32 ms·
This is an apartheid regime. Plain and simple.
by quelsolaar 5y ago
This is an apartheid regime. Plain and simple.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analo...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Qem 5y agoSouth Africa took a lot of flak for their apartheid. Wonder why the same doesn't happen with this apartheid in the XXI century. That's a shame.
- School-Cotton 5y agoSame reason Russia is getting flak for invading and occupying territory (including, even, from Israel!) when Israel has illegally occupied the West Bank for decades with no consequences. Western countries apply their moral principles differently to their allies.
- eatonphil 5y agoSouth Africa is/was a western ally. And the West did ignore apartheid for a long time.
- School-Cotton 5y ago> South Africa is/was a western ally. Maybe, but not one of nearly the same strategic importance (and lobbying/PR prowess) as Israel.
- deepsun 5y agoSouth Africa abstained to vote on UN resolution against Russian large attack on Ukraine. West didn't ignore apartheid, they quietly supported it, because USSR supported Mandela and anti-apartheid struggle. Kinda "enemy of my enemy is my friend". IMHO that was the stupidest position of the US, they should've "united" with USSR on anti-apartheid position.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoWhen one factor "Capitalism vs. Communism" is the lens through which you view the world, then "are they on our side" becomes more important than "are they good people". That is why the west supported some terrible regimes, including Apartheid South Africa and Pinochet in Chile. Because they could claim to be "anti-communist".
- deepsun 5y agoYes. And on the other hand, USSR supported a ton of very terrible regimes. Like cannibal Bokassa in Central African Republic.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoThe old regime in south Africa prior to 1994 was a "western ally". Reagan and Thatcher turned a blind eye to Apartheid (and sometime supported it) because the South African government was "anti-communist", or at least they dressed their oppression in that language of "total onslaught of Soviet communism" and that was more important to the west. The new regime in south Africa has some nostalgia for the assistance offered to them by the USSR back then, that is why they abstained on the vote on UN resolution against Russian attack on Ukraine. In some ways it was a proxy war.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- School-Cotton 5y ago> West Bank was occupied after a war that Israel did not start That is irrelevant ancient history. What matters is that they continue expanding their occupation (building new settlements, passing new discriminatory laws, etc.) today.
- mupuff1234 5y agoI'm not a fan of the occupation of the West Bank, but those are not 1:1 scenarios. West Bank was occupied after Jordan initiated the offensive, not Israel, as opposed to Russia who is the aggressor. A 1:1 scenario would be if Ukraine invaded Russia and then Russia took control over Ukraine territory, which in that case i'd argue the outcry would be minimal.
- School-Cotton 5y agoAs I replied to a similar comment that was deleted: this is irrelevant ancient history. What matters is that Israel is maintaining their illegal occupation even today, and even expanding it (building new settlements, etc.)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pirate787 5y agoThe fact that the Arab world united and attempted to destroy Israel through invasion multiple times is not ancient history and certainly not irrelevant.
- School-Cotton 5y agoMost recently in 1973. Their occupation has gone on for almost fifty years since then.
- denton-scratch 5y agoIt is entirely irrelevant to the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the illegal transfer of populations into occupied territory.
- biorach 5y agoThe occupation of the West Bank does nothing to deter this. The annexation of the Golan Heights is somewhat justifiable on strategic grounds. The occupation of the West Bank is a land grab, pure and simple.
- parkingrift 5y agoWhat’s “legal” or “illegal” has always been defined by whichever country has the biggest stick.
- solarhoma 5y agoIf Israel was an ally they would be helping to supply weapons and armor to Ukraine. Instead they will not supply anything more than medication. The US gives Israel plenty of military $ for them to share in times of need. As a strictly emotional thought, this makes me feel Israel is a country to cozy up to the strongest nation at the time. If the US falls from grace Israel will have no problem ‘switching’ sides to Russia.
- AQuantized 5y agoI think switching sides to China might be a more realistic possibility.
- solarhoma 5y agoAgreed, they have been caught sending US military weapons and intel to China. Yet, the US still sends them ~$5B in military aid every year. Which is equivalent to an $800 tax break the US gives the Israeli citizens each year.
