The real apartheid state.

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Then accusation withdrawn.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Israel's founding fathers Moshe Dayan and Ben-Gurion were atheists.

They were also terrorists. So what's your point?

Do you deny that Israel is described in its own constitution as a "Jewish state" and wishes to remain so? That this is by far the greatest source of acrimony in the region which continues to fuel their absurd foreign and domestic policies? That there can't really be a "secular" state which favors a particular religion to the direct detriment of others?

Democratic polities are more like machines that can be adjusted to provide for the interests of certain political groups over one another, like redistributing wealth, allocating resources accordingly. This might very well be true for states in general. This is why I am somewhat skeptical of applying law to "countries": Who are you going to hold responsible when something goes terribly terribly wrong? It is only that easy in dictatorships, where usually very few individuals hold power, and thus can be held responsible for the actions of their country.

"Machines" so they should be somehow immune to international law, which is really no different than that supposedly practiced by the "democracies" themselves? If people can be held accountable for their acts, why can't governments of even "democratic" countries be similarly treated when they commit heinous atrocities? Isn't that the reason that Iraq was invaded and occupied, which later turned out to be completely false, much less a plethora of other countries?

Isn't that the supposed basis for nearly every single sanction and boycott?

That's exactly the problem: Israeli courts have always persecuted such instances whenever it was possible. Because Israeli courts do not have civilian jurisdiction over Palestinian territories, Israeli civilian law that would make such actions otherwise illegal does not apply, so the very things you name here are possible - and the courts powerless to do anything. Basically, a simple change of law could improve so much, which is why Israel isn't as bad as say, Sudan, where human rights are possible for more reasons than just a legal loophole.

"Persecuted"?

So you seriously think that invading countries can't possibly be held responsible for their own acts? That this isn't simply a deliberate omission and even a requirement of the invaders and occupiers in many instances, such as what occurred in Iraq?

Except that if Israel, West Bank and Gaza Strip were to be one country, Jews would still form a majority. Only when you include Palestinian refugees as being part of "Israel", would Jews be a minority. So by your reasoning, Israel still wouldn't be an apartheid state. The Middle Eastern state that arguably comes closest to South African apartheid would be Jordan, where Palestinians outnumber Jordan yet are deprived of basic rights Jordan citizens do have, though the political rights of Jordans themselves are also highly beleagured. Exactly like South African apartheid, which deprived blacks from the same rights as whites, though whites themselves hardly had any meaningful political say themselves.

Only after they deliberately ethnically cleansed many of the original occupants, while forbidding Muslims to openly immigrate and encouraging Jews to do just the opposite, as Cheezy already pointed out. This was clearly an intentional act to establish their political and cultural domination of others.

Unlike Cheezy, I don't agree with that definition that it must be a minority which is "persecuting" and oppressing the lawful inhabitants of the region.

In 1973 the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.[36] The ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group ... over another racial group ... and systematically oppressing them."[37] In 2002 the crime of apartheid was further defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as encompassing inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[38]

 

[Tahuti]

Do you deny that Israel is described in its own constitution as a "Jewish state" and wishes to remain so? That this is by far the greatest source of acrimony in the region which continues to fuel their absurd foreign and domestic policies? That there can't really be a "secular" state which favors a particular religion to the direct detriment of others?

Israel is Jewish in the ethnic sense, not in the religious sense. Israel is even more secular than the USA, where being religious is a de-facto requirement for becoming president, whereas Israel had various atheist high-office holders in the past few decades, most recently, Yitzak Rabin.

Now Israel is becoming more religious, but it is still far cry compared to the neighbouring countries. And note that even France is funding Roman Catholic religious institutions overseas.

And why don't you have any issues with nations like Iraq calling themselves Islamic states?

"Machines" so they should be somehow immune to international law, which is really no different than that supposedly practiced by the "democracies" themselves? If people can be held accountable for their acts, why can't governments of even "democratic" countries be similarly treated when they commit heinous atrocities? Isn't that the reason that Iraq was invaded and occupied, which later turned out to be completely false, much less a plethora of other countries?

I didn't say immune. I do think it makes it very difficult. You're not going to argue that every voter is responsible for the policies of the government they voted into power?

And in the case of Iraq, it was arguably easier to identify responsible parties than in most other cases, because there was a clear group of individuals responsible, including Bush.

So you seriously think that invading countries can't possibly be held responsible for their own acts? That this isn't simply a deliberate omission and even a requirement of the invaders and occupiers in many instances, such as Iraq?

