Israel

[Bluer White]

Israel straight up has Jewish only roads in the West Bank. Israel can't claim to be the only democracy in the Middle East when they have an apartheid system in place.

Israeli only roads, nbelcik, not Jewish roads. Israelis of all faiths are free to travel about the country.

 

[Oregoropa]

Let's all take FYM Fact-checking vacation to the Holy Land.

 

[Diemen]

Diemen is correct in his statement that my question was to point out that Arabs living is Israel do have it better than Arabs in neighboring countries.



The often heard accusation that Israeli Arabs are subjected to the apartheid system just does not align with reality.

That's an easy claim to make if you ignore the fact that the Israeli government systematically bulldozes entire Arab communities in the West Bank to set up Jewish settlements, and has been doing so for years. Those Arabs certainly don't have equal protection under the law.

 

[nbelcik]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

"In 2009, a comprehensive 18-month independent academic study was completed for the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa for the South African Department of Foreign Affairs on the legal status of Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[62] The specific questions examined in the study were whether Israeli policies are consistent with colonialism and apartheid, as these practices and regimes are spelled out in relevant international legal instruments. The second question, regarding apartheid, was the major focus of the study. Authors and analysts contributing to the study included jurists, academics and international lawyers from Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, South Africa, England, Ireland and the United States. The team considered whether human rights law can be applied to cases of belligerent occupation, the legal context in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and related international law and comparative practices. The question of apartheid was examined through a dual approach: reference to international law and comparison to policies and practices by the apartheid regime in South Africa. Initially released as a report, the report was later edited and published in 2012 (by Pluto Press) as Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Regarding international law, the team reported that Israel's practices in the OPT correlate almost entirely with the definition of apartheid as established in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. (The exception was the Convention's reference to genocidal policies, which were not found to be part of Israeli practices, although the team noted that genocide was not the policy in apartheid South Africa either.) Comparison to South African laws and practices by the apartheid regime also found strong correlations with Israeli practices, including violations of international standards for due process (such as illegal detention); discriminatory privileges based on ascribed ethnicity (legally, as Jewish or non-Jewish); draconian enforced ethnic segregation in all parts of life, including by confining groups to ethnic "reserves and ghettoes"; comprehensive restrictions on individual freedoms, such as movement and expression; a dual legal system based on ethno-national identity (Jewish or Palestinian); denationalization (denial of citizenship); and a special system of laws designed selectively to punish any Palestinian resistance to the system.

Thematically, the team concluded that Israel's practices could be grouped into three "pillars" of apartheid comparable to practices in South Africa:

The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews".
The second pillar is reflected in "Israel's 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel's extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians".
The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group.""


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[nbelcik]

Israeli only roads, nbelcik, not Jewish roads. Israelis of all faiths are free to travel about the country.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.740971

Actually, this road can only be traveled by Jewish settlers and the IDF.

"We are in Hebron’s Jaber neighborhood, where the homes are scattered on both sides of the main street that runs from the town of Kiryat Arba to the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Jewish settlement in Hebron. The settlers call the street “Zion Road,” but it runs through a Palestinian neighborhood. It’s a Jews-only thoroughfare in this non-apartheid district. No Palestinian vehicle is allowed to enter. All traffic, all transportation and supplies, all access to homes and stores is either by foot or with the aid of donkeys and mules. Palestinian ambulances can enter only following prior coordination. Four months ago, a woman gave birth in the street, because the arrangements for the ambulance went on for too long.

In these conditions, in which the only vehicles that pass through this Palestinian quarter are those of the Jewish settlers and the IDF, the neighborhood is slowly dying, just as the settlers wish: It was their brutality that brought about the street’s closure in the first place.

This may be the only street in the world where the people who live on either side of it are not allowed to travel on it. Some of the apartments have been abandoned, as have most of the stores, of course. It’s a ghost quarter, but even so, less ghostly than down the hill, in the Old City and the Casbah, where the settlers rule absolutely. In this dying neighborhood, whoever can leave gets out."


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[anitram]

I think bringing up the tenets of international law to your current audience is akin to me buying a collection of Korean poetry books for my German Shepherd.

 

[Bluer White]

Bisected by a Jews-only road, a Palestinian neighborhood in Hebron is dying - Israel News - Haaretz.com

Actually, this road can only be traveled by Jewish settlers and the IDF.

