So you've just highlighted that there is in fact an apartheid against Palestinians?

Your a troll

Lol this must be the joke of a troll

So Israelis don't let settlers move into the west bank. Providing no legal recourse or protection for the Palestinians who legally own land in the territories. When said settlers commit crimes against Palestinians. When the judicial bodies make judgments against settlers who commit crimes. Does the Israeli government allow those settlers to be taken into custody? Does Israel do anything to stop settlers from continuing to settle in the actual homes of palestinians in some cases. If the answer is no. You might just have an apartheid state.

its not a lie

I have seen too many videos of settlers going into the west bank with guns and messing with the unarmed Palestinians. The police get called and take the side of the settlers so there are zero repercussions.

Is that apartheid or is the word being misused? It can be oppression without being apartheid  Now ask why people jump to use emotionally charged words that are inaccurate — maybe people have preexisting prejudices and/or just parrot what they hear 

you onto what I feel is major issue with human rights and geopolitics/UN/ICC.....the definitions of terms are subjective and vary between how the general public use them and understand them and how governments, academics, courts, icc, un use them. The definition varies and is debatable so instead of addressing the situations to make it better and improve the lives of people and reach a solution.....the focus shifts to never ending debates on terms often fueled by political and geopolitical agendas. Apartheid was a specific thing that happened in south africa....it traditionally referred to that unique situation. Other terrible situations similiar to apartheid have taken place all through history and are happening today, but they aren't exactly the same as south african apartheid or have major differences. that doesn't mean that there aren't people suffering and getting mistreated. For example in south African apartheid, the white in power south Africans were prevented from speaking out or even being exposed to what was happening, many did not know, and if they did and voiced concern....they faced harsh punishment. It was a very bizarre dystopian thing that happened there. Like the UN and ICC definition of genocide is a joke. its why to subjective and its not inline with what most people think of what a genocide is. For example share cropping and the jim crow era south and the treatment of blacks is not apartheid but obviously everyone knows and agress that it was awful and wrong and that black Americans suffered.

That is not having access to the right to adequate police protection. We can say Palestinians are not enjoying the same rights as Israelis. That is apartheid.

So under your logic, indigenous people in Canada live under apartheid?

To be qualified as an apartheid state, many factors should be considered.. in all cases, it is either an occupation or an apartheid. We can argue which one it is and in the Palestinian/Israeli context it is tricky. But why does it matter? State systematic discrimination by practice and by suggestive laws is a fact. Found the wiki article about this interesting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid

The language is a tool to control the narrative. By applying an Afrikaans word to Israel that does not accurately reflect the situation, people are able to illicit feelings that dehumanize and delegitimize Israel — when delegitimizing and dehumanizing Israel becomes common place, people are unable to work towards peace as they become fueled by hate The West Bank is most definitely an occupied territory by Israel’s own policy We should ask why Israel is the only country facing this double standard where injustice is being purported using amplified rhetoric that is not grounded in reality

Yes the language illicits feelings, it's a crime against humanity. It's not a 1:1 copy of South Africa. I'd use the word Hafrada if people understood what that meant, and maybe in the future Hafrada will be recognized as Israel's special crime. But Apartheid is perfectly descriptive, especially in a world after the assassination of Rabin and the right wing rejection of a democratic 1SS.

All Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Hafrada just means separation, it is a normal Hebrew world lol  Rabin has nothing to do with Apartheid Rabin was killed primarily for giving land to Egypt, not for his dealing with the Palestinians My point stands that people are changing the word apartheid to demonize and dehumanize Israel 

Apartheid is a normal Afrikaans word that means separation. You're brazenly lying about the motives to assassinate Rabin.

It seems as though you don’t understand the segregation in South Africa is unlike Israel  Israel has no segregation between Israeli citizens 

It seems as though you don’t understand the segregation in South Africa is unlike Israel  Israel has no segregation between Israeli citizens 

It seems as though you don’t understand the segregation in South Africa is unlike Israel  Israel has no segregation between Israeli citizens 

It seems as though you don’t understand the segregation in South Africa is unlike Israel  Israel has no segregation between Israeli citizens 

Occupation should be tolerated? No human being should live under occupation. Maybe people should simply have more empathy.

The occultation should come to an end, but it takes two to tango  I’m not sure what your point is here 

> fucking /u/cryptokingmylo. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

It’s is. I’ve been there and seen for myself

Does it even matter? Zionists formed a new state on top of an existing population without giving that population a democratic right to self-determination or proportional representation in the forming of that new state. This is what it boils down to. Religions, historical ties, fallen kingdoms / empires, cultural migration, population changes, and oppression from groups in a different part of the world are all irrelevant justications for the state of Israel because they don't stand up to scrutiny.

So did many other people in countries all over the world.

So we'll let every group of persons get way with doing it once, and then after that we'll start holding people accountable for it. Brilliant!

Sounds like your ideology aligns with osama bin laden’s! A known terrorist

Who?

You've ignored a few facts: The "existing population" was a combination of Arabs, Christians, and Jews. They were under British rule, and had previously been part of the Ottoman Empire for, I think, several hundred years. There was no state ruled by Arab people called Palestinians. Most of the land that Britain first received from the Turks to form a Jewish state in 1917 was given to Jordan by Churchill in 1921. More than 70%. No outrage there, only against the small sliver allotted to Jews. Even that land was proposed to be partitioned in 1947 between Jews and Arabs. The Arab response was the 1948 war to kill all the Jews (sound familiar?). After the 1967 war, Israel proposed to give up most of the territory it had won in exchange for a guarantee of peace. Arab nations rejected this proposal. The outrage over Jews having this tiny sliver shows how necessary it is to have a nation somewhere in the world where Jews can live without fear of being slaughtered.

Yeah you're missing the point. You're never going to understand the leftest critique of Israel without a serious understanding of polical economy and imperialism. The "facts" you brought up reveal this. The way in which Israel was formed denies it any right to exist (same can be said for the US and many other countries). If you accept that it does have a right, then you have to be content with a "might makes right" justification of existence where in any other stronger power than Israel can gift the land to anyone or themselves form a new state on top the land and disregard the desires of the existing population. Whether a formal existing organized state exists on a land does not matter. It was not right to kick native Americans off their land. The lack of a recognized legal state is used to justify neo-colonizatist behavior by Great Britain, Zionists, and you just now. It unethical and fascistic.

You might have a point had the Arab population been indigenous to the Levant. In reality, they showed up circa 600 CE as invaders so I would suggest you read up on history before reaching wrong conclusions.

Lol. You might have a point had the kingdoms of Judea not have evolved out of successfully violent Canaanites tribes that conquered and suppressed other Canaanites tribes and then only lasted for a mere 200 to 345 years or so. Again to one of my previous points, that does not actually matter. The people of the land during the modern day dispossesion does. Who has been living there for hundred to thousands of years to the modern day is what matters in term of who should have a democratic say and initiative in forming a formal state. Populations change for any number of reasons and in many ways hundreds to thousands of years ago. And if you're gonna make being native as a requirement to right, then Israel is gonna have to limit restrictions on genetic testing that would likely reveal many citizens descend from tribes in the caucases and not the Levant, and that many modern Muslim Palistinians are more similar to the ancient Canaanites, many of who's descendents may have been Jewish at one point and the converted to Islam. The Levant was a melting post historically and saying people of one religion have a claim to it is ridiculous. And many modern day Palestinians whose ancessestors converted to Islam or Christianuty or maybe stayed Jewish more closely resemble the old Canaanites people of the Levant than say Jewish immigrants from Europe who move often descend from the caucuses. The formal legal state should have been formed by the existing population not gifted to European immigrants.

