Israel/Palestine post 10/7 - follow-on events/thoughts as relate to other countries

I'm not really sure what you're saying. A different perspective to what?

Just for context-- not sure if this story was linked in this thread-- this is what happened in Toronto a couple weeks ago:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/arrests-in-vandalism-at-indigo-store-sparking-pro-palestinian-protest-at-toronto-police-station/article_7157695e-ebf8-5011-98a4-1942e65301fb.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/indigo-vandalism-charges-1.7037711

The Star story explains the reason why Indigo has been a target of protest. The Globe does not, but mentions the response from the Simon Wiesenthal Institute.

I personally support protests against Indigo. That said, I do not think vandalism is an effective form of protest; this goes for red paint thrown at Indigo's doors or bloody handprints (don't know what you're specifically referring to, felicity, but I believe you on that). It's not that I think vandalism is equivocal to violence; I don't think this is the case. It's that many people do think this is the case, and vandalism can threaten to delegitimise what would otherwise be a peaceful, effective protest. (Also, too, it's not gonna be the CEO of the company that cleans up that red paint, you know?). But yeah, I've had heated arguments with activist friends about this very point.

I had a classmate from South Africa. Nobody hassled him or painted bloody handprints on his dorm or anything.

The IDF are considerably adept at killing people than the South African Army ever were.

more adept

You're right but they can cool it with the bloody handprints imo

I'm not really sure what you're saying. A different perspective to what?

― plax (ico), Friday, December 15, 2023 3:45 PM bookmarkflaglink

I told a personal story. Each person has a different perspective from other people. People do that in this thread frequently.

You're right but they can cool it with the bloody handprints imo

― i do, what’s wrong with that? so? what now? (flamboyant goon tie included), Friday, December 15, 2023 3:54 PM bookmarkflaglink

Amen to that.

The IDF are considerably adept at killing people than the South African Army ever were.

― Free Ass Ange (Tom D.), Friday, December 15, 2023 6:51 PM (sixteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Hamas is considerably more adept at it than the ANC too.

In before people start blaming Jewish US college students for this.

― felicity, Friday, December 8, 2023 3:03 PM bookmarkflaglink

I was here first.

Hamas is considerably more adept at it than the ANC too.

So drawing comparisons is stupid.

Exactly

It does depend what comparisons you're drawing though. Saying Israel practices a form of apartheid is a valid comparison

Beyond that, not really.

The critiques I have read about BDS include (1) that it doesn't affect Israel so much as it has a negative, disparate impact on the Jewish diaspora who tend to have more ties to Israel than non Jewish people, and (2) to the extent it affects individuals within Israel it encourages shunning academics and artists who are from Israel, and could otherwise foster contructive dialogue, as a form of collective punishment.

*Nick Cave thread

It does depend what comparisons you're drawing though. Saying Israel practices a form of apartheid is a valid comparison

― Free Ass Ange (Tom D.), Friday, December 15, 2023 4:32 PM bookmarkflaglink

It is. And like anvil, I was trying to understand if the claim of apartheid is a claim about Israel's treatment of people in the occupied territories or a claim about its treatment of Arabs within Israel as well.

I hate Nick Cave so I avoided that thread didn't know it was a discussion of the merits of BDS #onethread

well this is bad: "Middle school teacher arrested after allegedly threatening to behead Muslim student who said Israeli flag offended her"

That was insane. Just terrible.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, and I understand if people think its semantics, but I wonder if Russia is a better comparison than South Africa? A Ukrainian that is living in the occupied territories, in Mariupol or Berdyansk, doesn't have the same rights as a Ukrainian that is living in St Petersburg or Kazan (or for that matter anyone in Mariupol vs St Petersburg), but we don't call what Russia is implementing in its occupied territories a form of apartheid (though maybe we should, not sure).

The problem with Russia is more generally considered to be occupation not apartheid, and for me I think occupations potentially always result in apartheid like situations, because the territories that are occupied get treated differently

Apartheid is institutionalised racial hierarchical segregation. Key to this is the institutionalison. Multiple generations of Palestinians have grown up in a normalised system of occupation, subject to combinations of state perpetrated measures and those carried out by settlers and facilitated by the state (politicians, courts) that range from violations of human dignity to physical violence including large numbers of civilian deaths year after year. Though it is not unreasonable to speculate that this may be established as a norm in occupied Ukraine, it would be more appropriate I think to suggest that whatever situation pertains there is the result of a state of emergency stemming from the outbreak of an illegal war of aggression.

But with parts of Ukraine approaching a decade under occupation, plus the arrival of settlers during that time period, at what point do we say that its has become a normalised system of occupation?

Is a state of emergency necessarily a temporary situation, and can there be a situation of indefinite temporary?

I feel like Russia and Israel apply different rules to territories they have taken and apply different rules to people who live in those territories than in the rest of their country, whereas South Africa applied those rules universally. That could still be apartheid but it seems more predicated on occupation than in the case of SA

Is Jewish considered a race? I don't think it is in the US.

"Socially, the country will implement Jim Crow-style segregation. Palestinians will be forbidden from purchasing property from non-Jews. Everything up to and including maternity wards will be segregated by race."

https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/israels-government-of-psychopaths

That's his description of Smotrich's vision for Israel. Smotrich and Ben Gvir are psychos. It's a stain on Israel that they were allowed in the government. But .. they are not the government. Netanyahu needed them to regain the prime ministership and he thinks he can keep them under control. Maybe he's right that he can keep them under control but it now looks very doubtful he'll stay in power once the fighting stops. So what good did this shameful bargain even do him? I do think the successor government is likely to send the Kahanists back out to the shadows where they belong.

I wanted to understand the statement

Apartheid is institutionalised racial hierarchical segregation.

in terms of Israel.

I guess I hadn't thought too deeply about the "apartheid" label until plax (ico) typed that definition out.

I don't want to trivialize the situation in Israel/Palestine. And I also wouldn't want to trivialize what people experienced under Apartheid in South Africa or the US under Jim Crow laws, which were state enforced racial segregation.

Race is an immutable characteristic. Apartheid is a crime against humanity.

Do people think Jewish is a race when they say this?

Race is an immutable characteristic.

Is this still the thread where we talk about I/P as it relates to other countries btw because it doesn't seem that way? (I am as guilty as anyone)

table I am pretty sympathetic to that view.

Which is why I am again questioning the "apartheid" label and definition.

xp yes - this came up as a result of Tracer posting stickers of "apartheid" hummus for use in the UK.

Actual Jim Crow laws are a pretty good way to disprove "race is an immutable characteristic"!

Yes I understand that. I'm still asking the people who use "apartheid" in reference to what they mean in Israel.

Plax said it was institutionalized racial hierarchical segregation.

Saying race is a construct would seem to discourage use of the term "apartheid" as a descriptor.

No it doesn't. Israeli law (notably the nation state law) is widely considered (by those encompassing supporters and critics) to establish Arab people in Israel and the oPt a racially inferior group. This is a social and legal construct, not an immutable distinction between groups of people.

You said hierarchy, which implies races, plural.

You're saying it's Israeli laws singling out Arab citizens of Israel and constructing their identity in terms of race?

I'm genuinely asking because apartheid has a lot of shock value.

Friend wrote this piece for the Nation. Well worth reading.

Why is it not enough for culture workers to condemn the war in high-profile venues? Measuring public opinion alone, the movement against the war on Gaza is highly popular, but deeply disempowered. A 70 percent supermajority of the US supports a cease-fire, including a majority of both Republican and Democratic voters. But the US government still foots the multibillion-dollar bill for Israel’s war crimes—which include the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure, launching airstrikes at schools, invading Al-Shifa Hospital under the false claim that it hosted a military base, and repeatedly bombing the Al-Jabalia refugee camp. A small, though growing, minority of democratically elected representatives at the federal level—the actual decision-makers whose votes secure or prohibit military aid to Israel—have publicly called for a permanent cease-fire. In other words, while people who oppose war and genocide need to hold the line, we don’t actually need to win the battle for public opinion against the war—that is already decisively on our side. Instead, we need to understand the power structure that makes a small number of decision makers decide to facilitate the war in Gaza and that insulates them from the consequences of their actions. And then we need to use that knowledge to cause a greater crisis for them than the one they fear from our opponents.

Do people think Jewish is a race when they say this?

I'd say race is a more modern construct than judaism, which has very deep roots in the much older identity of tribalism. According to modern racial categories, the diaspora has tended to deracinate judaism, but the fact of jewish identity being maintained for a couple millennia, always as a minority within other nations, cultures and ethnicities, has led to a dynamic that duplicates racial dynamics fairly closely.

"You said hierarchy, which implies races, plural."

When two groups are constructed such that one is racialised and the other not, that is a hierarchy.

I'm not sure how you think that the term apartheid has shock value in this context, could you unpack that?

Those Israelis who don't want Jews to live beside Arabs, or don't want Jews to have relationships with Arabs, or don't want Arabs to have the same rights as Jews, I wonder what they consider the Palestinians to be.

