Practically all Palestinians and Muslims deny it. These apartheid claims are nonsense. And 2 million Arabs live in Israel and have a TON more rights than those who live in Gaza under Hamas dictatorship or in the West Bank under corrupt Fatah - especially, but not only the women, gays, LBGTQIA+ etc. It would be for the best. The Gazans brought it upon themselves. They attacked Israel.
Okay. I don’t personally care what the Palestinians claim to believe or the Israeli’s because they are incredibly biased on the topic. I don’t know of anyone personally that didn’t believe that Hamas raped women. If Hamas was willing to murder and behead civilians - they are certainly capable of rape. The treatment of the occupied territories is apartheid. We can argue why it is that way - but pretty hard to argue it doesn’t exist and hasn’t existed.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4343950 Why Allegations that Israel Is An 'Apartheid' State Are False under International Law 34 Pages Posted: 1 Feb 2023 Jay Sekulow American Center for Law and Justice; M.G. Robertson Global Centre for Law & Policy Robert Ash M.G. Robertson Global Centre for Law & Policy; American Center for Law and Justice; Regent University - School of Law Date Written: January 31, 2023 Abstract One of the most highly charged accusations aimed at the State of Israel today is that Israel is an “apartheid” State that engages in widespread, state-sanctioned, racially-motivated discrimination against the “Palestinians,” which term is understood to mean by Israel’s accusers the Arabs living anywhere within the confines of the former Mandate for Palestine plus those identifying as Palestinian who live in third countries. Yet, an honest look at the facts utterly destroys such charges. Apartheid was the South African system that denied certain racial groups access to the political and judicial systems in their country, consigned them to inferior living spaces and educational opportunities, and controlled every aspect of their lives. In this paper, we trace the history of apartheid and note that racial animus and motivation for differential treatment of groups are essential for determining whether apartheid exists. We note first that the Arabs living in the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine (which includes Israel, the “West Bank,” and the Gaza Strip) are racially identical. Yet, Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights as Jewish Israelis, including the right to form political parties and stand for election, opportunities to serve as members of the Knesset, the judiciary, the diplomatic corps, the police, and so on—rights and privileges totally foreign and anathema to an apartheid State—thereby eviscerating claims of racial discrimination, which underlie apartheid. As such, differences in Israel’s treatment of Arabs living in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip and Arabs citizens of Israel are not—and, indeed, cannot be—“racially” motivated for the simple reason that both groups of Arabs are racially identical. For the claim of apartheid to be true, one would expect Israel to devise racially discriminatory policies against all Arabs under its control, which Israel clearly does not do. Hence, there must be another reason for the disparate treatment. So, how does one explain the differences in treatment between Arab Israelis and Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip? The answer is not complicated. Arabs residing in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are not now—and never have been—Israeli citizens and, therefore, cannot claim rights due to Israeli citizens. All countries favor their own citizens vis-à-vis non-citizens, and doing so is not an indication of apartheid simply because the two groups are treated differently. Moreover, many Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with Israel. Israel is faced with a hostile Arab population which has yet to come to terms with Israel’s existence and which actively seeks to destroy the Jewish State. That requires Israel to take certain measures for its national security. Because of the ongoing conflict, the relationship of Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip with Israel is governed primarily by the terms of the Law of Armed Conflict. As such, any acts or policies of alleged discrimination by Israel against the Arabs living in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip must be viewed through the lens of the Law of Armed Conflict. As long as Israel’s actions and policies comply with applicable international law, they are lawful. Israel’s actions are based on well-recognized national security needs, not racial animus. The bottom line is this: Israel treats all of its citizens—be they Jew, Arab, or Druze—equally before the law, irrespective of any racial or ethnic differences. And, Israeli policies regarding application of military law, administrative detentions, defensive use of force, security check points, etc., in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are all lawful security measures permitted under the Law of Armed Conflict. Accordingly, Israel’s actions are the very antithesis of apartheid, which should put to rest the apartheid lie once and for all.
