10 ms·

Israel must face the reality that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land. There is no solution until that happens. Just like apartheid South Africa

by hypeit 3y ago

Israel must face the reality that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land. There is no solution until that happens. Just like apartheid South Africa was dismantled, Israel has to face the same fate or forever be locked into warfare and oppressing Palestinians.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land I’ve heard this line from people who say the West Bank and Gaza are the occupied land, to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme. > like apartheid South Africa was dismantled South Africa wasn’t as militarised as the Levant has become, unfortunately. As long as Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, itself and through its proxies, any Mandela-type accounting is probably fruitless. (I am open to being convinced otherwise.)
- pphysch 3y ago
  Anyone can go on Google Earth, look at the official UN borders of Israel, then do a search in Hebrew or "synagogue" (obviously not every synagogue is Israeli) or "checkpoint" and very clearly see the Israeli settlements outside Israel's legal borders. Search "Hizma" for a good example [1]. To make it even more obvious, toggle the "street view" layer over one of these areas and see what gets highlighted. There is a clear apartness between the neatly-planned Israeli settlements, often built on demolished Palestinian villages, and the organic scattering of indigenous, primarily Arab Palestinian villages. With militarized checkpoints in between. Anyone can see it, if they have the will and a web browser. [1] - https://earth.google.com/web/search/Hizma+checkpoint,+Sderot+Sayeret+Duchifat,+Jerusalem/ https://earth.google.com/web/search/Hizma+checkpoint,+Sderot...
  - YZF 3y ago
    I'm not sure what point are you trying to make here. Nobody, including Israelis, will argue about the status of Palestinians living outside of Israel's border, in areas that are occupied (a terminology of international law that Israel also agrees to, https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation ) do not enjoy equal rights to Israelis (Arabs, Jews, Christians and other) living within Israel's borders. During the US occupation of Japan or Germany post WW-II could the Japanese or Germans travel freely to the US? Vote in the US elections? It's true that Americans didn't settle those regions (they built military bases they still maintain so maybe a little). "often built on demolished Palestinian villages" - I think this isn't generally true in the west bank, if that was what this statement was about. There are certainly demolished villages within Israel's borders (going back to the 1948 war).
    - Wytwwww 3y ago
      > During the US occupation of Japan or Germany post WW-II could Which was a temporary state and certainly didn't last for 50 years. > It's true that Americans didn't settle those regions (they built military bases they still maintain so maybe a little). There are no countries in Europe where US is maintaining military bases without full consent of their governments. > could the Japanese or Germans travel freely to the US? Vote in the US elections? How is this relevant? The people living in the occupied territories do not enjoy equal rights with the illegal Israeli settlers who have taken parts of them over. It's basically colonialism.
      - YZF 3y ago
        If Jordan took back the west bank and Egypt took Gaza back then this also wouldn't last for 50 years. This is a unique situation where the party the land was occupied from doesn't want it back and the party that occupied it doesn't want it and the people living on this occupied land also don't really want it (or at least not willing to make peace in exchange for getting it). Because it's so hard to solve we've been stuck for 50 years. Still the legal status of this territory is the same as occupied Japan or Germany. It's a "temporary state", just a very long one. In terms of "colonialism" I don't think it quite fits the strict definition of the word. Again it's a bit of a unique situation. If we compare to Europe many of the borders were drawn as a result of war, and this would be no different. The difference is that in Europe the population might have been expelled (e.g. like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czec... ) and the area annexed. Another interesting history to look at is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_changes_(1914%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_change...
        Wytwwww 3y ago
        > the party that occupied it doesn't want it That's not that obvious considering all the illegal settlements. I'm sure they want the land just not the people living there. But yes, no clear solution especially considering that the only (non-Hamas) option for self government, the Palestinian Authority/Fatah is thoroughly incompetent and corrupt.
- taeric 3y ago
  I specifically think the mixed use of the word "occupation" to imply that the state of Palestine should include all of the current state of Israel one of the largest trust busting tricks in the modern discourse. I think it is natural to think that the Gaza and West Bank situation is bad and I suspect the majority of even slightly western views would agree. What shocked me, is that there are some on the far left that fully think all of Israel is an occupation of Palestine. More, they got rather upset when I pointed out that that line of thinking is, ironically, in support of people that have shown genocidal intent. Curious if you have numbers on how many intentionally refer to all of Israel in this way? (Also curious if my take on that is unfair to folks?)
