Occupation vs. apartheid in the West Bank
Many pro-Palestine activists use the words “occupation” and “apartheid” to describe Israel’s presence/policies in the West Bank.
My question is how these two terms interact, and how the two accusations can be made at the same time (at the same protests, on the same signs etc).
If Israel is occupying the West Bank, this means it has an illegal presence in sovereign Palestinian territory. Thus, the obvious remedy is a withdrawal and ideally a full Palestinian state.
Apartheid involves a single governing authority ruling over two groups unequally. If Israel has instituted an apartheid in the West Bank, then the obvious remedy is to give Palestinians equal rights to Israelis. In other words, the West Bank is effectively part of Israel, its Arab residents are Israeli citizens, but they’ve been denied the rights enjoyed by Israeli citizens.
Isn’t this a basic incompatibility? Solving the “occupation” (by withdrawing and supporting Palestinian statehood) won’t give Arabs in the West Bank the same rights that Israelis enjoy, since it would be a totally separate country. Solving the “apartheid” (by giving Palestinians the same rights as Israelis) suggests that Israel doesn’t illegally occupy that land and doesn’t need to withdraw, since it has obligations to its citizens there.