4 ms·

Israel didn't occupy Gaza. It completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The use of the word "occupation" in this context is newspeak. Gaza used to be under Egypti

by nsguy 3y ago

Israel didn't occupy Gaza. It completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The use of the word "occupation" in this context is newspeak. Gaza used to be under Egyptian control until 1967. The term "occupation" in the context of Gaza and international law referred to it being occupied from Egypt by Israel in the six day war. The term "occupation" used by pro-Palestinians refers to the existence of Israel. They s/Israel/occupation/ and they refer to the Jewish presence anywhere in Mandatory Palestine and the middle east. I'm not going to revisit the entire history of the conflict in this comment but the adoption of terminology like "apartheid", "genocide", "occupation", "resistance", "ghetto", "concentration camp", "nazis" etc. is intentional and insidious. The intent is not to criticize Israel. The intent is to dehumanize it and justify violence against it as a whole. The people using these terms are intentionally presenting falsehoods refuse to acknowledge the factual reality. The choice of terminology is to prevent dialogue. We don't need new words for the status of people living in areas that are occupied. Everyone understands that people living in occupied territories (such as e.g. Germany post WW-II) don't receive the same rights as the people living in the country of the occupier. That is not Apartheid. Israel recognizes that it occupies the west bank (from Jordan btw. which also doesn't want the territory back) and has tried many times to resolve this issue. tl;dr I do have a problem with people calling Israel an "apartheid state". Let's reserve that word to South Africa which is what it's supposed to mean. This is just wrong on so many levels. If you want to criticize Israel do it on a factual basis. And btw, this was true pre-Oct 7th as well. I'd argue these people have contributed to the events of Oct 7th and are partly responsible for this terrible mess we're in today.

