Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on October 09, 2023, 06:50:44 PM
-
We know about South Africa. Racial disenfranchisement, multiple tiers of citizenship.
Some people think that the Israeli/Palestinian situation is another example of Apartheid. That Palestinians are not granted (I hate this language but it's shorthand for getting the point across) the same rights as Israelis. The difference being a function of religious / tribal identity. Evidently if you're a documented "Jew" anywhere in the world, you can have dual citizenship with Israel and your birth country, but if you want Israeli citizenship and are not a Jew, you must disavow any other citizenship. And there were some nasty tricks played by the founders of the State of Israel to deliberately disenfranchise Muslims living in the territory during the formation of the State. Those nasty tricks trickle down to the grandchildren of those disenfranchised 75 years ago, so that they are supposedly also not eligible for citizenship.
I don't know lots about the Israel/Palestine thing, and I don't really have a bone in that fight. I'm more interested in the notion of "Apartheid" as a form of international attack on an otherwise "Democratic" process. The UN loves "Democracy" but hates "Apartheid." But Democracy is empowered to deal with an influx of outsiders, and generally democratic voting environments don't care for a bunch of outsiders changing things on them.
Here in the US... where does Apartheid begin?
We joke in Arizona about "Don't California my Arizona" and "Welcome to Arizona, now go back home." We jeer Californians that buy houses and then run away from moving here when they find out there might not be water rights to the house 100 years from now. None of that is legislated or involving violence or disenfranchising though.
What about voting laws for interstate moves? If you still have an out of State license plate on your car, you cannot vote in your new State? Or no voting in your new State until you've had one full calendar year as being subject to its taxes? Anything along those lines, to dull the impact of "outsiders" voting and California-ing up your Idaho.
Homeschool regulation? Could this be perceived as a form of Apartheid? Having State approved curriculum, or at least particular curriculum that the State disapproves? This could the the crushing of a perspective/philosophy that the State (and the dominant party in power) is fundamentally opposed to. Not religious/tribal... but for many (especially the non-religious) politics is religion. Or for others (religious extremists like Muslims), religion must be represented through politics. Being unable to propagate your ideas on parity with the State's approved ideas is a serious disadvantage in keeping your ideas alive.
What about the blatant gerrymandering of most voting districts? Rather than generic squares, voting precinct maps often look more like a mash-up of jigsaw puzzle pieces and Japanese characters. All to protect particular ideologies, or at least particular ideologues in power. Do you think affluence would migrate, or poverty migrate, if gerrymandering was immediately made null and void and all vote precincts could have no more than 360 degrees of angle of the sum of its angles and must be square or rectangular on a map, with no side being more than 50% longer than another and all angles must be 90 degrees?
Can Apartheid be something that transcends race/tribe/religious attributes? That it is applied at a philosophical or political level?
-
Apartheid? You want Apartheid? Look for the number of Jews and Christians in leadership positions in the governments of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Qatar, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Dubai, North Korea, Communist China, the Gaza Strip, Syria . . . shall I continue?
-
Gentiles living in Israel have, afaik, rights/privileges analogous to immigrants in the USA lacking a green card. Not the same, but relative to citizens a similar degree of reduction.
Wrt to Arabs in Israel, and any “dirty tricks” regarding ability to obtain citizenship, bear in mind that, especially in the ‘40’s the Arabs would have used a loose immigration policy to overwhelm the Jews and vote them out of Israel if they could have.
Israel is not an “apartheid” state. The Arab countries around them are much closer to such an adjective. Them calling Israel apartheid is like the left here calling conservatives racist. It’s pure gaslighting and projection.
-
I always thought one hallmark of apartheid was that it was a system used by a racial minority to disenfranchise and control a substantially larger racial majority.
That's not even remotely the case in Israel.
-
Gentiles living in Israel have, afaik, rights/privileges analogous to immigrants in the USA lacking a green card. Not the same, but relative to citizens a similar degree of reduction.
Wrt to Arabs in Israel, and any “dirty tricks” regarding ability to obtain citizenship, bear in mind that, especially in the ‘40’s the Arabs would have used a loose immigration policy to overwhelm the Jews and vote them out of Israel if they could have.
Israel is not an “apartheid” state. The Arab countries around them are much closer to such an adjective. Them calling Israel apartheid is like the left here calling conservatives racist. It’s pure gaslighting and projection.
You can’t be serious. Israel forbids inter religious marriages, doesn’t recognise the property rights of specific racial groups in its territory, and does so all in explicit legal frameworks.
I know many South Africans of both sides who have visited Israel - they universally agree that its practices are harsher towards non Israelis than the RSA was towards black people. The Bantustans had more rights and better conditions than Arab Israelis, not to mention non citizens.
-
I always thought one hallmark of apartheid was that it was a system used by a racial minority to disenfranchise and control a substantially larger racial majority.
That's not even remotely the case in Israel.
Who are the enfranchised arabs (that would be a majority) you’re referring to in that country?
-
Who are the enfranchised arabs (that would be a majority) you’re referring to in that country?
Where is the Arab population majority in Israel that is being repressed by the Jewish minority population? Arabs make up roughly 21% of Israel's population.
There isn't one. So, no aparthied.
Even if you add the population of Gaza to that number, Arabs are still a minority population in Israel.
This crap that Arabs handily outnumber Jews in the Israeli state and thus are being disenfranchised and subject to repressive apartheid restrictions is just that. CRAP.
-
Where is the Arab population majority in Israel that is being repressed by the Jewish minority population? Arabs make up roughly 21% of Israel's population.
There isn't one. So, no aparthied.
Even if you add the population of Gaza to that number, Arabs are still a minority population in Israel.
