|
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. |
Re: Defining Apartheid: Apartheid is an Afrikaans word used specifically to describe the racial segregation instituted in South Africa by the minority white population to maintain superiority in several respects over colored people and more so over black people. Sounds like other people here are more experts on the specifics, but suffice to say, it was somewhat complex and had idiosyncrasies unique to that time and place.
So, firstly, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply this term to other historical contexts at all. Like, why do you need to use a culturally specific Afrikaans word when you can just say "racial segregation?" Kinda like how the term "The Holocaust" applies specifically to the attempted genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis, while if you were to discuss the Rwandan Genocide, The Armenian Genocide, etc, you use the more generic English term "genocide."
Second of all, policies in Israel that make distinctions between people are more about nationality than race. Meaning, do you hold Israeli citizenship or not? If you are Israeli, you can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, or Bahai; you can be white, black (there are actually a large number of black Jews from Ethiopia there), or anywhere in between, and you will get the same voting rights, education rights, monetary benefits to being part of the socialist state of Israel (like the Israeli Beduins I mentioned earlier), etc. If you live in the West Bank and don't have Israeli citizenship, it also doesn't matter if you are Christian, Muslim, etc, you do not have those same rights. It happens to be that every country in the world treats it's citizens different than non-citizens, but I do understand that it's a bit more fuzzy here because Israel controls the land yet hasn't given everyone citizenship. I'm not saying this is right, but it is pretty distinct from the strictly racially defined Apartheid of South Africa.
Finally, we just have to be consistent about the definition. I don't have a monopoly on the English language, and if the world wants to start defining the term Apartheid more broadly than it was before, it could. You'd have to spend some time thinking of some definition that accurately included both what happened in South Africa, what's happening in Israel, and not also include tons of other places too. Making distinctions between people? Giving some people more rights than others based on race or nationality? I don't know. Someone who supports using the term to describe Israel can let me know if they come up with a good definition. But regardless what that definition ends up being, it has to then be applied to all the places it applies. I appreciate that Nebuchad went out on a limb and actually wrote out a list of countries that his definition of Apartheid might apply to. My problem is, that I've never actually heard this term used to describe any other place or time. The old American South easily fits a South African apartheid more closely than Israel, yet I've never heard anyone call it apartheid. Some places in the Indian subcontinent still have caste system stuff which is pretty similar to apartheid, but never called as such. Don't get me started on the Gulf monarchies. Which is why I think this is yet another double standard. The term apartheid is used as a stick to beat Israel specifically with, rather than an objective standard against which all countries are judged.
|
Northern Ireland24389 Posts
On December 05 2023 15:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Re: Defining Apartheid: Apartheid is an Afrikaans word used specifically to describe the racial segregation instituted in South Africa by the minority white population to maintain superiority in several respects over colored people and more so over black people. Sounds like other people here are more experts on the specifics, but suffice to say, it was somewhat complex and had idiosyncrasies unique to that time and place.
So, firstly, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply this term to other historical contexts at all. Like, why do you need to use a culturally specific Afrikaans word when you can just say "racial segregation?" Kinda like how the term "The Holocaust" applies specifically to the attempted genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis, while if you were to discuss the Rwandan Genocide, The Armenian Genocide, etc, you use the more generic English term "genocide."
Second of all, policies in Israel that make distinctions between people are more about nationality than race. Meaning, do you hold Israeli citizenship or not? If you are Israeli, you can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, or Bahai; you can be white, black (there are actually a large number of black Jews from Ethiopia there), or anywhere in between, and you will get the same voting rights, education rights, monetary benefits to being part of the socialist state of Israel (like the Israeli Beduins I mentioned earlier), etc. If you live in the West Bank and don't have Israeli citizenship, it also doesn't matter if you are Christian, Muslim, etc, you do not have those same rights. It happens to be that every country in the world treats it's citizens different than non-citizens, but I do understand that it's a bit more fuzzy here because Israel controls the land yet hasn't given everyone citizenship. I'm not saying this is right, but it is pretty distinct from the strictly racially defined Apartheid of South Africa.
Finally, we just have to be consistent about the definition. I don't have a monopoly on the English language, and if the world wants to start defining the term Apartheid more broadly than it was before, it could. You'd have to spend some time thinking of some definition that accurately included both what happened in South Africa, what's happening in Israel, and not also include tons of other places too. Making distinctions between people? Giving some people more rights than others based on race or nationality? I don't know. Someone who supports using the term to describe Israel can let me know if they come up with a good definition. But regardless what that definition ends up being, it has to then be applied to all the places it applies. I appreciate that Nebuchad went out on a limb and actually wrote out a list of countries that his definition of Apartheid might apply to. My problem is, that I've never actually heard this term used to describe any other place or time. The old American South easily fits a South African apartheid more closely than Israel, yet I've never heard anyone call it apartheid. Some places in the Indian subcontinent still have caste system stuff which is pretty similar to apartheid, but never called as such. Don't get me started on the Gulf monarchies. Which is why I think this is yet another double standard. The term apartheid is used as a stick to beat Israel specifically with, rather than an objective standard against which all countries are judged.
A good post, although tbh
There is also a clear emotive factor with the use of such a term. Same with ethnic cleansing. For those wishing to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians, using such terminology, which is universally denoting something extremely negatively charged serves that purpose rather well, and it’s definitionally close enough/accurate as to not be seen as dishonest. For the avowed neutrals, or those with more overt Israel sympathies, the opposite is true and even when allied with a ‘this is a bad thing’ caveat the push for specificity in terms is often motivated by coding language.
We’ve seen that dynamic play out pretty darn consistently in microcosm within this very thread after all.
As for why the term isn’t generally associated in other contexts where it may apply, be it contemporaneously or retrospectively, and as per your examples I’m not too sure why that is really, nor even have a clue particularly good theory.