The opposite is true: You are the prejudiced one - your position is that of the very fringe, extremist, anti-semitic, pro-Hamas left. You should be embarrassed. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hou...ael-racist-apartheid-state/story?id=101410569 House passes resolution saying Israel isn't a 'racist or apartheid state' The measure was a rebuke of comments made by Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal. The House on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a resolution to reaffirm Israel is not a "racist state" and to condemn antisemitism -- a GOP-led effort designed to drive a wedge between Democrats as the party contends with divisions in its ranks concerning the U.S. ally. The vote was 412-9-1 with nine Democrats voting no, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Jamaal Bowman, Summer Lee, Cori Bush, Ayanna Pressley, Andre Carson and Delia Ramirez. Notably, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, whose recent comments sparked the move, voted yes. (Rep. Betty McCollum voted present.) The resolution, introduced by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, says "the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state, Congress rejects all forms of antisemitism and xenophobia, and the United States will always be a staunch partner and supporter of Israel." The vote was essentially a rebuke of Jayapal, who has walked back her comments calling Israel a "racist state" and apologized to those she hurt with the remarks made at a political conference over the weekend. Seeking to clarify her remarks, Jayapal said she supported the two-state solution but is opposed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's regime and its policies. Top Democrats issued a statement over the weekend countering Jayapal's remarks in which they declared, "Israel is not a racist state." "Our commitment to a safe and secure Israel as an invaluable partner, ally and beacon of democracy in the Middle East is ironclad," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Reps. Katherine Clark, Pete Aguilar and Ted Lieu said in a statement. Aguilar further touted the "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel during a news conference on Tuesday, where he was asked whether the Israel resolution would expose division within the party. "No, there's unity in the Democratic caucus," Aguilar responded. "I think you'll see that with strong attendance from our colleagues on the House floor to see the president of Israel address us." House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-Calif., applauded the resolution. "I think you have seen some growing antisemitism over the years and including coming from some members of Congress. And I think it's always important that we reiterate our strong support with our great ally Israel, and stand up to antisemitism wherever we see it," Scalise said. Presented with the contrast between his condemnation of antisemitism with House Republicans' plans for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to testify before a House subcommittee -- despite Kennedy recently being accused of antisemitism for his false claim that COVID-19 was "targeted to" certain ethnicities while Chinese people and Jewish people of European descent were more immune -- Scalise criticized Kennedy's remarks. "I don't agree with that," Scalise said when asked about Kennedy's recent comments. "But we're bringing legislation so that every member of Congress can be on record about whether or not they stand up against antisemitism." The House vote came as Israeli President Isaac Herzog was in Washington to meet with President Joe Biden at the White House. Herzog will address a joint meeting of Congress on Wednesday to mark the 75th anniversary of Israel's statehood. Some progressive Democrats, including Reps. Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have said they will boycott his remarks. ________________ P.S.: @Nook is normally a very smart and balanced poster. I can only ascribe you agreeing with the extremist leftists on calling Israel an apartheid state to your personal situation, as Arabs largely represent that position - basically, they might be fantastic people otherwise but are brainwashed when it comes to Israel, and it rubs off on those around them.
Way more unbiased take. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid More, including from a former Massad chief... https://apnews.com/article/israel-apartheid-palestinians-occupation-c8137c9e7f33c2cba7b0b5ac7fa8d115 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023...theid-is-not-anti-semitic-holocaust-historian https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...on-decided-to-call-israel-an-apartheid-regime
LOL Al Jazeera, funded by Qatar who also fund Hamas. Your true colours are showing. As I showed, only the most extreme, hateful, anti-semitic leftists even among the Democrats are sharing your Jew-hating position. 412-9-1 in the house: Israel is not an apartheid state. I have been to Israel. 2 million Arabs in Israel (and Christians, and folks of any race or religious background) have the same rights when they are Israeli citizens. Again, Muslims in Israel, particularly if they are women or LGBTQIA+, enjoy far greater freedoms and rights than under Hamas rule in Gaza, than under Fatah rule in the West Bank and in fact than any Muslim in any of the majority Muslim countries around Israel. As the legal paper I quoted correctly states, "apartheid" describes legally discriminatory treatment of a group of people based on their race. This does not happen in Israel. And - as the events of October 7th and countless rocket attacks and suicide bombings over the years show - Israel's border controls etc. of Gaza and the West Bank are based on legitimate security interests to protect its own civilians - including Arab Muslims who are citizens of Israel (some of whom were killed or kidnapped by Hamas during the October 7th genocidal attack).
