> By taking this action, you agree to receive emails from MPower Change, Jewish Voice for Peace, The Action Center on Race and The Economy, Adalah Justice Project, American Muslims for Palestine, Athena, BDS Berlin, BDS Movement, Carceral Tech Resistance Network, Dissenters, Eyewitness Palestine, Fight For The Future, IfNotNow, MediaJustice, National Lawyers Guild, the Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy/Rabet, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Warehouse Worker Resource Center, The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, and World Beyond War. You can unsubscribe at any time using the instructions provided in the emails.
That's a lot of organisations they share your details with, none of which I want emails from. In particular I'd like to use my work email address to sign this to make a point, but I definitely don't want emails from all these groups on my work email.
It looks like Americans can claim a 1st Amendment protection against prosecution of these laws provided they are acting as individuals and not on behalf of organizations.
Isn't this the outfit that has packs of attorneys at any leftist riot? My understanding is that anytime you see a well-dressed group quietly watching a George Floyd riot or equivalent, it's the NLG.
I'm sure they think the US is a settler-colonialist entity. I mean how could it not be considered one? We still have the little bit of the native population that is left on reservations.
I think you're making the mistake that "settler-colonialist" is some kind of demonic brand that condemns everything that it might be applied to to perdition or at least cancellation, but its really just a plain description of how history has brought us to this moment in time. There are egregious cases and less egregious ones.
"I think you're making the mistake that "settler-colonialist" is some kind of demonic brand that condemns everything that it might be applied to to perdition or at least cancellation"
That's precisely what they're doing. Anyone with even a casual understanding of the modern American hard-left knows that's what they're saying and anyone who says otherwise is obviously, willfully lying.
I wouldn't describe myself as "hard-left" but I am in a milieu where the legacies of colonialism are routinely discussed and I can personally tell you that there really isn't any intent to "cancel" everything associated with colonial powers or any bullshit like that. Are you sure you're not taking your cues about what the "left" believes from right wing media who select the most absurd tumbler posts as evidence for what project the "left" is up to?
In general, identifying the most extreme opinions consonant with a general set of ideas will, no surprise, furnish you with extreme opinions. The "hard right" in the United States wants to "obliterate trans people from public life" and install a "Red Caesar" to de-secularize the United States under righteous authoritarian rule. It would be stupid of me to associate those beliefs with, for example, Mitch McConnell or conservative members of the supreme court, though see below.
The fact is that there is _no organized left_ in the United States. Those kids posting memes on tumbler have no power, Bernie Sanders (a moderate by the standards of European democracies) couldn't take the Democratic nomination from a liberal capitalist. Getting your brain twisted about the "far left" is deranged. The far right, on the other hand, is much more politically organized and engaged, as evidenced by the fact that they are, among other things, banning books, passing legislation, and gumming up congress as we speak.
I support Palestinian freedom. I want them to have their own state. I want them to be prosperous and happy.
But given a free and fair election they didn't choose that. They chose Hamas who then turned into a violent dictatorship killing a lot of Palestinians along the way. Now Hamas rips up infrastructure that the West donates like water pumps in order to build missiles.
So what do they want? All of us to die at the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah? Their literal goal is to drive us into the sea.
We need practical real solutions. I'm asking an honest question not a rhetorical one: what do they want? If we give Palestinians total freedom tomorrow they will turn around and try to murder us. As they just did to 1300 innocent people. The worst day since the Holocaust.
All of this reminds me of the performative actions around Ukraine. End the war to save lives by having Ukraine agree to be incorporated up Russia. Not that any of the people advocating this in the West like Chomsky would volunteer to live in a Russian dictatorship. Same here. How many of these people are willing to go live next to Hamas and Hezbollah and put their own families at real risk of death?
Hamas offered to make peace along the two state solution in 2006 when they were elected, they continue to maintain that position. Israel knows how to end the rockets, make peace and end the brutal siege.
But what Hamas means by a two state solution includes two things that don't make it a two state solution. The right of return and killing Jews. When Hamas says they offer peace read carefully. They offer a peace where Israel must withdraw (that's fine) but where all Palestinians have the right to reclaim every house they had before Israel existed. This means killing Jews. How is that peace?
They aren't offering peace. They're offering for Israel and all Jews to volunteer for suicide. Would you do this? Allow a native American to murder your family because they have a claim to the land you're on?
The "updated" charter is a wolf in sheep's clothing as an attempt to appease the international community.
Hamas is still waging a holy war jihad, and their updated charter still does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state nor does it accept a two-state solution. They are still completely willing to use terror and violence to achieve this result. As evidence by their daily actions.
> Palestine symbolises the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital.
...
> ...Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means.
> Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.
> A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.
Regarding Likud. I don't agree with Likud or Netanyahu either. An important difference though is that Israel is a democracy and power will shift.. probably soon.
Aside from the rights and wrongs there are legal implications for supporting BDS associated movements in many US states, including that those that do so cannot be government contractors.
Also, whether you support Israel as defending themselves, or consider Israeli actions a form of genocide, language matters. By using the term Apartheid I interpreted this as an unconscious attempt to marginalize the efforts and sacrifices made by those who fought against Apartheid in South Africa, including Nelson Mandela and many others - in order to increase emotional response for your cause. I am sure that is not what you intended, but in communication perception is as important as intention, if not more so.
So I ask that we all keep Apartheid to mean the struggle against racism, segregation and hatred that Nelson Mandela and his people fought hard to win.
Instead, come up with a new word. For example Apartheid means 'Separation. The Arabic word for "separation" is ﻓِﺮَﺍﻕ (pronounced "firaaq"). Firaaq could be the word to uniquely mean what is happening in Palestine, as Apartheid is for South Africa. Or use a Hebrew word (Apartheid was Afrikaaner IIRC), such as Hafrada, which is the Hebrew word for "separation". It can also mean "segregation".
By using a unique word close in cultural context to the events you create something that you can attach unique meaning to, and generate support against.
>keep Apartheid to mean the struggle against racism, segregation and hatred that Nelson Mandela and his people fought hard to win.
Just no. This is an entirely appropriate term and Israel doesn't need to re-brand it in order to escape the association with previous examples.
South Africa moved on from its apartheid problem. Israel needs to, also.
Keep this word in use, as it is entirely accurate and appropriate to be using this term. It doesn't matter if Israeli citizens are embarassed by it - they should be embarassed for the conditions of their state.
> I interpreted this as an unconscious attempt to marginalize the efforts and sacrifices made by those who fought against Apartheid in South Africa, including Nelson Mandela and many others - in order to increase emotional response for your cause.
Nelson mandela HIMSELF called the Israel situation “Apartheid”.
No kidding. The doublethink in this, is astonishing!
"Not using the term apartheid" is, itself, an attempt to marginalize the efforts and sacrifices made by the Palestinian people against the apartheid state forced upon them.
Edit: It was his grandson: Addressing a large audience, Mandela said that the Nation-State Law passed in 2018 declaring Israel to be the historical homeland of the Jewish people “confirmed what we have always known to be the true character and reality of Israel: Israel is an apartheid state”.
> "As I listened to the Arab League and as I listened to colleagues from Palestine, its sounds like this plan has been consulted without all the people that matter and it sounds like a Bantustan type of construct."
I'm sorry. It seems that this didn't happen. One source of this false information might have been a satirical letter written by El Fassed which was signed by Mandela. The satire being apparent on the original publication but then picked up by others as a real letter.
A Jew from New York can immigrate to Israel, get citizenship, and live on land a Palestinian whose family lived there for centuries was expelled from. Can you explain how 'apartheid' is not an accurate description?
Israel offered free Palestine as late as 2008 and agreed to remove Israeli's settlements but it was Palestinians who declined it. Surprisingly this gets missed by all the major media.
Palestinians should have free and fair election and ask for its own free land and negotiate for that. Then they will have my support. Getting money from foreign country for terror shouldn't be anyone's aim.
So now nonsense is based on your beliefs and not facts. The statement I said was fairly easy to verify as well[1]. Palestinians don't seem to want free Palestine. And yes now that free Palestine is out of table, Israel doubled down on settlements.
As long as I've been alive, the only thing I know about the Palestinians is that they use violence to achieve their means. That's enough for me not to support them.
Violence during uprisings is often targeted at military structures and is generally not classified as terrorism under international law or ethics. This is obviously not a case in the discussed topic.
Blanket condemnation oversimplifies a complex issue.
But I am afraid this will fail to convince you. With Israel, I am often reminded of that old joke about the car driver claiming that everyone on the motorway is driving the wrong way.
Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel. [..]
The Anti-Boycott Act of 2018 [..] does not target boycotts against Israel specifically, but makes it illegal to “comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by any foreign country, against a country which is friendly to the United States” [..] and as the Office of Antiboycott Compliance notes “The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal unsanctioned foreign boycott that U.S. persons must be concerned with today.”
This sort of rhetoric and this time isn't helping the Palestinian people in any way. Calling Israels war with Hamas Apartheid is utter nonsense. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with mass murder of civilians.
Hamas is the reason we don't have a Palestinian state. They sent suicide bombers during the Oslo accord to stop any chance of peace.
There's a lot of valid criticism we can levy on Israel, I 100% agree with that. Especially against the current government. That's why it's important to focus on real issues e.g. a more reliable organization covering the bad things happening in the territories and Gaza: https://www.btselem.org/
Palestinians were expelled from their land based on their race, they cannot get Israeli citizenship despite having lived there for centuries, while a Jew from New York can get that citizenship by virtue of his race.
> Calling Israels war with Hamas Apartheid is utter nonsense.
You're right. Israel was at war with Palestinians long before Hamas came to be, and made no effort to coexist with them under a system of segregation. Their actions are better described as 'genocide'.
I assume you're of the opinion that the Israeli deaths were due to unprovoked attacks, and the Palestinian deaths were justified retaliation, albeit with regrettable collateral damage?
> Palestinians were expelled from their land based on their race, they cannot get Israeli citizenship despite having lived there for centuries, while a Jew from New York can get that citizenship by virtue of his race.
Israel has over 2M Arab citizens. An Arab supreme court Justice and one of the most liberal human rights laws anywhere. This just isn't true.
Palestinians in the occupied territories are not citizens but that is due to the fact that these territories aren't a part of Israel. This is bad but also leaves an opening to a Palestinian state in the future.
Most of the Palestinians who don't live in Israel left after the independence war. This war was started by Palestinians who were unhappy with the division of the land. They lost and some ran off. Those who stayed got full citizenship.
Those who ran can't come back. This is sad but understandable. To be fair, many Jews lived in Arab countries prior to the formation of Israel. They can't go back either and also lost all of their possessions when they ran.
The right of return is specifically aimed for Jews since Israel is defined as the homeland of the Jewish people. Yes, it's a problematic law but a special case, it's the exception not the rule.
> You're right. Israel was at war with Palestinians long before Hamas came to be, and made no effort to coexist with them under a system of segregation. Their actions are better described as 'genocide'.
Nonsense.
Israelis co-existed with the Arab populace. Local Arab leaders wrote congratulatory letters to the Israeli government after the 1967 6 day war. There were violent incidence and discrimination for sure. But also amazing co-existence. Famously, the Jews in Haifa stopped the local Arab population from running in the independence war and guaranteed their safety.
There is no segregation in Israel. Some cities are Jewish and some are Arab. Some are mixed e.g. Jerusalem, Haifa, Tel-Aviv/Jaffa etc. are all huge mixed cities. It's illegal to discriminate based on race/religion/gender or sexual orientation. Does it happen? Yes. Do people sue and win? Also yes.
You're mixing between the occupied territories and Israel. Jews were killed mostly in terror attacks which included MANY suicide bombings during those years. Retaliation took many forms but this is war. Notice children got killed in both sides.
I 100% agree the occupation should stop. But the Hamas specifically places children in the line of fire to create these situations. E.g. just the other day the Hamas claimed Israel killed 500 people in a hospital. Turns out it was a misfired missile they tried to shoot at Israel. They did that a lot over the past few years.
Israel makes a lot of effort to minimize civilian casualties. But how would you fight against an enemy that puts on suicide vests and blows up busses en-mass?
That enemy is driven by an extremist religious dogma and believes that children who die are rewarded in heaven. They use children as human shields and have no moral compass.
I agree Israel should do better. But it's not a simple task.
> I assume you're of the opinion that the Israeli deaths were due to unprovoked attacks, and the Palestinian deaths were justified retaliation, albeit with regrettable collateral damage?