I guess other criticisms and structures may supersede it to some degree. The Gulf States (which I also feel don’t get enough flak in general discourse) are clearly stratified societies too, but they’re also religiously influenced absolute monarchies, so people couch criticisms through that lens. Or China, if people are being critical it tends to be through a lens of totalitarian socialism. Whereas Israel is a democracy etc while still behaving in certain ways, so many don’t have an overarching structure to critique.
Plus of course people have limited bandwidth and may just be ignorant about other countries that have been mentioned. For example I am more into politics and current affairs/history than average Joe/Jane, but would still have zero ability to give a yes/no without research as to whether Malaysia would pass my benchmark for an Apartheid state.
|
On December 05 2023 17:00 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 15:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Re: Defining Apartheid: Apartheid is an Afrikaans word used specifically to describe the racial segregation instituted in South Africa by the minority white population to maintain superiority in several respects over colored people and more so over black people. Sounds like other people here are more experts on the specifics, but suffice to say, it was somewhat complex and had idiosyncrasies unique to that time and place.
So, firstly, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply this term to other historical contexts at all. Like, why do you need to use a culturally specific Afrikaans word when you can just say "racial segregation?" Kinda like how the term "The Holocaust" applies specifically to the attempted genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis, while if you were to discuss the Rwandan Genocide, The Armenian Genocide, etc, you use the more generic English term "genocide."
Second of all, policies in Israel that make distinctions between people are more about nationality than race. Meaning, do you hold Israeli citizenship or not? If you are Israeli, you can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, or Bahai; you can be white, black (there are actually a large number of black Jews from Ethiopia there), or anywhere in between, and you will get the same voting rights, education rights, monetary benefits to being part of the socialist state of Israel (like the Israeli Beduins I mentioned earlier), etc. If you live in the West Bank and don't have Israeli citizenship, it also doesn't matter if you are Christian, Muslim, etc, you do not have those same rights. It happens to be that every country in the world treats it's citizens different than non-citizens, but I do understand that it's a bit more fuzzy here because Israel controls the land yet hasn't given everyone citizenship. I'm not saying this is right, but it is pretty distinct from the strictly racially defined Apartheid of South Africa.
Finally, we just have to be consistent about the definition. I don't have a monopoly on the English language, and if the world wants to start defining the term Apartheid more broadly than it was before, it could. You'd have to spend some time thinking of some definition that accurately included both what happened in South Africa, what's happening in Israel, and not also include tons of other places too. Making distinctions between people? Giving some people more rights than others based on race or nationality? I don't know. Someone who supports using the term to describe Israel can let me know if they come up with a good definition. But regardless what that definition ends up being, it has to then be applied to all the places it applies. I appreciate that Nebuchad went out on a limb and actually wrote out a list of countries that his definition of Apartheid might apply to. My problem is, that I've never actually heard this term used to describe any other place or time. The old American South easily fits a South African apartheid more closely than Israel, yet I've never heard anyone call it apartheid. Some places in the Indian subcontinent still have caste system stuff which is pretty similar to apartheid, but never called as such. Don't get me started on the Gulf monarchies. Which is why I think this is yet another double standard. The term apartheid is used as a stick to beat Israel specifically with, rather than an objective standard against which all countries are judged. A good post, although tbh There is also a clear emotive factor with the use of such a term. Same with ethnic cleansing. For those wishing to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians, using such terminology, which is universally denoting something extremely negatively charged serves that purpose rather well, and it’s definitionally close enough/accurate as to not be seen as dishonest. For the avowed neutrals, or those with more overt Israel sympathies, the opposite is true and even when allied with a ‘this is a bad thing’ caveat the push for specificity in terms is often motivated by coding language. We’ve seen that dynamic play out pretty darn consistently in microcosm within this very thread after all. As for why the term isn’t generally associated in other contexts where it may apply, be it contemporaneously or retrospectively, and as per your examples I’m not too sure why that is really, nor even have a clue particularly good theory. I guess other criticisms and structures may supersede it to some degree. The Gulf States (which I also feel don’t get enough flak in general discourse) are clearly stratified societies too, but they’re also religiously influenced absolute monarchies, so people couch criticisms through that lens. Or China, if people are being critical it tends to be through a lens of totalitarian socialism. Whereas Israel is a democracy etc while still behaving in certain ways, so many don’t have an overarching structure to critique. Plus of course people have limited bandwidth and may just be ignorant about other countries that have been mentioned. For example I am more into politics and current affairs/history than average Joe/Jane, but would still have zero ability to give a yes/no without research as to whether Malaysia would pass my benchmark for an Apartheid state.
It is true that by law, Malays have priority in various aspects of life. They have priority in purchasing housing, getting into universities, entering public service, tendering for government contracts, etc. Ostensibly it is to prevent the powerful Chinese minority from dominating Malaysia.
There is however no official segregation of the Malay and Ghinese. They are free to live in the same communities and use the same schools, although in practice, the Chinese tend to send their children to schools that teach in Chinese rather than Malaya.
I would not call it apartheid, even though it is racial discrimination. I think a fundamental core of apartheid is the entrenchment of an elite minority using segregation to prevent participation by the majority.
|
Northern Ireland24389 Posts
On December 05 2023 17:13 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 17:00 WombaT wrote:On December 05 2023 15:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Re: Defining Apartheid: Apartheid is an Afrikaans word used specifically to describe the racial segregation instituted in South Africa by the minority white population to maintain superiority in several respects over colored people and more so over black people. Sounds like other people here are more experts on the specifics, but suffice to say, it was somewhat complex and had idiosyncrasies unique to that time and place.
So, firstly, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply this term to other historical contexts at all. Like, why do you need to use a culturally specific Afrikaans word when you can just say "racial segregation?" Kinda like how the term "The Holocaust" applies specifically to the attempted genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis, while if you were to discuss the Rwandan Genocide, The Armenian Genocide, etc, you use the more generic English term "genocide."
