Building Settlements On Occupied Land...

@LeopoldBloom Egypt and Jordan weren't supporting apartheid or ethnic cleansing. Like other members of JStreet, I support Israel but I also support international law and human rights. Ernie

@GrinNude Supporters of Israel argue that labeling it as an apartheid state is inaccurate and unfair, emphasizing Israel's democratic institutions, diverse population, and security concerns in a region marked by conflict.

After October 7 the UN Secretary General said that the Hamas massacre didn't occur in a vacuum. Fine. Let's apply that UN reasoning to Israeli policies in the territories. Israel's legitimate security concerns in Gaza and the West Bank didn't arise in a vacuum.

For example, let's look at Palestinian war crimes against Israel, committed, as you say, in violation of international law and human rights. Note that there was no blockade against Gaza in 2001.

@LeopoldBloom https://similarworlds.com/middle-east/4995682-Before-June-1967-when-Egypt-controlled-Gaza-and-Jordan

@flipper1966 Every country has security concerns. That doesn't justify permanent occupation or building settlements on occupied land.

@LeopoldBloom If the continued existence of your country requires you to use force to maintain a particular ethnic or religious majority, then maybe it shouldn't exist. I don't get why people pretend like they don't know that entho-states are a bad thing.

@LeopoldBloom
Probably because, while that was still wrong, Egypt and Jordan didn't create apartheid societies.

@BohemianBabe LOL of course they did. The Palestinians were kept in those areas because neither Egypt nor Jordan wanted them. And Palestinian refugees in the Arab world are still living under apartheid, as they are not allowed to become citizens of their host countries, as every other group of refugees in the world is allowed to do. With all the bleating about Israel being an "apartheid" state, no one ever mentions the actual apartheid Palestinian refugees in the Arab world are living under.

Try again.

@GrinNude Every country has security concerns? Do you have a bomb shelter like many Israelis? And when was the last time a rocket landed in your back yard? How many of your relatives were killed in a knife attack or a suicide bombing. You seem to be a challenged person, to be polite.

@LeopoldBloom Apartheid refers to the restriction of rights, especially movement, based on traits like ethnicity or race. The reason Palestinians don't have full rights in other Arab countries is because those countries generally don't let refugees become citizens. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. Ukrainian refugees wouldn't be able to get citizenship in these countries either. Also, the children of refugees usually are recognizes as citizens. It's similar to how things work in America. Whereas in Israel, it doesn't matter that Palestinians have been there for generations and generations, they still don't have full rights.

Further more, all of this is a whataboutism. It's like when people say, oh you think gay people should have rights in the West, but gay people have it worse in Iran! Alright, so what? Gay people shouldn't have rights in the West because they don't have rights in Iran?
That's basically what you're doing here. Israel is an apartheid society that is currently doing a genocide, but hey, what about the conditions of this other place?

@GlitterEater
Maybe banks shouldn't exist because they require so much security.

@MethDozer

@BohemianBabe Israelis who say Israel is not an apartheid state cite the following:


Israeli-Palestinian Conflict vs. South African Apartheid:

Historical Context: The origins and dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are different from those of apartheid in South Africa. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves complex historical, religious, and territorial disputes dating back over a century, rooted in competing claims to the same land.

Legal Status: Unlike South Africa, Israel does not have a formal system of racial segregation codified into law. While Israel has been criticized for discriminatory practices against Palestinians, it does not have a legal framework akin to apartheid-era South Africa.

Citizenship and Political Rights: In Israel, Arab citizens, including Palestinians who are citizens of Israel, have the right to vote and hold political office. This stands in contrast to apartheid South Africa, where black Africans were systematically denied political rights and representation.

Territorial Control: Israel's control over the occupied Palestinian territories, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip, involves complex issues of military occupation and settlement expansion, but it differs from the geographic segregation enforced by apartheid-era South Africa.

Security Concerns: Israel's policies towards Palestinians are often framed within the context of security concerns due to ongoing conflicts and tensions in the region. This has led to the implementation of measures such as checkpoints, barriers, and restrictions on movement, which critics argue disproportionately affect Palestinian rights but are not explicitly based on racial discrimination.

International Recognition and Response: While both situations have drawn international criticism, the responses to apartheid South Africa, such as sanctions and diplomatic isolation, have not been fully replicated in the case of Israel. Additionally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often viewed through the lens of geopolitics and the broader Middle East context.

If the continued existence of anti-Semitism requires a safe haven for Jews (Israel) then maybe anti-semitism shouldn't exist. I don't know why people pretend that anti-semitism is a bad thing. 🤣

@flipper1966 Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both describe Israel as an apartheid state.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-threshold-crossed

@GrinNude Opinions are divided. Some people say Trump was a great president. Others say he wasn't so good.

@flipper1966 Yeah, but the people who say Trump was a great president know that they're wrong.

@GlitterEater Referring to Israel as an "ethno state" is debatable. The term "ethno-state" typically refers to a nation-state where the population primarily shares a common ethnic identity. In the case of Israel, it's complicated. Israel identifies itself as a Jewish state, and its founding ideology, Zionism, aims to establish and maintain a homeland for the Jewish people. The Law of Return, for example, allows Jews from anywhere in the world to immigrate to Israel and gain citizenship.

However, Israel is also home to significant non-Jewish populations, including Arabs (both Muslim and Christian), Druze, Bedouins, Circassians, and others. These groups have their own distinct ethnic and cultural identities, and many have been citizens of Israel since its establishment in 1948.

So while Israel's identity as a Jewish state is central to its self-conception and legal framework, its population includes diverse ethnic and religious groups. Some critics argue that certain policies and practices in Israel prioritize Jewish citizens over others, raising questions about its status as an ethno-state. However, the situation is nuanced and subject to ongoing debate and interpretation.

@GlitterEater Another problem with your comment is that it seems to delegitimize Israel. That's considered per se anti-semitism. Keep in mind, the United Nations played a significant role in the establishment of the State of Israel. In 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, also known as the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. This resolution recommended the partition of Mandatory Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem as a separate entity under international control due to its significance to multiple religious groups.

The partition plan was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949. Following this conflict, Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, and several neighboring Arab states invaded, leading to further hostilities. Despite the opposition from Arab states, Israel's declaration of independence and subsequent establishment were significant milestones supported by the UN's earlier partition plan.

@BohemianBabe Your understanding of the position of Palestinian refugees is deficient. Non-Palestinian refugees are and have been accepted. Normally, when refugees are unable to return home, the UN has facilitated their integration into their host countries. The UNWRA agency, which exclusively serves Palestinians (the only group of refugees with their own UN agency) has the opposite mission - to maintain Palestinians as permanent, multi-generational refugees, and to increase their numbers as much as possible.

Palestinian Arabs who remained in Israel after 1947 are Israeli citizens with full rights and representation in the Knesset. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank aren't Israelis because they don't live in Israel. Apartheid can only apply to people living in the same country as the dominant group, not people under military occupation. You never heard apartheid applied to Catholics in Northern Ireland because they weren't English. You also never heard it applied to Black Americans under Jim Crow, even though it met the definition perfectly.

So it's not apartheid, and it's not a genocide either, at least if you go by the definition of Rafael Lemkin, the man who invented the term. If you are applying it because you hate Israel and want to present the country in as negative a light as possible, that's different.

A higher percentage of Germans were killed by Allied bombing in WWII than Palestinians have been killed in the current war. Were the Germans victims of genocide?

@LeopoldBloom Very good response.

By the way, I didn't believe you but I looked it up and you were right.