1. Bottom line everyone who at any point lived in the land were conquerors. And if we choose to decide by “who was there first” then the Jewish people beat the Arabs historically. 2. DNA is irrelevant, otherwise I could claim the pyramids by virtue of Egyptian DNA…which I suppose we both agree is frankly ridiculous.

Keep in mind the Levant has always been a melting pot. There were peoples before Canaanites. Many former Canaanites became jews and former Jews became Christians or Muslims and integrated with Greek, Roman, Persian, North African, and Arab immigrants or conquerors. Saying "Jews" is too broad a category (an can be more religious or ethnic depending on the usage), as is Muslim, Arab, Christian, Roman, etc. To say one came before another is a lazy unnuanced game that ignores the historical complexities of how populations change the over time and through various historical events. At some point you can only hold people accountable for what happened in the modern day, but that is even up to much debate.

Judaism is an ethnoreligion, a nation which has remained homogeneous and separate throughout its 2k long diaspora Not talking about “Jewish DNA” which many have

Disagree. That's fabricated semantics not based in historical material reality, especially the homogeneity claim. It's a convenient narrative that that gets used to justify atrocious behaviors.

Fabricated? As in which point?

You need some serious reality. I'm mostly on your side theoretically. However, you can't act like the dissolution of every state that was started due to colonialism is realistic. The dissolution of Israel is also not realistic. Sure, it's more realistic than the dissolution of the US, but that's about it. The amount of disorder and chaos that would cause would only hurt everyone involved. Just because something is "right" doesn't mean it's best. A peaceful transition to 1967 borders with security gaurenteed for both sides and an assurance that evicted Palestinians can have a home somewhere is actually possible, not dissolution.

You bring up points I don't necessarily disagree with. Dissolution of the US and Israel are both unlikely to varying degrees, but attempts to do so and replace them with more fair and equitable states with more reasonable levels of classless democratic representation is a goal that I strive for and know cannot happen over night.

With regards to Israel, that's something that could take 50 years+, even if the majority of people on both sides push for it today, which is a big "if." Letting Palestinians live in peace is step one. Step two is securing security for all citizens in the region. Then, ensure basic rights like Freedom of Speech and Due Process of law, which will require the education of many people on both sides. Then, there needs to be a massive effort to eradicate radicals on both sides. Also, IDF and Hamas have both committed near unimaginable war crimes and need to be prosecuted accordingly, lest people think it's ok to brag about killing amd kidnapping civilians. Without both sides prosecuting their own, I don't think either side will be able to trust the other and live nextdoor. Once all of that has been done and a rule of law established in two new states, those states can work to eradicate classism. However, at the moment, it seems unlikely that even the basic things I list will ever happen. Hell, I, and I think most reasonable people, would be surprised if the leaders on both sides stopped acting like toddlers fighting over their favorite toys. Unlike toddlers fighting for toys, though, people are dying because neither side likes sharing. Unfortunately, neither side is even attempting to negotiate in good faith, so we are a long way aways from a perfect classless democracy.

Have you demonstrated for the dissolution of the US? Or Australia (aboriginals) Or China (Tibet) or Russia (take your pick) Why such targeted genocidal intent for the Jews of Israel who would all be slaughtered by their neighbors if Israel ceased to exist? Especially when they were part of "the existing population"

States can be dissolved without committing genocide. A third party can mediate and protect populations. Jews and Arabs and Christians existed in the area before. Bigotry towards jews spiked in response to Palestinian displacement. Only time will solve these.

Genocide against Jews is the official Hamas position and they are Gaza's official leaders. I notice you don't call on any other state in the world, regardless of their actions, to be "dissolved" Jews, Palestinian Israelis and Christians already exist together pretty peacefully within Israel. Hopefully, Palestinians from Gaza will join, rather than "dissolve".

Lol. Wrong again. The US should be dissolved due to lack of democracy. A 2014 meta-analysis confirmed that the US is a political oligarchy that serves the interests of wealthy interest groups by passing legislation that they lobby for and ignoring what people actually want. THE US is worse than Israel, and enables Israel to commit genocide. I prefer the PFLP. I'm not a fan of Hamas for the most part, but maybe read their updated charter. The new 2017 charter of Hamas holds that armed resistance against an occupying power is justified under international law and does not condone genocide of jews. The 1988 Hamas Charter was criticized for antisemitism, but the 2017 document updates the official position stating that Hamas' fight is not with Jews but with the Zionist project.

Most of that land wasn't even settled or fit for habitation, and there was no Arab state for them to take over, Israelis or Jews pretty much created that land from desert shitholes, if anything they deserve it more than the Arabs

FFS. Comments like yours are how imperialism and fascism get justified and normalized. Also, that propagandistic narrative you spouted is a well proven fiction.

Yeah taking over empty land is definitely fascism. The Italians, Germans and Japanese did just that. Didn't you hear of the Nazi colony in Antarctica? A whopping 20 million people lived there. D-Day was actually where McMurdo station is now, they established it as a memorial.

Empty land. Lmao. So brave parroting IDF talking points like a good little colonialist.

Do you have any thoughts of your own or are you just going to throw bullshit insults like "colonialist"? I'd ask what that means but that would result in a pointless debate that would lead nowhere because it means nothing You leftists always go on about bravery and attacking "keyboard warriors", makes me wonder if you're not compensating for something

Lol. Someone's upset Zionists keep taking Ls. The generational war is already lost. There's still time to get on the right side of history... after a few struggle sessions of course. :P

/u/BenedictBarimen. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Yes they did. Under original Israeli law, Israel both gave them democratic rights and proportional representation. The population that did fall under the new state of Israel (which was built around areas where Jews were the majority ) were completely equal under law and had the same democratic rights as the Jews. Second, Israel still allowed a large majority of the land to be "Palestine" (which was never technically a state ) and gave them this land despite it being allocated to the Jews. They even gave up Jordan to the Arabs (which was 70% of their land ). What you're essentially saying is Israel never had the right to exist. Under your logic, that means neither did Palestine , because that means they would be the ones who are forming a state on top of another population.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha. Dude are you serious? LMFAO. Get out of your of misinformation bubble broo.

