Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumThe Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Isn't About Race
(snip)
This occupation, with its attendant injustices, is the core subject of a 280-page report released last week by Amnesty International, Israels Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity. In the first decades after 1967, Israel described the situation on the West Bank as an enlightened occupation. The instruction of Palestinian farmers in modern farming techniques, the establishment of a handful of universities and the rapid appearance of modern appliances in every Arab home were touted as benefits of this experiment... Instead, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially national, a struggle between two nations over the same tract of land. The Amnesty report obliquely acknowledges this when it charges that Israelis define Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. Of course, that definition is correct. Fortunately or unfortunately, the world is divided into nation-stateswith a few exceptions, including the U.S.and Israel is the Jews nation-state, just as the 22 member states of the Arab League are Arab nation-states. Most of them define themselves that way in their constitutions.
The failure of the charge of apartheid to capture the Israeli reality is especially clear when it comes to the 1.9 million Arabs living within the borders of pre-1967 Israel, who are full citizens. The Amnesty report charges that while Palestinian citizens of Israel can vote in national elections, in practice their right to political participation is limited, but this is sheer nonsense. True, during the first 18 years of Israels existence, its Arab citizens lived under military government and their freedom of movement and employment was strictly controlled. But since 1966, Israels Arabs have enjoyed equality, as the countrys Declaration of Independence promised. They have been and are free to express their political views, their freedom of movement is unrestricted, and they vote in national and local elections. They are fully represented in the Knesset, Israels parliament, in both anti-Zionist and Zionist parties. In fact, the Islamist-Arab Raam party, the United Arab List, is currently part of the governing coalition headed by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.
Israeli Arab doctors fill Israels hospitals, and Arab youngsters fill Israels universities, though there are still relatively few Arab professors. For decades, Arabs in small numbers have served in the Israeli military and border police, and the number of such enlistees is steadily growing. It used to be common for Jewish landlords to refuse to rent apartments to Arabs, but in recent years, a small but growing number of Arabs live in Jewish neighborhoods in Tel Aviv, Carmiel, Upper Nazareth and other areas. A handful of Jews live in Arab villages.
(snip)
The Amnesty report makes a series of recommendations to improve the lot of Palestines Arabs, both in Israel and in the occupied territories. The most far-reaching of these is to allow the mass return of Palestinian refugeesthere are now some six million on the U.N. rolls. If implemented, such a return would create instant anarchy and an Arab majority and would result fairly quickly in the dissolution of Israel. The world would then have 23 Arab states and no Jewish state. In its preamble the report states: We believe that
compassion with [sic] people everywhere can change societies for the better. Indeed, the report abounds with compassion for Palestines Arabs. But no Jewish state? Where is the compassion in that?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-israeli-palestinian-conflict-isnt-about-race-11644505041 (subscription)
By Benny Morris who is professor emeritus of Middle Eastern Studies at Israels Ben Gurion University of the Negev. His books include 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War and, most recently, The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkeys Destruction of Its Christian Minorities, 1894-1924.
multigraincracker
(34,093 posts)The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.
In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.
Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.
But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.
Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.
He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics
It is about religion and culture.
Still argued about and not settled. We are all Human, the only race.
Beastly Boy
(11,147 posts)of this label far more clearly than it condemns Israel. It's beyond obvious that the facts on the ground do not support anything resembling legitimate grounds for labeling the State of Israel as an apartheid state. To lend it any semblance of success in this pointless exercise in futility, the established definitions of apartheid, such as in the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court or the United Nations' ICSPCA convention, are being completely disregarded, and new, largely arbitrary definitions of the term, never before established in law, are being used instead. Curiously but predictably, these new definitions are being applied exclusively to Israel, even though the examination of these made-up definitions will clearly show that they are equally or more applicable to a number of nations, states and governments, including a whole lot of states that surround Israel. In short, no matter how you look at it, the whole effort to malign Israel with an ill-fitting label (which, BTW, has close rhetorical ties to Iran's anti-Israeli propaganda) is an embarrassing display, intentional or not, of covert antisemitism.
Anyone remember UN Resolution 3379? That was the ridiculous resolution that equated Zionism with racism. The in-your-face bias of the resolution became obvious in a hurry, and the UN was so embarrassed by passing it that the UNGA voted to revoke it in 1991. Apparently, Amnesty has a short memory and is not keen on learning from history.
The history of the State of Israel has plenty of events worthy of criticism and even condemnation. Why, given the variety of topics to be critical of, would anyone discredit themselves with making stuff up for the sheer desire to spite one conspicuously chosen target?