The IDF uses one or two people as human shields. There's literally like 25 reports of it, ever. It was made illegal and people were prosecuted for it.
Straight up untrue. You are at best being willfully ignorant at this point. Even after it was ruled illegal it was still used in subsequent wars like Cast Lead and up to present day with little to no consequences. Since April 2004, DCI-Palestine has documented 26 cases involving Palestinian children being used as human shields by the Israeli army. Nineteen of the 20 cases have occurred after the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled the practice to be illegal in October 2005.
Hamas used human shields 3,500 people at a time, building tunnels under their houses, forcing people to stay, convincing people evacuation orders are a hoax. There is zero denying this. There are five hundred miles of tunnels in an area 25 miles wide.
The existence of the tunnels and that Hamas told residents to stay put after Israel ordered the evacuation are true, yeah. Not forcing people to stay. That's not how human shields work. You're comparing real coerced human shields to this made up third definition.
"Now, what we claim is that there is a third kind of human shield," Gordon told CBC News. "That is the human shield that does not volunteer and is not coerced, but just by being where they are, they become human shields. Or more precisely, I would say they're framed as human shields. "In the Gaza Strip, for example, if the Hamas tunnels are a legitimate military target, and the tunnels span 700 kilometres, then they are under the whole Gaza Strip. So anyone above them becomes a human shield. And so you are casting or framing the whole civilian population almost as human shields.
"When Israel bombs a mosque or a school or an apartment building and kills civilians, it blames Hamas for using human shields. And yet Israel's military command centre is in central Tel Aviv, and its Southern Command centre is in the centre of Beersheba," he said. "And when Hamas bombs these cities, no one in the Western media says that the Israeli civilians around these centres are human shields.
By that made up third definition, you're also saying that the IDF is using every Israeli near their command centers as human shields. And then using that to justify them as legitimate targets. When you apply the same standards, it becomes quite clear how blatant the double standards are. This entire human shields argument by the IDF is to legitimatize all Palestinians in Gaza as legitimate targets. Israeli officials have said this on record.
Also, re: the ridiculous claim that Israel is an apartheid regime, totally ignores all reason. South Africa apartheid was a system of minority rule. When it's a system of majority rule, it's called democracy. I could understand if you said Israel has some apartheid like policies, but you lose all credibility and reveal yourself as a know-nothing when you say it's literally apartheid. Like, for fucka sake guy, a Palestinian Arab sits on the Israeli supreme Court. You think there were any Afrikans on the South Africa Supreme Court during Apartheid? Ha.
Do you somehow think that if there was a single Black person on the South African Supreme Court, making a white majority of 14/15, that would somehow make South Africa not an Apartheid State? Despite the apartheid policies on-the-ground? What if they expelled 80% the black population into bantustans (to ensure a white majority) so they didn't need to include them as part of their South African population demographics? With a white majority population, they would have a stable basis for a white democratic state. Well, now in that case, I suppose it's actually a democracy instead of an apartheid state. After all, they would have a Black judge on the Supreme Court and the remaining 20% non-whites could still vote democraticly like the rest of the population. You can ignore the bantustans, they're simply occupied disputed territories with stateless people. /s
This makes it extremely obvious you don't know much about Apartheid South Africa. What you're referencing is Petty Apartheid. Which is much less present in Israel than it was in South Africa. There is much more of what is considered Grand Apartheid. Less so for Arab Israelis in Israel proper, much more so within the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This is extensively detailed in the UN, HRW, and Amnesty hundred page reports on how Israel is an apartheid state. Again, you are being willfully ignorant by refusing to engage and take these reports seriously. Israel never needed Petty Apartheid to function as a democratic ethnostate. The majority needed for it was ensured by the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 and the Military Law that governed the Palestinians within Israel until 1967.
Ben-Gurion in an address to the central committee of the Histadrut on 30 December 1947:
“In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about a million, including almost 40 percent non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority…. There can be no stable and strong Jewish State so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 percent.”
Addressing the Mapai Council, Ben-Gurion declared:
“From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema… there are no Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been so Jewish. In many Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single Arab. I do not assume that this will change… What had happened in Jerusalem… is likely to happen in many parts of the country …in the six, eight or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country.”
(Ben-Gurion, War Diary, Vol. 1, entry dated 7 February 1948. p. 210-211)
As you noticed, @JustZ@lemmy.world just skipped over your entire explanation and now claims that you are defending Hamas. Classic.
Bro seriously in here defending Hamas building terror tunnels under everyone's houses and you're comparing it to Israel...checks notes...merely having military bases? Israel is a legitimate state. It is allowed to have military bases. Gaza is not.
What conclusion can be drawn from your hypocrisy other than that you just don't like Jews?
Gaza is forfeit now and it's because of the tunnels and it because it has no ability to govern itself.
Your human shield and apartheid analysis are nonsense. There's a huge difference between a minority group controlling the majority in all things, without consent, as compared to a majority group, duly enacting laws that discriminate against minority. Discrimination is not great, but in a democracy that can be fixed.
You let me know when Hamas and their backwards ass culture does anything to stop discrimination. Actually, if you ask them to, they'll will probably stone you to death as an infidel.
Israel is a legitimate state. It is allowed to have military bases. Gaza is not.
Why not? Don't Palestinians have the right to self determination and a state?
Discrimination is not great, but in a democracy that can be fixed.
Then why has Israel not managed to "fix" this? Maybe because no Palestinians are allowed to vote and rarely ever to Palestinian and non-Jewish Israelis make it to a high political position?
Actually, if you ask them to, they’ll will probably stone you to death as an infidel
Do you have any proof of this?
Hamas does all kinds of shit, but I've never heard of them stoning anyone.
You seem to be lumping a bunch of Islamophobic stereotypes into one then projecting it on Hamas. Why?
What right do I have to tell people how to fight back against their occupiers? I wouldn't to Jewish people in the Nazi Ghettos fighting back either. I disagree with plenty that Hamas has done, and I criticize them for it. They've done war crimes, that's unacceptable. That doesn't change the fact that they have the right by international law to fight back against their occupiers.
The right of Palestinians to resist their occupation is enshrined in international and customary law, a fact that is denied and violated by Israel and wilfully overlooked by the rest of the world
You're conflation between anti-Zionism / criticisms of the State of Israel and genuine antisemitism, is in itself very antisemitic. You're attributing the actions of Israel as representative of all Jewish people, which is really fucked up. Israel doesn't even represent all Israelis, and nowhere near all Jewish people. Just because Israel claims otherwise doesn't make it true. Do you think B'TSelem and Jewish Voice for Peace are antisemitic too?
I'm advocating for equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians,.You are literally advocating for the destruction of the entirety of Gaza, including at best the expulsion of millions of Palestinians and at worst their execution for being 'terrorists.' You are exactly the same kind of person who would've supported Nazi Germany in the 1930's and the forced transfer of millions of Jewish people because it's an act of 'self-defence.'
Wartime propagandists universally justify the use of military violence by portraying it as morally defensible and necessary. To do otherwise would jeopardize public morale and faith in the government and its armed forces. Throughout World War II, Nazi propagandists disguised military aggression aimed at territorial conquest as righteous and necessary acts of self-defense. They cast Germany as a victim or potential victim of foreign aggressors, as a peace-loving nation forced to take up arms to protect its populace...
You've grossly overdramatized and exaggerated what I've actually said.
Hamas also thinks their position is a moral one. Does that make them Nazi propogandists too? When they cast east Germany as victims of foreign aggression, they were actually lying. Don't have to lie to say literal terrorists are in charge of Gaza, and Gaza is not a sovereign state.
And yes, saying Israel is an apartheid state is an anti Jewish statement. You want to say it's like apartheid, fine, but apartheid means something very different, and is in and of itself a crime against humanity. Not all discrimination by the state is a crime against humanity, though. The thing that makes apartheid a crime against humanity is that it is a system of minority control over the unconsenting majority.
Saying Israel is literally an apartheid state is to treat it as inferior; it is to say that, when other states do it, it's a matter of local custom or just a different culture doing things differently; but when it's Israel it's a war crime.
Apartheid is a system of minority rule. Israel is it not a system of minority rule. It is not an apartheid state. It's guilty of barbaric, racial discrimination, for sure. In no way is it literally apartheid, and I think you'll find that there's not very many serious people who say that it is, not in foreign service and not in law, anyway, which is what we're talking about, here.
I'm advocating for equal rights of Palestinians, too, just that I realize that Gaza has no government and no capacity to rebuild itself since the tunnels were so extensive. It's sad that Hamas put them under the highest density neighborhoods in Gaza and then encouraged people not to evacuate after using them for decades to indiscriminately target Israeli civilians, but hey that's the strategy the people in charge of Gaza have chosen.
