This is a useful comment, but it obviously leaves a bunch of stuff out that complicates its narrative, like the gradual immoral annexation of the West Bank, and the conditions in which Gaza has been locked in by Israel after Sharon's withdrawal. I sympathize with you about the frustrating differences between "true" Apartheid and what Israel has --- most notably, that it's a geographical form of apartheid, rather than a strictly racial one --- but I don't think the distinction much matters to millions of people living in what is in effect a bantustan.
Gaza's lock-in after Sharon's withdrawal has more to do with the Palestinians than it does with the Israel. Many Israelis had hopes that the Palestinians would take that as an opportunity to get somewhere better. I think the blame on Israel for Gaza is misplaced, the situation there is totally the Palestinians own doing. There story there is also more nuanced. Gaza was first handed over to the PA as part of the Oslo Accords (well, actually predating Oslo in the 1994 Cairo agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Jericho_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Jericho_Agreement ). That then formed a base for attacks on the IDF and Israeli civilians which eventually caused Sharon to unilaterally disconnect from Gaza ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz... ). I think there was good will from the Israeli side and also from what I've heard Sharon intended to use this as a blueprint for withdrawal from the west bank. Either way, the blockade on Gaza is a response to the policies of Gaza, not an issue of discrimination, segregation, racial or ethnic. If Gaza was not at war with Israel there'd be no blockade.
The gradual annexation/settlement of the west bank is a different story. I am opposed to that. But just like there are two sides to the story in Gaza there are two sides in the west bank. The west bank isn't a story of peaceful people that are being abused, it's a story of a violent struggle between two groups (well, more than two groups if we include the surrounding countries). The Israeli settlement activity is a side story in this conflict, not the root of it by any means. You're letting the Palestinian side off too easily here, when the peace process was in full swing they could have gotten complete control of most of the west bank and dismantlement of most of the settlements. What was their response? Suicide bombings. You are removing agency from the Palestinians when you say the distinction doesn't matter. They as a people made choices the led them to the current situation.
The Palestinians want to dismantle Israel by force. Israel is opposed to that. What we're seeing broadly is the meeting of those two objectives. I think it's wrong of Israel to build settlements in occupied territory of undecided status and it's not helping a possible future resolution but the reality on the ground would look pretty much the same if there were no settlements at all given the irreconcilable differences between the parties here.
No part of Israel's security depends on Israelis expropriating West Bank land from Palestinians. A supermajority of Gazans are simply not old enough ever to have voted, since Hamas slaughtered PA members to "win" the 2006 election, and never again allowed another election; that would be an isolated point except that the current Israeli administration adopted a strategy of funding those apocolyptic psychopaths in order to hobble the PA. The culpability is shared, and very little of it falls on "main street" Palestinians.
The slaughter and takeover in Gaza came after Hamas won the elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
We haven't had an election since mostly because Hamas would win it. [EDIT: Clearly opinionated, we can/should look at polls since 2006 till today to get a sense of where Palestinians are leaning]
"In light of the Fatah movement’s fragmentation, Hamas holds a clear advantage in potential legislative elections, as shown by public opinion polls indicating a likely landslide victory." - https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/84509 https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/84509
As we know from other countries, not all elections are decided by a super-majority, Hamas won by the rules of their "democracy", it would have won in any other elections, and it and its actions enjoy broad support.
[EDIT: I guess we can't tell for sure what results we would get in an election that didn't happen but here is some more colour on the elections of 2021 that were cancelled by the PA:
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/29/992065009/palestinian-authority-postpones-parliamentary-elections https://www.npr.org/2021/04/29/992065009/palestinian-authori...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/30/palestinians-polls-hamas-plo https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/30/palestinians-polls-...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-officially-delays-palestinian-elections-blaming-israel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-officially-delays-palest...]
"Despite the devastation, 57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching the October attack, the poll indicated. A large majority believed Hamas’ claims that it acted to defend a major Islamic shrine in Jerusalem against Jewish extremists and win the release of Palestinian prisoners. Only 10% said they believed Hamas has committed war crimes, with a large majority saying they did not see videos showing the militants committing atrocities." - https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514 https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion...
Where I will agree with you is that the Israeli government has chosen a strategy of divide and conquer and were happy to see the internal battle between Palestinians and use that as an excuse/weapon. But again, you're giving the Palestinians too much of a pass here. Also it's inaccurate to say that Israel funded Hamas (something another comment said). Israel allowed Qatar to pass money into Gaza to pay for government officials salaries.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1NE1ET/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1NE1ET/
Many countries funded Hamas because every penny sent to Gaza goes to Hamas. Gaza received billions of dollars from many countries.
https://apnews.com/article/business-middle-east-israel-foreign-aid-gaza-strip-611b2b90c3a211f21185d59f4fae6a90 https://apnews.com/article/business-middle-east-israel-forei...
The fundamental point here is that Palestine is not a sovereign nation. Gaza and the West Bank are both essentially colonies of Israel. In the case of West Bank, territory is being slowly appropriated. And Gaza is like an open-air prison. The residents are essentially disenfranchised Israelis. That's the Apartheid comparison. Israel has options to rectify, but until they do, they are de facto oppressors. None of that is fabricated. It is not point for point identical to South Africa, but that's just parsing. They are oppressors and that's the reality.