This crap that Arabs handily outnumber Jews in the Israeli state and thus are being disenfranchised and subject to repressive apartheid restrictions is just that. CRAP.
If you add Gaza and the West Bank arabs are a majority. How do you explain the explicit legal discrimination against them and also the 21 percent of Israeli citizens who are Arab? Hahaha mate the Israelis bulldoze entire Arab towns and then develop the land for settlement by immigrants solely on the basis of their race and religion.
Say what you will about the war - you cannot be serious about the Israeli state being anything less than apartheid South Africa. The Afrikaans were indisputably better towards their residents than Israel.
-
Say what you will about the war - you cannot be serious about the Israeli state being anything less than apartheid South Africa. The Afrikaans were indisputably better towards their residents than Israel.
Typical De Selby. Simplistic, factually incorrect, and lacking either context or nuance.
Within Israel's pre-1967 borders Arab Israelis have essentially full citizenship rights. This was not true of black South Africans under apartheid. Black South Africans couldn't vote, couldn't run for office, couldn't travel freely, didn't receive equivalent education, healthcare, or opportunities for employment. The same is not true for Arab Israelis.
In the West Bank it's complicated by multiple administrative areas, some controlled by Palestinians, some by Israelis, some shared. The Israeli settlements are by and large in Area C, an area controlled by Israel. Specifically which "entire Arab towns" do you think were bulldozed to make way for Jewish settlement? I'm aware of sporadic demolitions (usually pretextually because they were built without building permits) but not entire towns being destroyed. Bil'in and Susiya are the closest I can find, but they aren't entire towns that were bulldozed. I think you're making up this line about "entire Arab towns" that were bulldozed to make way for Israeli settlements.
In Gaza, Hamas is in control, so you'll have to take up your issues about discrimination with those fine gentlemen. Israel controls access to and from Gaza, but not what goes on in the strip.
In East Jerusalem most of the Palestinians are permanent residents, but not actual citizens.
Apartheid was based in racial superiority, whereas in Israel the issues are largely political and territorial, to say nothing of the long history of violence and terror. It's hard to imagine any modern nation tolerating the kind of ongoing violence that Israel has faced.
Finally, considering its neighbors Israel offers a significant amount of representation and legal protection for its religious and ethnic minorities. I'm not saying Israel is perfect or that Israel is where I'd want to live, but singling them out as particularly heinous requires intentionally ignoring just about everyone around them and holding them to a unique standard.
To pressure test your position, would you rather be an Muslim Arab living in Israel, or a Jew living in Gaza or Area A of the West Bank?
-
Say what you will about the war - you cannot be serious about the Israeli state being anything less than apartheid South Africa. The Afrikaans were indisputably better towards their residents than Israel.
Remind me again how many black folks were in the parliament of South Africa during Apartheid?
-
Typical De Selby. Simplistic, factually incorrect, and lacking either context or nuance.
Within Israel's pre-1967 borders Arab Israelis have essentially full citizenship rights. This was not true of black South Africans under apartheid. Black South Africans couldn't vote, couldn't run for office, couldn't travel freely, didn't receive equivalent education, healthcare, or opportunities for employment. The same is not true for Arab Israelis.
You just straight made that up. That’s absolutely not true, and many Arabs have been expelled from, not been able to vote in, and do not have the same rights as the rest of Israel in those borders. I don’t even think there’s a source that alleges that - you just straight invented that claim.
In the West Bank it's complicated by multiple administrative areas, some controlled by Palestinians, some by Israelis, some shared. The Israeli settlements are by and large in Area C, an area controlled by Israel. Specifically which "entire Arab towns" do you think were bulldozed to make way for Jewish settlement? I'm aware of sporadic demolitions (usually pretextually because they were built without building permits) but not entire towns being destroyed. Bil'in and Susiya are the closest I can find, but they aren't entire towns that were bulldozed. I think you're making up this line about "entire Arab towns" that were bulldozed to make way for Israeli settlements.
Again, you just straight made this up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement)
In Gaza, Hamas is in control, so you'll have to take up your issues about discrimination with those fine gentlemen. Israel controls access to and from Gaza, but not what goes on in the strip.
In East Jerusalem most of the Palestinians are permanent residents, but not actual citizens.
Apartheid was based in racial superiority, whereas in Israel the issues are largely political and territorial, to say nothing of the long history of violence and terror. It's hard to imagine any modern nation tolerating the kind of ongoing violence that Israel has faced.
See Wikipedia link. I defy you to articulate any reason to other than race or religion for the deprivation of property rights, marriage rights, or civil liberties.
Finally, considering its neighbors Israel offers a significant amount of representation and legal protection for its religious and ethnic minorities. I'm not saying Israel is perfect or that Israel is where I'd want to live, but singling them out as particularly heinous requires intentionally ignoring just about everyone around them and holding them to a unique standard.
To pressure test your position, would you rather be an Muslim Arab living in Israel, or a Jew living in Gaza or Area A of the West Bank?
This is a nonsense question. It’s like asking whether you’d rather be a Khosa in Praetoria or an Afrikaans in a Bantustan, or a slave in 1860 Richmond versus a white person in 1860 Haiti.
-
Remind me again how many black folks were in the parliament of South Africa during Apartheid?
They had their own sovereignty in bantustans! Hahaha again, you can’t be serious
-
Remind me again how many black folks were in the parliament of South Africa during Apartheid?
About as many Jews and Christians are in government positions in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Syria... and so forth and so on...
You know, those wonderful, inclusive, loving, enlightened, tolerant, theocratic states that have spent most of their history plotting the absolute destruction of the Israeli state.
But that's OK and wonderful to people who lean left and dismiss outright terrorism as misunderstandings.