LOL that's all you have left, after having been exposed as a Jew hater like Rashida Tlaib. I am merely representing the same position as respected legal scholars and practically all Republicans and Democrats in Congress except for a few crazy extremists (492-9-1): Israel is not an apartheid state. I guess you call 492 members of the House of Representatives "propagandists".
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hou...ael-racist-apartheid-state/story?id=101410569 The resolution, introduced by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, says "the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state, Congress rejects all forms of antisemitism and xenophobia, and the United States will always be a staunch partner and supporter of Israel." The vote was 412-9-1 with nine Democrats voting no, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Jamaal Bowman, Summer Lee, Cori Bush, Ayanna Pressley, Andre Carson and Delia Ramirez.
Your frustration that your extremist, Jew-hating worldview is rejected by the vast majority of members of the House of Representatives (412-9-1 - bi-partisan agreement), from both parties, is palpable. You have not presented any argument of any substance - just anger and hate.
No, Israel is Not an Apartheid State: Here’s Why · The term “apartheid” often enters discussions about Israel, but how apt is this comparison? To address this, let’s revisit what apartheid means and contrast it with the situation in Israel, incorporating updated information. What Defines an Apartheid State? An “apartheid state” is characterized by systemic, institutionalized racial segregation, discrimination, and disenfranchisement. The term originated in South Africa, where laws formally enforced a system segregating black and white populations in almost every aspect of daily life. Key features typically include: Legalized Discrimination: Laws specifically define racial categories and prescribe rights and privileges accordingly. Segregation: Physical and social segregation, often in housing, education, and healthcare. Political Disenfranchisement: The oppressed racial group has limited or no voting rights or representation. Economic Disenfranchisement: Limited access to land, resources, and job opportunities for the discriminated racial or ethnic groups. State Violence and Coercion: Use of force to maintain the system. South Africa Under White Rule: A Textbook Apartheid State In apartheid South Africa, the white nationalist government explicitly encoded racial discrimination into law in order to subjugate the black majority population. The hallmarks were everywhere: Racial Discrimination: The Population Registration Act classified all South Africans by race. The Group Areas Act then segregated residential and business districts by race. Segregation: The government created separate public amenities like beaches, buses, hospitals and schools for different racial groups under the Separate Amenities Act. The Group Areas Act (1950) designated separate residential and business areas for different racial groups. Citizenship: Black South Africans were deprived of citizenship and forcibly removed from urban areas and crowded into isolated “Bantustans.” Legal Systems: Black South Africans could not vote, stand for political office, nor form political organizations. Only whites had true political representation. Educational Systems: The Bantu Education Act (1953) segregated educational systems with different curricula for Black South Africans. Freedom of Movement: Pass Laws: Black South Africans were required to carry a “passbook” and could only be in certain areas with permission. Marriage Laws: Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949) and Immorality Act (1950) made it illegal for individuals of different races to marry or have sexual relations. Removal from Homelands: Black South Africans were forcibly removed to so-called “homelands” meant to serve as separate nations, further disenfranchising them economically and politically. State-Sponsored Violence: Harsh crackdowns, imprisonment, and even killings of anti-apartheid activists. State security forces violently suppressed any anti-apartheid activism, killing protesters like the Sharpeville massacre in 1960. This was intentional, methodical racial oppression enforced by the full power of the state. Why Israel Is NOT an Apartheid State Israel is a parliamentary democracy with legal safeguards against racial discrimination. While critiques are valid, a sober examination shows that the term “apartheid” doesn’t hold up. Arab citizens participate actively