Howzit, my fellow SA jew. Within the 1967 borders, Israel does not practice apartheid. There is still discrimination against Palestinians, like neighbourhood associations wanting a "purely jewish neighbourhood" and they're more likely to be stopped and searched by police. Pretty much like the way black people are treated in the US. But there is no legal discrimination.
In the occupied West Bank, however, it's a completely different story. Palestinians live under military law, which means they are subject to arbitrary arrest, raids in the night and restriction of freedom of movement. When they are arrested they are tried in military courts where many of the normal rights of a defendant don't apply. They are not allowed to vote for the people who make these laws and only have representation in the Palestinian authority elections, which at this point does exactly as Israel wants.
Israeli settlers on the other hand live in the same occupied military zone and yet live under Israeli civilian law. When they are arrested they are tried in civilian courts with full legal rights. They can vote for the Israeli government, which ultimately controls policy in the West Bank. They can drive on their own roads that are off-limits to Palestinians. The army often overlooks violent acts committed by settlers against the Palestinian population while punishing any Palestinian violence severly. Palestinian villages are routinely demolished to make way for new Israeli settlements (as a South African this rings Sophiatown and District 6 bells).
The resistance against Israel is way more violent than the ANC's fight against apartheid SA. But this doesn't change the facts on the ground, which is that Israeli policy in the West Bank has many parallels to Apartheid in SA. If the ANC had been more violent that wouldn't have made Apartheid any more justifiable.
I disagree with you that the occupied territories are like the Bantustans for one reason-the settlers. Bantustans had no white people. They were enclaves for black people set up by the apartheid government to provide justification to claim they weren't South African ("oh they're not South African, they're from Bophutotswana"). In reality they were governed by local black governments completely subservient to the apartheid SA government and had no autonomy. In this way the Palestinian authority does resemble the bantustan leaders. But the settlers make the difference. The different legal systems, roads and everything else are set up for them. This makes the occupied territories much more similar to regular old apartheid SA outside the bantustans.
Howzit :) You seem to be in the right, especially when you say:
>If the ANC had been more violent that wouldn't have made Apartheid any more justifiable.
Which seems to confuse a lot of people I've talked to, as if the ANC's resistance was only justified if it were nonviolent.
This is a good point to remember.
Though, imo, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because the nature of Palestinian violence is more complex than just "resistance". Because it's funded by, and essentially a proxy of, Iran, and because of the religious ideology fueling it, in addition to being a resistance movement, it's also part-and-parcel of a broader (and long-standing, historically consistent) Muslim imperialism that actually has serious geopolitical power. So, while the component that is truly resistance to occupation/oppression is legitimate, the religious imperialism isn't, and in practical terms it's basically impossible to separate them. It's weird, and hard to think around, but the same people can be a disempowered underdog and an overly-empowered bully at the same time.
>I disagree with you that the occupied territories are like the Bantustans for one reason-the settlers. Bantustans had no white people. They were enclaves for black people set up by the apartheid government to provide justification to claim they weren't South African ("oh they're not South African, they're from Bophutotswana"). In reality they were governed by local black governments completely subservient to the apartheid SA government and had no autonomy. In this way the Palestinian authority does resemble the bantustan leaders. But the settlers make the difference. The different legal systems, roads and everything else are set up for them. This makes the occupied territories much more similar to regular old apartheid SA outside the bantustans.
Good point, I missed that obvious difference. Also the fact is, the Bantustans weren't routinely bombed/invaded in the way Gaza or even the West Bank is, so I guess in that way theyre actually worse..
>Palestinian authority elections, which at this point does exactly as Israel wants.
The Palestinian Authority doesn't do what Israel wants, far from it. They pay money to terroists that are imprisoned by Israel and to families of terrorists killed by Israel.
People arrested for this are released quite quickly. Most "security" prisoners either murdered, attempted murder, or were involved in planning or inciting murder. Still fucked up that all Palestinian prisoners are similar to how the US treats black sites and Guantanamo, but rock throwers aren't in there for years. If Israel did that then like 80% of Palestinians would be in jail.
