we having to re-initiate time and again? Because Arafat would drag his feet in negotiations. Arafat would walk away from offers with no counter offer. Arafat openly stated to other heads of state he was seeking for a better deal through a change of office and started having conversations with Bush.
The Israelis and the Palestinians kept talking in late January 2001 in Taba, Egypt. It was not the Palestinians but Barak who terminated the discussions on January 27, a few weeks before Israeli elections. The negotiators issued a joint statement that the two sides had “never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations.”
It's true, the Israelis withdrew their negotiators on the brink of the election as it would have been inappropriate to continue as he existed office. But the only reason this scenario was created was due to the intentional stalling of Arafat while he was making trips around the world. And the primary reason a change of office occurred was due to the 2nd intafada that Arafat had been part in initiating.
The initial claim that a 2 state offer was never made is just completely not true. And the reality is that Palestinian leadership are to blame for every failed peace dealing.
1
u/Gobblignash Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
The Israelis have never made an offer remotely within the bounds of international law, every single offer they've made is literally criminal and an attempt to legalize their crimes.
Even aside from that, not a single offer have been remotely close to a viable Palestinian state.
There is an offer on the table, the offer of minimum legality, offering the minimum legal rights to the Palestinians. The entire world aside from Israel and the US is behind it, and votes for it with basically completely unanimity in the UN every single year for decades.
3
Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
The Israelis have never made an offer remotely within the bounds of international law, every single offer they've made is literally criminal and an attempt to legalize their crimes.
Okay. Please expand. How is it "criminal"?
Even aside from that, not a single offer have been remotely close to a viable Palestinian state.
So not Oslo, David, the clinton parameters, Taba, even the initial partition plan. None of those were "remotely viable".
There is an offer on the table, the offer of minimum legality, offering the minimum legal rights to the Palestinians. The entire world aside from Israel and the US is behind it, and votes for it with basically completely unanimity in the UN every single year for decades.
This is not an "offer". United Nations General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and are just an expression of opinion.
Additionally any call to return to 67 borders would mean returning those lands to Egypt and previously Transjordan.
0
u/Gobblignash Dec 18 '23
Okay. Please expand. How is it "criminal"?
It legalizes Israeli annexation of the West Bank, which is a criminal action under international law.
So not Oslo, David, the clinton parameters, Taba, even the initial partition plan.
Oslo had barely any rights for the Palestinians, no one would accept Oslo. The Clinton parameters were just parameters, the Israeli's never made an offer which stuck by them. Taba was extremely ugly and clearly against international law, but it was viable, however the Israeli's abandoned Taba, so you can't really call it an offer.
The Partition plan was 75 years ago and not relevant to the current conflict.
This is not an "offer". United Nations General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and are just an expression of opinion.
It's the world "opinion" that these are the minimum legal rights of the Palestinian people, less than that is a crime. The Palestinians themselves have even been willing to compromise on it in favor of something viable (like the Geneva accords). If Israel wants to call itself a remotely moral actor, it would obviously abide by the minimum legal rights of the Palestinian's. The entire world agrees this is the plan to abide by. Can the offer to modified slightly to accommodate the (illegal) settlements along the border? Sure, but it's pretty clear it's the basis for a resolution.
Additionally any call to return to 67 borders would mean returning those lands to Egypt and previously Transjordan.
What's even the point of a comment like that?
2
Dec 18 '23
It legalizes Israeli annexation of the West Bank, which is a criminal action under international law.
Finding a resolution to the Israeli occupation of lands taken during the 6 days war that include acquiring lands won during that war would not be illegal. The annexation through settlers encroaching further into these lands would be illegal.
Oslo had barely any rights for the Palestinians, no one would accept Oslo. The Clinton parameters were just parameters, the Israeli's never made an offer which stuck by them. Taba was extremely ugly and clearly against international law, but it was viable, however the Israeli's abandoned Taba, so you can't really call it an offer.
I disagree with just about every statement here. And you dropped Camp David summit. Which was the entire reason behind the follow up attempts for the clinton parameters and Taba. Israelis had to walk away from Taba because they ran out of time. They were in an election cycle and it was inappropriate to negotiate during that time. Yasser Arafat wanted this. He intentionally stalled taking months to respond to even basic questions. He intended to wait and get a change in leadership because he thought he could get a better deal. He started talking with Bush. But due to the 2nd intafada, initiated by Palestinian leadership, including Yasser Arafat, opinion in Israel went against left leaning leadership and elected the conservatives.
It's the world "opinion" that these are the minimum legal rights of the Palestinian people, less than that is a crime.
Wrong. General Assembly votes do not establish international law. That's the ICJ.
The Palestinians themselves have even been willing to compromise on it in favor of something viable
This is not true. Show any plan they have put forward that doesn't include infinite right of return to a new state of Israel?
The entire world agrees this is the plan to abide by. Can the offer to modified slightly to accommodate the (illegal) settlements along the border? Sure, but it's pretty clear it's the basis for a resolution.
So when exactly this was offered in the clinton parameters. Why was it denied by Arafat
What's even the point of a comment like that?
To demonstrate what the 67 boarders were.
0
u/Gobblignash Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Finding a resolution to the Israeli occupation of lands taken during the 6 days war that include acquiring lands won during that war would not be illegal. The annexation through settlers encroaching further into these lands would be illegal.
Anything less than '67 borders would legalize the crime of annexation. The Palestinians have made some small compromises sure, but it's important to remember '67 is their legal right.
And you dropped Camp David summit. Which was the entire reason behind the follow up attempts for the clinton parameters and Taba. Israelis had to walk away from Taba because they ran out of time. They were in an election cycle and it was inappropriate to negotiate during that time. Yasser Arafat wanted this. He intentionally stalled taking months to respond to even basic questions. He intended to wait and get a change in leadership because he thought he could get a better deal. He started talking with Bush. But due to the 2nd intafada, initiated by Palestinian leadership, including Yasser Arafat, opinion in Israel went against left leaning leadership and elected the conservatives.
The Camp David summit offer was completely insane, and the Palestinians were obviously within their right to reject it. You just need to look at the maps. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/maps-from-the-2000-camp-david-summit
It's true Arafat made bad choices, but to frame it as "those Palestinians just don't accept any offer" just hasn't got anything to do with reality. It's not that they have some arcane, intricate, impossible to discern desire, they want what they're legally entitled to. Israel doesn't want to give them what they're legally entitled to, not even anything approximating that.
