Yes, I think people need to just accept that Israel is a part of the middle east and is not going anywhere. It's in everyone's best interest to become friendly with Israel, and that will help the neighboring countries prosper.
But there's also a bit of a false equivalence here: Israel is a true democracy, which ranks significantly higher on lists of economic and individual freedoms than the nations you just named. Israel also soundly beat Lebanon in several wars, and Lebanon's conflict with Israel is rooted in religious hatred - it's not like Lebanon is taking a moral stand here. Hezbollah, which has run Lebanon for years, is an Iran-supported extremist / religious / terrorist group.
For whom? What does this even mean?
What # election are they on? Four in the last 2 years?
My understanding of Israeli politics is that it's two major parties (roughly, conservative and liberal) + a few smaller bloc parties that generally line up with the same major party.
And that the math of this vs the majority needed tends to result in a larger number of elections.
I believe something similar tends to happen in Italy? And maybe Spain?
The flaw, in the sense that overly-frequent elections are unproductive to the business of governing, as I see it is matching a static legal mandate (a government must be able to compose a strict majority) with a variable system (number and size of parties), that leads to some edge cases that make the former difficult / unsustainable.
I'm American though, so I'm looking at this from our (probably to the rest of the world) crazy winner-take-all tilt.
It seems like parliamentary democracies would be improved by either (a) implementing policies and laws that ensure a larger number of smaller blocs, with which alliances can be made (preference voting?) or (b) having "deescalator" clauses if election churn happens, to lower the threshold required to form a sitting government (which then presumably ramps back up over time).
Yes but not all of them which is the problem. Ask poor Palestinians how democratic Israel is. It would be like if the US made laws specifically to imprison masses of black people and then say "we are a democracy, except for those who have been in prison".
The ones that can't vote in Israel are part of another nation (whether recognized or not) and they vote as part of that nation. A better analogy would be saying that Mexicans can't vote in the US (even though Mexican-Americans can).
I love when people oversimplify things like that.
The important point is that Israel’s problems are largely detached from the flaws of its current leaders. Meanwhile the problems in the listed countries are often created or reinforced by their current or former leaders.
Apartheid South Africa also didn't give rifles to the conscripted black Africans either and ask them to patrol white cities.
For the same reasons.
Also, simply not true; https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rJVoNmyCP
Non-apartheid-type governments by definition do not have laws that discriminate by race.
Both Apartheid South Africa and contemporary Israel had and have laws explicitly preventing an emormous fraction of their society from every getting near military hardware.
Again, for the same reason.
I personally couldn't care, but the OP was falsely stating that Israel had no race defined laws in common with Apartheid South Africa.
[They have a few more in common, but this was one example I chose].
Unless of course Israeli jews really, really, really want to avoid training generation after generation after generation of Arabs citizens in IDF tactics and technology. Every year, year-in, year-out.
Clearly not trusting people is very obviously a form of government sanctioned discrimination.
Which again, is also why Apartheid South Africa also didn't feel comfortable handing millions of young Zulu men (ironically) Israeli designed R4 automatic weapons.
Peas, pods.
> National service is compulsory in Israel, with some exemptions — three years for men and two years for women. This rule also applies to the country's non-Jewish Druze and Circassian communities.
> Muslim Bedouins, who tend to identify more as Israeli than other Arabs, and Christian Arabs can voluntarily sign up and each minority is represented by a couple of hundred members of the armed forces.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/arab-israelis-are-joining...
Exactly the same situation in Apartheid South Africa. There were whole battalions of volunteer black soldiers. Hell, after 1981 there were even black commissioned officers.
But under no circumstances where they arming and training the 'enemy' wholesale - as you said before your edit 'to protect THEIR people'. (Telling choice of words there).
You keep making my case for me.
Israel is in a tough situation where there are civilians with relative who swear they want to kill al jews. Israel tries to be fair in this scenario.
A matter of fact is, non jews can vote, join the police the army and the country has laws that gives non jews the same rights as jews. There are scholarship for non jews, and even programs to make sure they are getting to be doctors lawyers etc.
Heck, there are non jewish judges (in the supreme court!), parliament members, and government ministers.
The situation is far from normal or sane, But this is very different than what the situation in SA was.
