My understanding of Israeli law is that settlers (and IDF members) routinely violate the law in their violations of Palestinians’ rights, but are generally not prosecuted for political reasons. So an “easy” means would be to actually enforce the law.
…in my opinion, I’ve got the option of either listening to the opinion of the International Court of Justice, that had “52 states and three international organizations presenting legal arguments”, the most in the history of the court, that determined that " holding that the Palestinian territories constitute one political unit and that Israel’s occupation since 1967, and the subsequent creation of Israeli settlements and exploitation of natural resources, are illegal under international law", or you, who has admitted they haven’t even read the advisory opinion and asked the board to summarise it for them.
I’ll listen to the ICJ thanks. The occupation is illegal. And apartheid is bad. Isreal should stop doing apartheid. And end the occupation.
Well, in that case you are describing a system that lacks rule of law, as opposed to a system that weaponizes rule of law like apartheid and Jim Crow. I think you are now asking for a defense of something very different than open religious discrimination and dual legal systems. You seem to be asking now for a moral reason to not only break the law, but to break the law for the express purpose of violating human rights. There are some things even I won’t defend.
~Max
As a metaphor, imagine that black catholics set up their own state in Mississippi, but white nationalists surrounded them. The white nationalists are full of rage and want to create a racially pure ethnostate by killing and deporting all the black people so they can reclaim the territory for white protestants.
Meanwhile leftists (I’m a leftist myself FWIW) in China who know nothing about American culture keep saying that the black people are practicing apartheid because they refuse to let rage filled white supremacists who want to kill them walk around freely in society without extra security, and they deem this extra security as apartheid. The leftists in China want to be the next martin luther king jr, and think that this issue is a good one to feed their sense of moral superiority and pretend they are the next heroic civil rights movement. so they largely ignore all the mass suppression and torture happening on earth and obsess over this issue because it fits their narrative
Their best defense? Good question, so I thought I would research how many times they’ve been militarily threatened and/or attacked.
How about this.
Since 1948, Israel has been attacked in eight major state-level wars, in addition to thousands of localized conflicts, rocket attacks, and multi-front military engagements by various militant factions and neighboring states.
The eight major wars in which Israel was attacked or faced invading forces include:
- 1948 Arab-Israeli War: Invaded by a coalition of five Arab states following its declaration of independence.
- 1956 Suez Crisis: Initiated after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal and tensions escalated over blockades.
- 1967 Six-Day War: Israel launched a preemptive strike after Egypt, Jordan, and Syria mobilized troops, imposed blockades, and expelled UN peacekeepers.
- 1968-1970 War of Attrition: A prolonged series of artillery and air strikes primarily with Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO.
- 1973 Yom Kippur War: A surprise, coordinated invasion launched by Egypt and Syria on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.
- 1982 Lebanon War: Following continuous cross-border attacks, Israel invaded southern Lebanon to expel the PLO.
- 2006 Lebanon War: A month-long conflict sparked when Hezbollah cross-border forces attacked Israeli patrols and fired rockets.
- 2023-Present Conflict: Began with an unprecedented, multi-front, coordinated surprise attack led by Hamas, followed by cross-border escalations from Hezbollah in Lebanon and missile strikes from other regional actors.
Between and during these major engagements, Israel has endured constant low-intensity attacks. These include decades of rocket barrages from militant factions in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, major localized uprisings (the First and Second Intifadas), and drone and missile attacks launched by regional state and proxy actors. For a broader perspective on the ongoing nature of these engagements, check out the Council on Foreign Relations Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Timeline.
…I don’t recall asking for a metaphor.
I was asking for specifics. What people do you think should be allowed to subjected to an “apartheid-like system”?
Yeah, well, your metaphor fails here because it isn’t just “leftists” who say Isreal are practicing apartheid.
It’s the International Court of Justice. (Cite already provided.)
Human Rights Watch.
Ammnesty International.
B’Tselem.
https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid
Tamir Pardo, former head of Mossad.
