> So eternal apartheid? That's what will make the Palestinians happy? When the Tamil Tigers were defeated, they were able to vote in their country. The separatists in Spain get to vote in Spain. The kurds get to vote in Turkey.
A military occupation is not an apartheid, apartheid is race based discrimination, the occupation here is citizenship based discrimination(which basically all countries have in various forms). I'm not really sure what the best solution here is, but it's probably going to need to involve some serious de-radicalization on the part of the Palestinian people and then some form of a two-state solution.
> Israel is the only country that says: do not separate and create your own state, but at the same time if you stay here, we will NOT give you civil rights.
They tried that approach already with Gaza, it backfired massively. It's pretty obvious giving the people who elected terrorists(and based on Palestinian opinion polling they would likely elect Hamas again) the right to vote in Israeli elections isn't going to lead to a peaceful coexistence.
An eternal military occupation, where the GOVERNMENT says - you will NEVER get a country, and you will NEVER be part of our country IS apartheid.
These are direct, unambiguous statements from the Prime Minister and all members of the cabinet. They have said that the Palestinians will NEVER get a state.
So what are you saying then about Israel wanting a two state solution? They have said there will be no state, and they have said they will not give civil rights.
> An eternal military occupation, where the GOVERNMENT says - you will NEVER get a country, and you will NEVER be part of our country IS apartheid.
That's not apartheid, apartheid means race based discrimination which is simply not an accurate characterization of what is going on here.
> These are direct, unambiguous statements from the Prime Minister and all members of the cabinet. They have said that the Palestinians will NEVER get a state.
Israel isn't a dictatorship and these things can change over time, I'm certainly no fan of Netanyahu in general, right now there is very little support for a two state solution amongst Israelis because they largely don't believe the Palestinians currently have a desire to live in peace with Israeli Jews. Unfortunately they appear to be correct for the time being but if those viewpoints were to change on the Palestinian side I would expect Israeli opinions to change as well. I'm just not sure how you de-radicalize a population like the Palestinians.
> So what are you saying then about Israel wanting a two state solution? They have said there will be no state, and they have said they will not give civil rights.
My point is that Israelis in the past have supported a two state solution, obviously there is currently a war going on right now so a two state solution is not going to happen any time soon.
> This is apartheid.
That's still not apartheid, it's an occupation, there's a difference.
> Israel isn't a dictatorship and these things can change over time
Indeed, Israel is a democracy, and things have in fact changed over time. These changes in Israeli public opinion have been based largely on the actions of the Palestinians.
There was optimism about peace in 2007, after the withdrawal from Gaza: 70% of Israelis supported the two-state solution. After the Hamas massacres in 2023, there was 70% opposition to the two-state solution.
It is race based because if there was a jewish person living in Palestine, they could apply for and get the right to vote. A muslim person cannot.
The Israeli PM has said: There will never be a Palestinian state. If you plan to eternally occupy and dominate a people, what is the difference to Apartheid?
> It is race based because if there was a jewish person living in Palestine, they could apply for and get the right to vote. A muslim person cannot.
Jews are not allowed to live in Palestine controlled territories at all(i.e. Gaza and West Bank areas A/B). This still wouldn't be race based discrimination however. Apartheid is a form of discrimination among citizens, immigration law is a somewhat separate issue. Many countries take factors into account when it comes to immigration laws that wouldn't be applied with regards to those who are already citizens. You don't see those cases of immigration law preferences being called Apartheid in general.
> The Israeli PM has said: There will never be a Palestinian state.
Israel has elections and things can change.
> If you plan to eternally occupy and dominate a people, what is the difference to Apartheid?
That's still not race based discrimination so not Apartheid.
Israel was formed atop the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians (not to mention massacring of >5000). There were no Israeli citizens before it was formed, this was purely racial discrimination.
Palestinians under Israeli occupation generally have no pathway to Israeli citizenship, with the exception of those in East Jerusalem, which is occupied under international law but is considered part of Israel by Israel; in the West Bank there is a process to apply for Israeli citizenship, but only a small percentage of Palestinians in East Jerusalem can become citizens every year (I believe I read it was <5% of those who applied).
People who are not Palestinian, anywhere in the world, can convert to Judaism and make Aliyah. This pathway is denied to Palestinians, especially those under occupation.
So I don't know how you can claim this is not race based discrimination.
> It's pretty obvious giving the people who elected terrorists
8% or fewer of the people in Gaza today actually voted for Hamas. Most of them were not even born at the time of the last election, and combined with those who were under 18 at the last election and those who voted for other parties, 92% of people alive in Gaza today had no part in Hamas coming to power.
> Israel was formed atop the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians (not to mention massacring of >5000).
There were various push and pull factors involved, it's not entirely accurate to say they were all forcibly expelled(there were many that were not expelled as well).
> There were no Israeli citizens before it was formed, this was purely racial discrimination.
Palestinians that remained were given Israeli citizenship however.
> only a small percentage of Palestinians in East Jerusalem can become citizens every year (I believe I read it was <5% of those who applied).
It's around 5% that have Israeli citizenship I think, about a third that apply have been approved with the remaining being rejected or postponed looks like. The majority do not apply for Israeli citizenship for various reasons.[0]
> People who are not Palestinian, anywhere in the world, can convert to Judaism and make Aliyah. This pathway is denied to Palestinians, especially those under occupation.
There being no Jews allowed to live in Palestinian controlled territories(i.e. Gaza and West Bank areas A/B) may make converting a bit uncommon/difficult(converting in general is rather difficult AFAIU), but I don't think there's any outright prohibition on accepting Palestinian conversions for the purposes of citizenship(even though in practice it may be extremely rare).
> So I don't know how you can claim this is not race based discrimination.
I'm not claiming there's no race based discrimination when it comes to Israels immigration policy. Apartheid would be considered racial discrimination between those that are already citizens however, which is a different issue. Many countries have immigration laws that have various forms of racial discrimination and you don't normally see those cases described as apartheid either. I am not a citizen of the country I was born in due to these sort of policies.
> 8% or fewer of the people in Gaza today actually voted for Hamas. Most of them were not even born at the time of the last election, and combined with those who were under 18 at the last election and those who voted for other parties, 92% of people alive in Gaza today had no part in Hamas coming to power.
That may be true but keep in mind Palestinian opinion polling does indicate Hamas would still likely win elections if they were in fact held today.
A military occupation is not an apartheid, apartheid is race based discrimination, the occupation here is citizenship based discrimination(which basically all countries have in various forms). I'm not really sure what the best solution here is, but it's probably going to need to involve some serious de-radicalization on the part of the Palestinian people and then some form of a two-state solution.
> Israel is the only country that says: do not separate and create your own state, but at the same time if you stay here, we will NOT give you civil rights.
They tried that approach already with Gaza, it backfired massively. It's pretty obvious giving the people who elected terrorists(and based on Palestinian opinion polling they would likely elect Hamas again) the right to vote in Israeli elections isn't going to lead to a peaceful coexistence.