There's a right enshrined in international law to disguise soldiers as civilians so they can more easily violate international law? Haven't heard of that one but you're the expert. ✅
Making up your own definition of apartheid doesn't make it true dude.
Apartheid is a violation of public international law, a grave violation of internationally protected human rights and a crime against humanity under international criminal law. Three main international treaties prohibit and/or explicitly criminalize apartheid: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (Apartheid Convention) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute).
The framework of apartheid allows a comprehensive understanding, grounded in international law, of a situation of segregation, oppression and domination by one racial group over another. Amnesty International notes and clarifies that systems of oppression and domination will never be identical. Therefore, it does not seek to argue that, or assess whether, any system of oppression and domination as perpetrated in Israel and the OPT is, for instance, the same or analogous to the system of segregation, oppression and domination as perpetrated in South Africa between 1948 and 1994.
To determine whether Israel has created and maintained an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination, Amnesty International looked at the way Israel exerts control over the Palestinian people. It also considered a number of serious human rights violations that would constitute the crime against humanity of apartheid if committed with the intention to maintain such a system of oppression and domination.
Why don't you just read the actual reports?
Either the Amnesty, the HRW, or the B'TSelem report. If you're so confident that it's not apartheid, then why don't you go through these reports and debunk them yourself. If you are actually right like you believe, and facts are on your side, then you have nothing to fear. B'TSelem even has a quick explainer. If you find reading too monotonous, then maybe watch this video or this video or even this video first. And if you're still in disbelief, then go back to the reports.
It's so extensively documented. If you seriously engage with even just a single one of these links, even starting from the basis that it's all lies and you work to debunk each one, you might start to recognize the gravity of the situation in Palestine. And more importantly, how it got like this. I dare say, you might even start to empathize with palestinians. Please dude, if you genuinely give a single shit about equal rights and ending the violence. Read these reports, watch these videos.
Yeah actually though it's you, Amnesty, HRW, and B'Tselem who have made up a new definition of apartheid that only applies to Jews.
Maybe your problem is that you believe reports from anyone who makes them. Anyone can make a report.
Why not check the peer reviewed law review articles on this subject, see how ridiculous everyone in the actual world of law finds these one-sided and biased reports. Because, once again, apartheid is a system of a minority control over the majority, the literal opposite of democracy. Israel is a democracy, period. It cannot also be an apartheid regime such as South Africa was, unless you redefine the word, which, again, is racist, and it is what you're doing.
So far in denial you think the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (Apartheid Convention) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute are all antisemitic. That human rights organizations are antisemitic, even the Jewish Israeli ones. That the UN is antisemitic. That the ICJ is antisemitic. Huh, maybe it's not just anyone making these reports. Maybe there's exhaustive evidence that's independently verified and upheld to international standards of law.
"Why don't you ignore all that and listen to just state propaganda instead?' No shit State department propaganda defends and justifies the position of State Department actions. That's the entire purpose of manufacturing consent. We've also defended our use of nuclear bombs on dense population centers, carpet bombing Vietnamese villagers, use of chemical weapons like agent orange, our invasion and terrorism of Iraq and Afghanistan, WMDs in iraq. It's almost like US propaganda has reliably lied about and also justified the actions of the state.
You're incredibly gullible. You're too scared to click on any of those links, you'd rather stick to your safety net of denial. You don't care about Apartheid, if you did you'd learn about the definitions in international law and take those reports seriously. Because they are made by human rights organizations that do highly credible work and are recognized internationally for it.
Nah buddy, you're putting words in my mouth that I never said.
Then read the reports, because that is effectively what you're saying when you ignore them and also promote articles by people literally working for the US State Department
People working for it, but not the Secretary, not the Deputy Secretary. There are 80,000 people working for the State Department.
Although I think you will find if you actually look at what people have said, they are saying Israel is like apartheid, not that it is apartheid.
Like this guy?
Like John Spencer? Who gets his research reviewed and rwferenced and looked at by Bibi? You think that this guy is telling you the truth and isn't a propaganda arm of Israel???
If you discard Al Jazeera for being funded by Qatar, then be fair and discard John Spencer for being a literal propaganda pusher.
