And you are touching a lot of different subjects which I don't have time to refute one by one.
Examples:
1. Convinction rate in Israel is over 90% for the entire population, not just palestinians. This is because different reasons such as preference not to press charges if there is not a very high chance of conviction, plea bargains, etc.
2. Multiple checkpoints - The security situation in the west bank is a reflection of the fact this is an occupied territory which should have been solved in subsequent peace negotiations. This never happened, and the reasons for that rest on both sides, but you have to be honest with yourself if you think the Palestinians did not reject multiple fair peace offers.
"Systematically exterminated" - This is an extreme hyperbole.. there are enough historical examples of how systematic exterminations looks like to make this a not serious claim. Just compare the amount of casualties of different middle eastern conflicts to the Israeli-Palestinian one
Please try to touch something more concrete than multiple anecdotes which most do not really represent anything similar to an apartheid government.
you see enough annectodatal evidence and it starts to become a pattern
> And you are touching a lot of different subjects which I don't have time to refute one by one.
thats how systematic oppression work. it has many facets and if you're pro israeli, you've only maintained that position by bot reading though the evidence
> Convinction rate in Israel is over 90% for the entire population, not just palestinians.
fair, but why do palestinians go thougha. seperate miliary court? why are children as young as 10 serving time in military prisons? october 7th was horrible but lets not ignore that it was motivated by people in a desperate situation trying to gain bargaining chips to have their loved ones released. some of those children released from the prisons in exchange for the israeli hostages were as young as 10 at the time of incarceration.
"Systematically exterminated" - This is an extreme hyperbole..
no its not. this proves to me you have spent no time watching any of the documentaries exploring this. you wouldn't last a day living in the west bank as a palestinian. Ive seen plenty of videos of settlers shooting down palestinians in cold blood with IDF soldiers doing nothing to stop it. they only step in when palestinians fight back. as an american who studied history, I know enough about the ku klux klan to to know ethnic cleansing when I see it.
> Please try to touch something more concrete than multiple anecdotes which most do not really represent anything similar to an apartheid government.
I think its obvious that there is no amount of evidence that would meet the bar for you to consider whats going on an apartheid.
Pattern for what? a national conflict is not the same as an apartheid government. We might need to go back to how you define apartheid, because I imagine separate bathrooms mandated by law, and it seems you imagine a national conflict in an occupied territory
> thats how systematic oppression work. it has many facets and if you're pro israeli, you've only maintained that position by bot reading though the evidence
Sounds a bit ad-hominem
> fair, but why do palestinians go thougha. seperate miliary court? why are children as young as 10 serving time in military prisons? october 7th was horrible but lets not ignore that it was motivated by people in a desperate situation trying to gain bargaining chips to have their loved ones released. some of those children released from the prisons in exchange for the israeli hostages were as young as 10 at the time of incarceration.
Military courts are how you manage a military occupied territory, I believe this is quite common in international law. Also Palestinians can appeal to the Israeli supreme court, many do and many decisions are overruled.
About children as young as 10, I need specifics. Looking at Israeli human rights organizations which I don't think anyone would think are pro-government in any way, there weren't any younger than 14 for the very long while I scrolled (https://www.btselem.org/hebrew/statistics/minors_in_custody).
The difference between hostages is these minors were trialed for real crimes, which you probably wouldn't accept in your country as well (attempted murder for example)
> no its not. this proves to me you have spent no time watching any of the documentaries exploring this. you wouldn't last a day living in the west bank as a palestinian. Ive seen plenty of videos of settlers shooting down palestinians in cold blood with IDF soldiers doing nothing to stop it. they only step in when palestinians fight back. as an american who studied history, I know enough about the ku klux klan to to know ethnic cleansing when I see it.
Systematic extermination can be quantified. Let's say one way you could measure it is by comparing birth rate to intentional death rates. I assure you the growth rate of the palestinian population is extremely positive.