- Jochim 3y ago
  > to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme. In what way is it not? The state was created by western powers less than 100 years ago and has aggressively pursued European and US immigration since then. The current state of things is an entirely manufactured situation and it's becoming more and more farcical. There's only so many times you can interview a guy with a British or New York accent talking about his ancestral right to the desert before things start looking a little bit weird.
  - weatherlite 3y ago
    > The state was created by western powers less than 100 years ago That's not entirely accurate at all. There was indeed a UN decision to partition the land and to acknowledge Israel, but no one was enforcing it. The Arabs and Jews were left to battle it out in a horrible war. Jews were facing the real possibility of a second extermination only 3 years after the holocaust (I don't think I'm exaggerating the consequences of what defeat would have looked like had the Jews lost that war). The British policy towards Jews in Palestine was not consistent at all, and at a certain point they sided with the Arabs and banned Jewish immigration to Palestine - even at the height of the holocaust.
    - Jochim 3y ago
      > That's not entirely accurate. It's fair to say that it wasn't directly created by them but their actions in the years prior did lead to the end result. The UK administered the region and had committed to making it a "national home" for the Jewish people. That doesn't necessarily mean a state, but the result was a rapid shift in demographics. It didn't help that the UK had also made promises of independence to other groups in the region. > There was indeed a UN decision to partition the land and to acknowledge Israel, but no one was enforcing it. The Arabs and Jews were left to battle it out in a horrible war. Jews were facing the real possibility of a second extermination only 3 years after the holocaust (I don't think I'm exaggerating the consequences of what defeat would have looked like). I entirely agree with you on the situation that Jews in the region were faced with at the time. One of the depressing things is that despite the proximity to the holocaust, antisemites in allied countries saw the situation as a way to encourage Jews to leave. I can see how things might have turned out better if there hadn't been so much migration in such a short period of time.
jjcon 3y ago
[flagged]
- hypeit 3y ago
  It's not "hate speech" to call to the end of an apartheid government.
  - jjcon 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state is hate speech I’m generally pro-Israel, but I don’t agree with this at all. Israel is a theocracy, and an increasingly right-wing one at that. Arguing against even theocracies in principal would technically argue for dissolving Israel as a Jewish state; I would hardly call that hate speech.
      - jjcon 3y ago
        Huh? Israel is a parliamentary democracy not a theocracy. It is more irreligious than USA/Canada and plenty of Europe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irrelig...
        kasey_junk 3y ago
        There are at least 5 parties in the ruling coalition that have specific religious orthodoxy as primary parts of their platform. I agree that the traditional definition of theocracy is probably overkill when describing the Israeli government but specific religious beliefs drive politics there well out of proportion to the beliefs of the constituents. In a way that feels out of line with secular western democracy at times.
        HDThoreaun 3y ago
lacker 3y ago
Isn't that exactly the view of reality that the Israeli right wing holds? They would agree that the choices are either dismantling the state of Israel, or eternal warfare. Since they don't want to dismantle the state of Israel, they elect for eternal warfare. It's funny how on some questions, the most extreme people on both sides agree on the answer. Hamas and the Israeli right wing both agree that the only viable solution is for one ethnic group to control all the land from the river to the sea.
- hypeit 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    > They just want Palestinians to have full human rights on their land, from the river to the sea. What's the word for word translation of the original slogan again? "From the river to the sea, all land shall be Arab" if my dictionary doesn't fail me...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > They just want Palestinians to have full human rights on their land, from the river to the sea This is presumably a one-state solution? The problem here being the Jews would be a minority in this state. Which leads to existential concerns regarding their survival. That can’t be easily brushed aside. Particularly when members of Iran’s Axis sport “death to Israel, a curse upon Jews” [1]. (Hamas and the Houthis sharing a backer isn’t insignificant.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movemen...
  - YZF 3y ago
    I feel that's an extremely naive view. How many Jews live peacefully and enjoy human rights under Arab rule in the middle east? Zero. How many in Gaza under Hamas? Zero. How many live in the west bank in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority? Zero. So "Hamas" only wants Tel-Aviv "returned", Jersualem "returned", Haifa "returned", from the river to the sea, but somehow in that vision all the Jewish population lives peacefully and enjoys human rights that don't exist anywhere in the middle east?
