Israel/Palestine
In reply to the discussion: An immoral boycott [View all]Little Tich
(6,171 posts)It doesn't really help to show how much Israeli Arabs love Israel, when it's about other people who live under Israeli occupation. And it doesn't help to show that the occupied people want freedom and rights like Israelis have either.
The Apartheid analogy stems from the fact that Palestinians living in the occupied territories live under military jurisdiction with no civil rights whatsoever, and Israelis living in the occupied territories have civil rights and access to all resources there, which has led to a disparity in living standards: Palestinian GDP per capita in the West Bank is $1924 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_State_of_Palestine) which is considerably less than the Israeli GDP per capita of $35,833. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel). Without any form of discrimination against Palestinians in the occupied territories, there should be equal access to economic opportunities which should mean economic parity.
I've said that I didn't know of a good definition of Apartheid in general, but that doesn't mean that I think that Israel doesn't fit the definition - that a different argument. Apartheid is a system of discrimination, and the political system in South Africa was an example of such a system. A definition of Apartheid is difficult to formulate, as it would be almost impossible to include all possible forms of discrimination that an Apartheid system could use.
The Israel apartheid analogy is based on scholarly analysis and facts while the objections to the analogy are more based on opinion. At least that's my own opinion...
Israel and the apartheid analogy
Source: Wikipedia
The analogy has been used by some scholars, United Nations investigators, and human rights groups critical of Israeli policy. Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including the ID system, Israeli settlements, separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens around many of these settlements, military checkpoints, marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheaper labour, Palestinian West Bank exclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories, resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, contrary to international law. Some commentators extend the analogy to include treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class.
Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is factually, morally, and historically inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel. Opponents state that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel. They argue that though the internal free movement of Palestinians is heavily regulated by the Israeli government, the territories are governed by the elected Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders, so they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa.
With regard to the situation within Israel itself, critics of the analogy argue that Israel cannot be called an apartheid state because unlike South Africa which enshrined its racial segregation policies in law, Israeli law is the same for Jewish citizens and other Israeli citizens, with no explicit distinction between race, creed or sex. However, others believe that even if Israeli law does not make explicit distinction between categories of citizens, in effect it privileges Jewish citizens and discriminates against non-Jewish, and particularly Arab, citizens of the state, by creating benefits for IDF service, which is not mandatory for Arabs (but is optional).
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy