Welcome back to Diplomacy and Discourse. I'm
your host AR and thank you for tuning in today.
Our topic is one of the most urgent, disturbing
and hotly debated issues in world politics right
now. Israel's advance into Gaza City and the
mounting accusations of genocide that are shaping
diplomatic and public discourse across the globe.
But I don't want to just retell the headlines
you've seen scrolling past you. If you're listening
to this podcast, it's because you want something
deeper. And today, we're gonna go deeper. We're
going to unpack not just what is happening, but
how we can even begin to make sense of it. Because
wars, sieges, and forced displacements don't
exist in a vacuum. They have histories, they
have frameworks, and they have consequences.
And without those, we're left with rhetoric,
but no understanding. So here's the journey I
want to take us on. First, we'll look at the
immediate crisis in Gaza, what it looks like
right now, how it's unfolding, and why the genocide
accusation matters. Then we'll take a step back,
examine the bigger concepts. Colonialism, apartheid,
apartheid of a special type, and genocide. Sound
academic? Maybe a little. But trust me, I'll
translate that theory into plain talk because
concepts are tools. And right now, the people
of Gaza and the global community need sharp tools
to cut through the fog. Finally, we'll turn toward
diplomacy. What do these frameworks mean for
international law? For Israel's leaders. for
Palestinian communities, and for the governments
outside the region, from the United States to
South Africa, from the Arab League to the BRICS
countries. And most importantly, what do they
mean for people like you and me, who are watching
and wondering, what responsibility do we carry?
So let's start with Gaza itself. According to
international news reporting, Israeli forces
continued advancing into Gaza City this week.
Bulldozers are flattening entire neighborhoods.
Families are fleeing yet again southward, even
as borders stay closed and humanitarian aid is
choked off. And as these things unfold, voices
across the world are speaking one word. Genocide.
Let's pause on that. Because genocide is not
a word one uses casually. In international law,
genocide is the deliberate destruction of a people,
by killing, by causing conditions of life designed
to destroy, or by preventing births. It is one
of the gravest crimes that exists in our global
vocabulary. When South Africa brought a genocide
case against Israel to the International Court
of Justice, people around the world suddenly
found themselves having to ask, is this simply
war, or something deeper, darker, and more systematic?
The footage coming out of Gaza feels undeniable.
Hospitals reduced to rubble. Children starving
under blockade. Aid convoy stopped, bombed, or
turned away. Displacement on a scale that feels
biblical. And yet, governments are split. Some
rush to Israel's defense, invoking security,
while others push back, saying security cannot
justify ethnic cleansing. In that split lies
the heart of today's diplomacy. Do we name this
what it appears to be, or do we turn away in
silence? It is vital to stress that what is happening
in Gaza is not simply a clash of armed groups.
It is about the entire civilian population trapped
with nowhere to run. This is what differentiates
Gaza from many other modern wars. In most conflicts,
there are escape routes across borders. In Gaza,
people are walled in. The Rafah crossing into
Egypt has been tightly restricted and Israel
strictly controls every other entry and exit
point. For Palestinians, fleeing south often
means fleeing from one bomb site to another.
International law is clear. Sieges that deliberately
create conditions unfit for life for whole populations
amount to collective punishment, which is prohibited.
This is why the humanitarian catastrophe is central
to the genocide accusation. Diplomacy, then,
faces a stark choice. To treat Gaza as a battlefield,
or as a home, to two million people who possess
unquestionable human rights. The way states and
organizations frame the crisis is more than semantics.
It determines whether aid routes are opened,
whether pressure for ceasefire is applied, and
whether the world tolerates the death of thousands
under the banner of security. To go beyond the
headlines, we need frameworks. Historian Ran
Greenstein reminds us why concepts matter. Concepts
like colonialism, apartheid, ethnocracy, and
genocide aren't just abstracts. They are lenses
that help us understand patterns and strategies.
Colonialism tells us this about settlers and
natives, about land, about the broader legacy
of European expansion. Settler colonialism says
it's not just about ruling over people, it's
about replacing them. South Africa, Australia,
the United States, all variations of that same
story. Apartheid, meanwhile, offers a legal and
political lens. The United Nations defines apartheid
as an institutionalized regime of systematic
oppression and domination of one group over another.
South Africa's white minority regime lived and
died by it. Palestinians and countless human
rights organizations argue, so does Israel. Then
there's genocide, the sharpest concept of all.
Genocide doesn't just theorize about structures.
It looks at acts in the moment. Mass killings,
destruction of cultural life, expulsions designed
to erase a people's existence. And Gaza makes
that debate unavoidable. But here's where Greenstein's
work adds nuance. Israel, he suggests, isn't
apartheid in the old South African form. At least
not exactly. Instead, it's an apartheid of a
special type. It excludes where South Africa
incorporated. It seeks to punish Palestinians
off land rather than exploit their labor. That
difference explains why Gaza siege looks the
way it does. Not integration, but exclusion.
not control, but removal. Concepts matter, but
they also evolve in moments of crisis. For instance,
settler colonialism was once viewed exclusively
as a 19th century phenomenon. Now, Gaza forces
us to acknowledge that it continues here, in
the 21st century, in real time. Colonialism doesn't
always look like British troops landing on foreign
soil. It can look like bulldozers demolishing
homes and replacing them with settlements protected
by military law. Apartheid II is not only a memory
from South Africa. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International have already declared that Israel's
structures meet the definition of apartheid citing
systematic discrimination in land rights, mobility,
and legal systems. International criminal lawyers
call these designations sticky labels. Once applied
and recognized, it becomes progressively harder
for states to deny reality. Gaza's war intensifies
this conversation, bringing concepts that once
sounded academic into people's living rooms.