I want a peaceful solution. So do 80-90 percent of Palestinians and Israelis. There are the crazy people on both sides who keep destroying that chance for peace.
Making the rhetoric more extreme and supporting these psychos (like the Hamas) is damaging to both sides.
Both describe the refugees as a result of the “Arab attack” in 1948. But even a cursory look at history reveals how flawed this is. Before a single Arab soldier crossed into Palestine on May 15, 1948 more than half the total refugees were created. Arab mobilization then became a reaction to massive refugee flows and not the cause of it. When Israel declared independence, its military had already succeeded in depopulating Palestine’s largest cities of Jaffa and Haifa as well as Tiberias, Safad and Beisan. Perhaps those writing today’s New York Times should read their own reporting from this period because they’d quickly learn they are peddling distortions that are simply unfit to print.
The depopulation of Palestine was no accident. The Zionist movement sought to create a Jewish state in a territory where Jews were a minority. On the eve of the Nakba, Jews constituted 30 percent of the population and owned 7 percent of the land. Within months, they forged a state on 78 percent of the territory where they flipped the demographic ratio from 30:70 Jews to Arabs to 90:10. To think such dramatic demographic change happens by accident—only coincidently suiting decades old Zionist aims—is dangerous naiveté. Such things happen only by design. — https://www.thedailybeast.com/nakba-denials-must-be-condemne...
Look, I get it, you want a country of your own, and consider some Palestinian displacement a necessary consequence. Can't make an omelette etc. But people would respect Israel a lot more if it just admitted it's a Jewish ethno-state borne of conquest, instead of peddling excuses and rationalizations how they just want to ensure democracy, and expelling the previous inhabitants of what is now their land is just an unfortunate coincidence that is not their fault.
> When Israel declared independence, its military had already succeeded in depopulating Palestine’s largest cities of Jaffa and Haifa as well as Tiberias, Safad and Beisan.
Dude. I live next to Jaffa and it is 100% an Arab city. Not "depopulated". Neither is Haifa etc.
We can go back to 48 in which case we can start talking about the staggering amount of death dished out by both sides. It's tragic but doesn't help anyone. It also predates modern law and democracy in Israel. It predates human rights laws etc.
There was a large amount of immigration to Israel in the 40s as Jews fled the Holocaust. Once borders opened up they moved in and also fled Arab countries where they were quickly deemed the enemy. People lost everything there too. I'm not saying the Palestinians aren't a victim here, but don't pretend they weren't an aggressor either. This was a bad situation with victims and aggressors on both sides.
> Such things happen only by design.
This is nonsense and speculative. It's inconsistent with the facts that some communities remained whole while others were indeed chased away.
> People would respect Israel a lot more if it just admitted it's a Jewish ethno-state borne of conquest, instead of peddling excuses and rationalizations how they just want to ensure democracy, and expelling the previous inhabitants of what is now their land is just an unfortunate coincidence that is not their fault.
This is ridiculous. People would most certainly not respect Israel more if it made such a claim.
Why doesn't the USA make this exact claim for native Americans? Or really, any country that exists in the Americas? Australia? Hell, the UKs crown is German ruling over Danes.
If the unfortunate coincidence would have gone the other way it's a good chance that Jews would no longer exist. I'm sorry for the suffering of the Palestinian people. I truly am. But when that happened instead of talking to Israel the surrounding countries ganged up and attacked multiple times. The only reason Israel has these territories to begin with is that 3 armies surrounded Israel and attacked it together.
> I live next to Jaffa and it is 100% an Arab city.
After the 1948 Palestine War, most of its Arab population fled or were expelled, and the city became part of then newly established state of Israel, and was unified into a single municipality with Tel Aviv in 1950. Today, Jaffa is one of Israel's mixed cities, with approximately 37% of the city being Arab. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa
Yes, it's a single municipality, my kids go to school there. Tel Aviv grew to be bigger than Jaffa we have huge towers here and Jaffa is an ancient city so you can't build up there.
The benefit of being a part of Tel Aviv means it has the same municipal services and advantages of being a part of the richest municipality in Israel.
That's a miscommunication. I didn't say it was 100% of the population, I said that it's 100% an Arab city. Not a Jewish city.
I highly doubt the 37% number though. I'm guessing it includes new construction on the outskirts as Arabic is the main language around in the street and in most shops. Looking at the Hebrew page there are more than 46,400 Arabs living in Tel-Aviv/Jaffa compared to 414,200 Jews most of whom live in the Tel Aviv region. Some Jews live in Jaffa but it's still very much an Arab city.
> I want a peaceful solution. So do 80-90 percent of Palestinians and Israelis. There are the crazy people on both sides who keep destroying that chance for peace.
I agree very much, with one caveat though: Hamas isn't claiming anything about being "the only democracy in the Middle East", it doesn't export military surveillance tech (to my knowledge), it doesn't receive substantial support from my government. So while I agree that with friends like Hamas, you don't really need enemies, I just can't get worked up about that. They do what they do and what I resent and stand against -- but they don't involve me. (the right-wing government of) Israel very much tries to involve me, by proxy. To Hamas, I'm just an infidel; to Likud, I'm an useful idiot in spe. They claim we're similar, playing the same game in the same ball park, and thereby force me to refute them.
I agree with that. Israel developed the "we're alone in the world" mentality when it was deeply embargoed. Remember that the USA didn't send weapons to Israel up to the 70s. During those years Israel developed a self reliance and distrust. It had to do business with countries that were willing to do it and did a lot of bad things including being one of the few countries that helped South Africa during the Apartheid years.
E.g. at the moment Israel is still on a "neutral side" in the Russia/Ukraine conflict which is insane.
I hope this is a temporary thing. I hope that Israel can leave this dark period and be more worthy.
> I hope that Israel can leave this dark period and be more worthy.
It has to! Israel cannot give in to the very aspirations of antisemites, but it also must not become like its persecutors.
As a German, I cannot even begin to say what I feel, but it's a lot. It's a tangent, but I have to think of the Israeli movie "Walk on Water" (which I love, as kitschy as it may be), and which kinda sums up what I'm struggling to express. I sincerely wish Israel to be safe and sound and something to be proud of (or jealous of), and that includes the "heart", not just the territory. Antisemites aren't scared of Israeli atrocities, they're smug about them, they love to be able to point to them. And I wish there was nothing to point to. That wouldn't make antisemitism go away, but it would put Israel on better footing, I genuinely believe that.
