…but this isn’t what “defence is best”. Because what you are describing isn’t a “defence” but a rationalisation. It’s an excuse for evil behaviour.
This is the best rationalisation for evil behaviour. But the behaviour is still evil.
But that’s what apartheid-like systems are. It is what it means. What do you think an apartheid-like system actually is?
I don’t appreciate the distinction, but I think we agree on substance.
~Max
Ideallly, the West Bank would be Arab territory, yes, but the time when it was possible to be reabsorbed into Jordan has long since passed, and until the locals can establish a stable democracy it’s not feasible to just pull back to the 1967 line and leave them to their own devices.
…the ANC was designated as a terrorist organisation at the time. Let’s not start rewriting history.
And it isn’t a “small ask.” These aren’t one-to-one comparisons.
You mean while they’ve been illegally occupied and subject to cruel and inhuman behaviour?
I’m asking because:
You didn’t just “overstate” your case. You have gotten it completely and utterly wrong. It isn’t correct to characterise the ICJ as the UN for starters.
And this characterisation is completely wrong.
That isn’t what happened.
You are literally quoting what I’ve already told you.
The court was never ever going to immediately confirm those allegations. The Bosnian genocide case took fourteen years.
These interim measures weren’t just “asking Israel to play nice”. They were orders to preserve evidence. They were orders to “desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the convention.” This was not insignificant. And it certainly wasn’t a case of the “the UN reviewed the evidence and decided that no genocide was occurring in Gaza.”
For goodness sakes. I’ve been talking about this case on these boards since 2023. I’ve read the South African submission multiple times and cited it directly over and over again. The very last person you want to be giving a lecture to on it here is me.
You’ve got it completely wrong. So absolutely confidently wrong.
Except that’s not true. Israelis have continued settlement expansion, with accompanying abuse of Palestinian individuals and property that generally goes unpunished, both during intifada uprisings and during times of peaceful protest, in both militant and nonmilitant Palestinian communities.
I no longer believe any of these hypothetical assurances that if only the Palestinians will manage to coordinate a complete cessation of all resistance and/or terror hostilities by all disaffected Palestinian groups and individuals simultaneously, for an unspecified duration that will be arbitrarily judged sufficient or insufficient by Israelis alone, then Israeli forces, politicians and settlers will stop oppressing them.
Bullshit, sez I. I get that a whole lot of Israelis are indeed more or less indifferently sincere about being willing to leave Palestinians alone if Palestinians leave them alone, but those aren’t the Israelis who are setting up the apartheid policies and planning and executing further settlement expansion and carrying out “price tag” attacks. There is a whole swathe of the Israeli right wing that is very committed to continuing to provoke militant aggression by Palestinians, because that’s their hall pass to go on with their intended annexation of territory and resources.
If every Palestinian in the world somehow magically met their arbitrary standards of zero hostilities, the Israeli-supremacists would just shift the goalposts again and carry on with what they claim to be justified retaliation. And the larger Israeli society would do nothing to stop them. It has dawned on me that just as most Americans don’t really care about injustice and abuse carried out in our name by our government against illegal immigrants, most Israelis don’t really care about injustice and abuse inflicted on Palestinians. They don’t have to care, because they can always tell themselves “well, they started it” and “if they’d stop, we’d stop”, neither of which is fully true.
You think the one argument unequivocally made up out of myths and provably bad archaeology and history is the best one?
Not up on your Joshuah?
I just read Shinna Minna Ma’s thread from 2010, and was not surprised to learn he moved to the West Bank for religious reasons. If I may appropriate Lemur866’s remark:
Add orthodox Jewish beliefs:
Taken together, these all but ensure “democracy” must give way, justifying the dual apartheid-like system that persists to present day. But note: this is not an ideal outcome for anybody. (Meir Kahana advocated for outright ethnic cleansing.)
~Max
South Africa wasn’t continuously occupied, blockaded and invaded post-1994.
And Nelson Mandela never called for the death of all whites.
And Kahanism is rightly considered terroristic under Israeli law.
I don’t see what archeology and history has to do with it. Zionism is a religious belief, and the area now known as the West Bank has always been included in biblical Israel (see Ezekiel) regardless of archaeology or history.
Nor do I personally think biblical Joshua treated Canaanites as subhumans. They were full fledged humans that God commanded the Israelites to destroy, and that is an important rationale behind the ritual washing after battle.
~Max
You don’t see what archaeology or history has to do with a false claim to exclusive ownership of a territory?
The “biblical Israel” of Ezekiel [1] didn’t exist, it was destroyed in 720 BCE. Biblical Judah was shortly to follow.
Pedantic nitpickery. They treated them as life unworthy of life, literally. Not even all Untermenschen were treated like that by the Nazis, but the Canaanites were certainly commanded to be treated that way by Joshuah.
Ritual ablution comes into it for touching the carcass of an unclean animal, too. Not just reserved for killing people.
Other ANC people did. Or at least, that’s what (some of) the Whites will tell you - and Trump.
