Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j9kmzwh wrote

Reply to comment by lurker627 in Israeli West Bank raid kills 10 Palestinians and hurts more than 100 others. by CrackHeadRodeo

[removed]

−34

ChasmDude t1_j9ksmcd wrote

We can debate the usefulness of the term apartheid to no end, but it's a fact that Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to Israeli military courts, whereas settlers and other Israelis retain the benefits of civilian courts.

Israeli settlement is counterproductive for Israel as well. Weakening the legitimacy of the internationally recognized representatives of the the would-be Palestinian state increases the likelihood that Palestinians will gravitate towards support of more extreme actors. The thought process can be summarized as follows: I am subject to violence by the Israelis, who do not respect our legitimate representatives, who have renounced violence, the denial of the right of Israel to exist and which even cooperates with Israel on some security matters. Notwithstanding the corruption of the Palestinian Authority also impacting its legitimacy, the Israelis make the international situation worse and contribute to an upward spiral of violence.

None of what I have said should be taken as an endorsement of violence or a dismissal of Israel's right to security. However, Israel's salami slicing of territory which was supposed to be reserved for a future Palestinian state, their implementation of a military justice system conferring fewer civil rights on Palestinians than Israelis occupy the same territory and their excessive use of violence in an often punitive way clearly shows that Israel is not an innocent victim of aggression in the conflict. Israel is also an aggressor and contributes to its international reputation as an oppressor.

So you may not like the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state, but its behavior towards the Palestinians lends itself to such a characterization. The conflict will continue forever until one side completely pushes the other out or both acknowledge their part in preventing the establishment of more peaceful relations and, hopefully, an end to the conflict.

35

lurker627 t1_j9kno1r wrote

Hmm, I suppose this might be a little more apartheid than usual...

10

Risley t1_j9koqq3 wrote

Simple question, does anyone know what the end goal is for Israel? I don’t know anymore. Do they want a unified state? Two states? Take all land and deport all Palestinians?

Every year it’s the same shit but I never see any direction. What does Netanyahu want?

2

onecrazyguy1 t1_j9ksm4f wrote

They want peace and nothing to do with the Palestinians. The people who were killed were part of terrorist groups if you read the article. The question is what do the Palestinians want? They reject all peace, they stopped supporting the only political party of theirs that supported peace in favor of Hamas who specifically does not support peace and wants terrorism. Israel is moving further to the right, which will complicate peace, however at points Israel has offered entirety of WB, if Palestinians stopped terrorist attacks and rocket attacks, there would be peace tomorrow.

−10

MC_chrome t1_j9lghim wrote

This would have never been an issue to begin with if the British and Americans had included Palestinians at the negotiating table from the beginning, and had established a dual state/party solution as well.

5

onecrazyguy1 t1_j9lhymp wrote

I'm not sure what table you are talking about? Beginning meaning when? If you are talking about the creation of Israel, America had nothing to do with that, the British effectively left, there was a proposal that Israel said yes to and Palestinians said no to, the Palestinians and Arabs attacked the Jews and then the Jews won. They have always been included, I am not sure what you are saying?

−7

MC_chrome t1_j9ljjxj wrote

>America had nothing to do with that

Per the US State Department’s own website, this is objectively not true

Basically, Britain was in favor of supporting Arabs in Palestine because it suited their interests better, while America was more in favor of displaced Jews from World War II having a place to live.

9

onecrazyguy1 t1_j9llcye wrote

It's actually objectively true. All the US did was recognize them as a country, negotiation would have done nothing. Thee had been plenty of negotiation for many years since way before the Holocaust or WWII. The Arabs and Jews were effectively in civil war, every compromise was rejected no matter what, which is exactly what the Arabs said they would do. There was never going to be a one state solution, neither side was willing to do that, decades of mandate histoiry show why that is a ridiculous idea. Israel looks the way it does because the Palestinians attacked and lost, no negotiations would change that, even if the UN did not vote, there would still be a state of Israel, it had been brewing for decades. All the British did was punt the League of Nations question from WWI to the UN.

−7