politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The Arabs who serve in the military, other than Jewish Arabs, are Bedouin and Druze, whose 'community leaders' chose to participate in conscription because military service is fundamental to success in Israeli society. Palestinians often regard them as the worst, not because of a sense of betrayal but because Arabs in the IDF often feel the need to prove which side they're on. The Israeli refuseniks are, for the most part, able to refuse because their family is willing and able to support them economically.
Palestinian-Israelis do not (and cannot) serve in the military, along with the most extreme in the settler-movement ( a sore point for many Israelis, who are forced to do national service to keep these extremists safe in occupied territory).
The apartheid charge is (largely) based on the different laws and rights which apply to citizens of Israel vs Palestinians under occupation. Israel does treat its Arab citizens and, especially, East Jerusalemites (who have residency but not citizenship) , differently in many ways. But, even if you insist on ignoring the racist minutiae of Israeli law, you don't get to say they're responsible only for their citizens (+/- permanent residents). They're maintaining an apartheid system in the Occupied Territories (and East Jerusalem) and you don't get to pretend that this somehow doesn't count
Israelis are Israeli. Palestinians are Palestinian. There is Palestinian law and Israeli law. Two separate places, much like any other places in this world.
Where in the world are the state of Palestine's sovereign rights recognized? Do they have control of their own borders? What is the name of their ambassador to the UN?
Riyad Mansour. A better example would be "who controls Palestinians' birth register and therefore who is legally a Palestinian?" Or "who controls the currency and decides the monetary policy for Palestinians?". Not to mention water, electricity, gas, communications, movement, even whether or not Palestinians get to sleep on any given night.
Thus the 2 state solution.
There is no Palestinian state. Israel is the (illegal) occupying power and has been since 1967, with a stated intent for the Occupation to be permanent. The system is closely equivalent to South African apartheid, with genocidal intent on top.
Words have meaning. Israel cannot maintain a permanent Occupation, controlling everything and everyone entering or exiting the Occupied Territories, and also pretend that Palestinians are responsible for their own wellbeing. That's not how it works and if you were under the impression that it is, you have some reading to do.
There are no Israeli in Palestine. They were forcibly removed by Israel years ago. There was no occupation. Words have meaning.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand on that because it looks like a denial of reality. Are you under the impression that Israel is keeping Israelis under occupation?
There are many older Israelis who regard themselves as Palestinian Jews ("I didn't come to Israel, Israel came to me"). There are many Israelis living in the Occupied Territories, and many of the non-militant amongst them say they would choose to become Palestinians in the event of a two state solution.
I'm not sure if you know these people exist but you also seem to be having trouble acknowledging that Palestinians exist and are the ones who are living under occupation and that is ... a bit of a headfuck. Can you explain yourself a little more clearly?
Israel's plan of unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and North Samaria put forward by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was carried out on 15 August 2005. The purpose of the plan was to improve Israel's security and international status in the absence of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
There are Palestinians that do live in Israel, and are therefore under Israeli law. Sometimes those laws can be onerous.
Ever heard of the West Bank? Know anything about the blockade of Gaza? Which planet are you on?
I'm curious: do you consider every single military occupation an "apartheid"? I think this concept took hold in western media with the recent Oct 7 attacks but the reality is Gaza and South Africa have very little in common. Apartheid, definitionally, was used to describe a very particular situation and set of circumstances that affected people of color within a singular state. You wouldn't say 'Russia is committing "apartheid" because they occupied Crimea', would you? Don't get me wrong: there is clearly a military occupation in place and an ongoing war along with a blockade. But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right? What am I missing?
Most military occupations are not done with the intent of stealing the land and replacing the existing population with settlers. The British occupation of Northern Ireland did have characteristics of apartheid, and is probably the closest parallel available to Palestine/Israel.
No. The Oslo accords established a Palestinian government but not a Palestinian state. Israel retained complete control of Area C, partial control of Area B, and the ability to blockade Area A..
The last Palestinian elections were held in 2006 and Hamas won a landslide in both Gaza and the West Bank, a reaction to the corruption of the PA and its willingness to act as little more than a security service for Israel.
Hamas set about expelling the PLO (a group of secular parties dominated by Fatah) from Gaza. In response the PLO (which is essentially synonymous with the PA these days) pulled off a coup in the West Bank and installed itself there, without the consent of the Palestinian people.