"We are in Hebron’s Jaber neighborhood, where the homes are scattered on both sides of the main street that runs from the town of Kiryat Arba to the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Jewish settlement in Hebron. The settlers call the street “Zion Road,” but it runs through a Palestinian neighborhood. It’s a Jews-only thoroughfare in this non-apartheid district.

I appreciate your post. Hebron is a Palestinian city, not Israeli. 'Zion Road' aka King David Street/Al-Shuhada Street/Martyr's Street is the same area in Hebron, right? Kind of an infamous place.

The Israeli settlements there are illegal under international law. Makes it dangerous/insecure for all sides.

 

[kiwilad]

I think bringing up the tenets of international law to your current audience is akin to me buying a collection of Korean poetry books for my German Shepherd.

This made me guffaw. Then I got sad cause it's probably true.

Sent from my SM-G920I using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[the iron horse]

This is in response to the Israel and Apartheid Analogy Post 34.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is factually,[13] morally,[13] and historically[14] inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel.[1][15][16][17] Opponents state that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel. They argue that though the internal free movement of Palestinians is heavily regulated by the Israeli government, the territories are governed by the elected Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders, so they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa.[18][19][20]

With regard to the situation within Israel itself, critics of the analogy argue that Israel cannot be called an apartheid state because unlike South Africa, which enshrined its racial segregation policies in law, Israeli law is the same for Jewish citizens and other Israeli citizens, with no explicit distinction between race, creed or sex.[23] However, others believe that even if Israeli law does not make explicit distinction between categories of citizens, in effect it privileges Jewish citizens and discriminates against non-Jewish, and particularly Arab, citizens of the state, by creating benefits for IDF service, which is not mandatory for Arabs (but is optional)


Note: I would add that mandatory service in the military is not required for Arabs because Israel did not want to force Arabs in a position where they might have to fight against other Arabs.

 

[Diemen]

iron horse, what are your thoughts on the Israeli governments policy of bulldozing Arab communities in the West Bank to make room for Jewish settlements?

 

[anitram]

iron horse, what are your thoughts on the Israeli governments policy of bulldozing Arab communities in the West Bank to make room for Jewish settlements?

Is that on Wikipedia?

 

[Diemen]

Is that on Wikipedia?

Heh.

 

[nbelcik]

This is in response to the Israel and Apartheid Analogy Post 34.



From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy



Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is factually,[13] morally,[13] and historically[14] inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel.[1][15][16][17] Opponents state that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel. They argue that though the internal free movement of Palestinians is heavily regulated by the Israeli government, the territories are governed by the elected Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders, so they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa.[18][19][20]



With regard to the situation within Israel itself, critics of the analogy argue that Israel cannot be called an apartheid state because unlike South Africa, which enshrined its racial segregation policies in law, Israeli law is the same for Jewish citizens and other Israeli citizens, with no explicit distinction between race, creed or sex.[23] However, others believe that even if Israeli law does not make explicit distinction between categories of citizens, in effect it privileges Jewish citizens and discriminates against non-Jewish, and particularly Arab, citizens of the state, by creating benefits for IDF service, which is not mandatory for Arabs (but is optional)





Note: I would add that mandatory service in the military is not required for Arabs because Israel did not want to force Arabs in a position where they might have to fight against other Arabs.

So let's see, even though there isn't free movement for Palestinians within Gaza and the West Bank we shouldn't count them because technically they aren't part of Israel, even though Israel is building settlements in them that are guarded by the IDF?

Secondly, it's not apartheid because it's not explicitly enshrined in law, even though discrimination does occur?

Those are both incredibly weak arguments.





Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Vlad n U 2]

iron horse would have supported apartheid era South Africa.

 

[digitize]

iron horse would have supported apartheid era South Africa.

It is... perhaps humbling... to my sensibilities as a supporter of Western liberal democracy how recently governments like the US and especially the UK either supported or just shrugged at the apartheid regime.

(Though I recognize that you and I have rather different political ideologies.)

 

[Vlad n U 2]

It is... perhaps humbling... to my sensibilities as a supporter of Western liberal democracy how recently governments like the US and especially the UK either supported or just shrugged at the apartheid regime.

(Though I recognize that you and I have rather different political ideologies.)