runarberg 3y ago
For the record, there are currently two cases against Israel at the ICJ, one is for genocide, and the other is for apartheid[*]. These are the words which are used before the world court, it would be kind of silly to police the same usage on an internet forum. The intent here is the same as at the ICJ, to accuse Israel of an illegal, undemocratic, and inhumane practice. Otherwise, tit-for-tat, if you want to use these words for what they were originally used, you should probably not use the term “terrorism” unless you are specifically referring to Irish nationalists using terrorism against the British colonial rule. But onto your main point, that Israel does not practice apartheid because occupation is not apartheid (and there is no occupation in Gaza?) When people refer to the policy of Apartheid which Israel imposes onto Palestinians, they are more likely referring to something like: a) Separate freedom of migration: Israel is famous for their policy of granting citizenship for people of Jewish ethnicity, meanwhile Palestinians in exile are not even allowed to return to Gaza, let alone the West Bank, or Israel proper. Gazans are also not allowed to migrate to the West Bank although the reverse is allowed (if you never return). At the same time, Israelis or even American Jews, are allowed to move into areas in the West Bank. b) Limitations on the freedom of movement: Palestinians living in the West Bank have to move between constant checkpoints to go between areas within the West Bank, they cannot go to Israel Proper, and Gaza has severe restrictions. Israelis living in the same areas do not have to go to these checkpoints and can travel freely between Israel and the West Bank. c) Separate legal system: Palestinians in the West Bank are tried before a military court, while Israelis living in the same area guilty of the same crime are tried before a much more lenient civilian court. d) Land grabs for Israelis: Israel allows settlements in vast areas inside the West Bank, Palestinians are not allowed to create settlements like that. e) Access to water: Israel portions the water disproportionately to Israel, leaving Palestinians with less chances to e.g. farm profitably. f) Settler terrorism: Israeli settlers constantly terrorize Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This includes stealing their houses, stealing their farmland, destroying their crops, killing their livestock, destroying their property. This is not government policy, and some of the settler terrorist do get punished in the Israeli civilian legal system (see (c)). However there are plenty of instances where the Israeli police or army has observed these terrorist attacks and done nothing to prevent them, sometimes they even participate in them. --- *: More accurately the case only mentions policies and practices but several nations (including South Africa) have used the term “apartheid” in their oral testimonies.
- nsguy 3y ago
  So checking my dictionary: - Apartheid: (in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race. - Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I don't think your argument on the language aspect of this holds water or at the very least your example is not equivalent. Nobody even knows if terrorism originates from Irish vs. British (which I doubt, references?) but everyone knows the word Apartheid refers to a specific South African situation and they are intentionally trying to evoke those images. You are restating my point to suit yourself, I didn't ask the question of whether "Israel practices apartheid", I said the premise of this question is to paint Israel in a bad light and you've not refuted that. Are there other countries (e.g. China) where minorities (e.g. the Uighurs) are discriminated against? Do people routinely ask the question whether "China practices apartheid"? Google won't auto-complete that for me. Is there a case against China for Apartheid? I rest my case. Re: your specific points a) Sort of maybe true but partly no different than other countries. Does the Czech republic allow WW-II German refugees to return to their homes? Does Syria allow me to immigrate there? Does Switzerland? You're mixing different issues here which warrant their separate discussion. Israel is a country and it gets to decide who to award citizenship to, just like any other country. The West Bank and settlements is its own discussion. Freedom of migration is not a thing, there's no country with freedom of migration. When Germany was occupied post WW-II did Germans enjoy freedom of migration to the Allied countries? b) Inaccurate. Israelis have to travel through the same checkpoints that Palestinians travel through in the west bank. They have worse restrictions on travel to west bank areas under PA control. Gaza internally has no severe restrictions (well, they have Hamas checkpoints but those don't interest you) and externally has similar restrictions to any border between countries on their Israeli and Egyptian borders (unfriendly countries or at war countries). Gaza in its current borders is exactly the area that would be Palestinian as part of a two state solution and the region considered "occupied" from Egypt in 1967 under international law. Some of the west bank checkpoints exist for security reasons because Palestinian "freedom" fighters go into Israel and kill civilians and generally they're still well within my observation that this is occupied territory under military rule. c) Yes but both are subject to oversight by Israel's Supreme Court. This is in accordance with international law for occupied territories. d) I'll give you a yes on this one though there are nuances and also the Palestinians could have gotten the west bank by now. Fwiw I agree the settlement activity is not good but the settlements can still be removed as part of a political solution (which looks impossible now). e) Maybe. I'm honestly not knowledgeable enough on the water aspects. Israel desalinated water and generally invests in infrastructure but I can't really give an educated answer on this topic so I'll pass. I will repeat that there are many aspects of what's going on in the west bank where I oppose Israeli policy and that the fact that Israel is there is related to Palestinians refusal to settle the conflict. f) Sure. This is wrong. Palestinians also terrorize settlers, shoot at their cars, throw stones at them (stones kill) etc. Still wrong but a part of the cycle/circle of violence. Many/most of these are what the "crazy settlers" call "tag mechir", i.e. "price", they are retaliating against attacks. E.g. Israeli civilians get killed, they go into a village and set a house on fire. This is medieval level "justice" which we don't want to practice today but just for context. EDIT: I just want to expand more on the question of checkpoints. Before the first Intifada in 1987 there was relatively free movement of people between the Gaza and the West Bank and Israel. Israelis shopped in markets, went to dentists in the west bank etc. Lots of Israelis went there because prices were lower. Palestinians came to work in Israel, many in construction. Israeli cities were full of Palestinians from the west bank and Gaza. There was still political violence (aka terrorism) by Palestinians against Israeli civilians (e.g. by the PLO and other factions). I would say the biggest restrictions in place today, including the wall build around the west bank, are a result of the suicide bombing attacks of the early 2000's. Those saying that the violence of today is justified by the restrictions forget that the restrictions are in place because of the violence, not the other way around. You also need to keep in mind that the Arab countries surrounding Israel at the time were at war with Israel and holding on to the west bank was a strategic necessity so you don't have hundreds of tanks and artillery 3km from your major cities. Israel was then, as is now, in a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation. Ofcourse within that there is still colour and room for being critical of Israel. EDIT2: Expanding on "Apartheid". Why is this term used when it's obviously incorrect/inappropriate? It serves a few purposes: To broadly paint Israelis and Jews as racists, to create an image of the Palestinians being the "Black" and the Israelis being the "White", to push for Israel to be treated by the world community like South Africa was treated, and more generally to justify indiscriminate violence against Israelis and Jews. It is a modern blood libel. There is no issue raising the specific issues you've raised against Israel, debating them, and for Israel to be held accountable (within reason and international standards). That's not what's going on here.

by nsguy 3y ago

runarberg 3y ago

For the record, there are currently two cases against Israel at the ICJ, one is for genocide, and the other is for apartheid[*]. These are the words which are used before the world court, it would be kind of silly to police the same usage on an internet forum. The intent here is the same as at the ICJ, to accuse Israel of an illegal, undemocratic, and inhumane practice. Otherwise, tit-for-tat, if you want to use these words for what they were originally used, you should probably not use the term “terrorism” unless you are specifically referring to Irish nationalists using terrorism against the British colonial rule. But onto your main point, that Israel does not practice apartheid because occupation is not apartheid (and there is no occupation in Gaza?) When people refer to the policy of Apartheid which Israel imposes onto Palestinians, they are more likely referring to something like: a) Separate freedom of migration: Israel is famous for their policy of granting citizenship for people of Jewish ethnicity, meanwhile Palestinians in exile are not even allowed to return to Gaza, let alone the West Bank, or Israel proper. Gazans are also not allowed to migrate to the West Bank although the reverse is allowed (if you never return). At the same time, Israelis or even American Jews, are allowed to move into areas in the West Bank. b) Limitations on the freedom of movement: Palestinians living in the West Bank have to move between constant checkpoints to go between areas within the West Bank, they cannot go to Israel Proper, and Gaza has severe restrictions. Israelis living in the same areas do not have to go to these checkpoints and can travel freely between Israel and the West Bank. c) Separate legal system: Palestinians in the West Bank are tried before a military court, while Israelis living in the same area guilty of the same crime are tried before a much more lenient civilian court. d) Land grabs for Israelis: Israel allows settlements in vast areas inside the West Bank, Palestinians are not allowed to create settlements like that. e) Access to water: Israel portions the water disproportionately to Israel, leaving Palestinians with less chances to e.g. farm profitably. f) Settler terrorism: Israeli settlers constantly terrorize Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This includes stealing their houses, stealing their farmland, destroying their crops, killing their livestock, destroying their property. This is not government policy, and some of the settler terrorist do get punished in the Israeli civilian legal system (see (c)). However there are plenty of instances where the Israeli police or army has observed these terrorist attacks and done nothing to prevent them, sometimes they even participate in them. --- *: More accurately the case only mentions policies and practices but several nations (including South Africa) have used the term “apartheid” in their oral testimonies.