- pthread_t 5y ago> If Israel was an ally "Israel Passes U.S. Military Technology to China" [1] "a 2013 National Intelligence Estimate on cyber threats “ranked Israel the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US” behind only China and Russia" [2] "Israel among the U.S.’s most threatening cyber-adversaries and as a “hostile” foreign intelligence service." [3] "Israel’s snooping upset White House because information was used to lobby Congress to try to sink a deal" [4] [1] https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israel-passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israe... [2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-nsa-document-highlights-israeli-espionage-in-us/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-nsa-document-highlights-is... [3] https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying-denial-directly-contradicted-secret-nsa-documents/ https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying-denial... [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-spied-on-iran-talks-1427164201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-spied-on-iran-talks-1427...
- 5y ago
- Bayart 5y agoAll countries. Western countries aren't especially evil or hypocritical.
- School-Cotton 5y agoYes, that’s true.
- Mikeb85 5y ago> Israel has illegally occupied the West Bank Did you forget the part where all Israel's neighbours attempted to invade it and ended up losing territory? Ukraine never attacked Russia on the other hand...
- femiagbabiaka 5y agoThe government most certainly not. But the assertion by Russia is that the nazi nationalists attacked the separatists. Of course, you or I could say that’s complete bs. But then I would say the same about Israel’s claims about the beginnings of the intifadas.
- slothtrop 5y agoConsequences for taking Crimea, and other countries once part of the Soviet Union, were also virtually nil.
- naoqj 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago> Wonder why the same doesn't happen with this apartheid in the XXI century. Because it's supported by the wealthiest country with the biggest army.
- o_m 5y agoProbably because South Africa isn't as important strategic position for the military
- steego 5y agoA _tremendous_ amount of money is spent on public relations and lobbying each year for the past 40 years.
- throwawaycities 5y agoIt’s no doubt a powerful thought experiment to imagine a Palestinian version of Nelson Mandela sitting in a Israeli prison right now serving a life sentence, entirely sure that is where they have been fated to die, and after a 27 year term this person will not only unexpectedly be released and gain their freedom, they will go on to become President of Israel and win a Nobel Peace Prize.
- kmeisthax 5y agoThe fact that Israel was created specifically as a national refuge for a historically marginalized and genocided people makes it very difficult to make nuanced criticism of that country. The rhetorical distance between anti-Zionism[0] and anti-Semitism is actually not that high. You can make a nuanced critique of Israel, but most people doing so would much rather consider the people and the government one and the same... and call for death to both of them. Conversely, early on in Israel's history, a lot of well-meaning people really did think we actually needed a Jewish-majority nation to prevent another Holocaust; so they had even more support than they do today. Geopolitically, Israel made the diplomatic masterstroke of allying itself heavily with America, which makes it rather difficult to actually punish them through the official channels for such things. Even things like symbolic non-binding UN condemnations of the most heinous things Israel has done would get regularly vetoed by the US up until recently. Furthermore, there's a question that most anti-Zionism doesn't have a good answer to: how do we keep another Holocaust from happening? Winding down the underlying Israel-Palestine conflict in a one-state solution means significantly diluting the Jewish majority in Israel with people who are, justifiably, very angry about the shit Israel did. Actually, they're unjustifiably angry, too; and one of the prevailing political parties in Palestine has made "commit another Holocaust" one of their explicit goals[1]. Conditioning any peace solution on special protected status for Jews might fix this, but the only difference between that and "special protected status for whites in South Africa" is an increasingly flimsy social context that's doing an awful lot of work. It would be difficult to balance the need to prevent another Holocaust against the needs of Palestinians, and the sort of right-wingers that like the idea of race wars would absolutely insist on their needs overriding the "other side's"[2]. Nothing I said above should be taken as justifying Israel's nonsense, or the nonsense of Hamas, of course. But Zionism relies upon all other alternatives either being unworkable, or worse. Israel is very much akin to an apartheid state, but all the countries that can really put pressure on Israel to stop that have no moral authority to do so. The UK and France are responsible for partitioning Palestine in the first place; Germany killed six million Jews; and America refused to admit refugees from that genocide. Zionism is banking on history repeating[3]; or at least people believing that it will repeat should Israel step back from the brink of ethnostate nationalism. [0] For the purpose of this comment I will restrict "Zionism" to just the demand for a non-secular Jewish state in the land currently occupied by Israel and/or Palestine; i.e. Zionism in it's current form. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant Granted, this is #NotAllOfHamas, but party hardliners still insist it's their manifesto. [2] Insamuch as you can even neatly divide the people in question into two "sides". In fact, Israel and Palestine do not divide neatly into Jewish and Muslim; there are plenty of Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Jews out there. [3] When they aren't insisting that this is an "ancient conflict" to make their side seem more legitimate.