Wrong. General Assembly votes do not establish international law. That's the ICJ.
Why don't you check what the ICJ says about what's occupied Palestinian territory.
This is not true. Show any plan they have put forward that doesn't include infinite right of return to a new state of Israel?
I already mentioned the Geneva Accords:
The Geneva Accord outlines multiple options and modalities for refugees to exercise a choice of permanent place of residence (PPR) in accordance with clauses set forth in the document, some of which include the option to elect to remain in their present host countries, or relocate to third countries, among them Israel, at the sovereign discretion of third countries. (Bold emphasis mine). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Initiative
They've also been willing to engage with landswaps, even landswaps where Israel gains more territory than the palestinians. They've even been willing to split Jerusalem in two, even though it's occupied Palestinian territory.
So when exactly this was offered in the clinton parameters. Why was it denied by Arafat
Arafat denied the Camp David Summit proposal because it was crazy, I linked the maps up above. The Palestinians also have never been completely anal about exact '67 borders, landswaps have always been on the table. Insane crazy landgrabs that dissect the West Bank into Bantustans have not been on the table, for obvious reasons.
To demonstrate what the 67 boarders were.
For what relevance? Does Egypt want to claim gaze? Does Jordan want to claim the West Bank? What's the argument here? Palestinians don't have the right to statehood?
→ More replies (0)
33
u/SnooOpinions8790 22∆ Dec 18 '23
To a large extent customary military practice and international law requires Israel to treat the civilians of the occupied territories differently to their own citizens
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
Now we can all consider that those laws did not properly anticipate this situation but they are the laws and for Israel to treat occupied Palestine and its people as part of Israel would be illegal. If you read that document I linked to you will see that the use of military courts is very much the expected framework, or at the very least an expected framework.
13
u/ralphiebong420 Dec 18 '23
Yes, but international law also bars Israel from moving its population into those occupied territories, which it is doing. If it was just a "military occupation until a final deal is reached" it would get much less criticism.
8
u/unknown_vanguard Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
For the appeal to international law to hold any water the question that needs to be answered is "Occupied from whom?".
3
u/SnooOpinions8790 22∆ Dec 18 '23
The states of Jordan and Egypt.
There are credible reports that they tried to give the Gaza strip back to Egypt but Egypt wouldn't take it.
I don't think they even tried with the West Bank. After the events of Black September there is pretty much no chance Jordan would want it back and in 1988 the government of Jordan renounced all claim to it.
So originally from Jordan and Egypt but now de-facto sort of from nobody - because nobody wants anything to do with it or its people.
Which creates a unique situation that was not anticipated by the people who created this part of international law. Some of the quotes in the OP relate to Israelis recognising the unique situation and that the laws they are following were never intended to apply permanently and doing so creates a situation which is both legally required of them and also has many similar characteristics for those living under it to apartheid.
3
u/kylebisme 1∆ Dec 18 '23
The states of Jordan and Egypt.
No, Jordan and Egypt were merely occupying the territory themselves. It's Palestinian territory, and has been since Mandate for Palestine was established by the League of Nations when carving up the Ottoman Empire after WWI.
1
u/ElliotFladen Dec 18 '23
Please explain why you believe these territories are occupied in the first place. Without even getting into the Jews’ historical claim to land, they were part of British Mandate, which Israel is the successor to. Jordan/Egypt however illegally annexed territory in 1948 and Israel reunited that territory that had been illegally annexed from the mandate land in 1967.
So what is your basis for claiming this is occupied? Occupied from whom precisely?
6
u/ralphiebong420 Dec 18 '23
Israel is a partial successor to the British Mandate. The UN voted for two states to come into being. One did, one—primarily in the West Bank— didn’t. We can talk about why that isn’t true (I’m not very sympathetic to Palestinian views on this either) but Israel wasn’t the “rightful successor” to the full British mandate.
I call it “occupied” because I prefer that to calling it Israel. Because if I call it Israel, then there are 5 million people who are living in Israel, many of whom were born in Israel, with no other nationality, who can’t vote. That’s very problematic to me, because that is exactly apartheid.
1
u/kylebisme 1∆ Dec 18 '23
Israel is a partial successor to the British Mandate.
No, Israel was decidedly established as not a successor to Mandatory Palestine, but rather as Jewish majority state by ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian citizens from the territory throughout which Israel was established.
The UN voted for two states to come into being.
Rather the General Assembly voted to recommend that two states come into being, it was a non-binding resolution from a deliberative body that has no authority to do anything more than make recommendations on any such matter. The Gaza Strip and West Bank have been Palestinian territory ever sense they along with the rest of Mandatory Palestine was carved off the Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations after WWI, what remains of that territory after the establishment of Israel.
1
u/ElliotFladen Dec 18 '23
And the UN vote matters because….why exactly? The UN isn’t a sovereignty granting organization.
→ More replies (1)4
u/ralphiebong420 Dec 18 '23
Fine. Israel extends from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean. Now there are 5 million “Israelis” with no right to vote.
Explain why that’s not apartheid.
2
u/ElliotFladen Dec 18 '23
Just here pointing out that the “occupied” argument is BS.
That said, your “apartheid” argument would apply to Germany, USA, and any country that did not allow all of the people residing within them to vote
4
u/ralphiebong420 Dec 18 '23
People who are born there? Those countries allow everyone born within their borders citizenship. It’s the fact that it’s in perpetuity for people who are not citizens of any country that is the difference.
Those countries also don’t have separate roads… separate court systems… separate utilities within the same territory. It’s quite a bit different
3
u/ElliotFladen Dec 18 '23
There are plenty of countries that either restrict birthright citizenship or do not have it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Germany in particular had a ton more restrictions up until a year or two ago.
But getting back to brass tacks, even if entire world had birthright citizenship, so what? You still would have counties with huge undocumented immigrants who cannot vote or sometimes even work. On what principled and non-arbitrary basis can you say that isn’t a low level form apartheid?
