6 ms·

Exactly. If Israel were an apartheid state, then even the Arabs living inside Israel would not have rights.

• namdnay 5y ago
  Apartheid doesn’t have to be based on religion. Here it is based on being born in Israel vs being born in the occupied territories
  • truth_ 5y ago
    Where are these occupied territories? "Arab" is not a religion, it's an ethnicity. Blacks in SA did not have any rights. Arabs have rights in Israel. It is not an apartheid.
    • asplake 5y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
• throwaway210222 5y ago
  Nope, its not about having rights. That the comic version of apartheid. Its about being an equal partner in the society to jointly and equally decide what are the rights and obligations of each member. And that is a threshold Israel can never achieve. The Jewish majority unilaterally decides what the role of the Arabs are. For example, the Jewish majority has, unilaterally and without explanation, decided that their Arabs countrymen are not fit for the obligation of conscription, for the privilege of defending Israel. And we all know why.
  • dodgepitchforks 5y ago
    That's a redefinition of the word "apartheid". Probably done to use its emotional connotations. "Comic version of Apartheid"? Apartheid was an actual political system, implemented and practiced for years. Much more that not being an "equal partner", it involved enforced legislation to classify people according to race and then to restrict rights based on that classification. NOTE: I'm not weighing in on the Palestinian/Israeli issue here, but as someone who grew up under the Apartheid regime, I'm objecting to what I feel is misuse of the word.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]