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
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