Israel in its current form has no more legitimacy than Apartheid South Africa had. I lived through that struggle, with right-wing politicians bolstering the apartheid regime and sending arms as ordinary people protested it. We eventually won that battle and eventually we will win this one too.
FWIW, there is no mirror image here. There is one two-state solution and two one-state solutions.
The two-state solution has been made impossible by Israeli settlement activity (which picked up substantially during the Oslo negotiations and has continued at a furious pace ever since).
The two one-state solutions are: a single, secular democratic state with equal rights for all its people and equal right to return for Palestinians; or a single Jewish ethno-state with Palestinians imprisoned in occupied enclaves with no access to the outside world other than what their imprisoners agree to.
The latter one-state solution is what the Israeli right are trying to achieve and, as with Apartheid South Africa, the global right (and the arms industry) are rooting for them to succeed. The rest of us have to fight it, as we did with South Africa, and also East Timor, and are struggling to do for Myanmar, the Congo, Somalia and East Turkmenistan. And would for North Korea, if there was any leverage available.
Israel does exist and will continue to exist but it has absolutely no right to exist in its current form.
Kind of ironic how blind Lemmy is to the possibility of a federal constitutional solution to the problem. Nobody who would really want the conflict to end is allowed into the conversation.
Yes, the cause of most of this is the hardliners that put Bibi in power and keeps him there to this day. I would question the apartheid moniker since Israel is fairly diverse. It has something like 40% Arab population who also serve in the IDF. It has the most diverse populations in that part of the world.
The Arabs who serve in the military, other than Jewish Arabs, are Bedouin and Druze, whose 'community leaders' chose to participate in conscription because military service is fundamental to success in Israeli society. Palestinians often regard them as the worst, not because of a sense of betrayal but because Arabs in the IDF often feel the need to prove which side they're on. The Israeli refuseniks are, for the most part, able to refuse because their family is willing and able to support them economically.
Palestinian-Israelis do not (and cannot) serve in the military, along with the most extreme in the settler-movement ( a sore point for many Israelis, who are forced to do national service to keep these extremists safe in occupied territory).
The apartheid charge is (largely) based on the different laws and rights which apply to citizens of Israel vs Palestinians under occupation. Israel does treat its Arab citizens and, especially, East Jerusalemites (who have residency but not citizenship) , differently in many ways. But, even if you insist on ignoring the racist minutiae of Israeli law, you don't get to say they're responsible only for their citizens (+/- permanent residents). They're maintaining an apartheid system in the Occupied Territories (and East Jerusalem) and you don't get to pretend that this somehow doesn't count
Israelis are Israeli. Palestinians are Palestinian. There is Palestinian law and Israeli law. Two separate places, much like any other places in this world.
Where in the world are the state of Palestine's sovereign rights recognized? Do they have control of their own borders? What is the name of their ambassador to the UN?
What is the name of their ambassador to the UN?
Riyad Mansour. A better example would be "who controls Palestinians' birth register and therefore who is legally a Palestinian?" Or "who controls the currency and decides the monetary policy for Palestinians?". Not to mention water, electricity, gas, communications, movement, even whether or not Palestinians get to sleep on any given night.
Thus the 2 state solution.
There is no Palestinian state. Israel is the (illegal) occupying power and has been since 1967, with a stated intent for the Occupation to be permanent. The system is closely equivalent to South African apartheid, with genocidal intent on top.
Words have meaning. Israel cannot maintain a permanent Occupation, controlling everything and everyone entering or exiting the Occupied Territories, and also pretend that Palestinians are responsible for their own wellbeing. That's not how it works and if you were under the impression that it is, you have some reading to do.
There are no Israeli in Palestine. They were forcibly removed by Israel years ago. There was no occupation. Words have meaning.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand on that because it looks like a denial of reality. Are you under the impression that Israel is keeping Israelis under occupation?
There are many older Israelis who regard themselves as Palestinian Jews ("I didn't come to Israel, Israel came to me"). There are many Israelis living in the Occupied Territories, and many of the non-militant amongst them say they would choose to become Palestinians in the event of a two state solution.
I'm not sure if you know these people exist but you also seem to be having trouble acknowledging that Palestinians exist and are the ones who are living under occupation and that is ... a bit of a headfuck. Can you explain yourself a little more clearly?
Israel's plan of unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and North Samaria put forward by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was carried out on 15 August 2005. The purpose of the plan was to improve Israel's security and international status in the absence of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
There are Palestinians that do live in Israel, and are therefore under Israeli law. Sometimes those laws can be onerous.
