3 ms·

It's insane that we must respond to these allegations in 2018. See the ADL's writeup of this [1] which does a effective, factual takedown of this argument. A

by hpcjoe 8y ago

It's insane that we must respond to these allegations in 2018. See the ADL's writeup of this [1] which does a effective, factual takedown of this argument. Arguing this isn't for HN. Attempting to call out a state using misleading labels isn't a sign of intellectual honesty. Its a state level version of an ad hominem, and demonstrates that the accuser has lost an argument badly. Whether or not you like/dislike Israel is not the point under discussion. Whether or not you believe things you've heard about them from others doesn't matter. What matters is that this little state, under constant and tremendous threat over its 70+ years of existence from terrorists, their fellow travelers, NGOs, and states alike, can still launch a cost effective privately funded moon mission. [1] https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/response-to-common-inaccuracy-israel-is-an-apartheid-state https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/response-to-common...

23throwaway23 8y ago
The ADL article does no such thing. While true that the Israeli oppression of its Arab and Muslim minorities within its internationally recognised borders is not exactly the same as South African apartheid, the analogy credibly holds. The oppression of the Arab population under its occupation and the consistent collective punishment visited upon those captive populations outside its internationally recognized borders is a whole other kettle of fish. That Israel is an ethno-nationalist state that has many laws that privilege people of a given religion over another is fact [1]. Whether the level of state discrimination at this point constitutes apartheid is arguable. That one can make the argument is not antisemitic. You can disagree about the extent, but it's stifling free speech to lump it under antisemitism and say you cannot bring it up. So credible, that a variety of Israeli leaders have warned against the very thing.[2] And it is relevant. If you believe that South Africa during apartheid should be called out for its apartheid, then it IS relevant to bring it up. If the murder of Khashoggi by the Saudis tars their economic achievements, why shouldn't this? Funnily enough, South Africa under apartheid was a plucky little country that withstood much indigenous aggression and had a world leading economy. [1] https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771 https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Government_responses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analo...
- hedgehogbear 8y ago
  The analogy holds in the same manner as claiming that Roosevelt is like Hitler because they both had a mustache. The superficial similarities between the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and South African apartheid are precisely those which aren't exclusive to any definition of Apartheid. There is no racial segregation in Israel, but an ongoing occupation and conflict between two separate and distinct political entities. It's no more of an "apartheid" than any other occupation in human history. As for the "many laws that privilege people of a given religion over another": a. Religion has nothing to do with it. The word you are looking for is ethnicity. Some laws favouring the Jewish ethnicity do naturally exist in Israel, as the whole idea behind its creation was to provide a national home for the Jewish people in order to insure their preservation. Similar laws exists in many European (and other) countries as well [1]. b. The majority of laws mentioned in your link have nothing to do with this. Let's look at the list of "discriminating laws" from one of the linked files: > Law imposing a mandatory minimum sentence on convicted stone-throwers > Law revoking child allowances from parents of children convicted of security offenses > Law imposing fines on the parents of stone-throwers and others > New NGO “funding transparency” bill And others of similar nature. Claiming that those laws are discriminating against the Palestinians is like claiming that homicide laws in the US are discriminating against racial groups that are disproportionately more likely to commit homicide. That this nonsense is considered a sound argument by supposedly intelligent people is a good indication of the amounts of irrational bias surrounding any discussion of Israel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law#Provisions_to_simplify_immigration_of_favored_ethnic_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law#Provisions_to_...
asianthrowaway 8y ago
I think this is not the appropriate place for such a discussion, but c'mon, the ADL is not exactly unbiased on the topic. Also I don't think the term "apartheid state" is to be interpreted literally. Of course Israel doesn't have a South African style apartheid system. But it still treats Palestinians as second-class citizens.
- hedgehogbear 8y ago
  > But it still treats Palestinians as second-class citizens Which Palestinians? Most Palestinians aren't Israeli citizens, never were, and don't reside in Israel. So naturally they aren't treated as citizens at all. Palestinians who are Israeli citizens have exactly the same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel, or those of any other ethnicity. Whatever discrimination or racism they face in their everyday lives, when it occurs, is extremely unfortunate, but sadly isn't different from that faced by minorities in most other western countries.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
Speaking of ad-hominems, what you compress as "terrorists and fellow travelers" unpacks to people like Stephen Hawking, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Erich Fried, and others... vs. Netanyahu, a Trump sponsor, and others... hmm. Adjectives like "cost effective privately funded" aren't sufficiently inspiring to tip the scales IMO. The enemy of my enemy isn't my friend though; Israel is indeed under constant attack, and Palestine often used more a tool to try and damage Israel rather than help Palestinians, and while Palestinians don't really need enemies with friends such as Hamas etc. ("fun" fact, suicide bombings against civilians were first done by Palestinians)... criticism of Israel must never imply excusing any of that, and the other way around. Many people seem to have problems with that, because if the "other side" does bad things and is therefore bad, they can't be bad, too. Which is really problematic when they factually are, and waste a lot of time, and deform many generations, because they consider the correct answer out of bounds. These things will not change. When you forgot Leibowitz for good, he will not cease to be correct, you will be doomed, that is all. To make it so that one would have to be blind and pretend two wrongs make a right to be a friend, or otherwise be considered an enemy, a "fellow traveler with terrorists", is also not exactly intellectually honest, and only moves flyweights. As Schopenhauer said, ignorance starts to become really shameful when it is combined with wealth. That it took a slob like Trump to recognize Jerusalem, something not even Bush did, or that the sponsor of this moon expedition also sponsored Trump, that's not "fellow travellership", at all. That's just coincidence, a broken clock being right twice a day, nothing to do with the spirit of it.

