8 ms·
Unfortunately, that is not the attitude that ended apartheid in South Africa and it is not the attitude that will end the Israeli apartheid system.
by bjourne 6y ago
Unfortunately, that is not the attitude that ended apartheid in South Africa and it is not the attitude that will end the Israeli apartheid system.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nailer 6y agoWhat do you mean? Literally every characteristic of South African apartheid would be illegal under the Israeli constitution.
- throwaway210222 6y agoWell, except for the bit about deliberately not conscripting Arab citizens. Apartheid South Africa also didn't give rifles to the conscripted black Africans either and ask them to patrol white cities. For the same reasons.
- marshmallow_12 6y agoAre the Arab Israelis clamoring to get themselves blown up by human-shield toting, radical extremists in Gaza? I think not. Also, simply not true; https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rJVoNmyCP https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rJVoNmyCP
- throwaway210222 6y agoVolunteers aren't conscripts. Surely you know this. Non-apartheid-type governments by definition do not have laws that discriminate by race. Both Apartheid South Africa and contemporary Israel had and have laws explicitly preventing an emormous fraction of their society from every getting near military hardware. Again, for the same reason. I personally couldn't care, but the OP was falsely stating that Israel had no race defined laws in common with Apartheid South Africa. [They have a few more in common, but this was one example I chose].
- nailer 6y agoYou're arguing that the privilege of Arabs avoiding military service proves the Israeli government discriminates /against/ Arab citizens. If that's your strongest argument then I'm quite happy.
- throwaway210222 6y agoSo why then put the extra burden of defending Israel on just the Jews? An act of unsolicted kindness? Unless of course Israeli jews really, really, really want to avoid training generation after generation after generation of Arabs citizens in IDF tactics and technology. Every year, year-in, year-out. Clearly not trusting people is very obviously a form of government sanctioned discrimination. Which again, is also why Apartheid South Africa also didn't feel comfortable handing millions of young Zulu men (ironically) Israeli designed R4 automatic weapons. Peas, pods.
- nailer 6y agoEdit: looks like the parent didn't even bother much research - Arabs aren't forced to do military service but they're welcome to do so: > National service is compulsory in Israel, with some exemptions — three years for men and two years for women. This rule also applies to the country's non-Jewish Druze and Circassian communities. > Muslim Bedouins, who tend to identify more as Israeli than other Arabs, and Christian Arabs can voluntarily sign up and each minority is represented by a couple of hundred members of the armed forces. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/arab-israelis-are-joining-idf-growing-numbers-officials-n724586 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/arab-israelis-are-joining...
- throwaway210222 6y ago"Arabs aren't forced to do military service but they're welcome to do so" Exactly the same situation in Apartheid South Africa. There were whole battalions of volunteer black soldiers. Hell, after 1981 there were even black commissioned officers. But under no circumstances where they arming and training the 'enemy' wholesale - as you said before your edit 'to protect THEIR people'. (Telling choice of words there). You keep making my case for me.
- detcader 6y agoI would suggest one Google "hasbara."
- eli_gottlieb 6y agoThis is a fucking stupid take. Why the hell would we want to force Arabs to fight each-other? Let them pay taxes that fund the army and not have to shoot at their own cousins. Conscripting them into civilian national service is a good idea, though, and has broad support.
- throwaway210222 6y agoAnd, the very fact that you consider it OK to *unilaterally* decide what level of conscripted service is acceptable for other Israeli citizens is all the proof you need. Just keep them away from the guns. Like South Africa.
- eli_gottlieb 6y agoUnilaterally? You mean, by voting for a Parliament that makes laws, the same as all other citizens? I don't see any unilateralism there. The Joint Arab List is welcome to put forth a bill to draft all the non-Jews like the Jews -- I'll even demonstrate in support, if it's by their own initiative. But God forbid, apparently, that I should allow people their own choices. Zionism Derangement Syndrome.
- throwaway210222 6y ago" You mean, by voting for a Parliament that makes laws, the same as all other citizens? " Nope: by not having a consitutuion that prevents any parliament voted in by the majority from treating them any differently than Jewish Israelis. Either in terms of benefits or obligations. Equals is well, equal. Completely or not at all.
- slavak 6y agoArab citizens are very much allowed to volunteer for military service and are given access to the same kind of weapons as any other soldier: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rJVoNmyCP https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rJVoNmyCP It's true they are exempted from the draft, but I don't quite see how that constitutes discrimination _against_ them.
- mola 6y agoWe don't have a constitution per se. We do have "fundamental laws" protected by an independent supreme court. The Israeli right wing is orchestrating a decades long campaign to discredit the supreme court and make it less independent. So who knows what the future will bring.
- marcosdumay 6y agoHow much of the influence to end the apartheid at South Africa was internal, how much was local, and how much was global? I really don't know the answer to that. It's hard to say what kind of influence will work on the Israel apartheid, but a declared ongoing external war makes a strong impression that is an influence on the wrong direction.
- bjourne 6y agoI don't know that. Economic historians and others have to figure out exactly what caused the end of South Africa's apartheid system (my layman's guess is that it was a combination of multiple factors). What I do know is that black South Africans begged us not to do business with their country until apartheid was abolished. Many of us (and even the US in the end) obliged and cut ties with South Africa. Palestinians are similarly begging us not to do business with Israel over similar human rights violations. We did (eventually) heed the black South Africans' call, so why can't we today heed the Palestinians' call?
