‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 > 
 
   
 

Apartheid Israel - is it anti-semitic to say so?

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  621
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
07 April 2021 10:43
 
icehorse - 07 April 2021 09:02 AM
lynmc - 06 April 2021 03:48 PM
icehorse - 06 April 2021 08:01 AM

lynmc:

Now, as Israel is clearly an apartheid state, is it anti-semitic to say so?

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that your (lopsided), history of Israel is correct. As long as you’re willing to agree that MOST, if not all modern countries are also apartheid states, but we choose to call out only Israel, I’d say that anti-semitism is a factor. I think oil is a bigger factor.

No, I don’t agree that most modern countries are also apartheid states, and those that officially institute discrimination mostly don’t to the degree Israel does.  It’s possible to make a what’s likely a comparatively weak case for apartheid against a few other countries.

So do you distinguish between the WB and Gaza in your assessment?

No.  Do you agree that Israel practices apartheid in any of those areas?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8407
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
07 April 2021 10:48
 
lynmc - 07 April 2021 10:43 AM
icehorse - 07 April 2021 09:02 AM
lynmc - 06 April 2021 03:48 PM
icehorse - 06 April 2021 08:01 AM

lynmc:

Now, as Israel is clearly an apartheid state, is it anti-semitic to say so?

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that your (lopsided), history of Israel is correct. As long as you’re willing to agree that MOST, if not all modern countries are also apartheid states, but we choose to call out only Israel, I’d say that anti-semitism is a factor. I think oil is a bigger factor.

No, I don’t agree that most modern countries are also apartheid states, and those that officially institute discrimination mostly don’t to the degree Israel does.  It’s possible to make a what’s likely a comparatively weak case for apartheid against a few other countries.

So do you distinguish between the WB and Gaza in your assessment?

No.  Do you agree that Israel practices apartheid in any of those areas?

I think you have an easier case to make in the WB than in Gaza. So we disagree to varying extents. I would agree that if we narrow our focus / context (narrower than what I think is valid), you could make a good argument that there is apartheid in the WB.

 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  621
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
08 April 2021 10:18
 
icehorse - 07 April 2021 10:48 AM
lynmc - 07 April 2021 10:43 AM
icehorse - 07 April 2021 09:02 AM
lynmc - 06 April 2021 03:48 PM
icehorse - 06 April 2021 08:01 AM

lynmc:

Now, as Israel is clearly an apartheid state, is it anti-semitic to say so?

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that your (lopsided), history of Israel is correct. As long as you’re willing to agree that MOST, if not all modern countries are also apartheid states, but we choose to call out only Israel, I’d say that anti-semitism is a factor. I think oil is a bigger factor.

No, I don’t agree that most modern countries are also apartheid states, and those that officially institute discrimination mostly don’t to the degree Israel does.  It’s possible to make a what’s likely a comparatively weak case for apartheid against a few other countries.

So do you distinguish between the WB and Gaza in your assessment?

No.  Do you agree that Israel practices apartheid in any of those areas?

I think you have an easier case to make in the WB than in Gaza. So we disagree to varying extents. I would agree that if we narrow our focus / context (narrower than what I think is valid), you could make a good argument that there is apartheid in the WB.

Israel has ruled the WB and Gaza for more of its existence than not, and it hasn’t shown any evidence of intent to give sovereign control to a Palestinian state, although it seems willing to allow a few bantustans without real sovereignty.  So for all intents and purposes, there’s one state in historic Palestine of which only half the people have right to vote, equality under law or even the right to life.  That’s aside from the millions of people who should be citizens but were expelled and murdered to make the state Jewish.  Even within “greenline Israel”, Israel has a few dozen laws giving more privileges to Jews, allows banning of Palestinian citizens of Israel from purchase or living in Jewish communities, confiscates Palestinian-owned land and directs funds for Jewish development - new communities and their associated infrastructure.  This is all noted in the linked Btselem article.

So, Israel is an apartheid state, its laws and policies designed to maintain Jewish supremacy both within greenline Israel and the occupied territories.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8407
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 April 2021 10:24
 

lynmc:

Israel has ruled the WB and Gaza for more of its existence than not, and it hasn’t shown any evidence of intent to give sovereign control to a Palestinian state, although it seems willing to allow a few bantustans without real sovereignty.  So for all intents and purposes, there’s one state in historic Palestine..

I think that Gaza and WB are very different:

Gaza: Israel gave Gaza to the Pals. Israel locks down the borders it can, and it returns fire. Notice that Egypt also mostly locks down its border, is Egypt also guilty of apartheid?

WB: Here, I think you have a more plausible argument to claim apartheid. This is “disputed” territory and there are lots of Israelis living in the WB.

 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  621
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
09 April 2021 08:47
 

This Is Apartheid

“In the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the Israeli regime implements laws, practices and state violence designed to cement the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians. A key method in pursuing this goal is engineering space differently for each group.