by hpcjoe 8y ago

23throwaway23 8y ago

The ADL article does no such thing. While true that the Israeli oppression of its Arab and Muslim minorities within its internationally recognised borders is not exactly the same as South African apartheid, the analogy credibly holds. The oppression of the Arab population under its occupation and the consistent collective punishment visited upon those captive populations outside its internationally recognized borders is a whole other kettle of fish. That Israel is an ethno-nationalist state that has many laws that privilege people of a given religion over another is fact [1]. Whether the level of state discrimination at this point constitutes apartheid is arguable. That one can make the argument is not antisemitic. You can disagree about the extent, but it's stifling free speech to lump it under antisemitism and say you cannot bring it up. So credible, that a variety of Israeli leaders have warned against the very thing.[2] And it is relevant. If you believe that South Africa during apartheid should be called out for its apartheid, then it IS relevant to bring it up. If the murder of Khashoggi by the Saudis tars their economic achievements, why shouldn't this? Funnily enough, South Africa under apartheid was a plucky little country that withstood much indigenous aggression and had a world leading economy. [1] https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771 https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Government_responses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analo...

hedgehogbear 8y ago
The analogy holds in the same manner as claiming that Roosevelt is like Hitler because they both had a mustache. The superficial similarities between the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and South African apartheid are precisely those which aren't exclusive to any definition of Apartheid. There is no racial segregation in Israel, but an ongoing occupation and conflict between two separate and distinct political entities. It's no more of an "apartheid" than any other occupation in human history. As for the "many laws that privilege people of a given religion over another": a. Religion has nothing to do with it. The word you are looking for is ethnicity. Some laws favouring the Jewish ethnicity do naturally exist in Israel, as the whole idea behind its creation was to provide a national home for the Jewish people in order to insure their preservation. Similar laws exists in many European (and other) countries as well [1]. b. The majority of laws mentioned in your link have nothing to do with this. Let's look at the list of "discriminating laws" from one of the linked files: > Law imposing a mandatory minimum sentence on convicted stone-throwers > Law revoking child allowances from parents of children convicted of security offenses > Law imposing fines on the parents of stone-throwers and others > New NGO “funding transparency” bill And others of similar nature. Claiming that those laws are discriminating against the Palestinians is like claiming that homicide laws in the US are discriminating against racial groups that are disproportionately more likely to commit homicide. That this nonsense is considered a sound argument by supposedly intelligent people is a good indication of the amounts of irrational bias surrounding any discussion of Israel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law#Provisions_to_simplify_immigration_of_favored_ethnic_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law#Provisions_to_...

asianthrowaway 8y ago

I think this is not the appropriate place for such a discussion, but c'mon, the ADL is not exactly unbiased on the topic. Also I don't think the term "apartheid state" is to be interpreted literally. Of course Israel doesn't have a South African style apartheid system. But it still treats Palestinians as second-class citizens.

hedgehogbear 8y ago
> But it still treats Palestinians as second-class citizens Which Palestinians? Most Palestinians aren't Israeli citizens, never were, and don't reside in Israel. So naturally they aren't treated as citizens at all. Palestinians who are Israeli citizens have exactly the same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel, or those of any other ethnicity. Whatever discrimination or racism they face in their everyday lives, when it occurs, is extremely unfortunate, but sadly isn't different from that faced by minorities in most other western countries.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

Speaking of ad-hominems, what you compress as "terrorists and fellow travelers" unpacks to people like Stephen Hawking, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Erich Fried, and others... vs. Netanyahu, a Trump sponsor, and others... hmm. Adjectives like "cost effective privately funded" aren't sufficiently inspiring to tip the scales IMO. The enemy of my enemy isn't my friend though; Israel is indeed under constant attack, and Palestine often used more a tool to try and damage Israel rather than help Palestinians, and while Palestinians don't really need enemies with friends such as Hamas etc. ("fun" fact, suicide bombings against civilians were first done by Palestinians)... criticism of Israel must never imply excusing any of that, and the other way around. Many people seem to have problems with that, because if the "other side" does bad things and is therefore bad, they can't be bad, too. Which is really problematic when they factually are, and waste a lot of time, and deform many generations, because they consider the correct answer out of bounds. These things will not change. When you forgot Leibowitz for good, he will not cease to be correct, you will be doomed, that is all. To make it so that one would have to be blind and pretend two wrongs make a right to be a friend, or otherwise be considered an enemy, a "fellow traveler with terrorists", is also not exactly intellectually honest, and only moves flyweights. As Schopenhauer said, ignorance starts to become really shameful when it is combined with wealth. That it took a slob like Trump to recognize Jerusalem, something not even Bush did, or that the sponsor of this moon expedition also sponsored Trump, that's not "fellow travellership", at all. That's just coincidence, a broken clock being right twice a day, nothing to do with the spirit of it.