There is a Chinese proverb, "he who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount". I think this applies to the jingoists of both sides (and certainly Netanyahu), they have nowhere to go to except to climb even higher. But as you said, most "normal people" dragged into any conflict are really just normal people and don't wish harm on anyone. People need to find a way to talk to each other without their "leaders". Keep your head up, and thanks for speaking out.
It can't as long as support for (and opposition to) the forces that are dependent on keeping Israel in that dark period is conflated with support for (and opposition to) Israel.
That's not the only barrier, but it is a sufficient one.
I think the word "support" is a tricky one. We've got a leadership vacuum. I hope that the downfall of Netanyahu will make an opening for someone decent to rise.
Just a few remarks, maybe they can help in explaining better the situation.
> Calling Israels war with Hamas Apartheid is utter nonsense
Yeah, nobody does that. All the major human rights organisations (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and in Israel, B'Tselem) agree in defining the regime imposed by Israel in the West Bank (not Gaza!) as apartheid. This is because an Israeli citizen in the West Bank (outside Israel proper) enjoys civil rights that his neighbours don't have- despite the power over both ultimately resting in the Israeli state. However, also don't forget that the West Bank and Gaza are part of the same country (or aspirational one)- so it's not exactly fair to say that the people of Gaza should not be bothered by what happens in the West Bank and vice-versa, they are just two regions of the same country. We would not say that it is unjustified for Texans to go to war if New York were attacked.
> Hamas is the reason we don't have a Palestinian state
Hamas is only in power in Gaza. The West Bank is governed by the much more moderate Fatah, and they still don't have a Palestinian state. However, Hamas is obviously a problem: so much so that it's known that Israel secretly supported it to weaken and divide their more moderate political counterparts.
Also, note that the Likud party (Netanyahu's) has denied the right to the existence of a Palestinian state since its first charter:
"a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
Yes. The situation in the occupied territories is 100% terrible.
> Hamas is only in power in Gaza. The West Bank is governed by the much more moderate Fatah, and they still don't have a Palestinian state.
This became the situation after Oslo was effectively dead (thanks to the Hamas).
> However, Hamas is obviously a problem: so much so that it's known that Israel secretly supported it to weaken and divide their more moderate political counterparts:
THIS!!!
But it isn't a "secret". Netanyahu said it out loud in 2019, I don't have the link though.
He purposely supported the Hamas to weaken the PLO/Fatah and prevent the chance of a Palestinian state. He did some of that as far back as the 90's during the Oslo accord to stop that process.
It's insane. We've been trying to get rid of that f*ing criminal but he's a sticky demagogue who always lands on his feet. Even now when he clearly bears a lot of the fault for this recent attack he still holds onto power and refuses to accept responsibility.
But then how is it possible to say "Hamas is the reason there is no Palestinian state"? The reason there is no Palestinian state is that Israel has done anything possible to prevent its creation, including supporting terrorists to then point to as the reason the Palestinian state cannot be allowed. If you remove Hamas, Israel will make up new excuses or create new terror groups. As I reported in my first comment, the original charter of Likud said it plain and clear:
"a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
> But then how is it possible to say "Hamas is the reason there is no Palestinian state"? The reason there is no Palestinian state is that Israel has done anything possible to prevent its creation, including supporting terrorists to then point to as the reason the Palestinian state cannot be allowed.
That's a very good and indeed sad point. I think we were very close to a Palestinian state in the 90s. The stars aligned and both sides had leaders with enough sway to pull that off.
The Likud was beaten and then Hamas started blowing up things. That's a moment in time I'm talking about when I'm blaming Hamas for the lack of Palestinian state.
That moment in time is gone. Even if the Hamas vanished tomorrow there are no longer leaders on either side who are willing/able to move that dream forward.
Bibi essentially destroyed that potential and also set into the minds of Israelis that there's no partner for peace. Removing the Hamas is one step, removing the Likud is another. Unfortunately, even both of these steps won't be enough to restart that process.
I don't think it's a matter of leaders on either side. Especially not on the Palestinian side. In the end, the only voice that has any influence in the West is that of Israel. Palestinians are ignored or blamed. Even the fact that the major human rights organisations agree that Israel is practicing apartheid (an accusation that is one of the gravest) has simply failed to produce a dent in the support of Western countries for Israel's government.
I think Israelis really need to ask themselves if they're sincere in their support for the creation of a Palestinian state. Which entails removing settlements, establishing and respecting an international border, and accepting that they will have to give up land and never, ever, expand Israel by another square centimetre. I saw the huge protests against Netanyahu in the last months- they have been saluted in the West as the proof of the civil conscience of democratic Israelis. However, I have not seen such huge protests, not even much smaller ones, to stop what human rights organisations call apartheid- which is incommensurably worse than a law to limit the powers of the Supreme Court. What is a Supreme Court that allows apartheid worth anyway?
> I don't think it's a matter of leaders on either side. Especially not on the Palestinian side.
Leaders make peace agreements. They also enforce them by controlling their own people. Peace doesn't spontaneously happen without two people signing an accord. In the past it was Rabin and Arafat. Now Abbas is too weak and so is the liberal wing in Israel. There's no one with the power or motivation to move in that direction.
> In the end, the only voice that has any influence in the West is that of Israel. Palestinians are ignored or blamed.
This is very selective and ignores cases where the UK and USA conspired against Israel in the 50s. It ignores the media coverage in Europe which is often anti-Israeli, specifically the BBC is very pro-Palestinian. It also ignores the mirror image in Arab countries which shows a very biased anti-Israel view of the situation.
Israel is held to a higher standard than the Palestinians. I don't think that's necessarily wrong, Israel is a state not a terrorist organization. But people often forget that. There are still laws and standards.
E.g. a couple of years ago a terrorist tried to stab a soldier and was shot. He was lying down neutralized and a soldier walked up to him and shot him. That soldier went to jail for killing a terrorist. People were upset about that, but it shows there's justice. Even a terrorist deserves justice.
Israel doesn't live up to that standard every time, but it does the right thing in most cases.
> I think Israelis really need to ask themselves if they're sincere in their support for the creation of a Palestinian state.
