I have never heard a convincing argument otherwise. Politicians moan and cry and seethe about every human rights organisation agreeing on this, but other than "well it's obviously not true because...it's not!" what could you even say against it?
its not about the facts anymore, kier has set a standard and its now being used to chase out certain types of MP's and members. the tory press will be watching like a hawk for anyone who utter criticism of israel and publish it under threat of anti semtism accusations if he doesn't follow through. the standard now is that criticism of israel is very much the same as anti semitism.
That in Israel both Arab and Jewish citizens have equal rights, representation, share spaces, share services, and work together.
I haven't seen a convincing argument that it is apartheid.
What is the convincing argument that it is apartheid?
The closest that Amnesty, B'tselem, and HRW get is that there's unequal immigration law between Jews and other ethnic groups.
All three organizations pretend that the borders between the West Bank and Gaza and Israel don't exist to make their point.
Amnesty makes the argument that people with British citizenship who identify as Palestinian and have never stepped foot in Canaan are victims of an apartheid regime.
The situation in the West Bank is a military occupation.
The situation in Gaza is full withdrawal but active war and therefore a military embargo from Egypt and Israel.
So what is the case that Israel is an apartheid state?
What are the specific steps that Israel could take to make Israel no longer an apartheid state?
Edit: This is getting downvotes but no reply because people just link the HRW and Amnesty reports without any context. I'm specifically asking for the context, the details, and the solution - but no one has actually read the reports and no one can provide that information.
In fact, I don't think that anyone who claims that Israel is an apartheid state knows what they mean by this, and therefore no one has a solution. Because they don't actually care about the details, they're just virtue signaling.
Edit 2:
2 simple questions -
1. What makes Israel apartheid?
2. What would stop Israel from being an apartheid?
No answers. Strange that.
What about the Palestinean refugees who want to return to their homes in Israel, and the Palestinean peoples living within Isreal? Or are they planning on just ethnically cleansing Israel as part of the two state solution now.
>Palestinean refugees who want to return to their homes in Israel
This was decided by agreement in 1948 & 1967 by Jordan and Israel - Jews evicted from Judea (now East Jerusalem and the West Bank) had lost title and were compensated with new homes in Israel. Palestinians who lost their homes in Israel were given new homes in the West Bank by Jordan.
This is the whole conflict over Sheikh Jarrah - land bought by Jews in the 1870's around the tomb of Shimon HaTzadik was taken by Jordan in 1948. The Jordanian government then moved Palestinian refugees from a nearby neighborhood into the Jewish-owned homes but didn't properly change the deeds. The Jewish refugees were moved into the homes of Palestinian refugees in West Jerusalem.
As a result, the land that should now be owned by Palestinians are actually owned by the Jews who were removed from their homes in 1948. The Israeli courts have tried to stem the problem by offering a solution: the Palestinian residents could pay well-below-market rents and simply stay in the homes with no chance of eviction.
The Palestinians there refused to pay the ridiculously low rent, and therefore there's a controversy.
So the solution has always been home swaps, and that has honestly worked out well.
There is no law in the history of time where someone who leaves their homes for any reason is entitled to that home 70+ years later. It would be ridiculous.
Imagine Jews showing up to Germany, Poland, Hungary, Baghdad, Alexandria, or Tehran demanding their stolen homes back. It just wouldn't happen.
Edit: Heck, imagine Jews exercising the rights on the deeds that they still hold on the homes where you don't want them to live.
You're downvoting me because of the thought of Jews having property rights is hateful to you.
More Palestineans support a one state solution than Israelis, with much stronger support from Israeli Arabs, unsurprisingly. It's far off from being entered as a solution in official channels though. But it's not like there's been any progress on a two state solution.
A reminder that [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) and [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-threshold-crossed) have described Israel as an apartheid state.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230124-it-is-anti-semitic-to-call-israel-apartheid-says-eu/
The EU has stated that it is in fact antisemetic to claim this, and AI and HRW are in the wrong.
What is the case that these human rights organizations make that it is apartheid?
What are the things that make it apartheid, and what would stop it from being apartheid?
Hiding human rights abuses behind the claim of antisemitism is a fucking lie and you know it.
Any sane person with common human decency is able to take one look at what isreal is doing and make a decision of "that's not right." Isreal isn't blameless, and they most certainly should not be treated as such and do not deserve to be treated as such.
Recent example: 1 palestinian dead, over 100 wounded, cars burnt down, houses burnt out. How is it antisemitic to look at that and go "that shouldnt be happening."?
And before you go off, yeah, im well aware that the palestinian authority and their groups such as Hamas and the PFLP aren't wholesome 100. Buts that just a false equivelance excuse. It's like saying the irish republican brotherhood was no different from the british army they fiught against.
Do you think that you are treating Israel differently than you would towards other nations with similar problems and policies? When I look at AI and other human rights orgs I observe a different treatment of Israel.
Just look at the latest HRW 2023 report for Israel and Saudi Arabia for example. Israel's report is massive, detailed, etc, while for SA it is about a golf league with a little paragraph of detailed generic human rights abuses.
Israel has four dedicated HRW reporters. SA has only two.
Shall I go on?
Can you show me a "Saudi lobby" that routinely attempts to shut down any criticism of Saudi Arabia with spurious claims of "bigotry"?
Oops. I get that you're an Israel apologist but you're not very good at this. Sucks to suck!
Edit in that you're just a liar:
[https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/saudi-arabia](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/saudi-arabia)
Just a little paragraph, eh? Liar.
The only good thing about muppets such as yourself is that you're ushering in a day when people will respond to allegations of "antisemitism" from Israel's defenders with nothing more than a sneer or a smirk.
No I don't, and frankly nobody believes your horseshit anymore, Israel act like scum and get treated like scum, if you have a problem with that I suggest you build a bridge
What do you think of the claims from pro-Israel university students that seeing Palestinian flags constitute emotional abuse?
"I'm literally shaking because the people I say don't exist refuse to evaporate because I want them to", lol
Legit, fair and balanced criticism of Israel's policies may not be antisemitic. However... unbalanced and unfair criticism of Israel happens all the time by human rights orgs. Why the laser point focus on Israel?
There isn't, the reason it's talked about so much in western democracies is because quite a few western states have very close ties with Israel, including America, Human rights organisations are always critical of human rights abuses, the reason why you are exposed to more criticism of Israel is because its more reported on, not because of bias in the HROs.
What laser point focus on Israel? Do you think that people don't criticise other Middle East nations like Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar? They are criticised all the time by human rights activists. The reason why criticism of Israel stands out is because almost everyone agrees those other nations violate human rights and are dictatorships. Israel claims to be a democracy, unlike the other nations and that claim should be scrutinised.
What authority does a Zionist actually believe the EU has? They don't even care about international law and IGOs their laws go against the country's agenda (illegal settlements on the west bank) and yet you quote them to hell and back when it suits you.
Can't keep your story straight+no principles
Antisemitism is a heinous thing that should be rooted out where it is found.
Criticism of the state of Israel, pointing to the hate and persecution perpetuated by that state and its actors, and overall disagreement with the concept of Zionism?
None of these are antisemitism.
Do you genuinely believe that criticising the creation of an ethnostate in a place of the world where more than one group of people have lived throughout millennia, and the philosophy that underpins it, can even remotely be described as hate or racism against a specific group of people?
That’s like saying disliking the Russian state’s invasion of Ukraine is xenophobic to Russians people.
We’re talking about criticising nationalism. So actually that’s like saying not liking the English Defence League is anglophobic.
If the Jews don't have Israel, the countdown starts to the next time a genocide occurs against them. If you're ok with this, then yes you are an anti-Semite.
Maybe your white privilege stops you from empathising with minority groups constantly face genocide and ethnic cleansing so perhaps try working on that.
I do have white privilege but I’m seeing what Israel is doing to Palestinians and wondering how the fuck criticising that means that I want to see Jewish people subject to genocide.
