• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel's rejection of Amnesty's report does not change the reality of apartheid - opinion

Lord Tammerlain

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
35,703
Reaction score
19,313
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Note This opinion piece is originally from the Jerusalem Post

Amnesty International report describing Israel as a modern form of apartheid has generated an intense debate regarding the use of the word apartheid and much less debate on the substance of the report. The undeniable truth is that in the area under Israel’s direct control there are clear differences in the rights between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, be they citizens of Israel or residents of the Palestinian Authority areas. The entire geographic area of Israel and the West Bank is controlled by Israel, and it has total freedom of movement and access to all of the areas.

Fifty-five years after the Six-Day War (1967), we live in a binational reality that discriminates between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. After 1967, there was hope that territories conquered in the war would be exchanged for peace. That did not happen and instead of peace based on partition we have Israeli control with a binational reality that embodies a new form of apartheid – meaning two peoples under one controlling authority, which grants superior status to those who are part of the controlling authority
Click to expand...
 
1. Yes, I believe that the word "apartheid" is NOT the correct word to use in the context of Israeli-Arab relations.

2. For example, I understand that the Arabs who live in Israel are NOT treated the way Blacks were treated in South Africa.

3. Maybe the word "apartheid" should be retired. It referred to a unique situation in South Africa.
 
"Apartheid" is a word for racist government policies. That is not what is happening in Israel.

What is happening in Israel is, we have two sides that cannot reach an agreement with each other.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
"Apartheid" is a word for racist government policies. That is not what is happening in Israel.

What is happening in Israel is, we have two sides that cannot reach an agreement with each other.
Click to expand...
Palestinians in the west Bank do not have the same rights as Israelis in the West Bank. That would be racist policies
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Palestinians in the west Bank do not have the same rights as Israelis in the West Bank. That would be racist policies
Click to expand...
Racism is not the reason for those policies.

The reason for those policies is the fact that, given that the two sides cannot reach an agreement, there are no hard lines delineating who owns what land in the West Bank.

If we had hard borders delineating "what land belonged to Israel" and "what land belonged to the Palestinians" there would be no such problem. The Palestinians would be on Palestinian land, and Israeli laws would not apply on Palestinian land. Likewise, the Israelis would be on Israeli land, and Palestinian laws would not apply on Israeli land.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Racism is not the reason for those policies.

The reason for those policies is the fact that, given that the two sides cannot reach an agreement, there are no hard lines delineating who owns what land in the West Bank.

If we had hard borders delineating "what land belonged to Israel" and "what land belonged to the Palestinians" there would be no such problem. The Palestinians would be on Palestinian land, and Israeli laws would not apply on Palestinian land. Likewise, the Israelis would be on Israeli land, and Palestinian laws would not apply on Israeli land.
Click to expand...
The West Bank is not part of Israel, an easy way to determine what belongs to who
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The West Bank is not part of Israel, an easy way to determine what belongs to who
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. The borders have not yet been drawn. That would require the two sides to come to an agreement.

If no agreement is ever reached, it is possible that over the passage of centuries, the Security Fence will become a de facto border.

Hard to predict, the future is.
 
look at a map, you can see where the west bank is located and where it ends.

Yes it can change, but where the current accepted border is os known. Israel just wants more land
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes it can change, but where the current accepted border is is known.
Click to expand...
There is no currently accepted border.

The closest thing to a border right now is the Security Fence. But currently neither side accepts that as the border.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
There is no currently accepted border.

The closest thing to a border right now is the Security Fence. But currently neither side accepts that as the border.
Click to expand...
Israel is the one not accepting the 67 boarder as the boarder
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Israel is the one not accepting the 67 boarder as the boarder
Click to expand...
The Palestinians have a similar lack of acceptance to having "the Gaza Strip alone" define the border of a future Palestinian state.

Maybe one day the two sides will come to an agreement, but I'm not holding my breath. If agreement on this issue was easy they would already have reached an agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom