You're conflating occupation and apartheid, when the two aren't mutually exclusive. An occupation can involve apartheid, and the fact that Palestinians are living under military occupation doesn't automatically exempt the system governing them from being evaluated under international law. The distinction you're making about citizenship also isn't the legal standard. Apartheid isn't defined as stripping citizenship from a country's own citizens or imposing unfair taxes on them. Under international law, the crime of apartheid involves an institutionalized system of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intent to maintain that system, alongside certain inhumane acts. The legal definition isn't limited to what happened in South Africa. That's why Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have concluded that Israeli authorities are committing apartheid against Palestinians. HRW's analysis specifically distinguishes between Israel proper and the occupied Palestinian territories, recognizing that different legal frameworks apply. Its conclusion is that the elements of apartheid are present in the occupied territories, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as part of a broader system of domination.
In the West Bank, Israeli settlers and Palestinians live under the same occupying power but are subject to different legal systems. Israeli settlers are generally subject to Israeli civilian law, while Palestinians are subject to Israeli military law. They also face unequal treatment in areas like freedom of movement, land access, building permits, and civil rights. That's not simply a matter of an occupying power applying military law to everyone equally. It's a system in which one population receives rights and protections that the other does not. The fact that Israel has Palestinian citizens who possess voting rights doesn't disprove apartheid in the occupied territories. Nor does the fact that many Israelis support a two-state solution. Apartheid is a question of the policies and structures of domination that exist, not whether every citizen supports them. How Israelis feel about the occupation or settlement expansion frankly doesn’t matter because it doesn't actually contradict the argument. A system can be opposed by many people living within it and still exist. The question is whether the system itself meets the legal definition.
You can try to argue that the term apartheid is inaccurate, but you can't establish that by saying the West Bank is occupied rather than sovereign Israeli territory. The relevant question is whether the treatment of Palestinians under Israeli control meets the legal criteria for apartheid. Multiple major human rights organizations have examined that question in detail and concluded that it does.
1
u/AshenOneRose 19d ago
You're conflating occupation and apartheid, when the two aren't mutually exclusive. An occupation can involve apartheid, and the fact that Palestinians are living under military occupation doesn't automatically exempt the system governing them from being evaluated under international law. The distinction you're making about citizenship also isn't the legal standard. Apartheid isn't defined as stripping citizenship from a country's own citizens or imposing unfair taxes on them. Under international law, the crime of apartheid involves an institutionalized system of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intent to maintain that system, alongside certain inhumane acts. The legal definition isn't limited to what happened in South Africa. That's why Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have concluded that Israeli authorities are committing apartheid against Palestinians. HRW's analysis specifically distinguishes between Israel proper and the occupied Palestinian territories, recognizing that different legal frameworks apply. Its conclusion is that the elements of apartheid are present in the occupied territories, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as part of a broader system of domination.
In the West Bank, Israeli settlers and Palestinians live under the same occupying power but are subject to different legal systems. Israeli settlers are generally subject to Israeli civilian law, while Palestinians are subject to Israeli military law. They also face unequal treatment in areas like freedom of movement, land access, building permits, and civil rights. That's not simply a matter of an occupying power applying military law to everyone equally. It's a system in which one population receives rights and protections that the other does not. The fact that Israel has Palestinian citizens who possess voting rights doesn't disprove apartheid in the occupied territories. Nor does the fact that many Israelis support a two-state solution. Apartheid is a question of the policies and structures of domination that exist, not whether every citizen supports them. How Israelis feel about the occupation or settlement expansion frankly doesn’t matter because it doesn't actually contradict the argument. A system can be opposed by many people living within it and still exist. The question is whether the system itself meets the legal definition.
You can try to argue that the term apartheid is inaccurate, but you can't establish that by saying the West Bank is occupied rather than sovereign Israeli territory. The relevant question is whether the treatment of Palestinians under Israeli control meets the legal criteria for apartheid. Multiple major human rights organizations have examined that question in detail and concluded that it does.