As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Israeli Apartheid Week - Couldn't Think of An Funny Title
DarkCrawler
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
It is that time of the year again, when we look in amazement that a great many nations, despite their calls for democracy, equality and all those other nice things continue to support one of the last apartheid countries and the sole colonialist country in the world. So gather around, debate, discuss and comment on the situation.
(Technically Israeli Apartheid fortnight, lasting from March 7 to 26)
http://apartheidweek.org/
(If you don’t live in the northern ass-end of the universe like I do, you might be one of the people whose cities have actual tangible protests and demonstrations. Everyone is free to post here either way.)
I guess I should define the term here so we won’t spend the first few pages arguing about what is apartheid …
Apartheid? Israel isn’t South Africa!
There are two different definitions for apartheid.
I. The system of racial segregation practiced by South Africa between 1948-1993.
II. The legal definition, in other words the crime of apartheid as defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of the United Nations.
Obviously, this thread discusses the latter. Israel does not need to be identical to South Africa to meet the standards.
Which are…
Glad you asked!
Crime of Apartheid, as defined by ICSPCA :
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
Article II
For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
It’s pretty straight forward.
What is Israel/Some other country doesn’t do ALL that?
It applies to any single one of the acts described in that long list. So it (or any other country) only really needs to do just one. It is my belief that it does most of the things described there, which is what this thread will hopefully establish.
So now that the definition of apartheid is out of the way, people can debate whether Israel meets that definition or not!
Maybe we could establish one other thing too…
We are talking about citizens right, not West Bank because Israel is simply occupying it?
This is my other favorite point regarding Israel and something that also needs to be established. It’s claimed that Israel is doing the same thing that any other country has done in the past – similar to the occupation of Japan or West Germany by the allied powers after World War II. This means that people refuse to talk about West Bank Palestinians when discussing Israeli apartheid, just like Iraq isn’t discussed when rights of Americans are taken on account.
However in my opinion, there are several things that make Israel’s actions in West Bank well, colonialism. Honest to god 15th to 20th century European-style colonialism. Not military occupation.
I. Standards, laws, definitions etc. of military occupation
It probably goes without saying that Israel has broken most of the Articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories. Further demonstration, point by point can be given if requested in this thread.
The fact remains; you can’t break almost every standard and definition set to something and still claim that you are doing it. I can’t run around and claim that I am bicycling. I think everyone can agree on that at the least.
II. Duration of the claimed occupation
While there is no officially set limit to a military occupation, there is a point that it stops becoming temporary and starts becoming reality. Israel passed that point long, long ago. It has been 44 years, almost half a century, most likely nobody posting in this thread was alive at the start. Eleven times the occupation of West/East Germany. Six times the occupation of Japan. Five times the duration of the ISAF Afghanistan mission. Two times all of those put together.
The timeframe alone makes the military occupation argument dubious.
III. Israeli control over occupied territories.
There are hundreds of roadblocks, checkpoints, random inspections, gates or barriers in West Bank, in addition to the massive wall separating it from Israel proper. Military occupation does not require this much control over an area. Unless you need to protect civilians inside that area…
IV. Civilians.
There is no modern occupation where the occupying force has moved its civilians there to live and make profit. Half a million Israeli civilians live in West Bank, and have lived there for decades. The government officially recognizes them as citizens and the settlements as Israeli territory. We would get an equivalent if 28 million Americans had moved in Japan and would have started ruling over the territory.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Westbankjan06.jpg
And it’s not a house here and a kibbutz there either. Forty percent of West Bank area is Israeli infrastructure. 59% is directly administered by Israel.
V. Definitions of colonialism
Wikipedia defines colonialism as “A process whereby sovereignty over the colony is claimed by the metropole (colonizing country) and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonists - people from the metropole.”
There is no question about Israel having sovereignty over West Bank (directly over most of it), or it loudly proclaiming the right to exercise its will in the region. There is no question about the settlers changing the social structure and governance of the region, as well as the economic situation.
There are similar examples in the past. Most of the people in this thread live in living legacies of those examples. Only with those, we call them colonialism.
So yeah, I'm going to talk about West Bank here as well.
Alright, that is my stance on the issue. I’m prepared to defend it with links, proof and so on, and I would have included all of it in the OP, but this is already plenty long.
Debate! (and discuss)
(Technically Israeli Apartheid fortnight, lasting from March 7 to 26)
http://apartheidweek.org/
(If you don’t live in the northern ass-end of the universe like I do, you might be one of the people whose cities have actual tangible protests and demonstrations. Everyone is free to post here either way.)
