What are some legitimate, general criticisms of Israel?

[Shermana]

Bottom line : If the occupation weren't there, those road signs wouldn't be there either.

It is funny how you use the consequences of a problem as a justification for further discrimination without actually looking at the problem itself.

I think we have discussed enough about the occupation ... so there's no point further going into that again.

See, there's the thing.

You are justifying the civilian attacks on the "occupation". Your argument basically boils down to that since Israel took the land from Jordan in defensive war, they are somehow required to have to deal with those attacks on their civilians without taking measures against it. It's basically a matter of saying that Israel has to surrender their gains in order to have to not deal with attacks, but they aren't allowed to take measures to stop those attacks. It's a matter of the foundation itself, but I thank you for bringing this concept up for discussion.

Rather than saying that the Arab attacks on civilians should cease and not give justification to Israel's segregation of the roads, you are saying that Israel must withdraw their claims on Judea-Samaria as if the land for some reason belongs to the Palestinians (it doesn't), put themselves in a strategically suicidal position, and are simply wrong for hanging on to the territory they took from Jordan. Why were there no attacks on civilians against the Jordanians when they occupied Judea-Samaria from 1948-1967? Why was there no clamor for an independent state in those 19 years? Why is it only when the Jews occupy the territory?

So yes, Israel is completely justified in putting up separation walls and segregated roads, since it seems that the other side will justify their civilian attacks on Israel simply being there. If Israel's not going to just hand over their gains they took from Jordan in defensive war, then they have every right to take defensive measures, especially if you claim that the Palestinians are justified in their sniper shootings, stonings, and molotov cocktails on passing civilians.

 

[Shermana]

You missed out one important point of the context. That is the decision for the separate bus lines for the Palestinians stems from Jewish settler pressure/complaint and not from the desire to improve upon services for the Palestinians.

Your 'separate but extra' sounds awfully lot like 'separate but equal'. This is how it usually starts. Please note that, according to rights groups, Palestinians are already routinely barred from buses used by settlers. Watch it here : [youtube]50ZBeAkIIw0[/youtube]
Dividing Line - Segregation in Israel's public bus lines - YouTube
And now that the “Palestinian-only” line exists, Arabs will be turned away from other buses even more.

Another Washington observer, Jeffrey Goldberg, who is a staunch defender of Israel but a critic of the enduring military occupation, wrote(https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg) that the issue illustrated that "Settlements are incompatible with democracy. Israel can't keep up the double-standard forever. 2/2" and "Bottom line on the Palestinian bus route: If there were no West Bank double-standard, there wouldn't be a need for separate bus lines. 1/2"

Peace.

Since the Palestinians aren't required to take those segregated bus lines and they exist as "Separate but OPTIONAL", your argument has no weight.

The video shows a very wrong incident in which the situation was corrected by the police, though it took 2 hours, there are indeed many irrational, Racist settlers and incompetent public employees who don't know the law, but nonetheless the Palestinian won and got on the bus, with the help of the Police. If anything this shows that the state of Israel will defy the will of such irrational citizens in such cases for the benefit of the Palestinian, even if it took 2 hours, it was a major victory for him.

 

[Shermana]

The climate is too dry. Not really into the food.

I hear ya on the food, Israel is too much into their GMOs and it really brings down the quality. Not to mention the outrageous prices. Now this is a true, genuine criticism indeed. One thing that Egypt had going under Mubarak was the subsidized bread. Israel should do similarly.

Report finds food in Israel too expensive | The Times of Israel

 

[LuisDantas]

Since the Palestinians aren't required to take those segregated bus lines and they exist as "Separate but OPTIONAL", your argument has no weight.

I don't think so. "Optional" segregation is very dangerous and worrisome. It gives racists incentive to feel justified and disguises conflicts without attempting to solve them.

 

[loverOfTruth]

See, there's the thing.

You are justifying the civilian attacks on the "occupation". Your argument basically boils down to that since Israel took the land from Jordan in defensive war, they are somehow required to have to deal with those attacks on their civilians without taking measures against it. It's basically a matter of saying that Israel has to surrender their gains in order to have to not deal with attacks, but they aren't allowed to take measures to stop those attacks. It's a matter of the foundation itself, but I thank you for bringing this concept up for discussion.