I have looked at what these organizations have said and why. Israel is guilty of the crime of Apartheid by the international standards of law. The reasons why are laid out. I've provided plenty of sources to show how exactly that is the case. You choose not to read the reports. You choose not to even watch the videos, which are much easier to digest. You have made the decision to be willfully ignorant. It's on you to take that next step. Everyone is susceptible to propaganda, that includes you, that includes me. That's why I look for independent reporting, and the works of multiple historians. That's why I look into what sources they use and why.
I've looked at the NATO documents and what they claim. They use nearly exclusively military Israeli sources, which have an extensive track record of lying and fabrication. Yet NATO documents take them at face value. Other documents they use can even show contradictions to what the NATO documents claim with those sources. Those are the reasons I don't consider it a credible source.
Yeah, it doesn't feel good to second guess your own biases. I had a difficult time finding out all the terrible shit the US has done and continues to do on foreign policy. I still did it, because I'd rather have the full story. Even if it means coming to terms that the country I'm a citizen of (US) has done abhorrent war crimes.
You genuinely want to believe Israel is a real democracy. That's why you're so against seriously considering these sources and reports on how Israel is guilty of Apartheid. Because you can't have a democracy and an Apartheid, if you have an Apartheid then you don't have a real democracy. There is nothing more I can do for you other than point you to books by new Historians on the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
saying Israel is an apartheid state is an anti Jewish statement.
Straight up untrue. You are at best being willfully ignorant at this point. Even after it was ruled illegal it was still used in subsequent wars like Cast Lead and up to present day with little to no consequences. Since April 2004, DCI-Palestine has documented 26 cases involving Palestinian children being used as human shields by the Israeli army. Nineteen of the 20 cases have occurred after the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled the practice to be illegal in October 2005.
Use of Human Shields by Israeli Forces
Israeli Veterans describe how they used human shields
In the line of fire: In Gaza, anyone can wind up a 'human shield'
The existence of the tunnels and that Hamas told residents to stay put after Israel ordered the evacuation are true, yeah. Not forcing people to stay. That's not how human shields work. You're comparing real coerced human shields to this made up third definition.
"Now, what we claim is that there is a third kind of human shield," Gordon told CBC News. "That is the human shield that does not volunteer and is not coerced, but just by being where they are, they become human shields. Or more precisely, I would say they're framed as human shields. "In the Gaza Strip, for example, if the Hamas tunnels are a legitimate military target, and the tunnels span 700 kilometres, then they are under the whole Gaza Strip. So anyone above them becomes a human shield. And so you are casting or framing the whole civilian population almost as human shields.
"When Israel bombs a mosque or a school or an apartment building and kills civilians, it blames Hamas for using human shields. And yet Israel's military command centre is in central Tel Aviv, and its Southern Command centre is in the centre of Beersheba," he said. "And when Hamas bombs these cities, no one in the Western media says that the Israeli civilians around these centres are human shields.
By that made up third definition, you're also saying that the IDF is using every Israeli near their command centers as human shields. And then using that to justify them as legitimate targets. When you apply the same standards, it becomes quite clear how blatant the double standards are. This entire human shields argument by the IDF is to legitimatize all Palestinians in Gaza as legitimate targets. Israeli officials have said this on record.
Do you somehow think that if there was a single Black person on the South African Supreme Court, making a white majority of 14/15, that would somehow make South Africa not an Apartheid State? Despite the apartheid policies on-the-ground? What if they expelled 80% the black population into bantustans (to ensure a white majority) so they didn't need to include them as part of their South African population demographics? With a white majority population, they would have a stable basis for a white democratic state. Well, now in that case, I suppose it's actually a democracy instead of an apartheid state. After all, they would have a Black judge on the Supreme Court and the remaining 20% non-whites could still vote democraticly like the rest of the population. You can ignore the bantustans, they're simply occupied disputed territories with stateless people. /s
This makes it extremely obvious you don't know much about Apartheid South Africa. What you're referencing is Petty Apartheid. Which is much less present in Israel than it was in South Africa. There is much more of what is considered Grand Apartheid. Less so for Arab Israelis in Israel proper, much more so within the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This is extensively detailed in the UN, HRW, and Amnesty hundred page reports on how Israel is an apartheid state. Again, you are being willfully ignorant by refusing to engage and take these reports seriously. Israel never needed Petty Apartheid to function as a democratic ethnostate. The majority needed for it was ensured by the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 and the Military Law that governed the Palestinians within Israel until 1967.