golergka 3y ago
[flagged]
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    Hamas controls Gaza, where Israel withdrew nearly 20 years ago. First thing Hamas did: destroy all the infrastructure set up by Israelis. Or maybe Hamas murdered the Fatah officials first. In any case, there was little Israeli left in all that time, and there's a border with a supposedly friendly neighbor, tons of money and expertise by the global community invested in that area, and they squandered it all in favor of raping and pillaging the hippie communities of the Israeli peace movement.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      There was also a near-complete blockade.
      - golergka 3y ago
        It was implemented as a response to indiscriminate rocket fire at civilians.
w0mbat 3y ago
[flagged]
- runarberg 3y ago
  So are there 6 million Stateside Puerto Ricans living in one of the 50 United States who have equal rights to other US citizens. Puerto Rico is still a colony of the United States. Mind you that the Puerto Ricans living on the island of Puerto Rico have infinitely more rights then Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank or occupied East Jerusalem.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  Well they are not not indigenous. But calling them "the indigenous" is not correct. DNA studies done by Israeli scientists on Palestinian subjects show that they descend from indigenous groups including Judea.
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  Actually, if you believe that the bible is true, they killed the indigenous people there first More historically certain is that there was a stream of people living and moving through that area during waves of human immigration outside of Africa (look up the Sahara pump theory).
- int_19h 3y ago
  "Everybody else in the region" is mostly descendants of various Semitic peoples who lived in that area for just as long. Palestinians in particular seem to be related to Canaanites, which - if you take the Torah at face value - would actually make them the indigenous people that were a target of genocidal conquest by the original Jewish settlers in the area (although archeologists say that this was more likely intra-ethnic warfare between different groups, and the whole notion of Canaanites as distinct peoples was created to justify the conquest of neighbors).
collegeburner 3y ago
apartheid is a loaded term of opinion, not of fact. comparing israel to other true apartheid regimes, such as south africa, is hyperbolic. there exist discriminatory policies that ought to be reformed but i do not believe that word is appropriate. israel does, in fact, exist on some occupied land that she should return, including many west bank settlements. however, there is something to be said for keeping parts as a bargaining chip against those motivated largely by religious and nationalistic fervor mixed with some basic hatred. other parts of her land were obtained legitimately, going all the way back to the first aliyah after the kiev pogroms in which tens of thousands of jews were massacred. many immigrated legally, though the ottoman empire later threw up some barriers to immigration with hopes to limit their numbers. many were later moved legitimately under the authority of the british in mandatory palestine. legal immigrants are not necessarily "occupiers". there is also a period past which land becomes naturalized, just like most of the world has been taken and settled by force at some point or another. most of the people who are descendants of those ancient conquerors are just as indigenous as those who were there before. i'd venture to say much of israel, while it ought to be shared better, is populated with naturalized inhabitants.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  All metaphors are wrong, some metaphors are useful. The word "burn" applies to both first and third degree burns. Characteristics of apartheid can exist even if it is not at the severity experienced by black south Africans. The analogy here has utility, and racism towards Palestinians is unfortunately a huge problem in Israeli society.
  - collegeburner 3y ago
    "burn" is commonly applied to a range of conditions. "apartheid" is applied with exceptional rarity, and in common parlance, people associate it with the south african regime. in your analogy, this is equivalent to calling a first-degree burn third-degree
mrangle 3y ago
This is a good summary of Islamic radicalization propaganda that seeks to use Palestinian civilians as pawns, with no regard for them. It is this narrative that keeps the Palestinains in prison. The counterpoint is that you "must" face the reality that this is never going to happen, and that asserting that it will or should is equivalent to damning the Palestinians to the existence that they currently occupy. Greater Islam does not have an army that can stand against the West, let alone do the Palestinians. All that they have are manipulated terrorists whose actions always cause much more destruction on their side than the inverse. So I say again, the only realistic and humane view is to take your oppopsite position, recognize the immovable force, and actually attempt to save Palestinian lives via deradicalization and a relocation campaign.

