The real apartheid state.

[Goodfella]

There's nothing Afro-Nationalist about that article? It was a call to Liberians, not Africans.

The Lebanese are Liberians. But the article calls to African Liberians.

 

[Tahuti]

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).

The current problem of applying international law on any country is that no country possess agencies in the same way individual human beings have. No country, save for those controlled under an absolute but benevolent despot, can say "hey, I admit I was wrong there, so I decide to stop with that policy". Because at the moment, states do not work that way in reality. A government of a state is essentially an (Xbox) game controller torn to pieces, with all the buttons and sticks still functioning and the in the hands of different persons each. Which is why countries break international law all the time and no one can do something about it, really.

Of course, that all may change as international law becomes more powerful, and the power of nation-states becomes more restrained. But states have nuclear weapons and most importantly, several individuals in control over overlapping domains. But I still think Israel does not deserve the negative attention it currently gets, because it is still a democratic state with rule of law: Its legal system already acknowledges the severe problems that accompanied the occupation of West Bank and duly punished more than indicidentally individuals for human rights abuses. However, because West Bank isn't formally part of Israel, the Israeli legal system is powerless to do anything against the IDF, unless Israel makes some strong reforms of legal oversight over the military. Hence my comment that the IDF essentially constitutes a de-facto country.

See, this is why I made that dumb xbox comment. A thread about Liberia got turned into an Israel thread. I figure xbox is just as relevant.

I thought the OP implicitly involved Israel!?

 

[bhsup]

Not really. Used as an example, but clearly it was supposed to be about Liberia. Though even then, clearly he was unaware of the history of Liberia, which has thankfully been provided by others now. Honestly, it shocked me that people were unaware that Liberia started out as a country for repatriated slaves.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Could you possibly concede that this might just be a better thing to focus on than Israel?

wut?

other people are doing bad stuff therefore isreal should be allowed to do bad stuff. QED.

Liberia doesn't let its (most likely) upper-class people vote therefore Israel gets to bulldoze people?

and shoot them, and torture them, and imprison them, and occupy their land in contravention of numerous UN resolutions &etc.

This thread delivers! At least Mouthwash finally admitted why he created this thread.

Israel is a good example: In one way, it is a democracy that grants legal equality to its citizens and has more freedom of religion and is more free of prejudice than any other Middle Eastern country, though another Israel can be a representative of all that is wrong with the Middle East in general (religious fanaticism, racism, etc.), and some ways, even worse. No country is really one thing, especially not democracies.

I'd hardly call Israel "more free of prejudice" than even countries in the region. Many of its citizens are just as in favor of toppling unfriendly governments as those governments are of removing the current Israeli administration from power. But the point you both seem to be completely missing is which countries it should actually be compared, such as Western Europe and similar developed countries.

Your statement about democracies "not being one thing" is what really confuses me. What could you possibly mean by that?

Of course, that all may change as international law becomes more powerful, and the power of nation-states becomes more restrained. But states have nuclear weapons and most importantly, several individuals in control over overlapping domains. But I still think Israel does not deserve the negative attention it currently gets, because it is still a democratic state with rule of law: Its legal system already acknowledges the severe problems that accompanied the occupation of West Bank and duly punished more than indicidentally individuals for human rights abuses. However, because West Bank isn't formally part of Israel, the Israeli legal system is powerless to do anything against the IDF, unless Israel makes some strong reforms of legal oversight over the military. Hence my comment that the IDF essentially constitutes a de-facto country.

It "deserves" that "attention" for the very reasons you mentioned. It has nuclear weapons and continues to directly threaten the stability of the region by even assassinating civilian scientists, much less anybody else it sees fit. When it does so with standoff weapons fired from helicopters or 2000 lb bombs dropped from jets, it shows it doesn't care one bit how many innocent civilians are killed in the process.