Rather than saying that the Arab attacks on civilians should cease and not give justification to Israel's segregation of the roads, you are saying that Israel must withdraw their claims on Judea-Samaria as if the land for some reason belongs to the Palestinians (it doesn't), put themselves in a strategically suicidal position, and are simply wrong for hanging on to the territory they took from Jordan. Why were there no attacks on civilians against the Jordanians when they occupied Judea-Samaria from 1948-1967? Why was there no clamor for an independent state in those 19 years? Why is it only when the Jews occupy the territory?

So yes, Israel is completely justified in putting up separation walls and segregated roads, since it seems that the other side will justify their civilian attacks on Israel simply being there. If Israel's not going to just hand over their gains they took from Jordan in defensive war, then they have every right to take defensive measures, especially if you claim that the Palestinians are justified in their sniper shootings, stonings, and molotov cocktails on passing civilians.

You are putting words into my mouth by stating something that I have not stated. Please don't play politics by twisting my statements. I am not justifying attacks on civilians under any circumstances. All I am saying is however unjustified and real those attacks are, they would not have occurred without the occupation. Those 'unacceptable measures' are being taken by people in desperate situations under occupation and you cannot use that as a reason to segregate/discriminate and cry foul without first trying to stop the real foul(i.e. occupation) - unless of course if you are an apartheid state.

I think I have refuted your arguments regarding the occupation enough, so I have no intention of further wasting my time in this regard.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Since the Palestinians aren't required to take those segregated bus lines and they exist as "Separate but OPTIONAL", your argument has no weight.

The video shows a very wrong incident in which the situation was corrected by the police, though it took 2 hours, there are indeed many irrational, Racist settlers and incompetent public employees who don't know the law, but nonetheless the Palestinian won and got on the bus, with the help of the Police. If anything this shows that the state of Israel will defy the will of such irrational citizens in such cases for the benefit of the Palestinian, even if it took 2 hours, it was a major victory for him.

Yes, to you, obviously it looks like a major victory for them - to them it is a major hassle and disruption that they need to deal with everyday, which very few decent people in the world can bear and afford.

 

[Shermana]

Yes, to you, obviously it looks like a major victory for them - to them it is a major hassle and disruption that they need to deal with everyday, which very few decent people in the world can bear and afford.

Every day all over the world there are people who have to fight irrational and incompetent people until the authorities come and lay down justice as due, and when it happens, everyone benefits. This man is a hero in this respect if anything.

You are putting words into my mouth by stating something that I have not stated. Please don't play politics by twisting my statements. I am not justifying attacks on civilians under any circumstances. All I am saying is however unjustified and real those attacks are, they would not have occurred without the occupation. Those 'unacceptable measures' are being taken by people in desperate situations under occupation and you cannot use that as a reason to segregate/discriminate and cry foul without first trying to stop the real foul(i.e. occupation) - unless of course if you are an apartheid state.

I think I have refuted your arguments regarding the occupation enough, so I have no intention of further wasting my time in this regard.

Oh excuse me, I thought you were justifying the attacks when you said they wouldn't happen without the occupation and "Apartheid" as Israel is not justified in taking measures against those attacks regardless of this situation.

Do you know what Apartheid means? It means a minority ruling a Majority. Israel is majority Jewish, even if you count the Palestinians in the territories. So any arguments about "Apartheid" as a criticism are based on a misunderstanding of the terms. What it really would be about, assuming Palestinians were even counted as full-righted citizens, would be a Democratic situation, not Apartheid. I should make a thread on that.

Where do you claim to have refuted any arguments?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Every day all over the world there are people who have to fight irrational and incompetent people until the authorities come and lay down justice as due, and when it happens, everyone benefits. This man is a hero in this respect if anything.

First of all, nowhere in the world a certain group of people are prohibited from boarding a bus by another group of people. And that's just one example I gave. These type of things happen routinely over there - so you can't brush it off as one isolated incident. And secondly, when injustices happen around the world, the authorities not only try to compensate/help the victim, but they also punish the perpetrator. Did that happen over there ? It is shameful to see you compare such things.