by hypeit 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land I’ve heard this line from people who say the West Bank and Gaza are the occupied land, to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme. > like apartheid South Africa was dismantled South Africa wasn’t as militarised as the Levant has become, unfortunately. As long as Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, itself and through its proxies, any Mandela-type accounting is probably fruitless. (I am open to being convinced otherwise.)

pphysch 3y ago
Anyone can go on Google Earth, look at the official UN borders of Israel, then do a search in Hebrew or "synagogue" (obviously not every synagogue is Israeli) or "checkpoint" and very clearly see the Israeli settlements outside Israel's legal borders. Search "Hizma" for a good example [1]. To make it even more obvious, toggle the "street view" layer over one of these areas and see what gets highlighted. There is a clear apartness between the neatly-planned Israeli settlements, often built on demolished Palestinian villages, and the organic scattering of indigenous, primarily Arab Palestinian villages. With militarized checkpoints in between. Anyone can see it, if they have the will and a web browser. [1] - https://earth.google.com/web/search/Hizma+checkpoint,+Sderot+Sayeret+Duchifat,+Jerusalem/ https://earth.google.com/web/search/Hizma+checkpoint,+Sderot...
- YZF 3y ago
  I'm not sure what point are you trying to make here. Nobody, including Israelis, will argue about the status of Palestinians living outside of Israel's border, in areas that are occupied (a terminology of international law that Israel also agrees to, https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation ) do not enjoy equal rights to Israelis (Arabs, Jews, Christians and other) living within Israel's borders. During the US occupation of Japan or Germany post WW-II could the Japanese or Germans travel freely to the US? Vote in the US elections? It's true that Americans didn't settle those regions (they built military bases they still maintain so maybe a little). "often built on demolished Palestinian villages" - I think this isn't generally true in the west bank, if that was what this statement was about. There are certainly demolished villages within Israel's borders (going back to the 1948 war).
  - Wytwwww 3y ago
    > During the US occupation of Japan or Germany post WW-II could Which was a temporary state and certainly didn't last for 50 years. > It's true that Americans didn't settle those regions (they built military bases they still maintain so maybe a little). There are no countries in Europe where US is maintaining military bases without full consent of their governments. > could the Japanese or Germans travel freely to the US? Vote in the US elections? How is this relevant? The people living in the occupied territories do not enjoy equal rights with the illegal Israeli settlers who have taken parts of them over. It's basically colonialism.
    - YZF 3y ago
      If Jordan took back the west bank and Egypt took Gaza back then this also wouldn't last for 50 years. This is a unique situation where the party the land was occupied from doesn't want it back and the party that occupied it doesn't want it and the people living on this occupied land also don't really want it (or at least not willing to make peace in exchange for getting it). Because it's so hard to solve we've been stuck for 50 years. Still the legal status of this territory is the same as occupied Japan or Germany. It's a "temporary state", just a very long one. In terms of "colonialism" I don't think it quite fits the strict definition of the word. Again it's a bit of a unique situation. If we compare to Europe many of the borders were drawn as a result of war, and this would be no different. The difference is that in Europe the population might have been expelled (e.g. like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czec... ) and the area annexed. Another interesting history to look at is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_changes_(1914%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_change...
      - Wytwwww 3y ago
        > the party that occupied it doesn't want it That's not that obvious considering all the illegal settlements. I'm sure they want the land just not the people living there. But yes, no clear solution especially considering that the only (non-Hamas) option for self government, the Palestinian Authority/Fatah is thoroughly incompetent and corrupt.
taeric 3y ago
I specifically think the mixed use of the word "occupation" to imply that the state of Palestine should include all of the current state of Israel one of the largest trust busting tricks in the modern discourse. I think it is natural to think that the Gaza and West Bank situation is bad and I suspect the majority of even slightly western views would agree. What shocked me, is that there are some on the far left that fully think all of Israel is an occupation of Palestine. More, they got rather upset when I pointed out that that line of thinking is, ironically, in support of people that have shown genocidal intent. Curious if you have numbers on how many intentionally refer to all of Israel in this way? (Also curious if my take on that is unfair to folks?)
Jochim 3y ago
> to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme. In what way is it not? The state was created by western powers less than 100 years ago and has aggressively pursued European and US immigration since then. The current state of things is an entirely manufactured situation and it's becoming more and more farcical. There's only so many times you can interview a guy with a British or New York accent talking about his ancestral right to the desert before things start looking a little bit weird.
- weatherlite 3y ago
  > The state was created by western powers less than 100 years ago That's not entirely accurate at all. There was indeed a UN decision to partition the land and to acknowledge Israel, but no one was enforcing it. The Arabs and Jews were left to battle it out in a horrible war. Jews were facing the real possibility of a second extermination only 3 years after the holocaust (I don't think I'm exaggerating the consequences of what defeat would have looked like had the Jews lost that war). The British policy towards Jews in Palestine was not consistent at all, and at a certain point they sided with the Arabs and banned Jewish immigration to Palestine - even at the height of the holocaust.
  - Jochim 3y ago
    > That's not entirely accurate. It's fair to say that it wasn't directly created by them but their actions in the years prior did lead to the end result. The UK administered the region and had committed to making it a "national home" for the Jewish people. That doesn't necessarily mean a state, but the result was a rapid shift in demographics. It didn't help that the UK had also made promises of independence to other groups in the region. > There was indeed a UN decision to partition the land and to acknowledge Israel, but no one was enforcing it. The Arabs and Jews were left to battle it out in a horrible war. Jews were facing the real possibility of a second extermination only 3 years after the holocaust (I don't think I'm exaggerating the consequences of what defeat would have looked like). I entirely agree with you on the situation that Jews in the region were faced with at the time. One of the depressing things is that despite the proximity to the holocaust, antisemites in allied countries saw the situation as a way to encourage Jews to leave. I can see how things might have turned out better if there hadn't been so much migration in such a short period of time.