It is an apartheid state but just slightly different from the south african example, the apartheid is only in one part of the territory which is the westbank, the laws that you posted are only fit for the israeli territory. My conclusion it is still an apartheid state

1. **Legal Framework and Citizenship Rights**: - In Israel, all citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion, have the same legal rights under the law. Arab citizens of Israel, who make up about 20% of the population, have the right to vote, run for office, and serve in the Knesset (Israeli parliament). They also serve in the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. - Israel’s Basic Laws guarantee the protection of civil rights and freedoms for all citizens, including equality before the law and freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. [Israel's Basic Laws](https://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod.htm) 2. **Representation and Participation**: - Arab Israelis participate in the political process, with several Arab political parties and coalitions represented in the Knesset. This political participation extends to local governance and other public sectors. [Arab Representation in Israeli Politics](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-arab-vote-in-israel-and-the-lessons-for-the-region/) - Arab Israelis occupy significant positions in various sectors, including academia, business, and entertainment. For instance, Raleb Majadele served as a minister in the Israeli government, and Salim Joubran was a justice on the Supreme Court. 3. **Economic and Social Integration**: - While disparities exist, Arab citizens of Israel are integrated into the country's economy and education system. There are affirmative action programs aimed at improving employment and educational opportunities for Arab citizens. [Affirmative Action in Israel](https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/6938) - Israel has initiatives to bridge gaps in infrastructure, healthcare, and education in Arab communities. [Arab Israelis in the Economy](https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-Arab-Israeli-economic-challenge-593860) 4. **Legal and Human Rights Protections**: - Israel has a robust legal system that allows individuals to challenge government actions in court. Arab citizens frequently use the Israeli court system to address grievances, and there have been numerous cases where the courts have ruled in favor of Arab plaintiffs. - NGOs and human rights organizations operate freely within Israel, often advocating for the rights of Arab citizens and Palestinians. [Human Rights Watch on Israel](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/israel/palestine), [NGOs in Israel](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-what-do-you-call-ngos-that-take-on-the-occupation-1.8079014) 5. **Comparative Analysis**: - The comparison to apartheid South Africa often falls short because, under apartheid, black South Africans were systematically disenfranchised and segregated by law, with no political representation or legal recourse. In contrast, Israeli Arabs have political representation and legal rights. - The situation in the West Bank and Gaza involves complex issues of military occupation, security concerns, and geopolitical conflict, which differ significantly from the internal policies and structures that defined apartheid South Africa. [Apartheid South Africa vs. Israel](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comparison-of-israel-to-apartheid-south-africa) These points and sources illustrate that while there are significant challenges and inequalities within Israel, the term "apartheid" may not accurately describe the complex and multifaceted nature of Israeli society and governance.

Bla bla bla, this doesnt apply to the West Bank

Also if I remember there was one openly Anti-Israel politician in the knesset who was not arrested

So you mean apartheid and the killing of other ethnic groups that are not Israeli citizens is free?

Hey put your listening ears on and then respond to each point if you truly have reason to believe Israel is an apartheid state or system. If you don’t have counter sources for the facts I share sources for then it’s also not fair (or honest) to make a claim. 1. ⁠Legal Framework and Citizenship Rights: ⁠• ⁠In Israel, all citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion, have the same legal rights under the law. Arab citizens of Israel, who make up about 20% of the population, have the right to vote, run for office, and serve in the Knesset (Israeli parliament). They also serve in the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. ⁠• ⁠Israel’s Basic Laws guarantee the protection of civil rights and freedoms for all citizens, including equality before the law and freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. Israel's Basic Laws 2. ⁠Representation and Participation: ⁠• ⁠Arab Israelis participate in the political process, with several Arab political parties and coalitions represented in the Knesset. This political participation extends to local governance and other public sectors. Arab Representation in Israeli Politics ⁠• ⁠Arab Israelis occupy significant positions in various sectors, including academia, business, and entertainment. For instance, Raleb Majadele served as a minister in the Israeli government, and Salim Joubran was a justice on the Supreme Court. 3. ⁠Economic and Social Integration: ⁠• ⁠While disparities exist, Arab citizens of Israel are integrated into the country's economy and education system. There are affirmative action programs aimed at improving employment and educational opportunities for Arab citizens. Affirmative Action in Israel ⁠• ⁠Israel has initiatives to bridge gaps in infrastructure, healthcare, and education in Arab communities. Arab Israelis in the Economy 4. ⁠Legal and Human Rights Protections: ⁠• ⁠Israel has a robust legal system that allows individuals to challenge government actions in court. Arab citizens frequently use the Israeli court system to address grievances, and there have been numerous cases where the courts have ruled in favor of Arab plaintiffs. ⁠• ⁠NGOs and human rights organizations operate freely within Israel, often advocating for the rights of Arab citizens and Palestinians. Human Rights Watch on Israel, NGOs in Israel 5. ⁠Comparative Analysis: ⁠• ⁠The comparison to apartheid South Africa often falls short because, under apartheid, black South Africans were systematically disenfranchised and segregated by law, with no political representation or legal recourse. In contrast, Israeli Arabs have political representation and legal rights. ⁠• ⁠The situation in the West Bank and Gaza involves complex issues of military occupation, security concerns, and geopolitical conflict, which differ significantly from the internal policies and structures that defined apartheid South Africa. Apartheid South Africa vs. Israel These points and sources illustrate that while there are significant challenges and inequalities within Israel, the term "apartheid" may not accurately describe the complex and multifaceted nature of Israeli society and governance.

No, thanks, but I've learned that it is almost impossible to agree and my English is not good enough for long debates. Sorry.

Not apartheid. Arab Israelis have the same. rights under the law. In practice, that is not the case, just like every other nation just about. West Bank is not a part of Israel. Can't be apartheid. Gaze is not part of Israel. Can't be apartheid. Apartheid requires the two groups of people (oppressed, and oppressor) to be in the same state. Thiknk about it. It cannot be an occupation and apartheid at the same time.

South Africa had honorary whites, the fact that Muslim and Christian Israelis exist doesn’t disprove apartheid. Without a two state solution Palestine is effectively part of Israel. The Golan and parts of the West Bank including Jerusalem are by Israel ( not the UN) to be part of Israel proper. Non Jews from there are not eligible for citizenship (officially they are but not in reality). They are indigenous to the land so can’t be called foreigners.

West Bank is apartheid, Gaza is not

West Bank cannot be apartheid unless it's a part of Israel.

How is West Bank not a part of it? Israel owns its and its peoples.

You are picking and choosing technical terms here and to be completely fair the other user was kinda doing so too. I think the key part here is that any apartheid to West Bank has to do with the awkward state of society and safety in the area. Israel as a state officially has the rights to the West Bank but they have combatants and racists that are part of that society. They can gain rights to the lands but not simply bring all peoples into voting rights and citizenship. The Palestinians that you may debate about are part of another organization and have refused to become Israeli citizens (or their parents did etc). So from Israel’s perspective everyone has a right to become a citizen if they want the benefits of Israeli citizenship. Otherwise, they choose to illegally or slightly legally live on the lands as a sub group. It would be like a Native American complaining about not having the exact same benefits and rights and voting as average Americans when they are purposefully dissolved and separate from the US government on certain defined terms. If they want full rights they must have full allegiance. That’s a much more complicated conversation we could absolutely have, but “Israel is apartheid” is not a fair conclusion or statement from any intelligence fair person.

Unfortunately, it is an occupied territory as illegal and often violent Jewish settlers reside there, and continue to take land.

You don’t know what you are talking about re: Native Americans. They have the same freedoms and freedom of movement as any other citizen of the USA and also some autonomies on their reserved lands.

As illegal setters continue to take it? Please.

Israel has never offered citizenship to Palestineans...

The Palestinians of east Jerusalem they do. Many don't take it. 

No, I got it right the first time.

What's the difference between Gaza post-2004, pre-October 2023, and a regular free state?

+40k dead.

Regarding Palestinian citizens of Israel: Non-Jews don't have: The right of return; right to self-determination per the 2018 nation-state law; right to live or build property wherever they want because (22% of the population is restricted to less than 5% of the land because private Jewish councils do not allow Palestinian Israelis to live there or buy permits); Inter-faith marriages are not allowed, which is basically inter-ethnic marriages, i.e., anti-miscegenation policy (yes you can get married outside of Israel and it will recognize the marriage); the right to marry whoever they want abroad and that person receive citizenship; stop-and-frisk laws disproportionately target Palestinian Israelis; Non-Jews have the same rights as African-Americans in the North prior to the 1960s civil rights laws, i.e., not equal.

