Gaza is not starving is also I think the objective truth right now. There is a lot of food going into Gaza. The markets are full of food and the prices have gone down significantly. That can't ensure that everyone can get it, especially if it's stolen by armed gangs or resold for profit. But yes otherwise, life in Gaza right now is terrible. I don't see the protests showing us a path forward here.
Rafah is definitely a problem. It's a problem with two sides though. We have Hamas and Israel. What are the protests asking Hamas to do here?
I'll put an even finer point on it and point a finger at the ultra-orthodox community. We like to think of nice Jewish neighbors who have a menorah instead of a Christmas tree as decent, normal folks, but the ultra-orthodox are extremists in every sense of the word and thoroughly isolated from mainstream society. And they are driving the excesses of Israeli policy. And, maybe not coincidentally, if you look at the rise in anti-jewish bias attacks even in the US, ultra-orthodox make up a majority of targets.
The dictionary says of Apartheid "(in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race. segregation on grounds other than race."
Israel does not segregate based on race or anything else. There is no such observable reality. Palestinians or Arabs (if that's even a race or an ethnic group) serve in the IDF, they work in tech, they are judges in courts, they are members of Parliament. Many of them are advocates for Israel. Your "observable" reality doesn't exist.
Israel does not treat Palestinians living in the occupied territories the same as Israeli citizens. That is the observable reality. That is also not Apartheid at all. The use of this word is absolutely a fabricated story. The story of the occupied territories can't be summed out in one sentence but is not a racial (or ethnic or any other) segregation story at all. A Palestinian from the west bank who is legally in Israel isn't "segregated" from any activity or location (e.g.). Blacks in the USA are arguably treated worse than Arabs in Israel. Palestinians aren't even segregated in the west bank or Gaza. There is no accepted definition of the word Apartheid that fits the fabrication. The restrictions on local population that is under occupation has never been called Apartheid in history.
I don't think you really know the ultra-orthodox Jewish communities. Some of them are anti-Zionists and are marching and camping with Palestinians. Some of them live in their own world of Torah studies and couldn't care less about current events. And yes, some of them participate in Israel politics (and society btw, not necessarily as isolated as you suggest) and are part of the government to help their constituents not serve in the IDF and get funded by the state. The attacks against ultra-orthodox relate to them being visibly Jewish, that's about it. That's just pure antisemitism and trying to paint them as "extremists" is to be honest also antisemitism. It's like saying the Amish are extremists (I think those guys do get some hate as well).
EDIT: To expand on the Apartheid thing. The word conjures some very specific images to those that hear it and are familiar with things like South Africa or the segregation against blacks in the US. None of those images apply to Israel. There's no "blacks sit in the back of the bus", "blacks can't be members of this club", "black can't stay in this hotel", "blacks live in their own neighbourhoods". None of that. The situation in Israel is quite unique. OTOH there are many countries with actual racial/ethnic discrimination (like China/Tibetians or Russia/Chechens or Qatar) where nobody cares.
Israel basically has two or three options with respect to the occupied territories. It can annex them and give everyone equal rights. A move that the international community will likely not accept (e.g. see the Golan heights). The Palestinians will also not accept that since they demand the right of return for refugees living outside the region and they have no wish to become Israeli citizens. E.g. many Palestinians in East Jerusalem who have the option to become Israeli citizens refuse to do so. The Israelis are also afraid they will lose the Jewish majority in the resulting "democracy" (though some Israelis consider this a workable solution). It can withdraw from them unilaterally. Another move the international community or the Palestinians will not accept (e.g. see Gaza). Or it can try to reach some sort of settlement (e.g. see the failed Oslo Accords). Most Palestinians demand that Israel cease to exist and Israelis "Go back to Europe" (which is a cute story but also disconnected from any reality).
So basically no options but to perpetuate the current situation. The current reality of wars, violence, right wing government, religion etc. is simply overlaid on top of this problem with no solution. Even if you didn't have a right wing government in Israel and you didn't have a war in Gaza there's still no solution (and we've been there before) and there's still violence.
The gradual annexation/settlement of the west bank is a different story. I am opposed to that. But just like there are two sides to the story in Gaza there are two sides in the west bank. The west bank isn't a story of peaceful people that are being abused, it's a story of a violent struggle between two groups (well, more than two groups if we include the surrounding countries). The Israeli settlement activity is a side story in this conflict, not the root of it by any means. You're letting the Palestinian side off too easily here, when the peace process was in full swing they could have gotten complete control of most of the west bank and dismantlement of most of the settlements. What was their response? Suicide bombings. You are removing agency from the Palestinians when you say the distinction doesn't matter. They as a people made choices the led them to the current situation.
The Palestinians want to dismantle Israel by force. Israel is opposed to that. What we're seeing broadly is the meeting of those two objectives. I think it's wrong of Israel to build settlements in occupied territory of undecided status and it's not helping a possible future resolution but the reality on the ground would look pretty much the same if there were no settlements at all given the irreconcilable differences between the parties here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
We haven't had an election since mostly because Hamas would win it. [EDIT: Clearly opinionated, we can/should look at polls since 2006 till today to get a sense of where Palestinians are leaning]
"In light of the Fatah movement’s fragmentation, Hamas holds a clear advantage in potential legislative elections, as shown by public opinion polls indicating a likely landslide victory." - https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/84509
As we know from other countries, not all elections are decided by a super-majority, Hamas won by the rules of their "democracy", it would have won in any other elections, and it and its actions enjoy broad support.
[EDIT: I guess we can't tell for sure what results we would get in an election that didn't happen but here is some more colour on the elections of 2021 that were cancelled by the PA:
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/29/992065009/palestinian-authori...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/30/palestinians-polls-...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-officially-delays-palest...]
"Despite the devastation, 57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching the October attack, the poll indicated. A large majority believed Hamas’ claims that it acted to defend a major Islamic shrine in Jerusalem against Jewish extremists and win the release of Palestinian prisoners. Only 10% said they believed Hamas has committed war crimes, with a large majority saying they did not see videos showing the militants committing atrocities." - https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion...
Where I will agree with you is that the Israeli government has chosen a strategy of divide and conquer and were happy to see the internal battle between Palestinians and use that as an excuse/weapon. But again, you're giving the Palestinians too much of a pass here. Also it's inaccurate to say that Israel funded Hamas (something another comment said). Israel allowed Qatar to pass money into Gaza to pay for government officials salaries.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1NE1ET/
Many countries funded Hamas because every penny sent to Gaza goes to Hamas. Gaza received billions of dollars from many countries.
https://apnews.com/article/business-middle-east-israel-forei...
That's not a thing. If you have to make (or keep making; I say random things all the time, but I'm calling you on this one) this kind of argument, it's because all other arguments have abandoned you. I think you should concede it; either way, I can't imagine there being a point to us continuing to talk about this if you're not going to; maybe our premises are just too far apart.
Also what are you wanting me to say? That we can't tell the result of elections we haven't had? Or are you pointing to other reasons why the Palestinians haven't had elections?
I don't think taking this back reduces the strength of my argument. If you want me to delete that comment from the protocol I'm happy to. EDIT: I made some amendments to my commentary there and put in some more references.
EDIT2: since you're calling me out I want to circle back to your comment that triggered my response: "A supermajority of Gazans are simply not old enough ever to have voted, since Hamas slaughtered PA members to "win" the 2006 election"
as I said Hamas didn't slaughter the PA members to win. It won and then it slaughtered the Fatah people in Gaza.
Hamas won the 2006 elections: "The Central Elections Commission released the final results on Sunday, 29 January 2006, and announced that Change and Reform (Hamas) had won 74 of the 132 seats, while Fatah trailed with 45". The popular vote is not the factor here (though it also got more votes than Fatah).
I'm not sure why the point about the majority of Gazans today haven't voted in 2006 matters. It's a factual piece of data but I'm not sure it's relevant. Do we have any evidence to support those people are more likely to be in favour of peaceful coexistence with Israel and/or be opposed to Hamas? Is there an "opposition" in Gaza? It's clearly not a free or functioning democracy, I'll grant that. So if your point is that Gazans are oppressed by Hamas and don't enjoy democracy or other freedoms that's fair.
If we agree about that, do you feel like the comment you wrote reflects that sensibility? Like a reasonable person reading it would get that vibe? It wasn't the vibe I got, but this is a message board, so I want to be careful not to let my expectations get out of hand.
If you say that Israel handing over Gaza to the PA and withdrawal from the Gaza strip ended up being a big mistake I can agree with that in retrospect. At the time I personally thought there's a chance for peace. But that sort of brings us way back to the question of how is this conflict going to be resolved when all paths lead to bad outcomes.
Hamas was a death cult way before 2017.
The relationship between Palestinians in Gaza and Hamas is also more complicated then "victimized". I mean you're right but there are nuances there.
Hamas isn't oppressing people in the west bank. What explains the polls showing strong support for Hamas there?
EDIT: another random btw, I think your comments regarding the conflict are generally well informed and with good intentions. I appreciate that. It's sorely missing from online conduct on this topic.
If there's a thru-line to my comments on this issue on HN, it's this: (1) we're never going to resolve it on HN, and (2) Israelis aren't Europeans and Gazans aren't Hamas. Here, I'm just being consistent.
I am pretty familiar with ultra-orthodox. I've spent a lot of time with chabad people. Their culture is genuinely pretty nuts. They suck up public money, put their kids into private religious schools that don't teach basics, run their own private police forces, extort politicians as a voting bloc, run private towns (see Kiryas Joel) where they take over county government.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/nyregion/hasidic-yeshivas...
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/kiryas-joel-a-vi...
Sure, fabricated stories exist and plenty of morons believe them. Judaism is fabricated too as far as I'm concerned, but people can believe what they want. I am judging people on their actions.
The oppressor in Gaza is Hamas. An oppressor in the west bank is the PA. Israel is also in that mix, yes. It is putting extreme restrictions on a population inside an occupied territory that is using violence against it.
The narrative does not fit. In terms of international law, Israel has occupied the territory of Jordan in the west bank. If the residents of that territory e.g. conduct suicide bombings against Israelis then Israel is allowed to take measures against that. It is in fact allowed to take significantly more severe measures than it has (e.g. including a death penalty).
I would say in some sense you're right an the Palestinians are oppressed. I would also say the restrictions on them are in place mostly for security reasons. If there was no violence against Israelis there would be no restrictions (and that in fact was pretty much the case before the first intifada when violence levels were much lower restrictions and "oppression" was also significantly lower). There is also the problem of settlements in the west bank and Israeli ideologies of "the full land of Israel" (strangely enough aligned with your idea of the Palestinians being disenfranchised Israelis). The wall that was built around the west bank, which is called by some "the apartheid wall" was built for security reasons and as a direct response to wave of terrorist attacks in Israel. No attacks - no wall.
Is this all insane? Sure. Is it just a story of "Oppression" or "Apartheid"? It's not. The primary mechanism at play here is a violent struggle between Israel, Arab countries, and the Palestinians. Nationalism and religion.
The Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, by the way and as far as I know, have no desire to be Israelis and anyways there is no legal framework or agreement in place that will facilitate land taken from Jordan or Egypt to become part of Israel (I think that's illegal under international law and I'm sure the world would not recognize the annexation of those territories). The peace agreements between Israel and Jordan don't allow for that either. It doesn't address the demands of the Palestinians either.
If you want to look up this term in the dictionary—or better yet, an encyclopedia—you should look at the disambiguates “Apartheid (Crime against humanity)” or “Apartheid (International humanitarian law)” in which case you’ll probably be referred to the Rome Statute Part 2, Article 7, Paragraph 2(h):
> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
Israel does segregate inside the territories they control, and the inhabitants of some of those territories are predominantly of one racial group (Palestinian Arabs), which suffers systematic oppression and domination by another racial group (Israeli Jews). The practices and policies of Israel in its occupied territories do constitute a Crime against humanity, and in particular, the crime of Apartheid. I will refer to an ongoing ICJ case 186[1] which lists these accusations and how they constitute a crime against humanity. In particular the South Africa testimony[2] (Page 36, Paragraph 93)
> While the Palestinian experience is not entirely identical to the South African one, a number of apartheid-style atrocities are being reproduced in Palestine, such as the permit system which applies only to Palestinians travelling to and from the Gaza Strip, annexed East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. This includes the creation of a dual legal system consisting of an intricate and obscure system of military orders and regulations, which “often racialised in implementation rather than on paper makes the depth of Israel’s systematic discrimination less immediately conspicuous than its counterpart in South Africa”.
1: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186
2: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186...
This is still a fabricated story.
Israel does not "segregate" inside territories it controls. Israel is taking security measures in territories it has occupied to protect its citizens and military. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq or Germany or Japan did those Afghans, or Irqais, or Germans, or Japanese require a permit to travel to the US or could they travel freely to the US? When Afghanistan and Iraq were under US occupation could Afghans and Irqais travel freely between those countries without permits or Visas?
The west bank was occupied from Jordan in 1967. Gaza was occupied from Egypt. Gazans could not travel freely to the west bank before 1967 and so Israel has no obligation to facilitate such travel without requiring permits.
The different legal system is a consequence of military occupation. e.g. "jurisdiction could pass, for example, to military courts of the occupying power if the local courts are not able to function properly." - https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law9_final.pd...
As far as I know Jordanian and Egyptian courts are not functioning in the west bank or in Gaza respectively.
Anyways, it's not "Apartheid". We may not like it. We may not like the length of time that has elapsed (since 1967). We can challenge the legality of specific actions by the different sides. But Apartheid it is not with all due respect to South Africa's political manoeuvring and other political bodies and story tellers.
Executive Order 9066 is now considered one of US’s heinous human rights violations. After WW2 the victims of executive order 9066 were given the right of return, in 1948 Harry Truman signed an act giving the victims reparations, and in 1988 Ronald Reagan signed a formal apology.
This was an act of segregation. Roosevelt claiming it was a security measure did not make this excusable, or otherwise justifiable.
Civilians have rights, even when territory is occupied. In fact, it is the responsibility of the occupying power to give the occupied civilians protections, and preserve their human rights. Israel may be claiming these are security measures, and Israel may be correct in their claims, however, what they are doing is still crimes against humanity. If they want to secure their own citizens, they must do so without stripping human rights away from their occupied civilians.
But anyway, there is a whole Wikipedia article which explains this much better than me:
Or the muslims killing hundreds of christians in Africa?
Or is it for some reason only the Jews that are getting protested against for killing far less people while trying to stop a terrorist organization embedded in Gaza responsible for the rape, torture and murder of hundreds of Jews.
No antisemitism here at all.