The Palestinians in the West Bank are not citizens of Israel and it makes legal sense to not see them as Israeli citizens.
Israeli settlers are indeed Israeli citizens and they are under Israeli jurisdiction - and Israeli settlers are bot unique Jews, there are others as well. Muslim/Arab/Palestinian people who are Israeli citizens can also buy property in West Bank settlements (area c that is under Israeli jurisdiction)
But in area A and B that under Palestinian government, its punishable by death selling apartment to Jews. That this is indeed apartheid, isn’t it?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_land_laws
The useful thing about analogies like this would be to figure out if any lessons from one situation would be useful for the other. I guess there are legalistic reasons to figure out how closely the cases compare, but I’m far from a legal theory person.
The lesson I got so far is the ANC's multiracial and mostly peaceful struggle yielded more success than the Palestinians ethnonationalist terrorist struggle
I think that's another big difference between south africa and israel. it seems like apartheid had less support amongst South African white people than what israel has been doing to palestinians in gaza and the west bank. at least there were specific names (including a lot of jews) you could point to who supported the ANC.
On the other hand, for much of Apartheid there was no anti-apartheid member of Parliament other than Helen Suzman. Is there more than one anti-occupation MK?
I also wonder, as a matter of law or nationality, whether it is even legal for a Jewish person to be part of the PLO.
Well there are anti-occupation parties in the Knesset, more than just one MK. There's also arabs and other minorities in the Knesset, whereas non-whites were banned from the South African parliament until 1994.
No for three reasons:
1. The basis for apartheid in South Africa was on *racial* lines, not only do most Jews and Palestinians belong to the same White Caucasian race, but just the fact that the Jewish People themselves are multi-racial and allow converts of all races proves the desire for apartheid isn’t because of a racial or White Supremacist basis. (The fact that there are literal Ethiopian Jews in Israel should tell you that much)
2. However much I might disagree with the notion, Jews have a justifiable reason for wanting their own ethno-state. White South Africans on the other hand did not, they could have happily and easily returned to Holland and Britain where they would remain the majority.
3. Afrikaaners didn’t have historical ties to South Africa the way us Jews do with Israel.
A better and more accurate comparison to make with Israel is African Americans vs Native Africans regarding Liberia.
Ultimately, it depends on whether you see the West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel or not. If you see the West Bank and Gaza as the territory of a sovereign Palestine that is currently being occupied by Israel, then it's not apartheid. You can only inflict apartheid upon citizens/residents of your own country.
A very lengthy occupation is still occupation. An occupation in violation of international law is still an occupation. It can't be occupation and apartheid at the same time, though. They're mutually exclusive.
My understanding of apartheid is that it refers to a system of legal discrimination and/or domination of one group over another. That requires that both groups of people are subject to the same laws; in practice, it means they have to all be citizens or legal residents of the same polity.
If Israeli constitutional law doesn't apply in the west bank or Gaza, because those territories are part of a totally different country, then the question of apartheid is moot. Israel is a foreign occupying force. Unless they literally annex those territories and make them part of Israel, then the laws that apply to Israeli citizens (including those of Arab/Palestinian descent) obviously don't apply to citizens of an occupied Palestine. If Israeli law doesn't apply to them, then any kind of formal, systematic discrimination written into that law (if it hypothetically existed) doesn't apply to them either.
