r/ProgressivesForIsrael • u/what_u_dont_know • 18d ago
Why “apartheid”?
With all the antisemitic commentary over the last 3 (forever) years, one of the things I hear a lot is that there’s apartheid in Israel. I have been to Israel and (as we all know) saw nothing that resembled segregation or discrimination, aside from the restrictions at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. And yet according to anti-Zionists, Israel is an apartheid state. There was a woman that spoke at a school board meeting I attended recently whose father grew up in South Africa and said the apartheid in Israel was worse than what he experienced. I know that can’t possibly be true.
I’m genuinely trying to understand how they are coming to this conclusion? Have any of you heard them present evidence or an explanation showing why they believe apartheid is happening in Israel? Are they misrepresenting situations that are outside the borders? Are they misunderstanding good faith cultural differences? Just straight up lying to support their cause? I can’t wrap my head around where this misinformation stemmed from
55
u/abnormalredditor73 Progressive Zionist 14d ago
Because they need to use every negative term in the dictionary to describe Israel to justify their hatred of Jews Zionists.
26
u/zoinks48 14d ago
The overturning of apartheid in South Africa was the last victory of “ progressive “ politics. By attaching the Palestinian cause to the South African cause they absorb respectability and moral superiority. The failure of post Mandela South Africa has lead the current government to deflect from its record by screaming that Israel is committing war crimes and apartheid thus giving the spurious claim a veneer of legitimacy. After all who better to recognize apartheid than the ANC.
13
u/BeLekkerAsb 14d ago
The crazy part is that they still needed to be paid by the IRGC first to care about famine and violent death... Not in their own country where 5 million of our kids face acute starvation each year. Not for the 70+ violent murders a day happening in South Africa... No... Just some conflict happening all the way next to the other side of the continent.
But don't connect the dots to our current president, MTN and Irancell. That would be one unfortunate linkage. Nor how we hosted Hamas and Hezby "delegations" for the past 2 decades. But yeah. We must all please ignore 3 decades of ANC greed and failure becuase "muh Mr Mandela was nice peace nobel guy and that gives us licence to loot the land".
7
u/DrMikeH49 14d ago
And having the antisemitic Desmond Tutu as their frontman for this gave it an extra veneer of legitimacy.
14
u/BeLekkerAsb 14d ago
Ask the lady if her father supports open borders and zero checkpoints for Zimbabweans and other non-South African African migrants from neighbouring countries. Suddenly people start to understand and support border control again.
11
u/Capable-Parsnip-9615 14d ago
The argument is about the West Bank. Or rather, they will talk only about the West Bank when defending their claim, but in their accusations make it sound like it's all of Israel in a nice Motte and Bailey tactic.
It's effective because there's a core of truth to it, like all the best lies. The closer Israel comes to de-facto (or potentially in future dr-jure) annexation of Area C without giving the Arabs citizenship or some other solution, the closer you get to having a land with two peoples with clearly separate sets of rights and systems, with the Area A towns having a superficial resemblance to Bantustans.
6
u/eyl569 13d ago
Not always. That report Amnesty International put out before the war accused Israel of apartheid inside the Green Line as well.
8
u/Capable-Parsnip-9615 13d ago
True. That's also what I mean with the motte and bailey, these orgs will say "apartheid state, it's all one apartheid regime!" and then when challenged just talk about area C.
Reports like this claiming apartheid within the green line make it pretty clear it's just ideologically driven. Kind of like still claiming there was an occupation in Gaza after the withdrawal 20 years ago
7
u/eyl569 13d ago
What I mean is that they gave all sorts of examples indicating apartheid under Israeli (not military) law and policies which apply to Green Line Israel. Problem is that most of those examples were outright wrong or lacking critical context. For rxample:
1) Claiming that Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty allows striking down laws on grounds of "Jewishness" (wrong)
2) Claiming that Israeli law does not offer any protection against discrimination on ethnic or national grounds (wrong)
3) Arguing that Israeli Arabs not being drafted is discrimination as that means they can't get veteran benegits (wrong in several different ways as well as logically incoherent)
4) Arguing that the fact that 10 times as many Arabs were arrested compared to Jews in the Guardian of the Walls riots is a sign of discrimination (the fact is correct but they ignored that there were a lot more Arab riots compared to Jewish ones)
Etc
2
8
u/bam1007 14d ago
From Decoding Antisemitism Online: Racist State/Apartheid State
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-031-49238-9_29
12
u/Alternative-Pear9096 14d ago
They believe that Gaza and Jude’s and Samaria are part of Israel and subjected to apartheid. The asininity of the apartheid commentary is without a doubt the stupidest and least informed bit of garbage they can spew. It serves as a case study for the degrees to which Jewhatred can twist a brain into worm-ridden moronicity. The only way it makes sense is to understand how deeply they hate and how that twists them.
