|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On December 04 2023 21:09 gobbledydook wrote:
Putting aside history, which we cannot change, is there anything that can be done, that will ensure a lasting peace from now on, where extremists from both sides cannot sabotage it?
What can happen is Israel can abandon at least some of settlements giving Hamas excuse to sit at negotiating table and achieve some sort of truce. Then maybe in generation or two Palestinians will be less radicalized and maybe some sort of NI solution can be found. Chance of this happening is like1/infinity.
For now default outcome seems that Israel will defend itself till full annexation of Gaza and West Bank.
Personally I think some years later Israel will start defending itself against Lebanon.
On December 04 2023 12:03 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Your quote that I was responding to was "that Israel has never attempted to not oppress Palestinians." This is an example of my fact checking a specific point rather than trying to make some sweeping statement. You can't accurately say that Israel NEVER tried not oppressing the Palestinians, when the first 2 decades of their existence, they pretty clearly didn't do that. If you want to say "recently" we could have a different discussion, but you can't use words like "never" and then just ignore sizable chunks of history.
I am not sure if I am reading you correctly? Or maybe you count first 20 years from some different starting point?
Deir Yassin - for starters, Nakba- just quick wiki link to make it short:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
quote:
"1949–1966
The Nakba continued after the end of the war in 1949. From 1948 to 1966, internally displaced Palestinians lived under martial law and needed a permit to move from one village to another. Israel prevented Palestinian refugees outside of Israel from returning. Palestinians continued to be expelled, and more Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed, with new Jewish settlements established in their place. Palestinian place names and the name "Palestine" itself were removed from maps and books."
Seems somewhat oppressive to me.
On December 04 2023 12:03 Cerebrate1 wrote:
I said "Unless you count pre-emptive strikes as the Arabs muster for war, Israel is not the one that starts those up." (Nothing to do with the comparative strength of those forces in my quote btw, not sure where you got that.) I understand that you believe that non-military action is equivalent to starting a war, but I don't think it's unreasonable for me to hold that they aren't. That said, every war that I can think of backs up my quote:
1948: 5+ Arab states invaded Israel
1967: Israel pre-emptive strike as Arab forces were mobilizing for war
1973: Arab states surprise invasion of Israel
1982: PLO attacks Israel from Lebanon
2006: Hezbollah takes Israeli soldiers hostage
2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, 2023: Hamas variously fires rockets, takes hostages, makes incursions into Israel and kills people, etc
You might be able to argue one or two of these, but the general pattern that the non-Israel side is the one who starts the military engagements is pretty clear.
You omitted 1956? and "1967: Israel pre-emptive strike as Arab forces were mobilizing for war" pre-emptive - Egypt had military on the Israel border because when 11 years earlier they closed passage for Israeli ships, Israel invaded them...
So if you dont believe that non-military action is equivalent to starting a war, then this 2 are on Israel.
|
On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:On December 04 2023 06:16 KwarK wrote:
The idea that “it wasn’t stolen from the people living there for generations because the new occupants had the legitimate ownership obtained from the British colonial administration” seems a bit of a stretch. I wonder how many people making that argument unconditionally accept British ownership rules elsewhere. My suspicion is that in general they don’t recognize the authority of the British colonial administration to declare who owns land but that in this instance it’s convenient to make an exception. @Ryzel I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/
Oh dear, that's a lot of information. Thanks for posting. Can't promise I'll read all of it, but I'll try.
News: Erdogan calls Netanjahu a war criminal and predicts he will be tried.
"Beyond being a war criminal, Netanyahu, who is the butcher of Gaza right now, will be tried as the butcher of Gaza, just as Milosevic was tried," Erdogan said, in reference to Yugoslav ex-President Slobodan Milosevic who was tried for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes at a tribunal in The Hague.
Erdogan also criticizes the UN.
"The sincere efforts of Secretary General (Antonio) Guterres were sabotaged by the Security Council members," he said. "None of us have to accept this system," he added.
"It is not possible for such a structure to bring peace or hope to humanity."
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkeys-erdogan-says-israels-netanyahu-will-be-tried-war-criminal-2023-12-04/
|
On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:On December 04 2023 06:16 KwarK wrote:
The idea that “it wasn’t stolen from the people living there for generations because the new occupants had the legitimate ownership obtained from the British colonial administration” seems a bit of a stretch. I wonder how many people making that argument unconditionally accept British ownership rules elsewhere. My suspicion is that in general they don’t recognize the authority of the British colonial administration to declare who owns land but that in this instance it’s convenient to make an exception. @Ryzel I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/ I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites. This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza.Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from. I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct.