-
You just straight made that up. That’s absolutely not true, and many Arabs have been expelled from, not been able to vote in, and do not have the same rights as the rest of Israel in those borders. I don’t even think there’s a source that alleges that - you just straight invented that claim.
;/ Are you actually unaware of Arab Israeli citizens? Wow. Impressive.
Again, you just straight made this up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement)
And what specifically about that paragraph do you think I made up?
Speaking of "straight made this up", which towns were bulldozed again?
See Wikipedia link. I defy you to articulate any reason to other than race of religion for the deprivation of property rights, marriage rights, or civil liberties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence
This is a nonsense question. It’s like asking whether you’d rather be a Khosa in Praetoria or an Afrikaans in a Bantustan, or a slave in 1860 Richmond versus a white person in 1860 Haiti.
So just to clarify, your opinion of Palestinian treatment of Jews is equivalent to your opinion of Jewish treatment of Arabs?
-
About as many Jews and Christians are in government positions in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Syria... and so forth and so on...
You know, those wonderful, inclusive, loving, enlightened, tolerant, theocratic states that have spent most of their history plotting the absolute destruction of the Israeli state.
But that's OK and wonderful to people who lean left and dismiss outright terrorism as misunderstandings.
Leaving aside the fact that Jews have constitutional members of parliament in Iran, I don’t see the point - Sudan is probably more *expletive deleted*it for human rights than all of these places. What does that fact have to do with racial and religious discrimination anywhere else? Does the fact that those places are worse than Russia mean Ukrainians should be happy with Russian rule?
It’s funny how the universal truths of the Declaration of Independence lose their self evidence so quickly when you change the race of the men involved.
-
They had their own sovereignty in bantustans! Hahaha again, you can’t be serious
Right....Which I think we all agree was kinda bullshit?
Whereas there are currently Arab members of the Knesset.
I'm not an defender of the Israeli government, as I said in the other thread I have a hard time giving a *expletive deleted*it about these two groups killing each other, but "worse than South Africa during Apartheid" seems to be an unsupportable position at even the cursory level.
Hell, They seem to be more even with current South Africa than Apartheid South Africa.
-
;/ Are you actually unaware of Arab Israeli citizens? Wow. Impressive.
No, I’m unaware of anyone claiming all arabs in the pre 1967 border got citizenship. That’s just straight untrue. You made it up.
And what specifically about that paragraph do you think I made up?
That there were no towns bulldozed for settlements outside the West Bank or Gaza. Many are listed at the link.
Speaking of "straight made this up", which towns were bulldozed again?
Again, many listed at link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence
So just to clarify, your opinion of Palestinian treatment of Jews is equivalent to your opinion of Jewish treatment of Arabs?
I’m not sure if this is dishonest or made up. I made zero comment about Palestinian treatment of Jews.
-
Right....Which I think we all agree was kinda bullshit?
Whereas there are currently Arab members of the Knesset.
I'm not an defender of the Israeli government, as I said in the other thread I have a hard time giving a *expletive deleted*it about these two groups killing each other, but "worse than South Africa during Apartheid" seems to be an unsupportable position at even the cursory level.
Hell, They seem to be more even with current South Africa than Apartheid South Africa.
Ask a South African who lived in apartheid. The conditions of the majority were worse for the majority in Israel according to all I’ve met. The RSA definitely gave better economic amenity to the Bantustans.
-
Ask a South African who lived in apartheid. The conditions of the majority were worse than the majority in Israel according to all I’ve met. The RSA definitely gave better economic amenity to the Bantustans.
Wait. Now I'm confused. This statement makes no sense.
Are you saying that the conditions of the Majority in Apartheid South Africa were worse than the [Jewish] Majority in modern day Israel? I don't think anyone would argue that.
Or are you saying that the conditions of the Majority in Apartheid South Africa were better than the current conditions of the Israeli Arab [Minority]? Because that seemed to be what you were arguing until just a second ago.
-
Wait. Now I'm confused. This statement makes no sense.
Are you saying that the conditions of the Majority in Apartheid South Africa were worse than the [Jewish] Majority in modern day Israel? I don't think anyone would argue that.
Or are you saying that the conditions of the Majority in Apartheid South Africa were better than the current conditions of the Israeli Arab [Minority]? Because that seemed to be what you were arguing until just a second ago.
Typo. The black South Africans had better treatment than Palestinians in Israel under apartheid.
-
No, I’m unaware of anyone claiming all arabs in the pre 1967 border got citizenship. That’s just straight untrue. You made it up.
No, what I actually said was: "Within Israel's pre-1967 borders Arab Israelis have essentially full citizenship rights." This is true. Not whatever nonsense you're "straight making up" due to a lack of reading comprehension.
That there were no towns bulldozed for settlements outside the West Bank or Gaza. Many are listed at the link.
So ... again ... which "entire towns" were demolished for Jewish settlements? Wasn't that your claim? I'm not asking you to tell me to dig through wikipedia and try to find them, I'm asking what are the names of the Arab towns that were bulldozed.
I’m not sure if this is dishonest or made up. I made zero comment about Palestinian treatment of Jews.
You seemed to be arguing that there was some sort of equivalence in treatment.
-
Back on the topic, as much as I love thread drift...
When is apartheid real, and when is it foreign meddling?
-
Back on the topic, as much as I love thread drift...
When is apartheid real, and when is it foreign meddling?
None of your examples seem to even remotely match any definition of apartheid I've ever heard.
Apartheid refers to the racial segregation policies used by white South Africans to separate and oppress the black South Africans. It isn't a catchall for bad things done by the government or groups.
-
It's a racial test on the part of South Africa, yes. But it's a religious test (if applicable) if levied against Israel.
Can one label political tests or philosophical tests to be Apartheid?
-
Can one label political tests or philosophical tests to be Apartheid?
