This might be a factual question, but in Jimmy correct that there is an open debate about Israel practicing a form of apartheid in the Israeli public sphere?
There are some similarities to the practices of pre-1990 South Africa, but the situations aren’t identical so the “apartheid” label is arguable.
If “apartheid” was a more general descriptor of the ethnic policies of several nations, rather than South Africa solely, a better (but less emotional) claim might work. As far as I know, SA-apartheid wasn’t just “lock up large segments of the population” but an entire legal hierarchy of rights and privileges based on one’s background. Are there “second class” citizens in Israel (serious question - if the answer is “Israeli Arabs” I’d like specifics)? Are the Palestinians de facto citizens of Israel?
And also, if Israel has “apartheid”, what solution do you suggest? I don’t think South Africa’s approach would quite work.
Here are some specifics.
Out of curiosity, regarding the quote in that thread:
What happens if a Jewish Israeli marries someone from “over the wall”? The quote says Israeli Arabs don’t serve in the military. Can they? Are Israeli Arabs excluded from various universities and other means to get good jobs? I don’t know the answers to any of these. Further, is a Palestinian “living abroad” a citizen? Isn’t that more a matter of immigration policy than anything else? But even if all of these are applied in the most negative manner, I don’t see how they approach South African apartheid and are deserving of that label.
Expanding this to include the Palestinians, who are not Israeli citizens, makes it even less analogous.
Jews, Druze, and Circissians are the only ones subject to mandatory service. Arabs can volunteer, but other than Bedouins, most don’t. There were a few non-Bedouin Arabs who were killed in the line of duty a few years ago, though. At the time Moshe Arens wrote an editorial in Haaretz memorializing them (and calling for changes in IDF policy)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=517073
I dunno, but how often do you think that happens?
The point is that Israel has a “law of return” :rolleyes: for Jews born anywhere in the world, but Palestinians whose parents or grandparents lived within territory Israel now claims can’t take advantage of it.
In some ways the situation of Arabs and/or Muslims in Israeli territory is better than that of nonwhites in Apartheid South Africa, and in some respects worse. Carter simply fixed on a word he knew would resonate with American liberals – an entirely reasonable and defensible choice.
I honestly couldn’t say. I gather, then, we have no evidence that the treatment of Israelis in regard to marriage to Palestinians varies?
Well, do you have a claim on citizenship to whatever nation your grandparents came from (assuming, of course, that they didn’t come from whatever nation you happen to already be a citizen of). It’s a law that doesn’t affect Israeli Arabs except in the tenuous sense that they can’t as easily bring in their relatives. I don’t see the suffering, or at least the suffering greater than most people trying to bring in relatives through an immigration bureaucracy. Israel isn’t under any obligation to throw open the door to peoples from places that historically have been very hostile to Israel.
Are you claiming by your rather dismissive eye-roll that the law of return is not justifiable (or, if you prefer, “reasonable and defensible”) by 20th-century events?
Well, you’ll have to make the distinction - Israeli Arabs living as Israeli citizens, or the people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank? They’re not citizens of Israel, as oppressed nonwhites were citizens of South Africa. In fact, what would the response of apartheid-era South Africa been to the attacks on Israeli territory and citizens from those territories? Better? Worse?
“Apartheid” is a handy buzzword, but I dispute its accuracy while you embrace it. That’s life.
Carter is explicitly referring to policies in the Occupied Territories, not Israel itself.
I think the point here is that the law of return is based on a mythical connection with the land rather than an actual connection through settlement, cultivation and agriculture.
However, whoever has the biggest guns wins the land anyway … right?
No, the law of return is based on the fact that Israel was designed as a refuge for Jews around the world. Nothing to do with mythology; nothing to do with rights, either. It’s purely a practical measure.
Now, BrainGlutton, antechinus et al, I have a question for you: do you support some type of peace agreement between Israel and Palestine?
I think Carter’s mistake lies in the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved if Israel changes its ways.
The only thing Israel can do to bring about an end to the conflict is to cease to exist. Carter is an idiot, so he is subject to one of the common mistakes of the well-meaning but stupid - one side, it is absolutely clear, is not going to change. Therefore, all the pressure is brought to bear on the other side, even if that side has relatively less to do with the sources of the conflict.
Regards,
Shodan
No one has yet to answer the OP, which isn’t “Is the situation in Israel/Palestine really apartheid?” but rather, “Are Israelis actually having open and honest debates about the issue of whether or not their system is apartheid, while we here in the USA are unable to even talk about the issue?”
