The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Mission to Israel Part V: There Is No "Apartheid"
When I tell Israelis that American students think they are like South Africa, they are shocked.
[This is the fifth post in my series on my mission to Israel. You can read Parts I, II, III, and IV.]
Perhaps one of the most effective marketing campaigns against Israel has been to dub the nation as an "Apartheid State." Apartheid, like Jim Crow, is something that students learn is evil and must not be repeated. When I tell Israelis that American students think they are like South Africa, they are shocked.
Here, let me run through several things that I learned during my trip.
First, on my United flight from Newark to Tel Aviv, I estimated that about 30% of the passengers were speaking Arabic. Muslim women wearing hijabs, were sitting next to Jewish men wearing yarmulkas. And no one batted an eye. When you arrive at customs in Ben Gurion Airport, people with passports from the United States and the Palestinian Authority wait on the same line. (In line, I was behind a mom and college-age son with Palestinian Authority passports.) Despite what you may have learned at an encampment teach-in, there is no separate-but-equal treatment.
Second, every sign in Israel is printed in three languages: Hebrew, English, and Arabic. Believe it or not, there are many Arabs living within Israel. They have full citizenship and can vote in all elections. They are allowed to intermarry, and can hold any job. I learned that a very large percentage of doctors and pharmacists are Arabs. Yes, Jewish patients receive medical treatment from Arab doctors. This is not Jim Crow. There is a slight exception to this rule for Arabs living in the area known as East Jerusalem. They are not "citizens" but are "residents." They cannot vote in national elections, but can vote in municipal elections for Jerusalem. But they are able to attend universities, including Hebrew University which is located on Mount Scopus in East Jerusalem. I understand this status is extremely complicated. [Update: Co-blogger David Bernstein provides a slight correction in the comments below, which I share here: Arabs living in East Jerusalem are by default Jordanian citizens, and Israeli permanent residents. However, they can apply for Israeli citizenship, and if they pass security screenings, they become citizens. About 10% of East Jerusalem Arabs have become citizens. The vast majority of the rest have not applied, either for nationalistic reasons or out of fear that if East Jerusalem is returned to Arab control in the future, they will be targeted as traitors.]
Third, many of the Arabs in Israel support Israel's actions in Gaza. I learned this support is not monolithic, and many Arabs are hesitant to speak out in support of Gaza publicly. I can tell you that in my week in Israel, I did not see a single Palestinian flag. (Other than watching the horrific surveillance footage of Hamas terrorists murdering Israelis--they wore Palestinian flags with as much pride as a Columbia liberal arts major.)
Fourth, Israeli universities implement various forms of affirmative action for Arab students. The Dean of a law faculty explained that they create a special "bootcamp" program for Arab students to help them prepare for, and adjust to, a law program in Hebrew. The Dean vigorously rejected the label "affirmative action," but it is a race-based preference. I think DEI translates into Hebrew as Dallet-Aleph-Ayen (דאע). I was told that some Israeli universities impose actual quotas for Arab students. Not a plus factor--quotas. The rationale behind these programs is fascinating. The hope is that if Arabs are exposed to Israeli-western culture, they can become integrated into the body politic, and serve as examples of how Arabs and Israelis can co-exist. Whether it is working or not, I will let others decide. But these policies have been in place for some time.
This post is not meant to be a complete discussion of how Arabs are treated in Israel, but should, at a minimum, disabuse people of this notion that Israel is some sort of Apartheid state. Critics, no doubt will ask about the status of Gaza and the West Bank. Critics will maintain that both territories are "occupied" by Israel. Israel completely withdrew from Gaza nearly two decades ago, which has a border controlled by Egypt. And Israel maintains that it does not "occupy" the West Bank, and I think that case is compelling. The Palestinian Authority has its own government, even if it does not have statehood. But, course, elite lawyers disagree.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Israel is by far the most ethically diverse society in the middle east. Most every arab country had variations of ethnic cleansing shortly after 1948 war with a large portion of those expelled from their homelands settling in Israel. Only the ignorant and antisemites accuse Israel of being an apartheid state.
Also very genetically diverse; not an accident that Big Pharma tests in Israel a lot.
Yeah, it's not often commented on, but outside of Israel, the genocide of non-Muslims has been going on for decades, and is almost complete. Whole countries are basically Judenfrei, and they're in the final mop-up stages of getting rid of the last Christians.
Christians and Jews used to be quite common throughout the Middle East, as you'd expect of the region both religions originated in. No longer.
I had always understood the apartheid reference to mean the west bank, the wall, and settlements, but then I've long since stopped expecting any accuracy from the Israel haters and don't pay much attention to the news they clutter up so well.
Thanks for the post.
I don't think that critics of Israel's government mean anything different than your first sentence when they use the word "apartheid." I think it is Josh that is confusing the issue by making it seem to be applied to non-Jews within Israel's borders. I'm open to be corrected, if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything in Josh's post that would do so.
But once you do that, you take all comparisons to apartheid out of the equation. Apartheid was racial discrimination within a country's borders against some of its citizens.
The residents of the West Bank are not citizens. At least not of Israel -- they are mostly Jordanian citizens. Occupied by Israel when Jordan invaded it in 1967. They are supposed to get their own state, but they have turned down every offer of one, at least every offer that provides for Israel's security. (That right-winger, Hillary Clinton, said so.)
Treating non-citizens in occupied territory differently from your own citizens in your own territory is not apartheid. Especially when the same ethnic group within your borders has more or less equal treatment. Which is where Blackman's point comes in.
So, no, his comment is very relevant to the discussion.
"critics of Israel’s government"
Oh, is that what we call those who falsely use the word “apartheid”?
Just critics!
I guess that appears to sound nicer than "Lying Shit-Weasels".
Is a reference to “apartheid” “to mean the west bank, the wall, and settlements” a sign someone “hates” Israel?
People around here often use a lot of vitriol against our president and those who control the Senate. Do they “hate” America by strongly opposing some basic policies of this country?
Rhetorical questions for others.
"Hater" is a loose synonym for irrational knee-jerk critics.
What is a term for people that quickly dismiss criticism by calling the critics "haters"?
Of course, Israel isn't an apartheid state. Not only that, but Israel is literally the most pluralistic, multi-ethnic and religiously tolerant nation in the ME, and it fairs pretty well in that regard to European countries too.
On the other hand, Islamic countries are - by definition - apartheid states for more reasons than one. They provide less rights to all non-Muslims, they oppress their women, they mistreat their children, they mistreat (in case of Qatar, even enslave) foreign workers, and they murder gays on the regular. Jews are their "favored enemy", so they especially love(d) oppressing, dispossessing, ethnic-cleansing Jews, with the ultimate goal of genociding all of them (a religious tenet in Islam).
So the blood libel isn't simply false, it is literally true in reverse. Isn't it rich that they're projecting all their sins upon the Jews and Israel? Isn't it funny that Israel with approx. 20% Arabs living inside of it is an "apartheid state", yet the entire Arab-Muslim world with little to no Jews is not? But most people don't realize that the Arab Muslim world literally cleansed its landmass of all Jews post-48' so they don't really understand the historical context. Even if Israel did the worst, it would be nothing more than the finalization of a delayed population transfer.
"I can tell you that in my week in Israel, I did not see a single Palestinian flag."
Is it legal to display a Palestinian flag? In America we take it for granted that you can fly whatever flag you like, but on the other side of the Atlantic governments can designate certain symbols as too troublesome to allow. I read an article about Bremen banning the "silent fox" hand signal because it has been appropriated by people the local government does not like.
It's not like you'd have seen many Japanese flags in the US in the months after Pearl Harbor, either. Of course you're not going to see any Palestinian flags flying in Israel after what happened last year!
Yes, it is legal to display the Palestinian flag, and the OP's experience notwithstanding, it is a fairly common sight in Arab localities and in demonstrations:
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/jerusalem-is-red-line-palestinian-flag-march-held-in-umm-al-fahm-video/
Israel’s apartheid
Israel's apartheid
Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit.
Typical left woke - demonstrating complete ignorance and hate- A dominant feature of a leftist
Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
Counting down the time you’ve got left?
Frank “I hear a Bell tolling”
You should be encouraging any decent (non-bigoted, non-wingnut, non-religious kook) Israelis to get the hell out of Israel while they still can. Ideally, recommend that they move to the United States of America. We need more immigrants.
In fairness, I don't think Kirkland (whom I have muted) is "typical."
Who are you going to believe, Amnesty International, the Associated Press, and a former Mossad leader, or a bought-and-paid-for (by Leonard Leo) partisan mouthpiece at one of America's worst law schools?
Don’t forget his honorific, “Revolting”
Similarly, it's "apartheid" that as a US citizen and resident, I cannot vote in Israeli or Palestinian elections (although the last one Gaza had was in 2006)
Who can I speak to at AI about this outrage?
The difference is you can vote in elections for a fully sovereign nation. Those who make the apartheid comparison believe the West Bank and Gaza are analogous to Bantustans. Basically, governments that exist as "sovereign nations" despite the fact that their policies are dictated by a separate power who created them. That separate power controls their decisions despite the fact that the people who live their get no representations in those decisions. Those people then are free to go into the sovereign's own territory, but are treated as foreigners who have no political rights.
Basically, if the Israel/Palestine divide is fictional and Israel has true sovereign power, the apartheid metaphor makes sense. If the premise is flawed, then the analogy is flawed as well.
They do believe that, but they're wrong. The key difference is that the Bantustan residents were former citizens of South Africa who were stripped of their South African citizenship by the white government, which then said, "You're citizens of this new pseudo-country now." The residents of the WB/Gaza were never Israeli citizens and don't want to be.
If apartheid isn't the proper term for Israel's government-enabled theocratic and bigoted terrorism, dispossession, murder, and other oppression of disfavored people in the West Bank, what are proper terms?
I doubt there is anything magical about the term apartheid, but apologists for Israel's right-wing belligerence should not be enabled to hide behind euphemisms and lies.
If no one has a better term, apartheid works.
Like a moth to a flame, I knew you'd be here to attack the Jews, Arthur.
I scorn and mock the murderous, parasitic, war-criming, theocratic, terrorist, bigoted, international pariah, superstitious right-wing belligerents, whether in Israel or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Russia or Alabama anywhere else. The Israelis, including Jews, who are decent people I would welcome to join me as Americans. The people responsible for right-wing belligerence in the West Bank and Gaza, however, deserve the painful and perhaps existential accountability that is coming their way.
Jimmy Carter wrote a book in 2006 with a nonsense title: “Peace Not Apartheid”.
It’s true the Palestinians don’t have full rights in Israel, but that’s simply because they are not Israelis, and most have no desire to become Israelis or live under the Star of David.
It the same reason why Mexicans and Canadians don’t have all the same rights in the US that US citizens do. Same reason why US citizens don’t have the same rights in Japan as Japanese citizens do. That’s not “apartheid” by any definition.
Palestinians in the West Bank have the right to be beaten or killed by terrorists as the Israeli Defense Forces observe the brutality.
Palestinians in the West Bank have the right to have their land stolen by theocratic bigots.
Then they should waive those rights. A good starting point would be to stop kidnapping Israelis and firing rockets into Tel Aviv, but that's just me.
Guys like you are part of the reason Israel's right-wing belligerents are on the clock.
Idiots like you are how the left earned its reputation.
Its reputation as the culture war's victors, advocates of reason, modernity, science, inclusiveness, education, progress, and freedom?
You left out Buggery
Palestinians living in Israel outside of certain areas like Mexicans who come to this country and join our community are Israelis.
We also don't have some comparable area that we seized in a war akin to the Gaza Strip or West Bank with illegal settlements mixed in making it hard to create a solution to the conflict.
True, we took land after the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War, but we handled the situation a tad bit differently in that context.
we took land after the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War, but we handled the situation a tad bit differently in that context.
Did we ? Everyone born in Puerto Rico is a US citizen but doesn't have full citizenship rights, such as the right to vote in US elections.
Everyone born in Puerto Rico is a US citizen but doesn’t have full citizenship rights, such as the right to vote in US elections.
Right. We still didn't handle control of Puerto Rico just like Israel did with Gaza and West Bank.
Sure, no 2 situations are exactly the same- Puerto Rico does not actively engage in hostile activity against the US the way the ruling entities of Gaza and the WB do against Israel, for example.
The point remains that the US has 2 classes of citizenship - one for "real" Americans, who have full rights, another for the "citizens' of territories taken in war, who have limited rights.
Everyone born in Puerto Rico is a US citizen but doesn’t have full citizenship rights, such as the right to vote in US elections.
I don't think that it is a matter of being born in Puerto Rico. It is a matter of where they live. If I moved to Puerto Rico, could I vote for President or members of Congress? No, because I would not be a resident of any U.S. state or D.C. As soon as someone born in Puerto Rico becomes a resident of a U.S. state or D.C., they get the full benefits of their citizenship just like anyone else born a U.S. citizen or naturalized as a citizen. (The only legal difference in the citizenship of someone born a U.S. citizen vs. someone naturalized is the ability to be elected as President, I am fairly certain. Maybe there are a restrictions on that in some government positions created by law, rather than the Constitution, but I don't know.)
I don't think you have a very good grasp of how US citizenship and voting rights work. US citizens can and do vote for President or members of Congress even if they reside abroad - all they have to do is register as absentee voters using their last US State address.
Residents of Puerto Rico have all the rights of any American citizen. They don't vote in US elections because Puerto Rico is not a state. The same applies to residents of the US Virgin Islands and American Samoa. Puerto Rico has been offered statehood, and voted against it.
The lingering effects of the Insular Cases mean that it is not clear that people in the overseas territories have exactly the same rights. A case involving America Samoa, for instance, raised the issue:
https://apnews.com/article/united-states-court-decisions-neil-gorsuch-american-samoa-government-and-politics-f89629168889f28e76ff0279d15bb469
Puerto Rico’s position on statehood is confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_statehood_movement
The idea that voting for president is tied to being a resident of a state should be obsolete by this point. Millions of citizens are denied a chance to vote for POTUS wrongly. But, that would likely require a constitutional amendment.
Puerto Rico has been offered statehood, and voted against it.
That's false, in 2020 PR held a referendum that voted in favor of statehood, but a bill to admit them to the union died in congress -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum
Bottom line- the US continues to hold PR (and other territories acquired through war) as colonies, with residents having 2nd class citizenship.
Anyone with Israeli citizenship is Israeli. The whole of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip were all the parts of Mandatory Palestine from 1921-1947. It is not unreasonable for some, such as Arabs descended from people that lived there during that period, to call themselves Palestinian as well as Israeli if they are citizens of Israel. All citizens of a nation should be equal under that nation's laws. That was a Founding principle of the U.S., so I would expect all Americans to believe that. (Where "American" means a U.S. citizen, whether natural born or naturalized.)
It is pretty much unreasonable for them to self-identify with the enemy. It would be reasonable for them to self-identify as Arabs, Muslims, Sunnis, Levantines, etc... but to claim allegiance with the Arafatians, the enemies of the Jewish State, is a traitorous notion.
Lucky for them, the State of Israel is far too tolerant and forgiving in that regard too. For instance, the Israeli High Court of Justice had banned the Kahanist "far-right" party, yet it has absolutely no problem with anti-Zionist parties, parties who literally deny the legitimacy and the existence of the state, and whose MKs had oftentimes colluded with Arafatian terrorists. Hopefully, such double standard shall not exist in the future, once a judicial reform have successfully been implemented.
It is pretty much unreasonable for them to self-identify with the enemy.
That sounds like you think that Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans would have been unreasonable if they called themselves that out loud during WWII.
The problem with your thinking is pretty clear. You view the Palestinian people as Israel's enemy, rather than the terrorist groups and their supporters. Calling oneself Palestinian is labeling oneself a terrorist, in your mind, I take it?
More than that, you are denying the facts of the history. There were no Israelis prior to 1948. There were Jews living in what had been Mandatory Palestine. The ancient nation of Israel had disappeared from existence thousands of years ago, so thinking of oneself as "Israeli" or an "Israelite" was a matter of ancient heritage, not national identity until a Jewish state there was close to becoming a reality. Palestine was a label used on an off for thousands of years for that territory, but it is true that the people living there did not start a nationalist movement to create a Palestinian national identity until about the same time that Jews were doing the same in the same territory.
You can't really justify disregarding the Palestinian people's claim to an identifier that they want to use and accept Israeli claims of nationhood at the same time. Well, you can, but the justification would only be based on the fact that Israel won the war to create itself, while the Arabs lost and never got a chance to form their own state independent of outside powers.
The Palestinians want full independence. They don't want to be in a country with a flag that has the Star of David.
No, the Arafatians don't want any independence at all. They want to genocide all Jews, even Jews outside of the Middle-East, and they want to destroy the State of Israel.
That's what they want, that's what they wanted at least since their love affair with Hitler and the Nazis back in the 30-40's. All you have to do is ask, since they're not at all secretive about their true agenda.