Personally I think that's getting a little fast and loose with the idea of apartheid.
Also, while De may try to minimize the impact of apartheid and say that Israel is totally worse, it was actually pretty nasty. All the examples you gave were minor in comparison and seems to minimize the term. Sort of like calling an abusive police tasing a modern holocaust.
-
Typo. The black South Africans had better treatment than Palestinians in Israel under apartheid.
You are so right, and their vile treatment totally justifies acts like this.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/40-babies-some-beheaded-found-israel-soldiers-hamas-attacked-village
-
You are so right, and their vile treatment totally justifies acts like this.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/40-babies-some-beheaded-found-israel-soldiers-hamas-attacked-village
It absolutely does not. Vile behaviour by combatants does not justify violence against innocent people.
-
No, what I actually said was: "Within Israel's pre-1967 borders Arab Israelis have essentially full citizenship rights." This is true. Not whatever nonsense you're "straight making up" due to a lack of reading comprehension.
So ... again ... which "entire towns" were demolished for Jewish settlements? Wasn't that your claim? I'm not asking you to tell me to dig through wikipedia and try to find them, I'm asking what are the names of the Arab towns that were bulldozed.
You seemed to be arguing that there was some sort of equivalence in treatment.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution (https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution)
There’s a long list of demolished towns and homes in there which should help give context to the wiki map.
-
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution (https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution)
There’s a long list of demolished towns and homes in there which should help give context to the wiki map.
Being lazy, I was unwilling to read all that. So I searched for the term "bulldoze". As near as I can tell, the closest thing is they mention structures that have been bulldozed because they were built without permits. I'll admit I had to use a clumsy search option, so maybe I missed the long list. Would you point it out?
-
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution (https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution)
There’s a long list of demolished towns and homes in there which should help give context to the wiki map.
Heh. I was actually going to read that, but my employer has blocked the site labeling it "Hate and Racisim". First time I've seen that label.
-
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution (https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution)
There’s a long list of demolished towns and homes in there which should help give context to the wiki map.
That was a good read, thank you. I'm not convinced it is a particularly neutral source, but it certainly gives a valuable perspective. Also, what it noteably doesn't do is give a long list of demolished towns. As per your usual, you Googled for something wordy you thought you could pretend would back you and hoped no one would actually read it.
The only named place I saw in the posted site that had been demolished was al-Araqeeb, a small Bedouin village which has been demolished repeatedly with claims ranging from 150-200 times. It was not bulldozed to make way for Jewish settlement, however. Aerial imagery from 2023 is available here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/31%C2%B020'46.0%22N+34%C2%B046'46.0%22E/@31.345929,34.7807368,239m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d31.34611!4d34.77944?entry=ttu), notably lacking any Jewish settlement anywhere near it. The "residents" are Bedouins who also have homes elsewhere but rebuild the collection of tiny, essentially uninhabitable shacks and tents repeatedly strictly to make a political point. Israel keeps tearing it down to make their own political point.
In other words, you straight made that up.
Again, I'm not praising Israel as a beacon of freedom except in contrast to everyone around them. I believe they do handle the areas they control in the West Bank in a less than equitable manner. I'd also note that I'm fairly certain the areas that fall under Palestinian control likewise don't issue very many building permits to Jews. Or - you know - protect them from murder.
I feel empathy for Palestinians caught in the conflict between their chosen government and Israel as well as the Israelis caught in the conflict between their chosen government and the many entities working together to kill them. However, if you're going to try to expand the definition of apartheid to apply to Israel, then the number of nations it would equally apply to would include India, China, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Iran, Iraq ... the list goes on and on and on. Indeed, Australia, the UK, Canada, and the US might equally be on that list for relatively recent historical policies. But of course the only modern nation you bother to accuse of apartheid is Israel.
-
It seems to me that apartheid falls in with the collective Western guilt over slavery and colonialism and racism. I find it hard to tie this in with Israel/Palestine. Might be political similarities, but culturally and historically a bit different, IMO.
-
Cordex, from the linked report:
The Israeli government has also carried out discriminatory seizures of land inside Israel. Authorities have seized through different mechanisms at least 4.5 million dunams of land from Palestinians, according to historians, constituting 65 to 75 percent of all land owned by Palestinians before 1948 and 40 to 60 percent of the land that belonged to Palestinians who remained after 1948 and became citizens of Israel. Authorities in the early years of the state declared land belonging to displaced Palestinians as “absentee property” or “closed military zones,” then took it over, converted it to state land, and built Jewish communities there. Authorities continue to block Palestinian citizen landowners from accessing land that was confiscated from them. A 2003 government-commissioned report found that “the expropriation activities were clearly and explicitly harnessed to the interests of the Jewish majority” and that state lands, which constitute 93 percent of all land in Israel, effectively serve the objective of “Jewish settlement.” Since 1948, the government has authorized the creation of more than 900 “Jewish localities” in Israel, but it has allowed only a handful of government-planned townships and villages for Palestinians, created largely to concentrate previously displaced Bedouin communities living in the Negev.
And your specific reference to that one town includes this:
Israeli authorities demolished more than 10,000 Bedouin homes in the Negev between 2013 and 2019, according to government data. They razed one unrecognized village that challenged the expropriation of its lands, al-Araqib, 185 times.
Then there’s this (worth emphasising that Jerusalem is not part of the pre 67 border):
When Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, it applied its 1952 Law of Entry to Palestinians who lived there and designated them as “permanent residents,” the same status afforded to a non-Jewish foreigner who moves to Israel. The Interior Ministry has revoked this status from at least 14,701 Palestinians since 1967, mostly for failing to prove a “center of life” in the city. A path to Israeli citizenship exists, but few apply and most who did in recent years were not granted citizenship. By contrast, Jewish Israelis in Jerusalem, including settlers in East Jerusalem, are citizens who do not have to prove connections to the city to maintain their status.
Demolishing 10,000 homes and leaving 3 percent of the land inside the pre 67 border to Palestinians seems to fit the bill as I described it. What do you think the appropriate Palestinian response should have been?
-
It seems to me that apartheid falls in with the collective Western guilt over slavery and colonialism and racism. I find it hard to tie this in with Israel/Palestine. Might be political similarities, but culturally and historically a bit different, IMO.
Do you think maybe the fact that most non-Palestinian residents of Israel are recent immigrants from Europe and the former USSR might have anything to do with the connection?
-
Demolishing 10,000 homes and leaving 3 percent of the land inside the pre 67 border to Palestinians seems to fit the bill as I described it. What do you think the appropriate Palestinian response should have been?
Win a war.
Why has the West suddenly decided that conquering land isn't real? That's how the world works, how it has worked, and how it will work for the foreseeable future.
Nation states conquer territory, and then it's theirs.
-
And your specific reference to that one town includes this:
First off, I'm entirely willing to believe that Israel is not letting the Bedouin live their traditional nomadic lifestyle, nor are they letting them build wherever they please. I can also believe that some of this stems from a sense of cultural superiority or a desire to exert control over the Bedouin population.
All that said, I'd note that if those same Bedouin were to start to build shacks and tents on the outskirts of Sydney in an act of protest without building permission they'd likely be repeatedly razed as well. Large homeless encampments in the US are regularly torn down as well. In the case of the US homeless, that may actually be their only dwelling - unlike most of the Bedouin who do have homes elsewhere. In fact, in most developed countries it is not legal to just build what you want where you want to build it even if you have historical ties to that land. Where I used to live I couldn't build a shed on my own land but both of my neighbors were. If I had built it I would have been fined and it would have been demolished. Apartheid! Injustice! Entire towns bulldozed!
Even Australia's relatively generous Native Title provisions don't allow aboriginals to randomly start construction in areas their ancestors lived.
While the 10,000 number is very high, it would seem that many of those were likely the repeated demolitions in al-Araqib, or similar demolitions of shacks and tents set up elsewhere. While I'm sure that some of these demolitions caused homelessness, it would appear that a significant number of the demolished structures are not actually used as residences, and certainly not sole residences.
Then there’s this (worth emphasising that Jerusalem is not part of the pre 67 border):
Yes, and? It's unfair. Probably infuriating for the Palestinians who live there. I guess they could all become Jewish, naturalize, then later renounce their Judaism. As long as their Palestinian neighbors allowed them to survive the conversion, that is.
What's more, this unfairness is downright common. Germany's policy of Aussiedler und Spätaussiedler which establishes the right to return for Germanic descendants (even those who lived outside of Germany for generations) in contrast to the long term guest-worker residents of Turkish descent. Greece, Finland, China, India, Japan, France ... all have preferential treatment when it comes to establishing citizenship for certain ethnic groups. I think India even specifically excludes Muslims from their policy. Jordan has revoked established citizenship from Palestinians. Lebanon has refused Palestinians citizenship. And so on.
I guess I'm just not all that shocked that a nation might include racial, ethnic, or lineage components when it comes to citizenship. Even more so when the excluded peoples tend to be very vocal about the destruction of that nation.
Demolishing 10,000 homes and leaving 3 percent of the land inside the pre 67 border to Palestinians seems to fit the bill as I described it.
Demolishing 10,000 Bedouin shacks across six years, most of which are built in protest as civil disobedience or in an attempt to live a traditional lifestyle. Nope, not the same thing as:
Hahaha mate the Israelis bulldoze entire Arab towns and then develop the land for settlement by immigrants solely on the basis of their race and religion.
There’s a long list of demolished towns and homes in there which should help give context to the wiki map.
"Bulldoze entire Arab towns and then develop the land for settlement by immigrants"
"Long list of demolished towns"
You straight made that up. You wanted to evoke an exaggerated image of what Israel was doing and weren't content to stay within the bounds of truth to do so.
Were all of those 10,000 demolitions just? Almost certainly not. Are they equivalent to "apartheid"? Almost certainly not.
What do you think the appropriate Palestinian response should have been?
Obviously their only rational option is a coordinated terror campaign against civilians.
-
It takes a lot of effort and words to try and explain how destroying houses of residents to import immigrants on the basis of race is the same thing as having favourable visa conditions for a non-race based diaspora!
Legit cordex you can’t be serious. Straight up demolishing thousands of homes and reserving land at a ratio of 93 percent for one race over another is not remotely the same as allowing descendants of citizens to get a visa. That’s just dishonest. As is reading that report and looking at that map and claiming the 10,000 plus homes destroyed doesn’t constitute removing whole towns.
-
It takes a lot of effort and words to try and explain how destroying houses of residents to import immigrants on the basis of race is the same thing as having favourable visa conditions for a non-race based diaspora!
It's a complicated issue, but apparently you're having trouble keeping up with the conversation and have even forgotten what you brought up.
Legit cordex you can’t be serious. Straight up demolishing thousands of homes and reserving land at a ratio of 93 percent for one race over another is not remotely the same as allowing descendants of citizens to get a visa.
Please let me help clarify for you. I was specifically addressing the difficulty of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem in obtaining Israeli citizenship and the preferential treatment of Jews in that respect. This was a subject you brought up via the following quote:
When Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, it applied its 1952 Law of Entry to Palestinians who lived there and designated them as “permanent residents,” the same status afforded to a non-Jewish foreigner who moves to Israel. The Interior Ministry has revoked this status from at least 14,701 Palestinians since 1967, mostly for failing to prove a “center of life” in the city. A path to Israeli citizenship exists, but few apply and most who did in recent years were not granted citizenship. By contrast, Jewish Israelis in Jerusalem, including settlers in East Jerusalem, are citizens who do not have to prove connections to the city to maintain their status.