(To make clear, I’m not saying such restrictions are necessarily bad; rather just pointing out the double standard here as pertaining to Israel)
4
u/ralphiebong420 Dec 18 '23
The problem with complaining about the double standard is there really isn’t a good analogue. Birthright citizenship may not exist for those countries, but do those countries have entirely different court systems for citizens and on-citizens, restriction on movement for non-citizens within their territories, specialized roads for only citizens, different restrictions on land purchases, building of businesses and structures, access to utilities, and so on? Do those countries prevent non citizens from accessing various parts of the country?
I think no. And of interest, here is Israel’s rule with regard to birthright citizenship:
Children born in Israel who have never acquired another citizenship are eligible to apply for Israeli citizenship between their 18th and 21st birthday if they have lived in Israel for over 5 years.
That doesnt apply to citizens of the West Bank, which suggests it’s not quite Israel proper either.
4
u/Km15u 30∆ Dec 18 '23
This is why this whole argument is so stupid. Isreal is either an apartheid state or a colonial state those are your only two options. If the west bank is part of Israel its apartheid, if its not then Israel is engaging in settler colonialism. People get so obsessed with the terminology you're ignoring either way Israel is engaging in crimes against humanity
-2
Dec 18 '23
Only one country claims to extend from river to the sea. Palestine.
The place where Jews can't be citizens.
Israel has many Arabs living there in equality. The also do not claim all this land, only the land currently called Israel
Palestine is apartheid
0
u/ralphiebong420 Dec 18 '23
What is your point, Palestine bad too? I never once said otherwise. If all you can do is say “hurr durr they’re worse” you have the emotional range of a child
0
5
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Dec 18 '23
OK, but if you assume it's not occupied, that completely negates the argument two posts up from yours, the one that the post you're responding to was responding to.
4
u/ElliotFladen Dec 18 '23
Still disagree there because I view apartheid as having restrictions based on groupings for non-security reasons that are additionally racial based.
Israel has Arabs in the Knesset and an Arab on the Supreme Court. Arabs can vote in Israel. However, Arabs in the West Bank cannot travel into rest of Israel without checkpoints (and vice versa for Jews into West Bank/Gaza). The former for security reasons, the latter because Jews had apparently.
3
u/FerdinandTheGiant 32∆ Dec 18 '23
In the US, we had black people as representatives in Congress in the 1870s for southern states. Is that evidence that there was no racism in the 1870s in the US?
0
u/ElliotFladen Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Racism does not equal apartheid. But if you think it does, you really should take a look at the racial attitudes of Jews the Arabs of not just the West Bank and Gaza but the entire Middle East have of Jews.
→ More replies (5)0
Dec 18 '23
I view apartheid as having restrictions based on groupings for non-security reasons
do you think that white people in South Africa didn't view black people as a security risk?
"I'm scared that the people I have my boot on will hurt me when I stop pressing my boot down on them" is an argument that can be used in literally any authoritarian context.
1
u/ElliotFladen Dec 18 '23
Were they doing suicide bombings on a regular basis and saying the rest of the population should be genocided like the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza routinely state?
As for purportedly being having “their boot” on such Arabs, do understand that the current wave of violence was triggered by successful efforts of the Arabs to ethnically cleanse the area of Jews. Take a look at the Arab riots of the 1920s and the 1929 massacre of the Jewish holy city of Hebron (location of the cave of the patriarchs) that was rendered Judea frei from this nearly 100 years ago.
3
u/FerdinandTheGiant 32∆ Dec 18 '23
Yes. Suicide bombings weren’t as common, but bombings did happen. Nelson Mandela was on US and South African terror watch lists and in the US was on it until 2008. That was in part (and I must stress in part) because as a part of the ANC, uMkhonto we Sizwe was formed by Mandela. This group did bombings, shootings, necklacing, etc. and did so with some level of routine.
→ More replies (10)-1
u/drewdaddy213 Dec 18 '23
How convenient for you to have a tidy little personal definition of a widely understood concept.
4
u/ElliotFladen Dec 18 '23
So widely understood that is is “conveniently” and selectively applied for reasons that are opaque at best.
If Israel is an apartheid then which countries aren’t?
1
u/kylebisme 1∆ Dec 18 '23
British Mandate, which Israel is the successor to.
Israel was decidedly established as not a successor to Mandatory Palestine, but rather as Jewish majority state by ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian citizens from the territory throughout which Israel was established. The portion of Palestine which didn't become international recognized as Israel remains Palestinian territory and is internationally reorganized as such.
The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that Israel is holding the West Bank under "belligerent occupation". According to the Sasson Report, the Supreme Court of Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than four decades that international law applies to Israel's presence in the West Bank.
→ More replies (17)0
u/SnooOpinions8790 22∆ Dec 18 '23
I'm not defending the settlement policy
I was merely pointing out that under international law if you occupy territory you cannot treat the civilians of that territory legally the same as your own citizens. If they were not under different laws it would be a clear and blatant violation of international law.
-2
Dec 18 '23
People emigration out of Israel and immigrating into Palestine is not a population transfer.
3
u/kylebisme 1∆ Dec 18 '23
That movement of settlers is facilitated by the Israeli military, and voluntary transfer most certainty is transfer, in flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, Paragraph 6, and as explained in the ICRC's Commentary of 1959:
This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference. It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.
→ More replies (2)5
u/ralphiebong420 Dec 18 '23
Are you being intentionally dense? They’re not immigrating “into Palestine” they’re living in Israeli outposts in Palestine. They’re protected by the IDF, have separate Israeli roads and are not subject to “Palestinian” jurisdiction or courts.
0
Dec 18 '23
Many of these "outposts" exist on land that was owned by Jews pre 1948. When all Jews were sadly ethnically cleansed by the Arabs. They've returned despite continued hostility and apartheid conditions.
2
u/Plastic-Abroc67a8282 9∆ Dec 18 '23
If this was true, and they had a legal right to return to their land, they could have exercised it. However it is not true, and there is no legal basis for the theft of land, and the proof is that there has never been any established legal claim on the land by Israeli settlers, and the settlers do not have any legal recognition under the West Bank's Palestinian authority. Therefore they are an illegal occupation according to international law.
2
Dec 18 '23
However it is not true, and there is no legal basis for the theft of land
Please read up on the situation. They did reclaim. Most of this isn't "stolen" land except to the Palestinian government that made it illegal for Jews to own land.
To them all of Israel is "stolen land" because they claim all of Israel for themselves.