I just wanted to say thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, but I'm still not convinced that Apartheid, definitionally, accurately describes this situation. I think it would be a lot more helpful if people familiarized themselves with the origins of SA Apartheid. You are right that the Oslo accords did not confer a Palestinian state, but the option was proffered multiple times but the Palestinians did not accept the proposed boundaries. I'm familiar with the zones. You yourself concede that Israelis are living within Area C, so it is not exclusively segregated to Palestinians/Arabs. That being said, I do agree that not only the settlements need to stop but the land within area C that was taken by settlements should be reverted to Palestinians.
Yoi have a great deal of reading to do. Look for sources that you are unlikely to have been exposed to because what you have been exposed to so far is garbage.
You could do worse than read around why South Africa is the lead country in this case. Or why Ireland are such staunch allies to the Palestinians.
Thank you. I'm actually familiar with the brief that SA put forward to the ICJ and it's very peculiar. I've skimmed through the brief (not news articles referring to it, but the actual document itself) and there are lots of odd inaccuracies which I wasn't expecting at this level. That being said, this still doesn't answer the question of the application of the term 'apartheid'. Can we get a clear definition before we move forward?
Look, you just posted:
It is really hard to know what is going on in your head for that to make sense. Whatever it is you're reading, it's not given you any handle at all on what is going on, or even what Apartheid is.
There are some excellent Israeli sources. Try , B'Tselem and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.
No, I think we are approaching the word from two different angles. It would be helpful if we knew how you define apartheid.
You don't get to make up your own definition. Apartheid is physical separation enshrined in different laws for different populations.
Do you even know what a West Bank settlement looks like? Did you imagine the settlers as jolly villagers living amongst the Palestinians, subject to equal persecution by Israel?
Do some reading.
You love doing two things I've noticed:
Ascribing positions and statements to me that I do not hold or never claimed.
Delegate people to 'do some reading'. Are you unable to sustain your position without these asinine injunctions?
And all this for requiring clarification on how you define apartheid in this context. It's clear it doesn't mean anything to you. My conclusion is it's just a buzzword that you enjoy trotting out when there is mention of Gaza. Convince me otherwise without your holier than thou "do some reading".
The summaries of the reports themselves are pages long...
Here's a small fraction of just the summary of the Amnesty report. If you want details you will have to read it. Otherwise I do know of some videos that lay it out too.
Which amnesty report is this (there are many)? Can you link it?
Yeah, here are the main three reports. That paragraph is from this one.
Amnesty International Report
Human Rights Watch Report
B'TSelem Report with quick Explainer
Here's a few, it's detailed within the Apartheid reports from Multiple Human Rights Organizations. They use the international definitions, of which there are multiple. Three main international treaties prohibit and/or explicitly criminalize apartheid: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (Apartheid Convention) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute).
Amnesty lays this out very well in the first chapter of it's report.
Amnesty International Report
Human Rights Watch Report
B'TSelem Report with quick Explainer
>But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right?
no
They don't elect their own leaders?
what leaders? israel controls all the borders and ports, and arrests people without citing laws passed by the palestinians. they are living in a ghetto in israel, not their own state.
no. over half the population are minors and there hasn't been an election in over 2 decades.
So who is HAMAS or PLO? Are the Palestinians not supporting them?
they're constructs of the Israeli government. what evidence do you have that they are supported by the Palestinian people at all?
Yeah, this is pretty well researched. There are lots of polls conducted. I can link them. Hamas has broad support among Palestinians. It's not news really.
this is an allusion to evidence, not evidence itself.
I'll link you the polls later. I'm traveling atm. Remind me if I forget
Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have retained limited security relations with the Israeli counterparts in the IDF and Shin Bet since re-establishment of relations in 2005. The parties cooperate on prevention of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activity in the West Bank, which is considered a threat by both parties.
Under Israeli Occupation and 50 years of dispossession Palestinians are denied civil rights and subject to Military Court
At the mercy of Settler Violence, Torture and Abuse in Interrogations, have No freedom of movement, and also denied Water stolen and extorted by the occupying forces.
Palestinian Labor is also heavily exploited as they have no workers rights either: Haaretz, MEE, 972, CMEC
A 3+ state solution with a federal union of independent lower states for Israel and Palestine would actually solve the problem. Broaden your horizons.
This has the same problem as the two state solution - the settlements have stolen Palestinian land. If you can't resolve that issue for the two state solution, it's still a problem for 3+.
So fucking what, that can be resolved diplomatically at the first levantine congress. I'll do the writing if they want. The two state solution fails to create a venue at which to resolve these problems and Israel will not submit to UN authority except by force, and Palestine does not have a seat at the table with the UN. I seriously think it's time for the United States to intervene militarily.