Many want a Palestinian state and many don't. It's a struggle that has been tearing the Israeli society from within. A long running Palestinian joke is that if they would leave Israel alone the Jews will kill one another in a week.
> Which entails removing settlements, establishing and respecting an international border
Israel did that in the past when it signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. It removed settlements from Gaza and left that area.
> never, ever, expand Israel by another square centimetre.
Israel got these extra territories as a result of a pending attack. It didn't explicitly go out to try and expand its borders and never tried to do that. There are encroaching settlements which I agree are very bad, but they are on top of land that's already occupied.
> to stop what human rights organisations call apartheid
Those happened in the 90s and 80s. They were huge and birthed major movements. These protests led to the Oslo accord. The failure of that (again due in large part to the Hamas) essentially decimated these movements and most of the country now considers this as bunk. "We tried peace, we tried giving them a country and they blew up busses and coffee shops".
I think that's a false narrative as the Palestinians are not a single entity. But it's very hard to make that case today. Especially now. After the Hamas murdered and kidnapped women and children people were celebrating in the streets of Gaza. These pictures (as well as the horrible stuff on social networks) reached the Israeli public. This has brought a level of rage that unfortunately isn't limited only to the Hamas.
> What is a Supreme Court that allows apartheid worth anyway?
I actually agree with that partially, but it would probably be MUCH worse if it weren't for that court.
I agree with you, and furthermore, everyone seems to forget about the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from or pressured into leaving Muslim states.
Even if it was true that there is nobody who has principles (and it's not true, not at all, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol8xhTySKfM&t=266s), that would just be an opportunity for you or me or anyone to be the first human in history to have principles, instead of just an allegiance to a political group.
> Calling Israels war with Hamas Apartheid is utter nonsense.
No, its not, and Israel's apartheid predates Hamas (and fostering the development in Gaza of the Islamist network that became Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO was a strategic part of perpetuating it.)
I discussed this in the rest of the thread. Notice that during those years the PLO was still a terrorist organization and Hamas existed as the Muslim Brotherhood.
A few years after the PLO laid down its arms Rabin was elected and the Oslo accord took place.
We need a global solution to refugees and refugee camps throughout the middle east. Israel cannot solve this problem and the people in these camps should be allowed to integrate with another country and live real lives. Including refugees from Syria in European countries.
However, Israel has a right to exist and it's totally unfair to consider this apartheid.
I feel sorry for the anti Israel tech crowd, when basically all the tech they use probably has israeli licensed tech / ip in it and hence their usage of the tech ends up directly benefiting Israeli tax payers and therefore indirectly the Israeli government.
My sarcastic response to them, you need to become a luddite (or have an amish like rejection of modern technology).
Wasn't there this rule on not doing politics here? If someone were to create a site proclaiming "No Tech for Terrorists" would that site be allowed to be discussed here or would it be removed because of the aforementioned rule?
77 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadThat's a lot of organisations they share your details with, none of which I want emails from. In particular I'd like to use my work email address to sign this to make a point, but I definitely don't want emails from all these groups on my work email.
Rightfully or wrongly, there are anti-BDS laws in 35 American states and we all know which side the national security establishment is on.
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-tightens-up-anti-b...
Isn't this the outfit that has packs of attorneys at any leftist riot? My understanding is that anytime you see a well-dressed group quietly watching a George Floyd riot or equivalent, it's the NLG.
I would like to see the authors of this petition clarify their opinion of the United States and its status as a "settler-colonialist" entity.
I think you're making the mistake that "settler-colonialist" is some kind of demonic brand that condemns everything that it might be applied to to perdition or at least cancellation, but its really just a plain description of how history has brought us to this moment in time. There are egregious cases and less egregious ones.
That's precisely what they're doing. Anyone with even a casual understanding of the modern American hard-left knows that's what they're saying and anyone who says otherwise is obviously, willfully lying.
In general, identifying the most extreme opinions consonant with a general set of ideas will, no surprise, furnish you with extreme opinions. The "hard right" in the United States wants to "obliterate trans people from public life" and install a "Red Caesar" to de-secularize the United States under righteous authoritarian rule. It would be stupid of me to associate those beliefs with, for example, Mitch McConnell or conservative members of the supreme court, though see below.
The fact is that there is _no organized left_ in the United States. Those kids posting memes on tumbler have no power, Bernie Sanders (a moderate by the standards of European democracies) couldn't take the Democratic nomination from a liberal capitalist. Getting your brain twisted about the "far left" is deranged. The far right, on the other hand, is much more politically organized and engaged, as evidenced by the fact that they are, among other things, banning books, passing legislation, and gumming up congress as we speak.
I support Palestinian freedom. I want them to have their own state. I want them to be prosperous and happy.
But given a free and fair election they didn't choose that. They chose Hamas who then turned into a violent dictatorship killing a lot of Palestinians along the way. Now Hamas rips up infrastructure that the West donates like water pumps in order to build missiles.
So what do they want? All of us to die at the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah? Their literal goal is to drive us into the sea.
We need practical real solutions. I'm asking an honest question not a rhetorical one: what do they want? If we give Palestinians total freedom tomorrow they will turn around and try to murder us. As they just did to 1300 innocent people. The worst day since the Holocaust.
All of this reminds me of the performative actions around Ukraine. End the war to save lives by having Ukraine agree to be incorporated up Russia. Not that any of the people advocating this in the West like Chomsky would volunteer to live in a Russian dictatorship. Same here. How many of these people are willing to go live next to Hamas and Hezbollah and put their own families at real risk of death?
Hamas never offered peace. It's very easy to fall for Hamas propaganda.
Israel has offered the two state solution over a dozen times! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_...
But what Hamas means by a two state solution includes two things that don't make it a two state solution. The right of return and killing Jews. When Hamas says they offer peace read carefully. They offer a peace where Israel must withdraw (that's fine) but where all Palestinians have the right to reclaim every house they had before Israel existed. This means killing Jews. How is that peace?
Read for yourself https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2006/...
They aren't offering peace. They're offering for Israel and all Jews to volunteer for suicide. Would you do this? Allow a native American to murder your family because they have a claim to the land you're on?
The Likud party charter also calls for the destruction of Palestine, but it has never renounced that.
Hamas is still waging a holy war jihad, and their updated charter still does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state nor does it accept a two-state solution. They are still completely willing to use terror and violence to achieve this result. As evidence by their daily actions.
You can read the updated charter here: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full
> Palestine symbolises the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital.
...
> ...Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means.
> Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.
> A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.
Regarding Likud. I don't agree with Likud or Netanyahu either. An important difference though is that Israel is a democracy and power will shift.. probably soon.
Also, whether you support Israel as defending themselves, or consider Israeli actions a form of genocide, language matters. By using the term Apartheid I interpreted this as an unconscious attempt to marginalize the efforts and sacrifices made by those who fought against Apartheid in South Africa, including Nelson Mandela and many others - in order to increase emotional response for your cause. I am sure that is not what you intended, but in communication perception is as important as intention, if not more so.
So I ask that we all keep Apartheid to mean the struggle against racism, segregation and hatred that Nelson Mandela and his people fought hard to win.
Instead, come up with a new word. For example Apartheid means 'Separation. The Arabic word for "separation" is ﻓِﺮَﺍﻕ (pronounced "firaaq"). Firaaq could be the word to uniquely mean what is happening in Palestine, as Apartheid is for South Africa. Or use a Hebrew word (Apartheid was Afrikaaner IIRC), such as Hafrada, which is the Hebrew word for "separation". It can also mean "segregation".
By using a unique word close in cultural context to the events you create something that you can attach unique meaning to, and generate support against.
Just no. This is an entirely appropriate term and Israel doesn't need to re-brand it in order to escape the association with previous examples.
South Africa moved on from its apartheid problem. Israel needs to, also.
Keep this word in use, as it is entirely accurate and appropriate to be using this term. It doesn't matter if Israeli citizens are embarassed by it - they should be embarassed for the conditions of their state.
Nelson mandela HIMSELF called the Israel situation “Apartheid”.
"Not using the term apartheid" is, itself, an attempt to marginalize the efforts and sacrifices made by the Palestinian people against the apartheid state forced upon them.
-- https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nelson-mandela-30-years-p...
You’re quoting the South African President Cyril Ramaphosa who spoke in 2020.
Again, Mandela died in 2013.
It is not in contention that Mandela supported Palestinians. Though I cannot find evidence that he referred to the Israel conflict as apartheid.
I looked some more and found nothing. Criticism of Israel, yes, but not using that exact word.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/50771/did-nelso...
It's understandable if you were unaware - unlike South Africa, it gets little attention in the news: https://theintercept.com/2022/09/29/hill-tv-israel-apartheid...
Palestinians should have free and fair election and ask for its own free land and negotiate for that. Then they will have my support. Getting money from foreign country for terror shouldn't be anyone's aim.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-admits-he-rejected-2008-...
Israel is expanding settlements in the West Bank.
[1]: https://www.haaretz.com/2008-08-12/ty-article/pa-rejects-olm...
And it would withdraw from all occupied settlements in the West Bank.
It doesn't need agreement with Palestinians to do that.
Blanket condemnation oversimplifies a complex issue.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid
But I am afraid this will fail to convince you. With Israel, I am often reminded of that old joke about the car driver claiming that everyone on the motorway is driving the wrong way.
Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel. [..]
The Anti-Boycott Act of 2018 [..] does not target boycotts against Israel specifically, but makes it illegal to “comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by any foreign country, against a country which is friendly to the United States” [..] and as the Office of Antiboycott Compliance notes “The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal unsanctioned foreign boycott that U.S. persons must be concerned with today.”
Hamas is the reason we don't have a Palestinian state. They sent suicide bombers during the Oslo accord to stop any chance of peace.
There's a lot of valid criticism we can levy on Israel, I 100% agree with that. Especially against the current government. That's why it's important to focus on real issues e.g. a more reliable organization covering the bad things happening in the territories and Gaza: https://www.btselem.org/
Palestinians were expelled from their land based on their race, they cannot get Israeli citizenship despite having lived there for centuries, while a Jew from New York can get that citizenship by virtue of his race.
> Calling Israels war with Hamas Apartheid is utter nonsense.
You're right. Israel was at war with Palestinians long before Hamas came to be, and made no effort to coexist with them under a system of segregation. Their actions are better described as 'genocide'.
> mass murder of civilians.
At least 14,212 Palestinians and 2,746 Israelis have been killed by someone from the other side since 2000. - https://ifamericansknew.org/stat/deaths.html
I assume you're of the opinion that the Israeli deaths were due to unprovoked attacks, and the Palestinian deaths were justified retaliation, albeit with regrettable collateral damage?
Israel has over 2M Arab citizens. An Arab supreme court Justice and one of the most liberal human rights laws anywhere. This just isn't true.
Palestinians in the occupied territories are not citizens but that is due to the fact that these territories aren't a part of Israel. This is bad but also leaves an opening to a Palestinian state in the future.
Most of the Palestinians who don't live in Israel left after the independence war. This war was started by Palestinians who were unhappy with the division of the land. They lost and some ran off. Those who stayed got full citizenship.
Those who ran can't come back. This is sad but understandable. To be fair, many Jews lived in Arab countries prior to the formation of Israel. They can't go back either and also lost all of their possessions when they ran.
The right of return is specifically aimed for Jews since Israel is defined as the homeland of the Jewish people. Yes, it's a problematic law but a special case, it's the exception not the rule.
> You're right. Israel was at war with Palestinians long before Hamas came to be, and made no effort to coexist with them under a system of segregation. Their actions are better described as 'genocide'.
Nonsense.
Israelis co-existed with the Arab populace. Local Arab leaders wrote congratulatory letters to the Israeli government after the 1967 6 day war. There were violent incidence and discrimination for sure. But also amazing co-existence. Famously, the Jews in Haifa stopped the local Arab population from running in the independence war and guaranteed their safety.
There is no segregation in Israel. Some cities are Jewish and some are Arab. Some are mixed e.g. Jerusalem, Haifa, Tel-Aviv/Jaffa etc. are all huge mixed cities. It's illegal to discriminate based on race/religion/gender or sexual orientation. Does it happen? Yes. Do people sue and win? Also yes.
> > mass murder of civilians.
> At least 14,212 Palestinians and 2,746 Israelis have been killed by someone from the other side since 2000. - https://ifamericansknew.org/stat/deaths.html
You're mixing between the occupied territories and Israel. Jews were killed mostly in terror attacks which included MANY suicide bombings during those years. Retaliation took many forms but this is war. Notice children got killed in both sides.