nsguy 3y ago
So checking my dictionary: - Apartheid: (in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race. - Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I don't think your argument on the language aspect of this holds water or at the very least your example is not equivalent. Nobody even knows if terrorism originates from Irish vs. British (which I doubt, references?) but everyone knows the word Apartheid refers to a specific South African situation and they are intentionally trying to evoke those images. You are restating my point to suit yourself, I didn't ask the question of whether "Israel practices apartheid", I said the premise of this question is to paint Israel in a bad light and you've not refuted that. Are there other countries (e.g. China) where minorities (e.g. the Uighurs) are discriminated against? Do people routinely ask the question whether "China practices apartheid"? Google won't auto-complete that for me. Is there a case against China for Apartheid? I rest my case. Re: your specific points a) Sort of maybe true but partly no different than other countries. Does the Czech republic allow WW-II German refugees to return to their homes? Does Syria allow me to immigrate there? Does Switzerland? You're mixing different issues here which warrant their separate discussion. Israel is a country and it gets to decide who to award citizenship to, just like any other country. The West Bank and settlements is its own discussion. Freedom of migration is not a thing, there's no country with freedom of migration. When Germany was occupied post WW-II did Germans enjoy freedom of migration to the Allied countries? b) Inaccurate. Israelis have to travel through the same checkpoints that Palestinians travel through in the west bank. They have worse restrictions on travel to west bank areas under PA control. Gaza internally has no severe restrictions (well, they have Hamas checkpoints but those don't interest you) and externally has similar restrictions to any border between countries on their Israeli and Egyptian borders (unfriendly countries or at war countries). Gaza in its current borders is exactly the area that would be Palestinian as part of a two state solution and the region considered "occupied" from Egypt in 1967 under international law. Some of the west bank checkpoints exist for security reasons because Palestinian "freedom" fighters go into Israel and kill civilians and generally they're still well within my observation that this is occupied territory under military rule. c) Yes but both are subject to oversight by Israel's Supreme Court. This is in accordance with international law for occupied territories. d) I'll give you a yes on this one though there are nuances and also the Palestinians could have gotten the west bank by now. Fwiw I agree the settlement activity is not good but the settlements can still be removed as part of a political solution (which looks impossible now). e) Maybe. I'm honestly not knowledgeable enough on the water aspects. Israel desalinated water and generally invests in infrastructure but I can't really give an educated answer on this topic so I'll pass. I will repeat that there are many aspects of what's going on in the west bank where I oppose Israeli policy and that the fact that Israel is there is related to Palestinians refusal to settle the conflict. f) Sure. This is wrong. Palestinians also terrorize settlers, shoot at their cars, throw stones at them (stones kill) etc. Still wrong but a part of the cycle/circle of violence. Many/most of these are what the "crazy settlers" call "tag mechir", i.e. "price", they are retaliating against attacks. E.g. Israeli civilians get killed, they go into a village and set a house on fire. This is medieval level "justice" which we don't want to practice today but just for context. EDIT: I just want to expand more on the question of checkpoints. Before the first Intifada in 1987 there was relatively free movement of people between the Gaza and the West Bank and Israel. Israelis shopped in markets, went to dentists in the west bank etc. Lots of Israelis went there because prices were lower. Palestinians came to work in Israel, many in construction. Israeli cities were full of Palestinians from the west bank and Gaza. There was still political violence (aka terrorism) by Palestinians against Israeli civilians (e.g. by the PLO and other factions). I would say the biggest restrictions in place today, including the wall build around the west bank, are a result of the suicide bombing attacks of the early 2000's. Those saying that the violence of today is justified by the restrictions forget that the restrictions are in place because of the violence, not the other way around. You also need to keep in mind that the Arab countries surrounding Israel at the time were at war with Israel and holding on to the west bank was a strategic necessity so you don't have hundreds of tanks and artillery 3km from your major cities. Israel was then, as is now, in a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation. Ofcourse within that there is still colour and room for being critical of Israel. EDIT2: Expanding on "Apartheid". Why is this term used when it's obviously incorrect/inappropriate? It serves a few purposes: To broadly paint Israelis and Jews as racists, to create an image of the Palestinians being the "Black" and the Israelis being the "White", to push for Israel to be treated by the world community like South Africa was treated, and more generally to justify indiscriminate violence against Israelis and Jews. It is a modern blood libel. There is no issue raising the specific issues you've raised against Israel, debating them, and for Israel to be held accountable (within reason and international standards). That's not what's going on here.