To hold a country responsible for anything is a legal fiction: Countries are corporations, a common legal entity for several individuals. Unless you are as loony as Mitt Romney, corporations have no emotions let alone are able to learn from misdeeds. It ultimately boils down on specific individuals. We can fine a country and punish with sanctions, but it all depends on the ones in charge to collectively carry out change.

Only after they deliberately ethnically cleansed many of the original occupants, while forbidding Muslims to openly immigrate and encouraging Jews to do just the opposite, as Cheezy already pointed out. This was clearly an intentional act to establish their political and cultural domination of others.

Unlike Cheezy, I don't agree with that definition that it must be a minority which is "persecuting" and oppressing the lawful inhabitants of the region.

Except that it happened many decades ago, when you would presumably have defended Israel as well if you had lived back then. Israel is not bombing Arab countries to this day in retialiation for Arab mistreatment of the Jewish minorities in Arab countries in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, is it?

 

[Mouthwash]

Sure, that's all true. But its irrelevant because we're talking about states and operating at that level. And it's basically incontrovertible that what Israel is doing is against international law and in direct opposition to the diplomatic positions of even some of its closest friends. Australia still supports an Israel with its borders at the Green Line. (Not all of Israel's's governments have been that bad, but we're certainly been getting more bad than good lately).

Now, I'm not defending Netanyahu or his policies, but why is it that I should respect international law as an arbitrator of justice at all?

 

[Borachio]

Because states that consistently ignore international law are considered pariah states?

And that costs their citizens severely in terms of standards of living.

 

[peter grimes]

only unless they don't enjoy a "special relationship", of course.

 

[Mouthwash]

Because states that consistently ignore international law are considered pariah states?

And that costs their citizens severely in terms of standards of living.

Russia slaughters hundreds of thousands, engages in genocide, population transfer, state sponsored terrorism, collective punishment, kidnappings, assassinations, torture, etc. Yet they do indeed seem to have been above the law, and have actually gained from their actions.

Israel is much less isolated today than it was in in the 70's, and is prospering more than ever.

only unless they don't enjoy a "special relationship", of course.

The US and Israel have already forsaken their wedding vows.

 

[Borachio]

What the... I mean...

I don't even know what...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Israel is Jewish in the ethnic sense, not in the religious sense. Israel is even more secular than the USA, where being religious is a de-facto requirement for becoming president, whereas Israel had various atheist high-office holders in the past few decades, most recently, Yitzak Rabin.

That is hardly an excuse for blatantly discriminating and oppressing various ethnic groups based largely on their religion. Now is it?

Now Israel is becoming more religious, but it is still far cry compared to the neighbouring countries. And note that even France is funding Roman Catholic religious institutions overseas.

Again, comparing them to even more backward and barbaric countries is hardly any sort of rationalization and defense for their own recurring atrocities. Now is it?

And why don't you have any issues with nations like Iraq calling themselves Islamic states?

What give you the completely absurd impression I don't?

I didn't say immune. I do think it makes it very difficult. You're not going to argue that every voter is responsible for the policies of the government they voted into power?

Nope, even though they should certainly share in the moral outrage of the rest of the world for electing such leaders in the first place.

Don't you think it is time that so-called democratic leaders should to face the criminal consequences for their acts against other nations? Or should that continue to hypocritically be limited to those who are defeated in warfare?

And in the case of Iraq, it was arguably easier to identify responsible parties than in most other cases, because there was a clear group of individuals responsible, including Bush.

It is not difficult at all to identify those who are responsible for the decisions which result in these atrocities. All that is missing is the desire to do so.

To hold a country responsible for anything is a legal fiction: Countries are corporations, a common legal entity for several individuals. Unless you are as loony as Mitt Romney, corporations have no emotions let alone are able to learn from misdeeds. It ultimately boils down on specific individuals. We can fine a country and punish with sanctions, but it all depends on the ones in charge to collectively carry out change.

Now governments have "limited liability", much like the criminals who frequently populate many of our major corporations? Those who also have no sense of ethics or basic morality because "it is just business"? Someone should have told all the countries those governments the US has either overthrown or attempted to overthrow, especially since the end of WWII.