I took your choice to bring this up as another, legitimately unfair Israeli practice you thought was relevant to the conversation so I addressed it as such. Your quote had nothing to do with demolition of housing and neither did my response on that subject.
If you quoted that passage at me unintentionally, or just failed to understand what you were quoting then I'd be happy to move on, but of course given the context I was not implying in any way that the demolition of homes was the same thing as getting visas any more than you were when you raised the subject.
That’s just dishonest.
:rofl: Sure, De Selby, I'll worry about what you of all people consider dishonest.
As is reading that report and looking at that map and claiming the 10,000 plus homes destroyed doesn’t constitute removing whole towns.
Detroit alone demolishes homes at almost that rate. Probably nicer homes at that.
It's a big number and I'm sure that there is plenty of injustice to go around in it, but the number also intentionally ignores the context of what most of the demolished homes in the Negev region actually are and why they are built. That is to say they are largely tents and shacks built in areas without any infrastructure that are not the primary residence for the builders. Go check out the ruins of Al Araqib. Most of those "homes" that keep getting demolished have the footprint of a pup-tent. But each one feeds into your 10,000!!!! number ... repeatedly. Likely over half of the 10,000 number (over six years, remember) are accounted for in the Al Araqib protest alone given a few dozen "homes" removed per demolition and 20ish demolitions per year.
Your claim was "whole towns" get demolished to make room for Jewish settlements. That claim was total crap from the beginning, and you doubled-down on the lie by claiming that sources which did not reference towns that were destroyed did so.
In fairness, I'm not sure if you knew it was untrue when you initially made the assertion or if you believed it at the time and now are just trying to backfill because it turns out not to be remotely accurate, but at this point I think it is clear that if you could have named the towns you would have.
Again, I don't think Israel is a paragon of virtue or justice or freedom. I don't think they're pure and innocent. I think they run their country in a way I consider unjust and disturbing in many ways.
However, it is also clear that you're willing to hold them to a standard that you wouldn't even consider for a moment holding their neighbors to. In a sense that is a kind of compliment to the Israelis. You believe they're capable of a society of a caliber you don't think Arabs can be expected to maintain. I mean, it's every bit as condescendingly racist as the people who think that black Americans can't be held to the same standards as white Americans, but whatever.
-
It takes a lot of effort and words to try and explain how destroying houses of residents to import immigrants on the basis of race is the same thing as having favourable visa conditions for a non-race based diaspora!
Legit cordex you can’t be serious. Straight up demolishing thousands of homes and reserving land at a ratio of 93 percent for one race over another is not remotely the same as allowing descendants of citizens to get a visa. That’s just dishonest. As is reading that report and looking at that map and claiming the 10,000 plus homes destroyed doesn’t constitute removing whole towns.
The Jews and Palestinians are the same race; that's why they hate each other so much (although the hate mostly goes in only one directions) It dates all the way back to Genesis, when Abraham couldn't keep his pants on -- with Sarah's blessing -- and then Sarah mistreated Hagar. Or perhaps that's not it and it's Jacob v. Esau; also Genesis. (I have trouble keeping my genealogies and family feuds straight)
ETA: I was right the first time, before I hedged my bet. ;/ The Palestinians and Arabs are descendants of Ishmael.
-
that's why they hate each other so much (although the hate mostly goes in only one directions)
I think there is plenty of mutuality to the hate. Especially at this very moment.
-
I think there is plenty of mutuality to the hate. Especially at this very moment.
At this moment at least, you're exactly right. =(
-
The US options are to:
1.Support Israel
2.Support Palestine
3.Support both sides
4.Support neither side
I'm going with #4
US policy seems to vacillate between 1 and 3
-
5. Glass the entire region.
-
5. Glass the entire region.
I think he sort of has that covered with option 3.
-
Do you think maybe the fact that most non-Palestinian residents of Israel are recent immigrants from Europe and the former USSR might have anything to do with the connection?
How many of the Arabs were recent immigrants that moved into the area to work for the British during or prior to WWII?
-
The US options are to:
1.Support Israel
2.Support Palestine
3.Support both sides
4.Support neither side
I'm going with #4
US policy seems to vacillate between 1 and 3
I really don't think Israel needs our help. We have been giving them aid for decades. They ought to have enough weapons to do it on their own at this point.
-
How many of the Arabs were recent immigrants that moved into the area to work for the British during or prior to WWII?
Most of modern day Israel was a barren wasteland before the Jewish migrants started improving the land. Once they developed the land and had a functioning economy the Arabs started to move there too.
If Hamas gets their way and the Jews are all killed (or least displaced) and all that land became “theirs” it would be well on its way to reverting to barren wasteland status within 20 years, tops (probably within 5 years). Just like how Zimbabwe went from breadbasket to basket case when they dispossessed the white farmers and gave it to the blacks.
-
How many of the Arabs were recent immigrants that moved into the area to work for the British during or prior to WWII?
A small proportion compared to the recent immigrants from Europe. The myth that Arabs were a minority before Jews came from Europe is mainly spread for propaganda reasons, it is not taken seriously by any historians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_census_of_Palestine (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_census_of_Palestine)
The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,890 Muslims, 83,794 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 408 Sikhs, 265 Baháʼís, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]
80 percent of the Arab population was forcibly expelled in 1948 by the European immigrants.