Whatever the situation is in Israel (of which our Israeli posters would have a better notion than I), the question is based on a demonstratably false premise - namely, that “we here in the USA are unable to even talk about the issue”.
When an ex-President of the United States is able to publish a book with that issue in its very title, is seems bizzare to me to argue that the issue cannot be raised.
Once again, someone with an axe to grind is misinterpreting critisism and ridicule for lack of free debate, when often they are the essence and by-product respectively of free debate. My guess is that the reaction in the US to his book has been pretty negative, and his way of explaining this is not to question his own writings, but to blame the audience for not being receptive.
The notion raised by Jimmy in the quote in the OP that “debate” on this issue is freer in the Arab world than in the US is pretty telling. Like many a partisan on any issue, he appears to be mistaking eager acceptance for his particular point of view for “free and open debate”. No doubt people in the Arab world are “free” to “debate” the notion that Israel practices Aparthied!
Reminds me of an old joke. Immediately after WW2, a Russian and an American soldier are sharing a drink at a bar in Berlin. The American boasts: “our country is the greatest in the world - I can say loudly in public, any time I please, that I hate the President of the United States and everything for which he stands, and I have a perfect right to do so”. The Russian then says “well, in that case, my country is also the greatest in the world. I too can say loudly in public, any time I please, that I hate the President of the United States and everything for which he stands, and I have a perfect right to do so!”.
Yes.
In apartheid SA, blacks (as opposed to “coloreds” – those of mixed race) were not legally citizens of SA. The theory was that they were citizens of their respective bantustans; which was held to justify requiring them to carry passes whenever they were in SA proper, even if they lived there full-time and never even visited, or had not even been born in, their nominal bantustan homelands.
Yes; but it would have to include Palestine controlling all of its own borders not contiguous to Israel (i.e., its borders with Eqypt and Jordan), and evacuation of all Israeli settlements on the West Bank (or, at least, abandonment of them – i.e., the IDF would not go in and force settlers to leave, but neither would it guarantee their safety).
But that idea is not practical. To designate one tiny area of the world–smack dab in the Middle East, mind you–as a potential refuge for millions of people worldwide who share nothing in common except a cultural/religious identity, with the expectation that such a move would not cause the very type of conflicts that the refuge was supposed to ward against, is really not practical at all.
Persecution is a people problem, not just a Jewish one. If every persecuted people decided to make an area “theirs” for the purposes of protection, the world would be a much more violent place than it is today. Imagine the craziness that would result if Western blacks, fed up with racism and discrimination, decided that the “law of return” made them entitled to settle in South Africa? Would opening the floodgates to all these people, to hell with those who have been living there for generations, be practical? Would it be right?
Here’s something interesting concerning Carter’s statement referenced in the OP:
I can understand a desire to not cross verbal swords with a lawyer who is also a partisan: but a debate request being “proof” that his subject is taboo in America?
I’m afraid that Carter is veering into tinfoil hat territory on this one.
If that’s a major aspect of apartheid, what’s the Israeli analogy? Aren’t Arabs born in Israel full-blown citizens of Israel, who can live there full time? The problem comes from including the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of Israel, when these were actually invaded by Israel as an act of self-preservation since they were being used at staging grounds to attack Israel.
My own ideal solution is for the West Bank and Gaza to declare themselves as mini-nations and start building up local industries with the intent of peaceful co-existence. Second choice would be for Jordan and Egypt just annex them, give the people there full citizenship rights (for what that’s worth) and occupy them with professional troops with the mandate to crack down on any attempt to cross into Israel with bombers or missiles of other attacks.
And I’d like a pony.
Just another note that there is already a thread about the “apartheid” smear and why many of us belief it is pure inflamatory rhetoric. The op here was asking if there is an ongoing open debate in Israel about it. And of course there is a broad range of views in Israel from the extreme Right colonolists who still dream of a Greater Israel, to Orthodox who attend Iran’s Holocaust denial conference, to extreme Leftists who believe that Israel should dissolve, and everywhere in between and elsewhere on the spectrum. No shortage of opinions and debates on everything. But, to the best of my knowledge, those who would characterize Israeli policies as apartheid are even more marginalized that those who would promote a Greater Isreal as a realistic goal, which means damn marginalized. Even Gush Shalom(!) (who represent an extreme leftist position and who use the “apartheid” word themselves and are infamous for publishing maps of proposals that everyone who was there says are false) object to extending the analogy too far
I defer to our Israeli mebers, but I believe that the answer is “no”, no real debate.