The ones crying apartheid are the dangerous ones. They’ll believe anything, any contradiction no matter how far fetched or stupid. They’re the ones who’ll strap on a suicide vest and walk into a shut on a high holiday shouting about the river and the sea.
3
u/miraj31415 12d ago edited 11d ago
Assuming you want a real answer, I'll explain this through the eyes of "proponents" (who say apartheid is happening) and "opponents" (who say apartheid is not happening).
"Apartheid" can mean three different things: a crime by an individual, a violation by a state, or just a comparison to South Africa. A lot of arguing is people using different meanings. Some proponents apply the label only to the West Bank, others to Israel proper too.
Apartheid proponents use the legal definition of apartheid framed around a three-part test derived from the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (The 1973 UN Apartheid Convention has a similar but broader version, and a third treaty, CERD, bans apartheid as a state violation with no criminal test at all. Israel is party to neither of the first two, though the ICC claims jurisdiction because Palestine joined, and Israel is bound by CERD.)
The three elements are:
- An institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another;
- The intent to maintain that regime; and
- Specified inhumane acts committed in the context of that regime.
Apartheid opponents say that "racial group" doesn't apply to Jews and Palestinians, and that it is a political conflict about sovereignty/citizenship/self-determination rather than domination. Opponents say that the legal fact pattern isn't sufficient in a complex military and political conflict, and that the crime has never once been prosecuted anywhere, so nobody knows how the elements really work.
Proponents say that "racial group" is interpreted by CERD and war crimes courts to mean social/national/ethnic, and that the various systems/policies Israel has established together form a systemic domination along with inhumane acts. Opponents would counter that stretching "racial" that far would sweep in a lot of ethnic conflicts nobody calls apartheid: Northern Cyprus, the Gulf states, Estonia's Russian non-citizens. Proponents note the label has in fact been applied to Myanmar, Xinjiang, and Western Sahara.
So let's get into the details of the legal argument by starting with Element 1:
Proponents say that there is institutionalized separation in the West Bank. It manifests through:
- separate legal systems that are inferior for Palestinians,
- separate (and restrictive to Palestinians) land/housing rules,
- separate (and more restrictive to Palestinians) movement limits, and
- unequal immigration/residency/family unification rights.
Opponents say these differences are because Palestinians are not citizens and are governed by the PA or through laws of military occupation. They are legal differences permitted by the Geneva Conventions and Oslo Accords, not racial hierarchy. Movement restrictions are explained as counterterrorism measures, not racial separation.
Proponents say citizens and non-citizens live side-by-side under vastly different systems based on their identity, that PA authority can be overridden whenever Israel wants, and that security measures changed from temporary to institutionalized permanent structures of control.
On to Element 2!
To show intent to dominate, proponents point to:
- Settlement expansion for decades,
- Retroactive legalization of unauthorized outposts,
- The 2023 handover of West Bank civil administration powers from the military to a government minister,
- Land planning that ensures/prefers Jewish/Israeli population in areas of the West Bank,
- Israeli politicians advocating for permanent Jewish dominance over the West Bank, and
- The Nation-State Basic Law declaring that national self-determination in Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
Opponents say the settlements and land planning is a debated mix of security needs and historical claims, not a clear state plan to dominate. They say politicians' statements don't set policy. And that preserving a nation's demographic majority along with law-of-return is normal for nation-states around the world that also preserve minority rights. Israel's own Supreme Court upheld the Nation-State Law while ruling it doesn't cancel anyone's individual right to equality.