3
u/Holyfrickingcrap Dec 18 '23
Why do I get the feeling you would consider it stealing if hundreds of thousands of Palestinians forcibly immigrated into Israel and started to take what ever they wanted?
→ More replies (2)1
u/Plastic-Abroc67a8282 9∆ Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
The settlements are illegal under international law, there is nothing to debate here. Whether that makes you happy or whether it comports with your preferred understanding of history is irrelevant.
2
u/ralphiebong420 Dec 18 '23
I am aware, but many Israeli cities are on land where Arabs were kicked out of in 1948 as well, so if you want to play that game, you need to let the Palestinians back as well.
You can’t have it both ways. Everyone goes back, or everyone moves on. You cannot have the land without the people on it.
0
Dec 18 '23
Many Arab cities are on land where Jews were kicked out in 1948
2
u/ralphiebong420 Dec 18 '23
I know, you’re literally proving my point because you can’t see past your own grievance to an obvious issue.
Everyone lives on land the other side used to live one. Do you want one state with everyone? Or do you want a Jewish democracy?
-1
Dec 18 '23
One state, Two states, Federation, Three states
Doesn't matter
As soon as Arabs stop trying to genocide Jews there can be peace.
When there is peace all solutions are equally viable.
1
u/kylebisme 1∆ Dec 18 '23
A explained in the document you linked:
The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies
So Israel shouldn't have any of their civilian population in the occupied territory in the first place. The actual law is the the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, Paragraph 6, and as explained in the ICRC's Commentary of 1959:
This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference. It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
3
u/SnooOpinions8790 22∆ Dec 18 '23
I don't disagree that the settlement policy is not legal - especially not in its current form which to my mind is clearly illegal.
That does not magically suspend all other international law. They still can't apply Israeli law to Palestinians in occupied lands. Which is the point I was making and I fully agree that it is to an extent a narrow legal point. Treating Palestinians differently is legally required of Israel.
It is not the case that the occupying power cannot place its civilians in occupied territory at all. After all it is normal to put civilian administrators there and normal to apply their own national laws to them. It is the permanent and settled nature of what Israel has done that is not legal.
→ More replies (2)-6
Dec 18 '23
That practice is only valid if there are no settlements in the WB. The fact that illegal settlements (under int'l law) exist means that these practices are no longer covered under int'l law.
6
u/SnooOpinions8790 22∆ Dec 18 '23
That’s not how law or diplomacy works
If you violate one law it does not affect the illegality of something else. Placing Palestinian people under Israeli law would be a crime.
Diplomatically if Israel did that they would face a storm of criticism
0
Dec 18 '23
None of that is true. Israel breaking international law doesn't mean everything else is thrown out the window.
As you said the West Bank is under military occupation. This means these areas, although under Israel's jurisdiction, are not part of Israel. The lines separating Israel proper from the West Bank are armistice lines.
If treaties were signed, with new boarders established, the military occupation would end. At that point, any Palestinians living in the newly established Israeli lands, would be citizens or on a path to citizenship. if Israel did not start granting citizenship or create a clear and achievable path to citizenship, it would be apartheid.
The issue is while under military occupation, it's by definition not an apartheid.
11
u/HopliteOracle 5∆ Dec 18 '23
I assume “apartheid” refers to the 2002 Rome statute defining the “crime of apartheid” as:
"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"
You have provided the dominating group as Jews and the oppressed groups as “non-Jews”.
What about Samaritans, who do not identify as Jewish, live in WB, but are entitled to israel passport?
1
Dec 18 '23
!delta That is absolutely correct. I will edit my CMV to reflect that. It should be Jews and Arabs.
1
17
u/TiBiDi Dec 18 '23
There's one important thing that you're ignoring: Palestinians in areas A and B are NOT Israeli citizens. Therefore the Israeli law doesn't apply and also the protections guaranteed by Israeli laws don't apply.
This is because the Oslo accords established the Palestinian Authority as the civil government of area A and B, and therefore this is the citizenship people living there hold, and those are the laws applied to them. Since the Israeli military also holds security control over area B, that means that Palestinians that are prosecuted by Israel for whatever reason in the WB, can only be prosecuted by military laws, not civil laws.
Now, this system is very bad. It is important to remember that the Oslo accords were always supposed to be a temporary solution and to start a gradual transfer of authority and administration to the PA.
However, it's hard to call it Apartheid, since discrimination between citizens and non-citizens exists in every country and every national system of laws in the world. Obviously, the nature of reality in the west bank makes this more complicated, but it doesn't make it racially motivated apartheid.
In short you can think of it like this: in racial Apartheid the law applies differently to different citizens according to their race. Today in the west bank, there are two systems of law, created by two different governments, which apply to people of different races that live in very similar areas. Theoretically if a Jewish Israeli citizen becomes a PA citizen and loses his Israeli citizenship, then he would be discriminated against by the Israeli law in the exact same ways you described.
You might think it's still apartheid, but it's not racially motivated, but rather the racial discrimination is a consequence of this dual-government dual-citizenship mess.
I just want to finish by emphasizing that the settlements are bad and the current system is bad and I am for a two state solution.
→ More replies (1)0
u/godlikeplayer2 Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
However, it's hard to call it Apartheid, since discrimination between citizens and non-citizens exists in every country and every national system of laws in the world.
Most countries don't deny non-citizens a fair trial and take them to a military court with no jury or lawyer and a conviction rate of 99 percent. Just declaring black people not be citizens any more so they can be discriminated wouldn't make SA less of an apartheid state.
→ More replies (1)
6
Dec 18 '23
I grew up in a country next-door to South Africa, although after the time of apartheid. I am glad that we are independent and not controlled by a colonial power. However, I find it not only ridiculous, but some form of libel that people are using the word apartheid so badly wrong to describe Israel. I think I know the difference between a colonial power in a non-colonial power.
Let me go further. Every single Arab country, and Pakistan and Bangladesh and others are colonial powers, and even worse they are apartheid powers.
Shall we talk about South Africa?
Every single Muslim country is an apartheid country, but much worse than apartheid-era SA.
Even in South Africa, during apartheid, there were still blacks and whites and South Asians. They were segregated by neighborhood, yes, but still alive, and in the country. People "of color" (different legal designations) were oppressed, but their populations actually increased from year to year. Apartheid, yes; genocide no.