Second of all, policies in Israel that make distinctions between people are more about nationality than race. Meaning, do you hold Israeli citizenship or not? If you are Israeli, you can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, or Bahai; you can be white, black (there are actually a large number of black Jews from Ethiopia there), or anywhere in between, and you will get the same voting rights, education rights, monetary benefits to being part of the socialist state of Israel (like the Israeli Beduins I mentioned earlier), etc. If you live in the West Bank and don't have Israeli citizenship, it also doesn't matter if you are Christian, Muslim, etc, you do not have those same rights. It happens to be that every country in the world treats it's citizens different than non-citizens, but I do understand that it's a bit more fuzzy here because Israel controls the land yet hasn't given everyone citizenship. I'm not saying this is right, but it is pretty distinct from the strictly racially defined Apartheid of South Africa.
Finally, we just have to be consistent about the definition. I don't have a monopoly on the English language, and if the world wants to start defining the term Apartheid more broadly than it was before, it could. You'd have to spend some time thinking of some definition that accurately included both what happened in South Africa, what's happening in Israel, and not also include tons of other places too. Making distinctions between people? Giving some people more rights than others based on race or nationality? I don't know. Someone who supports using the term to describe Israel can let me know if they come up with a good definition. But regardless what that definition ends up being, it has to then be applied to all the places it applies. I appreciate that Nebuchad went out on a limb and actually wrote out a list of countries that his definition of Apartheid might apply to. My problem is, that I've never actually heard this term used to describe any other place or time. The old American South easily fits a South African apartheid more closely than Israel, yet I've never heard anyone call it apartheid. Some places in the Indian subcontinent still have caste system stuff which is pretty similar to apartheid, but never called as such. Don't get me started on the Gulf monarchies. Which is why I think this is yet another double standard. The term apartheid is used as a stick to beat Israel specifically with, rather than an objective standard against which all countries are judged. A good post, although tbh There is also a clear emotive factor with the use of such a term. Same with ethnic cleansing. For those wishing to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians, using such terminology, which is universally denoting something extremely negatively charged serves that purpose rather well, and it’s definitionally close enough/accurate as to not be seen as dishonest. For the avowed neutrals, or those with more overt Israel sympathies, the opposite is true and even when allied with a ‘this is a bad thing’ caveat the push for specificity in terms is often motivated by coding language. We’ve seen that dynamic play out pretty darn consistently in microcosm within this very thread after all. As for why the term isn’t generally associated in other contexts where it may apply, be it contemporaneously or retrospectively, and as per your examples I’m not too sure why that is really, nor even have a clue particularly good theory. I guess other criticisms and structures may supersede it to some degree. The Gulf States (which I also feel don’t get enough flak in general discourse) are clearly stratified societies too, but they’re also religiously influenced absolute monarchies, so people couch criticisms through that lens. Or China, if people are being critical it tends to be through a lens of totalitarian socialism. Whereas Israel is a democracy etc while still behaving in certain ways, so many don’t have an overarching structure to critique. Plus of course people have limited bandwidth and may just be ignorant about other countries that have been mentioned. For example I am more into politics and current affairs/history than average Joe/Jane, but would still have zero ability to give a yes/no without research as to whether Malaysia would pass my benchmark for an Apartheid state. It is true that by law, Malays have priority in various aspects of life. They have priority in purchasing housing, getting into universities, entering public service, tendering for government contracts, etc. Ostensibly it is to prevent the powerful Chinese minority from dominating Malaysia. There is however no official segregation of the Malay and Ghinese. They are free to live in the same communities and use the same schools, although in practice, the Chinese tend to send their children to schools that teach in Chinese rather than Malaya. I would not call it apartheid, even though it is racial discrimination. I think a fundamental core of apartheid is the entrenchment of an elite minority using segregation to prevent participation by the majority.
Thanks for the summation man
|
I refuted the claim that Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews just a few pages ago. They only have the same rights on paper but not in practice.
This is a common rhetorical trick that is being used to misinform people and manipulate their views. As I said, a technicality can be correct, but with context the claim becomes false.
I'm speaking of this claim:
"Second of all, policies in Israel that make distinctions between people are more about nationality than race."
This claim is strategically meant to misinform and manipulate. The policies may be about nationality rather than race, but the reality of the situation is that it's about race and not nationality.
Just a little insight, this is by no means everything:
"Israel’s establishment as an explicitly Jewish state is a primary point of contention, with many of the state’s critics arguing that this by nature casts non-Jews as second-class citizens with fewer rights. The 1950 Law of Return, for example, grants all Jews, as well as their children, grandchildren, and spouses, the right to move to Israel and automatically gain citizenship. Non-Jews do not have these rights. Palestinians and their descendants have no legal right to return to the lands their families held before being displaced in 1948 or 1967.
Another major difference is that, unlike the vast majority of Jewish Israelis, Arab citizens do not have to serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the country’s military. They can still enlist, and some do, especially Druze and Circassians, but some are stigmatized in their communities as a result. Yet, not enlisting can significantly disadvantage them both socially and economically. For instance, many Israelis make important and lasting personal connections with their fellow citizens through the IDF, and they also receive many financial benefits, such as education assistance and discounted permits for building homes and owning land."
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel
Honestly every time I read about how the discrimination in Israel is set up, I can only have mad respect for the brilliancy of it all. Every puzzle piece is strategically placed to discriminate as much as possible without explicitely admitting that such discrimination is taking place. It's unbelievably effective and countries like China should take note on how to discriminate more effectively as well.
|
On December 05 2023 12:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In no way will this back fire...
pumping a million cubic litres of water under a heavily urbanised environment.
Yeah I don't see how that could possibly go wrong.
|
On December 05 2023 19:05 Gorsameth wrote:pumping a million cubic litres of water under a heavily urbanised environment. Yeah I don't see how that could possibly go wrong.
