Some interesting points in the def'n of apartheid given above that make it seem like all 3 of the Abrahamic religions match the def'n for apartheid:

1 - "the infliction of mental harm": like worshipping a book that says all non-worshippers deserve to be tortured and killed (the bible, torah and Koran all say non-worshippers will be burned for eternity). teaching a kid they'll be tortured for eternity seems to match "mental harm"

2 - "degrading treatment": see above

3 - "infringement of dignity": see above

So, IF that def'n is accurate, and IF teaching a kid it deserves to be tortured for ever actually does cause that kid mental harm, or infringe upon its dignity, or degrade it, and IF Israel does in fact follow any of the 3 Abrahamic religions, then YES.

The only question mark in there is "Is Israel a religious or secular nation?" If they are a jewish nation, then YES, they match the def'n of apartheid.

(note that though apartheid is based around race and not religion, there are measurable DNA sequences found exclusively in jews, thus, race)

I feel like you're intentionally trying to make this thread more controversial.

Macchiavelli, there is a minor difference. Most people who believe in the Abrahamic religions would probably not exactly agree with the "deserve to be killed" part, and many presumably believe more that non-worshippers will be tortured, as opposed to deserving to be. Teaching a kid that stuff, regardless of his belief, is morally suspect in my book, but for slightly different reasons.

As for 2 and 3, they are potential results of the beliefs proposed in 1, but not necessary. To be sure, they do exist in many countries, and frequently, they are a component of apartheid, but it is not as clear a continuum as you propose. Religions are technically supposed to be bound by their holy books, but in practice, those are ignored to keep the religion viable. Religion is not fundamentally incompatible with a secular society.

Israel is an apartheid nation, for as long as the Palestinian community is treated as intrinsically less important than the Jewish community. Representation in the Knesset is nice, but if they never find their way to government, it is functionally useless.

"YOu are
claiming Isreal is an Aparthied state,"

I made no such claim. I asked a question, and posted two links fromnopposing views.

Krellin, you are the only one ranting here.

"Representation in the Knesset is nice, but if they never find their way to government, it is functionally useless."

To be clear; they is not representation of the arabs who living in Gaza or the West Bank, thet are Arabs who are living in Israel, and are full citizens, whatever political party they belong to, they lilely represent other Arabs living in Israel (who are allowed to vote)

Maybe there is a question here, if Israel allow Palestinians Arabs becomes Israeli Arabs, and live as full citizens (along with several tens of thousands who cross the border to work each day) is it a more porous system, something which discriminates based on politics but allows those who are willing to support the state of Israel become full citizens? (and probably be considered traitor to their Arab brothers while they are at it, but these things happen)

"Israel has ARABS IN THE FUCKING KNESSET YOU IGNORANT FUCKING ANTI-SEMITES."

IRAN HAS JEWS AND CHRISTIANS IN THE MAJLIS (it's required by the Iranian constitution)!!!!!

But somehow, this fact does not shut down debate about treatment of non-Muslims in Iran.

And the non-Jews in the Knesset are frequently threatened with imprisonment for 'treason'... and some have fled into exile to escape that fate. A few token Palestinians in the knesset who are not allowed to have any real power in government and must constantly wonder if or when they're going to be thrown in prison for being too uppity isn't exactly rock-solid proof of an egalitarian political system.

@Tolstoy, i see your angle, claiming there can still be discrimination while serving in parliment (NB krellin: the parliment and government are not the same thing) is valid.

But is it enough to prove apartheid? And are the unrepresented non-citizens not the ones suffering the most apartheid-like treatment?

I don't see why you guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be. Israel demolishes Palestinian homes, and build settlements (more like colonies) that only Israelis can live in while the Palestinian refugees either go live in shitty camps
Israel is an Apartheid state

Ignore the "either"

Hannibal, if that's true about the re-settling, then yes, that does indeed match the def'n of apartheid given above

nice and simple, I like it

Ok, simple case closed. (I know i wrote a reply to this last night but it appears my phone didn't send it)

Is there a counter to this claim; along the lines of 'those aren't Israeli citizens, so they don't count as people?'

Say illegal immigrants settle in your country and the settlements are destroyed and the illegal immigrants scared away, would that make your country an apartheid state, even though legal immigrants from the same region are treated as normal citizens?

The Israelian situation is more complicated, but Israel fears for the safety of the state if Palestinians become Israelian citizens, just like most western countries fear for their state if they allow everyone to become legal citizens.

Whether Israel is wrong or right is a seperate issue entirely, but I don't think they're oppressing a race.

Well, in this case, the Israeli settlements are considered to be a violation of international law; they take land which was agreed to be the basis of a Palestinian state in pervious peace agreements.

And you can claim that Israel has legitimate reason to fear for its security because there is no peace agreement being enforced.

But steephie, it is more like a nation being scared of immigrants, and going outside of their territory to destory those immigrants homes, then building homes for their citizens. I don't really think your analogy quite captures the situtation - even if you ignore the claims that the 1967 border should be respected.

I think the scenario would be more accurate if you would say that people migrated to a certain piece of land, called it their own, and started calling local people illegal immigrants.