1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii
1948 Italian general election
1949 Syrian coup d'état
1953 Iranian coup d'état
1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
1959 Tibetan uprising
1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
1963 South Vietnamese coup
1964 Brazilian coup d'état
1967 Greek coup d'état
1970 Cambodian coup
1973 Chilean coup d'état
1976 Argentine coup d'état
1979-89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
1980 Turkish coup d'état
1981-87 Nicaragua, Contras
2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt
2011 Libyan uprising
2011-present Syrian uprising

Never mind all its victims of military actions. According to that "logic", no intervention against the acts of a supposedly democratic country should ever occur. Yet they oddly continue to do so no matter how feeble the reason.

Except that it happened many decades ago, when you would presumably have defended Israel as well if you had lived back then. Israel is not bombing Arab countries to this day in retialiation for Arab mistreatment of the Jewish minorities in Arab countries in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, is it?

Except the atrocities, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid policies continue to occur. Just because Israel long ago assured its survival with a far superior military than its neighbors doesn't mean that they wouldn't commit exactly the same atrocities tomorrow to ostensibly assure that future from their latest largely imaginary enemy, such as Iran.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Except that it happened many decades ago, when you would presumably have defended Israel as well if you had lived back then. Israel is not bombing Arab countries to this day in retialiation for Arab mistreatment of the Jewish minorities in Arab countries in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, is it?

Well I can say that I would not. Form's characterization of the situation is correct: what happened to the Palestinians should be described as ethnic cleansing. It wasn't made okay because of the conflict already happening, and it's not rendered irrelevant today simply because of time. As you noted, there are permanently displaced people who remain in camps in other countries, who are mistreated by them as well (which, again, doesn't make their plight less relevant by pointing to Jordanian or Lebanese mistreatment of them). That doesn't compare to Jewish treatment in Arab countries after Israeli independence, not by a long shot.

my point in my last post was that these people are not irrelevant to the Israeli situation simply because they are not physically in Israeli-governed territory. Yes, it's true that the governments of their present residence are responsible for them, don't think I'm letting them off the hook. But having removed them completely makes it, I think, worse than if they had simply remained under Israeli rule which, while supposedly secular, was without question ethnically nationalist. Israel has made clear from the beginning, and continues to today, that Israel is a state for ethnic Jews only. The comparisons with Apartheid continue to mount...

With a much higher Palestinian birth rate than Israeli one, it will soon qualify as such even under your hamstrung definition.

 

[classical_hero]

Or in other words, if you exclude all the people they evicted from the country completely...

You mean those who left when told by the Arab leaders that once they have killed off every Jew, they will be able to return. Whoops.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You mean those who left when told by the Arab leaders that once they have killed off every Jew, they will be able to return. Whoops.

No I mean the ones whose whole villages were massacred, then had that message broadcast to them and told to leave or it would happen to them as well. And the ones who were evicted from their homes and had their farms taken over by Zionist settlers. Those ones.

The story about the Grand Mufti's message is a myth. No one listened to it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Kind of an awkward situation where the defenders of the Jews want us to believe Amin al-Husayni was an entirely trustworthy character.

 

[classical_hero]

As they were fighting for their very survival, since the stated aims of the Arab league was very clear, that there should not be a Jewish State. The cities of Lyyda and Ramle had to be done to protect the highway from attacks, just like this one and many others like it. http://www.timesofisrael.com/toddler-seriously-injured-in-jerusalem-stone-throwing-attack/ Otherwise the main artery to Jerusalem would be under siege. No nation would put up with that threat to security.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Jerusalem was not a part of the Israeli part of the 1947 Partition of Palestine.

 

[bhsup]

Gee, then maybe those other countries shouldn't have attacked Israel. Still not sure what any of this has to do with Liberia, though.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you gain your land by evicting the currents occupants, of course you should expect security issues.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If you gain your land by evicting the current occupants, of course you should expect security issues.

The Israeli government is like a NYC slumlord who thinks he has been the victim of bad publicity.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well I can say that I would not. Form's characterization of the situation is correct: what happened to the Palestinians should be described as ethnic cleansing.

Oohh, big words! Ethnic cleansing!

It wasn't made okay because of the conflict already happening, and it's not rendered irrelevant today simply because of time. As you noted, there are permanently displaced people who remain in camps in other countries, who are mistreated by them as well (which, again, doesn't make their plight less relevant by pointing to Jordanian or Lebanese mistreatment of them). That doesn't compare to Jewish treatment in Arab countries after Israeli independence, not by a long shot.