Things going wrong might be an intended side effect.
|
If everything above is allready rubble...
|
On December 05 2023 17:00 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 15:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Re: Defining Apartheid: Apartheid is an Afrikaans word used specifically to describe the racial segregation instituted in South Africa by the minority white population to maintain superiority in several respects over colored people and more so over black people. Sounds like other people here are more experts on the specifics, but suffice to say, it was somewhat complex and had idiosyncrasies unique to that time and place.
So, firstly, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply this term to other historical contexts at all. Like, why do you need to use a culturally specific Afrikaans word when you can just say "racial segregation?" Kinda like how the term "The Holocaust" applies specifically to the attempted genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis, while if you were to discuss the Rwandan Genocide, The Armenian Genocide, etc, you use the more generic English term "genocide."
Second of all, policies in Israel that make distinctions between people are more about nationality than race. Meaning, do you hold Israeli citizenship or not? If you are Israeli, you can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, or Bahai; you can be white, black (there are actually a large number of black Jews from Ethiopia there), or anywhere in between, and you will get the same voting rights, education rights, monetary benefits to being part of the socialist state of Israel (like the Israeli Beduins I mentioned earlier), etc. If you live in the West Bank and don't have Israeli citizenship, it also doesn't matter if you are Christian, Muslim, etc, you do not have those same rights. It happens to be that every country in the world treats it's citizens different than non-citizens, but I do understand that it's a bit more fuzzy here because Israel controls the land yet hasn't given everyone citizenship. I'm not saying this is right, but it is pretty distinct from the strictly racially defined Apartheid of South Africa.
Finally, we just have to be consistent about the definition. I don't have a monopoly on the English language, and if the world wants to start defining the term Apartheid more broadly than it was before, it could. You'd have to spend some time thinking of some definition that accurately included both what happened in South Africa, what's happening in Israel, and not also include tons of other places too. Making distinctions between people? Giving some people more rights than others based on race or nationality? I don't know. Someone who supports using the term to describe Israel can let me know if they come up with a good definition. But regardless what that definition ends up being, it has to then be applied to all the places it applies. I appreciate that Nebuchad went out on a limb and actually wrote out a list of countries that his definition of Apartheid might apply to. My problem is, that I've never actually heard this term used to describe any other place or time. The old American South easily fits a South African apartheid more closely than Israel, yet I've never heard anyone call it apartheid. Some places in the Indian subcontinent still have caste system stuff which is pretty similar to apartheid, but never called as such. Don't get me started on the Gulf monarchies. Which is why I think this is yet another double standard. The term apartheid is used as a stick to beat Israel specifically with, rather than an objective standard against which all countries are judged. A good post, although tbh There is also a clear emotive factor with the use of such a term. Same with ethnic cleansing. For those wishing to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians, using such terminology, which is universally denoting something extremely negatively charged serves that purpose rather well, and it’s definitionally close enough/accurate as to not be seen as dishonest. For the avowed neutrals, or those with more overt Israel sympathies, the opposite is true and even when allied with a ‘this is a bad thing’ caveat the push for specificity in terms is often motivated by coding language. We’ve seen that dynamic play out pretty darn consistently in microcosm within this very thread after all. As for why the term isn’t generally associated in other contexts where it may apply, be it contemporaneously or retrospectively, and as per your examples I’m not too sure why that is really, nor even have a clue particularly good theory. I guess other criticisms and structures may supersede it to some degree. The Gulf States (which I also feel don’t get enough flak in general discourse) are clearly stratified societies too, but they’re also religiously influenced absolute monarchies, so people couch criticisms through that lens. Or China, if people are being critical it tends to be through a lens of totalitarian socialism. Whereas Israel is a democracy etc while still behaving in certain ways, so many don’t have an overarching structure to critique. Plus of course people have limited bandwidth and may just be ignorant about other countries that have been mentioned. For example I am more into politics and current affairs/history than average Joe/Jane, but would still have zero ability to give a yes/no without research as to whether Malaysia would pass my benchmark for an Apartheid state.
The overarching structure that you could critique in Israel would be that of the ethnostate.
Imo it's more about your first paragraph and about how words are connotated negatively. When you criticize Saudi Arabia for example, it's not a very common experience to have someone fight back and give you all of the ways in which Ben Salman is great and how you should empathize and/or sympathize with him. So the first thing is that you don't really have a place where a bunch of people are talking about Saudi Arabia because we already agree. The second thing is that if I was to go into this place that doesn't exist and talk about Saudi Arabia as a "religious Apartheid", it wouldn't spark a debate because no one would care that I used this formulation.
I am of course no expert on any country either btw, I just pulled up a list of countries that have had accusations of Apartheid and did basic due diligence to eliminate some from the list because they didn't make any sense (the list had North Korea ^_^)
|
On December 05 2023 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 17:00 WombaT wrote:On December 05 2023 15:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Re: Defining Apartheid: Apartheid is an Afrikaans word used specifically to describe the racial segregation instituted in South Africa by the minority white population to maintain superiority in several respects over colored people and more so over black people. Sounds like other people here are more experts on the specifics, but suffice to say, it was somewhat complex and had idiosyncrasies unique to that time and place.
So, firstly, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply this term to other historical contexts at all. Like, why do you need to use a culturally specific Afrikaans word when you can just say "racial segregation?" Kinda like how the term "The Holocaust" applies specifically to the attempted genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis, while if you were to discuss the Rwandan Genocide, The Armenian Genocide, etc, you use the more generic English term "genocide."
Second of all, policies in Israel that make distinctions between people are more about nationality than race. Meaning, do you hold Israeli citizenship or not? If you are Israeli, you can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, or Bahai; you can be white, black (there are actually a large number of black Jews from Ethiopia there), or anywhere in between, and you will get the same voting rights, education rights, monetary benefits to being part of the socialist state of Israel (like the Israeli Beduins I mentioned earlier), etc. If you live in the West Bank and don't have Israeli citizenship, it also doesn't matter if you are Christian, Muslim, etc, you do not have those same rights. It happens to be that every country in the world treats it's citizens different than non-citizens, but I do understand that it's a bit more fuzzy here because Israel controls the land yet hasn't given everyone citizenship. I'm not saying this is right, but it is pretty distinct from the strictly racially defined Apartheid of South Africa.
