3 ms·

Whether Israel is an apartheid state or not is a controversial topic and far from settled. Palestinians are not getting the same rights as Israeli citizens beca

Whether Israel is an apartheid state or not is a controversial topic and far from settled. Palestinians are not getting the same rights as Israeli citizens because they don't have Israeli citizenship, just like in any other country. The discrimination is based on citizenship status and not on race. Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis.

wesselbindt 2y ago
This is incorrect. They very comfortably fall within the definitions set out by ICSPCA, as detailed for example in the famous 280 page Amnesty intenational report, and also the B'Tselem rapport. This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of definition.
- genman 2y ago
  I'm sorry, but Amnesty International lost completely its credibility by supporting Putin and Hamas terrorist.
- loandbehold 2y ago
  There are many other reports of similar length and rigor that argue otherwise. In the end none of these reports are 100% impartial. The definitions set out by ICSPCA are not 100% precise and leave much room for interpretation. Did you actually read Amnesty International report in full or are you just citing it because it's supporting "your" side?
  - wesselbindt 2y ago
    Who carried out those reports?
School-Cotton 2y ago
If you take over some territory and rule it permanently, and then define the pre-existing population there as non-citizens with no way to change their status, you do not get to count as a democracy. This is what Israel has done in the West Bank. > The discrimination is based on citizenship status and not on race. Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. It is based indirectly on race (inasmuch as "Jewish" is a race; maybe "cultural group" would be more accurate), because any Jewish person in the world can become an Israeli citizen, whereas most Arabs have no way to become citizens unless they are in Israel proper, the Golan Heights, or East Jerusalem. I.e. for people who live in the West Bank (outside East Jerusalem), whether they are Israeli citizens is entirely determined by whether they are Jewish.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If you take over some territory and rule it permanently, and then define the pre-existing population there as non-citizens with no way to change their status, you do not get to count as a democracy On some timeline this is every population on the planet. I’m not defending the Nakba. But it’s not a commonly-used exclusionary rule for democracies. If it were, there has never been a democracy on Earth. (And never can be. Everyone lives on territory once occupied by another people.)
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    I’m not talking about the Nakba, I’m talking about the situation in the West Bank today. It’s horrible that so many Palestinians had to leave during the Nakba, but since the ones who stayed were eventually granted citizenship and legal equality, I think it’s fair to say that Israel proper is administered democratically today — similar to the situation of Native Americans in the U.S. But people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have no way to become Israeli citizens (unless they are Jewish), despite those territories being controlled by Israel, probably permanently. That is clearly undemocratic.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > That is clearly undemocratic Agreed. But that doesn’t unmake Israel a democracy.
      - School-Cotton 2y ago
        I don't see how there is a meaningful difference "administers large chunks of territory undemocratically" and "is not a democracy" in practice.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > don't see how there is a meaningful difference "administers large chunks of territory undemocratically" and "is not a democracy" in practice The Federalist Papers are the deep dive. The Wikipedia article is a good start [1]. If you’re excluding classic members of a set with your measure, your measure is inconsistent with the classic set. You may argue Athens wasn’t a true democracy, but that obviously puts your definition of a true democracy in a special bucket. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
whimsicalism 2y ago
At least until 2006 or so it was legal to deny Arab citizens entry to your community or permission to live, provided it was covered by the Admission Committee Law (most communities in Israel are). Never mind the explicit ethnic-based right of return, land ownership rules, etc. By their own admission, the state frequently makes decisions prioritizing communities of the dominant ethnic group, see for instance 'National Priority Area's. Honestly, the ethnic favoritism in Israel's government is so widespread and blatant I could just keep listing examples on and on.
eyelidlessness 2y ago
South African apartheid specifically utilized this distinction of citizenship. The de facto state, to which all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are subjects, is Israel. This has been true for generations, and it’s going to remain true indefinitely. Keeping those Palestinians stateless doesn’t detract from the comparison to apartheid, it reinforces it.

wesselbindt 2y ago

This is incorrect. They very comfortably fall within the definitions set out by ICSPCA, as detailed for example in the famous 280 page Amnesty intenational report, and also the B'Tselem rapport. This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of definition.

genman 2y ago
I'm sorry, but Amnesty International lost completely its credibility by supporting Putin and Hamas terrorist.
loandbehold 2y ago
There are many other reports of similar length and rigor that argue otherwise. In the end none of these reports are 100% impartial. The definitions set out by ICSPCA are not 100% precise and leave much room for interpretation. Did you actually read Amnesty International report in full or are you just citing it because it's supporting "your" side?
- wesselbindt 2y ago
  Who carried out those reports?

School-Cotton 2y ago

If you take over some territory and rule it permanently, and then define the pre-existing population there as non-citizens with no way to change their status, you do not get to count as a democracy. This is what Israel has done in the West Bank. > The discrimination is based on citizenship status and not on race. Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. It is based indirectly on race (inasmuch as "Jewish" is a race; maybe "cultural group" would be more accurate), because any Jewish person in the world can become an Israeli citizen, whereas most Arabs have no way to become citizens unless they are in Israel proper, the Golan Heights, or East Jerusalem. I.e. for people who live in the West Bank (outside East Jerusalem), whether they are Israeli citizens is entirely determined by whether they are Jewish.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If you take over some territory and rule it permanently, and then define the pre-existing population there as non-citizens with no way to change their status, you do not get to count as a democracy On some timeline this is every population on the planet. I’m not defending the Nakba. But it’s not a commonly-used exclusionary rule for democracies. If it were, there has never been a democracy on Earth. (And never can be. Everyone lives on territory once occupied by another people.)
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  I’m not talking about the Nakba, I’m talking about the situation in the West Bank today. It’s horrible that so many Palestinians had to leave during the Nakba, but since the ones who stayed were eventually granted citizenship and legal equality, I think it’s fair to say that Israel proper is administered democratically today — similar to the situation of Native Americans in the U.S. But people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have no way to become Israeli citizens (unless they are Jewish), despite those territories being controlled by Israel, probably permanently. That is clearly undemocratic.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > That is clearly undemocratic Agreed. But that doesn’t unmake Israel a democracy.
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      I don't see how there is a meaningful difference "administers large chunks of territory undemocratically" and "is not a democracy" in practice.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > don't see how there is a meaningful difference "administers large chunks of territory undemocratically" and "is not a democracy" in practice The Federalist Papers are the deep dive. The Wikipedia article is a good start [1]. If you’re excluding classic members of a set with your measure, your measure is inconsistent with the classic set. You may argue Athens wasn’t a true democracy, but that obviously puts your definition of a true democracy in a special bucket. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

whimsicalism 2y ago

At least until 2006 or so it was legal to deny Arab citizens entry to your community or permission to live, provided it was covered by the Admission Committee Law (most communities in Israel are). Never mind the explicit ethnic-based right of return, land ownership rules, etc. By their own admission, the state frequently makes decisions prioritizing communities of the dominant ethnic group, see for instance 'National Priority Area's. Honestly, the ethnic favoritism in Israel's government is so widespread and blatant I could just keep listing examples on and on.

eyelidlessness 2y ago

South African apartheid specifically utilized this distinction of citizenship. The de facto state, to which all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are subjects, is Israel. This has been true for generations, and it’s going to remain true indefinitely. Keeping those Palestinians stateless doesn’t detract from the comparison to apartheid, it reinforces it.