Jewish citizens live as though the entire area were a single space (excluding the Gaza Strip). The Green Line means next to nothing for them: whether they live west of it, within Israel’s sovereign territory, or east of it, in settlements not formally annexed to Israel, is irrelevant to their rights or status.

...

Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state’s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice – as detailed further in this paper.”

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8407
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
11 April 2021 10:22
 
lynmc - 09 April 2021 08:47 AM

This Is Apartheid

“In the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the Israeli regime implements laws, practices and state violence designed to cement the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians. A key method in pursuing this goal is engineering space differently for each group.

Jewish citizens live as though the entire area were a single space (excluding the Gaza Strip). The Green Line means next to nothing for them: whether they live west of it, within Israel’s sovereign territory, or east of it, in settlements not formally annexed to Israel, is irrelevant to their rights or status.

...

Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state’s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice – as detailed further in this paper.”

From a semantics perspective, I think it’s misleading to use the term “apartheid” during a war. But more importantly, using the term “apartheid” to label this situation feels fundamentally dishonest. This situation bares only surface resemblance to SA, when you look at the broader context.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3853
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
12 April 2021 15:22
 
lynmc - 09 April 2021 08:47 AM

This Is Apartheid

“In the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the Israeli regime implements laws, practices and state violence designed to cement the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians. A key method in pursuing this goal is engineering space differently for each group.

Jewish citizens live as though the entire area were a single space (excluding the Gaza Strip). The Green Line means next to nothing for them: whether they live west of it, within Israel’s sovereign territory, or east of it, in settlements not formally annexed to Israel, is irrelevant to their rights or status.

...

Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state’s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice – as detailed further in this paper.”

This Human Rights Organization and the United Nations is providing ample reason for bandying about the notion of apartheid.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8407
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
12 April 2021 17:08
 
LadyJane - 12 April 2021 03:22 PM
lynmc - 09 April 2021 08:47 AM

This Is Apartheid

“In the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the Israeli regime implements laws, practices and state violence designed to cement the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians. A key method in pursuing this goal is engineering space differently for each group.

Jewish citizens live as though the entire area were a single space (excluding the Gaza Strip). The Green Line means next to nothing for them: whether they live west of it, within Israel’s sovereign territory, or east of it, in settlements not formally annexed to Israel, is irrelevant to their rights or status.

...

Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state’s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice – as detailed further in this paper.”

This Human Rights Organization and the United Nations is providing ample reason for bandying about the notion of apartheid.

Well to have your ideas ratified by the UN is to be damned by faint praise. I don’t know much about the HRO.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3853
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
12 April 2021 17:29
 
icehorse - 12 April 2021 05:08 PM

I don’t know much about the HRO.

And yet you keep posting as if ya do.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8407
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
12 April 2021 18:16
 
LadyJane - 12 April 2021 05:29 PM
icehorse - 12 April 2021 05:08 PM

I don’t know much about the HRO.

And yet you keep posting as if ya do.

Really LJ? Ya gonna go with that? You don’t think posters here can distinguish between the general concept of human rights and the actions of a specific organization?

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3853
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
12 April 2021 18:53
 

The entire thread is based on human rights and the organization referenced in the original post (the one you don’t know much about) came with a link that has been reposted for your convenience.  And yet we’re still here.  Waiting for you to catch up.  I don’t understand the problem.  Referring to opinions that differ from your own as “fundamentally dishonest” is a lazy and insulting copout.  Especially when “there was an argument to be made” two posts earlier.  What is questionable is claiming semantics are the issue after eight pages of spinning.  Please review the literature.  It’s all that’s required.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8407
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
12 April 2021 19:06
 
LadyJane - 12 April 2021 06:53 PM

The entire thread is based on human rights and the organization referenced in the original post (the one you don’t know much about) came with a link that has been reposted for your convenience.  And yet we’re still here.  Waiting for you to catch up.  I don’t understand the problem.  Referring to opinions that differ from your own as “fundamentally dishonest” is a lazy and insulting copout.  Especially when “there was an argument to be made” two posts earlier.  What is questionable is claiming semantics are the issue after eight pages of spinning.  Please review the literature.  It’s all that’s required.

In post #112 you said:

This Human Rights Organization and the United Nations is providing ample reason for bandying about the notion of apartheid.

So is the name of the human rights organization you’re referring to “Human Rights Organization”?  If not, what’s the name of the organization you’re referring to? When this thread first started, I skimmed through the two articles linked to. I’ve read many such articles. There is no dearth of narrow-context, pro-Palestinian articles. I’m hoping that you can think for yourself a little in this thread, but so far you have avoided answering any of my questions.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3853
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
12 April 2021 19:23
 

Just because you dismiss the answers doesn’t mean I didn’t provide them.  The human rights organization wrote the article.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8407
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
12 April 2021 19:26
 
LadyJane - 12 April 2021 07:23 PM

Just because you dismiss the answers doesn’t mean I didn’t provide them.  The human rights organization wrote the article.

What’s the name of the organization to which you’re referring?

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3853
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
12 April 2021 19:30
 
 
 
‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 >