Now, all of this might change, as there are very dark forces that through the political situation in israel are trying to change israel from being a liberal democracy (at least striving to be) to become a theocracy/ethnocracy.
If they succeed, you might be right in calling israel an apartheid state.
It undermines the argument.
Use a different one if you want to make that argument, because that one is bad.
Rather, like Apartheid South Africa, Arab Israelis are being very, very clearly told that they cannot be TRUSTED in bulk with something like assault rifles in the presense of Jewish citizens.
Apartheid was not merely Jim Crow type laws - it was existential.
I deliberately chose these laws because they get to the heart of what an Apartheid state is.
On that specific point they are being discriminated in favor of, though. Please show the specific harm, of how not forcing someone to join the military but still allowing them to if they want, is harm, if you disagree.
If you have other examples of them being discriminated against, just use those.
> they cannot be TRUSTED
They are allowed to volunteer if they want. They aren't being prevented from joining. Instead they are only not being forced to, which is discrimination in favor of the people who are not forced to join.
You need to show an actual specific law that harms them, to support your argument. Not forcing people to join the military is a benefit, not a drawback.
There are basically no circumstances, where not forcing someone to join the military, is a drawback.
It's true they are exempted from the draft, but I don't quite see how that constitutes discrimination _against_ them.
I really don't know the answer to that. It's hard to say what kind of influence will work on the Israel apartheid, but a declared ongoing external war makes a strong impression that is an influence on the wrong direction.
What I do know is that black South Africans begged us not to do business with their country until apartheid was abolished. Many of us (and even the US in the end) obliged and cut ties with South Africa. Palestinians are similarly begging us not to do business with Israel over similar human rights violations. We did (eventually) heed the black South Africans' call, so why can't we today heed the Palestinians' call?
While I don’t at all agree with the settlements, the truth is that’s a lightening rod point and the actual amount of land is a drop in the bucket. Israel has always been willing to trade land for peace. But both parties must want peace.
Bollocks - there is a complete naval blockade.
[Before the Hasbarati downvote me - I truly couldn't care whether is a good or bad thing, but HN is for facts].
But did Israel give back "complete control of Gaza"? Here's another Wikipedia quote: "Israel maintains direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's seven land crossings. It reserves the right to enter Gaza at will with its military and maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. Gaza is dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities." [1]
My own opinion on the matter is not contained within this post; just providing some more facts for the interested.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
As much as I disliked Trump and his actions in the area, at least he did something out of the ordinary that could have led to untying the mess. The latest "peace agreements" with Arab countries are probably a result of this and might lead to something in the future.
Unlike South Africa the level of religion extremism is too high on both sides to allow a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
It seems to be widely defined as the establishment and maintenance of an explicitly Jewish state.
Most Israel want the former. A hard core minority wants the latter. The last few decades the latter set the tone because the dovish side of the map hadn't propose a viable course of action to change the status quo. The moderate majority is too scared and it lost faith in trying to reach a peace agreement again after the violence the last try brought, And the "death to israel" rhetoric of palestinian leaders.
So while the majority is pretty moderate, the perceived lack of partner basically put in power an extreme right minority. This might change as there's an undercurrent of population change, where the new majority might be less preoccupied with western values of democracy and citizen rights.
Zionism might not be religious, but the political forces that would prevent relinquishing territories in modern day Israel very much are.
Gulf states are more worried about Iran's intransigence than they are about the rights of Palestinians and that's where we are today.
Trump is not here anymore, but I don't think his efforts actually made the situation harder to solve, this is a misconception, they did push the Palestinians to a corner and they lost some Arab support, but it could have led to new negotiations where the Palestinians are pushed by this reduced support and Israel is pushed by behind the scenes threats from Trump to lose support.
The Palestinians nothing more than a play tool for other Arab nations, not just the Gulf states. Even their close neighbors, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, are not big fans
Trump's 'big gamble' on N. Korea for example does not apply to Israel in that way.
If anything Trump would 'end' the situation by caving to pressure to declare the occupations 'legal territory of Israel' or something along those lines.
I don't think he remotely understands the history or cares, he'll take what some of his wealthy buddy 'advisers' tell him about it.
I believe he would do it in a heartbeat in exchange for guarantees for financing on construction of a few buildings in NYC and Tel Aviv.
