6 ms·

Israel administers multiple territories, some of them democratically (e.g. Israel proper, where Arabs are citizens with equal legal rights), and some of them un

Israel administers multiple territories, some of them democratically (e.g. Israel proper, where Arabs are citizens with equal legal rights), and some of them undemocratically (e.g. the West Bank). In other words, if by "Israel" you mean only within the borders of its sovereign territory, yes it's a democracy. If by "Israel" you mean all territory controlled by the State of Israel, it's clearly not. So, they at best get partial credit for being "a democracy". If they wanted to get full credit, they would have to either relinquish control over the West Bank (and Gaza for that matter), or grant the people living there equal citizenship and voting rights. > In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict? Nobody has to let foreigners into their country if they don't want to. Israel has every right to limit what goes over their border with Gaza, too. What bothers me is that they also restrict Gaza's territorial waters and airspace (and have been doing so since long before Oct. 7th), which AFAIK Egypt isn't involved in.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Nobody has to let foreigners into their country if they don't want to Eh [1]. But not the ICC’s business. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_S...
xg15 2y ago
> Israel administers multiple territories, some of them democratically (e.g. Israel proper, where Arabs are citizens with equal legal rights), and some of them undemocratically (e.g. the West Bank). This is one aspect of the whole conflict that has always seriously irked me. The West effectively treats Israel as if it were the legal guardian of the Palestinians: Israel controls the entire territory, controls the tax revenue, population registry, borders, airspace, energy and water supply, can precisely restrict what (is allowed to) go in and out, can construct or demolish buildings at will, can arrest people at will, or even shoot them, can arbitrarily set the rules for court proceedings, etc. Western and neighbor countries fully support this view, to the point where, if Palestinians import or export goods into their own territories without Israel's authorisation, this is called "smuggling". Yet at the same time, Israel seems to have no obligation to actually consider or represent the interests of the Palestinians: They are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections; they don't have any representation in the Knesset; laws can be passed that arbitrarily disadvantage them without loss of democratic status; Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies". In any situation where any individual person were the legal guardian of another person and at the same time called them "their bitter enemy", we'd be deeply alarmed and suspect an abusive relationship. Yet in the case of Israel and the Palestinians, that's "how things are supposed to be" and everyone who tries to change that status quo is the problem. This feels extremely wrong to me. (The UN is clearer here: They give Israel the specific legal role of "occupation force" and point to various obligations towards the occupied population that come with that role. However, the western countries somehow both deny that any occupation even takes place and demand that Israel must continue to have full control over the territories - which is contradictory in itself)
- ignoramous 2y ago
  > Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies" ... This feels extremely wrong to me Wait till you find how in response to white nationalist attacks, the US political elite instead end up making laws to ban Palestinian groups. An issue involving 14m peoples shouldn't be this international and should have never shaped the West's domestic policy (let alone foreign policy) as much as it has. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/instruments-of-dehumanization/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/instruments-of-dehuman... / https://archive.ph/BWrzw https://archive.ph/BWrzw
- YZF 2y ago
  > Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies". I don't think this is really true or at the very least it's nuanced. There are some extreme right politicians that say very questionable things but Palestinians (including Israeli Arabs, Palestinians in the west bank, and Palestinians in Gaza) are not generally, as a whole, thought of as bitter enemies. The Hamas maybe. People on both sides generally get along in many situations (e.g. Palestinians that are Israeli citizens, Palestinians working in Israel, Israelis shopping in the West Bank, even most settlers in the West Bank with their Palestinian neighbours).
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    One of those "far right wing" politicians happens to be the President of the country, who has repeatedly claimed that "[Gazans are] an entire nation out there that is responsible… This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved [in the October 7 onslaught] — it's absolutely not true." [0] Even in his denial that these claims are basically holding all (or at least most) of the people of Gaza responsible for October 7th, he has actually reiterated the same claim: "But the reality cannot be ignored, a reality which we all saw with our own eyes as published by Hamas on that cursed day, and that was the involvement of many residents of Gaza in the slaughter, in the looting, and in the riots of October 7. How the crowds in Gaza cheered at the sight of Israelis being slaughtered and their bodies mutilated. At the sight of hostages — God knows what they did to them — wounded and bleeding being dragged through the streets. In view of such terrible crimes, it is appropriate that the honorable court investigate them in depth, and not casually in passing." He then goes on to say that despite this, they are of course not targeting civilians. But it's hard to see any way to interpret both of these statements other than as claims that the people of Gaza, collectively, deeply hate Israelis. And other figures of power (members of the Knesset certainly, even some minsters I believe) have said much more explicit, and more heinous, things. I can search for quotes if you haven't seen them. Quotes taken from [0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-blood-libel-herzog-says-icj-twisted-my-words-to-support-unfounded-contention/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-blood-libel-herzog-says-icj-...
YZF 2y ago
It's more complicated than that. Israel did not administer Gaza nor does it administer PA controlled territories in the West Bank. Last I checked the question of democracy didn't expand to occupied territories. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq (or German or Japan) those countries did not get a vote in the US elections. Puerto Rico also don't get a vote in the US? Handing over the west bank to Palestinians isn't an option because: a) the world would not recognize that as the end of Israel's occupation just like it didn't accept Israel's handing Gaza over as the end of the occupation. b) That area would be taken over by Hamas just like Gaza was taken over and would be staging ground for launching attacks into Israel just like Oct 7th or the rocket barrages that came from Gaza over the years since Israel's withdrawal. The West Bank has a significantly longer border with Israel which would put most major Israeli cities minutes of driving and within rocket/mortar range. c) The option of annexing the West Bank and Gaza and making everyone citizens is also not acceptable to either the Palestinians or the international community. This really answers your unasked question of why is this area under military occupation for so long (IIRC Germany and Japan were also controlled for a pretty long time but anyways). Initially Israel needed the area so Arab armies aren't sitting 10 minutes from its population centers (when the entire Arab world was still at war with Israel). Now that there's peace with Jordan and Egypt it's more of a Palestinians aren't willing to make peace in exchange for this land, they don't want to become Israelis, and there's no realistic option that ensures both the safety of Israelis and their rights and the rights of Palestinians. After all this you might be right to complain about e.g. settlements in the west bank. And there I'd finally agree with you. Israel should not allow Israelis to live in the west bank before it's final status is determined. That said, it wouldn't really make the problem that easier to solve, if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Israel has had complete control over Gaza's borders, even the Egyptian border side. And that's since the 1980s, before Hamas even was a thing. That means that Israel either was blockading or "administrated" the border if we want to sugarcoat it. I'm not sure about you but that sure sounds like either an act of war, or occupation. Also, settlers in the west bank aren't just a "that sucks" type of thing. It shows exactly the intentions of Israel once any territory is pacified. Which is exactly what happened to the west bank since they stopped fighting back.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Nobody has to let foreigners into their country if they don't want to Eh [1]. But not the ICC’s business. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_S...