Nah.
It’s apartheid.
The International Court of Justice disagrees that this is a reasonable defence of apartheid-like systems.
There really isn’t a good defence of apartheid.
In the last four years Israel have committed genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, terrorist attacks in Lebanon and have ethnically cleansed and are illegally occupying much of Southern Lebanon now; they murdered Iranian scientists in their sleep, assassinated practically the entire leadership of Iran and Yemen.
None of that is a defence of apartheid.
And a contingent of Chinese right-wingers loudly proclaims its support for China’s Black Catholics, while tacitly hoping those same Black Catholics would move to the Mississippi Black Catholic enclave to hasten the Second Coming of Qi…
Let’s just ignore the Nakba in the room and continue the well-trodden narrative that poor innocent newborn Israel was just attacked for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than blind hatred for Jews.
How does any of that remotely justify ongoing apartheid/segregation, separate systems and disparate enforcement of law, routine brutalization and human rights’ violations of Palestinians, and the like?
Are you saying this metaphor would justify ongoing apartheid/segregation, separate systems and highly disparate enforcement of law, and routine brutalization and human rights’ violations?
@Wesley_Clark, you never did answer this question.
I just love it when people who have never experienced incessant attacks over years and years ask questions like these. We’ve done a hell of a lot more to nations who have never set foot on our shores. I’d like to see what we would do to, say, Mexico if they were constantly firing missals at El Paso, Houston, San Diego, etc. Answer: We’d utterly crush them, and our population would be cheering our military on.
I can’t tell what you’re trying to convey in relation to the OP. Are you saying that, because of the long history of attacks against Israel, you support the ongoing apartheid/segregation, separate systems and disparate enforcement of law, and routine brutalization and human rights’ violations of Palestinian civilians? Or are you saying you don’t think it matters? Or something else?
I’m saying that the quickest way to get Israel to modify their methodology is to STOP ATTACKING THEM.
But what does that have to do with the OP? Or are you saying that if a country is attacked a bunch of times, you think they are justified in violating the human rights of civilians if they are part of a population that has been involved in some of these past attacks?
Okay, I’m Jasmine McCoy and you are iiandyiiii Hatfield. We’ve been at severe odds for more time than anyone alive can remember. A couple of the people in my home have traveled to your home and attacked it on numerous occasions, only to avoid retribution by running back to my home. Surprises of surprises, you show up at my home one day and kick the crap out of all of us. Just because I personally was never involved in the attacks on you doesn’t absolve me from responsibility and payback. If I had controlled my own people, I wouldn’t be in a world of hurt, now would I!
Some people think that, if I attacked someone and ran back to my country and hid my troops and munitions under a hospital, I should be immune from attack and/or justice. They evidently believe that “someone” would just have to suffer incessant attacks, damage, and deaths because, hey, they’re just out of luck. I’m afraid I don’t agree, and I also believe it is rather hypocritical to attack Israel on this when we would do that and far more if we being victimized in the same way.
Oh goodie, what non-leftists will you quote?
I guess one out of five isn’t as bad as it could have been, namely zero out of five. But listing B’Tselem as an example of a non-Leftist organization is just hilarious.
This is a defense of collateral damage. The reality of Israel’s system is that people born in occupied territories become second class citizens regardless of if some unfortunate side effect of war. They effectively have no right to travel freely and own land and any rights they have on paper are not backed up by any real institutional protection. None of that can be explained only by collateral damage or any kind of legitimate counterinsurgency.
No one reasonable just thinks Israel should accept hamas murdering their people them and never retaliate if some innocent civillians die. Israel’s occupation is (accurately) described as aapartheid because of how Palestinians in occupied territories experience second class citizenship in ways not plausibly related to any defense need.
What does any of this have to do with the OP? This thread isn’t about the war on Hamas. It’s about the treatment of Palestinian civilians.
Well, I was answering your questions about my first post. In which case, it would be only fair to say that we both strayed from the OP.