Finally, we just have to be consistent about the definition. I don't have a monopoly on the English language, and if the world wants to start defining the term Apartheid more broadly than it was before, it could. You'd have to spend some time thinking of some definition that accurately included both what happened in South Africa, what's happening in Israel, and not also include tons of other places too. Making distinctions between people? Giving some people more rights than others based on race or nationality? I don't know. Someone who supports using the term to describe Israel can let me know if they come up with a good definition. But regardless what that definition ends up being, it has to then be applied to all the places it applies. I appreciate that Nebuchad went out on a limb and actually wrote out a list of countries that his definition of Apartheid might apply to. My problem is, that I've never actually heard this term used to describe any other place or time. The old American South easily fits a South African apartheid more closely than Israel, yet I've never heard anyone call it apartheid. Some places in the Indian subcontinent still have caste system stuff which is pretty similar to apartheid, but never called as such. Don't get me started on the Gulf monarchies. Which is why I think this is yet another double standard. The term apartheid is used as a stick to beat Israel specifically with, rather than an objective standard against which all countries are judged. A good post, although tbh There is also a clear emotive factor with the use of such a term. Same with ethnic cleansing. For those wishing to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians, using such terminology, which is universally denoting something extremely negatively charged serves that purpose rather well, and it’s definitionally close enough/accurate as to not be seen as dishonest. For the avowed neutrals, or those with more overt Israel sympathies, the opposite is true and even when allied with a ‘this is a bad thing’ caveat the push for specificity in terms is often motivated by coding language. We’ve seen that dynamic play out pretty darn consistently in microcosm within this very thread after all. As for why the term isn’t generally associated in other contexts where it may apply, be it contemporaneously or retrospectively, and as per your examples I’m not too sure why that is really, nor even have a clue particularly good theory. I guess other criticisms and structures may supersede it to some degree. The Gulf States (which I also feel don’t get enough flak in general discourse) are clearly stratified societies too, but they’re also religiously influenced absolute monarchies, so people couch criticisms through that lens. Or China, if people are being critical it tends to be through a lens of totalitarian socialism. Whereas Israel is a democracy etc while still behaving in certain ways, so many don’t have an overarching structure to critique. Plus of course people have limited bandwidth and may just be ignorant about other countries that have been mentioned. For example I am more into politics and current affairs/history than average Joe/Jane, but would still have zero ability to give a yes/no without research as to whether Malaysia would pass my benchmark for an Apartheid state. The overarching structure that you could critique in Israel would be that of the ethnostate. Imo it's more about your first paragraph and about how words are connotated negatively. When you criticize Saudi Arabia for example, it's not a very common experience to have someone fight back and give you all of the ways in which Ben Salman is great and how you should empathize and/or sympathize with him. So the first thing is that you don't really have a place where a bunch of people are talking about Saudi Arabia because we already agree. The second thing is that if I was to go into this place that doesn't exist and talk about Saudi Arabia as a "religious Apartheid", it wouldn't spark a debate because no one would care that I used this formulation. I am of course no expert on any country either btw, I just pulled up a list of countries that have had accusations of Apartheid and did basic due diligence to eliminate some from the list because they didn't make any sense (the list had North Korea ^_^)
Well, North Korea has a caste based system where your political lineage determines what you can do in life.
If that's apartheid, then the word has lost all meaning and just refers to any unequal and unfair treatment of people based on their birth.
|
|
|
On December 06 2023 00:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 17:00 WombaT wrote:On December 05 2023 15:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Re: Defining Apartheid: Apartheid is an Afrikaans word used specifically to describe the racial segregation instituted in South Africa by the minority white population to maintain superiority in several respects over colored people and more so over black people. Sounds like other people here are more experts on the specifics, but suffice to say, it was somewhat complex and had idiosyncrasies unique to that time and place.
So, firstly, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply this term to other historical contexts at all. Like, why do you need to use a culturally specific Afrikaans word when you can just say "racial segregation?" Kinda like how the term "The Holocaust" applies specifically to the attempted genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis, while if you were to discuss the Rwandan Genocide, The Armenian Genocide, etc, you use the more generic English term "genocide."
Second of all, policies in Israel that make distinctions between people are more about nationality than race. Meaning, do you hold Israeli citizenship or not? If you are Israeli, you can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, or Bahai; you can be white, black (there are actually a large number of black Jews from Ethiopia there), or anywhere in between, and you will get the same voting rights, education rights, monetary benefits to being part of the socialist state of Israel (like the Israeli Beduins I mentioned earlier), etc. If you live in the West Bank and don't have Israeli citizenship, it also doesn't matter if you are Christian, Muslim, etc, you do not have those same rights. It happens to be that every country in the world treats it's citizens different than non-citizens, but I do understand that it's a bit more fuzzy here because Israel controls the land yet hasn't given everyone citizenship. I'm not saying this is right, but it is pretty distinct from the strictly racially defined Apartheid of South Africa.