xg15 2y ago

> Israel administers multiple territories, some of them democratically (e.g. Israel proper, where Arabs are citizens with equal legal rights), and some of them undemocratically (e.g. the West Bank). This is one aspect of the whole conflict that has always seriously irked me. The West effectively treats Israel as if it were the legal guardian of the Palestinians: Israel controls the entire territory, controls the tax revenue, population registry, borders, airspace, energy and water supply, can precisely restrict what (is allowed to) go in and out, can construct or demolish buildings at will, can arrest people at will, or even shoot them, can arbitrarily set the rules for court proceedings, etc. Western and neighbor countries fully support this view, to the point where, if Palestinians import or export goods into their own territories without Israel's authorisation, this is called "smuggling". Yet at the same time, Israel seems to have no obligation to actually consider or represent the interests of the Palestinians: They are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections; they don't have any representation in the Knesset; laws can be passed that arbitrarily disadvantage them without loss of democratic status; Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies". In any situation where any individual person were the legal guardian of another person and at the same time called them "their bitter enemy", we'd be deeply alarmed and suspect an abusive relationship. Yet in the case of Israel and the Palestinians, that's "how things are supposed to be" and everyone who tries to change that status quo is the problem. This feels extremely wrong to me. (The UN is clearer here: They give Israel the specific legal role of "occupation force" and point to various obligations towards the occupied population that come with that role. However, the western countries somehow both deny that any occupation even takes place and demand that Israel must continue to have full control over the territories - which is contradictory in itself)