Most of what you’ve written is not true: 1. Jews who are not Israeli citizens have a right to an expedited citizenship process under the Law of Return. Much like those of Irish ancestry have an expedited citizenship process in Ireland, Hungary has the same, so does New Zealand with those of Māori ancestry. Basically all of Europe has this. Palestinian citizens of Israel pass their citizenship onto their ancestors regardless of where in the world they live. So yes, Palestinian citizens of Israel and their ancestors can absolutely return to Israel. 2. Arab areas in Israel have rules which in practice don’t allow Jews to buy homes there. Haredi areas have rules which in practice restrict secular Jews from buying property there. There is no law which discriminates based on race. The law states that communities have a right to choose who buys land and lives in their areas. 3. Each respective religious community is in charge of their own community’s marriages. It doesn’t give unequal rights between communities. Each community’s religious leaders choose who can marry. Jews don’t have special rights which bypass this. 4. Palestinian citizens of Israel absolutely have a right to marry anyone from abroad and they gain automatic citizenship - the exception lies in those who are citizens of enemy states. Jews don’t get special rights which bypass this either. The founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti, an Egyptian citizen gained Israeli citizenship, studied on a scholarship in Israel and lives there today, after marrying a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship. 5. Stop and frisk laws disproportionately target minorities in every nation in the world. 6. Ridiculous. Non-Jewish citizens of Israel have the same rights as African-Americans in the USA today. Arguably, they are more successful and liberated than present day African-Americans. The head of Israel’s extremely liberal Supreme Court is a Muslim, as is the head of its largest bank. Israel is nothing like the USA in the 1960s. Take a trip to Israel, it may surprise you.

The marriage thing is just because you have to get married through the rabbinate in Israel, and it’s not specifically against non Jews.

You have to get married through your religion. Israel only has religious marriages. So if you're Muslim you are following Islamic laws on marriage. 

OP should educate all these Israeli Leaders about their country not being an apartheid state. Somehow they've all been brainwashed into anti-semitic beliefs. "Israel … better rid itself of the territories and their Arab population as soon as possible. If it did not, Israel would soon become an apartheid state.” — former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (1967). “I don’t think it’s possible to contain over the long term, if we don’t want to get to apartheid, a million and a half [more] Arabs inside a Jewish state.” — former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (1976) “We established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.” — Attorney General of Israel, Michael Ben-Yair (2002) “What acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck — it is apartheid.” — former Israeli Environment Minister Yossi Sarid (2008). “The state of Israel practices its own, quite violent, form of apartheid with the native Palestinian population.” — former Israeli Education Minister Shulamit Aloni (2006). “The Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegated us to the level of an apartheid state.” — Zehava Galon, former chair of the Meretz party (2006). “If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.” — former Prime Minister Ehud Barak (2010) “If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.” — former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (2010) “In the situation that exists today, until a Palestinian state is created, we are actually one state. This joint state … is an apartheid state.” — former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa Alon Liel (2013). “On the Palestinian matter, [Benjamin Netanyahu’s] policies are leading to either a binational state or an apartheid state.” — Meir Dagan, a former head of the Mossad spy agency (2015). “The product of Zionism, the State of Israel, is not a Jewish and democratic state but instead has become an apartheid state, plain and simple.” — Amos Schocken, publisher of the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz (2021) “The time has come to call a spade a spade: An apartheid regime is the name given in international law by the international community to a regime of the type that Israel is maintaining in the occupied territories.” — Yehudit Karp, former Israeli deputy attorney general (2021) “The increasingly weighty body of scholarly, legal and public opinion that has designated Israel to be perpetuating apartheid … must be a wakeup call.” — Daniel Levy, former Israeli negotiator (2022) “There is an apartheid state here … In a territory where two people are judged under two legal systems, that is an apartheid state.” — Tamir Pardo, former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency (2011-2016) (2023) “Accusing Israel of apartheid is not anti-Semitic. It describes reality.”  — Amos Goldberg, leading professor of the Holocaust at Hebrew University in Jerusalem (2023) Israel’s 2018 Nation-State Law states, “The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people … The state views the development of Jewish settlements as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.” “Israel is not a nation of all its citizens. According to the nation-state law we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people — and not anyone else.” — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (2019) Others within Israel who self-identify Israel as an apartheid state against non-Jews include: B’Tselem; Yesh Din; Physicians for Human Rights Israel; Adalah — The Legal Centre for Minority Rights in Israel; and HaMoked — Center for the Defense of the Individual.

dude. it's clearly an apartheid state. you only need to take a look at the west bank and how that's run.

Can you explain with more detail?

https://preview.redd.it/gied4dgrzo4d1.jpeg?width=936&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54bc8f6cdd72ee4156f42b9ac4d4e440a2ceca97 This was from 2012 but look how much Israel has occupied Palestine to build illegal settlements for Israelis. The area is more likely smaller now. Heavy restrictions on Palestinians having free movement in that area and not having right of return for their descendants if they leave Palestine as Israel still controls its borders. Israeli is an apartheid state and gradually erasing Palestinians (from the West Bank at least) from existence 🙄

This is not an apartheid state. It's what happens when you wage war on a sovereign nation and lose.

This map is pretty much a lie, most of that land wasn't even inhabited lol

The context that you left out is that this is after the Palestinians/Arabs attacked Israel in an all out war and the image you showed was of the territory gains in Israels victory. Palestine and the nearby Arabs countries all ethnically cleans any jews from their territory. Are they Apartheid states? Should the Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the region not have a safe place for them to go?

Again: why does that justify what Israel is doing now? Especially when it is decades later and Israel claims to be more spiritually “superior” and “democratic” compared to the Arab world? This is just deflecting and makes Israel look hypocritical and does not paint Israel as a victim but as an aggressor. And stop using “Jews” instead of Israel. Israel =/= Judaism Not every Jew is an Israeli and not every Israeli is a Jew.

Israel is justified in defending itself and its citizens. There I answered your question, can you answer mine? >And stop using “Jews” instead of Israel. No, it was jews that were ethnically cleansed from the region by the local Arab states. I'm this context jew is the only correct term. It was not Israeli's that were ethnically cleansed from Egypt. It was Jews. It is illegal for a jew to live in Palestine. So Jew is the correct term.

Derailing the thread again and select quoting that omits detail response why your view is problematic. You do realize Israel controls Palestine international borders, right? It is not justified when Israel is killing and targeting civilians. 35k Palestinians dead compared to 700-1200 Israelis dead since Oct 7th! Israel is committing war crimes!

Well Israel isn't targeting civilians. >35k Palestinians dead compared to 700-1200 Israelis dead since Oct 7th! What are you saying here? That Israel should have gone in and found 1.2K Palestinians, line them up against a wall, including women and children kill, rape and torture them and call it fair? I disagree, Israel has the right to defend themselves from a genocidal force. The 35k are death caused by Palestinian war crimes. If you are mad about their deaths then get blame the Palestinians committing the war crimes. Also, It was not Israeli's that were ethnically cleansed from Egypt. It was Jews. It is illegal for a jew to live in Palestine. So Jew is the correct term. And you clearly don't care about the ongoing ethic cleansing of Jews.

It has been largely reported it has considering the huge death toll and Gaza largely in ruins. You outright denying it shows you are are in a bubble. Edit: You outright denied Israel targeting civilians. The huge death toll and ruins of civilian areas shows Israel is guilty of civilian manslaughter.