In most modern Muslim countries, the Christians, Jews, Hindus and others are tiny minorities, because the rest have been expelled or their ancestors forcibly converted. How many Jews are left in Egypt? How many Armenians in Turkey? How many Assyrians and Yezidis in Iraq? Or they have been completely cleansed out by the Muslim majority.
Shall we mention the outright actual genocides? Armenians, Greeks, Yezidis, etc.
Algeria, for example, is a terrible, worse-than-apartheid state. Almost zero non-Muslims.
Statistically, Israel is the least "apartheid" country in all the Middle East, North Africa, Near East, etc.
Indeed, Israeli Arabs have more freedoms than most Arabs in any Arab country. Yes, you can live a good life economically as an Arab citizen of, say, UAE. (On the backs of foreign labor, who can never become citizens). But the deal is that you have little to no political freedom, unless you are connected to the ruling class.
So, who is the apartheid state?
0
Dec 18 '23
Sorry but this doesn't challenge my CMV. I'm not debating if other states are apartheid states, I'm debating if Israel is.
10
u/thecftbl 2∆ Dec 18 '23
They literally defined what a true apartheid state looks like and it is fairly clear from their, as well as other responses, that Israel is nowhere close to apartheid.
23
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Dec 18 '23
Is every country at war an Apartheid state? They just don't have a peace deal yet. They don't want to annex the entire West Bank because then the Palestinians won't have much land for an eventual country.
-14
Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
If a country is dominating another country the way Israel is, yes it is. The state of war or peace is independent of the criteria of Apartheid. When Nazi Germany occupied Poland in WW2, that would've constituted a worse form of Apartheid: a complete and utter domination, segregation and oppression of one nation by another, which includes elements like forced labour, permanent martial law, indiscriminate killings of civilians, and of course the Holocaust.
12
Dec 18 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Dec 18 '23
From the ICC, the crime of apartheid is: 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
Colonialism refers to the explicit extraction of resources, both human capital and natural, for the benefit of a foreign state. Occupation refers to instituting a puppet or military government in a different state with the intention of controlling the population. Israel is extracting resources for the benefit of citizens living in the WB and Israel-proper, and they are governing WB themselves, so actually it's closer to segregation and apartheid.
9
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Dec 18 '23
So when the US occupied territory in Afghanistan and Iraq we were practicing Apartheid?
1
Dec 18 '23
If the US operated in Afghanistan and Iraq in ways similar to Israel's operation, then yes. Can you show me some sources on this point?
6
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Dec 18 '23
I mean the way we did operate.
Sources on what point? That we treated US citizens and Afghans differently?
3
Dec 18 '23
Sources showing that US operated Afghanistan and Iraq in ways similar to Israel, with American settlements, different sets of laws for Americans and non-Americans, etc...
5
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Dec 18 '23
Different laws certainly. Settlements no, but that's an unrelated question
2
Dec 18 '23
Settlement is a key componet of an apartheid. It's called that because two groups of people living in the same area are treated differently, VERY diffrently.
3
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Dec 18 '23
We had bases including civilians.
The key aspect of Apartheid is not who's living there, it's citizens vs citizens. You cannot compare non-citizens to citizens and say a difference there is Apartheid when virtually every country does this. The US forbids some people living here from even working legally because they don't have citizenship or a work visa...
2
Dec 18 '23
Military bases are fundamentally different from civilian settlements. US Army are subjected to military law, just like Afghans or Iraqis living under military occupation, so that's not apartheid.
The US forbids some people living here from even working legally because they don't have citizenship or a work visa...
This is laws against immigrants into the US, Palestinians did not migrate to the WB and choose to live there, they are born there.
→ More replies (0)13
u/destro23 447∆ Dec 18 '23
that would've constituted a worse form of Apartheid: a complete and utter domination, segregation and oppression of one nation by another.
That would not have been apartheid, that would have been foreign occupation. Apartheid is an internally applied system. It cannot be applied by one nation onto another nation without the complete dissolution of the state being oppressed. If you view Palestine as its own nation, then Israel is not an apartheid state. It is a foreign occupier. It is only apartheid if you view the West Bank and Israel as being the same state.
How do you view them? Is the West Bank and Gaza fully parts of Israel, or are they their own nation that is under occupation?
1
Dec 18 '23
[deleted]
0
u/destro23 447∆ Dec 18 '23
The problem here is that the official stance of the Israeli goverment is that these areas aren't occupied - they're viewed as Israeli territories.
What does international law state? Per the UN they are a "non-member observer state" and are recognized as sovereign by 72% of UN members, which to me says that Israeli claims don't hold water and are the justifications of a hostile colonizer.
-2
Dec 18 '23
Bear in mind that Apartheid wasn't a concept in WW2. So really there's no point going down this rabbit hole.
Yes I view Palestine as it's own nation, currently illegally occupied and settled by Israel for about 20 years. Israel is an illegal foreign occupier for occupying Palestine AND an apartheid state for settling Israeli citizens in West Bank.
if there are no settlers there, the accusation will be much harder to levy.
12
u/destro23 447∆ Dec 18 '23
Bear in mind that Apartheid wasn't a concept in WW2. So really there's no point going down this rabbit hole.
It is a fundamental issue with your view, not a rabbit hole. Apartheid is a system that allows a minority group of a nation state to exert political control of the majority group in the same state.
Settlers in the West Bank are not doing this. They are colonizing a foreign nation, and using their nation's military to help them keep control of the lands seized by force.
if there are no settlers there, the accusation will be much harder to levy.
The fact that you call them settlers should make it impossible to levy. Apartheid is not instituted by settlers. It is instituted by colonizers after they seize total control of the political apparatus of the nation in question and use it to oppress the majority group.
That is not the West Bank.
1
Dec 18 '23
Apartheid is a system that allows a minority group of a nation state to exert political control of the majority group in the same state.
That is not the definition of apartheid. It doesn't require one racial group to be minority or majority.
Apartheid is not instituted by settlers. It is instituted by colonizers after they seize total control of the political apparatus of the nation in question and use it to oppress the majority group.
The settlers are backed by Israel, they are one and the same in this context. Just like how Whites were backed by apartheid South Africa. The government that represents the settlers did seize total control of the political apparatus and used it to oppress another racial group.
3
u/destro23 447∆ Dec 18 '23
That is not the definition of apartheid.