Finally, we just have to be consistent about the definition. I don't have a monopoly on the English language, and if the world wants to start defining the term Apartheid more broadly than it was before, it could. You'd have to spend some time thinking of some definition that accurately included both what happened in South Africa, what's happening in Israel, and not also include tons of other places too. Making distinctions between people? Giving some people more rights than others based on race or nationality? I don't know. Someone who supports using the term to describe Israel can let me know if they come up with a good definition. But regardless what that definition ends up being, it has to then be applied to all the places it applies. I appreciate that Nebuchad went out on a limb and actually wrote out a list of countries that his definition of Apartheid might apply to. My problem is, that I've never actually heard this term used to describe any other place or time. The old American South easily fits a South African apartheid more closely than Israel, yet I've never heard anyone call it apartheid. Some places in the Indian subcontinent still have caste system stuff which is pretty similar to apartheid, but never called as such. Don't get me started on the Gulf monarchies. Which is why I think this is yet another double standard. The term apartheid is used as a stick to beat Israel specifically with, rather than an objective standard against which all countries are judged. A good post, although tbh There is also a clear emotive factor with the use of such a term. Same with ethnic cleansing. For those wishing to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians, using such terminology, which is universally denoting something extremely negatively charged serves that purpose rather well, and it’s definitionally close enough/accurate as to not be seen as dishonest. For the avowed neutrals, or those with more overt Israel sympathies, the opposite is true and even when allied with a ‘this is a bad thing’ caveat the push for specificity in terms is often motivated by coding language. We’ve seen that dynamic play out pretty darn consistently in microcosm within this very thread after all. As for why the term isn’t generally associated in other contexts where it may apply, be it contemporaneously or retrospectively, and as per your examples I’m not too sure why that is really, nor even have a clue particularly good theory. I guess other criticisms and structures may supersede it to some degree. The Gulf States (which I also feel don’t get enough flak in general discourse) are clearly stratified societies too, but they’re also religiously influenced absolute monarchies, so people couch criticisms through that lens. Or China, if people are being critical it tends to be through a lens of totalitarian socialism. Whereas Israel is a democracy etc while still behaving in certain ways, so many don’t have an overarching structure to critique. Plus of course people have limited bandwidth and may just be ignorant about other countries that have been mentioned. For example I am more into politics and current affairs/history than average Joe/Jane, but would still have zero ability to give a yes/no without research as to whether Malaysia would pass my benchmark for an Apartheid state. The overarching structure that you could critique in Israel would be that of the ethnostate. Imo it's more about your first paragraph and about how words are connotated negatively. When you criticize Saudi Arabia for example, it's not a very common experience to have someone fight back and give you all of the ways in which Ben Salman is great and how you should empathize and/or sympathize with him. So the first thing is that you don't really have a place where a bunch of people are talking about Saudi Arabia because we already agree. The second thing is that if I was to go into this place that doesn't exist and talk about Saudi Arabia as a "religious Apartheid", it wouldn't spark a debate because no one would care that I used this formulation. I am of course no expert on any country either btw, I just pulled up a list of countries that have had accusations of Apartheid and did basic due diligence to eliminate some from the list because they didn't make any sense (the list had North Korea ^_^) Israel is absolutely not an ethnostate. That is a bridge way to far, it is BY FAR the most diverse and accepting country in the Middle East. This is where you really cross the line and it makes a lot of the iffy things you and others say start to sound really hateful. Palestine would fit the definition if you really want to go there, but I don’t know what you are attempting to accomplish. I At this point it’s basically like, what hateful terms exist Im going to try and crowbar em enough to fit Israel because they are evil.
Sure, we can do this again, I'll pop a definition and argue why I think it fits reality well enough, then you'll give a technicality on why you think it's more accurate to say "the nation-state of the Jewish people" instead of "ethnostate", and then the thread will have 20 more posts.
|
|
|
Nebuchad's claim can't be dismissed out of hand. An ethnostate serves the interests of one ethnicity above all. This can be done by restricting citizenship to only one ethnicity, but that's not a fundamental requirement.
As has been shown, the interests of Jews are strongly favored in the State of Israel above those of all other ethnic groups.
|
United States42251 Posts
I found the argument that exemption from conscription, while still being allowed to volunteer, was discriminatory a little bit of a reach.
|
On December 06 2023 01:18 KwarK wrote:
I found the argument that exemption from conscription, while still being allowed to volunteer, was discriminatory a little bit of a reach.
Did you miss the part where it is explained that a number of benefits are unavailable to people who haven't served? And the part where Israeli Arabs are being discouraged from serving by their own communities?
|
United States42251 Posts
On December 06 2023 01:30 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 01:18 KwarK wrote:
I found the argument that exemption from conscription, while still being allowed to volunteer, was discriminatory a little bit of a reach. Did you miss the part where it is explained that a number of benefits are unavailable to people who haven't served? And the part where Israeli Arabs are being discouraged from serving by their own communities?
I did not. You could make all sorts of equally weak arguments. You could, for example, say that a delay of a few years in entering the workforce will compound into significant loss of lifetime earnings if you take into account typical career progression and growth patterns. Or you could say that membership of fraternal organizations have always conferred social networking benefits on their members and that the IDF is no more special in that regard than a golf club. That by not spending all their time as conscripts they have plenty of other networking opportunities that would be denied to conscripts.
Ultimately it comes down to “Arab Israelis are discriminated against by not forcibly conscripting them, though they are allowed to voluntarily join. This hurts them by giving them the choice, unlike the favoured Jewish Israelis who have no choice”.
It’s a weak argument, however you spin it.
|
On December 06 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2023 00:21 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 17:00 WombaT wrote:On December 05 2023 15:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Re: Defining Apartheid: Apartheid is an Afrikaans word used specifically to describe the racial segregation instituted in South Africa by the minority white population to maintain superiority in several respects over colored people and more so over black people. Sounds like other people here are more experts on the specifics, but suffice to say, it was somewhat complex and had idiosyncrasies unique to that time and place.
So, firstly, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply this term to other historical contexts at all. Like, why do you need to use a culturally specific Afrikaans word when you can just say "racial segregation?" Kinda like how the term "The Holocaust" applies specifically to the attempted genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis, while if you were to discuss the Rwandan Genocide, The Armenian Genocide, etc, you use the more generic English term "genocide."