jjcon 3y ago

[flagged]

hypeit 3y ago
It's not "hate speech" to call to the end of an apartheid government.
- jjcon 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state is hate speech I’m generally pro-Israel, but I don’t agree with this at all. Israel is a theocracy, and an increasingly right-wing one at that. Arguing against even theocracies in principal would technically argue for dissolving Israel as a Jewish state; I would hardly call that hate speech.
    - jjcon 3y ago
      Huh? Israel is a parliamentary democracy not a theocracy. It is more irreligious than USA/Canada and plenty of Europe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irrelig...
      - kasey_junk 3y ago
        There are at least 5 parties in the ruling coalition that have specific religious orthodoxy as primary parts of their platform. I agree that the traditional definition of theocracy is probably overkill when describing the Israeli government but specific religious beliefs drive politics there well out of proportion to the beliefs of the constituents. In a way that feels out of line with secular western democracy at times.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago

lacker 3y ago

Isn't that exactly the view of reality that the Israeli right wing holds? They would agree that the choices are either dismantling the state of Israel, or eternal warfare. Since they don't want to dismantle the state of Israel, they elect for eternal warfare. It's funny how on some questions, the most extreme people on both sides agree on the answer. Hamas and the Israeli right wing both agree that the only viable solution is for one ethnic group to control all the land from the river to the sea.

hypeit 3y ago
[flagged]
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  > They just want Palestinians to have full human rights on their land, from the river to the sea. What's the word for word translation of the original slogan again? "From the river to the sea, all land shall be Arab" if my dictionary doesn't fail me...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > They just want Palestinians to have full human rights on their land, from the river to the sea This is presumably a one-state solution? The problem here being the Jews would be a minority in this state. Which leads to existential concerns regarding their survival. That can’t be easily brushed aside. Particularly when members of Iran’s Axis sport “death to Israel, a curse upon Jews” [1]. (Hamas and the Houthis sharing a backer isn’t insignificant.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movemen...
- YZF 3y ago
  I feel that's an extremely naive view. How many Jews live peacefully and enjoy human rights under Arab rule in the middle east? Zero. How many in Gaza under Hamas? Zero. How many live in the west bank in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority? Zero. So "Hamas" only wants Tel-Aviv "returned", Jersualem "returned", Haifa "returned", from the river to the sea, but somehow in that vision all the Jewish population lives peacefully and enjoys human rights that don't exist anywhere in the middle east?