That's exactly how oppression works : oppress enough to the point so the people start believing that their 'basic human rights' are actually 'privileges' and then people will thank you for their God given basic human rights. Well done.

Oh excuse me, I thought you were justifying the attacks when you said they wouldn't happen without the occupation and "Apartheid" as Israel is not justified in taking measures against those attacks regardless of this situation.

Do you know what Apartheid means? It means a minority ruling a Majority. Israel is majority Jewish, even if you count the Palestinians in the territories. So any arguments about "Apartheid" as a criticism are based on a misunderstanding of the terms. What it really would be about, assuming Palestinians were even counted as full-righted citizens, would be a Democratic situation, not Apartheid. I should make a thread on that.

I am sorry I wasn't aware of that definition of Apartheid. Is that the latest one being taught by the Israeli Propaganda machine ?

Look up any dictionary and you'll find something very similar to 'A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups'[1] as the definition of Apartheid.

And if you try a little harder, you'll also find out that the word Apartheid came from the Afrikaans word "apartheid" in 1929 and literally means "separateness". Furthermore, the word "apartheid" comes from the combination of the Dutch word "apart" (meaning "separate," which came from the French "àpart") and the suffix "-heid." [2]

So Apartheid is all about segregation and nothing do with who rules who. Nice try though.

[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid
[2]http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=apartheid&searchmode=phrase

Where do you claim to have refuted any arguments?

May be here ...
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tics/141499-israel-palestine-conflict-28.html

 

[Flankerl]

Hm so if Palestinians arent allowed on Busses for Israelis who travel from the Westbank to Israel then.... Israelis arent allowed on Busses for Palestinians who travel from the Westbank to Israel.

Both groups have one less place to anger each other.

 

[Shermana]

Well if we're gonna accuse Israel of Apartheid by the broad definition of discrimination against racial groups, let's look at it in detail. 20% of its citizens are Arabs, and they enjoy pretty much equal rights. The "Palestinian Authority" and those who claim to be under their rule, are members of a hostile secessionist movement, and are thus treated accordingly. Basic rights ARE priveleges when you are willfully living under a regime that is actively combating the government you are opposed to and live under.

With that said, the Bus incident proves that the Israeli government will come to the aid of Palestinians who are unjustly persecuted by overzealous Settlers and incompetent employees, so its definitely a strike AGAINST official Apartheid in that sense. The best complaint you could make about the STATE of Israel there is that the response time was 2 hours.

Now as for Apartheid, it appears that many Arab countries engage in actual Apartheid, especially against Palestinians, and it is ALL about their race and origin, not because they are subjects of a hostile separatist group.

http://www.cija.ca/centre-publications/media/arab-apartheid-against-palestinians/

I should make a whole thread on the above link.

As for refuting my arguments, I have yet to see anything that proves that the account of Arab population numbers by that "study" was any less speculative than my own account of firsthand witnesses that say the Arab population boom started in the 1890s.

 

[Shermana]

I don't think so. "Optional" segregation is very dangerous and worrisome. It gives racists incentive to feel justified and disguises conflicts without attempting to solve them.

So do you have a similar problem with optional all-black schools in the USA?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Well if we're gonna accuse Israel of Apartheid by the broad definition of discrimination against racial groups, let's look at it in detail. 20% of its citizens are Arabs, and they enjoy pretty much equal rights. The "Palestinian Authority" and those who claim to be under their rule, are members of a hostile secessionist movement, and are thus treated accordingly. Basic rights ARE priveleges when you are willfully living under a regime that is actively combating the government you are opposed to and live under.

With that said, the Bus incident proves that the Israeli government will come to the aid of Palestinians who are unjustly persecuted by overzealous Settlers and incompetent employees, so its definitely a strike AGAINST official Apartheid in that sense. The best complaint you could make about the STATE of Israel there is that the response time was 2 hours.

Now as for Apartheid, it appears that many Arab countries engage in actual Apartheid, especially against Palestinians, and it is ALL about their race and origin, not because they are subjects of a hostile separatist group.

http://www.cija.ca/centre-publications/media/arab-apartheid-against-palestinians/

I should make a whole thread on the above link.