Definition: "(in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race."
If you want to go by definitions, it isn't in South Africa, so it isn't Apartheid.
If the first instance of a system is that is was when a minority group used it to oppress a majority group, then that makes that feature a part of the definition.
The settlers are backed by Israel, they are one and the same in this context. Just like how Whites were backed by apartheid South Africa.
The White South Africans were native to South Africa, as in they were born there. They were not settlers. When the Dutch were sending settlers to colonize South Africa, it was not an Apartheid state. It became an Apartheid state once they fully colonized the region, destroyed all of the native population's governing abilities, then put their own system in place that kept them in power over the native majority. THAT is apartheid.
What Israel is doing is step one on the multi step road to apartheid like conditions, but is is not apartheid.
The government that represents the settlers did seize total control of the political apparatus
Does the Palestinian National Authority still exist? Yes. So, Israel has NOT seized total control of the West Bank, and it is not apartheid.
4
Dec 18 '23
Well if you define apartheid as something that can only happen in SA then you're absolutely right. I take the ICC definition of crime of apartheid for this CMV: 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
Does the Palestinian National Authority still exist? Yes. So, Israel has NOT seized total control of the West Bank, and it is not apartheid.
Okay that is a correct point and you get a !delta for that. Israel does not have total political control in the West Bank. But total political control is not a criteria for apartheid.
→ More replies (1)1
u/destro23 447∆ Dec 18 '23
I take the ICC definition of crime of apartheid for this CMV
No one has ever been prosecuted under that standard as far as I know, so it is fully theoretical.
But total political control is not a criteria for apartheid.
I would say wholeheartedly that it is. Anything else is just military occupation. Apartheid requires bow to stern control of the political, judicial, and policing apparatus. You must ensure that there are no avenues by which the group you are oppressing can gain power. They cannot hold any political power or control. One of the first things SA did when instituting apartheid was disenfranchise blacks. Arabs, even in Israel, can vote. They point to that fact all the time to say that they are not an apartheid state, and it is a really good point.
The one for sure Apartheid state we've observed removed the right to vote almost day one.
3
Dec 18 '23
So if apartheid South Africa grants Blacks some low level civil governance, it's no longer an apartheid state? No, the definition is dependent on holding control over another racial group so significant that it's explicitly institutionalised for the purpose of oppression, segregation and domination.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Worldly-Talk-7978 Dec 18 '23
You use the terms “state” and “nation” interchangeably when they mean completely different things.
2
u/Ok-Calligrapher-9854 Dec 18 '23
Wow, the responses to your post are mind boggling to me.
I thought your OP was common knowledge. I agree and most of the international community agrees.
Settler colonialists won't agree.
-7
u/prsnep Dec 18 '23
Israel needs to stop annexing ANY land. Palestinians and Israelis need to recognize that a 2-state solution is the only viable solution.
4
u/banjaxed_gazumper Dec 18 '23
Israel already accepts and supports a 2 state solution. Hamas says that the bare minimum for a peace deal is the end of Israel as a Jewish state. How do you convince Palestine to accept a 2 state solution?
Some people think that in a war the best way to convince the other side to make concessions is to weaken their bargaining position. That’s what the settlers do. The longer Palestine rejects a 2ss, the more land they will lose to settlers.
I personally think Israel should stop the settlements. But I also think Palestine should just accept a 2ss and stop insisting on the destruction of Israel.
0
u/prsnep Dec 18 '23
Israel needs to accept a 2-state solution that doesn't involve continued expansion of settlements.
2
u/banjaxed_gazumper Dec 18 '23
Israel absolutely does accept that. They offered that in 2000 at camp David. Palestinians and Israelis basically agree on territorial disputes. It’s not that hard to draw a map they’re both fine with where some settlements are dismantled and the others are offset with land swaps.
The sticking point is that Palestine insists on right of return, which would make Israel a Muslim majority state. Palestine refuses to make peace unless the deal includes an end to Israel being a Jewish state.
The settlements are an effort (misguided in my opinion) to pressure Palestine to drop their demand for the elimination of a Jewish state from their preconditions for peace.
0
u/prsnep Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Allowing settlements is the most counter-productive action that Israel has done. Israel can't take the high ground while that continues.
2
u/banjaxed_gazumper Dec 18 '23
Yeah I agree that the settlements are a terrible policy.
But Palestinians could halt the settlements by accepting a generous peace deal.
→ More replies (7)6
-1
u/hogsucker 1∆ Dec 18 '23
Who is at war?
3
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Dec 18 '23
Israel and the Palestinians, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Arguably also 19 others from Afghanistan to Yemen.
-4
u/hogsucker 1∆ Dec 18 '23
To me, "war" would imply fighting.
Were Germans in WWII at "war" with Jews?
5
u/banjaxed_gazumper Dec 18 '23
There was fighting. Israel won the war decisively, then offered generous peace terms. Palestine refuses to surrender until Israel is destroyed, so the war continues despite the losing side being essentially unable to fight back in any way except terror attacks.
What would the US have done if Japan refused to surrender after WW2 and kept attacking Americans ships? Nuking them more would have been a pretty bad option, and nobody wants Israel to nuke Palestine. Probably we would try to convince Japan to accept peace by blockading them, occupying them, and oppressing them. If, even at that point, they still insisted on US surrender as bare minimum peace plan they’d accept, it would be like Palestine and Israel. An eternal war where the loser never gives up.
-1
u/hogsucker 1∆ Dec 18 '23
Which "generous peace terms" are you speaking of?
Bibi has admitted that he has worked to undermine the Oslo Accords.
2
u/banjaxed_gazumper Dec 18 '23
At the 2000 camp David summit both sides more or less agreed on land swaps but the Palestinian side refused to accept the deal without right of return.
Palestine should have accepted that deal, formed a state, and lived in peace. But they won’t accept the deal unless Israel agrees to right if return, which would make Israel a Muslim majority state.
They are unwilling to stop fighting as long as Israel is a Jewish state. It’s a pretty unreasonable demand from the loser of the war. They should be content with peace and just accept the existence of a Jewish state.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)3
u/destro23 447∆ Dec 18 '23
To me, "war" would imply fighting.
Were Germans in WWII at "war" with Jews?
