One-line rebuttal
Apartheid is a legal system of institutionalized racial domination. Israel has none: its ~20% Arab citizens vote, sit in the Knesset and Supreme Court, and serve as mayors, officers, and doctors. Even Benjamin Pogrund — who lived and fought South African apartheid — says the label doesn’t fit.
Core points
- Citizenship test. Arab Israelis are full citizens: MKs, an Arab Supreme Court justice (Salim Joubran, who jailed both a PM and a President), mayors, generals, physicians.
- Definition. Apartheid (Rome Statute) = institutionalized racial domination by one group over another. Israel has no race-based legal code.
- The witness. Pogrund, a South African anti-apartheid journalist, rejects the analogy (Haaretz, below).
- West Bank ≠ apartheid. Separate systems there track citizenship and security under the Oslo framework (Areas A/B/C) — Palestinians are governed by the PA — not ethnicity. → West Bank · Occupation
- Projection. The actual apartheid is the Arab world’s: statelessness by design (Arab League Res. 1457), “Jew-free” demands, and Hamas rule. → Population Transfer
📖 The real “apartheid” is gender, and it isn’t in Israel — What Justice Demands (Elan Journo, Ch.1)
Israel: women are ~50% of judges and lawyers, 4 Supreme Court justices (one the Chief Justice), and 90% of IDF roles are open to them — they pilot fighter jets. In Saudi Arabia women were long banned from driving; across the region “honor” killings draw as little as 3 years. If you want to see institutionalized, legally-mandated discrimination by group, look at the Arab states, not Israel. → What Justice Demands
The NGO Apartheid Campaign » ngomonitor
s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/files.yesh-din.org/Apartheid+2020/Apartheid+ENG.pdf
- Other Arab states don’t want Palestinians
- Egypt
- Jordan
- Why_Egypt_and_Other_States_Are_Wary_of_Taking_in_Refugees_as_Gaza_Problems_Mount.pdf (file not included in this release)
- Egypt
- Hamas praises Egypt for not opening border
Why Israel Is Not an Apartheid State, Despite What You Are Hearing - Opinion - Haaretz.com
In this addendum, Pogrund acknowledged that the race-based discrimination he intimately experienced and bravely decried as a journalist in South Africa doesn’t exist in Israel.
After acknowledging that Israel doesn’t parallel apartheid-era South Africa, Pogrund attempts to delineate a distinct “Israeli apartheid” that diverges from the South African archetype. Engaging with such labels is not merely perilous for Israel, as Pogrund is undoubtedly aware, but it also imperils the entirety of the democracy movement.
The core inaccuracy of the apartheid analogy renders it ineffective in providing a substantive analysis of the primary drivers behind the conflict, as well as viable processes for its resolution. Particularly in the past two decades, the analogy and its associated boycott campaign have demonstrated a lamentable lack of success.
The comparison has not safeguarded any Palestinians, hindered settlement construction, or facilitated constructive dialogue. Instead, it has exacerbated antisemitic violence against Jewish communities in the diaspora.
For those earnestly dedicated to fostering peace between Israelis and Palestinians, this analogy only serves to complicate matters. It obscures the genuine challenges that have so far obstructed a negotiated and peaceful settlement to this multidimensional conflict.
Such obstructions will hardly register as concerns for the likes of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Iranian regime that supports them, or even the extremist factions within the Israeli government. These groups possess a vested interest in perpetuating the conflict. Notably, the worldwide Boycott, Divestment Sanctions movement, known as BDS, as a collective, has shunned Pogrund for decades, yet now they are selectively quoting him ad-nauseum, as if his views have always aligned with their own.
Stateless Citizenship of Palestinian-Arabs
(Studies in Critical Social Sciences) Shourideh C. Molavi - Stateless Citizenship_ The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel-BRILL (2013).pdf
Please summarize
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
“Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel” by Shourideh C. Molavi provides an in-depth analysis of the paradoxical status of Palestinian-Arabs in Israel. It highlights how the Israeli incorporation regime, shaped by Zionist ideology, favors Jews and systematically discriminates against non-Jewish inhabitants, including Palestinian-Arabs. Palestinian citizens of Israel, despite holding Israeli citizenship, face exclusion due to not having a Jewish national identity. This exclusion manifests in various forms, such as denial of national-membership and state identification, as Israel self-defines as a Jewish state. Palestinian-Arabs in Israel are in a unique position where they are simultaneously part of and alienated from both the Israeli state and the broader Palestinian population.
The book examines citizenship as a critical concept that intersects with identity and law, forming the basis of inclusion and exclusion within a state. It argues that Israeli citizenship for Palestinian-Arabs is a form of “stateless citizenship.” This term encapsulates the paradox where inclusion in the Israeli citizenship regime coincides with multifaceted exclusion. Palestinian-Arabs are deemed stateless through the very mechanism of their inclusion – Israeli citizenship. This concept of “stateless citizenship” provides a framework to understand the complex dynamics of existence, non-existence, representation, and non-representation experienced by Palestinian-Arabs in Israel.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/AEdFTp7wmO2RbIn-h8WHpd_0cRjPFFuPc3bWfHJc2eOp=s96-c
You
How would you argue against this?
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Arguing against the perspective presented in “Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel” by Shourideh C. Molavi would involve challenging several key assertions and underlying assumptions in the book. Here are some potential counterarguments:
- Alternative Interpretations of Citizenship and National Identity: One could argue that the concept of “stateless citizenship” as applied to Palestinian-Arabs in Israel is an oversimplification. Instead, their citizenship could be viewed through the lens of a complex, multi-layered identity, where Palestinian-Arabs are both Israeli citizens and part of the broader Arab world. This perspective acknowledges the challenges but also recognizes the unique identity and rights that come with Israeli citizenship.
- Socio-Political Context: The book’s critique might be seen as overlooking the broader socio-political context in the Middle East, including the history of conflict and security concerns in the region. A counterargument might emphasize the necessity of certain policies for national security, suggesting that these measures are not primarily driven by ethnic or religious discrimination but by the pragmatic realities of maintaining state security in a volatile region.
- Comparative Analysis: One could draw comparisons with other countries, pointing out that many nations prioritize certain groups or individuals in their citizenship laws and social policies. This approach would argue that Israel’s policies are not exceptional but rather in line with global practices where states often balance between universalistic principles of citizenship and particularistic national, cultural, or historical considerations.
- Internal Diversity and Rights: The argument could be made that Palestinian-Arabs in Israel enjoy more rights and freedoms compared to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries or regions under Palestinian Authority or Hamas control. This point of view would focus on the democratic aspects of Israel, such as freedom of speech, political participation, and legal protections, which are available to all citizens, including Palestinian-Arabs.
- Progress and Integration: Contrasting the book’s focus on exclusion, an alternative viewpoint might highlight the progress and integration of Palestinian-Arabs into Israeli society. This could include their participation in various aspects of public life, such as politics, academia, and the economy, suggesting a more nuanced picture of their status in Israel.
- Questioning the Ideological Framework: Finally, one might challenge the ideological lens through which the book views Israeli society and policy, suggesting that it might be overly influenced by certain political or ideological perspectives that do not fully capture the complexity of Israeli democracy and its approach to minority rights.
Each of these counterarguments would require substantial evidence and nuanced analysis to effectively challenge the perspectives presented in Molavi’s book.
“Israel is an apartheid State.”
I honestly think people who say this either hate Israel or Jews, or they’ve never actually been to Israel. Anyone who has been here would disagree with that claim. It’s usually people who have zero political knowledge who are spouting this nonsense online, so I will try to clear it up.
- For starters, 20% of Israel’s population is Arab, and they have the same rights as Jews. Many Arabs hold positions of power. There’s even an Islamist party in the Knesset and multiple Arab members in our government. Palestinians in Israel have the same opportunities as Jews. They are lawyers, ambassadors, judges, college professors, business owners, doctors etc. Arabs are also not forced to serve in the IDF or pay Jizya in Israel like Jews are in Muslim countries. In contrast, in the Palestinian territory, there are no Jews present or in positions of power. Jews would likely face be killed or imprisoned if they were to step one foot there.