He is as corrupt as he can be within the law, he will offer powerful people 'whatever' on a personal basis, in exchange for some personal gain be it populist or prospect of future deals.
FYI I don't think he had anything to gain on N. Korea but some kind of accolade, it's the only situation that didn't provide for considerably conflict of interest.
And yes, I agree that the Gulf States don't care that much about the Palestinians, but they do at least a little bit.
And this situation get to fester while corrupting both our people.
What is Israel doing better than pre apartheid South Africa? Or rather, what are the positive differences between the two regimes?
So Israel is (was) willing to give equal rights to any one who accepts jews place in israel.
The last few decades are begining to erode this willingness. And I fear we maybe slipping to full apartheid.
I also don't think this is a helpful way of phrasing your point that we should consider the downstream carrots and sticks of our positions.
I'm sorry it hurts your feelings but real people are losing their homes and livelihoods every day to ever increasing Israeli settlement.
The issue is the circumstances there don't meet the factual criterion of apartheid. That's not a question of feelings. The fact the apartheid label is applied here while it is not emphasized or even applied to non-Jewish countries is a double standard. That fits the definition of anti-semitism.
If I'm Palestinian, I live my life completely according to the rules of Israel (because of the blockade and checkpoints and control of the territory). As a Palestinian, I also cannot vote in Israel and will never be granted the ability to vote in Israel, in order to preserve the ethnic majority of Israel. As a Palestinian I can also have my home taken away from me to make room for Israeli settlers.
That's apartheid.
That is, literally and factually, not apartheid.
The point of calling Israel an apartheid state is of course not to claim that Israel is identical to what South Africa was. The point is to emphasize that it is the same racist and supremacist ideology that permeates both systems. In South Africa, you had white people (Boers) dominating and oppressing colored people. In Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, you have Jews dominating and oppressing Palestinians.
Israel denies citizenship, voting rights, and equal rights to Palestinians (who still have to live according to the law Israeli citizens decide because Israel controls their territory). And the entire basis for doing this is that Jewish people must be the ethnic majority in Israel. It's literally apartheid on ethnic lines.
It's not surprising that an internet forum thread about Israel turns into a political, etc., flamewar—that's unfortunately the expected outcome. The important question is how to develop a site culture where that's less likely to happen.
The right of a homeland for the Palestinians has been recognized since before Israel was even granted statehood by the U.N as part of the two-state solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
The PA has been recognized since the Oslo accords in 1995.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority
Hamas in the Gaza strip is not recognized by Israel and its allies, but Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist:
The goal is for both the Israeli and Palestinian states to exist and for there to be peace. An Israeli hegemony over the Palestinian state, with settlers and all, certainly doesn’t help that, and it may be a rational goal of the Palestinian state to become too much of a nuisance to be ignored. If peace means subjugation, I think many Palestinians probably wouldn’t be okay with that. The Palestinians are seeing a lot of “might makes right” arguments right now about why they should just accept subjugation.
For the Palestinians, perhaps reducing the Israeli would increase freedom in the short term. In the longer term, in the absence of Israel, it seems more likely they would end up dominated by either larger neighbors like Lebanon by Syria or experience low-freedom autocracies like Egypt, Iraq, etc.
And if one can understand why Israel would fight for its right to exist as a state, then why should it be surprising that the Palestinian state fights for the same reason?
Instead, the argument is that the observable fact is that continued violence has not helped the palestinian cause.
It simply has not worked.
That's not a moral statement. It is simply the descriptive truth that violence for decades has not helped their cause, and therefore it probably won't in the future.
Why do some Israelis build settlements? I mean, in the middle of what used to be Palestinian-controlled land? What's their goal? Also isn't it super risky/scary?
It seems to me to just be a needless provocation but that makes no sense, why would anyone risk their family's safety just to provoke? I'm clearly missing some key insight.
The land on the Palestinian side of that border are hills. Prior to when Israel conquered that land in 1967, Arab militants/terrorists would take pot shots at and occasionally kill drivers of cars and busses driving along roads in this region. It’s really that small, single digit miles wide. Apparently school busses were a favorite since they are large bright targets.