This transformation of public discourse, from
theory to lived emergency, may be one of the
most consequential shifts of our time. The comparison
to South Africa is powerful, but it also has
limits. In South Africa, apartheid finally fell
with a combination of grassroots resistance,
led especially by black workers and trade unions
and global solidarity. Boycotts, sanctions, divestments.
They piled up until the system collapsed. That's
why the word apartheid became so politically
explosive in Palestine. It carries with it a
story. Not just of oppression, but of eventual
victory. But Gaza reveals another layer. Palestinians
are fragmented. Refugees in Lebanon, citizens
under second class structure inside Israel, besieged
in Gaza, occupied in the West Bank, and scattered
around the globe as diaspora. Each community
faces different struggles. That fragmentation
is both the strength and the weakness of Palestinian
resistance. It is also why the analogy of South
Africa only goes so far. To replicate South Africa's
success, Palestinians, divided by geography,
status, even survival strategies, would need
unity across borders. That's a monumental task.
History, though, tells us something else. Settler
colonial regimes don't just collapse on their
own. Pressure must come from within and from
outside. Which brings us back to diplomacy. History
does more than teach us about the past. It offers
a mirror to measure the present. South Africa's
liberation struggle showed how oppressed peoples
can win against enormous odds. But it also reminds
us that liberation does not guarantee equality
in practice. Post -apartheid South Africa still
faces deep inequality. That sobering truth warns
us against romanticizing analogies. But it also
urges us to think about what comes after systems
fall. For Palestinians, imagining the day after
is critical. What would statehood look like?
How would refugees return? How would coexistence
be built on the ashes of decades of violence?
These are not questions to delay. They are essential
parts of the struggle itself. Because as painful
as the present is, Palestinians and their allies
know that future building cannot wait until the
last checkpoint falls. It begins now. In discourse.
In diplomacy. In the assertion that another reality
is not only possible, it is necessary. This is
where history speaks loudly. Without vision,
liberation risks collapse. With vision, it can
spark a new model for justice in the world. So
what does this all mean for diplomacy today?
If governments accept the genocide accusation,
they must act to sanction, to embargo, to intervene
diplomatically. If they accept the apartheid
framing, they must acknowledge that Israel's
system of governance is designed in ways that
violate international law. And if they dismiss
all of it, they continue business as usual. Arms
sales, rhetorical concern, Quiet Complicity South
Africa's ICJ, International Court of Justice
case, is a remarkable example of how the Global
South can leverage legal and diplomatic institutions,
even when militarily weak. It is also a reminder
that international justice is slow and deeply
political. Yet the case itself shapes conversation.
It keeps the accusation alive, and impossible
to ignore. For the Arab world, this moment tests
solidarity. Do Gulf states normalize relations
even as Gaza burns? Or do they stand with the
Palestinians? For the United States and Europe,
it is a test of credibility. Can democracies
uphold human rights when the violator is an ally,
not an enemy? And for emerging powers, China,
Russia, Brazil, India, it is a stage to shape
multipolar diplomacy, casting themselves as defenders
of international law. But diplomacy is not just
governments. It's movements. Unions. Universities.
Churches. Communities. It's you, the listener.
The same grassroots campaigns that helped end
apartheid in South Africa, boycotts, divestments,
sanctions are re -emerging, and that raises real
questions. Will states follow their people or
suppress them? When we talk about diplomacy and
responsibility toward Palestinians, it cannot
remain abstract. This is not a time for leaders
to simply express concern or call for restraint,
while simultaneously arming one side of the conflict.
Diplomacy, when it takes itself seriously, can
move the needle in practical and tangible ways.
The Palestinian cause is not just a regional
concern. It is a test of credibility on the international
system itself. So, what can be done? Let's start
with multilateral action. The United Nations
General Assembly has already voted overwhelmingly
to affirm Palestinian rights. But without Security
Council enforcement, these votes remain symbolic.
Countries that recognize the urgency of Gaza's
crisis could be pushing much harder for accountability.
They could sponsor resolutions demanding not
just ceasefires but binding embargoes on weapons
sales. investigations by the International Criminal
Court, and mechanisms to deliver humanitarian
aid without Israeli control. The ICJ case filed
by South Africa earlier this year showed how
even a single global South nation can reframe
the conversation worldwide, forcing more powerful
nations to respond. On the bilateral fronts,
Arab League and BRICS countries could go further
than statements of condemnation. They could initiate
targeted sanctions against companies and banks
directly profiting from settlement construction.
