Israel And Apartheid?

Here's an interesting response to this Apartheid state charge. It's about 3min.

 

I think that the answer to that question is fairly self-evident to anyone who's not Zionist and is even passingly familiar with the history of the region.

Israel's apartheid against Palestinians

A Threshold Crossed

Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights

 

This is said to be the origin of this.

"The use of the term "apartheid" to demonize Israel began with Soviet propaganda following the 1967 Six-Day War, and in particular Yuri Ivanov's book "Caution: Zionism!" Just like with those infamous protocols of the elders of Zion, this lie also refuses to die."

https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/israeli-apartheid-the-lie-that-refuses-to-die/

 

You do realize that both of your citations are overtly Zionist, and therefore hardly impartial, don't you?

 

The Abrahams Accords were completed without Palistinian representation. Too bad, thier leaders gain legitimacy from the conflict
Moderates are pushed aside. The current war does nothing to help everyday Palestinians.

 

Palestinians are not helped by being Iran's cats paw.
They need leaders who put their local needs first.

Irish peoples lived under the British yoke for a long time. I personally would compare that more than South Africa

 

The arabs objected to the two state solution back in '48 so the brits never established or enforced

 

I agree that the Israel/Palestine conflict is more comparable with that in Ireland than South Africa but, the Ireland conflict was never on the scale of any conflict flare-ups in Israel/Gaza/WestBank Despite that, the trauma felt by non-militants on both sides in Ireland is still raw after more than 25 yrs of relative peace in Ireland. And even with it being known as the Troubles rather than all-out war, the trauma and fear reverberates throughout each community, still, to this day.
As ever, (similar with Israel/Gaza), the politicians are the weak link and the cause of failure and of the conflict.

Who knows what level of trauma will persist in Israel/Gaza for decades to come, even if there were a peace agreement tomorrow.

Addressing some earlier posts here, it's worth remembering that in Ireland (Northern Ireland specifically), the vast majority were non-combitants and were merely caught up in it all. That's similar to Palestine's people, as alluded to today by Blinken.

 

Did this idea of Israel being an Apartheid state become popular on college campuses with the 2001 thing in Durban South Africa?

 

Does this sound like Apartheid?

"There are Arab citizens—citizens with full, equal rights—in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, as well as in the Israeli court system, including the Supreme Court. There are Arab doctors, professors, policemen, teachers, and countless other professions, working side by side with Jews. Not all of them consider themselves Palestinians, and it is not for Halper (or anyone else) to define their national identity for them. And there are many Druze and Bedouins, who are part of the Arab population in Israel, who serve in the Israel Defense Forces."

Israel’s Got Major Problems, but It’s Not an Apartheid State

 

Not all Arabs are Palestinian, but Israel isn't at war with Arabs. They're very specifically at war with Palestinians.
Can all Palestinians vote, or stand for election?
Can all Palestinians travel freely?
Can all Palestinians live wherever they choose?
Are all Palestinians entitled to equal protection under the law?
No. 'No' is the unequivocal answer to all of those questions. That means that 'Yes'; Israel is a racist apartheid state.
Nobody's talking about Arabs in general; that's an idiotic straw man. To say that there's no de jure apartheid in Israel because there's no apartheid within the borders mandated by U.N. resolution 242 which Israel as completely ignored for 56 years is either willfully obtuse or breathtakingly stupid. The Palestinian subjects (not citizens) of the 0ccupied Territories are subject to only the rights and privileges granted to them by Israel! In contrast, "illegal" (wink, wink, nod, nod) Jewish settlers enjoy all the rights and privileges of Israeli citizenship. That is not Palestinian self-determination, therefore that's not freedom. It's one set of laws for one ethnic group, and an entirely different set of oppressive laws for another; what everyone but Israelis recognize as apartheid.

 

I wouldn't get too hung up on labelling, whether apartheid or something else because whilst people argue over that, they're missing the real issue.

Translation to Ireland's conflict, which has progressed beyond militancy...
The Irish subjects (not citizens) of the British were subject only to the rights and privileges granted to them by Britain/UK/Unionists in Stormont! In contrast, people from Britain, who were moved to Ireland during the Plantation era, enjoyed all the rights and privileges of British citizenship. That is not Irish self-determination, therefore that's not freedom. It's one set of laws for one group, and an entirely different set of oppressive laws for another; However, it was those who were moved into the region who were given control - seemingly like Israel was given control when they were moved there around 1946.