in government, business, academia, medicine, pop culture and more. Do systemic biases exist? Yes, as with any democracy wrestling with ethnic diversity and conflict. But the reality on the ground defies the apartheid label. Lets look at each of the South African categories above and contrast them with Israel’s policies: Racial Discrimination: Israel has no laws that discriminate or classify by ethnicity. Arab Israelis have full equal rights under the law. Example: In the 2021 Knesset elections, the United Arab List party became a pivotal part of the governing coalition, highlighting the significant role Arabs play in Israel’s political landscape. Segregation: There are no laws mandating segregation in public facilities. Arab and Jewish Israelis study, ride buses, receive medical treatment, and more together. Arabs and Jews also live in mixed cities like Haifa, Jaffa, Ramle, Lod, Acre, among others. Example: Initiatives like the “Hand in Hand” schools aim for integrated, bilingual education for Arab and Jewish children. Citizenship: Arab citizens of Israel have full equal citizenship rights. Example: Arab voter turnout in Israel is over 80%. An Arab party is currently part of the governing parliamentary coalition. Legal System: Arab citizens can vote, hold office, and serve at all levels of government. 17 Arab lawmakers currently serve in the Knesset. Example: An Arab justice even sits on the Supreme Court. In 2020, Justice George Kara, an Arab Christian, was a prominent member of the Central Elections Committee, responsible for overseeing national elections. Education System: No legally segregated school systems. Arab Israelis have access to the same public schools and healthcare as Jewish Israelis. Arab and Jewish students attend the same secular and religious public schools. Israel’s top universities have Arab students and faculty. While disparities exist, there are no laws prohibiting Arab Israelis from certain professions. Example: In 2022, Technion — Israel Institute of Technology reported that 22% of its undergraduate students were Arabs, compared to 19% a few years earlier. Freedom of Movement: Arab citizens have freedom of movement and residence. Arabs live in mixed cities and communities throughout Israel. The Israeli government has no “pass laws” restricting Arab Israelis from living in any part of the country. Marriage Laws: There are no restrictions on interfaith or interethnic marriages in Israel. Marriages performed legally abroad are also recognized. Removal from Homelands: Arab Israelis live in mixed cities throughout Israel. Example: Arab families reside freely in cities like Haifa, Tel Aviv-Jaffa, and Jerusalem, and there are no laws forcing them to live in separate regions. State Violence: Arab citizens can freely protest policies. No state-sanctioned political violence against dissidents. Arabs participate actively in civil society. Example: Protests against government policies, like the 2021 demonstrations against Gaza violence, took place without state-sanctioned violence against Arab citizens. While social and economic inequalities exist between Jewish and Arab citizens, Israel has no laws segregating housing, schools or public facilities. Interfaith marriages are legal. All citizens have access to the judicial system. Words Matter: Let’s Have an Open, Nuanced Dialogue The issues are complex, and they deserve thorough, nuanced discussion. Using inaccurate terms like “apartheid” only polarizes the conversation, without bringing us any closer to understanding or solutions. Therefore, it’s crucial to set the record straight with factual information and recent examples. We should actively discuss and debate Israeli policies toward Arab citizens, Palestinians, and any allegations of discrimination. But wielding explosive terms like “apartheid” shuts down dialogue. Legitimate issues exist, but cheap comparisons to South African apartheid are factually wrong and only antagonize and polarize. For the sake of mutual understanding, let’s shelve the rhetoric and start unpacking the nuance.
And fringe left wing extremist Jew hater @FranchiseBlade is just concerned about falsely labeling Israel an "apartheid state", instead of acknowledging the suffering of these poor innocent women. A prime example of the leftist/Islamist ideological alliance.
It is hard to have a dialogue when someone doesn’t believe that Palestinians haven’t lived in an apartheid state. Nelson Mandela - when South Africa’s National Party finally lost power - in his famous speech actually pointed out explicitly that Palestinians were under apartheid.