Another way you can measure it is compare it to ongoing conflicts, the Syrian civil war which is currently ongoing has 600k casualties spanning a few years. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ongoing for almost a hundred years and it hasn't reached 10% of that.
It doesn't make it less tragic, but saying this is systematic extermination can minimize real cases of genocide.
> I think its obvious that there is no amount of evidence that would meet the bar for you to consider whats going on an apartheid.
I'm not sure. Again, apartheid is a government system that is based on systematic racism and discrimination. Although both exist in Israel, as in many other countries, this is a far cry than South Africa, or even the United States in the early 60s.
or the case where a 13 year oldboy was raped in prison and the IDF labelle dthe group trying to document and report it a terrorist organization?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnH61RvX-VQ&ab_channel=Daizy...
> Sounds a bit ad-hominem
I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm stating that the israeli position requires being absolutely obtuse and deflective for every shred of evidence that comes their way.
to be clear, no one is here to defend Hammas. I just don't think the IDF is any better.
case in point, they shot the three shirtless israeli hostages because they thought they were palestinians? so its perfectly fine to shoot unarmed people basicly?
Although this is a common perception, just the fact a human rights group declares something doesn't make it so. I have to remind you that you live in a world where the UN Human Rights council chair is a country where they publicly hang gay people on cranes and rapes women in prisons.
Case in point, Lebanon is a country where you cannot become president by law if you're not born from a specific Christian sect. This is a country where ethnic discrimination is codified into laws (and of course Palestinians don't have voting rights). This is closer to what you deem apartheid, yet Amnesty did not make a fancy video about that.
> or the case where a 13 year oldboy was raped in prison and the IDF labelle dthe group trying to document and report it a terrorist organization?
I'm sorry, I completely believe you it happened, however this is missing tons of context. Raped by whom? Was this case brought to a court? Do you believe the rape was state sanctioned? What were the charges which caused the IDF to declare it a terrorist organization? For example there were many situations where these organizations were money laundering fronts for Hamas.
And if the answers to all these questions is 'because Israel only does evil things and nothing is ever rational or a mistake or an individual wrong', what are you trying to prove and how does that relate to being an apartheid state
> I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm stating that the israeli position requires being absolutely obtuse and deflective for every shred of evidence that comes their way.
I don't think this is the case any more than criticizing one side for not being compatible with your values while completely ignoring the different side of the coin.
> case in point, they shot the three shirtless israeli hostages because they thought they were palestinians? so its perfectly fine to shoot unarmed people basicly?
It's an obvious blunder, but I think to be fair you have to know a lot more about the situation than we both know. One explanation is these soldiers were trigger happy and wanting revenge, and another explanation is that they misidentified them as armed or there was a failure of communication. There's a reason why it's called 'the fog of war'
ok so I guess amnesty international isn't a good source on if something is an apartheid by your logic?
> Case in point, Lebanon is a country where you cannot become president by law if you're not born from a specific Christian sect. This is a country where ethnic discrimination is codified into laws (and of course Palestinians don't have voting rights). This is closer to what you deem apartheid, yet Amnesty did not make a fancy video about that.
fair point. on the other hand, my tax dollars aren't' funding that discrimination. wheres my tax dollars ARE paying for the palestinian genocide. and yes, 15000 dead with the majority of them being under 18 is genocide. There's enough names to put up a large monument.
> I'm sorry, I completely believe you it happened, however this is missing tons of context.
the video I linked explains a good chunk of the context. it was compelling enough for the US state department to take the allegations seriously and forward the information to the israeli government. their response was to confiscate the computers and classify the the reporting party as a terrorist organization.
FOG of war? they were shirtless and loudly screaming in hebrew as confirmed by many sources. at the very least they could have been apprehended. It was considered a mistake only in that they weren't' palestinians. I haven't' even mentioned the number of journalist "accidentally killed." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V4zG_UkIdc&ab_channel=Middl...)