They could condition trade with Israel on halting
further land annexations. At the same time, they
can expand humanitarian corridors, ensuring that
food, fuel, and medical supplies are not only
pledged, but actually reach those trapped in
Gaza. Collective recognition of the state of
Palestine by countries that haven't yet done
so would also put immense pressure on Israel
and its allies. European states have options
too. While some have historically followed Washington's
lead, countries like Ireland, Spain, Norway,
and Belgium are already pressing harder. By formally
recognizing the Palestinian statehood, by joining
or strengthening the Boycott, Divestment, and
Sanctions BDS movement, and by suspending arms
deals with Israel, they can demonstrate that
values of democracy and human rights apply universally,
rather than selectively. And then there's the
United States. the country with unmatched leverage.
If Washington chose to, it could suspend military
assistance until Israel complied with international
humanitarian law. It could veto less frequently
and instead enable resolutions calling for accountability.
It could condition diplomatic protection at the
UN on compliance. While the political cost in
Washington is immense, The credibility cost of
inaction abroad is even greater. A superpower
that ignores international law becomes a superpower
that undermines its own legacy. But diplomacy
is not only about states. Civil society campaigns,
human rights organizations, universities, trade
unions, and religious institutions play a powerful
role. From South Africa, we know that grassroots
boycotts and international solidarity movements
can weaken a system of oppression from the outside
until it begins to crack. The choice for civil
society is the same today. To remain bystanders
or to exercise the quiet but powerful force of
collective non -cooperation with injustice. Ultimately,
Responsibility here is two -fold. Governments
must act in accordance with law, and citizens
must pressure them to do so. Palestinians do
not need more sympathy. They need action. And
diplomacy that refuses to act is complicity disguised
as neutrality. Here's the hard truth. What Israel
is doing to Palestinians meets the definition
of not just one, but several of the gravest crimes
recognized in international law. Calling it genocide,
apartheid, or settler colonialism is not about
inflaming tensions. It's about naming reality.
First, genocide. The UN Genocide Convention defines
it as, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious
group. These acts include killings, causing serious
bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting
living conditions aimed at destruction, and preventing
births. Gaza Today shows almost all of these.
Mass killings of civilians, starvation caused
by blockade, siege conditions making hospitals
inoperable, Second, apartheid. Apartheid is codified
in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court as an institutionalized regime of systematic
oppression and domination by one racial group
over another. Israel maintains different legal
regimes in the same territory, one for Jewish
citizens in settlements and another for Palestinians
under occupation. Freedom of movement is restricted
by checkpoints and permits. Resources like water,
building permits, and electricity are distributed
unequally. Roads are segregated and demolitions
target Palestinian homes, while settlements expand.
This is not mere inequality. It is institutionalized
domination. That is apartheid. Third, Settler
Colonialism Patrick Wolf a leading voice in settler
colonial studies, spoke of the logic of elimination.
In settler colonial systems, native populations
are displaced so that their land can be remade
for settlers. From the 1948 Nakba, to land confiscations
in the West Bank, to present calls from Israeli
leaders to resettle Gaza, the project has always
been about land without the people on it. Unlike
classical colonial projects where natives are
exploited for labor, settler colonialism wants
their removal. Israel's historical insistence
on both land and labor control excluding rather
than integrating Palestinians is textbook settler
colonialism in practice. When you place these
lenses together Genocide in its lethal immediacy,
apartheid in its systemic oppression, and settler
colonialism in its long -term logic, the situation
becomes stark. This is not a temporary security
measure. It is not just war. It is a system rooted
in ideology, practice, and law that seeks to
erase Palestinian existence on their land. Naming
this directly is crucial, because once you call
it what it is, neutrality becomes impossible.
States that continue sending weapons are complicit.
Leaders who hide behind vague language expose
their hypocrisy, and citizens who no but refuse
to act have to reckon with silence. So let's
be clear. What Palestinians face today Dispossession
siege bombardment structural oppression is genocide
in progress apartheid in law and practice and
settler colonialism in design Diplomacy and discourse
that fail to name. This are not diplomacy at
all They are delay tactics cover stories and
smoke screens the responsibility now For all
of us is to see it, to say it, and act upon it.
So as Israel's forces expand deeper into Gaza
City, flattening neighborhoods under the name
of security, we must confront an uncomfortable
truth. Security that comes from excluding entire
populations isn't stability. It's fragility.
It is violence disguised as safety. The frameworks
of colonialism, apartheid of a special type,
genocide, they are not just words. They are mirrors,
tools we use to understand. And when we use them
honestly, they strip away excuses and narratives
and reveals the system for what it is. The people
of Gaza are suffering in real time. But those
of us outside Gaza hold choices too. Will we
treat this as just another war? Something we
can unplug from? Or will we see it as part of
a global struggle against domination? Where law,
theory, and diplomacy align with basic human
dignity? That's the challenge. That's the discourse.
And that is the work of diplomacy. Not as a game
of nation -states. but as practice of solidarity,
imagination, and responsibility. I'm AR, and
this has been Diplomacy in Discourse. Thank you
for listening, stay thoughtful, stay engaged,
and I'll see you next time.