Yup

"Well, in this case, the Israeli settlements are considered to be a violation of international law; they take land which was agreed to be the basis of a Palestinian state in pervious peace agreements."

By that reasoning most countries are in violation since they have taken war captured lands for their own citizens like the US with territories belong to the American Indian tribes. France and Germany over the Alsace-Laurent region, pretty much anything that the former Soviet Union took or the current Russia from the Ukraine, and numerous other regions.

You can also include the Arab countries of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon which seized Palestinian territory in 1947 and placed Palestinians in refugee camps while they controlled the areas.

But Israel is being held to a higher standard than the rest of the world.

I'm not arguing that they're doing lawful things. I'm arguing that what they do wrong has to do with gaining territory, making sure Israel remains a Jewish state, fighting off Palestinians.. Lots of bad and maybe one or two okay reasons, but I don't see what any of them have to do with race. It's just a political mess with a religious element.

"By that reasoning most countries are in violation since they have taken war captured lands for their own citizens like the US with territories belong to the American Indian tribes. France and Germany over the Alsace-Laurent region, pretty much anything that the former Soviet Union took or the current Russia from the Ukraine, and numerous other regions.

You can also include the Arab countries of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon which seized Palestinian territory in 1947 and placed Palestinians in refugee camps while they controlled the areas.

But Israel is being held to a higher standard than the rest of the world."

Well yes, the US was wrong to take land from and commit genocide against the native Americans. But today, do they have an entitlement to full citizenship? Or are they excluded from the rights a citizens automatically gets?

France and Germany both agree to full citizenship rights for residents of the Alsace-Laurent region.

The standards Russia is being held to today have result in a trade war, which is very costly to the EU, and may break the Russian economy ( as the low-low price of oil means they can't run a budget surplus)

The arab countries seized and lost territory in the past. But we're talking about who holds it now. If Jordan made Palestinians refugees and forced them into camps in the past it was wrong then.

But if we want to build a better world we need to address the present and future. The fact that mistakes were made before is no excuse for letting them continue.

So is this a double standard? Sure thing! We now have higher standards.

Whether someone will hold up these standards ( like the EU/US when it comes to Russia and Ukraine) is a simple matter of who is powerful enough (both economically and militarily) to hold other powers up to the standards.

"Well yes, the US was wrong to take land from and commit genocide against the native Americans. But today, do they have an entitlement to full citizenship? Or are they excluded from the rights a citizens automatically gets?"

Some Indians still are fighting for their rights to be considered Indians, have their tribes to be recognized by the US government, and most especially regain tribal lands seized by the US government. While they are citizens, they are not always recognized as sovereign nations and get to used their own lands. Not to mention payments for lands being used for their mineral rights because a company wants it and the government will someday pass it on while benefiting from the money.

Major powers are taking over land and forcing the inhabitants out recently: Russia in the Ukraine, and China in the South China Sea. Then the minor powers: ISIS (hasn't been officially recognized) forcing out non-Muslims and those that don't support them from Syria and Iraq, Sudan is still being disputed in spite of a peace agreement, and India and Pakistan are still fighting over Kashmir.

"Well yes, the US was wrong to take land from and commit genocide against the native Americans. But today, do they have an entitlement to full citizenship? Or are they excluded from the rights a citizens automatically gets?"

The US did not commit genocide against the native Americans, the vast majority of them died as a result of diseases that were introduced when the Europe and the Americas came into contact with each-other (and many Europeans died as well from this).

Veers: Yeah, and the Nazis didn't commit genocide against the Jews since most of history's Jews died of old age before Nazi Germany came to be.

s

Veers, those who were left, we fucking slaughtered. Trail of Tears, Reservations... Andrew Jackson!!!

Randomizer: "Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon . . . seized Palestinian territory in 1947"
Syria and Lebanon?
1947, as in before the first Arab-Israeli War?
Pick up a history book. Brush up on your current affairs while you're at it.

Also, the Indian Wars during and after the Civil War. That's the other major genocide of the Native Americans at the hands of the U.S. (the other having been mentioned by Yanik).

"genocide" is the wrong word to use TrPrado. Genocide implies a systematic, centralized, effort to purge a people. I would classify the "Indian Wars" as more of a sporadic and random series of abuses and occasional slaughters (on both sides).

1947 was the first Arab-Israeli War. The fighting had already started before the UN adoption of a partition of 1947, but the formal division was done until 1948. Fighting only was "official" in 1948 with declarations of war by the Arab states. All the people dying weren't neighborhood drive by shootings.

@JECE - I've read several history books and grew up with people that had relatives there and visited. It's what doesn't get into the history books that's really disgusting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

Trail of Tears and Reservations were not "slaughtering them", they were removing a defeated enemy from land that they had lost. When you consider that most nations exterminate or enslave conquered people, moving the Native Americans to reservations was the only humane option. Also when you consider all of the atrocities that they had already committed (scalping, raiding undefended villages and murdering their inhabitants, murdering surrendering soldiers, hacking prisoners to death with tomahawks) then you can understand why the US's actions were justified.

invaders are people too