ignoramous 2y ago
> Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies" ... This feels extremely wrong to me Wait till you find how in response to white nationalist attacks, the US political elite instead end up making laws to ban Palestinian groups. An issue involving 14m peoples shouldn't be this international and should have never shaped the West's domestic policy (let alone foreign policy) as much as it has. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/instruments-of-dehumanization/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/instruments-of-dehuman... / https://archive.ph/BWrzw https://archive.ph/BWrzw
YZF 2y ago
> Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies". I don't think this is really true or at the very least it's nuanced. There are some extreme right politicians that say very questionable things but Palestinians (including Israeli Arabs, Palestinians in the west bank, and Palestinians in Gaza) are not generally, as a whole, thought of as bitter enemies. The Hamas maybe. People on both sides generally get along in many situations (e.g. Palestinians that are Israeli citizens, Palestinians working in Israel, Israelis shopping in the West Bank, even most settlers in the West Bank with their Palestinian neighbours).
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  One of those "far right wing" politicians happens to be the President of the country, who has repeatedly claimed that "[Gazans are] an entire nation out there that is responsible… This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved [in the October 7 onslaught] — it's absolutely not true." [0] Even in his denial that these claims are basically holding all (or at least most) of the people of Gaza responsible for October 7th, he has actually reiterated the same claim: "But the reality cannot be ignored, a reality which we all saw with our own eyes as published by Hamas on that cursed day, and that was the involvement of many residents of Gaza in the slaughter, in the looting, and in the riots of October 7. How the crowds in Gaza cheered at the sight of Israelis being slaughtered and their bodies mutilated. At the sight of hostages — God knows what they did to them — wounded and bleeding being dragged through the streets. In view of such terrible crimes, it is appropriate that the honorable court investigate them in depth, and not casually in passing." He then goes on to say that despite this, they are of course not targeting civilians. But it's hard to see any way to interpret both of these statements other than as claims that the people of Gaza, collectively, deeply hate Israelis. And other figures of power (members of the Knesset certainly, even some minsters I believe) have said much more explicit, and more heinous, things. I can search for quotes if you haven't seen them. Quotes taken from [0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-blood-libel-herzog-says-icj-twisted-my-words-to-support-unfounded-contention/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-blood-libel-herzog-says-icj-...

YZF 2y ago

It's more complicated than that. Israel did not administer Gaza nor does it administer PA controlled territories in the West Bank. Last I checked the question of democracy didn't expand to occupied territories. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq (or German or Japan) those countries did not get a vote in the US elections. Puerto Rico also don't get a vote in the US? Handing over the west bank to Palestinians isn't an option because: a) the world would not recognize that as the end of Israel's occupation just like it didn't accept Israel's handing Gaza over as the end of the occupation. b) That area would be taken over by Hamas just like Gaza was taken over and would be staging ground for launching attacks into Israel just like Oct 7th or the rocket barrages that came from Gaza over the years since Israel's withdrawal. The West Bank has a significantly longer border with Israel which would put most major Israeli cities minutes of driving and within rocket/mortar range. c) The option of annexing the West Bank and Gaza and making everyone citizens is also not acceptable to either the Palestinians or the international community. This really answers your unasked question of why is this area under military occupation for so long (IIRC Germany and Japan were also controlled for a pretty long time but anyways). Initially Israel needed the area so Arab armies aren't sitting 10 minutes from its population centers (when the entire Arab world was still at war with Israel). Now that there's peace with Jordan and Egypt it's more of a Palestinians aren't willing to make peace in exchange for this land, they don't want to become Israelis, and there's no realistic option that ensures both the safety of Israelis and their rights and the rights of Palestinians. After all this you might be right to complain about e.g. settlements in the west bank. And there I'd finally agree with you. Israel should not allow Israelis to live in the west bank before it's final status is determined. That said, it wouldn't really make the problem that easier to solve, if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens.

mardifoufs 2y ago
Israel has had complete control over Gaza's borders, even the Egyptian border side. And that's since the 1980s, before Hamas even was a thing. That means that Israel either was blockading or "administrated" the border if we want to sugarcoat it. I'm not sure about you but that sure sounds like either an act of war, or occupation. Also, settlers in the west bank aren't just a "that sucks" type of thing. It shows exactly the intentions of Israel once any territory is pacified. Which is exactly what happened to the west bank since they stopped fighting back.