I guess I should define the term here so we won’t spend the first few pages arguing about what is apartheid …
Apartheid? Israel isn’t South Africa!
There are two different definitions for apartheid.
I. The system of racial segregation practiced by South Africa between 1948-1993.
II. The legal definition, in other words the crime of apartheid as defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of the United Nations.
Obviously, this thread discusses the latter. Israel does not need to be identical to South Africa to meet the standards.
Which are…
Glad you asked!
Crime of Apartheid, as defined by ICSPCA :
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
Article II
For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
It’s pretty straight forward.
What is Israel/Some other country doesn’t do ALL that?
It applies to any single one of the acts described in that long list. So it (or any other country) only really needs to do just one. It is my belief that it does most of the things described there, which is what this thread will hopefully establish.
So now that the definition of apartheid is out of the way, people can debate whether Israel meets that definition or not!
Maybe we could establish one other thing too…
We are talking about citizens right, not West Bank because Israel is simply occupying it?
This is my other favorite point regarding Israel and something that also needs to be established. It’s claimed that Israel is doing the same thing that any other country has done in the past – similar to the occupation of Japan or West Germany by the allied powers after World War II. This means that people refuse to talk about West Bank Palestinians when discussing Israeli apartheid, just like Iraq isn’t discussed when rights of Americans are taken on account.
However in my opinion, there are several things that make Israel’s actions in West Bank well, colonialism. Honest to god 15th to 20th century European-style colonialism. Not military occupation.
I. Standards, laws, definitions etc. of military occupation
It probably goes without saying that Israel has broken most of the Articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories. Further demonstration, point by point can be given if requested in this thread.
The fact remains; you can’t break almost every standard and definition set to something and still claim that you are doing it. I can’t run around and claim that I am bicycling. I think everyone can agree on that at the least.
II. Duration of the claimed occupation
While there is no officially set limit to a military occupation, there is a point that it stops becoming temporary and starts becoming reality. Israel passed that point long, long ago. It has been 44 years, almost half a century, most likely nobody posting in this thread was alive at the start. Eleven times the occupation of West/East Germany. Six times the occupation of Japan. Five times the duration of the ISAF Afghanistan mission. Two times all of those put together.
The timeframe alone makes the military occupation argument dubious.
III. Israeli control over occupied territories.
There are hundreds of roadblocks, checkpoints, random inspections, gates or barriers in West Bank, in addition to the massive wall separating it from Israel proper. Military occupation does not require this much control over an area. Unless you need to protect civilians inside that area…
IV. Civilians.
There is no modern occupation where the occupying force has moved its civilians there to live and make profit. Half a million Israeli civilians live in West Bank, and have lived there for decades. The government officially recognizes them as citizens and the settlements as Israeli territory. We would get an equivalent if 28 million Americans had moved in Japan and would have started ruling over the territory.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Westbankjan06.jpg
And it’s not a house here and a kibbutz there either. Forty percent of West Bank area is Israeli infrastructure. 59% is directly administered by Israel.
V. Definitions of colonialism
Wikipedia defines colonialism as “A process whereby sovereignty over the colony is claimed by the metropole (colonizing country) and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonists - people from the metropole.”
There is no question about Israel having sovereignty over West Bank (directly over most of it), or it loudly proclaiming the right to exercise its will in the region. There is no question about the settlers changing the social structure and governance of the region, as well as the economic situation.
There are similar examples in the past. Most of the people in this thread live in living legacies of those examples. Only with those, we call them colonialism.
So yeah, I'm going to talk about West Bank here as well.
Alright, that is my stance on the issue. I’m prepared to defend it with links, proof and so on, and I would have included all of it in the OP, but this is already plenty long.
Debate! (and discuss)
DarkCrawler on
0
Posts
In the interim, certain segments of Israeli society, occasionally encouraged by their government, have started "settlements" in the West Bank. Over time, some of those settlements have grown into actual towns, which are very unlikely to be ever removed.
The realistic solution is some sort of land swap agreement, where the Palestinians get other land in exchange for the settlements. In terms of Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank, that is likely to remain limited unless/until the Palestinian government becomes something acceptable to Israel.
But no one is going to force Israel to do much of anything it doesn't want to. Israel has a big, powerful patron in the US, and no one really gives a shit about the Palestinians.
Rigorous Scholarship
Rigorous Scholarship
let's not pretend our support of Israel is in any way pragmatic
Yes, this exactly. From Iran to Al-Qaeda, instability and anti-American sentiment is almost entirely a function of our support for Israel; a relationship that doesn't benefit us in the slightest.