They want that also, but they still want to be their own state. Gaza is not fighting to go back to Egypt, nor is West Bank asking to go back to Jordan.
Want in one hand and shit in the other and. See which gets filled first
So get the fuck out
Yes, Jimmy Carter was and is an avowed Jew-hater.
Words applied to the Israel-Palestine conflict tend to take on their own unique meaning distinct from how they are meant or used anywhere else in the world.
Words used by lawyers also tend to take on meaning distinct from reality, normal people, . . . . truth . . . . and clarity.
" Israel completely withdrew from Gaza nearly two decades ago, which has a border controlled by Egypt. And Israel maintains that it does not "occupy" the West Bank, and I think that case is compelling."
Gaza is a semi-prison and is not some sort of truly independent nation. Israel still has significant control over it. Israel built illegal settlements in the West Bank and it is wordplay to argue they did not "occupy" it.
BTW, can people obtain official bi-religious marriage in Israel akin to James David Vance & his wife (Christian-Hindu)?
The situation in Israel and the lands it controls is not just like South Africa. But, there are still "Israel" land and "Palestinian" lands. Arabs in practice do not have fully equal rights. They have it better than blacks in apartheid South Africa, which isn't the same thing.
Israel was instituted as a Jewish state. I wouldn't think non-Jews would truly be equal to Jews in all respects. Hard to see how that would be true. I'm glad they have as much rights as they do. But, still.
Anyway, I found Can We Talk About Israel: A Guide for the Curious, Confused, and Conflicted by Daniel Sokatch a helpful book.
" Israel was instituted as a Jewish state. "
That was a mistake (just as a Muslim state or Christian state or Hindu state or any other superstition-based state is a mistake) that seems destined to be corrected.
The United States should dump Saudi Arabia and Israel simultaneously, for example.
You're spouting nonsense.
Yes and no. Israel doesn't have civil marriage at all. But it recognizes any marriage (including same-sex marriage) that was validly entered into elsewhere. (It's a normal thing in Israel for Israelis to hop over to Cyprus, get married, and come back. It's just a one hour flight.) So Vance could not have married his Hindu wife in Israel,¹ but his American marriage to her would be fully accepted if he moved to Israel.
¹And even that's not true anymore; as a situation discussed here at the VC a few years ago illustrates: if a jurisdiction will let one get legally married via the Internet, then one can remain in Israel, get married online, and have one's marriage be fully valid in Israel.
"Yes and no. Israel doesn’t have civil marriage at all. But it recognizes any marriage (including same-sex marriage) that was validly entered into elsewhere. (It’s a normal thing in Israel for Israelis to hop over to Cyprus, get married, and come back. It’s just a one hour flight.)"
Does anyone wish to attempt to defend this "religious courts" bullshit (in Israel or anywhere else); explain why America should be subsidizing this; or defend Israel's official right-wing position on same-sex marriage despite what appears to be overwhelming rejection of that bigoted position by the Israeli public?
So Vance could not have married his Hindu wife in Israel,¹ but his American marriage to her would be fully accepted if he moved to Israel.
That seems pretty intolerant to me, and also confusing. If Israel doesn't have civil marriage, then in what way would an interfaith couple be barred from marrying in Israel? Is it that only religious authorities can declare a couple married inside of Israel? If that is the case, then how have secular Israelis been able to marry, by flying to Cyprus like you said?
You can't reason with superstition, bigotry, or belligerent ignorance. (This issue appears to hit that trifecta.) It is pointless -- perhaps even counterproductive -- to try. There is no reasoned defense to an obsolete system of religion-controlled, discriminatory (bigoted) marriage in the modern world.
"Gaza is a semi-prison"
Old language, current Arab usage is that it was a paradise before the October pogrom and the nasty Jews came back for no reason.
There is a slight exception to this rule for Arabs living in the area known as East Jerusalem. They are not "citizens" but are "residents."
That's because East Jerusalem is not part of Israel. At least, I don't think many, if any countries have recognized it as such. I'd have to look to see if Israel has claimed it to be, but I don't think so based only on what I remember.
The borders of Israel after the 1967 war left Jerusalem still divided, with East Jerusalem being part of the West Bank. (It was controlled by Jordan prior to that war, iirc.)
There's no such thing as an "East Jerusalem". Jerusalem, Yerushalaim, Zion is the heart of Judaism, the eternal abode of the Jewish People and the indivisible capital of the State of Israel.
There's no such thing as a "West Bank". Those territories are called Yehuda ve'Shomron, or Judea and Samaria if you prefer. Needless to say, it is the historical homeland of the Jewish People and the the sole party with any legitimate claims for those lands is the State of Israel. Hopefully, they will extend their sovereignty over the entirety of their birthright.
(deleted)
There’s no such thing as an “East Jerusalem”. Jerusalem, Yerushalaim, Zion is the heart of Judaism, the eternal abode of the Jewish People and the indivisible capital of the State of Israel.
You've certainly stated the beliefs of Zionist Jews, but it takes more than their belief to make it true.
There’s no such thing as a “West Bank”. Those territories are called Yehuda ve’Shomron, or Judea and Samaria if you prefer. Needless to say, it is the historical homeland of the Jewish People and the the sole party with any legitimate claims for those lands is the State of Israel. Hopefully, they will extend their sovereignty over the entirety of their birthright.
This seems to line up with some of the activist settlers and some other Israelis that basically think that all non-Jews living in that territory should just go join their fellow Arabs in Arab countries and not fight to retain any property rights or political rights where they live, where their parents, their grandparents, and more, had lived.