In Israel, everyone has rights and opportunities. It’s not like an apartheid state. If anything, Israel is a democratic state with laws that protect against discrimination. No matter your background—Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Mexican, Chinese, Cambodian, African, whatever—you won’t be discriminated against because the laws in Israel protect everyone. The Palestinians who are suffering aren’t suffering because of Israel; they are suffering under Hamas and corrupt Palestinian leaders.
True apartheid was seen in South Africa. During apartheid there, blacks and whites were completely segregated, living in different neighborhoods. Black people were often servants for whites, faced extreme oppression, and were even killed. They didn’t have the same rights as white people and were considered inferior.
As for the Jewish community in Arab countries: There used to be large Jewish populations: 265,000 in Morocco, 55,000 in Yemen, 150,000 in Iraq, 140,000 in Algeria, 75,000 in Egypt, and 40,000 in Syria. Today, there are fewer than 200 Jews left in each of these countries because they were expelled, massacred, or forced to leave by Arab Muslims. This is a clear example of ethnic cleansing and Apartheid.
Israel is the least “apartheid” country in the Middle East and North Africa. Arab Israelis enjoy more freedoms than most Arabs in any Arab country.
Son of Hamas:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/M6WiFa5SHn
Arab Israelis:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/WN5J3my6c4
Lebanon:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/16/palestinians-in-lebanon-its-like-living-in-a-prison
Syria:
France:
https://www.thejc.com/news/world/french-parliament-says-israel-is-not-apartheid-state-diallenp
Israel isn’t a perfect state or country (however you want to call it) but if you support democracy, freedom of speech, human rights, LGBTQ rights, and other civil liberties, then you should support Israel within the context of the Middle East. If you don’t, then you simply hate Jews or Israel because Israel embodies all these values and rights.
They say “Israel is apartheid” because they’re just parroting someone who heard it from someone else who heard it from someone else, etc. and the meaning got lost in a game of telephone. It’s more accurate to say they’re trying to claim that “parts of the West Bank are apartheid”. And even here, I think they’re just being hyperbolic, as usual, and it’s really just a condemnation of occupation (a whole other nonsense argument).
But let’s take them at their word and analyze the West Bank for apartheid:
- It’d be difficult to convince me that zone A in the West Bank is considered apartheid because it’s under PA control and 0 Israeli citizens live there.
- Zone B is closer, I guess, because of mixed control where PA, but the PA still controls civil affairs per the Oslo Accords.
- Zone C is even closer because it’s under full Israeli control and both Palestinians and Israeli’s live under its control. The strongest argument likely lies in Zone C, so let’s look at it.
I’m going to use the Rome Statute, Article 7(2)(h)‘s definition of apartheid:
“The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
Elements:
-
Institutionalized Regime of Systematic Oppression and Domination
a. A regime or system must be in place that systematically oppresses and dominates one racial group by another.
b. This regime must be institutionalized, meaning it is established and maintained through laws, policies, and practices.
-
Inhumane Acts
a. Inhumane acts that are committed as part of this regime include:
i. Murder
ii. Serious bodily or mental harm
iii. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment
iv. Deliberate imposition of living conditions intended to destroy the group
v. Prevention of participation in political, social, economic, and cultural life
vi. Division of the population along racial lines
vii. Exploitation of labor
viii. Persecution of opposition
-
Intent to Maintain the Regime
a. The acts must be committed with the intention of maintaining the regime of oppression and domination.
b. This includes legislative measures, policies, and actions that ensure the continuation of the regime.
While I could go on much longer, let’s just focus on in the “inhumane acts” portion and compare it to South Africa,. bearing in mind that these acts must be done with intent to maintain oppression and subjugation.
- Murder: The relative scales are similar, but those “murders” are a result of security concern of combatting terrorism and security threats. This is different than South Africa’s murdering of political activists and protestors as a matter of systematic policy.