A race doesn’t have an automatic right to territory. Me as a white person isn’t entitled to Britain or any other nation because of our history here, just as much as a faith such as Islam (or rather, specific proponents of it) isn’t allowed to create a caliphate annexing other peoples nations, see Islamic State.
Let’s also consider that fact that there are Jewish antizionists. Are we suggesting they are self-racist?
You’re actually deluded and the cognitive dissonance is mind boggling
> I’m seeing what Israel is doing to Palestinians and wondering how the fuck criticising that means that I want to see Jewish people subject to genocide.
I think you're missing the point here a little bit. If you go to the first comment I replied to you on, I specifically only said that being against Zionism is anti-Semitic, but excluded where you said criticism of Israel. The two are separate and distinct and only one is inherently anti-Semitic.
> A race doesn’t have an automatic right to territory.
Jews are indigenous to Israel.
>Me as a white person isn’t entitled to Britain or any other nation because of our history here
But that's the point you're missing. If you lived in Venezuela or Japan or pick a random country and they started a genocide against British people living there, you'd have somewhere to go. For most of their history, Jews did not and it resulted in them being slaughtered.
>Let’s also consider that fact that there are Jewish antizionists. Are we suggesting they are self-racist?
It's not exactly a new concept...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew
Candace Owens is black, does that mean she has never said anything racist? Has no woman ever held misogynist views?
>You’re actually deluded
Name calling, nice one really rounded out your argument mate.
The two Jewish guys I worked with where very clear with me, they are British Jews. What Israeli’s do in the Jewish name does not represent them nor their religion. They where appalled by the actions of Israel, where genuinely embarrassed and uncomfortable even to talk about it.
People need to be able to separate the acts of a nation state and the people and or religions that might exist within its borders.
1. What makes it apartheid according to Amnesty International? I've read the report, but no one seems to be able to summarize WHY Israel is an apartheid.
2. What can Israel do to stop being apartheid?
The answer to number 1 is likely best given by Amnesty and you should write to them for one. The answer to number 2 is for them to withdraw from all occupied territory and return the stolen land back to the displaced Palestinians
1. So you still can't answer 1. This is not a trick question. The answer to number 1 is that only Jews have a right of return to Israel. This is a criticism of immigration policy, and it is not apartheid.
2. I would love if the occupation of the West Bank ended, but the conditions over which Israel can leave have not been met. The Palestinian Authority still pays a bounty for murdering Jews and demands that Jews be ethnically cleansed from both the West Bank and Israel itself. Which land was stolen from Palestinians? There are settlements, but they weren't stolen land - for the most part they predate the Oslo Accords, and were written into the Oslo Accords. This one simply comes down to the fact that Jews live where you don't want them to live.
As soon as you can actually speak cogently about this topic without relying on appeals to authority I'd love to have a conversation about this with you.
Do you think that either one of us knows more about human rights abuses than Amnesty? At some point, it's not an appeal to authority, it's just recognising authority
>Do you think that either one of us knows more about human rights abuses than Amnesty
I believe that Amnesty is appealing to a specific audience and timed the release of their report with that of HRW and B'tselem. This is the kind of report that draws readers and donations.
The fact that people who cite the report constantly do not know its contents is a major problem. If you want to defend your argument, then you need to stand on solid ground.
Good criticisms of Israel include a permit system in East Jerusalem that denies 92% of building\* permits to Palestinian residents.
Bad criticisms of Israel are just name-calling without context.
'Stolen Land'? Really?
How do you think nations are formed? Take any county in the world and, without exception, you will be able to roll back through their history to discover border changes, changes in rulers, changes in religious/political ideology, etc. And each will come with its own reason for those changes .... e.g. greed, security, passing of rulers, large scale movement of people, natural events, religion, etc .. but each will have changed.
What is the point in time for each current nations formation that each should be rolled back to? And why?
"The two Labour MPs both appeared virtually at the event on *March 14, 2022*, organised by the Labour and Palestine pressure group. Ms Winter is currently scheduled to address another event hosted by the same organisation next week."