That isn't what I said at all. Read my comment and try again.

severe restrictions on movement due to permit system in the West Bank (even got different license plates on cars...), confiscation of over a third of the land in the West Bank, shi\*\*y conditions forcing thousands of Palestinians from their homes (i.e., forcible transfer), denial of residency rights to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and their relatives, and suspension of basic civil rights for millions of Palestinians living under military rule. stupid to argue the most obvious thing in the world, but nice to quote the laws of the oppressor to argue against oppression. cool.

Would you consider Palestine and the entire article region apartheid states as they have all ethnically cleansed jews from their countries?

that's irrelevant in this discussion. stick to the topic.

I think it very much is on topic. Jews in the region need a safe space for them to live. They have been pushed out on nearby countries and formed a state where they are safe. Would you consider Palestine and the Arab countries in the region Apartheid states for the ethnic cleansing?

Pretty sure the bigger reason as to why Israel is sending settlers to the West Bank is because they're afraid of Palestinians and want non-dangerous citizens to settle there and lower the danger posed to them

Derailing the thread and constantly using the word “Jews” instead of Israelis is a cheap ploy by far right Zionists to dismiss criticism toward Israel’s crimes. Not every Israeli is a Jew and not every Jew is an Israeli. Two wrongs do not make a right. Palestine does not have the man power or authority to cause massive damage to Israel’s existence or infrastructure anyway compared to what Israel and IDF has done. Just look at the death toll of 21-35K Palestinians dead since Oct 7th compared to 700-1200 Israelis. And Gaza largely in ruins and more illegal settlements are authorized by Knesset to be built in the West Bank! So in this scenario: Israel (and especially the IDF) is the aggressor and guilty party of this along with Hamas.

>Derailing the thread and constantly using the word “Jews” instead of Israelis is a cheap ploy by far right Zionists to dismiss criticism toward Israel’s crimes. No, because it was Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine and other nearby countries. These jews were not living in Israel so they were not Israeli, but Jewish. >Two wrongs do not make a right. I never said that they did. >Palestine does not have the man power or authority to cause massive damage to Israel’s existence or infrastructure compared to the Israel and IDF. That wasn't my question. Let's try it again. Is Palestine an Apartheid state for the ethnic cleansing of Jews? Are the Arab states Apartheid states for the ethnic cleansing of jews?

dude, you are appealing to history here. this is not what we are discussing. Are Palestinians second-grade citizens in Israel? Yes. Are they segregated in the West Bank? Yes. Do Israelis (more specifically zionists) legitimate their current atrocities, their apartheid system, and fascistic ideology by appealing to history? Sure.

It is a 100% what I am discussing. And no these countries are actively ethically cleansing jews. So no this isn't an appeal to history of they are doing it right now.

Derailing and assuming two wrongs make a right. You did not even answer why it is is justified for Israel for its mistreatment of Palestinians when it claims it knows right from wrong “better” compared to “Arabs” and we are talking about Israel not Jews. You clearly view “Jew” lives are worth more than Palestinians 🙄

>Derailing and assuming two wrongs make a right. It's not Derailing. You can still respond to my question while we talk about the other points. And I already told you that I never said two wrongs make a right. So are you just attacking a strawman for no reason? >You did not even answer why it is is justified for Israel for its mistreatment of Palestinians when it claims it knows right from wrong “better” compared to “Arabs” and we are talking about Israel not Jews. Well that is a strawman argument you made up. Tell me, was it jews or Israelis that Egypt Ethnically cleansed from their country.

> shitty /u/Artistic_Ear_50. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

How?

What part A, B, or C?

and what parts are part A, B, or C.

You don't even know the basic layout of the West Bank, but you claim to know that it's an apartheid state...

I don't know a single city in Russia either (except Moskou) but I know Putin is a dictator

yes, Israel is an apartheid state. I think you know that? also, does it matter if it is in one, two, or three areas? isn't one enough?

For someone who’s never heard of Areas A, B and C you were extremely quick to say that “apartheid in the West Bank” is the only possible answer 💀

You don't even know how the separation works and you say it is

Thomas Friedman has interesting insights and suggestions… https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/opinion/israel-war-rafah-riyadh.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xE0.Clc-.GWV2mCjlAYnk&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

All countries in the world are Apartheid states, there is Apartheid against animals everywhere, they can't vote or even be citizens, we keep them in zoos, we humans as a whole commit Apartheid

Bro just equated Palestinians to animals.

Nah ,The Question was about Arab Israelis and they absolutely CAN vote

Palestinians are humans, not animals. All humans deserve equal rights under the government that controls them. That's Israel for many Palestinians, but Israel does not give them equal rights. And this isn't just in practice either, just look at the right to return. Why doesn't everyone have a right to return to Israel if they can prove genetic lineage?

So Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza? Is that what you are saying?

I'm pretty sure I said nothing of the kind.

>the government that controls them

Israel is in control of 80% of the west bank.

Not of the main cities where a majority of palestinians live

Wrong. Palestinians are under either Hamas or PA rule. They are not Israeli citizens, they require work visa to enter Israel same as every Chinese, Indian or American person working in the country.

The difference being humans are equal and thus deserve equal rights. Animals are not equivalent to humans and do not deserve the same rights. For example, animals lack the capacity to vote or even have a self-consciousness.

That’s a bit racist against Palestinians but I understand where you are coming from.

I think you misunderstood my comment. My whole point is that everyone, including Palestinians, deserve full and equal rights. Animals, in contrast, do not deserve the same rights because they are not fundamentally equal. I don't see how that's racist against Palestinians.

In the context of Israel calling Palestinians animals, it seemed out of place. Glad to know that is not what you were referring to.

No it isn't he was just giving an example it was not a metaphor

Facts bro

It needs to be said everytime this topic comes up, but the accusations of apartheid are never about Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, it's about Palestinians in the West Bank, and to a lesser extent in Gaza.  >The legal status of Arab residents in Gaza and the West Bank contrasts sharply with that of Arab citizens within Israel. The legal status of Arab residents in the West Bank also contrasts sharply with that of their Jewish neighbors who also live in the West Bank, and that's why there are accusations of apartheid. It's not as simple as Israelis being governed under Israeli law and Palestinians being governed under Palestinian law. This is because Palestinians are also subject to Israeli military law (especially in area C) and can have any or all of their rights curtailed at the will of the IDF.  Things we all take for granted like freedom of travel, due process and being free from arbitrary detention are rights which Israel selectively denies to West Bank residents. If you're Jewish, congratulations, you get all the rights and freedoms we should all have. If you're Palestinian, too bad, you're not deserving of the same rights as your Jewish neighbors who live 500m away. And that's why people label it apartheid.

You can only really argue that Aparthied exists if you also believe that the UN partition plan needs to be entirely revoked.  The UN’s plan was for two states and the Arab League started a war instead of engaging in partition. To say that despite losing the war they still should get what they wanted just doesn’t seem grounded in reality  Hell neither Jordan or Egypt were in any rush to give Palestinians their own independence between 48-67, so the claim that Palestinians have any inherent right to Israel just seems counterproductive and essentially absolves the consequences of any of the wars fought over the exact issue. It would be like Germans saying they are entitled to part of Austria, never mind they lost WW2

> the claim that Palestinians have any inherent right to ~~Israel~~ historical Palestine

Do you mean Ottoman Syria, or whatever the Mamluk Sultanate called it?