I sure hope that this is not a mainstream belief among Israelis, observant Jews or otherwise, or Jews living outside of Israel. I won't even try and make analogies where the descendants of some ancient people lay claim to sovereignty over some territory that their ancestors had taken from them more than a thousand years ago, and their ethnic or religious group hasn't been even close to a majority of the population in that territory since then (with it being well under 10% for centuries). But that is what you are saying when you talk about "birthright."
"East Jerusalem is not part of Israel."
Wrong.
"At least, I don’t think many, if any countries have recognized it as such."
We sure did!
I stand corrected, as to my error in tending to believe that Israel had never declared that East Jerusalem was their territory. They seem to have made it official on their part with a law the Knesset passed in 1980.
And Trump led the U.S. to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and ordered the U.S. Embassy to be moved to Jerusalem. But the wiki article you linked says that the U.S. left it open as to whether East Jerusalem was part of Israel.
On December 8, [2017] U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson clarified that Trump’s statement “did not indicate any final status for Jerusalem” and “was very clear that the final status, including the borders, would be left to the two parties to negotiate and decide” in reference to the recognition’s impact on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process.
Many UN Security Council resolutions, the most recent passed in 2016, declared that Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem was illegal.* The U.S. had veto power over all of those resolutions and refrained from using it. (We abstained from all of those votes, I think.)
*The Fourth Geneva Convention makes it illegal for nations to move populations and establish settlements in territories acquired in a war, and an overwhelming number of countries consider the Israeli settlements to be illegal on that basis.
Essentially, that part of the Geneva Convention would mean that any war of conquest would violate it, if any of the civilian population is required to move from their homes in that territory. Israel seems to have countered the Geneva Convention argument by saying that all of the “occupied territories” were actually not part of any sovereign nation. Thus, it couldn’t be illegal to take it over and annex it. That doesn’t sound reasonable to me, as Jordan had explicitly claimed to have annexed the territory called the West Bank in 1950. Whether had formally recognized that or not, the 1949 agreement to end that war drew lines that excluded East Jerusalem and the West Bank from being part of Israel. Israel gained control of those areas through military force, so displacing any Palestinians would violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, in my opinion.
The Fourth Geneva Convention bans forced population transfers from or to occupied territory. It does not ban migration.
Does Israel claim the West Bank displacements are not forced?
Yeah. Did I say something different?
...if any of the civilian population is required to move from their homes in that territory.
...so displacing any Palestinians would violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, in my opinion.
It is a common accusation that I see where Palestinians in the West Bank in small villages or such are basically forced out by some settlers, and the Israeli military turns a blind eye to it. That would be "forced" population transfer, right? Or is this interpretation you are stating mean that it would only be a violation if the Palestinians driven from their homes in the West Bank end up leaving the West Bank?
Until Trump's action, the US did not recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israeli territory, including the western which has been almost entirely Jewish since 1948. If you were born in west Jerusalem, and were entitled to a US passport, the State Department would not allow you to put "Jerusalem, Israel" as your birthplace.
This was because the State Department held that the 1948 UN partition still applied, under which the entire Jerusalem area was to be an "international zone".
Really? That certainly seems counter to the U.S. government's attitudes toward Israel in general.
Maybe it was like the "One China policy", where the U.S. maintains the fiction that Taiwan is not necessarily an independent, sovereign nation in order to not piss off the CCP too much, despite definitely opposing any action to force reunification. (Whether the U.S. would oppose a Chinese invasion of Taiwan with its own military action is a scary and unanswered question. The unanswered part of it being deliberate in order to dissuade China from invading without actually committing the U.S. to going to war with China.)
Either way, I'd like to see something official or at least reliable stating that, if you know of it. I am skeptical because the UN Partition plan never applied. It was never accepted by Arabs, and I don't think the UN ever tried to force it upon them, which it isn't supposed to be able to do anyway, I thought.
Israel has annexed East Jerusalem, and considers it part of Israel proper. (Many countries do not recognize this, but Israel doesn't care.) When Israel did conquer and annex it after the six-day war, it did offer Israeli citizenship to the Arab residents. But few Palestinians have accepted that citizenship, often because doing so is seen as accepting the legitimacy of Israel, as well as of Israeli ownership of East Jerusalem.
Still, even though Israeli control over East Jerusalem was seen as a dealbreaker, Barak shockingly to many did offer the Palestinians a token presence in East Jerusalem as part of the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat, of course, rejected the Israeli offer to Clinton's chagrin.
Israel has annexed East Jerusalem, and considers it part of Israel proper. (Many countries do not recognize this, but Israel doesn’t care.)
As I state from what I was seeing, even the U.S. has not officially recognized the annexation of East Jerusalem, despite recognizing the majority of Jerusalem that Israel has controlled since the end of the 1948 war as the capital. I was seeing less than ten countries recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and I think that stance is based on Israel claiming East Jerusalem. The final status of Jerusalem has always been seen by the Palestinian side as an essential point of negotiation of any long term agreement, and from what I can see, so does the vast majority of the Western world.
Still, even though Israeli control over East Jerusalem was seen as a dealbreaker, Barak shockingly to many did offer the Palestinians a token presence in East Jerusalem as part of the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat, of course, rejected the Israeli offer to Clinton’s chagrin.
Gee, imagine the nerve of them rejecting an offer to have a "token presence" in land they view as theirs because they were living there not under Israeli control until the end of the 1967 war. And they still live there now, from what I understand; it is just that Israel has been trying to change that.
I was recently invited to a ceremony for nine honorary doctorates at Ariel University (in the West Bank ... where the settlers are!). The audience was by far more diverse (in any respect!) from what I have seen in the US.
Search for "ariel university honorary doctorate 2024 businessnews" to see a writeup (for some reason, the commenting system won't let me post a link).
" The audience was by far more diverse (in any respect!) from what I have seen in the US. "
Could you distinguish the oppressed from the settlers by the former's bleeding and homelessness and the latter's IDF security detail?
