Why is it wrong to call this Apartheid (Isreal)?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by BeBro
I think it's pretty ****ty. Yes, there are security concerns, but with that argument you could justify anything. I'd accept it as temporary thing in case of an acute and concrete threat, but not as permanent solution because of the general situation.

This is the real crux of the matter. There are security concerns; obviously Israel must take steps to protect its citizens. The problem is that those security concerns are used to justify any policy, and any criticism of that policy is interpreted by the pro-Israeli crowd as a rejection of the security concerns.

It's most clear in the case of the wall. Has the wall stopped instances of terrorism? Probably. Does it exist for a legitimate security reason? There is a valid argument to be made that it does. The problem is that it exists for other reasons, too. If security had been the only issue, it could easily have been built on the Green Line and accomplished that. The wall, however, snakes and meanders improbably through Palestinian land, dividing people from their farms, villages from each other, and generally snipping away valuable areas of land in the Palestinian territories. When this is criticized, its defenders counter that the critics must obviously be pro-suicide bombing.

It's really no different here: security concerns used as carte blanche to advance certain obvious aims -

“Think of the road itself as a settlement,” he said, “part of the conscious effort to change the character of the area, giving it an Israeli stamp. The point was to make it impossible for Israel ever to return certain parts of the land.

[chequita guevara]

Apartheid was South Africa's version of Jim Crow. They used our laws as a model. Don't kid yourself that Jim Crow as about anything other than white supremacy.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wezil
To collectively punish a population for the actions of their elected government is reasonable imho if that government is engaged in attempting to kill innocent and random civilians in my country.

The Fourth Geneva Convention disagrees

Article 33
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yeah okay, but I think the issue was whether collective punishment was right/wrong/justified/evil, etc.

To collectively punish a population for the actions of their elected government is reasonable imho if that government is engaged in attempting to kill innocent and random civilians in my country.

I realize that the issue was collective punishment's rightness. And I don't think it is really right to punish a population for their elected government's positions. Sometimes it may be somewhat justified for certain pragmatic reasons, but it is never morally justified, IMO. After all, there are probably plenty of people who didn't vote for the government who are also being punished for simply being in the wrong country.

[SlowwHand]

Israel needs to be on that list in the thread about words often spelled incorrectly. Israelian, I think that's wrong, too. If it's not, it's just probably a new term to me. Like Mr Fun's AmerIndian, rather than Stinking Red Savage.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Apartheid was South Africa's version of Jim Crow. They used our laws as a model. Don't kid yourself that Jim Crow as about anything other than white supremacy.

Those who implimented may have privately believed in White Supremacy but publically they were constrained by the U.S. touchstone that "all men are created equal." Thus, Jim Crow was hypocritical.

In contrast, Apartheid was not hypocritical; it proclaimed Whites to be superior.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Reducing a citizenry to second class because of violence by a subset of the population is never proportional and just begets more hard feelings, more violence, and more symphathy with those engaged in violent behavior.

It's not a subset of the population. In Gaza it's the governament. If the leaders of the people don't want to end the hostilities of a part of the population, then there's nothing Israel can do but make the entire nation responsible.

If people from Belgium start detonating bombs in Holland, start shooting rockets into dutch territory, and their governament keeps refusing to stop the hostilities, then I assure you that we, the dutch, can't do anything but close the border with belgium and take action inside Belgium to end the hostilities.

If you deny that, then you deny nations the right to protect themselves.
And use force to protect yourself is unpleasant, and as a matter of fact, I hate war and violence. But if that's what needs to be done, then it needs to be done.
And Israel is restraining itself quite a bit for a nation that's unders attack for 60 years already, and has the power to end the palestinian problem within weeks by force.

Be fair. The other choice was Fatah.

And even out of two evil choises, they were able to pick the worst option.
But you're right, the palestinians are victims of their own leaders, and of all arabian/muslim leaders, who use them as a playcard.

But we can't blame Israel for those leaders.

It's sad when all you care about it winning the war.

I don't care about winning the war.
I care about ENDING the war.
And a war will only end when there's a clear winner.
Certainly in backwards territories like the Middle East.

I think it's pretty ****ty. Yes, there are security concerns, but with that argument you could justify anything.

Nobody is trying to justify 'anything' with security concerns.

I'd accept it as temporary thing in case of an acute and concrete threat, but not as permanent solution because of the general situation.

A permanent solution is better leaders in the muslim world, and an end of hate indoctrination against Israel.
But that's on in the hands of Israel.

[q]The problem is the Israelis treating the Palestinians like second class citizens - because they do consider them to be second class citizens (or rather, not citizens at all, of course). /q]

There's a history of problems between those 'people'.
That can't be erased during war.
First peace must be signed and a true intention from the palestinians to not 'push the Israelians into the sea'. Only then the Israelians can start to learn to treath the palestinians as first class citizen.
One cannot both hate a nation, and try to exterminate it, and try to pluck the fruits of that nation.

Hamas was mostly elected, not for the stance on terror and Israel, but because of Fatah's legendary corruption and the need for social services, which Hamas was already providing.

So?
What difference does that make for Israel?

Let's consider some of your "examples" of violence against Israel, 1956 and 1967. Both times, Israel started the war. Some may consider violence and war justified for closing the Straights of Tiran, but regardless, Israel initiated the violence in these cases.