Ben-Gurion in an address to the central committee of the Histadrut on 30 December 1947:
Addressing the Mapai Council, Ben-Gurion declared:
As you noticed, @JustZ@lemmy.world just skipped over your entire explanation and now claims that you are defending Hamas. Classic.
Bro seriously in here defending Hamas building terror tunnels under everyone's houses and you're comparing it to Israel...checks notes...merely having military bases? Israel is a legitimate state. It is allowed to have military bases. Gaza is not.
What conclusion can be drawn from your hypocrisy other than that you just don't like Jews?
Gaza is forfeit now and it's because of the tunnels and it because it has no ability to govern itself.
Your human shield and apartheid analysis are nonsense. There's a huge difference between a minority group controlling the majority in all things, without consent, as compared to a majority group, duly enacting laws that discriminate against minority. Discrimination is not great, but in a democracy that can be fixed.
You let me know when Hamas and their backwards ass culture does anything to stop discrimination. Actually, if you ask them to, they'll will probably stone you to death as an infidel.
Why not? Don't Palestinians have the right to self determination and a state?
Then why has Israel not managed to "fix" this? Maybe because no Palestinians are allowed to vote and rarely ever to Palestinian and non-Jewish Israelis make it to a high political position?
Do you have any proof of this?
Hamas does all kinds of shit, but I've never heard of them stoning anyone.
You seem to be lumping a bunch of Islamophobic stereotypes into one then projecting it on Hamas. Why?
What right do I have to tell people how to fight back against their occupiers? I wouldn't to Jewish people in the Nazi Ghettos fighting back either. I disagree with plenty that Hamas has done, and I criticize them for it. They've done war crimes, that's unacceptable. That doesn't change the fact that they have the right by international law to fight back against their occupiers.
You're conflation between anti-Zionism / criticisms of the State of Israel and genuine antisemitism, is in itself very antisemitic. You're attributing the actions of Israel as representative of all Jewish people, which is really fucked up. Israel doesn't even represent all Israelis, and nowhere near all Jewish people. Just because Israel claims otherwise doesn't make it true. Do you think B'TSelem and Jewish Voice for Peace are antisemitic too?
I'm advocating for equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians,.You are literally advocating for the destruction of the entirety of Gaza, including at best the expulsion of millions of Palestinians and at worst their execution for being 'terrorists.' You are exactly the same kind of person who would've supported Nazi Germany in the 1930's and the forced transfer of millions of Jewish people because it's an act of 'self-defence.'
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/index.php/content/en/article/deceiving-the-public
You've grossly overdramatized and exaggerated what I've actually said.
Hamas also thinks their position is a moral one. Does that make them Nazi propogandists too? When they cast east Germany as victims of foreign aggression, they were actually lying. Don't have to lie to say literal terrorists are in charge of Gaza, and Gaza is not a sovereign state.
And yes, saying Israel is an apartheid state is an anti Jewish statement. You want to say it's like apartheid, fine, but apartheid means something very different, and is in and of itself a crime against humanity. Not all discrimination by the state is a crime against humanity, though. The thing that makes apartheid a crime against humanity is that it is a system of minority control over the unconsenting majority.
Saying Israel is literally an apartheid state is to treat it as inferior; it is to say that, when other states do it, it's a matter of local custom or just a different culture doing things differently; but when it's Israel it's a war crime.
Apartheid is a system of minority rule. Israel is it not a system of minority rule. It is not an apartheid state. It's guilty of barbaric, racial discrimination, for sure. In no way is it literally apartheid, and I think you'll find that there's not very many serious people who say that it is, not in foreign service and not in law, anyway, which is what we're talking about, here.
I'm advocating for equal rights of Palestinians, too, just that I realize that Gaza has no government and no capacity to rebuild itself since the tunnels were so extensive. It's sad that Hamas put them under the highest density neighborhoods in Gaza and then encouraged people not to evacuate after using them for decades to indiscriminately target Israeli civilians, but hey that's the strategy the people in charge of Gaza have chosen.
There's a right enshrined in international law to disguise soldiers as civilians so they can more easily violate international law? Haven't heard of that one but you're the expert. ✅
Making up your own definition of apartheid doesn't make it true dude.
Why don't you just read the actual reports?