-
When Israel was established as a state in 1948 (?) who was the land taken from? (my history classes in high school were a joke) The Kingdom of Egypt, right? That would be fine if Egypt had fought for the Axis and lost, but Egypt was occupied by Britain at the time and was actually neutral in WW2. (that's as much as I know about it) Some Egyptians may have fought for the Axis powers but others fought for the Allies. And did the British unilaterally divide Egypt, or did the Egyptians willingly cede the land. Or something else? Anybody know the details? Mike? Dogmush? I'd even like to hear DeSelby's opinions :laugh:
Arabs have hated the Jews for millennia, even before the founding of Islam. It's a family feud dating back to Isaac and Ishmael. The founding of Israel after WW2 just gave them a focal point. AFAIK the Jews don't like the Arabs either, but they don't begrudge them the right to exist.
-
When Israel was established as a state in 1948 (?) who was the land taken from? (my history classes in high school were a joke) The Kingdom of Egypt, right? That would be fine if Egypt had fought for the Axis and lost, but Egypt was occupied by Britain at the time and was actually neutral in WW2. (that's as much as I know about it) Some Egyptians may have fought for the Axis powers but others fought for the Allies. And did the British unilaterally divide Egypt, or did the Egyptians willingly cede the land. Or something else? Anybody know the details? Mike? Dogmush? I'd even like to hear DeSelby's opinions :laugh:
Arabs have hated the Jews for millennia, even before the founding of Islam. It's a family feud dating back to Isaac and Ishmael. The founding of Israel after WW2 just gave them a focal point. AFAIK the Jews don't like the Arabs either, but they don't begrudge them the right to exist.
Lots of different empires ruled the land prior to 1948. None of them expelled all the residents to make room for mass immigration from Europe. Jews and Arabs lived side by side in peace for centuries in that place prior to the violence perpetrated by the early communists who came from Europe prior to the 48 expulsion.
-
When Israel was established as a state in 1948 (?) who was the land taken from? (my history classes in high school were a joke) The Kingdom of Egypt, right? That would be fine if Egypt had fought for the Axis and lost, but Egypt was occupied by Britain at the time and was actually neutral in WW2. (that's as much as I know about it) Some Egyptians may have fought for the Axis powers but others fought for the Allies. And did the British unilaterally divide Egypt, or did the Egyptians willingly cede the land. Or something else? Anybody know the details? Mike? Dogmush? I'd even like to hear DeSelby's opinions :laugh:
Britain came to control Palestine during WWI. The land had been part of the Ottoman Empire for about 400 years. In 1917 the British troops occupied (and were offered the keys to the city by the folks there) Jerusalem, and got defacto control over the whole region. As part of the treaties that ended WWI (Not sure if it was actually the Treaty of Versailles, or a different one) the British received a Mandate for Palestine from the League of Nations. The land was theirs to administer and govern. Around this time it became the official policy of the British Government to help Jews return to their "Homeland". (The Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917) For the entire inter war period Palestine was run by the Brits, under their Mandate, as a dual Arab/Jew state, with many European Jews heading there to live. There were actually immigration limits during that time on the number of Jews that could come in. (Limits that were not always strictly followed as the Nazi's spun up in the 30's) Then WWII happened. After the WWII the Brits announced their intention to leave the area, carved Israel out of the land that they had been administering for 30 years, and returned the Mandate to the UN in 1948.
So technically the Brits made Israel out of their own land, although I glossed over a fair bit of nuance of the interwar governing of Palestine by a civil authority and the Brits.
-
Personally, my ignorant opinion is that Zionism was a mistake. Settling mass numbers of foreigners into a land and creating a country that most of the people who were born there did not want to live under just sounds like a terrible idea.
People on both sides committed acts of horrific terrorism and ethnic cleansing during the founding of Israel. Civil wars are horrific. The wars with the Arab nations around them led to even more massive ethnic cleansing both of Jews and Arabs. Some of the Israeli leaders were apparently guilty of murder (the Assassination of Count Bernadotte, in which Yitzhak Shamir was supposedly involved for example).
That being said, Israel is an established nation, and trying to correct historic "wrongs" by screwing over people today (the modern Israelis) is foolish and wrong. The Israelis have managed to create a civilization better than the Arab nations around them. Many of the Palestinians have been unable to accept that their ancestors lost the war. They have refused to make peace, and get on with creating a civil society. My ancestors lost a civil war too, but we got over it and made peace. Those who resort to terrorism are better off dead. I hope the Israelis kill every single Hamas member.
-
Britain came to control Palestine during WWI. The land had been part of the Ottoman Empire for about 400 years. In 1917 the British troops occupied (and were offered the keys to the city by the folks there) Jerusalem, and got defacto control over the whole region. As part of the treaties that ended WWI (Not sure if it was actually the Treaty of Versailles, or a different one) the British received a Mandate for Palestine from the League of Nations. The land was theirs to administer and govern. Around this time it became the official policy of the British Government to help Jews return to their "Homeland". (The Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917) For the entire inter war period Palestine was run by the Brits, under their Mandate, as a dual Arab/Jew state, with many European Jews heading there to live. There were actually immigration limits during that time on the number of Jews that could come in. (Limits that were not always strictly followed as the Nazi's spun up in the 30's) Then WWII happened. After the WWII the Brits announced their intention to leave the area, carved Israel out of the land that they had been administering for 30 years, and returned the Mandate to the UN in 1948.
So technically the Brits made Israel out of their own land, although I glossed over a fair bit of nuance of the interwar governing of Palestine by a civil authority and the Brits.
Thanks. I was skimming 1930s history and I should have gone back a few more years. I wasn't sure why Egypt was part of the British empire. I thought it might've had something to do with the Scramble for Africa in the late 1800s.
-
Settling mass numbers of foreigners into a land and creating a country that most of the people who were born there did not want to live under just sounds like a terrible idea.