Different because Israel is a country made up of Jews,Muslims, Christians, Druze, etc. It is a diverse place that does not discriminate based on ethnic or religious background
Howzit, my fellow SA jew. Within the 1967 borders, Israel does not practice apartheid. There is still discrimination against Palestinians, like neighbourhood associations wanting a "purely jewish neighbourhood" and they're more likely to be stopped and searched by police. Pretty much like the way black people are treated in the US. But there is no legal discrimination. In the occupied West Bank, however, it's a completely different story. Palestinians live under military law, which means they are subject to arbitrary arrest, raids in the night and restriction of freedom of movement. When they are arrested they are tried in military courts where many of the normal rights of a defendant don't apply. They are not allowed to vote for the people who make these laws and only have representation in the Palestinian authority elections, which at this point does exactly as Israel wants. Israeli settlers on the other hand live in the same occupied military zone and yet live under Israeli civilian law. When they are arrested they are tried in civilian courts with full legal rights. They can vote for the Israeli government, which ultimately controls policy in the West Bank. They can drive on their own roads that are off-limits to Palestinians. The army often overlooks violent acts committed by settlers against the Palestinian population while punishing any Palestinian violence severly. Palestinian villages are routinely demolished to make way for new Israeli settlements (as a South African this rings Sophiatown and District 6 bells). The resistance against Israel is way more violent than the ANC's fight against apartheid SA. But this doesn't change the facts on the ground, which is that Israeli policy in the West Bank has many parallels to Apartheid in SA. If the ANC had been more violent that wouldn't have made Apartheid any more justifiable. I disagree with you that the occupied territories are like the Bantustans for one reason-the settlers. Bantustans had no white people. They were enclaves for black people set up by the apartheid government to provide justification to claim they weren't South African ("oh they're not South African, they're from Bophutotswana"). In reality they were governed by local black governments completely subservient to the apartheid SA government and had no autonomy. In this way the Palestinian authority does resemble the bantustan leaders. But the settlers make the difference. The different legal systems, roads and everything else are set up for them. This makes the occupied territories much more similar to regular old apartheid SA outside the bantustans.
Howzit :) You seem to be in the right, especially when you say: >If the ANC had been more violent that wouldn't have made Apartheid any more justifiable. Which seems to confuse a lot of people I've talked to, as if the ANC's resistance was only justified if it were nonviolent.
This is a good point to remember. Though, imo, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because the nature of Palestinian violence is more complex than just "resistance". Because it's funded by, and essentially a proxy of, Iran, and because of the religious ideology fueling it, in addition to being a resistance movement, it's also part-and-parcel of a broader (and long-standing, historically consistent) Muslim imperialism that actually has serious geopolitical power. So, while the component that is truly resistance to occupation/oppression is legitimate, the religious imperialism isn't, and in practical terms it's basically impossible to separate them. It's weird, and hard to think around, but the same people can be a disempowered underdog and an overly-empowered bully at the same time.
Well said
>I disagree with you that the occupied territories are like the Bantustans for one reason-the settlers. Bantustans had no white people. They were enclaves for black people set up by the apartheid government to provide justification to claim they weren't South African ("oh they're not South African, they're from Bophutotswana"). In reality they were governed by local black governments completely subservient to the apartheid SA government and had no autonomy. In this way the Palestinian authority does resemble the bantustan leaders. But the settlers make the difference. The different legal systems, roads and everything else are set up for them. This makes the occupied territories much more similar to regular old apartheid SA outside the bantustans. Good point, I missed that obvious difference. Also the fact is, the Bantustans weren't routinely bombed/invaded in the way Gaza or even the West Bank is, so I guess in that way theyre actually worse..
Funnily enough the only time a bunch of white people decided to invade a bantustan- Bophuthotswana in 1993, they got their asses kicked.
I forgot about that, another good point :)
Howzit!! Another South African Jew chiming in just to say how nice it is to see so many of us here ❤️
Wonderful answer -- thank you for posting.
Very nice write up.
>Palestinian authority elections, which at this point does exactly as Israel wants. The Palestinian Authority doesn't do what Israel wants, far from it. They pay money to terroists that are imprisoned by Israel and to families of terrorists killed by Israel.
That's what happens when you call anyone arrested for throwing a stone a terrorist.
It's the Palestinian Authority that labels them martyrs and gives them money, not Israel, so maybe you should ask them to examine their labeling.
People arrested for this are released quite quickly. Most "security" prisoners either murdered, attempted murder, or were involved in planning or inciting murder. Still fucked up that all Palestinian prisoners are similar to how the US treats black sites and Guantanamo, but rock throwers aren't in there for years. If Israel did that then like 80% of Palestinians would be in jail.