Al-Qaeda is because the US put troops in Saudi Arabia before Desert Storm. That decision on the US side was about oil, not Israel.
Osama doesn't care about Israel-Palestine, other than he's anti-Israel just because America is pro-Israel. He hates America for being an interloper in what he believed should have been a Arab nationalist defense of Saudi Arabia from Saddam.
Which is why the current situation is the next best thing to them, they get the area without having to give rights to the Palestinian subjects.
It's a great propaganda tool for them, and one of the stated reasons for their existence. And Osama isn't the only person in Al-Qaeda, I'd imagine that al-Zawahiri for example feels more antipathy towards the U.S.-Israel alliance.
While that might be true for Osama a lot of the early Al Qaeda leadership came from egypt and were angry because of the embarrassing military loss against israel and over the oppression by Mubarak and his ilk who were supported by the US, partially because of their policy towards Israel.
That said, Israel's strategic value to the US would seem to have been largely tied to the Soviet Union's power and their influence in the region. They made a nice Cuba, but those days are long gone. And with the surrounding states on the verge of democracy, we need to re-examine our relationship with them as our regional strong-man.
Foreign policy should be based on what is of use to our global interests. Going forward, if the dictatorships in the region crumble and are replaced with democracies, the people who are now controlling those democracies will demand our respect to maintain a relationship with them; as opposed to simply having to cater to the proclivities of a lone dictator. They may not like us now, but if our first step towards changing that is to de-emphasise our support of Israel, then it would seem folly not to do so. There is no reason to think that a good relationship with Israel is of more value than one with a democratic Iran, Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia could be; particularly those with massive oil-wealth. Not because of what that oil means to us, but because of the power that wealth could give the people to improve their nation.
If Saudi Arabia's oil wealth were being pumped into social infrastructure, education, and science instead of Yacht's and gold plated cars, you could have a nation that would make Norway look like a post-apocalyptic hellscape. Such a nation could be a valuable ally, or a considerable thorn in our side with broad international support. Controlling which way that relationship goes is very much in our interests.
Not continuing to enable their bellicosity and occupation of the Palestinian territories cannot reasonably be equated to "throwing a democracy to the wolves," which is exactly what many anti-Israel (or, more specifically, anti-Israel using US funds to kill civilians while also being a shitty ally in general) people want.
Their strategic use waned a very long time ago, and they have no moral right to our support in their current actions, and moreover, I'd argue that the relationship does not go both ways. Israel is the friend who is happy to mooch out of our fridge but when we need help moving he's busy every time.
Also, they killed many US service members with their monstrously evil / careless (depending on which account you choose to believe) bombing of the USS Liberty, which is something Americans should not easily forget.
democracies can be bad
Israel is on a long slide right now. Unless there's a change in direction it's bound to be a religious theocracy in a few decades.
I find it far more amazing that in 2011, after all that has happened to Jews throughout history, after all the persecution and racism and hatred, that this kind of OP can be created.
There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility. - President Theodore Roosevelt
al-Zawahiri is originally Egyptian Islamic Jihad. They merged with Al-Qaeda, but that came after Al-Qaeda had already started their war with the US.
Al-Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad didn't merge until the late 90s, long after Desert Storm. The first WTC in 1993, the Riyadh car bombing, and Khobar Towers all precede the merger of Al-Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
Al-Qaeda would hate Israel even if Israel was being run by Human Rights Watch. They're an ally of the US, end of story. Britain didn't build settlements in the West Bank, their subways still got bombed because they're allies of the US. Mubarak was an ally of the US too.
Yes, because what happend to the jews excuses their shitty behaviour.
The Jews do not have a monopoly on suffering.
Being against the actions of Israel is not the same thing as being against Jewish people.
Please note the bolded in your post, and then pay attention to how many times it was used in the OP or the rest of the thread.
Me too. People intuitively think that being a victim will give a person empathy and reflection that will drive them to do good, but in many cases they learn no lesson at all, or worse, become abusers themselves.
Israel's startling tone deafness to their imposition of religious and ethnic standards continues to surprise me. Even ignoring the occupied territories (which, as the OP pointed out is willful blindness rather than a legitimate distinction), Israel still treats its own citizens poorly when they aren't the right type of person:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_absentee
is one example of many.
It's also worth noting, if we're playing misery poker, that both Holocaust survivors and survivors of the South African Apartheid regime have both condemned the discriminatory, murderous, and heavy handed policies of Israel. But more importantly, a rapist who was in a concentration camp is still a rapist, and a person who engages in collective punishment and economic attacks against the already impoverished is a person who engages in collective punishments and economic violence against the impoverished regardless of what happened to them, or more likely at this point, people who aren't them. A tough past is not a free pass for current wrongdoing.