Second of all, policies in Israel that make distinctions between people are more about nationality than race. Meaning, do you hold Israeli citizenship or not? If you are Israeli, you can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, or Bahai; you can be white, black (there are actually a large number of black Jews from Ethiopia there), or anywhere in between, and you will get the same voting rights, education rights, monetary benefits to being part of the socialist state of Israel (like the Israeli Beduins I mentioned earlier), etc. If you live in the West Bank and don't have Israeli citizenship, it also doesn't matter if you are Christian, Muslim, etc, you do not have those same rights. It happens to be that every country in the world treats it's citizens different than non-citizens, but I do understand that it's a bit more fuzzy here because Israel controls the land yet hasn't given everyone citizenship. I'm not saying this is right, but it is pretty distinct from the strictly racially defined Apartheid of South Africa.
Finally, we just have to be consistent about the definition. I don't have a monopoly on the English language, and if the world wants to start defining the term Apartheid more broadly than it was before, it could. You'd have to spend some time thinking of some definition that accurately included both what happened in South Africa, what's happening in Israel, and not also include tons of other places too. Making distinctions between people? Giving some people more rights than others based on race or nationality? I don't know. Someone who supports using the term to describe Israel can let me know if they come up with a good definition. But regardless what that definition ends up being, it has to then be applied to all the places it applies. I appreciate that Nebuchad went out on a limb and actually wrote out a list of countries that his definition of Apartheid might apply to. My problem is, that I've never actually heard this term used to describe any other place or time. The old American South easily fits a South African apartheid more closely than Israel, yet I've never heard anyone call it apartheid. Some places in the Indian subcontinent still have caste system stuff which is pretty similar to apartheid, but never called as such. Don't get me started on the Gulf monarchies. Which is why I think this is yet another double standard. The term apartheid is used as a stick to beat Israel specifically with, rather than an objective standard against which all countries are judged. A good post, although tbh There is also a clear emotive factor with the use of such a term. Same with ethnic cleansing. For those wishing to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians, using such terminology, which is universally denoting something extremely negatively charged serves that purpose rather well, and it’s definitionally close enough/accurate as to not be seen as dishonest. For the avowed neutrals, or those with more overt Israel sympathies, the opposite is true and even when allied with a ‘this is a bad thing’ caveat the push for specificity in terms is often motivated by coding language. We’ve seen that dynamic play out pretty darn consistently in microcosm within this very thread after all. As for why the term isn’t generally associated in other contexts where it may apply, be it contemporaneously or retrospectively, and as per your examples I’m not too sure why that is really, nor even have a clue particularly good theory. I guess other criticisms and structures may supersede it to some degree. The Gulf States (which I also feel don’t get enough flak in general discourse) are clearly stratified societies too, but they’re also religiously influenced absolute monarchies, so people couch criticisms through that lens. Or China, if people are being critical it tends to be through a lens of totalitarian socialism. Whereas Israel is a democracy etc while still behaving in certain ways, so many don’t have an overarching structure to critique. Plus of course people have limited bandwidth and may just be ignorant about other countries that have been mentioned. For example I am more into politics and current affairs/history than average Joe/Jane, but would still have zero ability to give a yes/no without research as to whether Malaysia would pass my benchmark for an Apartheid state. The overarching structure that you could critique in Israel would be that of the ethnostate. Imo it's more about your first paragraph and about how words are connotated negatively. When you criticize Saudi Arabia for example, it's not a very common experience to have someone fight back and give you all of the ways in which Ben Salman is great and how you should empathize and/or sympathize with him. So the first thing is that you don't really have a place where a bunch of people are talking about Saudi Arabia because we already agree. The second thing is that if I was to go into this place that doesn't exist and talk about Saudi Arabia as a "religious Apartheid", it wouldn't spark a debate because no one would care that I used this formulation. I am of course no expert on any country either btw, I just pulled up a list of countries that have had accusations of Apartheid and did basic due diligence to eliminate some from the list because they didn't make any sense (the list had North Korea ^_^) Israel is absolutely not an ethnostate. That is a bridge way to far, it is BY FAR the most diverse and accepting country in the Middle East. This is where you really cross the line and it makes a lot of the iffy things you and others say start to sound really hateful. Palestine would fit the definition if you really want to go there, but I don’t know what you are attempting to accomplish. I At this point it’s basically like, what hateful terms exist Im going to try and crowbar em enough to fit Israel because they are evil. Sure, we can do this again, I'll pop a definition and argue why I think it fits reality well enough, then you'll give a technicality on why you think it's more accurate to say "the nation-state of the Jewish people" instead of "ethnostate", and then the thread will have 20 more posts. No we won’t because it’s stupid, just look up the demographics. It’s like you think everyone there is of traditional Jewish decent and practicing the religion. That’s far from the case. If you want ethnostates though, just look around Israel and you will find a whole bunch. If you want to go with words to describe Israel go with parliamentary republic.
You know what, I'm going to agree with you, we're not going to use ethnostate. "State with the project and the desire to be an ethnostate" is a more accurate description, as it acknowledges the fact that in reality the project is a failure.
|
On December 06 2023 01:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 01:30 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 01:18 KwarK wrote:
I found the argument that exemption from conscription, while still being allowed to volunteer, was discriminatory a little bit of a reach. Did you miss the part where it is explained that a number of benefits are unavailable to people who haven't served? And the part where Israeli Arabs are being discouraged from serving by their own communities? I did not. You could make all sorts of equally weak arguments. You could, for example, say that a delay of a few years in entering the workforce will compound into significant loss of lifetime earnings if you take into account typical career progression and growth patterns. Or you could say that membership of fraternal organizations have always conferred social networking benefits on their members and that the IDF is no more special in that regard than a golf club. That by not spending all their time as conscripts they have plenty of other networking opportunities that would be denied to conscripts. Ultimately it comes down to “Arab Israelis are discriminated against by not forcibly conscripting them, though they are allowed to voluntarily join. This hurts them by giving them the choice, unlike the favoured Jewish Israelis who have no choice”. It’s a weak argument, however you spin it.
I see your point, but I still disagree. Two reasons.