The part that actually includes the bulk of the West Bank ↩︎
I don’t, in this case, because the claim is not archaeological or historical.
Irrelevant. If I say the literary land of Oz includes the area now known as Kansas, you might refute my claim by showing the literary land of Oz is described in the literature as a place distinct from Kansas.
Yes, of course. I thought you were making a very different point, and apologize.
~Max
Are you pulling my leg? It very much is a historical claim.
Not at all.
Irrelevant. Both Israel and Judah were very much real and did cover the territories under discussion. Just not historically persistent, exclusively Jewish, or anything else the Zionists claim.
I guess the precise argument you get depends on the person you talk to. For many Jews, Zionism is limited by the historical record and where it attests to the boundaries of ancient Hebrew kingdoms. Not so for the best defense of Israel’s West Bank policies. The best defense is based on traditional/orthodox Jewish belief that the Torah, prophets, and rabbinic oral tradition are true, tie messianism to the biblical land of Israel (including the area corresponding to the West Bank), promise the land to Jewish tribes as inheritances, and command Jews to pray for the rebuilding of the temple and reestablishment of a Jewish kingdom in that land on a daily basis. Within that tradition, it is debatable whether modern Israel is a step to establishing that kingdom, not whether the claim extends to the West Bank.
~Max
Why is this the best defense? It’s mythical nonsense, at least to an atheist Jew like me. The “best defense” I’m looking for is some sort of logical, rational construct that explains how these apartheid policies, and allowance for brutality and rights violations of Palestinian civilians, are necessary for security. I’m skeptical there is such an argument, but maybe someone out there can prove me wrong.
> Well, it’s arguably at the core of zionism. The concept of Eretz Israel being the - mythical(?) - boundaries of the “Kingdom of David” or the Hasmonean Kingdom at its largest.
“It has already been said that when the State was established it held only six percent of the Jewish people remaining alive after the Nazi cataclysm. It must now be said that it has been established in only a portion of the Land of Israel. Even those who are dubious as to the restoration of the historical frontiers, as fixed and crystallised and given from the beginning of time, will hardly deny the anomaly of the boundaries of the new State.”
David Ben-Gurion Government Year-book, 5713, 1952
“It is called the ‘State of Israel’ because it is part of the Land of Israel and not merely a Jewish State. The creation of the new State by no means derogates from the scope of historical Eretz Israel.”
Government Year-book, 5716, 1955
That area includes just about all of Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza.
> Quotes from - what the usual suspects will call leftist - Wikipedia:
Herut and Gush Emunim were among the first Israeli political parties basing their land policies on the Biblical narrative discussed above. They attracted attention following the capture of additional territory in the 1967 Six-Day War. They argue that the West Bank should be annexed permanently to Israel for both ideological and religious reasons.
The 2018 Nation-state law references the “Land of Israel”, defining it “the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established,” and restricts the right to self-determination within both the Land/State “as unique to the Jewish people” (whether they are citizens of Israel or not). Neither the borders of the Land of Israel, nor those of the State, are defined in the text of the Law, and interpretations over the extent of the boundaries of the Promised Land of the bible vary widely.
Whether this is the best, or even any, defense of the current policy is one thing. My reading is that for some people, the end justifies the means.
Didn’t used to be. Early Zionism was overwhelmingly secular.
Or me. However, I think @Max_S is right that it is indeed at the heart of Israeli expansionist policy.
We can’t just naively demand a valid rational secular ethical justification for Israeli’s apartheid-like policies in the OT, while ignoring the reality that the underlying framework of the policies is a very widespread assumption that these people just don’t belong here, because this land is ours”.
I don’t know, the usual argument given here is that Israel is the only safe place for Jews and that it’s only safe when it’s a Jewish ethnostate. Religion didn’t used to enter into it at all.
Give me the best defense of the Confederate States of America without defending slavery, because I think slavery is wrong. I mean yeah, plenty of people sided with the Confederacy out of loyalty, security, and economic reasons, but those are all secondary to the defense of slavery. Most of the people who actually drove the civil war thought the defense of slavery was rational. If slavery weren’t an issue, all the other defenses would crumble away. So is your goal is to understand what “advocates/defenders/rationalizers of the status quo think,” as you wrote in the original post? Or do you really want someone to personally convince you that apartheid is justified?
At any rate, Israel’s West Bank policies are arguably necessary for security if the expanding settlements and Jewish identity of Israel are faits accomplis and open ethnic cleansing is off the table. You cannot simply stop expansion because that interferes with expanding settlements. You cannot integrate the Palestinian population because that destroys the Jewish identity of Israel. Openly removing or forcibly converting the Palestinian population is off the table. The Palestinians, for good reason, are within their rights to resist their occupation. So how do you deal with the Palestinian people if you cannot make them citizens, cannot remove them, and cannot let them be?
Israel’s West Bank policy is not an independent goal. I have argued, multiple times, that nobody actually supports Israel’s West Bank policy as an end unto itself. Arguably Israel’s oppressive security policies are necessary to manage the contradiction between Israel’s other goals and the continued existence of the Palestinian people.
~Max