As for refuting my arguments, I have yet to see anything that proves that the account of Arab population numbers by that "study" was any less speculative than my own account of firsthand witnesses that say the Arab population boom started in the 1890s.

Your ignorance and bias as shown in that statement in Red above is sufficient for us to end the discussion here.

 

[Shermana]

Your ignorance and bias as shown in that statement in Red above is sufficient for us to end the discussion here.

Your ignorance and bias in the above statement is sufficient for us to end the discussion indeed, I can't think of any other country that would tolerate such active hostile secessionist activity.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

'Secessionist'? Perhaps you chose your term poorly, because otherwise it does indeed reveal quite an unpleasant characteristic of your perspective on the Palestinians.

Palestinians in gaza or the west bank and so forth do not 'secede' from Israel; that assumes that they (and the land they are on) are part of Israel to begin with. Instead they are disputing legitimacy of the sovereignty of Israel over parts of the region. That is not secession, nor insurgency, it is not even close and it is dishonest to suggest as much - so I assume you meant something else.

Instead let us examine it as: 'active hostile resistance activity'

Ignoring for a moment the fact that resistance's are supposed to be underground or covert movements; "an underground organization composed of groups of private individuals working as an opposition force in a conquered country to overthrow the occupying power, usually by acts of sabotage, guerrilla warfare, etc.: the resistance during the German occupation in World War II." according to the dictionary. Now we can note that in this case, the organisation(s) involved are a hybrid between public and private, covert and overt entities. It does not even really fit into the concept of a 'resistance' in that respect though the other elements of the definition strongly fit the case. And just like resistances, Israel is not tolerating the Palestinian attempts to overthrow the power (Israel) occupying the disputed regions.

It is instead a new kind of resistance, one facilitated through Israel's unwillingness to openly commit genocide (which is what would be required to destroy or expel the people who continue to actively and even forcibly dispute the conquering of some of the territory that Israel is occupying) and thus the continued ability for these vastly less powerful organisations to continue to exist for protracted periods of time. It is like politically mandated tolerance, allowing the existence of an overt resistance movement.

The question is why is it that such tolerance is required of Israel by the international community? Some such as (I believe, correct me if I am wrong but you said as much in another thread) Shermana believe this is because the UN is anti-israel; others would suggest that if it was anyone but israel (or someone with similar influence, such as one of the security council) the UN would already have invaded.

 

[Alceste]

Hm so if Palestinians arent allowed on Busses for Israelis who travel from the Westbank to Israel then.... Israelis arent allowed on Busses for Palestinians who travel from the Westbank to Israel.

Both groups have one less place to anger each other.

Or to get to know each other as ordinary human beings.

 

[Flankerl]

Yeah because its an awesome idea to place settlers next to palestinians next to each other on a bus.


What could possibly go wrong.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah because its an awesome idea to place settlers next to palestinians next to each other on a bus.


What could possibly go wrong.

Well, you know, the settlers could always move back to Israel if they're scared of the neighbours.

 

[LuisDantas]

So do you have a similar problem with optional all-black schools in the USA?

Yes, I do. Although "similar" may perhaps be pushing it. Different political, social and economic circunstances will of course influence the gravity of the matter.

All the same, "optional" discrimination is still discrimination and therefore hurtful for society. Any society.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hm so if Palestinians arent allowed on Busses for Israelis who travel from the Westbank to Israel then.... Israelis arent allowed on Busses for Palestinians who travel from the Westbank to Israel.

Both groups have one less place to anger each other.

Sorry, people don't work like that. It is way easier to build unreasonable amounts of anger and even to dehumanize people entirely when you can succesfully avoid casual contact with those groups.

People need contact to build trust and respect.

 

[Flankerl]

Sorry, people don't work like that. It is way easier to build unreasonable amounts of anger and even to dehumanize people entirely when you can succesfully avoid casual contact with those groups.

People need contact to build trust and respect.

So how come that didnt work till now?

Just to keep trying is a horrible tactic.