It's a policy of apartheid, which is motivated by both immigration and security.
Fortunately, as we have learned over the past few weeks, sanctions are an effective means of pushback against archaic 20-th century statesmanship.
Fortunately, as we have learned over the past few weeks, sanctions are an effective means of pushback against archaic 20-th century statesmanship.
The Israeli government definitely does a ton of problematic stuff that is objectively awful but it's just not quite the same as what the old government in my country used to do.
I am sure I will get downvoted for this, but the situation with Israel/Palestine is not quite the same as what existed in South Africa for a significant chunk of the 20th century. That doesn't mean it's a nice situation but really, I just would prefer it if people would stop trying to weld one shitty piece of history to another one to try and create this weird equivalency between the two.
In South Africa you could be a citizen regardless of your race, but how you were treated depended on your race; citizens were not equal.
In Israel, they are trying to prevent people of a certain race from becoming citizens, but once you are a citizen, there are fewer 'official' racist policies even if a lot of the people you have to deal with are outwardly racist anyway. On paper, citizens are (largely) equal.
You can make an analogy to apartheid. It's up to others to determine if the analogy fits the point you are making though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_ana...
This is a good point. Israel totally doesn't deny entry, immigration, work visa status, citizenship, and even recognition as Jewish to black Jews:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Jews_in_Israel#Absor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Hebrew_Israelites_in_I...
And racism by itself doesn't appear to constitute apartheid.
We have a government over a people that determines the rights of each person based on who their parents were. That's the core concept that I, for one, am opposed to.
They aren't completely replacing race with religion, many Palestinians are black and my understanding is Israel is quite racist towards its black Jewish population as well. European Settler colonialism has historically been quite racist.
By black do you mean having darker skin tones?
If so, many Jewish Israelis are black - as are many Palestinians - and not just those that came to Israel from Ethiopia. Also, many Israelis are white (as in light skinned) as are many Palestinians.
The average Israeli is Mizrahi (of North African / Middle Eastern origin).
Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights. Apartheid is a crime against humanity punishable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. ACADEMIC TOPICS. legal history.
1) affirmative action does not remove any rights of those groups not targeted by affirmative action. It is possible to argue that by supporting one group, you are implicitly disadvantaging the out-group, but usually this distinction is important. E.g. having a "ladies night" at a bar is generally more acceptable than a "men pay double price" night.
2) affirmative action policies tend to target education and employment. The right to vote is typically is given higher priority when it comes to balancing different rights.
3) Affirmative action can be seen as targeting equal outcomes, not equal treatment[1]. My country offers free breast cancer screening to all women above a certain age. Men can certainly catch breast cancer, but it's far more dangerous to women, so a gender-blind outcome of "we want less people to die of breast cancer" has a gender-aware policy implementation. Most people wouldn't say that this policy is "medical apartheid" on the basis of gender. Similarly, you could say that affirmative action is about getting disparate groups to have equal outcomes in terms of whatever metric you care you measure (educational attainment, income, etc)
[1] not everyone agrees with this. Some people argue that preferential treatment should be given to groups that were historically persecuted (e.g. land confiscation), as remediation.
Pretty sure this was the reason. It’s a tactical piece that they want to keep control over. Everyone else in the region hates them (and rightfully so).
then if all else fails, they do sanctions, which of course NEVER affect the ruling class, they merely provide the rulers a tool to point more hatred at the west - you think it's the ruling class that can't get diabetes medication due to sanctions? No of course not, it's the average person.
Israel passed on confidential US military technology to China and abstained in the Security Council resolution against Russia. That's not the behaviour of a strong ally.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assem...
Im also interested in what you construe as evidence that Israel passed US confidential anything to China.
Not really. The war in Ukraine is intensifying. Russia sees the sanctions regime as an act of war. I'm not sure what the off ramp would be, and I generally support the sanctions. But I don't think your conclusions are sound. Pushback? Yes. Effective? Not so far.