I mean... this is all pretty damning.
you call it circumstantial and anecdotal but there's a LOT of it. They've even gone so far as to label literal children of holocaust survivors "antisemitic" for speaking out against this genocide. (google it)
I know I probably won't be able to change your mind no matter what I show you. but there are very real reasons antizionism is growing in the world. The only solution that doesn't make israel evil will be to grant palestinians citizenship and equality under the law and let them live in israel alongside jews. abandon this whole ethnostate garbage.
You need to assert your claims and be ready to defend them, "Amnesty said so" is not enough to define a government system, and I heard it somewhere in youtube is not enough to declare genocide.
The conflict is extremely complex and nuanced just as the rest of the world is. People sometimes use this conflict as a way to flatly project their Good vs Evil binary attitudes, please try to embrace complexity.
literally 2 seconds of googling can disprove that
https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/checkpoints_and_...
> If they need to go thru checkpoints then they are not trespassing their territory.
if there was just one checkpoint between gaza and israel, yes that would be accurate but its not.
last I checked, Mexicans don't have to pass though US checkpoints when they travel from tulum to cancun or mexico city.
Any reason other than hyperbole that you consider Israel to be an apartheid state, as compared to the rest of the Arab countries?
1: Raw video by The Guardian, not even much commentary, see with your own eyes: https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx
I don't know what exactly happened with those people - though by the fact that they call Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem "settlers" I can know I can't trust a word that they are saying, and the source - which is the horrendously biased against Israel Guardian - even if everything that they say were true (which I very much suspect isn't), it looks like a property dispute, very likely based on the habit of certain parts of the population (not only Arabic, but often also) to build things first and apply for permits never. This is not always prosecuted, but sometimes it is. Sometimes it leads to very nasty disputes. Never has anything to do with "apartheid", which is lack of rights based on race (or, I allow it, ethnicity). Again, Arabs in Israel enjoy exactly the same rights, so the claim of "apartheid" is pure libel. That doesn't change an iota even if you find some instance of somebody being unjustly treated by somebody else or the legal system (again, I have zero reason to believe The Guardian in this particular case, but even if it did, it would have nothing to do with supposed "apartheid").
Also I note if you watch the film carefully, the Arabs do not just demand the property. They demand the Jews to leave Jerusalem (1:26). Israel is just fine with Arabs living in Jerusalem (even if some may claim they are not fairly treated). Arabs are not fine with Jews living in Jerusalem. And we just witnessed on October 7th what they do to Jews they're not fine with, when they can. In Jerusalem, they can't. But they still would like to. I don't think when they are deprived of this capacity, it's called "apartheid" - it's not what that word was supposed to mean.
I should have been clearer.
The GP claims that calling for the cessation of existence of an apartheid state is considered justified by the world.
He's correct. Most of the world would consider it justified.
But ... most of the world would not consider it justified to call for the cessation of existence of an entire country and, by extension, it's people.
South Africa was the first and the defining apartheid state. People called for the cessation of existence of the state. Anyone calling for the cessation of existence of the South African country would have been considered insane.
Additionally, the argument presented by GP is invalid anyway:
1. Everyone wants an apartheid state to cease existence
2. $COUNTRY is run by an apartheid state.
3. Therefore, everyone is calling for the cessation of existence of $COUNTRY.
It's simply invalid. The presence of assertions #1 and #2 above does not lead to the conclusion #3 above.
The USA already functions as a de facto One State solution where natives have both full rights and a negotiated sub-nationality too. The manifest destiny USA's "right to exist" was settled definitively against as early as 1865.
I wish for a future where there is peace and love, with no violence, from the river to the sea. I wish for a future where all people, from the river to the sea, have full human rights under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I wish for a future where all people, from the river to the sea, are enthusiastic users of GNU/Linux and the worst conflicts are debates over text editors.
If someone uses "from the river to the sea" in a sentence where they call for genocide, then what would make that sentence wrong is the verb phrase calling for genocide.