What modern legal system allows thousands of Palestinians to be held without trial, even countless children whose only heinous criminal act was to throw a rock at a tank? What makes this even worse is the blatant double standard where the police and the IDF allow Israeli children to stone defenseless Palestinian women and children, as well as US human rights workers, without any fear of even being arrested. How many forbid someone from an adjoining country from even marrying a resident of their country? How many have enclosed the legal residents of a region they directly control with walls and guard towers, while the courts absurdly claim these acts are somehow outside their purview?

Ironically Israel still doesn't get near as much criticism as it richly deserves, much like the white supremacist South Africa did until they finally lost support from countries such as the UK and the US. Until they do, they will also likely continue to practice their own form of apartheid on their innocent victims.

 

[BvBPL]

Apartheid is now conterminous with any form of racial or ethnic discrimination these days.

No, it isn't. While apartheid is itself discriminatory, it is not a synonymy for discrimination.
Apartheid is segregation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Apartheid is more than that, it is rule by a minority composed of one race, which racially discriminates against and excludes the majority race of the country from the organs and operations of government and society. Hence the comparison between South Africa and Israel, and why this does not apply to Liberia.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Canada isn't de-facto part of the US

It's really funny when Europeans think this.

 

[Borachio]

Apartheid is more than that, it is rule by a minority composed of one race, which racially discriminates against and excludes the majority race of the country from the organs and operations of government and society. Hence the comparison between South Africa and Israel, and why this does not apply to Liberia.

If people are being refused citizenship in Liberia doesn't that qualify as excluding them from the operations of government and society? Don't you need to be a citizen to seek election as the President of Liberia then?

But in any case, denying someone citizenship is a pretty major step in itself, isn't it? (Though I can see it doesn't immediately qualify as apartheid.)

Especially if they had it before.

(Did they have it before? I don't know enough about this subject.)

 

[bhsup]

Citizenship isn't some right foreigners have in any country they want to become a citizen in. Liberia has no obligation to offer citizenship to -any- foreigner. This is not in any way comparable to denying rights to those that are already citizens.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If people are being refused citizenship in Liberia doesn't that qualify as excluding them from the operations of government and society? Don't you need to be a citizen to seek election as the President of Liberia then?

But in any case, denying someone citizenship is a pretty major step in itself, isn't it? (Though I can see it doesn't immediately qualify as apartheid.)

Especially if they had it before.

(Did they have it before? I don't know enough about this subject.)

Please re-read my post and look for the qualifiers in it.

 

[Borachio]

Ah right. You're saying that apartheid only applies to regimes which exclude the majority? Not a minority.

Seems an unnecessarily restrictive definition to my mind.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Citizenship isn't some right foreigners have in any country they want to become a citizen in. Liberia has no obligation to offer citizenship to -any- foreigner. This is not in any way comparable to denying rights to those that are already citizens.

Or, more importantly, who are not foreigners.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ah right. You're saying that apartheid only applies to regimes which exclude the majority? Not a minority.

Seems an unnecessarily restrictive definition to my mind.

Not my definition. Apartheid in an Afrikaans word which was used to describe their society. Thus, the word applied elsewhere is a metaphor for that policy in South Africa, and what I described is the situation that existed in South Africa at the time described as Apartheid.

It would be like calling something "a Holocaust." Holocaust isn't merely genocide, it describes a specific method and attitude about that genocide, and any label of Holocaust is a comparison to the original event which bore that name. Thus, the characteristics of that specific event must be present for the label to be valid.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Israel and Liberia have much in common. They were both created as refuges for the victims of hatred and oppression.

One has decided that despite calling itself secular that the state must retain its religious foundation above all else, despite the wishes of many of its residents and contrary to eventually bringing peace to the region.

The other was created by white Americans who thought that freed slaves should have the option to "go back to where they came from" to a different country in Africa than where they or their ancestors actually came. This historical basis have those who did so the desire to assure that their own country would forever be in control of the ancestors of the original victims.

Neither one makes any real sense on that same basis.