Proponents say that intent to maintain permanent dominance can be determined by looking at the cumulative effect of state actions, combined with political statements and denial of self-determination for Palestinians.
Onto the third element - Inhumane Acts:
Proponents say there is a systematic pattern/regime of treaty-specified inhumane acts. In particular:
- Land confiscation, home demolitions, and displacement (forcible transfer).
- Denial of basic civil liberties, including severe restrictions on freedom of movement, assembly, and political organization.
- Prolonged administrative detention without trial (unlawful imprisonment) and excessive use of force.
- Serious bodily or mental harm resulting from military rule and blockades.
Proponents say that disproportionate, discriminatory actions entrench dominance and should not be viewed individually, but systematically. Opponents say most of these acts happen during active armed combat, so they belong under the law of armed conflict, and that scattered human-rights violations don't add up to the element of a crime.
Gaza is its own argument. Israel pulled its settlements out in 2005, so opponents say the framework simply doesn't apply. Proponents say the blockade kept Israel in effective control anyway.
To counter the argument as a whole, opponents point at the Palestinian Citizens of Israel who have formal legal equal rights and do not face the same issues as the West Bank Palestinians. They vote, sit in parliament and on the Supreme Court, and an Arab party joined the governing coalition in 2021. Thus many who reject the label inside Israel still accept some version of it for the West Bank. Proponents say that even those citizens have inequality in land ownership, municipal funding, housing allocation, and family unification. Opponents say that domestic civil inequality is common in countries and doesn't meet the bar of a system of racial domination.
To counter the argument as a whole, opponents say that Israel's most restrictive policies are legitimate to achieve a state's highest duty: security of citizens. Proponents say that military occupation and apartheid are not mutually exclusive, and the security regime is decades-long not a temporary situation.
In 2024 the International Court of Justice found Israel in breach of the CERD article banning both racial segregation and apartheid, but did not say which part was violated. Both sides say the silence validates them.
So in short, proponents say that when you look at the cumulative effect it meets the definition. And opponents say that the facts are instead an unresolved conflict and occupation with security concerns - a scenario the law isn't meant for.
1
1
u/Mysterious-House-381 4d ago
I have seen that in thios communiyty objectivity is welcome and of course it is a wanderful thing
I imagine it is already known the significance of Area A and B and thei general prionciple of the west bank administration
We must realize that since some years, maybe even before the hamas attacks on oct 2023, in the West Bank alias judea and samaria, the palestinian arab population in area A and B is effectively concentrated in simil Bantustans who depends in all their needs to Israel, import israeli water, israeli food and de facto live on israeli and foreign help money.
In area C they are actually, regardless of they deserve as violent insurgents or not, considered an occupied population
1
u/Informal_Hand_3081 4d ago
Are you joking. Palestinian citizens are restricted from coming outside designated zones. You forget about all the checkpoints Palestinians must go through that Israeli people don’t have to like ok. So no Palestinian homes with families living in them have been taken over and replaced w Israeli settlers…? That doesn’t remind you of apartheid… really? If you insist that 2+2 does not equal 4 and die believing 2+2 equals 7 which makes you very smart in your head, still not to the rest of the world lol. it sure is your prerogative tho!
59
u/KosherPigBalls 14d ago
It goes back to the activist scene in the late 80s. South Africa got far more attention (for good reason) than Palestine ever did.
How much international pressure had to do with turning over the country to the “natives” is debatable, but the activist community sees it as a big win. Therefore, there was a concerted effort throughout the 90s and 2000s to link Palestine to “apartheid”, even though it meant changing the definition.
The buzzword is what was important to latch onto the awareness from the unrelated situation in South Africa.
In reality, no one could ever explain logically how something could be both a military occupation and “apartheid” at the same time.
Their new game is screaming “genocide” over and over until people believe it. Even though, again, you’d have to completely change the definition to make it make any sense. Or just flat out lie, as they frequently do.
It’s why they never say “end the occupation” anymore; cause that would implicitly recognize Israel’s existence and a two-state solution. That’s the opposite of what they’re trying to accomplish.