I’m curious: do you consider every single military occupation an “apartheid”? I think this concept took hold in western media with the recent Oct 7 attacks but the reality is Gaza and South Africa have very little in common. Apartheid, definitionally, was used to describe a very particular situation and set of circumstances that affected people of color within a singular state. You wouldn’t say ‘Russia is committing “apartheid” because they occupied Crimea’, would you? Don’t get me wrong: there is clearly a military occupation in place and an ongoing war along with a blockade. But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right? What am I missing?
do you consider every single military occupation an “apartheid”?
Most military occupations are not done with the intent of stealing the land and replacing the existing population with settlers. The British occupation of Northern Ireland did have characteristics of apartheid, and is probably the closest parallel available to Palestine/Israel.
But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right?
Area C forms a contiguous territory on 61% of the West Bank, and is administered solely by Israel via the Judea and Samaria Area administration. As of 2015, it is home to 150,000 Palestinians[3] in 532 residential areas, and roughly 400,000 Israelis[4] in 135 settlements and more than 100 unrecognized outposts.
In contrast, Areas A and B are subdivided into 165 enclaves of land that have no territorial contiguity.[2] Area A is exclusively administered by the Palestinian National Authority; Area B is administered by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Area A comprises approximately 18% of the total territory of the West Bank and Area B about 22% of the territory, together home to some 2.8 million Palestinians.[5]
The last Palestinian elections were held in 2006 and Hamas won a landslide in both Gaza and the West Bank, a reaction to the corruption of the PA and its willingness to act as little more than a security service for Israel.
Hamas set about expelling the PLO (a group of secular parties dominated by Fatah) from Gaza. In response the PLO (which is essentially synonymous with the PA these days) pulled off a coup in the West Bank and installed itself there, without the consent of the Palestinian people.
I just wanted to say thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, but I’m still not convinced that Apartheid, definitionally, accurately describes this situation. I think it would be a lot more helpful if people familiarized themselves with the origins of SA Apartheid. You are right that the Oslo accords did not confer a Palestinian state, but the option was proffered multiple times but the Palestinians did not accept the proposed boundaries. I’m familiar with the zones. You yourself concede that Israelis are living within Area C, so it is not exclusively segregated to Palestinians/Arabs. That being said, I do agree that not only the settlements need to stop but the land within area C that was taken by settlements should be reverted to Palestinians.
Yoi have a great deal of reading to do. Look for sources that you are unlikely to have been exposed to because what you have been exposed to so far is garbage.
Thank you. I’m actually familiar with the brief that SA put forward to the ICJ and it’s very peculiar. I’ve skimmed through the brief (not news articles referring to it, but the actual document itself) and there are lots of odd inaccuracies which I wasn’t expecting at this level. That being said, this still doesn’t answer the question of the application of the term ‘apartheid’. Can we get a clear definition before we move forward?
You yourself concede that Israelis are living within Area C, so it is not exclusively segregated to Palestinians/Arabs.
It is really hard to know what is going on in your head for that to make sense. Whatever it is you’re reading, it’s not given you any handle at all on what is going on, or even what Apartheid is.
Here’s a few, it’s detailed within the Apartheid reports from Multiple Human Rights Organizations. They use the international definitions, of which there are multiple. Three main international treaties prohibit and/or explicitly criminalize apartheid: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (Apartheid Convention) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute).
Amnesty lays this out very well in the first chapter of it’s report.
You don’t get to make up your own definition. Apartheid is physical separation enshrined in different laws for different populations.
Do you even know what a West Bank settlement looks like? Did you imagine the settlers as jolly villagers living amongst the Palestinians, subject to equal persecution by Israel?
Ascribing positions and statements to me that I do not hold or never claimed.
Delegate people to ‘do some reading’. Are you unable to sustain your position without these asinine injunctions?
And all this for requiring clarification on how you define apartheid in this context. It’s clear it doesn’t mean anything to you. My conclusion is it’s just a buzzword that you enjoy trotting out when there is mention of Gaza. Convince me otherwise without your holier than thou “do some reading”.
what leaders? israel controls all the borders and ports, and arrests people without citing laws passed by the palestinians. they are living in a ghetto in israel, not their own state.
Yeah, this is pretty well researched. There are lots of polls conducted. I can link them. Hamas has broad support among Palestinians. It’s not news really.