Like the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.?
The wars with the Arab nations around them led to even more massive ethnic cleansing both of Jews and Arabs.
I get what you're trying to convey, and you're not totally wrong, but I thought I'd put a little context to the phrase "massive ethnic cleansing both of Jews and Arabs".
Today Israel has approximately 20% Arab citizenship (this is not including the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank or the permanent residents of East Jerusalem). There were about 725,000 Arabs living in the area allocated to Israel in the 1947 partition plan. After the Arab-Israeli war there were 156,000. Today there are 1.9 million Arab Israelis who have political representation and freedom to practice their religion.
Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, UAE, Qatar, Oman ... all have less than 0.01% Jewish populations today. Many of those nations have zero Jews living there at all. Some that do only have small Jewish communities that number under 100. Iran has a larger than average contingent of Jews at under 10,000, but most Persian Arabs (to the tune of 97%) have left Iran. For the handful of Jews living in those countries, most lack religious freedom and political representation.
Using conservative estimates, there were about 735,000 Jews living in Arab and Persian countries around the same time. Today there are statistically none. Israel certainly has blood on their hands and disgraceful history behind them (and probably in front of them) when it comes to mistreatment of Arabs, but if we're going to throw around terms like "ethnic cleansing", I think we should have some context about what "both sides" have done.
-
Like the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.?
Well, from the American Indian's point of view it was a terrible idea, right? It led to centuries of war, and their nations lost a continent, and they are a tiny minority now.
From mine, not so much... like the Isreali's.
-
Well, from the American Indian's point of view it was a terrible idea, right? It led to centuries of war, and their nations lost a continent, and they are a tiny minority now.
I took you to be saying that there was something objectively terrible about the idea of Zionism, not just from the perspective of the Arabs that lived in modern-day Israel.
From the perspective of the loser, all displacing migrations and wars of conquest look like a terrible idea.
-
Using conservative estimates, there were about 735,000 Jews living in Arab and Persian countries around the same time. Today there are statistically none. Israel certainly has blood on their hands and disgraceful history behind them (and probably in front of them) when it comes to mistreatment of Arabs, but if we're going to throw around terms like "ethnic cleansing", I think we should have some context about what "both sides" have done.
Thanks for the context. From what I read, about 900,000 Jews fled or were expelled from the Arab nations. From what you posted, 579,000 Arabs fled or were expelled from Israel and its conquests. That's a lot of ethnic cleansing on both sides.
-
I took you to be saying that there was something objectively terrible about the idea of Zionism, not just from the perspective of the Arabs that lived in modern-day Israel.
Yeah, in my outsider opinion Zionism was a terrible idea. Most of the people who lived their didn't want it, but they had no choice.
I could be wrong though.
It's history now, and wallowing in past failures instead of moving on is poisonous to nations. My ancestors lost a civil war too, and we got over it and moved on. The Arabs need to, and stop their murderous lunacy.
-
Thanks for the context. From what I read, about 900,000 Jews fled or were expelled from the Arab nations. From what you posted, 579,000 Arabs fled or were expelled from Israel and its conquests. That's a lot of ethnic cleansing on both sides.
Like I said, not totally wrong, but lacking context. In terms of ethnic cleansing Israel might be said to have done a quick rinse whereas the Arabs have scrubbed raw, soaked in bleach, then replaced all their lightbulbs with UV-C germicidal ones.
The only time we ever talk about the Arab's own ethnic cleansing is if we're equating it to Israeli ethnic cleansing. It's not wrong to say that Israeli Jews have done things that can be considered ethnic cleansing, but I'm not sure it can be considered equivalent either.
-
Lots of different empires ruled the land prior to 1948. None of them expelled all the residents to make room for mass immigration from Europe. Jews and Arabs lived side by side in peace for centuries in that place prior to the violence perpetrated by the early communists who came from Europe prior to the 48 expulsion.
My understanding is neither did Israel. I had always heard many Arabs/Moslems left Israel prior to the invasions after it was formed and Israel decided not to let them back in afterward.
I am sure there are lots of versions depending on who you talk to.
-----------------------------
What I heard in one video was a claim that a portion of the Arab/Muslim population moved in to the area to work for the British after WWI. I do not know how big that portion is. I recall reading long ago that the population of the area was pretty small back in the late 1800's. Jews actually started immigrating back in and buying land in small numbers back then. It ramped up as time passed and the population of Arabs/Muslims increased at the same time. The main point of this is I don't think anyone knows how many Muslims/Arabs have any generational claim to the area over the last 200 years any greater than the Jews who moved there during the decades prior to WWII. The most recent history is a mixed bag prior to WWII.
I do recall reading that there was terrorism and some fighting prior to WWII that the British tried to keep a lid on.
-
I do recall reading that there was terrorism and some fighting prior to WWII that the British tried to keep a lid on.
Yes. Lehi and the Irgun were two terrorist Zionist groups who assassinated people, placed bombs and committed massacres. The Deir Yassin massacre being notable.
I haven't researched any similar Arab groups.
-
Yes. Lehi and the Irgun were two terrorist Zionist groups who assassinated people, placed bombs and committed massacres. The Deir Yassin massacre being notable.
I haven't researched any similar Arab groups.
Been years since I read about it. Now that I think about it, I think it did mention fighting and such going both directions. The biased source I recall said it was started by the Arabs, but who knows. I mainly remember the British tried to ban the import of weapons, but were unable to stop that or the violence in some areas. Whoever started it, I can see people trying to set up their own security and some looking for revenge as well.
-
Why the Middle East’s Borders Guarantee Forever Wars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN4mnVLP0rU
I listened to this today. Does a decent job of summarizing the history of the Middle East and why its current borders are what they are.