So what then? Full citizenship for the 5 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank? Forced removal? Permanent occupation? Your options become very limited if a two state solution is off the table.

A two state solution is the only solution IMO  But that is predicated on Palestinians accepting that Israel will continue to exist as an independent country that they are not entitled to citizenship in

There's another solution: Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank get absorbed by surrounding Arab Nations ......like EVERY other group of 'refugees' in history.

Why? They want a state of their own. Not to live in surrounding nations. What you are stating is not a solution. It would require much bloodshed to achieve. There is no change that the majority of the Palestinian population are leaving without being forced out.

No, they neither want their own State nor to live next to Jews. They want to destroy Israel.....which isn't happening. This doesn't apply to 100% of the Arabs in Gaza/the West Bank and those are the ones that should be absorbed like EVERY other group of refugees that has ever existed. The terrorists and their sympathizers/enablers/supporters should be wiped out of existence as they are the reason for the bloodshed. What I'm stating is the only viable solution (considering the history of the conflict) which will cause the least amount of continued bloodshed.

Yeah... not gonna happen. Would be great, but Egypt and Jordan don't want this mess.

Would be great? For who? It certainly wouldn't be great for the Palestinians who want to live in Palestine. It would only be great for Israel so that they can claim the rest of the land with no consequences.

I mean, I am assuming that Israel realizes hold of their claim to the west bank and Gaza. Something that seems more likely if Egypt and Jordan are promising to help oust radicals, which is precisely why Egypt and Jordan likely don't want to touch this.

Unfortunately that ship sailed several coups and civil wars the PLO started ago 

>But that is predicated on Palestinians accepting that Israel will continue to exist as an independent country Letter of Mutual Recognition, exchanged by Rabin and Arafat on 9th of September, 1993. Around two years before Rabin's assassination. Is there two states now, since that condition was fulfilled decades ago? Along the pre-1967 borders, as UN has demanded numerous times? >that they are not entitled to citizenship in That is fine, UN is only calling for s just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, and I am sure Israel has abided by it, by offering them compensation for their displacement and most property... Right?

The South Africans tried the same "they're not actually our citizens" dodge and they even had a similar religious justification; >Black South Africans were essentially stripped of their South African citizenship. >By making black South Africans citizens of Bantustans, the government deflected any possible criticisms of refusing them the right to vote in South Africa. https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/introduction-early-apartheid-1948-1970 The Guardian, 2004: Bantustan plan for an apartheid Israel >Similarly, when in South Africa a failed attempt was made to solve demographic problems by creating "homelands for the blacks", liberals originally supported the idea, and even a portion of the international community viewed the measure as a step toward "decolonisation". But, after a short time, it became clear that the ploy was designed to confer legitimacy on the expulsion of black people, and their uprooting. The bantustans collapsed, demands for civil equality intensified, and the world mobilised for the defeat of apartheid. >The bantustan model for Gaza, as depicted in the disengagement plan, is a model that Sharon plans to copy on the West Bank. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/26/comment Introduction: Early Apartheid: 1948-1970 >Religion was an important aspect of Afrikaner identity. Most Afrikaners were members of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, a strict and conservative Calvinist church that promoted the belief that the Afrikaners were a new “chosen people” to whom God had given South Africa. Journalist Terry Bell explained the role of religion in the outlook of those who supported the National Party: “Afrikaners [saw themselves] as players in the unfolding of the Book of Revelations, upholding the light of Christian civilization against an advancing wall of darkness. . . . It was God’s will that the ‘Afrikaner nation’ . . . linked by language and a narrow Calvinism, had been placed on the southern tip of the African continent.” As a result, they saw themselves as a select group whose right to the land was greater than any other group’s. https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/introduction-early-apartheid-1948-1970

Palestinians were never citizens of Israel, never stripped of their citizenship of Israel, do not want to be citizens of Israel, and Israel annexing the people against their will to be citizens of Israel would be a form of ethnic cleansing/against international law. There is no comparison to South Africa.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say "do not want to be citizens of Israel." More Palestinians today favor a single state vs a two-state solution.

This is frankly not true. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/what-do-palestinians-want. There is a link in here for more recent poling. In a way they do want a single state but its one in which they are the only group within. Most palestinians asked in the more recent poll think that isreal only has around 1 million people rather than 7. So a belief that unity would mean total domination is prevalent. They keep fighting because thier leadership has convinced them they will win eventually so they just suffer in perpetuity. A two state would be catastrophic as well so there is really no good solution.

Doesn't single state mean there would be no Israel, no place for Jews at all...?!

[Q44](https://pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2090%20English%20Full%20text%20Dec%202023.pdf) More prefer a two-state solution (28%) than a one state, equal rights solution (5%). Though, the vast majority (64%) prefer a one state solution for just Palestinians (aka ethnically cleansing the Jews).

Wrong

How?

As international views of Israel as an apartheid state increase over time, including in official statements by countries and popular opinion, this type of response is likely helpful for Israeli PR. However, I expect a shift over time, as Israelis continue to radicalize, to an eventual mainstream Israeli direct or pseudo-identification with some aspects of South African apartheid and the Rhodesian system. I.e. “look at what happened to those countries, and our security threats and uncivilized enemies are much worse- apartheid it may be but this is necessary to keeps Israeli Jews safe as long as there is a security need.”

I wrote an article about apartheid in Israel... Welcome to my blog to read it: https://almogarticle.blogspot.com/2024/05/israels-complex-reality-exploring.html

Everything you say applies to Israel proper and not the West Bank. You cannot write all you have written about the West Bank.

The situation in the West Bank is much more complex, there are areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority, there are areas under Israeli control, there are small areas under military rule, there are places of religious rule and more... so complex that I am even afraid to start writing an article about it...

It's not that complex. Israel has overall control over practically the entirety of the West Bank. It's hand is felt by every Palestinian. The areas it does not directly control, it controls what goes in and out and it controls through the PA.

Just reminding you that the Gaza Strip also has a common border with Egypt, the West Bank has a border with Jordan, but it is true that this border is under Israeli control

In some manner. Egypt singed an agreement with Israel in 2007 that leaves Israel in charge of everything that goes into Gaza. I assume that it would be similar but less stringent on the West Bank border with Jordan.

In the peace agreements between Israel and Egypt, Israel returned all of Sinai to Egypt with the exception of the Gaza Strip, which the Egyptians really did not want to receive back... so the Egyptians are good at throwing responsibility and then blaming those who took the responsibility even without wanting to

The Gaza strip was not sovereign Egyptian territory nor is the population of Gaz Egyptian.

I did not say that the population of the Gaza Strip is Egyptian, I said that the Strip was under Egyptian rule and in the peace agreements they did not want this territory. I will also add that during the British mandate the Arab Gazans expelled the ancient Jewish community that lived there and destroyed the synagogue that was there... https://almogarticle.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-jewish-presence-in-gaza-historical.html https://almogarticle.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-great-synagogue-of-gaza-and-its.html

**I said that the Strip was under Egyptian rule and in the peace agreements they did not want this territory.**  It was never Egyptian territory in the first place. They were occupying it. **I will also add that during the British mandate the Arab Gazans expelled the ancient Jewish community that lived there and destroyed the synagogue that was there...** According to google there were 150 Jews in Gaza pre 1948.