golergka 3y ago

[flagged]

C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
[flagged]
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  Hamas controls Gaza, where Israel withdrew nearly 20 years ago. First thing Hamas did: destroy all the infrastructure set up by Israelis. Or maybe Hamas murdered the Fatah officials first. In any case, there was little Israeli left in all that time, and there's a border with a supposedly friendly neighbor, tons of money and expertise by the global community invested in that area, and they squandered it all in favor of raping and pillaging the hippie communities of the Israeli peace movement.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    There was also a near-complete blockade.
    - golergka 3y ago
      It was implemented as a response to indiscriminate rocket fire at civilians.

w0mbat 3y ago

[flagged]

runarberg 3y ago
So are there 6 million Stateside Puerto Ricans living in one of the 50 United States who have equal rights to other US citizens. Puerto Rico is still a colony of the United States. Mind you that the Puerto Ricans living on the island of Puerto Rico have infinitely more rights then Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank or occupied East Jerusalem.
mkoubaa 3y ago
Well they are not not indigenous. But calling them "the indigenous" is not correct. DNA studies done by Israeli scientists on Palestinian subjects show that they descend from indigenous groups including Judea.
beedeebeedee 3y ago
Actually, if you believe that the bible is true, they killed the indigenous people there first More historically certain is that there was a stream of people living and moving through that area during waves of human immigration outside of Africa (look up the Sahara pump theory).
int_19h 3y ago
"Everybody else in the region" is mostly descendants of various Semitic peoples who lived in that area for just as long. Palestinians in particular seem to be related to Canaanites, which - if you take the Torah at face value - would actually make them the indigenous people that were a target of genocidal conquest by the original Jewish settlers in the area (although archeologists say that this was more likely intra-ethnic warfare between different groups, and the whole notion of Canaanites as distinct peoples was created to justify the conquest of neighbors).

collegeburner 3y ago

apartheid is a loaded term of opinion, not of fact. comparing israel to other true apartheid regimes, such as south africa, is hyperbolic. there exist discriminatory policies that ought to be reformed but i do not believe that word is appropriate. israel does, in fact, exist on some occupied land that she should return, including many west bank settlements. however, there is something to be said for keeping parts as a bargaining chip against those motivated largely by religious and nationalistic fervor mixed with some basic hatred. other parts of her land were obtained legitimately, going all the way back to the first aliyah after the kiev pogroms in which tens of thousands of jews were massacred. many immigrated legally, though the ottoman empire later threw up some barriers to immigration with hopes to limit their numbers. many were later moved legitimately under the authority of the british in mandatory palestine. legal immigrants are not necessarily "occupiers". there is also a period past which land becomes naturalized, just like most of the world has been taken and settled by force at some point or another. most of the people who are descendants of those ancient conquerors are just as indigenous as those who were there before. i'd venture to say much of israel, while it ought to be shared better, is populated with naturalized inhabitants.

mkoubaa 3y ago
All metaphors are wrong, some metaphors are useful. The word "burn" applies to both first and third degree burns. Characteristics of apartheid can exist even if it is not at the severity experienced by black south Africans. The analogy here has utility, and racism towards Palestinians is unfortunately a huge problem in Israeli society.
- collegeburner 3y ago
  "burn" is commonly applied to a range of conditions. "apartheid" is applied with exceptional rarity, and in common parlance, people associate it with the south african regime. in your analogy, this is equivalent to calling a first-degree burn third-degree

mrangle 3y ago

This is a good summary of Islamic radicalization propaganda that seeks to use Palestinian civilians as pawns, with no regard for them. It is this narrative that keeps the Palestinains in prison. The counterpoint is that you "must" face the reality that this is never going to happen, and that asserting that it will or should is equivalent to damning the Palestinians to the existence that they currently occupy. Greater Islam does not have an army that can stand against the West, let alone do the Palestinians. All that they have are manipulated terrorists whose actions always cause much more destruction on their side than the inverse. So I say again, the only realistic and humane view is to take your oppopsite position, recognize the immovable force, and actually attempt to save Palestinian lives via deradicalization and a relocation campaign.