Sorry ... i can't even parse your response. Is that you Joe?
The way it works is that the settlers arm themselves, travel toward the unarmed people they wish to terrorize, then kill them, beat them, steal their land, destroy their property, etc. . . . while IDF personnel watches to ensure the victims can't fight back against the theocratic, bigoted, Israeli colonialists.
(Not all Israelis are immoral, violent, theocratic bigots -- but Israel's government, institutions, and conduct are controlled by those right-wing belligerents.
Some right-wingers seem to think Israel will get away with this. Maybe because they figure God is on their side or some similar nonsense. Maybe because they are just lousy people.
Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
This sounds like standard stereotyping bigotry. Ariel university draws on many local Arabs who just want to get a good education.
I didn't witness any beatings, thefts, or armed escorts while I was there.
You sound like a disingenuous, superstitious, bigoted right-wing asshole. The Volokh Conspirators welcome you as their target audience.
The rest of the world will deal with Israel's war-criming, theocratic, bigoted right-wing assholes.
Tick, tock.
I think Israel needs to make a choice on the West Bank. It can either annex the place and give its inhabitants citizenship, or it can drop its claims and accept that they will be citizens of another country. I agree that de facto annexation without citizenship is not a viable path.
But I think the Palestinian population also has a choice. They can either give up their conflict, reconcile themselves to Israel, and seek to become citizens, or they can continue their conflict, seek independence, and drop claims to citizenship rights. They also can’t have it both ways. They cannot claim the rights of citizenship without being willing ro take on its duties, including loyalty and not disturbing the peace.
As I see it, both sides seek to have it both ways.
Given that every time they give the Palestinians the least bit of wiggle room, they use it to launch rockets into Israeli residential areas, de facto annexation without citizenship might actually be the only viable path.
They can't annex the place and give their mortal enemies citizenship, that would be utter madness. The only people who advocate that are people who want Israel gone.
Treating them as a normal neighboring country would be almost as mad; Normal neighboring countries don't engage in continual acts of war.
But if they annex them and take over the school systems, and stop the systematic genocidal indoctrination, peace might actually be possible in another generation.
It wouldn't be an annexation, it would just be an extension of Israeli sovereignty over a territory that should belong to the State of Israel. That's because the sole legitimate claimant IS the State of Israel, and none other (see: League of Nations' mandate, uti possidetis juris).
Israel is under no obligation to provide citizenship to squatters, let alone to hand out citizenship to an enemy population, a group o people who ethnically cleansed the area of Jews, and are a result of a forced population transfer (Jordan dumping them on the area to make it more Muslim). Furthermore, the Arafatians would never accept the citizenship of the "Hated Yahood" state, so there's that. Likewise, they will never stop hunting Jews and they will never accept any reasonable solution for one simple reason: Islamist terrorists and their supporters aren't reasonable people, least of all the Arafatians.
BoAf SiDeZ had never been true in this conflict. Granted, I suppose there will come a time when the Jews of Israel finally accept the reality of their dire situation. They had been pretty tolerant and forgiving for the better part of the past century. But people ought to realize that Israelis only have to act like their enemies for a week, maybe a month, and the entire conflict will be resolved in a jiffy. But I also think that the Jew-hating world - most especially the MSM - will not only goad them into doing that, but will then blame them for it for the rest of eternity. So it's important never to forget this: the Jews is Israel are not to be blamed for the unquenchable evil of their enemies, and of course, they are allowed to exercise self-defense as a sovereign state, as a nation under constant wars and terror. They ought to be resolve the conflict, in whichever way they see fit, to permanently secure their lives, liberty and prosperity.
Here I think we get to the heart of the matter. Israel as a state has a right to exist and defend itself, including a right to come down very hard on people who invade it and killover a thousand of their citizens and take hundreds of hostages.
But nonetheless, the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza, and Israel within the Green Line, most definitely aren’t squatters. Their pre-existing property rights are valid, and Israelis have to respect what was done under the British, Ottomans, etc., honor existing local customary usages, and negotiate for and buy land and pay good money for it, not simply take it. Regardless of the political outcome and the political and legal arguments behind sovereignty claims, Israel as a country and Israelis as individuals, have to treat individual Palestinians fairly, including respecting their property rights.
Israel is a tiny country. It needs friends to survive. As a tiny country, it lacks the power to entirely dictate the terms of its existence based on its own religious and ideological background. To make a religious ideal, or any ideal, work successfully in the world, Israel like all others has to think about and and work with others. And have some patience.
Israelis, after all, aren’t really the masters of the House. The House has only one Master, and He created the others too, not just the Jews. As we will hear this week, serving the Master requires walking with a certain amount of humility. Hubris has not been very good for the Jews in the past. It will not serve here either.
But it’s perhaps a good thing we finally have someone on this blog who espouses and defends the position the Hamas supporters here claim everyone in Israel has. Good luck in dealing with our Rev. Arthur Kirkland.
Save that luck for post-American-skirts Israel.
The Arafatians are most definitely squatters. But please, enlighten me. What property rights? Under which sovereign and rule of law? What manner of properties are we talking about? Are you sure those were not lands belonging to absentee landlords who sold them or leased lands lost due to unpaid dues? Or are you talking about the stolen Jewish property in Yehuda ve'Shomron, the place where Jews had been dispossessed by the belligerent Jordanian (and various other) Arab armies? You see, the problem is not with your theory. The problem is with the fact that reality doesn't care about your theory. Inasmuch there could be couple Arafatians who really DID possess something... some decades back... what of it? Has the Jews, as a whole, ever been compensated for their loss of lands, properties and rights since they've been ethnically cleansed out of the entire Middle-East? Or do you only want the Jews to play nice with their enemies, and expect no manner of compensation from the other party. (And rest assured, the Arabs will never even entertain any manner of compensation, just as they'll never ever admit that there was anything wrong with their deeds.)