The South African HSRC is about 15 years ahead of you on that one (all from the wiki page on Israel and Apartheid):
Following Dugard's report, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) of South Africa commissioned a legal study, completed in 2009, of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law. The report noted that one of South African apartheid's most "notorious" aspects was the "racial enclave policy" manifested in the Black Homelands called bantustans, and added: "As the apartheid regime in South Africa, Israel justifies these measures under the pretext of 'security'. Contrary to such claims, they are in fact part of an overall regime aimed at preserving demographic superiority of one racial group over the other in certain areas". According to the report, Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories correlate almost entirely with the definition of apartheid as established in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Comparison to South African laws and practices by the apartheid regime also found strong correlations with Israeli practices, including violations of international standards for due process (such as illegal detention); discriminatory privileges based on ascribed ethnicity (legally, as Jewish or non-Jewish); draconian enforced ethnic segregation in all parts of life, including by confining groups to ethnic "reserves and ghettoes"; comprehensive restrictions on individual freedoms, such as movement and expression; a dual legal system based on ethno-national identity (Jewish or Palestinian); denationalization (denial of citizenship); and a special system of laws designed selectively to punish any Palestinian resistance to the system. The study found: "the State of Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid." The report was published in 2012 as Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
It is the opinion of both the ANC, and many of our human rights organizations, that Israel is an apartheid state.
This is an opinion shared by multiple Israeli human rights organisations (see B'Tselem and Yesh Din).
|
|
|
On December 05 2023 01:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 01:02 Magic Powers wrote:
I'd like to ask the people who oppose the term "Apartheid" to propose a more fitting term, one that encompasses the whole of the West bank situation keeping the settlers apart from the Palestinian population. All of the rules and checkpoints, roads, walls, barb wire, security cameras, etc. I'm not going to use a different term until we've found a more accurate one. I’m not great with words, military occupation comes to mind.
"Occupation" doesn't account for state sanctioned theft of land and forced expulsion. There's also no mention of any separation of people, be it religious, ethnic or otherwise. No mention of separation of routes, diversion of natural resources, mass surveillance, etc. etc.
|
On December 05 2023 01:26 Ciaus237 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:On December 04 2023 06:16 KwarK wrote:
The idea that “it wasn’t stolen from the people living there for generations because the new occupants had the legitimate ownership obtained from the British colonial administration” seems a bit of a stretch. I wonder how many people making that argument unconditionally accept British ownership rules elsewhere. My suspicion is that in general they don’t recognize the authority of the British colonial administration to declare who owns land but that in this instance it’s convenient to make an exception. @Ryzel I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/ I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites. This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza.Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from. I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct. The South African HSRC is about 15 years ahead of you on that one (all from the wiki page on Israel and Apartheid): Show nested quote +
Following Dugard's report, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) of South Africa commissioned a legal study, completed in 2009, of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law. The report noted that one of South African apartheid's most "notorious" aspects was the "racial enclave policy" manifested in the Black Homelands called bantustans, and added: "As the apartheid regime in South Africa, Israel justifies these measures under the pretext of 'security'. Contrary to such claims, they are in fact part of an overall regime aimed at preserving demographic superiority of one racial group over the other in certain areas". According to the report, Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories correlate almost entirely with the definition of apartheid as established in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Comparison to South African laws and practices by the apartheid regime also found strong correlations with Israeli practices, including violations of international standards for due process (such as illegal detention); discriminatory privileges based on ascribed ethnicity (legally, as Jewish or non-Jewish); draconian enforced ethnic segregation in all parts of life, including by confining groups to ethnic "reserves and ghettoes"; comprehensive restrictions on individual freedoms, such as movement and expression; a dual legal system based on ethno-national identity (Jewish or Palestinian); denationalization (denial of citizenship); and a special system of laws designed selectively to punish any Palestinian resistance to the system. The study found: "the State of Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid." The report was published in 2012 as Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
It is the opinion of both the ANC, and many of our human rights organizations, that Israel is an apartheid state. This is an opinion shared by multiple Israeli human rights organisations (see B'Tselem and Yesh Din).
It's remarkable how many of the pro-Israel arguments are rehashed versions of the same old things we've heard to rationalize everything from Manifest Destiny to Jim Crow, to Apartheid, to the Holocaust (if you count the stuff about "No one else will take the Palestinians, curious Hmmmm?!?").
It's hard to imagine the people that have endured me in the US politics thread haven't noticed some of the same rhetoric we used to see from conservatives to defend US history/policing/treatment of Black people being used to defend Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign and apartheid regime.
|
|
|
On December 05 2023 02:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 01:53 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2023 01:19 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 01:02 Magic Powers wrote:
I'd like to ask the people who oppose the term "Apartheid" to propose a more fitting term, one that encompasses the whole of the West bank situation keeping the settlers apart from the Palestinian population. All of the rules and checkpoints, roads, walls, barb wire, security cameras, etc. I'm not going to use a different term until we've found a more accurate one. I’m not great with words, military occupation comes to mind. "Occupation" doesn't account for state sanctioned theft of land and forced expulsion. There's also no mention of any separation of people, be it religious, ethnic or otherwise. No mention of separation of routes, diversion of natural resources, mass surveillance, etc. etc. Isn’t all of that happening more or less in Russia occupied Ukraine? The biggest sticking point to apartheid is that the rules in Isreal are not close to the same, it is just in the occupied territory.
The fact that other means of stealing land (like Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory) also exist, doesn't mean that what Israel is doing isn't Apartheid. It'd be like a thief arguing "I didn't break into their house, so I didn't steal their money".
|
|
|
United States44243 Posts
It’s basically fucked forever. Israel failed to follow the genocide checklist and is paying the price.
Traditionally when you violently colonize a place the locals fight back and try to stop you. So far so good on the checklist.
One side wins and drives the other out. Yep, did that.
The losing side is ethnically cleansed. Either all killed or some killed, others fleeing to become refugees in another country. This part is where it broke down because ethnic cleansing was deemed to be problematic. That’s where our checklist falls apart. Not enough genocide.
What you’re looking for is something like the US genocide of the Native Americans where the few who survived absolutely recognize their total defeat and no longer make any attempt to exercise any kind of national sovereignty. Israel didn’t achieve that because the Palestinians had powerful nearby friends. That’s the best case genocide scenario, a total annihilation that leaves your descendants thinking you probably overdid it but no inter generational conflict because you killed all the children too.
Failing that you want to get them elsewhere with no plans for return, like the Irish Americans after the famine. They’ll still be dicks about it for centuries and will probably donate to terrorist groups that will make your life difficult but they’re not going to actually move back. It’s not as effective as the total annihilation option but it gets them out of the way. They basically failed there too by not driving the Palestinians physically into other nations and other nations not accepting them.
Failing that you’ve got to solve the problem of a shitload of displaced people that used to live on the land still being nearby and that means you need to live with them. You’re probably just going to want to create a full apartheid state in which they’re a second class subject population with pretty brutal police repression. Then over time your grandkids will recognize that you’re being a dick about it and you can have truth and reconciliation sessions. But to get to that point you still need an absolute monopoly on violence, it can’t seem like an occupation or a civil war, one side needs to be the only legitimate state actor. The argument has to be over who rules the state, not between two states. Israel basically failed there too by giving Palestinians de facto state status.
So what we have are two populous states on the same land with mutually incompatible needs. It’s fucked. It’s likely fucked forever. What we have is actually significantly less likely to lead to peace than apartheid South Africa because at least with South Africa we could agree that South Africa was a place and that black South Africans were South Africans. Whereas the right of Palestinians/Israelis to live on the land and exercise sovereignty is a key dispute here. The very existence of Palestine/Israel is controversial.
There’s all this focus on which side has the right to self defence and a right to exist and it just doesn’t actually matter. Both sides acting justly within the rights framework gets us absolutely nowhere. The inalienable rights of the two sides are incompatible, acting in an uncompromising maximalist rights way doesn’t get anywhere, it just results in killing. But not enough killing to actually solve anything, just enough to keep the human misery engine turning.
I don’t think anyone on this forum thinks that the Palestinians weren’t fucked over. They absolutely objectively were. Even if you blame the Arab world, the Palestinians got fucked by them. I don’t think anyone on this forum wants to see Israel and it’s Jewish population destroyed. Nobody thinks that would be a fair and just outcome. We could debate for years on which side has valid grievances and get nowhere because the only valid answer is both. Approaching this with a zero sum perspective of trying to win guarantees a loss.
|
On December 04 2023 21:09 gobbledydook wrote:
Putting aside history, which we cannot change, is there anything that can be done, that will ensure a lasting peace from now on, where extremists from both sides cannot sabotage it?
I think the solution likely is not fast or immediate and involves first change in leadership that isn't as extreme or hard lined on both sides. Being in power simply allows one to impose policies that have lasting effects. I would hypothesize that any party being in power for extended period of time will sway towards extreme policies as there is no need to consider the consequences and be accountable at all.
I don't think the Israel government enjoyed full support prior to Oct 7.
|
On December 05 2023 01:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 01:26 Ciaus237 wrote:On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:On December 04 2023 06:16 KwarK wrote:
The idea that “it wasn’t stolen from the people living there for generations because the new occupants had the legitimate ownership obtained from the British colonial administration” seems a bit of a stretch. I wonder how many people making that argument unconditionally accept British ownership rules elsewhere. My suspicion is that in general they don’t recognize the authority of the British colonial administration to declare who owns land but that in this instance it’s convenient to make an exception. @Ryzel I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/ I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites. This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza.Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from. I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct. The South African HSRC is about 15 years ahead of you on that one (all from the wiki page on Israel and Apartheid):
Following Dugard's report, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) of South Africa commissioned a legal study, completed in 2009, of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law. The report noted that one of South African apartheid's most "notorious" aspects was the "racial enclave policy" manifested in the Black Homelands called bantustans, and added: "As the apartheid regime in South Africa, Israel justifies these measures under the pretext of 'security'. Contrary to such claims, they are in fact part of an overall regime aimed at preserving demographic superiority of one racial group over the other in certain areas". According to the report, Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories correlate almost entirely with the definition of apartheid as established in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Comparison to South African laws and practices by the apartheid regime also found strong correlations with Israeli practices, including violations of international standards for due process (such as illegal detention); discriminatory privileges based on ascribed ethnicity (legally, as Jewish or non-Jewish); draconian enforced ethnic segregation in all parts of life, including by confining groups to ethnic "reserves and ghettoes"; comprehensive restrictions on individual freedoms, such as movement and expression; a dual legal system based on ethno-national identity (Jewish or Palestinian); denationalization (denial of citizenship); and a special system of laws designed selectively to punish any Palestinian resistance to the system. The study found: "the State of Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid." The report was published in 2012 as Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
It is the opinion of both the ANC, and many of our human rights organizations, that Israel is an apartheid state. This is an opinion shared by multiple Israeli human rights organisations (see B'Tselem and Yesh Din). Yes, we’ve gone through that in previous pages. It’ is quite controversial with reasonable orgs most of us would agree with on each side. There are massive differences in all sorts of areas, seems redundant to keep going over them.
It's controversial, but I don't think there's a real substantive argument there. The actual experts who have experience in the seeing what is happening in the occupied territories, and can meaningfully compare it to what happened in South Africa, are willing to call it apartheid. And have spelled out their reasoning and evidence pretty clearly. The right of return for Jewish people, while Palestinians removed from the land in the last 70 years have none alone is a massive step towards the apartheid line, and that's pretty much baked into the core of what Israel is.
You are not avoiding the term out of some practical difference in definition, you are doing so because you want to reflexively defend Israel while it goes through a litany of crimes-against-humanity like shopping-list on black Friday.
On December 05 2023 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's remarkable how many of the pro-Israel arguments are rehashed versions of the same old things we've heard to rationalize everything from Manifest Destiny to Jim Crow, to Apartheid, to the Holocaust (if you count the stuff about "No one else will take the Palestinians, curious Hmmmm?!?").
Yep. One that stands out for me is the line about `safety' as an excuse for controlling the movement and removing the homes of people. Happened plenty during apartheid in SA (although here often that pretext wasn't even necessary), happened with the Japanese internment, and repeatedly to Palestinians in the West Bank. Somehow once the danger is passed, the homes are never returned.
|
On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:On December 04 2023 06:16 KwarK wrote:
The idea that “it wasn’t stolen from the people living there for generations because the new occupants had the legitimate ownership obtained from the British colonial administration” seems a bit of a stretch. I wonder how many people making that argument unconditionally accept British ownership rules elsewhere. My suspicion is that in general they don’t recognize the authority of the British colonial administration to declare who owns land but that in this instance it’s convenient to make an exception. @Ryzel I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/ I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites. This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza. Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from. I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct.
That isn't true. You should read up on Apartheid in South Africa. The Bantustans had "autonomy".
|
On December 05 2023 02:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 01:53 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2023 01:19 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 01:02 Magic Powers wrote:
I'd like to ask the people who oppose the term "Apartheid" to propose a more fitting term, one that encompasses the whole of the West bank situation keeping the settlers apart from the Palestinian population. All of the rules and checkpoints, roads, walls, barb wire, security cameras, etc. I'm not going to use a different term until we've found a more accurate one. I’m not great with words, military occupation comes to mind. "Occupation" doesn't account for state sanctioned theft of land and forced expulsion. There's also no mention of any separation of people, be it religious, ethnic or otherwise. No mention of separation of routes, diversion of natural resources, mass surveillance, etc. etc. Isn’t all of that happening more or less in Russia occupied Ukraine? The biggest sticking point to apartheid is that the rules in Isreal are not close to the same, it is just in the occupied territory.
Well, I don't know much about the rules in occupied Ukraine. I presume it's martial law for everyone and the place is a shit show for everybody except the army (who are fucked in their own way). You can't call it Apartheid until the war situation ends and the Russians go about building a peacetime legal system that treats Ukrainian citizens as systematically different from Russian citizens. Alternatively flat out denies them citizenship in the first place and takes away their houses to put some Russians in there instead.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 05 2023 02:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 02:14 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2023 02:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 01:53 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2023 01:19 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 01:02 Magic Powers wrote:
I'd like to ask the people who oppose the term "Apartheid" to propose a more fitting term, one that encompasses the whole of the West bank situation keeping the settlers apart from the Palestinian population. All of the rules and checkpoints, roads, walls, barb wire, security cameras, etc. I'm not going to use a different term until we've found a more accurate one. I’m not great with words, military occupation comes to mind. "Occupation" doesn't account for state sanctioned theft of land and forced expulsion. There's also no mention of any separation of people, be it religious, ethnic or otherwise. No mention of separation of routes, diversion of natural resources, mass surveillance, etc. etc. Isn’t all of that happening more or less in Russia occupied Ukraine? The biggest sticking point to apartheid is that the rules in Isreal are not close to the same, it is just in the occupied territory. The fact that other means of stealing land (like Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory) also exist, doesn't mean that what Israel is doing isn't Apartheid. It'd be like a thief arguing "I didn't break into their house, so I didn't steal their money". So is Russia doing apartheid or what is the differences?
As I said, Russia annexed Ukrainian territory. I don't have information right now about the circumstances for Ukrainians living there. Although I'm sure Russians have treated them with kindness /s
|
On December 05 2023 04:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:On December 04 2023 06:16 KwarK wrote:
The idea that “it wasn’t stolen from the people living there for generations because the new occupants had the legitimate ownership obtained from the British colonial administration” seems a bit of a stretch. I wonder how many people making that argument unconditionally accept British ownership rules elsewhere. My suspicion is that in general they don’t recognize the authority of the British colonial administration to declare who owns land but that in this instance it’s convenient to make an exception. @Ryzel I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/ I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites. This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza. Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from. I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct. That isn't true. You should read up on Apartheid in South Africa. The Bantustans had "autonomy". I have and even posted about it and included multiple sources in the past. It’s shitty, low effort, one liner gotcha posts that are ruining good discussion.
I am literally only responding to your assertion that South Africa didn't have different rules for different races in different places when they clearly and demonstrably did. So if that was your main reason for not wanting to label Israel as an Apartheid regime... well, I guess now that you've educated yourself you believe Israel is an Apartheid regime.
E: might as well respond to your Russia quip as well. There are a variety of different ideologies that like their mass deportations. Apartheid is one of them. Fascism is another. Russia falls more in the latter. It's less about living together and more about "everybody who disagrees with Putin gets a one-way to Siberia, and we'll reeducate the children to ensure they are properly Russified". You totally gotchad me, because I totally thought Russia was the good guys in that war!
|
Norway28876 Posts
Tbh seems like the apartheid term is becoming less and less controversial in Israel too now. Confronted with Tamir Pardo's (former head of Mossad) claim that Israel is imposing apartheid, Mark Regev, who is Netanyahu's special advisor, replies that 'the factual part is correct. There is Israeli law for Israeli citizens, and palestinians living there are under military law'. This is Netanyahu's special advisor, and rather than deny the claim that it's an apartheid regime, he says that it's a temporary necessity and that the alternative is even worse.
Honestly the interview in that second link is very good. I guess it might be geoblocked for non-norwegians, but here is an accurate (but not complete) summary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