But the real difference, as others have pointed out, is that very few whites likely wish to become citizens of Liberia. But many Palestinians who have lived in what is now Israel for centuries are forbidden from doing so again under the absurd guise that they ostensibly all are potential "terrorists".

 

[Tahuti]

One has decided that despite calling itself secular that the state must retain its religious foundation above all else, despite the wishes of many of its residents and contrary to eventually bringing peace to the region.

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

Your statement about democracies "not being one thing" is what really confuses me. What could you possibly mean by that?

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.

What modern legal system allows thousands of Palestinians to be held without trial, even countless children whose only heinous criminal act was to throw a rock at a tank? What makes this even worse is the blatant double standard where the police and the IDF allow Israeli children to stone defenseless Palestinian women and children, as well as US human rights workers, without any fear of even being arrested. How many forbid someone from an adjoining country from even marrying a resident of their country? How many have enclosed the legal residents of a region they directly control with walls and guard towers, while the courts absurdly claim these acts are somehow outside their purview?

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.

Apartheid is more than that, it is rule by a minority composed of one race, which racially discriminates against and excludes the majority race of the country from the organs and operations of government and society. Hence the comparison between South Africa and Israel, and why this does not apply to Liberia.

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.

It's really funny when Europeans think this.

Why?

 

[classical_hero]

But the real difference, as others have pointed out, is that very few whites likely wish to become citizens of Liberia. But many Palestinians who have lived in what is now Israel for centuries are forbidden from doing so again under the absurd guise that they ostensibly all are potential "terrorists".

Like how Gaza is now [wiki]Judenfrei[/wiki] especially after many Jews have lived there for many millennia and were forced to relocate to placate the "Palestinians". Not that it did any good.

 

[JollyRoger]

Can you muster up something coherent for me?

Are you Liberia, South Africa, or Israel in this post?

 

[peter grimes]

All this talk about Israeli courts being powerless to check the abuses of the IDF that happen in the Palestinian Territories is very curious to me.

1. Israel sees all that surface of the Earth as its own, or shouldn't the courts naturally extend their bailiwick beyond the 1967 borders? Is this not an implicit acknowledgement that those settlements are illegitimate?

2. Why do laws governing citizens stop at borders? If you can restrict my citizenship rights based on my actions in one place, why does that power cease when I take one step further? If I'm sudden need of a consulate my country will help me, but if I rape some kids (FYI illegal in the USA) I won be held accountable?? That makes no sense.

 

[Tahuti]

All this talk about Israeli courts being powerless to check the abuses of the IDF that happen in the Palestinian Territories is very curious to me.

1. Israel sees all that surface of the Earth as its own, or shouldn't the courts naturally extend their bailiwick beyond the 1967 borders? Is this not an implicit acknowledgement that those settlements are illegitimate?

2. Why do laws governing citizens stop at borders? If you can restrict my citizenship rights based on my actions in one place, why does that power cease when I take one step further? If I'm sudden need of a consulate my country will help me, but if I rape some kids (FYI illegal in the USA) I won be held accountable?? That makes no sense.

Basically, it is a very unlucky design oversight: When Israel was created, back in the good old days when all the intellectuals supported Israel, none would actually expect its military to occupy an outside territory for a prolonged time. And yes, the settlements occupy a curious position in Israeli law: Crimes between and against Israeli civilians in Palestine can be punished by Israeli law, but only in settlements that are viewed as legal by the Israel government. For a time, Israel didn't approve of settlements at all and considered them all illegal until finally the ideological rifts between Israel and the settlers closed in the 1970ish.

The lawless situation is mostly in regards to the IDF: It has its own military courts and if soldiers go out of line, they are court martialed... usually. However, the said also occasionally engage in overreach when dealing with Palestinian protestors (in West Bank), for example, in which case the civilian courts have nothing whatsoever to deal with that, or when military courts fail to discipline out-of-line soldiers.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

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