Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
1. The OP continued:
Wed Aug 24, 2016, 07:07 AM
Aug 2016

The most important difference between the occupation and apartheid is duration. For two-state Zionists, the status quo in the West Bank is temporary, and thus cannot be truly analogized to apartheid, which was intended to be permanent. (Of course, the occupation has now lasted 49 years, beginning to approach the 66 years of apartheid.) The occupation is unjust, but it is meant to come to an end once both sides’ concerns about security, borders, autonomy, water, justice and so on are addressed. And of course, as to why that hasn’t happened, there’s blame enough to go around on all sides.

But for the 42% of Israelis who no longer believe in two states, the status quo must be regarded as the permanent status (omitting the even more shocking “policy” of population transfer, aka ethnic cleansing). Thus we must ask anew what, if anything, differentiates the occupation from apartheid.

Like the current system in Israel, apartheid regarded black South Africans as citizens not of South Africa proper, but of “Bantustans,” 10 homelands scattered across South African territory. Since blacks were citizens of these Bantustans, they didn’t vote in South African elections. There were heavy restrictions on movement and land ownership. And the nominal autonomy of these Bantustans couldn’t disguise the brutal disenfranchisement and segregation that they represented.

These aspects are not so different from life under permanent occupation. Nominal citizenship in another country — indeed, one recognized by the United Nations — but a country without some of the most basic components of statehood, like territorial integrity, self-defense and free movement. Even within nominally autonomous “Palestine,” ultimately the Israeli military holds sovereignty. It can go wherever it wants, regulate travel, allocate resources. While Palestine governs itself from day to day, in cases of conflict the Israeli military holds nearly all the power even in areas of supposed Palestinian autonomy — let alone the vast swaths of the West Bank under full Israeli control.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The OP continued: Little Tich Aug 2016 #1
Because the Palestinians in the occupied territory aren't officially israeli citizens. DetlefK Aug 2016 #2
That's what I call it.. Glamrock Aug 2016 #3
Silly article. The Palestinians could've agreed to their own state many times over the decades.... shira Aug 2016 #4
So would it be more correct to call it a temporary state of Apartheid that has existed for almost 50 Little Tich Aug 2016 #5
It's not Apartheid. We've been over this but you're pretending we didn't. n/t shira Aug 2016 #7
Let's look at the validity of the Apartheid analogy one more time just for the fun of it: Little Tich Aug 2016 #10
A pseudo-academic study written by 1-state advocates, not neutral academics. shira Aug 2016 #11
Oh, what the heck - here's another from Human Rights Watch: Little Tich Aug 2016 #12
And yet, HRW doesn't call it Apartheid. Go figure... n/t shira Aug 2016 #13
They're just describing the "separate but unequal" political "two tier system" that discriminates Little Tich Aug 2016 #14
You should ask HRW why they refrain from using the term 'Apartheid'. shira Aug 2016 #17
Because all Israeli citizens have the same rights regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity oberliner Aug 2016 #6
The OP is about the West Bank, not Israel. n/t Little Tich Aug 2016 #9
No it's not oberliner Aug 2016 #15
Are you using the Chewbacca defense? n/t Little Tich Aug 2016 #16
This message was self-deleted by its author Little Tich Aug 2016 #8
because an occupation between belligerent parties ericson00 Aug 2016 #18
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»If Israel’s Occupation Is...»Reply #1