I am pretty familiar with ultra-orthodox. I've spent a lot of time with chabad people. Their culture is genuinely pretty nuts. They suck up public money, put their kids into private religious schools that don't teach basics, run their own private police forces, extort politicians as a voting bloc, run private towns (see Kiryas Joel) where they take over county government.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/nyregion/hasidic-yeshivas-schools-new-york.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/nyregion/hasidic-yeshivas...
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/kiryas-joel-a-village-with-the-numbers-not-the-image-of-the-poorest-place.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/kiryas-joel-a-vi...
Sure, fabricated stories exist and plenty of morons believe them. Judaism is fabricated too as far as I'm concerned, but people can believe what they want. I am judging people on their actions.
Gaza was definitely not a colony of Israel by any stretch of that word. The West bank is frozen in the midst of a peace process that fell apart but the word colony is not an accurate description either. Open air prison is also not a thing.
The oppressor in Gaza is Hamas. An oppressor in the west bank is the PA. Israel is also in that mix, yes. It is putting extreme restrictions on a population inside an occupied territory that is using violence against it.
The narrative does not fit. In terms of international law, Israel has occupied the territory of Jordan in the west bank. If the residents of that territory e.g. conduct suicide bombings against Israelis then Israel is allowed to take measures against that. It is in fact allowed to take significantly more severe measures than it has (e.g. including a death penalty).
I would say in some sense you're right an the Palestinians are oppressed. I would also say the restrictions on them are in place mostly for security reasons. If there was no violence against Israelis there would be no restrictions (and that in fact was pretty much the case before the first intifada when violence levels were much lower restrictions and "oppression" was also significantly lower). There is also the problem of settlements in the west bank and Israeli ideologies of "the full land of Israel" (strangely enough aligned with your idea of the Palestinians being disenfranchised Israelis). The wall that was built around the west bank, which is called by some "the apartheid wall" was built for security reasons and as a direct response to wave of terrorist attacks in Israel. No attacks - no wall.
Is this all insane? Sure. Is it just a story of "Oppression" or "Apartheid"? It's not. The primary mechanism at play here is a violent struggle between Israel, Arab countries, and the Palestinians. Nationalism and religion.
The Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, by the way and as far as I know, have no desire to be Israelis and anyways there is no legal framework or agreement in place that will facilitate land taken from Jordan or Egypt to become part of Israel (I think that's illegal under international law and I'm sure the world would not recognize the annexation of those territories). The peace agreements between Israel and Jordan don't allow for that either. It doesn't address the demands of the Palestinians either.
Apartheid has multiple meanings. It is a bit disingenuous to look up the “Apartheid (South Africa)” disambiguation when talking about allegations of Apartheid being committed by Israel. The “Apartheid (South Africa)” disambiguation is a historic term which refers to the segregationist policies of a specific government and legislator which doesn’t exist any more.
If you want to look up this term in the dictionary—or better yet, an encyclopedia—you should look at the disambiguates “Apartheid (Crime against humanity)” or “Apartheid (International humanitarian law)” in which case you’ll probably be referred to the Rome Statute Part 2, Article 7, Paragraph 2(h):
> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, 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;
Israel does segregate inside the territories they control, and the inhabitants of some of those territories are predominantly of one racial group (Palestinian Arabs), which suffers systematic oppression and domination by another racial group (Israeli Jews). The practices and policies of Israel in its occupied territories do constitute a Crime against humanity, and in particular, the crime of Apartheid. I will refer to an ongoing ICJ case 186[1] which lists these accusations and how they constitute a crime against humanity. In particular the South Africa testimony[2] (Page 36, Paragraph 93)
> While the Palestinian experience is not entirely identical to the South African one, a number of apartheid-style atrocities are being reproduced in Palestine, such as the permit system which applies only to Palestinians travelling to and from the Gaza Strip, annexed East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. This includes the creation of a dual legal system consisting of an intricate and obscure system of military orders and regulations, which “often racialised in implementation rather than on paper makes the depth of Israel’s systematic discrimination less immediately conspicuous than its counterpart in South Africa”.
1: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186
2: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20230725-wri-14-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186...
I don't think the alternative definitions are any more supportive or contradict what I've said.
This is still a fabricated story.
Israel does not "segregate" inside territories it controls. Israel is taking security measures in territories it has occupied to protect its citizens and military. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq or Germany or Japan did those Afghans, or Irqais, or Germans, or Japanese require a permit to travel to the US or could they travel freely to the US? When Afghanistan and Iraq were under US occupation could Afghans and Irqais travel freely between those countries without permits or Visas?
The west bank was occupied from Jordan in 1967. Gaza was occupied from Egypt. Gazans could not travel freely to the west bank before 1967 and so Israel has no obligation to facilitate such travel without requiring permits.
The different legal system is a consequence of military occupation. e.g. "jurisdiction could pass, for example, to military courts of the occupying power if the local courts are not able to function properly."
- https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law9_final.pd...
As far as I know Jordanian and Egyptian courts are not functioning in the west bank or in Gaza respectively.
Anyways, it's not "Apartheid". We may not like it. We may not like the length of time that has elapsed (since 1967). We can challenge the legality of specific actions by the different sides. But Apartheid it is not with all due respect to South Africa's political manoeuvring and other political bodies and story tellers.