To both of us, it's a case of how easy it is to support these sorts of regimes when they're current - when those in the past are almost unthinkable to support nowadays. Hence it is easy for me to assume that a person as conservative as iron horse would have supported it at the time.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Probably the most salient point about Apartheid era South Africa is that they were on the 'right' side of the Cold War. That was about the beginning and end of it (not discounting actual racism among a number of prominent Anglosphere politicians of the era).

 

[the iron horse]

quote:

On this Holocaust Memorial Day, I beseech Americans to stop dropping the H*(for Hitler) bomb on America’s political divide.

Love him or hate him, President Donald Trump is no Hitler. Denouncing the democratically elected leader of our country and his cabinet as Nazis denigrates the victims of the past and could cripple our ability to confront and defeat future tyrants and terrorists.

Stop dropping the H* (Hitler) bomb and other crucial lessons for 2017 on Holocaust Memorial Day | Fox News

 

[Diemen]

quote:

On this Holocaust Memorial Day, I beseech Americans to stop dropping the H*(for Hitler) bomb on America’s political divide.

Love him or hate him, President Donald Trump is no Hitler. Denouncing the democratically elected leader of our country and his cabinet as Nazis denigrates the victims of the past and could cripple our ability to confront and defeat future tyrants and terrorists.

Stop dropping the H* (Hitler) bomb and other crucial lessons for 2017 on Holocaust Memorial Day | Fox News

Still no comment on Israel continuing to destroy existing Palestinian communities to build Jewish settlements on the West Bank?

If you're complaining about dialogue getting shut down, why not take steps to rectify it by not ignoring questions?

 

[DaveC]

hitler and the nazi party were also democratically elected. learn some history ffs. aren't you a school teacher?

 

[Vlad n U 2]

hitler and the nazi party were also democratically elected. learn some history ffs. aren't you a school teacher?

Unfortunately, he seems like he represents a poor indictment on the US education system.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Strictly speaking, Hitler was not elected. The Nazi party made significant gains (although had already peaked and declined before the end of 1932) in parliamentary seats in a series of elections. But in the event, Hitler was appointed chancellor by president Hindenberg, in an atmosphere of crisis aided in no small party by his private street army's agitation. Under the letter of law, but by no means by popular acclaim.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Strictly speaking, Hitler was not elected. The Nazi party made significant gains (although had already peaked and declined before the end of 1932) in parliamentary seats in a series of elections. But in the event, Hitler was appointed chancellor by president Hindenberg, in an atmosphere of crisis aided in no small party by his private street army's agitation. Under the letter of law, but by no means by popular acclaim.

The Nazis were democratically elected. And ultimately, Hitler, who got one huge foot in the door from a democratic-republic system even though second in pure vote... was legally appointed chancellor.

And then what happened? Hitler took advantage of pandemonium in his country. Civil unrest. During that pandemonium, a series of power grabbing decisions were made.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

sounds familiar.

 

[iron yuppie]

Strictly speaking, Hitler was not elected. The Nazi party made significant gains (although had already peaked and declined before the end of 1932) in parliamentary seats in a series of elections. But in the event, Hitler was appointed chancellor by president Hindenberg, in an atmosphere of crisis aided in no small party by his private street army's agitation. Under the letter of law, but by no means by popular acclaim.

This is an important detail IMO. The Weimar Constitution had an emergency empowerment mechanism that does not exist in the United States, as far as I know.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I have to wonder about liberal/Democrat support for Israel when their main figure is in the same league as Trump. See Netanyahu's tweet.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I have to wonder about liberal/Democrat support for Israel when their main figure is in the same league as Trump. See Netanyahu's tweet.

One of the best things Obama did with foreign policy was stick it to Israel. His message was loud and clear: no "special relationship" going on there.

 

[anitram]

Obama hardly stuck it to them, they had massive expansions of the settlements and pretty much nobody batted an eye.

It's a terrible government there, and I think very antithetical to liberal values to defend it in any way.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

If that was Obama sticking it to Israel, that's borderline depressing - and indicative of how sycophantic others have been.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Obama broke the decades long unwritten rule that Israel is a holy ally who must be protected at all costs and can do no wrong.

He engaged in relations with Iran, and ignored their pleas against the Iran nuclear deal.

On his way out the door, his administration again unexpectedly did not side with Israel during that UN vote. By US standards, that's sticking it to them.