Ever heard of the West Bank? Know anything about the blockade of Gaza? Which planet are you on?
I'm curious: do you consider every single military occupation an "apartheid"? I think this concept took hold in western media with the recent Oct 7 attacks but the reality is Gaza and South Africa have very little in common. Apartheid, definitionally, was used to describe a very particular situation and set of circumstances that affected people of color within a singular state. You wouldn't say 'Russia is committing "apartheid" because they occupied Crimea', would you? Don't get me wrong: there is clearly a military occupation in place and an ongoing war along with a blockade. But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right? What am I missing?
do you consider every single military occupation an “apartheid”?
Most military occupations are not done with the intent of stealing the land and replacing the existing population with settlers. The British occupation of Northern Ireland did have characteristics of apartheid, and is probably the closest parallel available to Palestine/Israel.
But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right?
Area C forms a contiguous territory on 61% of the West Bank, and is administered solely by Israel via the Judea and Samaria Area administration. As of 2015, it is home to 150,000 Palestinians[3] in 532 residential areas, and roughly 400,000 Israelis[4] in 135 settlements and more than 100 unrecognized outposts.
In contrast, Areas A and B are subdivided into 165 enclaves of land that have no territorial contiguity.[2] Area A is exclusively administered by the Palestinian National Authority; Area B is administered by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Area A comprises approximately 18% of the total territory of the West Bank and Area B about 22% of the territory, together home to some 2.8 million Palestinians.[5]
The last Palestinian elections were held in 2006 and Hamas won a landslide in both Gaza and the West Bank, a reaction to the corruption of the PA and its willingness to act as little more than a security service for Israel.
Hamas set about expelling the PLO (a group of secular parties dominated by Fatah) from Gaza. In response the PLO (which is essentially synonymous with the PA these days) pulled off a coup in the West Bank and installed itself there, without the consent of the Palestinian people.
I just wanted to say thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, but I'm still not convinced that Apartheid, definitionally, accurately describes this situation. I think it would be a lot more helpful if people familiarized themselves with the origins of SA Apartheid. You are right that the Oslo accords did not confer a Palestinian state, but the option was proffered multiple times but the Palestinians did not accept the proposed boundaries. I'm familiar with the zones. You yourself concede that Israelis are living within Area C, so it is not exclusively segregated to Palestinians/Arabs. That being said, I do agree that not only the settlements need to stop but the land within area C that was taken by settlements should be reverted to Palestinians.
Yoi have a great deal of reading to do. Look for sources that you are unlikely to have been exposed to because what you have been exposed to so far is garbage.
Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have retained limited security relations with the Israeli counterparts in the IDF and Shin Bet since re-establishment of relations in 2005. The parties cooperate on prevention of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activity in the West Bank, which is considered a threat by both parties.
Palestinian Labor is also heavily exploited as they have no workers rights either: Haaretz, MEE, 972, CMEC
A 3+ state solution with a federal union of independent lower states for Israel and Palestine would actually solve the problem. Broaden your horizons.
This has the same problem as the two state solution - the settlements have stolen Palestinian land. If you can't resolve that issue for the two state solution, it's still a problem for 3+.
So fucking what, that can be resolved diplomatically at the first levantine congress. I'll do the writing if they want. The two state solution fails to create a venue at which to resolve these problems and Israel will not submit to UN authority except by force, and Palestine does not have a seat at the table with the UN. I seriously think it's time for the United States to intervene militarily.
Since israel is occupying the west bank militarily and seizing land there. And people in the west bank can't vote...
It's a full on apartheid. Every major NGO declares israel an apartheid.
Also it's so bad that Arab israelis have fled israel out of fear of persecution. One has recently won a court case in the UK on the grounds that israel is an apartheid persecuting it's Arab citizens.
‘Hasan’, 24, argued he would face persecution in Israel on grounds of his race, faith and its ‘apartheid regime’
The Wesr Bank has their own government separate from Gaza. Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have retained limited security relations with the Israeli counterparts in the IDF and Shin Bet since re-establishment of relations in 2005. The parties cooperate on prevention of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activity in the West Bank, which is considered a threat by both parties.
With attention focused on its contentious judicial overhaul, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has quietly taken unprecedented steps toward cementing Israel’s control over the occupied West Bank — perhaps permanently.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a leader of the settlement movement, assumed new powers over the occupied territory in his coalition agreement with Netanyahu. Smotrich moved swiftly to approve thousands of new settlement homes, legalize previously unauthorized wildcat outposts and make it more difficult for Palestinians to build homes and move about.