1) The State of Israel is not liberal. It doesn't attempt to serve the personal lives of individual Jews as individuals, but to advance the domination of the ethnic group of Jews as a collective. That's why I explained in another comment that Zionists are nationalists. The ideology of nationalism is a collectivist one that equates the people to the state. The state (or nation) and its people are one and the same. This creates the imperative of advancing the interest of the Jewish collective above all others, because only then can the state be served. Likewise it means advancing the state's interests above all other states. If the actions taken by the state disadvantage other groups, then that is a mere necessity on that path.
Why this matters: it's important to understand that the interests of individual Jews are not in the forefront. Israeli's administration serves Jews as a collective and vica versa, not individuals. Therefore it is irrelevant to them if individual Jews or individual Arabs are being served or not as long as the Jewish collective is being served (according to the Zionist agenda).
2) Are you familar with the concept of "illusion of choice"? This concept connects back to point 1.
"The illusion of choice is a cognitive bias that causes people to believe they have more control over their lives than they actually do."
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-illusion-of-choice-5224973
An example is the organ donor law (opt-in vs opt-out). In the US people's organs are lawfully theirs after death (default opt-out). This leads to very few organ donors existing in the US because the vast majority of people never choose to opt in. In Austria it's the opposite, our organs don't belong to us after death (default opt-in). This leads to almost everyone being an organ donor because almost no one chooses to opt out.
Going back to Israel's conscription: it is expected - due to the fact that choice results in far lower conscription rates of Arab Israelis - that this would give the Jewish collective a big advantage over the Arab collective. As I explained in point 1, that is the interest of the state. It's not about individual Jews or individual Arabs, it's about advancing the interest of Jews as a collective. However, this also results in a number of additional advantages down the line for Jews as individuals. Arab Israelis naturally have less political sway in the State of Israel due to the mechanism of conscription. This adds to the overall discrimination.
|
United States42251 Posts
On December 06 2023 02:00 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 01:38 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2023 01:30 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 01:18 KwarK wrote:
I found the argument that exemption from conscription, while still being allowed to volunteer, was discriminatory a little bit of a reach. Did you miss the part where it is explained that a number of benefits are unavailable to people who haven't served? And the part where Israeli Arabs are being discouraged from serving by their own communities? I did not. You could make all sorts of equally weak arguments. You could, for example, say that a delay of a few years in entering the workforce will compound into significant loss of lifetime earnings if you take into account typical career progression and growth patterns. Or you could say that membership of fraternal organizations have always conferred social networking benefits on their members and that the IDF is no more special in that regard than a golf club. That by not spending all their time as conscripts they have plenty of other networking opportunities that would be denied to conscripts. Ultimately it comes down to “Arab Israelis are discriminated against by not forcibly conscripting them, though they are allowed to voluntarily join. This hurts them by giving them the choice, unlike the favoured Jewish Israelis who have no choice”. It’s a weak argument, however you spin it. I see your point, but I still disagree. Two reasons. 1) The State of Israel is not liberal. It doesn't attempt to serve the personal lives of individual Jews as individuals, but to advance the domination of the ethnic group of Jews as a collective. That's why I explained in another comment that Zionists are nationalists. The ideology of nationalism is a collectivist one that equates the people to the state. The state (or nation) and its people are one and the same. This creates the imperative of advancing the interest of the Jewish collective above all others, because only then can the state be served. Likewise it means advancing the state's interests above all other states. If the actions taken by the state disadvantage other groups, then that is a mere necessity on that path. Why this matters: it's important to understand that the interests of individual Jews are not in the forefront. Israeli's administration serves Jews as a collective and vica versa, not individuals. Therefore it is irrelevant to them if individual Jews or individual Arabs are being served or not as long as the Jewish collective is being served (according to the Zionist agenda). 2) Are you familar with the concept of "illusion of choice"? This concept connects back to point 1. "The illusion of choice is a cognitive bias that causes people to believe they have more control over their lives than they actually do." https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-illusion-of-choice-5224973An example is the organ donor law (opt-in vs opt-out). In the US people's organs are lawfully theirs after death (default opt-out). This leads to very few organ donors existing in the US because the vast majority of people never choose to opt in. In Austria it's the opposite, our organs don't belong to us after death (default opt-in). This leads to almost everyone being an organ donor because almost no one chooses to opt out. Going back to Israel's conscription: it is expected - due to the fact that choice results in far lower conscription rates of Arab Israelis - that this would give the Jewish collective a big advantage over the Arab collective. As I explained in point 1, that is the interest of the state. It's not about individual Jews or individual Arabs, it's about advancing the interest of Jews as a collective. However, this also results in a number of additional advantages down the line for Jews as individuals. Arab Israelis naturally have less political sway in the State of Israel due to the mechanism of conscription. This adds to the overall discrimination.
It’s problematic for a bunch of reasons. Making it a Jewish armed force, not an Israeli national armed force, creating a citizen body with military training that can be used to oppress other citizens, and so forth. If there were a democratic threat to Hewish majority rule and a Trump style coup attempted the armed populace may not support the democracy, instead siding with Jewish nationalists. The de facto Jewish paramilitary establishment isn’t ideal.
Anyone who has been following my comments in this topic would not mistake me for someone pro Israel. Israel should not exist, its creation was a mistake (albeit one that I would not advocate fixing with genocide).
But we should still keep our arguments within the bounds of reason and within the bounds of reason there is no place for the idea that Arabs are made second class citizens by not conscripting them. Structural Jewish power may be helped by not conscripting them, sure, but it is literally giving individual Arab Israelis more legal power than Jewish Israelis.
If I forced white youths to attend neo Nazi camps where they were indoctrinated and given military training then obviously that would be bad and racist and part of a broader plan to control the country by force. But what it wouldn’t be is discrimination against black youths, especially if they were also allowed to attend the camps. Things can be bad, but let’s be reasonable about the reason they’re bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