Either the Amnesty, the HRW, or the B'TSelem report. If you're so confident that it's not apartheid, then why don't you go through these reports and debunk them yourself. If you are actually right like you believe, and facts are on your side, then you have nothing to fear. B'TSelem even has a quick explainer. If you find reading too monotonous, then maybe watch this video or this video or even this video first. And if you're still in disbelief, then go back to the reports.
It's so extensively documented. If you seriously engage with even just a single one of these links, even starting from the basis that it's all lies and you work to debunk each one, you might start to recognize the gravity of the situation in Palestine. And more importantly, how it got like this. I dare say, you might even start to empathize with palestinians. Please dude, if you genuinely give a single shit about equal rights and ending the violence. Read these reports, watch these videos.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
this
this
this
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yeah actually though it's you, Amnesty, HRW, and B'Tselem who have made up a new definition of apartheid that only applies to Jews.
Maybe your problem is that you believe reports from anyone who makes them. Anyone can make a report.
Why not check the peer reviewed law review articles on this subject, see how ridiculous everyone in the actual world of law finds these one-sided and biased reports. Because, once again, apartheid is a system of a minority control over the majority, the literal opposite of democracy. Israel is a democracy, period. It cannot also be an apartheid regime such as South Africa was, unless you redefine the word, which, again, is racist, and it is what you're doing.
So far in denial you think the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (Apartheid Convention) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute are all antisemitic. That human rights organizations are antisemitic, even the Jewish Israeli ones. That the UN is antisemitic. That the ICJ is antisemitic. Huh, maybe it's not just anyone making these reports. Maybe there's exhaustive evidence that's independently verified and upheld to international standards of law.
"Why don't you ignore all that and listen to just state propaganda instead?' No shit State department propaganda defends and justifies the position of State Department actions. That's the entire purpose of manufacturing consent. We've also defended our use of nuclear bombs on dense population centers, carpet bombing Vietnamese villagers, use of chemical weapons like agent orange, our invasion and terrorism of Iraq and Afghanistan, WMDs in iraq. It's almost like US propaganda has reliably lied about and also justified the actions of the state.
You're incredibly gullible. You're too scared to click on any of those links, you'd rather stick to your safety net of denial. You don't care about Apartheid, if you did you'd learn about the definitions in international law and take those reports seriously. Because they are made by human rights organizations that do highly credible work and are recognized internationally for it.
Nah buddy, you're putting words in my mouth that I never said.
Then read the reports, because that is effectively what you're saying when you ignore them and also promote articles by people literally working for the US State Department
People working for it, but not the Secretary, not the Deputy Secretary. There are 80,000 people working for the State Department.
Although I think you will find if you actually look at what people have said, they are saying Israel is like apartheid, not that it is apartheid.
Like this guy?
Like John Spencer? Who gets his research reviewed and rwferenced and looked at by Bibi? You think that this guy is telling you the truth and isn't a propaganda arm of Israel???
If you discard Al Jazeera for being funded by Qatar, then be fair and discard John Spencer for being a literal propaganda pusher.
I have looked at what these organizations have said and why. Israel is guilty of the crime of Apartheid by the international standards of law. The reasons why are laid out. I've provided plenty of sources to show how exactly that is the case. You choose not to read the reports. You choose not to even watch the videos, which are much easier to digest. You have made the decision to be willfully ignorant. It's on you to take that next step. Everyone is susceptible to propaganda, that includes you, that includes me. That's why I look for independent reporting, and the works of multiple historians. That's why I look into what sources they use and why.
I've looked at the NATO documents and what they claim. They use nearly exclusively military Israeli sources, which have an extensive track record of lying and fabrication. Yet NATO documents take them at face value. Other documents they use can even show contradictions to what the NATO documents claim with those sources. Those are the reasons I don't consider it a credible source.
Yeah, it doesn't feel good to second guess your own biases. I had a difficult time finding out all the terrible shit the US has done and continues to do on foreign policy. I still did it, because I'd rather have the full story. Even if it means coming to terms that the country I'm a citizen of (US) has done abhorrent war crimes.
You genuinely want to believe Israel is a real democracy. That's why you're so against seriously considering these sources and reports on how Israel is guilty of Apartheid. Because you can't have a democracy and an Apartheid, if you have an Apartheid then you don't have a real democracy. There is nothing more I can do for you other than point you to books by new Historians on the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Meanwhile in Occupied Palestinian Territories:
Citation please?