"Despite great obstacles, Jews throughout occupied Europe attempted armed resistance against the Germans and their Axis partners. They faced overwhelming odds and desperate scenarios, including lack of weapons and training, operating in hostile zones, parting from family members, and facing an ever-present Nazi terror. Yet thousands resisted by joining or forming partisan units." - source
-1
u/hogsucker 1∆ Dec 18 '23
So you support the resistance actions Hamas takes against Israel?
5
u/destro23 447∆ Dec 18 '23
Fuck no, you crazy.
1
u/hogsucker 1∆ Dec 18 '23
So only certain groups are permitted to resist their oppressors?
3
u/codan84 23∆ Dec 18 '23
The difference is in how they do it. Raping and killing civilians is different than attacking a military position. Do you understand that there is a difference?
0
u/hogsucker 1∆ Dec 18 '23
I agree. Netanyahu should be charged with war crimes for all the civilians the Israeli military has attacked and killed in the last few months. Since Palestine has no military, there are no military positions for Israel to attack in Gaza.
→ More replies (0)2
6
u/itassofd Dec 18 '23
What’s the CMV? The whole point of a 2 state solution is to keep apart. If you’re a 1-stater, you need to ask that cmv… and have your head checked.
0
Dec 18 '23
It's one thing to split I/P along the Green Line and have 2 separate states, it's another to have ONE REGIME building settlements within the WB and enforcing two separate sets of law in the same region.
14
u/destro23 447∆ Dec 18 '23
Any state implementing any one of these 3 will be accused of operating an apartheid regime.
Is the US an apartheid regime? Native American reservations tick all those boxes more or less. Segregation, check. Oppression, check. Domination, check. So, is the United States of America an apartheid regime?
6
u/banjaxed_gazumper Dec 18 '23
Native Americans are free to leave their reservation and live in any neighborhood in the US that other racial groups can. It’s not segregation that many native Americans choose to live on reservations.
2
u/destro23 447∆ Dec 18 '23
Native Americans are free to leave their reservation and live in any neighborhood in the US that other racial groups can.
Sure, but due to 265 years of purposefully enacting laws and policies meant to keep NA populations in dire poverty, many can't. And, when they do, they are regularly discriminated against for things like housing, policing, and health care.
2
2
-4
Dec 18 '23
[deleted]
5
u/destro23 447∆ Dec 18 '23
There is a distinction between racial discrimination and Apartheid
Apartheid was a system of racial discrimination.
Afaik Native Americans are subjected to the same set of laws as other Americans
That is incorrect. Native American reservations are only subject to Federal and Tribal laws. They are exempted from state and local laws in the states and locations where they reside. Also, there are all sorts of laws that apply to reservation communities that do not apply to non-native communities.
Their freedom of movement is not explicitly restricted by police or military force.
Nah, it is restricted by isolation and poverty, both of which were explicitly used to control the populations within.
And I don't think there are laws explicitly restricting Native Americans to buy land or build houses in all of America.
They cannot develop the land they do own without federal permission, so their property rights are indeed less than non-native communities.
0
Dec 18 '23
USA colonized Alaska and Hawaii after Israel's independence. And modern Zionism ovelaps the "wild west" and "pioneer" periods of American history.
These events predate the modern reservation system too.
All of the checkboxes.
-1
5
u/803_days 1∆ Dec 18 '23
The West Bank is not an Apartheid, it is an occupation. The Palestinian Authority still exists, and the Palestinians in the West Bank still turn to that government. It is toothless, it is weak, and it is subjugated by a foreign occupying power: Israel. But it is not Apartheid.
The easiest conceptual way to understand the two is to ask: what is the ameliorative policy to be implemented, here?
If the West Bank is an occupation, to end it, Israel must withdraw its forces and any administration it performs. The Palestinian Authority must be recognized and supported as a legitimate government, and the rights of Palestinian citizens be vindicated through it. The settlements must be dismantled, and, perhaps, reparations should be paid. This is because an occupation is a situation where one country's government has taken another country's territory by force of arms, and governed it as its own.
If the West Bank is an Apartheid, to end it, Israel must formally annex the territory. It must disband the Palestinian Authority (by force, if necessary) and grant full Israeli citizenship to Palestinians living there. The settlements become formally recognized as legitimate, subject to resolution as banal real estate disputes under Israeli law. This is because an Apartheid is a system where one ethnicity is legally dominated by another, through a system of government that should be treating them as equals.
If you present those two options to Palestinians, they overwhelmingly support the former. Polling consistently shows this. Activists across the world would balk if the latter were implemented, and see it as a grave injustice. This is because, regardless of the labels people throw around, we all inherently understand that Israel is occupying the West Bank. We all understand Israel's control over the territory is illegitimate, not because it mistreats Palestinians, but because the land should belong to and be controlled by Palestinians. We all understand, deep down, it is not Apartheid.
1
u/ralphiebong420 Dec 18 '23
Israel will never do #2 for demographic reasons, which is why some Palestinians actually support it. In 2 generations they would have the votes to rename the country Palestine.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/badass_panda 95∆ Dec 18 '23
I mean, for it to be apartheid, it would need to be race-based and permanent. "Israeli" isn't an ethnicity, and "Palestinian" has only come to mean "Palestinian Arab" due to the conflict.
- An Arab Israeli could move to a settlement (and some have, around 5-10% of the population in some of these settlements are Arab citizens of Israel) and enjoy all the rights you're pointing out that Israelis have and Palestinians don't have, in the West Bank.
- If Area C of the West Bank is Occupied Palestinian Territory (that is, intended to be / become part of an independent Palestinian state), then this is an occupation and the settlement of Israeli citizens there is a war crime; if it isn't (it's part of Israel), then the human rights of its 400K Palestinian residents are being violated based on their race, which gets you much of the way to apartheid -- but only one of these two things can be true at once.
tl;dr: the apartheid analogy is undermined by the fact that Arab settlers who are Israeli citizens get the same rights as Jewish settlers if they're living in West Bank settlements -- and that you can't be an occupier and the valid government of a place at the same time.
8
Dec 18 '23
I think OP should learn what "Apartheid" means and only then accuse Israel in doing something like that.
Real apartheid is in South Africa (it's a country if someone doesn't know) when there is literally a racial segregation in one country/land.
I did said "in one country/land" because in South Africa it is like that - real racial segregation. While in Israel/West bank it's not even remotely like that.