I’m curious: do you consider every single military occupation an “apartheid”? I think this concept took hold in western media with the recent Oct 7 attacks but the reality is Gaza and South Africa have very little in common. Apartheid, definitionally, was used to describe a very particular situation and set of circumstances that affected people of color within a singular state. You wouldn’t say ‘Russia is committing “apartheid” because they occupied Crimea’, would you? Don’t get me wrong: there is clearly a military occupation in place and an ongoing war along with a blockade. But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right? What am I missing?
Most military occupations are not done with the intent of stealing the land and replacing the existing population with settlers. The British occupation of Northern Ireland did have characteristics of apartheid, and is probably the closest parallel available to Palestine/Israel.
No. The Oslo accords established a Palestinian government but not a Palestinian state. Israel retained complete control of Area C, partial control of Area B, and the ability to blockade Area A..
The last Palestinian elections were held in 2006 and Hamas won a landslide in both Gaza and the West Bank, a reaction to the corruption of the PA and its willingness to act as little more than a security service for Israel.
Hamas set about expelling the PLO (a group of secular parties dominated by Fatah) from Gaza. In response the PLO (which is essentially synonymous with the PA these days) pulled off a coup in the West Bank and installed itself there, without the consent of the Palestinian people.
I just wanted to say thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, but I’m still not convinced that Apartheid, definitionally, accurately describes this situation. I think it would be a lot more helpful if people familiarized themselves with the origins of SA Apartheid. You are right that the Oslo accords did not confer a Palestinian state, but the option was proffered multiple times but the Palestinians did not accept the proposed boundaries. I’m familiar with the zones. You yourself concede that Israelis are living within Area C, so it is not exclusively segregated to Palestinians/Arabs. That being said, I do agree that not only the settlements need to stop but the land within area C that was taken by settlements should be reverted to Palestinians.
Yoi have a great deal of reading to do. Look for sources that you are unlikely to have been exposed to because what you have been exposed to so far is garbage.
You could do worse than read around why South Africa is the lead country in this case. Or why Ireland are such staunch allies to the Palestinians.
Thank you. I’m actually familiar with the brief that SA put forward to the ICJ and it’s very peculiar. I’ve skimmed through the brief (not news articles referring to it, but the actual document itself) and there are lots of odd inaccuracies which I wasn’t expecting at this level. That being said, this still doesn’t answer the question of the application of the term ‘apartheid’. Can we get a clear definition before we move forward?
Look, you just posted:
It is really hard to know what is going on in your head for that to make sense. Whatever it is you’re reading, it’s not given you any handle at all on what is going on, or even what Apartheid is.
There are some excellent Israeli sources. Try , B’Tselem and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.
No, I think we are approaching the word from two different angles. It would be helpful if we knew how you define apartheid.
Here’s a few, it’s detailed within the Apartheid reports from Multiple Human Rights Organizations. They use the international definitions, of which there are multiple. Three main international treaties prohibit and/or explicitly criminalize apartheid: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (Apartheid Convention) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute).
Amnesty lays this out very well in the first chapter of it’s report.
Amnesty International Report
Human Rights Watch Report
B’TSelem Report with quick Explainer
You don’t get to make up your own definition. Apartheid is physical separation enshrined in different laws for different populations.
Do you even know what a West Bank settlement looks like? Did you imagine the settlers as jolly villagers living amongst the Palestinians, subject to equal persecution by Israel?
Do some reading.
You love doing two things I’ve noticed:
Ascribing positions and statements to me that I do not hold or never claimed.
Delegate people to ‘do some reading’. Are you unable to sustain your position without these asinine injunctions?
And all this for requiring clarification on how you define apartheid in this context. It’s clear it doesn’t mean anything to you. My conclusion is it’s just a buzzword that you enjoy trotting out when there is mention of Gaza. Convince me otherwise without your holier than thou “do some reading”.
>But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right?
no
They don’t elect their own leaders?
what leaders? israel controls all the borders and ports, and arrests people without citing laws passed by the palestinians. they are living in a ghetto in israel, not their own state.
no. over half the population are minors and there hasn’t been an election in over 2 decades.
So who is HAMAS or PLO? Are the Palestinians not supporting them?
they’re constructs of the Israeli government. what evidence do you have that they are supported by the Palestinian people at all?
Yeah, this is pretty well researched. There are lots of polls conducted. I can link them. Hamas has broad support among Palestinians. It’s not news really.
this is an allusion to evidence, not evidence itself.
I’ll link you the polls later. I’m traveling atm. Remind me if I forget