- algo_trader 5y ago[flagged]
- pthread_t 5y agoThe politicians who enacted this law outright said that it's to preserve Israel's favored demographic majority. Did the U.S. prevent Iraqis from marrying Americans in 2003? What about Afghans in 2001?
- VictorPath 5y ago> These 2 nations are de-facto at war Israel has said Palestine is not a nation, and has worked to block Palestine from entering the UN as a member state.
- toyg 5y ago> Did Britain allow tens of thousands of Nazi party members to emigrate to the UK during the Blitz? England and the US definitely allowed Germans to move to the country before, during, and after the conflict - and plenty of them. You'd be grilled by authorities for sure, and probably observed for months afterwards, but that's it. And here you're equating members of a political party with people born in a certain country, which is not really fair. > Should the Ukraine allow a million Russians to marry on Zoom and come live in Kiev? Why not? They would see first-hand the result of misguided policies and likely support Ukrainian instances. Unless, of course, you think there is such thing as a "Ukrainian race" worth preserving...
- beaconstudios 5y agoPalestinian people, an ethnic group, are not comparable to Nazis, a murderous ideology. That's an insanely racist comparison.
- hestefisk 5y agoTime to boycott, divest, and sanction!
- Ekaros 5y agoProvide weapons. Maybe nuclear, chemical and biological to boot.
- waffleiron 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in... Possibly illegal
- garbagetime 5y agoThat just makes it more fun
- adielsa 5y agoThis article doesn’t really provide much in the way of explanation for why this law is being enacted. Here [0] is a better article that quotes supporters and objectors to the law. It includes the (IMHO not very convincing) figures that "Between 1993 and 2003, around 130,000 Palestinians were given Israeli citizenship or residency through family unification, including children, according to court filings. The Shin Bet security service told the Knesset on Monday that between 2001 and 2021, about 48 were involved in terror activities.” 48 of 130,000 amounts to 0.037% being involved in terrorist activities which seems very low to be used as justification for a law around security.
- burnoutgal 5y agowell, and the israeli definition of "terror activities" for palestinians could be as simple as "showed up at a protest"
- aaomidi 5y agoYep. Qualitative words are meaningless.
- dotancohen 5y ago
- hajile 5y agoThe US let’s in millions of people each year and the number of terrorists is essentially 0.000000% 48 terrorists means somewhere between hundreds and thousands of innocent people died.
- danuker 5y agoBlackstone's ratio says "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Assuming the ratios of terrorists to innocent spouses stays constant, 2708 innocent spouses will be denied citizenship for every terrorist mildly inconvenienced.
- probably_wrong 5y agoOff-topic: Did you copy this other comment [1] from this same thread but forgot to copy the reference for "[0]"? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30639558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30639558
- mmaunder 5y agoThat is correct. I grew up under apartheid. This phrase is key: “ Proponents say the law helps ensure Israel's security and maintains its "Jewish character".” Consider if the US passed a law banning Mexican spouses from uniting with their US spouse to keep America’s “Christian character”.
- dotancohen 5y ago
- tablespoon 5y ago> Consider if the US passed a law banning Mexican spouses from uniting with their US spouse to keep America’s “Christian character”. That's not a very good analogy, because Mexico is probably more Christian than the US.
- jpgvm 5y agoIn this context Christian almost always means white even if they try to pretend that isn't the case. At least Australia didn't mince words and called it the White Australia Policy, everyone else feels like they need to make it about religon or something else to make the racism more palatable.
- tedivm 5y ago"Western Culture" is the dog whistle we're hearing a lot in the US.
- axiomsEnd 5y agoI love Western Culture as a term. In Central Europe it meant whatever was on the right side of Iron Curtain (mostly liberal democracy and all what comes with it), then Iron Curtain dissapeared and it got second meaning as white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant values protected in white, orthodox/catholic Slavic countries. Currently you have to guess which one it is from the context of the sentence.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoSpecifically, one of the legislative cornerstones of Apartheid in South Africa was the "Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949" (1) which prohibited marriage between person of different "racial groups". It was repealed in 1985 1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Mixed_Marriages_Act,_1949 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Mixed_Marriages...