I 100% agree the occupation should stop. But the Hamas specifically places children in the line of fire to create these situations. E.g. just the other day the Hamas claimed Israel killed 500 people in a hospital. Turns out it was a misfired missile they tried to shoot at Israel. They did that a lot over the past few years.
Israel makes a lot of effort to minimize civilian casualties. But how would you fight against an enemy that puts on suicide vests and blows up busses en-mass?
That enemy is driven by an extremist religious dogma and believes that children who die are rewarded in heaven. They use children as human shields and have no moral compass.
I agree Israel should do better. But it's not a simple task.
> I assume you're of the opinion that the Israeli deaths were due to unprovoked attacks, and the Palestinian deaths were justified retaliation, albeit with regrettable collateral damage?
I want a peaceful solution. So do 80-90 percent of Palestinians and Israelis. There are the crazy people on both sides who keep destroying that chance for peace.
Making the rhetoric more extreme and supporting these psychos (like the Hamas) is damaging to both sides.
The depopulation of Palestine was no accident. The Zionist movement sought to create a Jewish state in a territory where Jews were a minority. On the eve of the Nakba, Jews constituted 30 percent of the population and owned 7 percent of the land. Within months, they forged a state on 78 percent of the territory where they flipped the demographic ratio from 30:70 Jews to Arabs to 90:10. To think such dramatic demographic change happens by accident—only coincidently suiting decades old Zionist aims—is dangerous naiveté. Such things happen only by design. — https://www.thedailybeast.com/nakba-denials-must-be-condemne...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Natio...
Look, I get it, you want a country of your own, and consider some Palestinian displacement a necessary consequence. Can't make an omelette etc. But people would respect Israel a lot more if it just admitted it's a Jewish ethno-state borne of conquest, instead of peddling excuses and rationalizations how they just want to ensure democracy, and expelling the previous inhabitants of what is now their land is just an unfortunate coincidence that is not their fault.
Dude. I live next to Jaffa and it is 100% an Arab city. Not "depopulated". Neither is Haifa etc.
We can go back to 48 in which case we can start talking about the staggering amount of death dished out by both sides. It's tragic but doesn't help anyone. It also predates modern law and democracy in Israel. It predates human rights laws etc.
There was a large amount of immigration to Israel in the 40s as Jews fled the Holocaust. Once borders opened up they moved in and also fled Arab countries where they were quickly deemed the enemy. People lost everything there too. I'm not saying the Palestinians aren't a victim here, but don't pretend they weren't an aggressor either. This was a bad situation with victims and aggressors on both sides.
> Such things happen only by design.
This is nonsense and speculative. It's inconsistent with the facts that some communities remained whole while others were indeed chased away.
> People would respect Israel a lot more if it just admitted it's a Jewish ethno-state borne of conquest, instead of peddling excuses and rationalizations how they just want to ensure democracy, and expelling the previous inhabitants of what is now their land is just an unfortunate coincidence that is not their fault.
This is ridiculous. People would most certainly not respect Israel more if it made such a claim.
Why doesn't the USA make this exact claim for native Americans? Or really, any country that exists in the Americas? Australia? Hell, the UKs crown is German ruling over Danes.
If the unfortunate coincidence would have gone the other way it's a good chance that Jews would no longer exist. I'm sorry for the suffering of the Palestinian people. I truly am. But when that happened instead of talking to Israel the surrounding countries ganged up and attacked multiple times. The only reason Israel has these territories to begin with is that 3 armies surrounded Israel and attacked it together.
After the 1948 Palestine War, most of its Arab population fled or were expelled, and the city became part of then newly established state of Israel, and was unified into a single municipality with Tel Aviv in 1950. Today, Jaffa is one of Israel's mixed cities, with approximately 37% of the city being Arab. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa
Yes, it's a single municipality, my kids go to school there. Tel Aviv grew to be bigger than Jaffa we have huge towers here and Jaffa is an ancient city so you can't build up there.
The benefit of being a part of Tel Aviv means it has the same municipal services and advantages of being a part of the richest municipality in Israel.
I highly doubt the 37% number though. I'm guessing it includes new construction on the outskirts as Arabic is the main language around in the street and in most shops. Looking at the Hebrew page there are more than 46,400 Arabs living in Tel-Aviv/Jaffa compared to 414,200 Jews most of whom live in the Tel Aviv region. Some Jews live in Jaffa but it's still very much an Arab city.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I agree very much, with one caveat though: Hamas isn't claiming anything about being "the only democracy in the Middle East", it doesn't export military surveillance tech (to my knowledge), it doesn't receive substantial support from my government. So while I agree that with friends like Hamas, you don't really need enemies, I just can't get worked up about that. They do what they do and what I resent and stand against -- but they don't involve me. (the right-wing government of) Israel very much tries to involve me, by proxy. To Hamas, I'm just an infidel; to Likud, I'm an useful idiot in spe. They claim we're similar, playing the same game in the same ball park, and thereby force me to refute them.
E.g. at the moment Israel is still on a "neutral side" in the Russia/Ukraine conflict which is insane.
I hope this is a temporary thing. I hope that Israel can leave this dark period and be more worthy.
It has to! Israel cannot give in to the very aspirations of antisemites, but it also must not become like its persecutors.
As a German, I cannot even begin to say what I feel, but it's a lot. It's a tangent, but I have to think of the Israeli movie "Walk on Water" (which I love, as kitschy as it may be), and which kinda sums up what I'm struggling to express. I sincerely wish Israel to be safe and sound and something to be proud of (or jealous of), and that includes the "heart", not just the territory. Antisemites aren't scared of Israeli atrocities, they're smug about them, they love to be able to point to them. And I wish there was nothing to point to. That wouldn't make antisemitism go away, but it would put Israel on better footing, I genuinely believe that.
There is a Chinese proverb, "he who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount". I think this applies to the jingoists of both sides (and certainly Netanyahu), they have nowhere to go to except to climb even higher. But as you said, most "normal people" dragged into any conflict are really just normal people and don't wish harm on anyone. People need to find a way to talk to each other without their "leaders". Keep your head up, and thanks for speaking out.
It can't as long as support for (and opposition to) the forces that are dependent on keeping Israel in that dark period is conflated with support for (and opposition to) Israel.
That's not the only barrier, but it is a sufficient one.