Israel only 'started the violence' in 1967.
And it had to because their main access to resources and food was blocked.
One could claim that a blockade all by itself is already an act of war, btw.

It is beyond question. In 1981, Israel launched an offensive war, in response to PLO shelling of Israel, that was in turn a response to Israel air strikes into Lebanon, which was a reprisal for an attempted assassination carried out by the Abu Nidal organization. "Abu Nidal, abu shmidal. We need to screw PLO!" was Israel's response.

Yes, Israel has started wars. So, what's your point?
It's the only democracy and the only free nation and the only place for Jews in the entire world.
They're in the mids of many nations that hate them and waged war on them before.

It's clear that there's a history of war. And we all agree that the war must end.
But it's also clear that the only reason for Israel to wage war is self protection.
If all groups in the ME stop their aggression, both in words and in deeds, towards Israel, there's no need for self protection for the Israelians anymore.

It's not too much to ask the big majority to cease their aggression first, before the small majority can lay down their arms.

When I'm in a dark street, surrounded by 10 big dudes who hold their knifes towards me and try to rob me, nobody can expect me to trow away my gun first. No, first the 10 big guys with the knifes must stop their attempts to robe me.

And when some of them attack me, nobody can blame me if I shoot two.
And maybe I get a bit nervous and shoot another 1 because I get the feeling that they're trying to attack me again.

In 1948, Israel was every bit as responsible for the war as the other countries. It was much less a war of all Arab countries against Israel as it was of all countries against Palestine, including Israel. Israel had a secret agreement with Tranjordan, which has come out, to divide Palestine between them. It was also a war with Arab states against each other, as one of Egypt's columns was aimed straight at Transjorden. Lebanon's [i]Christian[i] armies were only occupying the part of Palestine that was assigned to the Arabs. Syria tried to seize a part of Israel that the French maps had assigned to Syria. While at the conclusion of the first truce, all sides resumed fighting, it was Israel that violated the 2nd and 3rd truces.

yeah, sure.
Israel was to blame as well.
that we disagree about the interpretation of the facts, ok, I can accept that.
But you now even try to twist the facts.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


The Fourth Geneva Convention disagrees

Let me know when the pals even come close to complying with the GC.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I realize that the issue was collective punishment's rightness. And I don't think it is really right to punish a population for their elected government's positions. Sometimes it may be somewhat justified for certain pragmatic reasons, but it is never morally justified, IMO. After all, there are probably plenty of people who didn't vote for the government who are also being punished for simply being in the wrong country.

I hope you will then be logically consistent when you get around to answering my question re WWII bombing by allies...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombings of Germany can be justified on pragmatic reasons (the atom bombs because an invasion would have cost more lives), but they were not morally ok. Of course you may have to end up choosing between two immoral acts, but that doesn't mean the choice ends up being a moral one as a result.

[Kuciwalker]

I think that things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombings of Germany can be justified on pragmatic reasons (the atom bombs because an invasion would have cost more lives), but they were not morally ok. Of course you may have to end up choosing between two immoral acts, but that doesn't mean the choice ends up being a moral one as a result.

I don't think that's a tenable distinction.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not a subset of the population. In Gaza it's the governament. If the leaders of the people don't want to end the hostilities of a part of the population, then there's nothing Israel can do but make the entire nation responsible.

If people from Belgium start detonating bombs in Holland, start shooting rockets into dutch territory, and their governament keeps refusing to stop the hostilities, then I assure you that we, the dutch, can't do anything but close the border with belgium and take action inside Belgium to end the hostilities.

If you deny that, then you deny nations the right to protect themselves.
And use force to protect yourself is unpleasant, and as a matter of fact, I hate war and violence. But if that's what needs to be done, then it needs to be done.
And Israel is restraining itself quite a bit for a nation that's unders attack for 60 years already, and has the power to end the palestinian problem within weeks by force.

Isreal is the colonial power here. There is no Palestinian state. Why? Because Isreal has their boot on the necks of Palestine. If people from Belgium were de facto controlled by Holland and did not have their own free state, then Holland would not have the moral upper hand to go in there and smack some heads unless it gave Belgium independence and dealt with the situation the proper way (diplomacy, formal declaration of war).

Isreal not only controls the Palestinian areas de facto, it also is involved in building all sorts of settlements. So it is undermining the right for Palestine to actually have a state, by exerting control over the proposed state and then extending itself into that area. How exactly can you blame the Palestinians for fighting back?

Hell, the right of nations to protect themselves? Isn't that what the Palestinians are doing against Isreali invaders who won't get out of their country?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by CyberShy
You talk about proportional?
I'd say that after the decades of violence against Israel, both from nations (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1991) and terrorists (1st intifada, 2nd intifada, Hamas Gaza) Israel's reaction is still quite proportional.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I think that things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombings of Germany can be justified on pragmatic reasons (the atom bombs because an invasion would have cost more lives), but they were not morally ok. Of course you may have to end up choosing between two immoral acts, but that doesn't mean the choice ends up being a moral one as a result.

I don't think that's a tenable distinction.

You mean the distinction between a practical justification and the morality of it? Why?

[Kuciwalker]

I mean the distinction between "what you ought to do" and "what is right and wrong".