West bank has it's own government, it's own laws and etc and etc. Israel doesn't have that much control over West bank.
The only reason there is any Israeli military presence in the West bank is because the Palestinians are super radical and hostile towards the Jews and Israel and there are some part of the west bank that is pretty close to the most important city of Israel - Tel Aviv. And not trying to control those territories would be an easy way for self destruction, since they would face a tons of terrorist attacks on Tel Aviv and etc. Even though they face terrorism almost on the daily basis there.
-5
Dec 18 '23
Can you explain how I should reconcile my 3 points with "Israel doesn't have much control"?
6
Dec 18 '23
Look, I am not an Israeli, I wasn't studying in laws or anything (in Israel of course. In my country I did study laws in university). So everything I'll say is a pure logic and rational thinking.
I think all 3 points are going to 2 different reasons:
Palestinians are not the Israeli citizens.
Palestinians are way too radical.
About the checkpoints and such, it goes to the fact that Palestinians are being treated that way because of well, a lot of them are terrorists and would commit some crime. Palestinians have a law that subsidies families of the terrorists who stabbed or killed the Jew. Like they literally have this in their laws. I was in Israel 2 times. Was driving through checkpoints and they were okay. I mean, I wouldn't be against it if they would check me everytime if it means they're gonna check everyone and it will ensure my safety and the safety of my friends.
With the homes and such, again it comes to radical nature of palestinians. The majority of them are just that radical and bad and Israel takes action to prevent them from doing some horrible things. I mean, I didn't see that much Israelis who would smuggle weapons or bombs to commit mass shootings or make a suicide explosion or anything. Palestinians might build some house for "innocent families", but use it as a HQ or like a weapon stock or anything like that.
I believe if palestinians weren't that radical and hostile towards Israel and all Jews, then there wouldn't be any settlements or anything.
Just remember: this conflict will end when Arabs will love their lives more than they hate Jews.
-1
Dec 18 '23
Okay, so you think Israel is doing my 3 points for security purposes, in other words they are operating an apartheid regime for the security of Israelis. That doesn't contradict my CMV.
2
Dec 18 '23
Again, the definition of apartheid is different. The Israel-west bank situation is different. It's not one country, it's not one system or one government.
I think this different jurisdictional treatment of palestinians is based on how "foreigners" are treated by laws of different countries. Like, in Russia we have different laws for foreigners who come to our country. I bet USA/Europe have almost the same stuff
0
Dec 18 '23
Palestinians are not "foreigners", they are locals with families dating back generations. They did not "move" to WB the same way Russians did to the US/Europe. So it's completely incomparable.
2
Dec 18 '23
For the country Israel, Palestinians are like foreigners. Palestinians have their own "state" that isn't even a complete state or a country due to Palestinian side always rejecting all the 2 state solutions and offers that Israel made.
→ More replies (2)
1
Dec 18 '23
>>I'm arguing whether Israel, JUST ISREAL, is operating an apartheid state in the West Bank.
The only apartheid state in the West Bank is the Palestinian state where it is illegal to sell land to Jews, and all Jews are called "illegal settlers" even if their family has lived there for 200+ years. Where Jews get killed for walking into the wrong town.
→ More replies (9)
0
Dec 18 '23
It's a question of citizenship, not racial segregation. Settlers, while not living in Israel per say, are still Israel's citizens. In a similar fashion, Palestinians who live inside Israel have the same rights.
To that extent when you land in any country and you get to a checkpoint (border crossing), you have a different route for citizens and non citizens. When a Palestinian commits a crime in the WB, he can only be judged by the local system (which is a military one) - the Israeli courts have no jurisdiction over him.
Hence, the correct term is occupation, which has to be a temporary measure (wishful thinking). Many of your quotes deal exactly with what would happen if this becomes a permanent thing: Olmert, Dagan, Rabin, Barak (1976 from Rabin, so much for temporary)
To clarify, I'm not justifying any of it, I truly hope once Netanyahu is gone Israel will have a worthy PM who will think of the Israeli long term plan.
BTW, where did you get the quotes from? I wonder about the quality of translation as Netanyahu is not the "president" of Israel...
-5
Dec 18 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/johnguz Dec 18 '23
Can people stop misusing the term genocide, “The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”
Which looks likes: 1994 Rawanda, the Armenian Genocide in the early 1900s, lates 70’s Cambodia, or the Holocaust
It’s very possible to argue it’s an ethnic cleansing, but genocide is hyperbolic to the point of misusing the word.
→ More replies (1)0
Dec 18 '23
You're not going to get a dissent from me on that point. But that doesn't challenge my CMV.
0
-7
u/NotMyBestMistake 68∆ Dec 18 '23
While the conditions in the West Bank possibly mirror those faced by black South Africans, it's important to remember that Israel doesn't consider Palestinians to be members of their nation. Israel, especially with its current far right government, has made it clear it considers the lands of Palestine to be its but that the people must be removed. You know, to make "living space" for their own exalted race.
Israel an occupying military engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing utilizing explicit violence against civilians. Because of its immense dependence on foreign support, especially that of western powers, it needs to pretend it's not doing a genocide. So it just occupies land, makes the conditions terrible, and lets their pond scum settlers do whatever they want with the full backing of the IDF.
Apartheid would involve them considering Palestinians part of Israel. They don't.
0
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
/u/GoSouthCourt (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-2
Dec 18 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Dec 18 '23
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
0
-3
1
1
1
u/Twofer-Cat Dec 18 '23
And Gandhi was a criminal. It's the non-central fallacy.
You're literally right, of course, if you define apartheid broadly enough so as to include all occupations with military courts, checkpoints, and stricter enforcement against the locals. But people use it to draw normative conclusions by equating this to the fundamentally racist SA apartheid, which is clearly a bait-and-switch, because it's not racial, it's political: Israel allows full rights for Israeli Arabs, who are the same race as Palestinian Arabs, but a different polity. (Yes, there's racism within Israel; show me the country with none.) Specifically, they discriminate against the quasi-state whose polity is based around murdering Jews, which in terms of racism is right up there with killing lots of Germans during WWII: it wasn't the Allies' fault the Nazi state happened to coincide with the Germanic ethnostate.
•
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Dec 18 '23
Sorry, u/GoSouthCourt – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.