No, their displacement is Israel's responsibility. Of course it isn't "rendered irrelevant by time," it's rendered irrelevant by geopolitical necessity. But their living conditions, their rights, their political freedoms and way of life are completely and entirely the responsibility of the states which they live in. Herding them into camps for the sake of pressuring Israel is not ethical by any standard, and certainly worse than what Israel is doing in the West Bank. We don't persecute Syrian refugees to make Assad look bad for letting it happen.

my point in my last post was that these people are not irrelevant to the Israeli situation simply because they are not physically in Israeli-governed territory. Yes, it's true that the governments of their present residence are responsible for them, don't think I'm letting them off the hook. But having removed them completely makes it, I think, worse than if they had simply remained under Israeli rule which,

There would be no 'Israel' if the Palestinians had remained. This is beyond dispute.

while supposedly secular, was without question ethnically nationalist. Israel has made clear from the beginning, and continues to today, that Israel is a state for ethnic Jews only. The comparisons with Apartheid continue to mount...

Let's grant you that ethnicity isn't as fuzzy and religiously-based as it is in the Jewish case. It still seems that Israel defining itself as a Jewish state isn't a whole lot different than Greece being a Hellenic state, or Finland being a Finnish state, especially given the fact that supposedly modern, liberal countries have ethnic conflicts to this day. I don't think it's a stretch to argue that most British people are of a "British" nationality, rather than being Scottish or Welsh or English, simply because they have so much in common with each other in addition to being politically united.

The allusion to race that Palestinian propagandists like to make fails utterly because Jewry, as a collective identity, can view themselves as simply one equal part of a greater whole. The problem is there are no such peoples left (the obvious candidate, the Samaritans, are virtually gone), but if they were still present some kind of political relationship could be established. Jews and Samaritans can find common ground, Jews and Arabs can't. It is extremely unlikely that they would ever view each other as being countrymen the way English and Welsh do each other. Ethnicity is a characteristic of Jewish nationalism, not because the Jewish faith or blood is considered the basis for that nationalism, but because of the fact that it is a self-contained civilization in Huntington's sense of the word.

When we expelled the Palestinians, it was because there was simply no way to accommodate them. We did leave those who were loyal to the state (and plenty who weren't), but it really should have been more thorough, in my opinion. It's the same for them; Arab ethnicity is the basis of their identity. The Arab armies expelled Jews from towns that they captured, and they were right to do it, because those Jews, simply because of their Jewish identity, would have aided the Zionists and sabotaged their enemy.

Morris argued that ethnic cleansing is justified, and I think it doesn't need an argument because of course ethnic cleansing is justified. When people are expelled for a reason that in any way relates to their background, mythology, or culture, that's ethnic cleansing. When the Allies kicked out millions of Germans from their homes during WWII, that was ethnic cleansing. I don't see Germans demanding a right of return.

There's a difference between kicking people out because you think that they are genetically different and kicking them out because, on the basis of that ethnicity, they are an insurmountable barrier to your own freedom.

I know it's easy to say, sitting on your computer in the most diverse state on Earth, that simply because someone has red hair or believe so-and-so about God is no reason to treat them differently. But when I go into the poorer neighborhoods, I see racially-based gangs and segregated neighborhoods. And that's normal. In Israel I see entire Jewish towns and Arab villages, and the interactions between them. People in every country in every part of the world live segregated. Those barriers will never be torn down, even if nationalism itself crumbles under a glorious communist revolution; Jews will not marry Muslims, Muslims will not marry Jews. The best we can do is learn to live among ourselves and tolerate each other's presence.

Sorry for rambling, I'm not feeling too motivated right now.

With a much higher Palestinian birth rate than Israeli one, it will soon qualify as such even under your hamstrung definition.

Arab birthrates are 1% higher than Jewish birthrates and the gap is closing. I've heard this demographic bomb nonsense peddled everywhere on the internet, but none of the proponents seems to have any argument beyond this.

 

[Mouthwash]

Except the atrocities, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid policies continue to occur. Just because Israel long ago assured its survival with a far superior military than its neighbors doesn't mean that they wouldn't commit exactly the same atrocities tomorrow to ostensibly assure that future from their latest largely imaginary enemy, such as Iran.

Israel's survival is not even remotely assured. The Arabs states have time, demographics, and power on their side. They have a huge margin of error, Israel has a tiny one. It's true that the current political climate, as a result of the insanity which has permeated the Arab world in past decades, has produced a strong Israel and a weak Arab world. But I hardly see how that guarantees Israeli survival forever.