As the first government minister to oversee civilian life in the West Bank, his role amounts to a recognition that Israel’s 56-year military occupation is not temporary but permanent, observers say.
If you really want to know about the government in the west bank, you can go here...
Israel in its current form has no more legitimacy than Apartheid South Africa had. I lived through that struggle, with right-wing politicians bolstering the apartheid regime and sending arms as ordinary people protested it. We eventually won that battle and eventually we will win this one too.
FWIW, there is no mirror image here. There is one two-state solution and two one-state solutions.
The two-state solution has been made impossible by Israeli settlement activity (which picked up substantially during the Oslo negotiations and has continued at a furious pace ever since).
The two one-state solutions are: a single, secular democratic state with equal rights for all its people and equal right to return for Palestinians; or a single Jewish ethno-state with Palestinians imprisoned in occupied enclaves with no access to the outside world other than what their imprisoners agree to.
The latter one-state solution is what the Israeli right are trying to achieve and, as with Apartheid South Africa, the global right (and the arms industry) are rooting for them to succeed. The rest of us have to fight it, as we did with South Africa, and also East Timor, and are struggling to do for Myanmar, the Congo, Somalia and East Turkmenistan. And would for North Korea, if there was any leverage available.
Israel does exist and will continue to exist but it has absolutely no right to exist in its current form.
Kind of ironic how blind Lemmy is to the possibility of a federal constitutional solution to the problem. Nobody who would really want the conflict to end is allowed into the conversation.
Yes, the cause of most of this is the hardliners that put Bibi in power and keeps him there to this day. I would question the apartheid moniker since Israel is fairly diverse. It has something like 40% Arab population who also serve in the IDF. It has the most diverse populations in that part of the world.
The Arabs who serve in the military, other than Jewish Arabs, are Bedouin and Druze, whose 'community leaders' chose to participate in conscription because military service is fundamental to success in Israeli society. Palestinians often regard them as the worst, not because of a sense of betrayal but because Arabs in the IDF often feel the need to prove which side they're on. The Israeli refuseniks are, for the most part, able to refuse because their family is willing and able to support them economically.
Palestinian-Israelis do not (and cannot) serve in the military, along with the most extreme in the settler-movement ( a sore point for many Israelis, who are forced to do national service to keep these extremists safe in occupied territory).
The apartheid charge is (largely) based on the different laws and rights which apply to citizens of Israel vs Palestinians under occupation. Israel does treat its Arab citizens and, especially, East Jerusalemites (who have residency but not citizenship) , differently in many ways. But, even if you insist on ignoring the racist minutiae of Israeli law, you don't get to say they're responsible only for their citizens (+/- permanent residents). They're maintaining an apartheid system in the Occupied Territories (and East Jerusalem) and you don't get to pretend that this somehow doesn't count
Israelis are Israeli. Palestinians are Palestinian. There is Palestinian law and Israeli law. Two separate places, much like any other places in this world.
Where in the world are the state of Palestine's sovereign rights recognized? Do they have control of their own borders? What is the name of their ambassador to the UN?
Riyad Mansour. A better example would be "who controls Palestinians' birth register and therefore who is legally a Palestinian?" Or "who controls the currency and decides the monetary policy for Palestinians?". Not to mention water, electricity, gas, communications, movement, even whether or not Palestinians get to sleep on any given night.
Thus the 2 state solution.
There is no Palestinian state. Israel is the (illegal) occupying power and has been since 1967, with a stated intent for the Occupation to be permanent. The system is closely equivalent to South African apartheid, with genocidal intent on top.
Words have meaning. Israel cannot maintain a permanent Occupation, controlling everything and everyone entering or exiting the Occupied Territories, and also pretend that Palestinians are responsible for their own wellbeing. That's not how it works and if you were under the impression that it is, you have some reading to do.
There are no Israeli in Palestine. They were forcibly removed by Israel years ago. There was no occupation. Words have meaning.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand on that because it looks like a denial of reality. Are you under the impression that Israel is keeping Israelis under occupation?
There are many older Israelis who regard themselves as Palestinian Jews ("I didn't come to Israel, Israel came to me"). There are many Israelis living in the Occupied Territories, and many of the non-militant amongst them say they would choose to become Palestinians in the event of a two state solution.
I'm not sure if you know these people exist but you also seem to be having trouble acknowledging that Palestinians exist and are the ones who are living under occupation and that is ... a bit of a headfuck. Can you explain yourself a little more clearly?
Israel's plan of unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and North Samaria put forward by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was carried out on 15 August 2005. The purpose of the plan was to improve Israel's security and international status in the absence of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
There are Palestinians that do live in Israel, and are therefore under Israeli law. Sometimes those laws can be onerous.