> Calling Israels war with Hamas Apartheid is utter nonsense
Yeah, nobody does that. All the major human rights organisations (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and in Israel, B'Tselem) agree in defining the regime imposed by Israel in the West Bank (not Gaza!) as apartheid. This is because an Israeli citizen in the West Bank (outside Israel proper) enjoys civil rights that his neighbours don't have- despite the power over both ultimately resting in the Israeli state. However, also don't forget that the West Bank and Gaza are part of the same country (or aspirational one)- so it's not exactly fair to say that the people of Gaza should not be bothered by what happens in the West Bank and vice-versa, they are just two regions of the same country. We would not say that it is unjustified for Texans to go to war if New York were attacked.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid
> Hamas is the reason we don't have a Palestinian state
Hamas is only in power in Gaza. The West Bank is governed by the much more moderate Fatah, and they still don't have a Palestinian state. However, Hamas is obviously a problem: so much so that it's known that Israel secretly supported it to weaken and divide their more moderate political counterparts. Also, note that the Likud party (Netanyahu's) has denied the right to the existence of a Palestinian state since its first charter:
"a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform...
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-...
https://www.tbsnews.net/hamas-israel-war/how-israel-went-hel...
> Hamas is only in power in Gaza. The West Bank is governed by the much more moderate Fatah, and they still don't have a Palestinian state.
This became the situation after Oslo was effectively dead (thanks to the Hamas).
> However, Hamas is obviously a problem: so much so that it's known that Israel secretly supported it to weaken and divide their more moderate political counterparts:
THIS!!!
But it isn't a "secret". Netanyahu said it out loud in 2019, I don't have the link though.
He purposely supported the Hamas to weaken the PLO/Fatah and prevent the chance of a Palestinian state. He did some of that as far back as the 90's during the Oslo accord to stop that process.
It's insane. We've been trying to get rid of that f*ing criminal but he's a sticky demagogue who always lands on his feet. Even now when he clearly bears a lot of the fault for this recent attack he still holds onto power and refuses to accept responsibility.
"a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
"From the river to the sea", indeed.
That's a very good and indeed sad point. I think we were very close to a Palestinian state in the 90s. The stars aligned and both sides had leaders with enough sway to pull that off.
The Likud was beaten and then Hamas started blowing up things. That's a moment in time I'm talking about when I'm blaming Hamas for the lack of Palestinian state.
That moment in time is gone. Even if the Hamas vanished tomorrow there are no longer leaders on either side who are willing/able to move that dream forward.
Bibi essentially destroyed that potential and also set into the minds of Israelis that there's no partner for peace. Removing the Hamas is one step, removing the Likud is another. Unfortunately, even both of these steps won't be enough to restart that process.
I think Israelis really need to ask themselves if they're sincere in their support for the creation of a Palestinian state. Which entails removing settlements, establishing and respecting an international border, and accepting that they will have to give up land and never, ever, expand Israel by another square centimetre. I saw the huge protests against Netanyahu in the last months- they have been saluted in the West as the proof of the civil conscience of democratic Israelis. However, I have not seen such huge protests, not even much smaller ones, to stop what human rights organisations call apartheid- which is incommensurably worse than a law to limit the powers of the Supreme Court. What is a Supreme Court that allows apartheid worth anyway?
Leaders make peace agreements. They also enforce them by controlling their own people. Peace doesn't spontaneously happen without two people signing an accord. In the past it was Rabin and Arafat. Now Abbas is too weak and so is the liberal wing in Israel. There's no one with the power or motivation to move in that direction.
> In the end, the only voice that has any influence in the West is that of Israel. Palestinians are ignored or blamed.
This is very selective and ignores cases where the UK and USA conspired against Israel in the 50s. It ignores the media coverage in Europe which is often anti-Israeli, specifically the BBC is very pro-Palestinian. It also ignores the mirror image in Arab countries which shows a very biased anti-Israel view of the situation.
Israel is held to a higher standard than the Palestinians. I don't think that's necessarily wrong, Israel is a state not a terrorist organization. But people often forget that. There are still laws and standards.
E.g. a couple of years ago a terrorist tried to stab a soldier and was shot. He was lying down neutralized and a soldier walked up to him and shot him. That soldier went to jail for killing a terrorist. People were upset about that, but it shows there's justice. Even a terrorist deserves justice.
Israel doesn't live up to that standard every time, but it does the right thing in most cases.
> I think Israelis really need to ask themselves if they're sincere in their support for the creation of a Palestinian state.
Many want a Palestinian state and many don't. It's a struggle that has been tearing the Israeli society from within. A long running Palestinian joke is that if they would leave Israel alone the Jews will kill one another in a week.
> Which entails removing settlements, establishing and respecting an international border
Israel did that in the past when it signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. It removed settlements from Gaza and left that area.
> never, ever, expand Israel by another square centimetre.
Israel got these extra territories as a result of a pending attack. It didn't explicitly go out to try and expand its borders and never tried to do that. There are encroaching settlements which I agree are very bad, but they are on top of land that's already occupied.
> to stop what human rights organisations call apartheid
Those happened in the 90s and 80s. They were huge and birthed major movements. These protests led to the Oslo accord. The failure of that (again due in large part to the Hamas) essentially decimated these movements and most of the country now considers this as bunk. "We tried peace, we tried giving them a country and they blew up busses and coffee shops".
I think that's a false narrative as the Palestinians are not a single entity. But it's very hard to make that case today. Especially now. After the Hamas murdered and kidnapped women and children people were celebrating in the streets of Gaza. These pictures (as well as the horrible stuff on social networks) reached the Israeli public. This has brought a level of rage that unfortunately isn't limited only to the Hamas.
> What is a Supreme Court that allows apartheid worth anyway?
I actually agree with that partially, but it would probably be MUCH worse if it weren't for that court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_...
Yet somehow this isn't of any interest to those people making claims of "Israeli apartheid" and demanding boycotts and so on. Very one-sided.
No, its not, and Israel's apartheid predates Hamas (and fostering the development in Gaza of the Islamist network that became Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO was a strategic part of perpetuating it.)
A few years after the PLO laid down its arms Rabin was elected and the Oslo accord took place.
However, Israel has a right to exist and it's totally unfair to consider this apartheid.
My sarcastic response to them, you need to become a luddite (or have an amish like rejection of modern technology).