- Serious Bodily or Mental Harm: While Israel is accused of poor treatment of prisoners, again, the reason they are imprisoned is not because of who they are or where they were born, but that they pose a security threat. South Africa imprisoned and tortured people simply to maintain racial oppression at a much larger scale.
- Arbitrary Arrest and Imprisonment: Outside of isolated cases, the strongest point of contention here is likely to be administrative detention. But I would remind people that people detained under administrative detention have to have judicial reviews every 90 days and Israel is far from the only country that does this. And again, this is wildly different in character from the arbitrary and widespread arrests that South Africa carried out based on racial policy.
- Deliberate Imposition of Living Conditions Intended to Destroy the Group: Critics would likely point to home demolition, which is another branch that could warrant a lengthy post discussing. Suffice it to say, potentially thousands of displaced people in West Gaza is not the same qualitatively or quantitatively as the millions displaced in South Africa.
- Prevention of Participation in Political, Social, Economic, and Cultural Life: There’s strong evidence here because the PA does not operate in zone C; however, I’d suggest this to be no different than a military occupying power exerting authority over non-citizens in contested territory. They aren’t excluded because of their race, they’re excluded because they’re not Israeli citizens.
- Division of the Population Along Racial Lines: Again, Israel’s actions here are rooted in security concerns and Israeli citizens vs non-Israeli citizens and a far cry from the level and scale of the division found in South Africa.
- Exploitation of Labor: There’s no forced labor in Israel, and to the extent some might technically exist somewhere, it’s not anywhere close to the scale of the migrant farms and mines in South Africa.
- Persecution of Opposition: Israel has a problem with political leaders who commit terrorism, not leaders who advocate and maintain peace. Whatever harassment or restrictions on Palestinian activists or NGO’s is rooted in security concerns, not racial supremacy.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading. To be clear, these are arguments that I’m asserting. I’m open to be persuaded based on evidence and reasoning of these points. I’m also not an expert, I don’t claim to be one, this is just what I believe based on my ongoing research.
But I’m so very tired of the debate just being “YES IT IS” vs “NO ITS NOT” and who can yell the loudest…
Benny Morris on Apartheid
- Similar but different
- Benny Morris: An Apartheid State?, Judicial Overhaul, Gaza Occupation and other matters - YouTube
In the recent Comedy Cellar podcast co-hosted by Coleman Hughes, Benny Morris clarified his position on whether Israel is an apartheid state. Morris stated that Israel itself is not an apartheid state within its pre-1967 borders, where Arab citizens have full voting rights, participate in parliament, and enjoy civil liberties. However, he described the situation in the West Bank differently:
-
West Bank Governance: Morris argued that the Israeli rule over the roughly three million Palestinians in the West Bank can be characterized as an apartheid-like regime. He emphasized that this is not based on race, as in the South African case, but rather on a nationalistic distinction, where one nation (Israelis) dominates another (Palestinians), leading to separate legal systems, movement restrictions, and a lack of political rights for Palestinians.
-
Historical Context: He noted that this arrangement emerged after the 1967 Six-Day War, which he claimed began as a defensive measure after Jordanian aggression. He acknowledged that many Israelis initially saw the occupation as temporary, but over time, this has shifted into a more permanent situation, leading to the current reality.
-
Critique of the ‘Apartheid’ Label: Morris has previously criticized Amnesty International for using the term “apartheid” to describe Israel, arguing that it misleads Western audiences by invoking racial connotations that don’t fit the Israeli-Palestinian context. However, he has recently joined a group of over 1,000 academics and artists in signing an open letter that described the West Bank’s governance as apartheid, reflecting his concern over recent political shifts in Israel, including proposed judicial reforms.
-
Potential for Escalation: Morris expressed concerns that the current Israeli government’s policies are empowering settlers, increasing violence, and potentially moving the situation closer to a more entrenched apartheid-like system, which he fears could become irreversible.
Overall, Morris’s position reflects a nuanced view, distinguishing between Israel proper and the territories it occupies, emphasizing the need for precise language when describing complex political realities.