5 ms·

> Arab citizens can vote and participate, and there are Arab parties in Israeli government. This point is scarcely more than a deflection; the fulcrum of Israe

> Arab citizens can vote and participate, and there are Arab parties in Israeli government. This point is scarcely more than a deflection; the fulcrum of Israel's apartheid regime consists primarily in which Arabs are permitted to be citizens, and in particular those whose parents and grandparents were violently driven from Israel's current territory in what Palestinian Arabs call the Nakba [1]. The Israeli government blatantly wants to both claim the right to authorize violence in the occupied territories and blame the nominal governments of those territories for that violence. And however you want to frame the conflict philosophically, the practical reality is that the IDF has vastly more capacity to enact violence than do Hezbollah or Hamas. When was the last time either of them leveled a 10+-story apartment building in Israel [2]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba [2] https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2021/05/12/gaza-al-shorouk-tower-israel-airstrike-oneworld-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2021/05/12/gaza-al-shorouk-...

nayaketo 5y ago
How many Arab nations allow Jews that migrated to Israel back to their countries? Or are Arabs allowed exclusionary policies and only Israel has to be different to not be labelled as "apartheid" by the woke ones?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wnoise 5y ago
  "Those guys are bad too" is not a rebuttal. Yes, they are. So?
  - nayaketo 5y ago
    Where are the mountains of UN resolutions against those nations then?
  - nayaketo 5y ago
    So, why don't they get called 'apartheid'?
    - wnoise 5y ago
      Well, largely because the Arab countries are not. They do bad things, yes. They did a one-time expulsion of Jews, which is now no longer on going. They have highly discriminatory immigration policies. They have abusive "guest worker" programs that end up as de-facto slavery for many. These are pretty bad things (though discriminatory immigration policies is pretty uniform, the world over), but these things are not generally what people mean by apartheid. It's not fully fair to describe Israel as apartheid either. Its actual citizens largely have the same rights on paper no matter ethnicity or religion (though the religious marriage laws are an oddity, and the inability to intermarry does make it comparable to those prohibiting interracial marriage in South Africa). But it is actually somewhat fair to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa. They have an active, ongoing separation of populations into segregated areas and even nominally independent states, that have no effective autonomy due to the overwhelming power and actual physical control of Israel. The Gaza strip and the West Bank are nearly direct equivalents of South Africa's bantustans. If you accept that Israel does have real sovereignty over all the territory it occupies, the differences in how it treats different people really don't seem just.
      - nayaketo 5y ago
        > They did a one-time expulsion of Jews, which is now no longer on going. So that's what Israel should have done (one time expulsion of Arabs) to avoid being called Apartheid?
        wnoise 5y ago
        That likely would have spared them comparison to Apartheid, yes, but would instead have been an ethnic cleansing. The unfortunate matter is that the Arab states were not criticized harshly enough. And that is almost certainly due to a combination of antisemitism and realpolitik over their oil resources. And this relative lack of criticism continues to this day. Nonetheless, it's still not a responsive defense to bad behavior to point out other bad behavior that is less criticized. By all means do what you can criticize these states and surface their bad behavior (and do so individually; they're not a monolith). But a thread talking about Israel isn't the place to do it. First of all, it's ineffective, second of all it's derailing to the thread.

nayaketo 5y ago

How many Arab nations allow Jews that migrated to Israel back to their countries? Or are Arabs allowed exclusionary policies and only Israel has to be different to not be labelled as "apartheid" by the woke ones?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wnoise 5y ago
"Those guys are bad too" is not a rebuttal. Yes, they are. So?
- nayaketo 5y ago
  Where are the mountains of UN resolutions against those nations then?
- nayaketo 5y ago
  So, why don't they get called 'apartheid'?
  - wnoise 5y ago
    Well, largely because the Arab countries are not. They do bad things, yes. They did a one-time expulsion of Jews, which is now no longer on going. They have highly discriminatory immigration policies. They have abusive "guest worker" programs that end up as de-facto slavery for many. These are pretty bad things (though discriminatory immigration policies is pretty uniform, the world over), but these things are not generally what people mean by apartheid. It's not fully fair to describe Israel as apartheid either. Its actual citizens largely have the same rights on paper no matter ethnicity or religion (though the religious marriage laws are an oddity, and the inability to intermarry does make it comparable to those prohibiting interracial marriage in South Africa). But it is actually somewhat fair to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa. They have an active, ongoing separation of populations into segregated areas and even nominally independent states, that have no effective autonomy due to the overwhelming power and actual physical control of Israel. The Gaza strip and the West Bank are nearly direct equivalents of South Africa's bantustans. If you accept that Israel does have real sovereignty over all the territory it occupies, the differences in how it treats different people really don't seem just.
    - nayaketo 5y ago
      > They did a one-time expulsion of Jews, which is now no longer on going. So that's what Israel should have done (one time expulsion of Arabs) to avoid being called Apartheid?
      - wnoise 5y ago
        That likely would have spared them comparison to Apartheid, yes, but would instead have been an ethnic cleansing. The unfortunate matter is that the Arab states were not criticized harshly enough. And that is almost certainly due to a combination of antisemitism and realpolitik over their oil resources. And this relative lack of criticism continues to this day. Nonetheless, it's still not a responsive defense to bad behavior to point out other bad behavior that is less criticized. By all means do what you can criticize these states and surface their bad behavior (and do so individually; they're not a monolith). But a thread talking about Israel isn't the place to do it. First of all, it's ineffective, second of all it's derailing to the thread.