The settlements were originally limited in number and designed to offer the Israelis opportunity for physical security. This is still the case today when the preferred weapon of militants/terrorist is missiles.
After 1973 when the Right came to power the settlements adopted a religious connotation. They were massively expanded as a conscious effort to absorb the entire West Bank. Since then the problem has only deepened.
While many Israeli Jews (likely a majority) acknowledge that the West Bank is "occupied", technically, according to international law, for the above reasons, they insist that Israel has a legitimate claim to it. The West Bank is in Israel commonly referred to as "Judea and Samaria" because those are the names used in the Torah.
The goal of the settlements is to create "facts on the ground" to make it harder for future governments to relinquish the occupied Palestinian territories. As Israel's former prime minister Ariel Sharon phrased it: "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many [Palestinian] hilltops as they can to enlarge the [Jewish] settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." This is precisely why it is considered a war crime for an occupying power to transfer parts of its civilian population into occupied territory.
Most Israeli settlers live in settlement blocs and it is not dangerous for the setters to live in them. A smaller number of settlers are religious extremists and they establish "outposts" - settlements built without explicit permission by the government. These settlers are often well-armed and coordinate with the Israeli military. Palestinians, on the other hand, are for the most part not allowed to own firearms.
This allowed Israeli extremists to take the reigns, and after three decades of hegemony managed to convince most of the Israeli population that peace is a dangerous pipe dream and any sort of compromise will be met with violence. And to establish facts on the ground which would make a palestinian state practically impossible without rooting out masses of Israelis from their home by force.
The Israeli left kept warning of this scenario, because the end game is either a non democratic jewish state, or a civil war torn single state. This cost the traditional Israeli left (the labor party) to be almost electorally eliminated during these 3 decades. Now the hegemony opinion is that no peace is possible, and the Palestinians are to be basically ignored.
The conflict will continue until one side realizes that it has been utterly defeated. This hasn't happened yet. They have been defeated. They just don't want to admit it.
I do really wish my people's country could come up in the news without people breaking out in Zionism Derangement Syndrome in the comments, insisting genocide refugees are colonizers and racism is when we don't force minorities to fight in the army if they don't support the state. It brings to mind that academic crank who once said Israeli soldiers are racist for not raping Palestinian women. This kind of ZDS is why Netanyahu keeps winning -- it's all Israelis and Jews hear from people in other countries, and it affects our discourse.
Said the Arabs in the West Bank?
We can't use the argument that 'Israel has a right to exist' (ok) to dismiss the illegality of the occupied territories (not ok).
Hezbollah exists for this historical reason. (Edit: people flinching at this comment, I meant to imply 'partly for this reason', i.e. in the context the overall conflict and brought them up because the article is about Lebanon. Of course Hezbollah is not primarily about Palestenians)
So yes 'let's make peace' but that would involve something like a two state solution or whatever.
I have a funny feeling that Israel is maybe paying for most of this cable, and that Greece is getting the added benefit of 'it's side' of Cypress getting a big win. Israel has a lot to gain from a geostrategic perspective from this whereas Cypress is too small and Greece doesn't have enough money for this to be a top line item.
Lebanon absolutely does not have the Palestinians rights in mind. They have "refugee camps" with tens of thousands of people in them that they have been kept there since the 1950's and 1960's, and haven't given them citizenship.
How come you're so concerned about other countries making peace with Israel, but not concerned with countries making peace with Lebanon?
I'm not concerned with any nation making peace with the next because mostly they have a pragmatic peace.
The 'concern' is the ongoing incursion into the occupied territories, against all international condemnation and the duplicity of US actions i.e. technically declaring the occupation illegal while literally at the same time moving embassies etc..
The legitimacy of the Jews right to a homeland and their problems derived from nearby enemies is constantly used as cover for their other actions.
Zionism is not supposed to be Apartheid, but in pragmatic reality, it is.
That there are not sanctions against Israel is a testament to it's far reaching influence.
Any rhetoric by Hezbollah leaders to the contrary is just that, plus an excuse to maintain relevance following Israel's withdrawal from South Lebanon. After all, why maintain an extra-legal paramilitary force after it has successfully achieved the goal it was created for?
That's true for the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc., but not Hezbollah, which responds to Israel’s periodic occupations of South Lebanon, not their occupation of Palestine.