By Cade Spivey

On a long drive from my native Indiana to Virginia, I listened to a podcast wherein the interview subject began with a fairly benign truism: "Words matter." The program, produced by Americans For Peace Now, began by stating that not every murder is a genocide, and that not all discrimination is apartheid. The interview then continued for another thirty minutes laying out a “legal” framework of apartheid in order to shoehorn Israel into that definition, vis-à-vis Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank.  

I agree that words matter. The words we use to describe an issue directly influence the substance of a debate. I further contend that facts matter, and that merely using legal terms to describe a legal framework does not establish facts independently. Law was not meant to be argued in the abstract. The arguments made to establish Israel as an "apartheid state" were irresponsible and unwarranted and promoted key assertions which have become commonplace in the misinformed effort to establish Israel as an apartheid state. 

Apartheid Defined

The UN defines apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." The term was derived from the system of racial segregation imposed in South Africa from the late 1940s until 1994. Separation of the races was strictly enforced in public accommodation, trade, education, marriage, and even sexual acts. The purpose was to cement the power structures which existed at the end of the British colonialization of the region. While the UN's legal framework does not establish South African-style apartheid as a benchmark for action, there have been no sanctions for acts by any government (including South Africa) since the passage of the Rome Statute by the International Criminal Court in 1997. 

Regardless, the cynical invocation of the term harkens back to that brutal scheme of governance in hope of eliciting a sympathetic response to the alleged victims - in this case, the Palestinian Arabs. When the term is used to describe Israel, it is as inappropriate an analogy as a comparison apples to hand grenades. 

Occupied Territory

Firstly, the speaker described the West Bank as "occupied territory" under international law. This is simply not true. The area traditionally referred to as the West Bank is not "occupied." The West Bank is “disputed" territory. While the distinction may seem purely semantic, words matter.

Occupied territories are captured in war from another sovereign; in this case, a Palestinian sovereign did not exist in 1967, prior to the Six Day War, when the alleged “occupation” began. Disputed territories, however, are lands subject to ongoing negotiations regarding conflicting claims of sovereignty. Referring to the West Bank as occupied may play well into the argument of Israeli apartheid, but doing so mischaracterizes the legal and political frameworks under which both sides of the debate are attempting to establish agreements. Furthermore, this mischaracterization does not produce a positive result - nor does it seek to do so. It seeks only to entrench and divide both sides through alienation while failing to meaningfully address the needs of either.

Racial Subjugation

The speaker told of an Israel where Arabs are second-class citizens; denied the right to vote, run for office, or attain citizenship. I would wager there are many Israeli-Arabs who would beg to differ. For example, Abdel Rahman Zuabi, Salim Joubran, or George Karra, former members of Israel's Supreme Court; the 17 Israeli-Arab members currently serving in the Knesset; or perhaps the Israeli-Arabs serving in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), would likely see things differently. 

Even in the West Bank, Palestinians are afforded voting rights and even their own civil management under the Palestinian Authority (PA). While the PA certainly coordinates with Israel in some areas - such as sharing security functions with the IDF - it  still has autonomy status. The Palestinian-Arabs who live under the control of the Authority are not denied a voice, it’s just that the authority to which they speak seems unwilling to listen. The people who live in the West Bank are subject to security controls and movement is, at times, limited. But the realities that lead to such policies are independent of their race. They are based on real-world safety and security concerns. The Palestinian-Arabs are not subjugated, and they are not second-class citizens. They are also not citizens of Israel.

To be clear, matters of Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty are not beyond debate. There are political, religious, and human rights issues that should be debated and considered very deliberately. 

Reducing one side or the other to terms that are the very embodiment of evil through ad hominem labels or inappropriately applied legal definitions is not helpful, and does not produce meaningful outcomes for people living these truths daily.

Cade Spivey is a publishing Adjunct at The MirYam Institute. He is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and served three tours in the Navy as a Gunnery/Antiterrorism Officer, Damage Control Assistant, and Counter-Piracy Evaluator. He is currently a student at the Wake Forest University School of Law.