Ever heard of the West Bank? Know anything about the blockade of Gaza? Which planet are you on?
I'm curious: do you consider every single military occupation an "apartheid"? I think this concept took hold in western media with the recent Oct 7 attacks but the reality is Gaza and South Africa have very little in common. Apartheid, definitionally, was used to describe a very particular situation and set of circumstances that affected people of color within a singular state. You wouldn't say 'Russia is committing "apartheid" because they occupied Crimea', would you? Don't get me wrong: there is clearly a military occupation in place and an ongoing war along with a blockade. But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right? What am I missing?
Most military occupations are not done with the intent of stealing the land and replacing the existing population with settlers. The British occupation of Northern Ireland did have characteristics of apartheid, and is probably the closest parallel available to Palestine/Israel.
No. The Oslo accords established a Palestinian government but not a Palestinian state. Israel retained complete control of Area C, partial control of Area B, and the ability to blockade Area A..
The last Palestinian elections were held in 2006 and Hamas won a landslide in both Gaza and the West Bank, a reaction to the corruption of the PA and its willingness to act as little more than a security service for Israel.
Hamas set about expelling the PLO (a group of secular parties dominated by Fatah) from Gaza. In response the PLO (which is essentially synonymous with the PA these days) pulled off a coup in the West Bank and installed itself there, without the consent of the Palestinian people.
I just wanted to say thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, but I'm still not convinced that Apartheid, definitionally, accurately describes this situation. I think it would be a lot more helpful if people familiarized themselves with the origins of SA Apartheid. You are right that the Oslo accords did not confer a Palestinian state, but the option was proffered multiple times but the Palestinians did not accept the proposed boundaries. I'm familiar with the zones. You yourself concede that Israelis are living within Area C, so it is not exclusively segregated to Palestinians/Arabs. That being said, I do agree that not only the settlements need to stop but the land within area C that was taken by settlements should be reverted to Palestinians.
Yoi have a great deal of reading to do. Look for sources that you are unlikely to have been exposed to because what you have been exposed to so far is garbage.
You could do worse than read around why South Africa is the lead country in this case. Or why Ireland are such staunch allies to the Palestinians.
Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have retained limited security relations with the Israeli counterparts in the IDF and Shin Bet since re-establishment of relations in 2005. The parties cooperate on prevention of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activity in the West Bank, which is considered a threat by both parties.
Under Israeli Occupation and 50 years of dispossession Palestinians are denied civil rights and subject to Military Court
At the mercy of Settler Violence, Torture and Abuse in Interrogations, have No freedom of movement, and also denied Water stolen and extorted by the occupying forces.
Palestinian Labor is also heavily exploited as they have no workers rights either: Haaretz, MEE, 972, CMEC
A 3+ state solution with a federal union of independent lower states for Israel and Palestine would actually solve the problem. Broaden your horizons.
This has the same problem as the two state solution - the settlements have stolen Palestinian land. If you can't resolve that issue for the two state solution, it's still a problem for 3+.
So fucking what, that can be resolved diplomatically at the first levantine congress. I'll do the writing if they want. The two state solution fails to create a venue at which to resolve these problems and Israel will not submit to UN authority except by force, and Palestine does not have a seat at the table with the UN. I seriously think it's time for the United States to intervene militarily.
Since israel is occupying the west bank militarily and seizing land there. And people in the west bank can't vote...
It's a full on apartheid. Every major NGO declares israel an apartheid.
Also it's so bad that Arab israelis have fled israel out of fear of persecution. One has recently won a court case in the UK on the grounds that israel is an apartheid persecuting it's Arab citizens.
Palestinian citizen of Israel granted UK asylum in case said to be unprecedented
The Wesr Bank has their own government separate from Gaza. Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have retained limited security relations with the Israeli counterparts in the IDF and Shin Bet since re-establishment of relations in 2005. The parties cooperate on prevention of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activity in the West Bank, which is considered a threat by both parties.
This sure suggests otherwise
Israel’s finance minister now governs the West Bank. Critics see steps toward permanent control
If you really want to know about the government in the west bank, you can go here...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority#:~:text=The%20Palestinian%20Authority%20currently%20administers,the%20Hamas%20Government%20in%20Gaza.
Note the mass resignation in February. To my mind, this was clearing the ground for a 2 state solution
That is.. Not relevant to what I linked at all...
He literally googled your argument and picked up the first thing he found/ someone else used previously on Reddit.
He is incapable of understanding why it's irrelevant.