Be that as it may, that's just my wishful thinking on my part. The fact of the matter is that the State of Israel does respect Arafatian property rights, mainly due to the far-leftist machinations of their High Court. Which means that, unlike in mainstream anti-Israel talking points, Israel does not "steal" any land or property from the Arafatians squatting in Yehuda ve'Shomron on the regular. That's because most Israeli "settlements" are being built in "Area C", which is under complete Israeli control. And most of those buildings are being built on state lands i.e. non-private lands anyhow. And yes, Israel virtually never built on any property which, in a wildly misconstrued way, is deemed Arab-occupied by the courts. Or even if it did, according to the courts, it was then reversed and undone. Heck, even when it is proven at court that the squatting Arafatians have no claim and no legitimate deed, the authorities STILL delay all type of enforcement for years, usually for decades. (E.g. Remember that one time when such squatters been finally evicted from "Sheikh Jarrah" i.e. Shimon HaTzadik neighborhood, and of course, the MSM lapped it all up? Apparently, according to Jew-haters and anti-Israel activists, you can't evict people in Israel... as long as they are Arabs! No matter the law, no matter the fervently pro-Arafatian court's decision, you simply can't do that... because of reasons.)
Israeli Jews are likely aware that there are more Arabs within Israel and the occupied territories than Jews. A single-state solution effectively means a Muslim, anti-Semitic government. However, if Israel forces Arabs off their private property through the use of non-governmental terror organizations, they can annex the occupied territories without concern for their Jewish majority.
Israel is under no obligation to provide citizenship to squatters, let alone to hand out citizenship to an enemy population, a group o people who ethnically cleansed the area of Jews, and are a result of a forced population transfer (Jordan dumping them on the area to make it more Muslim).
This is just fantasy. Jews hadn't been a majority of the population in that region since the Roman Empire, from what I could find. It was majority Christian from around the time that the Empire became Christian until the Muslim conquest in the 7th century. Whatever enclaves or villages where Jews were concentrated there, they were only ~10% of the population when the British took control of Mandatory Palestine in 1921, and even that was because of large amounts of immigration from Europe over the previous couple of decades. That stepped up throughout the Mandate period until Jews were ~35% of the population at the time that the UN proposed partition was being studied.
If Jews were forced to leave their homes to go to what became Israel from other areas by Egypt, Syria, or Jordan, it would pale in comparison to the number of Arabs that were forced to leave Israel.
The partition of India into Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India was tragic as well, but at least it wasn't forced upon the population through warfare.
You’re not aware that there was a war between India and Pakistan soon after partition, and hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly expelled as a resort of this war?
Sorry, huge underestimate. Wikipedia estimates the number at 11 million, plus an additional million killed outright before they could flee the war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947%E2%80%931948&diffonly=true
Hmm, I guess I didn't know about that, or at least misremembered if I did. Thanks for the correction.
Also, over a million Jews were forcibly expelled from Arab countries, far more than the difference between the Arab population of Israel pre- vs. post 1948, i.e. the number of Arabs who left for any reason, including voluntary.
You have a habit of simply asserting historical nonsense with absolutely no ue what you’re talking about.
But I have to admit, your repeated claim of that the Talmud was written in the Middle Ages with no connection to the Biblical land of Israel or its religion is a much worse whopper than this. As if there was no Jerusalem Talmud written entirely in the Biblical Land of Israel while under the Romans, based on scholarship that started while the Temple was still standing. And as if the Babylonian Talmud, which continued the work for a couple more centuries, wasn’t initiated by Jerusalem Talmud scholars who fled and had continued the work in exile.
No connection between the two? My ass!
" Also, over a million Jews were forcibly expelled from Arab countries "
Have conservatives found a class of reparations they can embrace?
Is this supposed to be a reply to me? I don't recall saying anything about the Talmud, let alone claiming it was written in the Middle Ages.
Also, over a million Jews were forcibly expelled from Arab countries, far more than the difference between the Arab population of Israel pre- vs. post 1948, i.e. the number of Arabs who left for any reason, including voluntary.
Whether this is in reply to me or not, any number of Jews being expelled from any Arab nations would not justify expelling any Arabs from their homes in Palestine. Isn't Israel supposed to be the "good guy" in this conflict that will do what is right no matter what is done to them? Or is that not true, and everyone's hands are dirty, so we should just not worry about who screwed over who, who has been violating international law, and just do whatever we think benefits "our side" the most?
"Jews hadn’t been a majority of the population in that region since the Roman Empire"
How did that happen? They were the majority, then they were not. A mystery.
They staged a number of armed rebellions against Roman rule. Admirably courageous, but not very pragmatic.
And unfortunately, the political movement represented by our Kahanist commenter above not only hasn’t learned the lesson, it is eager, chomping at the bit, to repeat the process and reach the same result. It’s got Bar Kochba’s swagger, sense of superiority, derision of pragmatism as weakness, and supreme faith in itself, as if its own strength is all it needs to beat the entire world.
Josh, as you and I learned last week, about 1/3 of the IDF is composed of loyal Muslims, Christians, and other religions and ethnicities, and is probably the most diverse military force on the planet. That knowledge was enlightening.
The best friend you'll ever have is the one who will stand beside you in a foxhole. I think we met many who are willing to do that.
Why would Jews be underrepresented -- and people of other (less privileged) faiths, correspondingly, be overrepresented -- in the military of a Jewish state that imposes conscription on its citizens?
Well, maybe not all citizens . . .
How many non-hard-right law professors did the two right-wing organizers of this "mission" invite? How many of the professors who participated were not Federalist Society members? How many gave half a shit about the Palestinians?
Slight correction to Josh's post. Arabs living in East Jerusalem are by default Jordanian citizens, and Israeli permanent residents. However, they can apply for Israeli citizenship, and if they pass security screenings, they become citizens. About 10% of East Jerusalem Arabs have become citizens. The vast majority of the rest have not applied, either for nationalistic reasons or out of fear that if East Jerusalem is returned to Arab control in the future, they will be targeted as traitors.
I'm not going to get into the semantics here, but I will say that were I living in the area I'd much rather be Jewish than Arab.
Which area? That might be true in Israel.
But in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, etc then you would probably rather be an Arab than Jew.
Of course I mean Israel and whatever associated geography y’all are arguing about.
Yeah, the rest of the middle east is more intolerant. Doesn’t mean Israel (Or Blackman) gets to argue Israel is great; it’s not a comparative question.
"gets to argue Israel is great"
I think he, and others, can argue that fact no matter what you say.
Well, while Israel is still around.
Israel needs to change or get changed.
How did I know I'd see Arthur and Syphilisto at this article.
Totally predictable.
As predictable as daily, bigoted right-wing polemics at a white, male, right-wing blog with a misappropriated academic veneer?
You sound hangry. Bacon cheeseburger?
I do have to say that talking entirely about what goes on within the Green Line and ignoring the West Bank is not a proper answer, and opponenets might consider Professor Blackman disingenuous for taking this approach. A proper answer has to acknowledge and explain why a significant portion of the Arab population of the West Bank aren’t citizens, are under military occupation, and are subject to border controls to travel into Israel proper.
For Gaza, Israel withdrew about 20 years ago and is administratively operating as a separate country. Except when Hamas has attacked Israel and Israel invaded in response, Gaza hasn’t been occupied or controlled by Israel at all. Hamas has been the de facto government of a de facto independent country. And Hamas and its behavior amply explain why there are fortifications and border controls between Israel and Gaza.
"why a significant portion of the Arab population of the West Bank aren’t citizens, are under military occupation, and are subject to border controls to travel into Israel proper."
Because they keep trying to kill Jews. Have you been under a rock?
Because they keep trying to kill Jews. Have you been under a rock?
Apparently, he is.
My comment was about whether Professor Blackman discussed the relevant issues or not. Since you seem to be agreeing that this issue is relevant, if you are saying Professor Blackman discussed it, could you point to where Professor Blackman did so? If not, are you saying that Professor Blackman has been hiding under a rock?
Your comment, at least in part, was this:
opponenets (sic) might consider Professor Blackman disingenuous for taking this approach. A proper answer has to acknowledge and explain why a significant portion of the Arab population of the West Bank aren’t citizens, are under military occupation, and are subject to border controls to travel into Israel proper.
Arabs squatting on the territories i.e. Yehuda ve'Shomron aren't citizens of Israel, yes. That's because they are, or are used to Jordanian citizens, they don't want to become Israeli citizens, and of course, the State of Israel would be an idiot to give citizenship to the enemy. Luckily though, the status quo is entirely consensual.
Arabs squatting on said territories aren't under military occupation. At least as long as we treat the "Oslo Accords" as valid. The Arafatians, Arafat himself actually accepted the accords, or the very least he countersigned it. And according to that agreement, the territories are treated as 3 separate sub-unit: Areas A, B and C. Area A is under full Arafatian control, concerning all internal matter. Area B is under Arafatian mostly, but Israel provides security. Area C is under full Israeli control. So it is obvious that one cannot possibly construe it as a military occupation, since (at least allegedly) there's an interim agreement in place. Yet even if said agreement would be null and void, it still wouldn't be a proper (as in literal) military occupation, like the one in Ukraine currently.
Subject to border controls: well, yes. If you have an enemy, you usually don't want them to infiltrate your border. Then again, the Israeli reality is stranger then fiction! Israeli citizens - including Israeli Arabs - can't pass into Area A & B either, so it's important to note that it is, once again, a mutual mechanism. It's not about "the evil Jews not allowing the poor Arabs into Israel proper", it's a bilateral agreement. Even so, Israel DID allow Arabs - both from the terror enclave, the Gaza Strip, and from the territories - into Israel (proper), albeit on a case-by-case basis. They not only allowed them in, but they even offered them jobs and thus a much better income they could ever possibly have in their homeshackles. But I sure hope that after 10/7 they won't ever be allowed back in, for they are far too dangerous (Hamas had tremendous intel prior to the 10/7 massacre from Gazans working in Israeli kibbutzim).
A proper answer has to acknowledge and explain why a significant portion of the Arab population of the West Bank aren’t citizens, are under military occupation, and are subject to border controls to travel into Israel proper.
Because it was Jordanian territory and most of it will be given to the Palestinians for a state, once they give up the hope of destroying Israel. Jordan invaded Israel in 1967, that part was not pre-emptive. Since then, the Arabs have decided that rather than return to Jordan, they want their own state. But that requires them to accept that they are never getting Israel. That they do not want to do.
"When I tell Israelis that American students think they are like South Africa, they are shocked."
A lot of Americans chafe against any suggestion that America might be afflicted by systemic racism . . . or have any problem involving homophobia, misogyny, Christian nationalism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, white supremacy, xenophobia, transphobia, etc.
I guess right-wing assholes are much the same all over the world.
Of all people, Hillary Clinton summed it up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oAAhusNG0o
And speaking of apartheid, here is someone from South Africa who grew up under apartheid. Hear what he has to say about Israel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibUr8Go4qCA
Did you check the provenance of that criminal asshole before you endorsed his ranting?
I appreciate the answer to my marriage question & was familiar with the general idea referenced in the reply. As I recall, there also was opposition (including from a former Israel chief justice) to the settlement:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/civil-marriage-in-israel/