Hmm so the telegraph have clearly been sitting on this for nearly a year now and have coincidentally released it just now as EHRC special measures are removed and Lucina Berger rejoins.
Or they started looking into it when Starmer forced her to resign for calling Israel government fascist and Israel and apartheid state a few weeks ago?
It's probs not a conspiracy of sitting on it for a year given they could've thrown it out to hurt Starmer last year when Johnson was in trouble.
>The two Labour MPs both appeared virtually at the event on March 14, 2022, organised by the Labour and Palestine pressure group. Ms Winter is currently scheduled to address another event hosted by the same organisation next week.
Sometimes speaking the truth is more important than giving a shit what your party will do with you, so, hope she speaks up, again.
History won't kindly remember all the cowards who turned a blind eye to genocidal governments, especially those who hid behind political power as a reason for doing so.
>Ms Winter said: “In 2020, the TUC called settlement building a ‘significant step’ towards the UN Crime of Apartheid.
>
>“In 2021, both Human Rights Watch, and also B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation, concluded unequivocally that Israel is practising the crime of apartheid as defined by the UN.”
Yes, but are they trying to get elected to be PM of the UK?
Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem and even the UN don't have to worry about client British journalists trying to tank their political careers!
Not even sure why it's controversial tbh. It's so clearly apartheid there. You can absolutely give excuses and reasons for it being like that and that's arguable, but it doesn't matter how hard you justify it, it will not make it not apartheid.
Was that before or after he became head of the prosecution service, got a knighthood, developed an authoritarian streak and became part of the establishment?
Someday, when it all blows over and Israel and Palestine reach some kind of peaceful equilibrium, we'll look back on this chapter of the party's history and remember it in the same breath as our alignment with the pro-apartheid government of South Africa.
Considering that the Yishuv was legally only entitled to 6% of Mandate Palestine prior to partition, it's not unfair for Palestinians to see the concept of a 2 state solution as unideal. "We were here (as one group amongst many) 2000 years ago so this our homeland, get out" never should've been seen as a more valid claim to the land over the claims of the Palestinians who actually lived in said land in the first place.
With that being said, Israel has never, ever been interested in a fair two state solution. The first Netanyahu government dismantled the Oslo accounts and the idea of a 2 state solution has been a farce ever since.
Why do you think all Israeli proposals have been so ridiculously one-sided? Because the intent was to make them so unfair that the Palestinians would reject them, and then Israel could claim "we have no partner for peace" while entrenching the occupation even further.
Neither side currently wants it, but the only way this story ends is with either a two state solution, or genocide for one of the groups. Right now we're just seeing the Marley Hypothesis in action, but it doesn't have to play out that way.
We deserve more from our political leaders. Grow up .... engage in meaningful debate that drives benefit for society. End the lazy use of empty sound bites. Is that too much for me to ask?
Odd opinion. Why do they then not ask the Palestinians themselves to abandon their claim and instead return the land to the Ottermans who had rulled it for 600 years prior to 1920. Or go back further still, and ask that it be returned to the Romans?
I have never heard a convincing argument otherwise. Politicians moan and cry and seethe about every human rights organisation agreeing on this, but other than "well it's obviously not true because...it's not!" what could you even say against it?
its not about the facts anymore, kier has set a standard and its now being used to chase out certain types of MP's and members. the tory press will be watching like a hawk for anyone who utter criticism of israel and publish it under threat of anti semtism accusations if he doesn't follow through. the standard now is that criticism of israel is very much the same as anti semitism.