The Irish couldn't vote because unlike unionists, they weren't home-owners which was a requirement in order to vote. They couldn't buy a house because they couldn't get a job to pay for it. The unionists were prioritised for jobs.
At best, they were treated as second class citizens but in a lot of cases, they were treated as if they were stuck to the bottom of your shoe.

Times have changed since peace talks began. Now one side believes it's on the path to Irish re-unification, whilst some settlers are very unsettled.
The bombings and shootings are by-and-large over with extremists detonating the occasional device but they have next-to-no support from anyone.

Hopefully, a new road map to peace can be established in relation to Israel and the territories but I wonder who the 'honest broker' will be.
In Ireland it took Clinton and then Senator George Mitchell to achieve the current situation. Other's too but without them little/nothing would have progressed.
I don't understand how the US or the UK can be considered honest brokers in the Israel peace process since they are seen clearly to favour one side.

One more thing; People are talking about the Palestinians standing up against Hamas. In Ireland, the equivalent people, the Catholics, in whose area the IRA lived, sometimes did stand up. Some were perceived by the IRA to have stood up/being 'spies for the British' or mistaken for some who may have stood up. They were murdered by the IRA.

"The disappeared", as some of them became known. A commission had to be set up to create the environment where former militants would help with giving up their bodies' location. It's not so easy to stand up. The IRA killed more of 'their own' than they killed the other side, which in Palestine terms, means, the hamas killed more of Palestinians than they killed Israelis.

There's a graph purported to be from the UN, which I am trying to verify genuine, showing the numbers of people killed in the last 20 years. The number of Palestinians killed (about 10 times as many Israelis) suggests to me that some have tried to stand up to Hamas and suffered a similar demise as those in Ireland who stood up. The graph doesn't say who is thought to have killed them, just the totals per year of both people's.

 

How much of those restrictions are related to terrorist attacks on Israelis coming from Palestinian terrorists?

"such policies are justified by security considerations, given the past and ongoing threats posed by Palestinian terrorist organizations targeting Israeli civilians..."

 

Gaza is walled in like a prison because...

- Palestinians have been a peaceful open people, who've always wanted to live in harmony with their Jewish neighbors.

OR

- Palestinians have been horrifically violent genocidal people, hell bent on the eradication of Jews for at least the past 700 years.

Hummmmmmmmm, tough call...

 

Does it compare to native Americans? I haven't heard too much about natives terrorizing, slaughtering, and suicide bombing Americans over the past 70 years. And they have been given all the freedoms and rights as normal citizens plus a bunch of benefits and special privileges. What societies on this planet don't have a sketchy violent past? Times were rough. Most houses didn't have running water and electricity 80 years ago. Even white kids were dying from all kinds of things. Most societies have grown and evolved, and some are still cutting throats out of babies.

 

It's happened elsewhere too, for different reasons, where the sudden introduction of new people en masse, to an existing country, doesn't seem to be a good idea. Ireland, with Protestants being 'planted' (during the plantation) from Britain and the British landowners in Ireland treating the Irish folk dreadfully in the 1800s, is reasonably arguable as being the root cause of the recent conflict there. And then, in the 1920s, when Northern Ireland was created (Ireland was split) and the way descendants of those 'immigrants' attained power in Northern Ireland in the 1920s and treated the indigenous folk (the Irish) as 2nd class citizens, denying them the normal rights anyone would hope for. Better now but the lingering tribalism and the impact on thousands remains.

I've wondered too about Australia and its indigenous people, the Aborigines, especially with the very recent referendum that has denied them rights - as usual, by the people now running the place or whose voice is properly represented in the Government there, who are descendants of those who were moved into that country.

 

But Jewish people WERE the natives of that land. There were not even just migratory people living in tents, they had built cities like Jerusalem. Many differences here.

Also, Palestinians are not an ancient people. They were invented by Romans and Muslims to occupy the land of the Jewish people that they slaughtered and drove out.