- ars 6y agoYou have got to be kidding me. You think lack of peace with Palestinians is because of Israel? Do you have any idea how mean peace treaties Israel offered the Palestinians, and Palestinians rejected every single one? If there's anyone you should be pressuring it's Palestinians, but no, instead you are painting Israel with some false apartheid label, and imagining it's Israel that's bad over here. Israel is signing peace treaties with Arab countries right and left, and Palestinians can't even make peace between Hamas and Fatah. Your boycott is very misdirected.
- secfirstmd 6y agoTrue. Peace has been on the table for two decades but the expansion of settlements makes it very very difficult to deliver any kind of contiguous Palestinian State. Imagine trying to turn this map into a two state solution https://www.btselem.org/map https://www.btselem.org/map.
- jraby3 6y agoIn the past two decades Israel has given back complete control of Gaza to the Palestinians. They had one election 15 years ago. Hamas won on a campaign of abolishing Israel (“from the river to the sea...”). They proceeded to shoot thousands of rockets into major Israeli population centers - rockets that couldn’t have reached had Israel not given back Gaza. While I don’t at all agree with the settlements, the truth is that’s a lightening rod point and the actual amount of land is a drop in the bucket. Israel has always been willing to trade land for peace. But both parties must want peace.
- throwaway210222 6y ago"In the past two decades Israel has given back complete control of Gaza to the Palestinians." Bollocks - there is a complete naval blockade. [Before the Hasbarati downvote me - I truly couldn't care whether is a good or bad thing, but HN is for facts].
- yerwhat01010 6y agoTo those who would like to learn more, GP is referring to the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip, which, to quote Wikipedia, "was the unilateral dismantling in 2005 of the 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and the evacuation of the settlers and Israeli army from inside the Gaza Strip." [0] But did Israel give back "complete control of Gaza"? Here's another Wikipedia quote: "Israel maintains direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's seven land crossings. It reserves the right to enter Gaza at will with its military and maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. Gaza is dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities." [1] My own opinion on the matter is not contained within this post; just providing some more facts for the interested. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
- 2rsf 6y agoAs an Israeli living abroad I am torn on this. Not that I think Israel has South Africa level apartheid, but since both Israel and the Palestinians are up to their chins in the conflict and both wouldn't budge a millimetre a good kick in the ass towards one of them could lead to somekind of dialog. As much as I disliked Trump and his actions in the area, at least he did something out of the ordinary that could have led to untying the mess. The latest "peace agreements" with Arab countries are probably a result of this and might lead to something in the future. Unlike South Africa the level of religion extremism is too high on both sides to allow a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
- marshmallow_12 6y agoZionism has minus nothing to do with religion, Religious Zionists non withstanding. It is a popular misconception, i think.
- ceejayoz 6y agoCan you clarify your definition of "Zionism"? It seems to be widely defined as the establishment and maintenance of an explicitly Jewish state.
- slavak 6y agoThat is correct, but Jewish in this context is an ethnic group, not a religion. Much of the original Zionist movement was comprised of secular Jews.
- mola 6y ago"Explicitly jewish" could be a democratic state with jewish majority. And it could be a jewish minority ruling over a non jewish majority. Most Israel want the former. A hard core minority wants the latter. The last few decades the latter set the tone because the dovish side of the map hadn't propose a viable course of action to change the status quo. The moderate majority is too scared and it lost faith in trying to reach a peace agreement again after the violence the last try brought, And the "death to israel" rhetoric of palestinian leaders. So while the majority is pretty moderate, the perceived lack of partner basically put in power an extreme right minority. This might change as there's an undercurrent of population change, where the new majority might be less preoccupied with western values of democracy and citizen rights.
- whearyou 6y agoPlease be considerate in how you phrase the apartheid comparison. Many, myself include, feel it reeks of anti-semitism. I also don't think this is a helpful way of phrasing your point that we should consider the downstream carrots and sticks of our positions.
- notsureaboutpg 6y agoWell anyone who ever visited the Israeli Palestinian border or ever had to go through a border crossing security check would see how obviously it is apartheid. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings but real people are losing their homes and livelihoods every day to ever increasing Israeli settlement.
- whearyou 6y agoI've visited it numerous times. The label on it doesn't make it ok or not. The issue is the circumstances there don't meet the factual criterion of apartheid. That's not a question of feelings. The fact the apartheid label is applied here while it is not emphasized or even applied to non-Jewish countries is a double standard. That fits the definition of anti-semitism.
- notsureaboutpg 6y agoThey do meet the factual definition whether you like it or not. If I'm Palestinian, I live my life completely according to the rules of Israel (because of the blockade and checkpoints and control of the territory). As a Palestinian, I also cannot vote in Israel and will never be granted the ability to vote in Israel, in order to preserve the ethnic majority of Israel. As a Palestinian I can also have my home taken away from me to make room for Israeli settlers. That's apartheid.
- whearyou 6y agoYou are not a citizen of Israel and live in land you claim for a totally separate country. That is, literally and factually, not apartheid.
- yerwhat01010 6y agoI saw "Israel" in the title of this post and immediately thought "there is going to be a lengthy discussion in the comments, irrelevant to the subject of the post, where people argue about politics." Scrolled down, wasn't disappointed.
- dang 6y agoOk, but please don't make the thread even worse with meta comments about offtopicness. It's not surprising that an internet forum thread about Israel turns into a political, etc., flamewar—that's unfortunately the expected outcome. The important question is how to develop a site culture where that's less likely to happen.