Israel gets its support from the US the same way anyone with money does. A huge lobby group pushing their interests and engaging in mutual back scratching with people in power. It doesn't hurt that there is a large Jewish vote in the US either. Plus they buy a lot of American made weapons.
No one gives a flying fuck about how democratic they pretend to be or even their supposed strategic value.
Turns out, not all the Jews in the world live in Israel! Shocking! Even more shocking, not everyone who lives in Israel is a Jew!
The idea that Israel = The Jews, and thus what is good for Israel is good for the Jews and what is done to Israel is done to the Jews, is what has allowed Israel to do what its done over the last 40ish years. Also, if you support the idea that Israel should do whatever is best for the Jews, you are supporting apartheid. A quarter of the populace is not Jewish.
If it wants to be a state not deserving of some form of massive reformation, Israel needs to make some big changes here. It doesn't represent the large Arab populace in its own borders, and that doesn't even bring the occupation into account.
I see what you did there.
Kind of hoping this post was made ironically.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
The only nitpick that I would have with the OP is that Israel isn't the Sole colonialist country in the world. China is engaging in these policies in Xinjiang and Tibet, and Brazil is pushing indiginous tribes off their land (although that isn't really official government policy, just that they can't control their frontiers or enforce the laws protecting the tribes. But the net result is the same).
Indonesia is probably also doing this kind of stuff in Irian Jaya as well, but I that place hasn't been in the news in a while. And who knows what's happening in Myanmar? I don't think the Karen are doing all that well, but I haven't heard anything about their kiddie messiahs recently, so hopefully they're hanging on.
Perhaps, China has annexed those two regions and given everyone citizenship though. It's all "this is China, this has always been China and everyone here is Chinese". They are trying to assimilate everyone to the same culture, not segregate people. It's equally awful but in a different way. Everything in Israel is geared towards separating the groups - worse then South Africa in West Bank, stealthy in Israel proper. There isn't even an Israeli nationality because the government literally refuses to recognize that such thing exists.
Not an expert on those other two so I can't comment on that. I would imagine that everyone inside the borders are at the very least recognized as citizens of Myanmar/Indonesia?
It's much closer to a really big, republican oligarchy.
"Israel" isn't some hive mind. It's made up of a variety of groups with different ideologies and interests.
Rigorous Scholarship
There's nothing remarkable about it. Most child abusers were themselves abused as children.
Right now Israel's political scene is dominated by militaristic hardliners and religious fundamentalists. The Arab population is virtually unrepresented and the liberal parties are very marginalized.
Not really a democracy.
edit: Certain parties were to be banned from elections, but it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
The Israeli nation has a national and historic right to the whole of Israel. However, in order to maintain a Jewish majority, part of the Land of Israel must be given up to maintain a Jewish and democratic state.
- Kadima, official political platform
The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.
- Likud, official charter
Don't think I have to post the stances of Yisrael Beiteneu or Shas. Those four, alongside with Labor (whose stance I could not discern) are voted by vast majority of Israeli voters. Israel wants West Bank. This is not based on words alone, everything Israel has done and continues to do continues to demonstrate it. I'm not really sure where you get the ambivalence part. The segments that want West Bank are easily a half of the population - right wing voters, ultra-orthodox, settlers, developers, and so on. If their interests drive the issue, then the ambivalent ones don't really matter in the larger picture.
And I'm referring to the government and it's driving ideologies when talking about Israel. For some reason this is never an issue when talking about any other country...
I'm not really going to call any colonial state democracy. British people could vote, that doesn't mean that the Empire was a democratic country. If a certain subset of population enjoys full rights and the rest don't, then it is only a democracy when you ignore parts of the population.
But there's nothing like that on the table, so the settlements are going to keep growing through inertia, if nothing else.
It is what it is, I guess. The current situation isn't horrible.
Rigorous Scholarship
Like lifting Israel into orbit Asteroid M style?
I'm sure NASA could get on that.
they've made that much obvious
Rigorous Scholarship
Then maybe it's time to stop using the "but we're at WAR" justification for every awful thing they do
what
Rigorous Scholarship
Oh come on. There is no Auschwitz in Israel. The situation is shitty but could very easily be much, much worse than it is now. That's not suggesting that everything's fine and dandy, move along please, nothing to see here, but some perspective is necessary.
I want to know what the worst thing they've done is.