3 ms·

The situation is very much analogous to South African Apartheid. In both cases, an insecure population at the helm of an ethnostate sought to further deprive th

The situation is very much analogous to South African Apartheid. In both cases, an insecure population at the helm of an ethnostate sought to further deprive their state's already-disenfranchised co-residents of legal rights, in an effort to achieve security for themselves. White South Africans made the exact same arguments as Israelis, and in fact collaborated extensively with Israeli security services because they understood that the exact same groups opposed to South African Apartheid were the most potent opponents of Israeli apartheid. The Israelis remained staunch allies of the South Africans long after the rest of the world had decided to isolate them, because the Israelis understood implicitly that they were engaged in the same policies. As to your question, I don't think a wise Israeli government would make every Palestinian a citizen tomorrow, but I think it is deeply unwise and immoral to further entrench the current policy of legal apartheid. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end in either ethnofascism and ethnic cleansing or some form of reconciliation, and this is a step towards ethnofascism.

walkhour 5y ago
There are also differences between Israel and a South African Apartheid. Israel is in a constant state of war and danger of losing its sovereignty. No such justification existed in South African Apartheid. > but I think it is deeply unwise and immoral to further entrench the current policy of legal apartheid. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end in either ethnofascism and ethnic cleansing or some form of reconciliation, and this is a step towards ethnofascism. I agree it's unwise. My point is that these policies should be gaged in terms of probabilities. I take you believe the probability of this ending in an ethnic cleansing instead of reconciliation has increased, I do as well. I also think the probability of Jews becoming a minority in Israel and being persecuted has decreased. Whether this was good/bad/worth it it's a different issue.
- rory 5y ago
  > Israel is in a constant state of war and danger of losing its sovereignty. No such justification existed in South African Apartheid. That's not historically correct. Violence was absolutely a stated reason / pretense of South African apartheid, especially violence between different Black tribes. I'm not sure if that should be considered "war" or not, but it's as much war as what presently goes on between Israelis and Palestinians.

walkhour 5y ago

There are also differences between Israel and a South African Apartheid. Israel is in a constant state of war and danger of losing its sovereignty. No such justification existed in South African Apartheid. > but I think it is deeply unwise and immoral to further entrench the current policy of legal apartheid. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end in either ethnofascism and ethnic cleansing or some form of reconciliation, and this is a step towards ethnofascism. I agree it's unwise. My point is that these policies should be gaged in terms of probabilities. I take you believe the probability of this ending in an ethnic cleansing instead of reconciliation has increased, I do as well. I also think the probability of Jews becoming a minority in Israel and being persecuted has decreased. Whether this was good/bad/worth it it's a different issue.

rory 5y ago
> Israel is in a constant state of war and danger of losing its sovereignty. No such justification existed in South African Apartheid. That's not historically correct. Violence was absolutely a stated reason / pretense of South African apartheid, especially violence between different Black tribes. I'm not sure if that should be considered "war" or not, but it's as much war as what presently goes on between Israelis and Palestinians.