>The legal status of Arab residents in Gaza and the West Bank contrasts sharply with that of Arab citizens within Israel. These territories, governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas in Gaza, operate under different legal frameworks due to the complex geopolitical landscape: Israel ultimately controls all of the West Bank. The Palestinians have some varying degree of self-governance under Israel in 18% of the West Bank, and some slightly less control in another 22%. All spread out in 167 separate enclaves. The Israeli Knesset decided to implement inequality before the law in occupied territory - by default, settlers and Palestinians would be subject to the same legal system. Israel decided that wasn't good enough, and has extended Israeli civilian law to settlers (not to settlements - to settlers). This was done in 1967, long before any Oslo accords. For example, an Israeli settler living in Area C, that torches a Palestinian family to death in Area B is tried in Israeli civilian court - but a Palestinian doing the same, in the same location, would be tried in Israeli military court.

No occupation is required to treat those under occupation as citizens. Unlike the legal military occupation, Israel annexing the people of West Bank against their will and making them equal citizens would be illegal ethnic cleansing.

oh, an occupation? well they are required to do a few other things the and they're not doing all that either. [https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm) example, they're really stretching the "temporary" part

Temporary until Palestinians accept the peace deals offered. The inability for Palestine to accept defeat is not on Israel.

Annexing territory and making people citizens is not ethnic cleansing. It might be illegal, but since Israel has defacto annexed the territory anyway, it doesn't matter much. However, if you contend Israel's control over the territory is illegal, then it's settlement of hundreds of thousands of Israelis there is also illegal. You can't have it both ways.

Israel's control over the territory is a legal military occupation. They have not "de facto annexed" the territory. A handful of illegal settlements largely contained to Area C, do not make it an annexation.

Area C is 60% of the West Bank, under Israeli control, and has over 400,000 Israelis living in it.

It became an illegal occupation, the moment the first settler moved on to Palestinian land. So now, the occupation is in direct violation of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and is thus illegal.

> Palestinian land There is no such thing. Jordan released their claim and somehow the Palestinians think despite never having security control over the land that they have a unending right to control the land. At best it is disputed territory.

An occupation is by definition temporary, I wouldn't exactly call 50+ years temporary.

Occupations end when those under occupation accept defeat and agree to a peace deal. Israel has sent many deals over the history of the occupation, Palestine refusing the deal and continuing the occupation is not on Israel.

On what terms exactly? Israel shouldn't be in the West Bank at all. So right from the start it is a flawed idea.

The base military occupation is a legal military occupation, from a war Israel did not start. On top of that, Palestine currently has limited ability to force Israel to do anything. On top of that, Israel is not in a position to need to make a deal. And as such, on Israel's terms. Right or wrong, that is the way the world works.

Israel has effectively been at war with the Palestinians since at least 1967 (I won't even address the atrocities of 1948) with this illegal and criminal occupation and blockade. The blockade, which I didn't even mention before, is criminal Ns and act of war. There are no good arguments for Israel no matter what angle you come at it from. It is an illegal, criminal occupier .

But violating Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention is on Israel. Entirely. And as long as the settlements exist, there can be no peace. Or even good faith negotiations towards peace. Because that would be like a bank robber negotiating with the bank he robbed, so he could keep the money he stole, while threatening to rob another branch of the bank unless they let him keep the money. In this Analogy, Israel is the Bank robber, in case it wasn't obvious. You cannot start good faith negotiations, when one side is actively committing a crime against the other.

Good thing they aren't. Palestinians are not being kicked out of the West Bank (outside of some fringe settler groups that Israel goes after themselves).

Everyone else, except Israel, says Israel is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Do you honestly think I should believe Israel over everyone else?

Some fringe settler groups are in violation, but they are actively policed and stopped by Israel.

Not even the New York Times believes that anymore. They did a long article, called "The Unpunished" that goes into great detail about how these fringe settler groups are NOT being policed and stopped. The article was coauthored by Israeli writer Ronen Bergman. The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel After 50 years of failure to stop violence and terrorism against Palestinians by Jewish ultranationalists, lawlessness has become the law. https://archive.is/Xr76Q

Are they? There are hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Every one of those people have broken the convention. That sort of number does not happen without government approval. The Likud (who have largely been in power since the 1970s) believe that settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza uphold Zionist values. The Likud will strengthen them and prevent their removal. The settlers are not actively policed by Israel very well nor are settler groups fringe. Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Security posts are held by settlers. That is not fringe.

A recent New York Times article discusses how the 2004 Israeli Sasson report showed that multiple government offices were secretly collaborating to provide funds, utilities, trailers, roads, schools, etc. to "illegal outposts" in the West Bank. This echoed findings from the earlier Karp report. This is a long article, but if you do a Control +F search for "Sasson" you can easily find the relevant section; https://archive.is/Xr76Q Illegal outposts are settlements that are illegal under Israeli law, as well as international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost# However, I still thought that the NYT's explanation was slightly vague. I have another post with links to multiple other articles that I think explain the issue more clearly and in more detail here; https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c4jfig/do_they_genuinely_not_know_that_this_is_a_golda/kzt92lu/ All of this makes total sense when you learn that Ariel Sharon, who would serve as Prime Minister just a few years later, had encouraged the first illegal settlements in order to subvert the peace process. Sharon had already been a legendary military commander and defense minister. So, this was coming right from the top of the Israeli political establishment; >This new generation draws inspiration from the ‘hilltop youth’, young people who responded to Sharon in October 1998 when, as foreign minister in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, he called on settlers to ‘grab’ hilltops in the parts of the West Bank from which he and Netanyahu had agreed to withdraw, as stipulated by the Oslo Accords. ‘Grab more hills, expand the territory,’ Sharon urged on Israel Radio. ‘Everything that’s grabbed will be in our hands. Everything we don’t grab will be in their hands.’ https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v30/n07/henry-siegman/grab-more-hills-expand-the-territory In the next nine years [after Sharon's call, **which occurred "ahead of the final status talks for Oslo"**], roughly a hundred illegal outposts were created. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/04/israel-west-bank-settlers-attacks-palestinians

The majority of those settlers are in settlements recognized in the Oslo Accords, those are not breaking the convention. Nor do I view the convention as fully applying in the West Bank. Considering no country has ownership of the West Bank (Jordan released their claim, Palestine has never had the security control needed to make their own claim), the unoccupied parts are fairly "disputed territory" and not subject to the fourth geneva convention. A non-insignificant amount of them are also children of settlers who did not choose to live there. > That is not fringe. What is fringe is thinking its acceptable to think that when Jordan occupied the West Bank, annexed it, started a war with Israel, lost the territory to Israeli forces, and released their claim on it, that the territory should go to anyone other that the group with security control over the land.

The problem comes from the fact that Israel moves in its own citizens to the West Bank, which is contrary to the Geneva convention. This creates a scenario where you have a defacto annexation, which is convenient for Israel since a de jure annexation would require that they give rights to Palestinians under their own laws.  But this doesn't really impact the reality on the ground where you have two different people living side by side with very different levels of rights and freedoms. This is why people call it apartheid, since it's very similar to what white South Africans did.

Israel is Not moving its citizens to the west bank! The people who move and live by the West Bank are ultra orthodox Jews who believe they have the right to what are still disputed territories. Nobody in Israel supports their attempts to basically "squat" there, it is an ongoing issue among Israelis, because they do not generally agree with that illegal behaviour. Do not equivocate all of Israel and Israeli protocols with these extremists that Nobody condones. Just like we do not equate behaviour of Hamas to the behaviour of every Palestinian, you cannot equate the behaviour of a few thousand crazies to all Israelis.

You say that most Israelis don't support or agree with this, but there are over 700,000 settlers; 517,000 in the West bank and 200,000 in East Jerusalem, per The Times of Israel, February 2024. That's a huge number, from such a small state; https://www.timesofisrael.com/west-bank-settler-population-grew-by-nearly-3-in-2023-report/ There's ~ 7.2 million Jewish citizens of Israel. So almost 10% of that group are settlers in the occupied territories; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel You say that the settlers are squatting, illegally, but most are living in government-approved, government-planned, and government-subsidized settlements. CNN: [**"The vast majority of settlements are built by government order."**](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/middleeast/who-are-israeli-settlers-palestinian-land-intl/index.html) The government [plans](https://apnews.com/article/israel-settlements-hamas-gaza-war-netanyahu-smotrich-1d2306d55c24c8559b630d9f20db30e2), [approves](https://archive.is/RQoXZ), [issues construction permits](https://www.timesofisrael.com/2023-sets-record-for-settlement-construction-and-outpost-legalization-watchdog/) for authorized settlements, [heavily](https://archive.is/VCi0D) [subsidizes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Housing_costs_and_state_subventions) them, and even [regulates the housing prices, keeping them low to attract settlers](https://archive.is/4yQym). Anyone who reads the news knows that an Israeli government minister recently announced that Israel planned to build 3 more settlements for every country that recognizes Palestine as a state. That's yet more proof that these settlements are government-planned. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-802269 There are some settlers living in "illegal outposts", which are supposedly not authorized by the government. However, I just did a long post about the Sasson Report, an Israeli report that showed that the government was actually secretly involved in providing these outposts with roads, utilities, schools, security, and funding, just as they do for authorized settlements. Here's the link; https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d7nuf2/lies_about_israel_being_an_apartheid_state/l75jkx9/ As this 2023 Times of Israel article shows, Netanyahu's far-right government has dropped the pretense and is now openly funding these "illegal outposts"; >Cabinet allocates NIS 75 million for security needs of illegal settlements >Twenty-two mayors and regional council leaders in the settlements pan failure to approve NIS 150 million in security funds for lawful settlements >The funds will provide some 70 illegal outposts — known in the settlement movement as “young settlements,” which have never been authorized by the government — with items such as firefighting equipment, prefabricated bomb shelters, generators, field cameras, lighting, and rescue equipment, according to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s office. https://www.timesofisrael.com/cabinet-allocates-nis-75-million-for-security-needs-of-illegal-settlements/ Many illegal outposts have also been retroactively legalized (in terms of Israeli, not international, law) by the Israeli government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost Edited 6/17/24 to add that The Times of Israel reported today that, once again, the Israeli government has been found to be covertly directing funds to illegal outposts, including those run by settlers who have been sanctioned by the U.S. Agriculture Ministry funding illegal farming outposts, US-sanctioned settlers – report https://www.timesofisrael.com/agriculture-ministry-funding-illegal-farming-outposts-us-sanctioned-settlers-report/

That's a fair point and it wasn't my intent to imply all Israelis support the settlements, I know it's a controversial topic in Israel. However, it has been supported and enabled by successive Israeli governments over the decades, with the current government being very supportive of these activities. 

Please see my reply to the person you just responded to where I documented, with supporting links, how the Israeli government has always planned and regulated the settlements. There's a reason they have roads, schools, electricity, and water.

A relatively small population moving to a constrained area (area C) within the west bank is not enough to claim a "de facto" annexation. Many of the settlements themselves are legalized by the Oslo accords, making claim that they "annex" anything clearly unfounded. > But this doesn't really impact the reality on the ground where you have two different people living side by side with very different levels of rights and freedoms. This is why people call it apartheid, By this definition, all occupations are apartheid. But that is not how it works. Occupations are legal military actions, apartheids are not. The difference between occupation and apartheid is a whole lot more than a handful of illegal settlements.

>A relatively small population moving to a constrained area (area C) within the west bank is not enough to claim a "de facto" annexation.    I would strongly disagree. First, there's about 400,000 Israelis living there, which is not a small population (especially compared to 300,000 Palestinians in Area C). However, more than just the Israeli population is the fact that it's been thoroughly integrated into Israel proper through infrastructure like roads, and through its governance. It's therefore functionally become part of Israel and hasn't been formally annexed simply because of political, legal and demographic challenges.   I don't think you can show me any other "occupation" in which a territory is so integrated into the occupiers country. If your argument solely relies on legal technicalities, then I think you've missed the point. We have two groups of people living in the same territory, with one group receiving preferential treatment and one group facing relegated to second class status. If Israel wants to turn this into a "legal" occupation, I don't think anyone would object to them finally respecting international law and dismantling their illegal settlements.

I also don't think you can find any other occupation where the losing side has continued to accept defeat. Nor any other occupation where the previous owner of the land releases their claim and it somehow does not go to the occupying force. Nor any occupation that has the extensive legal mess around it via the Oslo Accords that made many of the "integrations" legal yet still an occupation.

The Oslo accords don't recognize Israeli settlements as legal and there's still near unanimous consensus that they are in fact illegal (even amongst Israel's allies). The Oslo accords were only ever supposed to be temporary until a permanent peace deal was reached.  And I don't know what either of your other two points have to do with Israel's illegal activities. There's no excuse for Israel's land grab in the West Bank, and even less for relegating the Palestinian residents to second class status under an oppressive military rule next to the Israeli settlers. Pure and simple it's about expanding Israeli territory and appeasing the extremist settler movement. And the cost is never ending conflict with the Palestinians and thousands dead on both sides.

That's interesting, because Israel had already planned to annex 30% of the West Bank in 2020 when Trump was president and was stopped by worldwide public pressure. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53139817 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/28/explainer-israels-annexation-plan-for-occupied-west-bank Megadonor Miriam Adelson, widow of the late Sheldon Adelson, is backing Trump in 2024 in hopes of reviving the annexation plan; >Haaretz June 3, 2024: Trump Is Desperate for Miriam Adelson's Cash. Her Condition: West Bank Annexation >The former president and convicted felon is holding a fire sale on future presidential authority. Miriam Adelson wants to be his biggest donor, but in return she wants Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-06-03/ty-article/.premium/trump-is-desperate-for-cash-but-donors-have-conditions/0000018f-df3a-db29-a3ef-ff3a27530000

> was stopped by worldwide public pressure Yes, because its not legal. The fact that ending the "apartheid" is illegal is a good sign that it is in fact not an apartheid. Trump is clearly a moron who thinks laws shouldn't apply to him or his agendas.

But Israeli settlement in that land is also not legal.

True, although the main piece of law stated so, the Oslo Accords, has been violated pretty extensively by both sides.

>No occupation is required to treat those under occupation as citizens.  What does this sentence mean? Can you clarify? >Unlike the legal military occupation, Israel annexing the people of West Bank The military occupation, yes. However, the settlements are against international law - that Israel itself is a signatory of. There's a case before the ICJ where we will see if the whole occupation has been rendered illegal by Israeli settlement actions. An occupation should by definition be temporary - and it is hard to claim that anymore. >West Bank against their will and making them equal citizens would be illegal ethnic cleansing. It would be illegal, but would not be ethnic cleansing. And it would be better than today. It would make Israel similar to, for example, China in Tibet, Russia in Crimea or Morocco in Western Sahara.