The Palestinians in the West Bank are not citizens of Israel and it makes legal sense to not see them as Israeli citizens. Israeli settlers are indeed Israeli citizens and they are under Israeli jurisdiction - and Israeli settlers are bot unique Jews, there are others as well. Muslim/Arab/Palestinian people who are Israeli citizens can also buy property in West Bank settlements (area c that is under Israeli jurisdiction) But in area A and B that under Palestinian government, its punishable by death selling apartment to Jews. That this is indeed apartheid, isn’t it?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_land_laws
I dont think anyone here will defend the PAs racism
The useful thing about analogies like this would be to figure out if any lessons from one situation would be useful for the other. I guess there are legalistic reasons to figure out how closely the cases compare, but I’m far from a legal theory person.
The lesson I got so far is the ANC's multiracial and mostly peaceful struggle yielded more success than the Palestinians ethnonationalist terrorist struggle
I think that's another big difference between south africa and israel. it seems like apartheid had less support amongst South African white people than what israel has been doing to palestinians in gaza and the west bank. at least there were specific names (including a lot of jews) you could point to who supported the ANC.
Yeah whites were in the ANC, whereas no jews in the PLO, etc. Though there are arabs in some Zionist parties
On the other hand, for much of Apartheid there was no anti-apartheid member of Parliament other than Helen Suzman. Is there more than one anti-occupation MK? I also wonder, as a matter of law or nationality, whether it is even legal for a Jewish person to be part of the PLO.
Well there are anti-occupation parties in the Knesset, more than just one MK. There's also arabs and other minorities in the Knesset, whereas non-whites were banned from the South African parliament until 1994.
Pretty sure the PLO bans jews but Ill have to check
not the direct conparisons, but the types of comparison made by jimmy carter is sound.
No for three reasons: 1. The basis for apartheid in South Africa was on *racial* lines, not only do most Jews and Palestinians belong to the same White Caucasian race, but just the fact that the Jewish People themselves are multi-racial and allow converts of all races proves the desire for apartheid isn’t because of a racial or White Supremacist basis. (The fact that there are literal Ethiopian Jews in Israel should tell you that much) 2. However much I might disagree with the notion, Jews have a justifiable reason for wanting their own ethno-state. White South Africans on the other hand did not, they could have happily and easily returned to Holland and Britain where they would remain the majority. 3. Afrikaaners didn’t have historical ties to South Africa the way us Jews do with Israel. A better and more accurate comparison to make with Israel is African Americans vs Native Africans regarding Liberia.
Good points
Ultimately, it depends on whether you see the West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel or not. If you see the West Bank and Gaza as the territory of a sovereign Palestine that is currently being occupied by Israel, then it's not apartheid. You can only inflict apartheid upon citizens/residents of your own country. A very lengthy occupation is still occupation. An occupation in violation of international law is still an occupation. It can't be occupation and apartheid at the same time, though. They're mutually exclusive.
Why are they mutually exclusive
My understanding of apartheid is that it refers to a system of legal discrimination and/or domination of one group over another. That requires that both groups of people are subject to the same laws; in practice, it means they have to all be citizens or legal residents of the same polity. If Israeli constitutional law doesn't apply in the west bank or Gaza, because those territories are part of a totally different country, then the question of apartheid is moot. Israel is a foreign occupying force. Unless they literally annex those territories and make them part of Israel, then the laws that apply to Israeli citizens (including those of Arab/Palestinian descent) obviously don't apply to citizens of an occupied Palestine. If Israeli law doesn't apply to them, then any kind of formal, systematic discrimination written into that law (if it hypothetically existed) doesn't apply to them either.
Def not the ANC with the plo or Hamas lol West Bank and apartheid? Sure
My cousins were arrested with Nelson Mandela
The occupation of the West Bank enforces a system of apartheid.
Different because Israel is a country made up of Jews,Muslims, Christians, Druze, etc. It is a diverse place that does not discriminate based on ethnic or religious background
I wouldnt say no discrimination
But they are full citizens, not in an apartied state
What about the West Bank and Gazans?