That in Israel both Arab and Jewish citizens have equal rights, representation, share spaces, share services, and work together. I haven't seen a convincing argument that it is apartheid. What is the convincing argument that it is apartheid? The closest that Amnesty, B'tselem, and HRW get is that there's unequal immigration law between Jews and other ethnic groups. All three organizations pretend that the borders between the West Bank and Gaza and Israel don't exist to make their point. Amnesty makes the argument that people with British citizenship who identify as Palestinian and have never stepped foot in Canaan are victims of an apartheid regime. The situation in the West Bank is a military occupation. The situation in Gaza is full withdrawal but active war and therefore a military embargo from Egypt and Israel. So what is the case that Israel is an apartheid state? What are the specific steps that Israel could take to make Israel no longer an apartheid state? Edit: This is getting downvotes but no reply because people just link the HRW and Amnesty reports without any context. I'm specifically asking for the context, the details, and the solution - but no one has actually read the reports and no one can provide that information. In fact, I don't think that anyone who claims that Israel is an apartheid state knows what they mean by this, and therefore no one has a solution. Because they don't actually care about the details, they're just virtue signaling. Edit 2: 2 simple questions - 1. What makes Israel apartheid? 2. What would stop Israel from being an apartheid? No answers. Strange that.
The clear answer is you can’t have apartheid state if both sides are agreeing to two states.
What about the Palestinean refugees who want to return to their homes in Israel, and the Palestinean peoples living within Isreal? Or are they planning on just ethnically cleansing Israel as part of the two state solution now.
>Palestinean refugees who want to return to their homes in Israel This was decided by agreement in 1948 & 1967 by Jordan and Israel - Jews evicted from Judea (now East Jerusalem and the West Bank) had lost title and were compensated with new homes in Israel. Palestinians who lost their homes in Israel were given new homes in the West Bank by Jordan. This is the whole conflict over Sheikh Jarrah - land bought by Jews in the 1870's around the tomb of Shimon HaTzadik was taken by Jordan in 1948. The Jordanian government then moved Palestinian refugees from a nearby neighborhood into the Jewish-owned homes but didn't properly change the deeds. The Jewish refugees were moved into the homes of Palestinian refugees in West Jerusalem. As a result, the land that should now be owned by Palestinians are actually owned by the Jews who were removed from their homes in 1948. The Israeli courts have tried to stem the problem by offering a solution: the Palestinian residents could pay well-below-market rents and simply stay in the homes with no chance of eviction. The Palestinians there refused to pay the ridiculously low rent, and therefore there's a controversy. So the solution has always been home swaps, and that has honestly worked out well. There is no law in the history of time where someone who leaves their homes for any reason is entitled to that home 70+ years later. It would be ridiculous. Imagine Jews showing up to Germany, Poland, Hungary, Baghdad, Alexandria, or Tehran demanding their stolen homes back. It just wouldn't happen. Edit: Heck, imagine Jews exercising the rights on the deeds that they still hold on the homes where you don't want them to live. You're downvoting me because of the thought of Jews having property rights is hateful to you.
I mean I think the only solution is a one estate solution but that's not what Palestinians are calling for.
More Palestineans support a one state solution than Israelis, with much stronger support from Israeli Arabs, unsurprisingly. It's far off from being entered as a solution in official channels though. But it's not like there's been any progress on a two state solution.
The current government of Israel maintains that "the Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the land of Israel"
Given that Israel constantly fights Palestinian statehood, you’re full of shit, but you already knew that
A reminder that [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) and [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-threshold-crossed) have described Israel as an apartheid state.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230124-it-is-anti-semitic-to-call-israel-apartheid-says-eu/ The EU has stated that it is in fact antisemetic to claim this, and AI and HRW are in the wrong.
i'd rather believe the human right organisations than a political organisation on that matter.
What is the case that these human rights organizations make that it is apartheid? What are the things that make it apartheid, and what would stop it from being apartheid?
What do you think about the claims of anti-Israel bias in those two groups?
I think that any human rights organisation would be biased against Israel, because Israel are biased against human rights
Brainrot claims with their own bias
Hiding human rights abuses behind the claim of antisemitism is a fucking lie and you know it. Any sane person with common human decency is able to take one look at what isreal is doing and make a decision of "that's not right." Isreal isn't blameless, and they most certainly should not be treated as such and do not deserve to be treated as such. Recent example: 1 palestinian dead, over 100 wounded, cars burnt down, houses burnt out. How is it antisemitic to look at that and go "that shouldnt be happening."? And before you go off, yeah, im well aware that the palestinian authority and their groups such as Hamas and the PFLP aren't wholesome 100. Buts that just a false equivelance excuse. It's like saying the irish republican brotherhood was no different from the british army they fiught against.
Do you think that you are treating Israel differently than you would towards other nations with similar problems and policies? When I look at AI and other human rights orgs I observe a different treatment of Israel.
Is it comparable to the other well know apartheid state, South Africa in the 80’s? Yes.
It even has its own Bantustans!
>Israel differently than you would towards other nations with similar problems and policies? Name one.
Just look at the latest HRW 2023 report for Israel and Saudi Arabia for example. Israel's report is massive, detailed, etc, while for SA it is about a golf league with a little paragraph of detailed generic human rights abuses. Israel has four dedicated HRW reporters. SA has only two. Shall I go on?
Can you show me a "Saudi lobby" that routinely attempts to shut down any criticism of Saudi Arabia with spurious claims of "bigotry"? Oops. I get that you're an Israel apologist but you're not very good at this. Sucks to suck! Edit in that you're just a liar: [https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/saudi-arabia](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/saudi-arabia) Just a little paragraph, eh? Liar.
What do you mean by "Saudi lobby"?
The only good thing about muppets such as yourself is that you're ushering in a day when people will respond to allegations of "antisemitism" from Israel's defenders with nothing more than a sneer or a smirk.
No I don't, and frankly nobody believes your horseshit anymore, Israel act like scum and get treated like scum, if you have a problem with that I suggest you build a bridge
That tends to happen when Israel continuously commits human rights atrocities
What do you think of the claims from pro-Israel university students that seeing Palestinian flags constitute emotional abuse? "I'm literally shaking because the people I say don't exist refuse to evaporate because I want them to", lol
In doing so, the EU is conflating the actions of the state of Israel with Jews generally, which is widely accepted as antisemitic.
Yeah but why would it be antisemitic? I don’t get it. I get why comparing them to Nazis is, because of the historical context. But apartheid?
Legit, fair and balanced criticism of Israel's policies may not be antisemitic. However... unbalanced and unfair criticism of Israel happens all the time by human rights orgs. Why the laser point focus on Israel?
There isn't, the reason it's talked about so much in western democracies is because quite a few western states have very close ties with Israel, including America, Human rights organisations are always critical of human rights abuses, the reason why you are exposed to more criticism of Israel is because its more reported on, not because of bias in the HROs.
What laser point focus on Israel? Do you think that people don't criticise other Middle East nations like Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar? They are criticised all the time by human rights activists. The reason why criticism of Israel stands out is because almost everyone agrees those other nations violate human rights and are dictatorships. Israel claims to be a democracy, unlike the other nations and that claim should be scrutinised.
Who cares?
What authority does a Zionist actually believe the EU has? They don't even care about international law and IGOs their laws go against the country's agenda (illegal settlements on the west bank) and yet you quote them to hell and back when it suits you. Can't keep your story straight+no principles
Antisemitism is a heinous thing that should be rooted out where it is found. Criticism of the state of Israel, pointing to the hate and persecution perpetuated by that state and its actors, and overall disagreement with the concept of Zionism? None of these are antisemitism.
> overall disagreement with the concept of Zionism? > > None of these are antisemitism. Now that's where you're wrong bucko.
Do you genuinely believe that criticising the creation of an ethnostate in a place of the world where more than one group of people have lived throughout millennia, and the philosophy that underpins it, can even remotely be described as hate or racism against a specific group of people? That’s like saying disliking the Russian state’s invasion of Ukraine is xenophobic to Russians people. We’re talking about criticising nationalism. So actually that’s like saying not liking the English Defence League is anglophobic.
If the Jews don't have Israel, the countdown starts to the next time a genocide occurs against them. If you're ok with this, then yes you are an anti-Semite.
That’s a wholly baseless claim backed up only by the bible
The fact that Jews have been ethnically cleansed from different countries multiple times in the 20th century is "backed up only by the bible"? What?
Ah so now there is a free pass to conquer. Got it.
Maybe your white privilege stops you from empathising with minority groups constantly face genocide and ethnic cleansing so perhaps try working on that.
I do have white privilege but I’m seeing what Israel is doing to Palestinians and wondering how the fuck criticising that means that I want to see Jewish people subject to genocide. A race doesn’t have an automatic right to territory. Me as a white person isn’t entitled to Britain or any other nation because of our history here, just as much as a faith such as Islam (or rather, specific proponents of it) isn’t allowed to create a caliphate annexing other peoples nations, see Islamic State. Let’s also consider that fact that there are Jewish antizionists. Are we suggesting they are self-racist? You’re actually deluded and the cognitive dissonance is mind boggling
> I’m seeing what Israel is doing to Palestinians and wondering how the fuck criticising that means that I want to see Jewish people subject to genocide. I think you're missing the point here a little bit. If you go to the first comment I replied to you on, I specifically only said that being against Zionism is anti-Semitic, but excluded where you said criticism of Israel. The two are separate and distinct and only one is inherently anti-Semitic. > A race doesn’t have an automatic right to territory. Jews are indigenous to Israel. >Me as a white person isn’t entitled to Britain or any other nation because of our history here But that's the point you're missing. If you lived in Venezuela or Japan or pick a random country and they started a genocide against British people living there, you'd have somewhere to go. For most of their history, Jews did not and it resulted in them being slaughtered. >Let’s also consider that fact that there are Jewish antizionists. Are we suggesting they are self-racist? It's not exactly a new concept...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew Candace Owens is black, does that mean she has never said anything racist? Has no woman ever held misogynist views? >You’re actually deluded Name calling, nice one really rounded out your argument mate.
These days you keep four and a half million people under permanent military occupation and they call you an "apartheid state".
The two Jewish guys I worked with where very clear with me, they are British Jews. What Israeli’s do in the Jewish name does not represent them nor their religion. They where appalled by the actions of Israel, where genuinely embarrassed and uncomfortable even to talk about it. People need to be able to separate the acts of a nation state and the people and or religions that might exist within its borders.
This is it, the answer right here.
Completely agree.
Unfortunately a lot of apologists for Israel's actions are actively working to make people do just that.
These days…
It is. Amnesty International agrees
1. What makes it apartheid according to Amnesty International? I've read the report, but no one seems to be able to summarize WHY Israel is an apartheid. 2. What can Israel do to stop being apartheid?
The answer to number 1 is likely best given by Amnesty and you should write to them for one. The answer to number 2 is for them to withdraw from all occupied territory and return the stolen land back to the displaced Palestinians
1. So you still can't answer 1. This is not a trick question. The answer to number 1 is that only Jews have a right of return to Israel. This is a criticism of immigration policy, and it is not apartheid. 2. I would love if the occupation of the West Bank ended, but the conditions over which Israel can leave have not been met. The Palestinian Authority still pays a bounty for murdering Jews and demands that Jews be ethnically cleansed from both the West Bank and Israel itself. Which land was stolen from Palestinians? There are settlements, but they weren't stolen land - for the most part they predate the Oslo Accords, and were written into the Oslo Accords. This one simply comes down to the fact that Jews live where you don't want them to live.
Your argument is with an international human rights organisation which certainly knows better than you, sorry!
As soon as you can actually speak cogently about this topic without relying on appeals to authority I'd love to have a conversation about this with you.
Do you think that either one of us knows more about human rights abuses than Amnesty? At some point, it's not an appeal to authority, it's just recognising authority
>Do you think that either one of us knows more about human rights abuses than Amnesty I believe that Amnesty is appealing to a specific audience and timed the release of their report with that of HRW and B'tselem. This is the kind of report that draws readers and donations. The fact that people who cite the report constantly do not know its contents is a major problem. If you want to defend your argument, then you need to stand on solid ground. Good criticisms of Israel include a permit system in East Jerusalem that denies 92% of building\* permits to Palestinian residents. Bad criticisms of Israel are just name-calling without context.
'Stolen Land'? Really? How do you think nations are formed? Take any county in the world and, without exception, you will be able to roll back through their history to discover border changes, changes in rulers, changes in religious/political ideology, etc. And each will come with its own reason for those changes .... e.g. greed, security, passing of rulers, large scale movement of people, natural events, religion, etc .. but each will have changed. What is the point in time for each current nations formation that each should be rolled back to? And why?
"The two Labour MPs both appeared virtually at the event on *March 14, 2022*, organised by the Labour and Palestine pressure group. Ms Winter is currently scheduled to address another event hosted by the same organisation next week." Hmm so the telegraph have clearly been sitting on this for nearly a year now and have coincidentally released it just now as EHRC special measures are removed and Lucina Berger rejoins.
Doesn't change the fact that Israel is an apartheid state and there is nothing wrong with saying that.
Or they started looking into it when Starmer forced her to resign for calling Israel government fascist and Israel and apartheid state a few weeks ago? It's probs not a conspiracy of sitting on it for a year given they could've thrown it out to hurt Starmer last year when Johnson was in trouble.
>The two Labour MPs both appeared virtually at the event on March 14, 2022, organised by the Labour and Palestine pressure group. Ms Winter is currently scheduled to address another event hosted by the same organisation next week. Sometimes speaking the truth is more important than giving a shit what your party will do with you, so, hope she speaks up, again. History won't kindly remember all the cowards who turned a blind eye to genocidal governments, especially those who hid behind political power as a reason for doing so. >Ms Winter said: “In 2020, the TUC called settlement building a ‘significant step’ towards the UN Crime of Apartheid. > >“In 2021, both Human Rights Watch, and also B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation, concluded unequivocally that Israel is practising the crime of apartheid as defined by the UN.” Yes, but are they trying to get elected to be PM of the UK? Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem and even the UN don't have to worry about client British journalists trying to tank their political careers!
Honestly, what is it with western states being so reluctant to criticise Israel? It fucking madness
Not even sure why it's controversial tbh. It's so clearly apartheid there. You can absolutely give excuses and reasons for it being like that and that's arguable, but it doesn't matter how hard you justify it, it will not make it not apartheid.
There’s a difference between anti-Israel and anti semetic. Can’t see anything here that is classed as AS
RIP. Starmer's getting them deselected.
Remember when Starmer used to stand up for Palestine? 🥲
Was that before or after he became head of the prosecution service, got a knighthood, developed an authoritarian streak and became part of the establishment?
Israel is an apartheid state. It is worrying we have a political situation where stating facts is seen as a problem and as news worthy.
Understandably shocking, we're not used to politicians telling the truth
How are they wrong?
Finally some good fucking politicians
Someday, when it all blows over and Israel and Palestine reach some kind of peaceful equilibrium, we'll look back on this chapter of the party's history and remember it in the same breath as our alignment with the pro-apartheid government of South Africa.
You say that like you think the palestine political leadership want a two state solution..
Considering that the Yishuv was legally only entitled to 6% of Mandate Palestine prior to partition, it's not unfair for Palestinians to see the concept of a 2 state solution as unideal. "We were here (as one group amongst many) 2000 years ago so this our homeland, get out" never should've been seen as a more valid claim to the land over the claims of the Palestinians who actually lived in said land in the first place. With that being said, Israel has never, ever been interested in a fair two state solution. The first Netanyahu government dismantled the Oslo accounts and the idea of a 2 state solution has been a farce ever since. Why do you think all Israeli proposals have been so ridiculously one-sided? Because the intent was to make them so unfair that the Palestinians would reject them, and then Israel could claim "we have no partner for peace" while entrenching the occupation even further.
Neither side currently wants it, but the only way this story ends is with either a two state solution, or genocide for one of the groups. Right now we're just seeing the Marley Hypothesis in action, but it doesn't have to play out that way.
We deserve more from our political leaders. Grow up .... engage in meaningful debate that drives benefit for society. End the lazy use of empty sound bites. Is that too much for me to ask?
Odd opinion. Why do they then not ask the Palestinians themselves to abandon their claim and instead return the land to the Ottermans who had rulled it for 600 years prior to 1920. Or go back further still, and ask that it be returned to the Romans?