What I am trying to get at is that "one is racialised and the other is not" - is that written in Israeli law somewhere? I hadn't read that. Who is doing this racializing?

Regarding shock value, Apartheid seems to define the Israel/Palestine conflict in terms of skin color - for want of a better word. That has shocking connotations in the US for several reasons. It seems to go along with "racist project" and other charged terms.

I said earlier I think a comparison is valid. I wasn't sure if you were saying it literally is "apartheid."

This convo has me wondering about the origin of matrilineal descent in Judaism, and I found this wiki, which was surprising in the extent of its detail and I’m glad I read it!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew

Also I was interested in possible US/UK differences.

In the US I don't think I hear Jewishness expressed as a race except maybe by white supremacists. It has bad connotations for me because of Hitler. In the US I believe Jewishness is considered more like national origin, religion, or ethnic protected groups. It struck me as weird reading people from the UK expressing discrimination against Jewish people as a form of racism. Maybe I get more used to it the more I read ILX.

fgti, that's a very nice link.

I feel like it fits in with an article addressing the fracture on the far left with left or liberal Jewish people due to misunderstandings over terminology and symbols.

Yeah that makes sense. I think racism can be defined as “prejudice against an ethnic group” without necessarily defining the ethnic group as a race

fgti, that's a very nice link.

Isn’t it? I was blown away by the amount of info there. Interesting to read that matrilineal descent has its roots in scripture, too.

Apartheid seems to define the Israel/Palestine conflict in terms of skin color

I haven't seen this. What I have seen are (for example) accounts from people visiting Israel who were asked by IDF soldiers what their religion was, because the answer to that question determined whether or not they were allowed to walk down a particular street. Thus it seems to me that when people use the term "apartheid state" to describe Israel, they are using it to mean "government which grants one group (Jews) more legal rights than another group (Arabs)". And that there are equivalencies in the way Palestinians are required to pass through military checkpoints to get from one place to another, and the areas in which they live can be sealed off at any time, the same way black citizens had to present papers to go places in apartheid South Africa and their townships could be closed off or raided by the military at any time. It's an apartheid system both in terms of one group being legally superior to another, and in the concrete details of how the oppression of the legally inferior group is conducted.

In the US I don't think I hear Jewishness expressed as a race except maybe by white supremacists. It has bad connotations for me because of Hitler. In the US I believe Jewishness is considered more like national origin, religion, or ethnic protected groups. It struck me as weird reading people from the UK expressing discrimination against Jewish people as a form of racism. Maybe I get more used to it the more I read ILX.

Corbyn was constantly called a racist by people attacking him for being antisemitic. I lost count of the number of times I heard rightwing public figures saying "Why is antisemitism the only acceptable form of racism?" Mostly Jewish rightwingers or right wing Jewish publications btw. It took me two seconds to google this...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/17/going-london-shows-anti-semitism-still-acceptable-form-racism/

Apartheid seems to define the Israel/Palestine conflict in terms of skin color

No it doesn't.

(xp) ... that's from two years ago btw!

I haven't seen this. What I have seen are (for example) accounts from people visiting Israel who were asked by IDF soldiers what their religion was, because the answer to that question determined whether or not they were allowed to walk down a particular street.

― Tahuti Watches L&O:SVU Reruns Without His Ape (unperson), Saturday, December 16, 2023 1:18 PM (five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Are you sure this wasn't in the West Bank? I am not aware of any "Jewish only" streets in Israel proper. There is not de jure segregation within the '48 borders. There is discrimination, but there is not systematic segregation. Also I think even in the West Bank, whether you can drive on certain roads is, at least legally, defined by whether you have Israeli citizenship rather than ethnicity/religion.

The nazis constructed a racial hierarchy that marked jewish people as a racialised other. They developed eugenic typologies that encompassed physical, intellectual and moral characteristics and designated them a 'subrace' as part of their campaign of genocide. It didn't matter whether or not jewish people constitute a race as this did not impede the development of this way of constructing them as such.

Within the context of international law, the court that responded to the Rwandan genocide stated in its rulings that "conventional definition of racial group is based on the hereditary physical traits often identified with a geographical region, irrespective of linguistic, cultural, national or religious factors". (Race as a category is largely undefined in HR conventions). I'm not sure that I've ever encountered any sustained attempt to understand race/racism that defines it simplistically as 'skin colour'.

To be clear, the understanding of Israel as an Apartheid state is not mine but one supported by many, including Israeli civil society organisations (B'Tselem), international humanitarian organisations (Amnesty international), and various agencies of the UN. A key document is the ESCWA report "Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid" https://aardi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ESCWA-2017-Richard-Falk-Apartheid.pdf