4 ms·

Iraq and Lebanon are far from free and democratic countries. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iraq/freedom-world/2024 https://freedomhouse.org/country/iraq/fre

by nsguy 2y ago

Iraq and Lebanon are far from free and democratic countries. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iraq/freedom-world/2024 https://freedomhouse.org/country/iraq/freedom-world/2024 https://freedomhouse.org/country/lebanon/freedom-world/2024 https://freedomhouse.org/country/lebanon/freedom-world/2024 https://freedomhouse.org/country/israel/freedom-world/2024 https://freedomhouse.org/country/israel/freedom-world/2024

School-Cotton 2y ago
That does not contradict my point.
- nsguy 2y ago
  Freedom house, which I think is a credible source here, says Israel is free and democratic, and Lebanon and Iraq are not. How does that not contradict your point? The claim was that Israel is the only free and democratic country in the middle east, do you have any credible source that disproves that?
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    Israel administers the West Bank as a bantustan for the majority of their (technically non-citizen) Arab population, but does not officially count it as part of their territory, so they don’t have to grant the people there citizenship or allow them voting rights. But it’s worth repeating: Israel entirely controls this territory. That is clearly undemocratic.
    - nsguy 2y ago
      What is worth repeating this is no different than any other occupied territory in the world or in history. When the US occupied Germany it didn't allow Germans voting rights. When it occupied Japan it didn't give Japanese voting rights. When it occupied Afghanistan or Iraq it didn't give those voting rights either. Puerto Ricans are administered by the US but don't have voting rights. There is nothing undemocratic about this at all. This is what international law mandates. Israel is prohibited from annexing this territory by said international law. When Israel annexed other occupied territory and gave residents rights (The Golan Heights) the international community refused to accept that. You can ask why these territories are in this status for this length of time. Part of the reason is that the country it was occupied from, Jordan, does not want it back. Another part is that the Palestinians that live there don't really want this resolved either (at least some really large portion of them). Another part are other external interests that don't want to see this resolved.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Slyfox33 2y ago
        What are you talking about? Germany held federal elections less than 4 years after the end of the war. The US didn't occupy germany against their will for 50 years. Japan had elections ONE year after the war. Stop lying.
        nsguy 2y ago
        I'm saying they could not vote in the US which is what the discussion is about. The Palestinians also had elections. I don't think what people are asking Israel to do here is to let the Palestinians have elections while being occupied? The total physical occupation of Germany lasted 11 years. The final status of Germany was only determined in 1990 in the 2+4 agreement. That's a 45 year period. The US still has bases in Germany.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        > I don't think what people are asking Israel to do here is to let the Palestinians have elections while being occupied? It's incredible how persistently you miss the point. What people are asking Israel to do is let Palestinians have a say in their own affairs. That can be done _either_ by letting the Palestinian government meaningfully control Palestine (as the West German government did relatively soon after the war ended), _or_ by letting Palestinians have a say in the Israeli government that rules over them (one state solution).
        nsguy 2y ago
        I don't think I missed any of your points. I'm being called a liar for pointing out that in general people living in occupied territories do not have the rights of the citizens of the occupier, which is the exact situation here, and for which Israel is labelled as an "Apartheid State", since there's no Apartheid in Israel proper, only supposedly in said occupied territories. I think you're factually wrong on your "What people are asking" statement. Different people are asking different things. However, you can totally ask that question as an individual and we can discuss it. Palestinians do have a say in their own affairs. But you're saying "letting the Palestinian government meaningfully control Palestine". When you say Palestine do you mean the west bank? Would you agree that in Gaza Israeli did let the Palestinians "meaningfully control Gaza"? What was the outcome of that? What do you propose can be done differently in the west bank for example? What level of say/control do you feel would balance Israel's security needs with the Palestinian's need to have a say/meaningful control? Let's talk specifics. By the way, I'm totally not an expert in post WW-II Germany, I don't really know if we can apply the same methods or not: https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/germany-1945-1949-a-case-study-in-post-conflict-reconstruction https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/german... There was West Germany and East Germany. There was "denazification" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification (e.g. promoting of Nazi ideas had a death penalty under the occupation, do you think that'll fly with Israel vs. Palestinians vs. the world?). There were war crime trials for top level Nazis. EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that when the west bank was occupied by Israel in 1967 it was considered to be part of Jordan and Jordan didn't give up that claim until their peace agreement with Israel. But if your point is that Israel should have at that point given the people living in this area a measure of autonomy to run most aspects of their lives I think I can agree. There was definitely some self governing, e.g. at the city level. I think the demand was of Israel to return this to Jordan at that point in time and Israel refused since it meant there would be large Arab armies 10 minute tank drive from Tel-Aviv. (e.g.). I wasn't around in 1967 and I haven't studied that period in detail.

by nsguy 2y ago

School-Cotton 2y ago

That does not contradict my point.

nsguy 2y ago
Freedom house, which I think is a credible source here, says Israel is free and democratic, and Lebanon and Iraq are not. How does that not contradict your point? The claim was that Israel is the only free and democratic country in the middle east, do you have any credible source that disproves that?
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  Israel administers the West Bank as a bantustan for the majority of their (technically non-citizen) Arab population, but does not officially count it as part of their territory, so they don’t have to grant the people there citizenship or allow them voting rights. But it’s worth repeating: Israel entirely controls this territory. That is clearly undemocratic.
  - nsguy 2y ago
    What is worth repeating this is no different than any other occupied territory in the world or in history. When the US occupied Germany it didn't allow Germans voting rights. When it occupied Japan it didn't give Japanese voting rights. When it occupied Afghanistan or Iraq it didn't give those voting rights either. Puerto Ricans are administered by the US but don't have voting rights. There is nothing undemocratic about this at all. This is what international law mandates. Israel is prohibited from annexing this territory by said international law. When Israel annexed other occupied territory and gave residents rights (The Golan Heights) the international community refused to accept that. You can ask why these territories are in this status for this length of time. Part of the reason is that the country it was occupied from, Jordan, does not want it back. Another part is that the Palestinians that live there don't really want this resolved either (at least some really large portion of them). Another part are other external interests that don't want to see this resolved.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Slyfox33 2y ago
      What are you talking about? Germany held federal elections less than 4 years after the end of the war. The US didn't occupy germany against their will for 50 years. Japan had elections ONE year after the war. Stop lying.
      - nsguy 2y ago
        I'm saying they could not vote in the US which is what the discussion is about. The Palestinians also had elections. I don't think what people are asking Israel to do here is to let the Palestinians have elections while being occupied? The total physical occupation of Germany lasted 11 years. The final status of Germany was only determined in 1990 in the 2+4 agreement. That's a 45 year period. The US still has bases in Germany.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        > I don't think what people are asking Israel to do here is to let the Palestinians have elections while being occupied? It's incredible how persistently you miss the point. What people are asking Israel to do is let Palestinians have a say in their own affairs. That can be done _either_ by letting the Palestinian government meaningfully control Palestine (as the West German government did relatively soon after the war ended), _or_ by letting Palestinians have a say in the Israeli government that rules over them (one state solution).
        nsguy 2y ago
        I don't think I missed any of your points. I'm being called a liar for pointing out that in general people living in occupied territories do not have the rights of the citizens of the occupier, which is the exact situation here, and for which Israel is labelled as an "Apartheid State", since there's no Apartheid in Israel proper, only supposedly in said occupied territories. I think you're factually wrong on your "What people are asking" statement. Different people are asking different things. However, you can totally ask that question as an individual and we can discuss it. Palestinians do have a say in their own affairs. But you're saying "letting the Palestinian government meaningfully control Palestine". When you say Palestine do you mean the west bank? Would you agree that in Gaza Israeli did let the Palestinians "meaningfully control Gaza"? What was the outcome of that? What do you propose can be done differently in the west bank for example? What level of say/control do you feel would balance Israel's security needs with the Palestinian's need to have a say/meaningful control? Let's talk specifics. By the way, I'm totally not an expert in post WW-II Germany, I don't really know if we can apply the same methods or not: https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/germany-1945-1949-a-case-study-in-post-conflict-reconstruction https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/german... There was West Germany and East Germany. There was "denazification" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification (e.g. promoting of Nazi ideas had a death penalty under the occupation, do you think that'll fly with Israel vs. Palestinians vs. the world?). There were war crime trials for top level Nazis. EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that when the west bank was occupied by Israel in 1967 it was considered to be part of Jordan and Jordan didn't give up that claim until their peace agreement with Israel. But if your point is that Israel should have at that point given the people living in this area a measure of autonomy to run most aspects of their lives I think I can agree. There was definitely some self governing, e.g. at the city level. I think the demand was of Israel to return this to Jordan at that point in time and Israel refused since it meant there would be large Arab armies 10 minute tank drive from Tel-Aviv. (e.g.). I wasn't around in 1967 and I haven't studied that period in detail.