Israel's new "apartheid" policy proves a hit with voters

NB the bill in question -- the one that would make it possible to bar Israeli Arabs from living in government-owned communities, which is 90% of Israel -- was approved by the Cabinet but I don't think stands any chance of getting through the Knesset (and even less chance of standing up to an appeal to the courts). It's terribly frightening, though: it is without apology an apartheid proposal, and it confirms every suspicion that a significant portion of the Israeli political field really would prefer a semi-theocratic ethnic homeland to a secular state (which makes them different from their most radical detractors only insofar as they're a lot closer to pulling it off).

That said, if you are interested in the middle east and Israel, Ha'aretz makes for fascinating reading. It's a very good window into internal Israeli politics, much of which seems to be about "identity" issues that don't arise so much in other countries.

another example (one of a million): when Palestinian gunmen recently broke into the home of some Israeli settlers and murdered the family who lived there, including a five-year old girl, shot dead at point blank range as she lay sleeping in her bed - we never heard much about this did we? At least I can't recall any great international outcry. Yet if the roles were reversed would we ever hear the end of it? Why is that I wonder? Why is it that the country which has done more to accomodate people of other religions than any other in the Middle East is pilloried for suggesting measures to counter race- hating fanatics who glorify the brutal murder of children?

Let's face it, none of you really give a damn aobut the rights and wrongs of this situation. All you're concerned with is selectively portraying the facts so as to present Arab aggression as a victim's response to capitalist imperialist oppression.

It's a crying shame that so many liberal-Leftists these days are so desperate to cling to the ideological positon that 'America = global exploiter; Arab world = victims of Western oppression' that rather than admit to the bigotry and fanaticism which is rife amongst certain factions of modern Islam they'll attempt to portray even the resistance to fascistic intolerance as imperialist bullying or knee- jerk vengefulness - to the detriment especially of all those millions of decent Arabs who suffer daily under the rule of real oppressors.

There isn't a skinhead alive today who could match the prejudice displayed day-in-day-out by the present (so-called) liberal Left.

enjoy more rights than even most Arab citizens have in their own states?: Are you, like, seriously arguing that citizens of a nation should have their liberties adjusted to match the average liberties of whatever nations match their ethnic makeup? I.e. Jews in the US should pay higher taxes ("still lower than in Israel"), Pakistanis in the UK shouldn't have full voting priviledges ("better than a military dictatorship"), etc?

if the roles were reversed would we ever hear the end of it?: I don't know where you live or what news you follow; the running death-toll in Israeli-Palestinian violence has far more deaths on the Palestinian side, and here in the US, at least, coverage is very much tilted in the other direction. (This is to some extent to be expected given that individual "terrorist" violence seems much more newsworthy than complex state-sanctioned violence.)

Why is it that the country which has done more to accomodate people of other religions than any other in the Middle East: again, are we indexing for averages? If the Sudan has a problem with slavery would it be okay with you if Chad had a smaller problem with slavery? (It'd be "the country which has done more to stop slavery in the region...")

is pilloried for suggesting measures to counter race- hating fanatics who glorify the brutal murder of children?: Are you now arguing that every Israeli Arab is by definition a race-hating fanatic who fully supports terrorism? That statement in itself is essentially advocacy of apartheid. You will probably disclaim this, as "apartheid" is no longer seen as a pretty word, but your logic is an unequivocal support of it: we group individuals based on their heritage in an ethnicity with whom there is conflict, then separate and repress the ethnic tradition as a whole (e.g. restricting them to a given piece of land). (NB "Muslim fanatics do it too!" is not an answer to this, unless you're out to agree with Muslim fanatics, too.)

All you're concerned with is selectively portraying the facts so as to present Arab aggression as a victim's response to capitalist imperialist oppression: Giant jump here -- I think the only concern one must have to be bothered by this proposal is the belief -- pretty well enshrined in most western constitutions -- that all citizens of a nation be offered equal legal treatment regardless of ethnic heritage. Violence doesn't really enter into it, especially given that an Israeli Arab have been responsible for (I think) only one of the suicide bombings over the past two years.

I think what I'm asking is that you drop the sort of presumptuous ideology you're cloaking your statement in and answer the real question, the question posed by a proposal that was approved by the Israeli cabinet: are you seriously arguing that it's okay for a nation to restrict the rights of its own citizens based on their ethnicity? You've pretty explicitly supported it, above, but I'd like you to address the root question for a moment.

The BBC's Matt Prodger in Jerusalem says Mr Liberman's proposal is an extreme alternative put forward by a right-wing alarmed by Mr Sharon's plan.

However, he adds that it is unlikely to get much support from other ministers.

Couldn't find any other appropriate thread to put this piece on post-Apartheid era South Africa

It's somewhat disturbing how forgiveness appears to have played out.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/south-africa-apartheid-white-afrikaners-the-inheritors/670554/

Couldn't find any other appropriate thread to put this piece on post-Apartheid era South Africa/

This one will do.

Half way through this v thorough piece on ending Apartheid vs ending settler colonialism.

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-land-question/

Half way through this v thorough piece on ending Apartheid vs ending settler colonialism.

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-land-question/

rob's views have really changed in the intervening 23 years

I think that’s a joke but just in case: that’s not me, I wasn’t on ilx back then

it was meant as a joke!

rob has the right to defend himself!

I think that’s a joke but just in case: that’s not me, I wasn’t on ilx back then

i was reading that post and like “wtf”, glad i scrolled down.

how is it possible you have the exact same display name? if a display name is dormant for long enough, somebody else can claim it?

That's a question for mods?

yeah or just whoever is reading

isn't that rob dating back to when you could change your username willy-nilly without registering it through email and mod verification?

oh maybe that's it. to be clear, i'm not accusing rob of lying, i'm just curious about the mechanics and history of ilx user names

miss the days when random ignorant googlers could dive bomb the site and then have their arguments dismantled by nabisco

registration wasn't required until 2005-6ish IIRC?

You could probably use the Dave Matthews Band thread to determine when it became necessary as we lost out on random DMB fans popping in to launch a defense of "Ants Marching."

how is it possible you have the exact same display name? if a display name is dormant for long enough, somebody else can claim it?

― budo jeru, Friday, January 2, 2026 9:56 AM (three hours ago)

I wondered the same thing myself after reading symsymsym's first post, scrolling up, reading "rob"'s post, and having a brief moment of confusion/shame until I noticed the year was 2002, which is 7 or 8 years before I first posted here. but yes I think calzino is right about the mechanics

isn't that rob dating back to when you could change your username willy-nilly without registering it through email and mod verification?

― Father McGammycurry (calzino)

believe this is true

though fwiw I wouldn't have posted like that back in 2002 either! I was already a university-educated radical by then lol

rob's views have really changed in the intervening 23 years

― symsymsym, Friday, 2 January 2026 bookmarkflaglink

I wanted to make the same joke fwiw