4 ms·

Apartheid has multiple meanings. It is a bit disingenuous to look up the “Apartheid (South Africa)” disambiguation when talking about allegations of Apartheid b

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...

nsguy 3y ago
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.
- runarberg 3y ago
  The USA famously took similar security measures when president Roosevelt signed executive order 9066 which exiled all Japanese Americans within a certain “exclusion zone”. Executive Order 9066 is now considered one of US’s heinous human rights violations. After WW2 the victims of executive order 9066 were given the right of return, in 1948 Harry Truman signed an act giving the victims reparations, and in 1988 Ronald Reagan signed a formal apology. This was an act of segregation. Roosevelt claiming it was a security measure did not make this excusable, or otherwise justifiable. Civilians have rights, even when territory is occupied. In fact, it is the responsibility of the occupying power to give the occupied civilians protections, and preserve their human rights. Israel may be claiming these are security measures, and Israel may be correct in their claims, however, what they are doing is still crimes against humanity. If they want to secure their own citizens, they must do so without stripping human rights away from their occupied civilians. But anyway, there is a whole Wikipedia article which explains this much better than me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid

nsguy 3y ago

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.

runarberg 3y ago
The USA famously took similar security measures when president Roosevelt signed executive order 9066 which exiled all Japanese Americans within a certain “exclusion zone”. Executive Order 9066 is now considered one of US’s heinous human rights violations. After WW2 the victims of executive order 9066 were given the right of return, in 1948 Harry Truman signed an act giving the victims reparations, and in 1988 Ronald Reagan signed a formal apology. This was an act of segregation. Roosevelt claiming it was a security measure did not make this excusable, or otherwise justifiable. Civilians have rights, even when territory is occupied. In fact, it is the responsibility of the occupying power to give the occupied civilians protections, and preserve their human rights. Israel may be claiming these are security measures, and Israel may be correct in their claims, however, what they are doing is still crimes against humanity. If they want to secure their own citizens, they must do so without stripping human rights away from their occupied civilians. But anyway, there is a whole Wikipedia article which explains this much better than me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid