cosmic_skillet , 7 months ago

The article does a decent job of going into some of the nuance about the different ways the apartheid label might or might not fit things that are thing on. But in the end who cares if we can fit a class of actions into the apartheid label?

Why don’t we just look at the actual actions that are taking place and discuss them for what they are. If Israel levels half of Gaza in intense bombing campaigns that kill tens of thousands of people, then we can see that and discuss what to do about it. Who cares if it doesn’t fit the apartheid label.

I see similar arguments every day now where people are arguing if it’s genocide or ethnic cleansing or apartheid or whatever. What does it change if you’re able to cognitively classify a set of actions with the correct label?

Maybe if you justify your favorite label then you can condemn Israel/Hamas harder, but this doesn’t actually change anything and it doesn’t lead to greater understanding. I’d actually argue that settling on your preferred label actually leads to less understanding. That’s because once you’ve categorized something to your satisfaction, you tend to become more blind to contradictory evidence.

For example, let’s say we all agree that Israel is an “apartheid state”. That label comes with a lot of baggage that’s going to color our views of future actions. We might miss out on changes in Israeli laws or courts or political leadership that contradicts the apartheid label.

Better instead to try and see things clearly as they are instead of trying to force labels onto things. This takes more effort because labels serve as cognitive shortcuts, but the result is a better understanding of what’s actually going on.