Should israel become an apartheid state like south africa was?

Question

the arab population in israel is growing very quickly and within a few decades jews will become a minority in israel.to overcome this problem I suggest israel become an apartheid state like south africa was where a jewish minority rules over an arab majority. what do you think?

Answer 1

People often use the argument that because Israel is not completely like South Africa, it is not apartheid. this is, of course, utter nonsense. It would be like comparing a murder with a bullet to the head to a throat slash. Would you say because one didn't involve a pistol and bullet that it was not murder? Apartheid is a crime that has definitions.

"For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include SIMILAR (not identical, ed) policies and practices of racial (later amended to include national)segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:



a.Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person i.By murder of members of a racial group or groups;

ii.By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

iii.By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;



b.Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

c.Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

d.Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

e.Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

f.Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid."



If short & sweet (or anybody else) disagrees that Israel is in violation of any of the major points, I would be happy to supply examples.

@esther, apartheid is also included in areas that are under a nation's control, and need not be applied to every member of an ethnicity/nationality. Surely you are not suggesting that Palestinians living in Area "C" (no security nor civilian control by the Palestinian Authority) have the vote? In fact they are under direct military governship. It's a "back door" approach, saying that because Arabs in Israel proper have the vote there is no apartheid, but ignoring the West Bank.

@short & sweet - I have quoted the original text, I only noted it was later amended to include nationality, and I pointed out that it need not be EVERYBODY in the ethnic, cultural, or national divisions. Notice you didn't question any of the points, bu nice "red herring". Notice in the ORIGINAL text it say "members" NOT all. But I'm not surprised, you can't fight the facts so try to draw attention elsewhere. Gee, never saw a Zionist do THAT before!! As to your reference to Oslo, well Israel is still building settlements, and I believe the South Africans did the same thing with their bandustans. Funny I can't seem to find anywhere in the text that lists exemptions from disputed territories. How is increasing a civilian population in what who define as a hostile environment, "protecting yourself"? Unless you're using the civilians as a shield to protect Israel.

@esther, so because a population is only 4% then you don't have to let them vote? You can force them to live in a military dictatorship? Does that sound right to you? And I'm afraid you're mistaken, the majority of attacks in the West Bank is by settlers, and has been for years. Plus you're overlooking the fact that Israel can and does assert its control ANYWHERE in the West Bank if it sees fit too, as when they surrounded Arafat's compound.

Answer 2

It already is.

Answer 3

Oppression of the minority or belittlement of a smaller "racial," social, or religious group is never the answer. We are all humans, and should be treated as equals. Apartheid was a disgusting period in our world's history, and could never be seen as a solution.



Also, your question doesn't really make sense because Arabs and Jews aren't necessarily different- Arab people are an ethnicity whereas Jews are part of an ethnoreligious group. For example, my friend's family are Mizrahi Jews meaning they are descended from Jewish communities in the Middle East.

Answer 4

i never knew, but actually one of my israeli arab friends was quite pissed off when someone called israel apartheid. if i got it correctly, he took offense that some 'ignorant lot' implying he is not a citizen with full rights... i won't repeat his exact phrasing, but you got my meaning...

Answer 5

israel is Apartheid since creation.......May,14,1948



@ Esther......Arabs counts about 20% os israel.....There is a ratio of 1:4..There is ONE Arab who serves as Ambassador of israel in Finland......SO MUCH FOR THE RATIO..........thank you for giving a good and clear example........You are proving that I and the Asker are right.





@short&sweet.......still you are talking about a ONE in the supreme court and a ONE in the cabinet.....

As for the 12 legislators ....They are the ones who accuse israel ,OPENLY, of being an apartheid state





@ Esther........The so claimed democracy of israel is an Apartheid democracy.......as I mentioned to to the short&sweet......The 12 Arab members of the recent israeli kenesit are the ones who are accusing israel of being apartheid........The previous ones are no different

Answer 6

S.Africa discriminated against blacks. Israel does exactly the same thing against Palestinians. That is apartheid whatever way you look at it .

Answer 7

A two state solution. One Israel with a Jewish majority and the other, Palestine with an Arab majority.. Probably a large percentage of Arabs would move to Palestine from Israel. Old Jerusalem made into an international city.

Answer 8

Nope.



Israel should stay and remain the State of tolerance that it is. It's not apartheid, and I don't expect it to ever be.

Answer 9

Israel as a Jewish state is apartheid by name.

And democracy is not only the rule of the majority, it is also about observing the rights of the minorities.

Israelis are practicing racism against their own population since ages.

All you need is to google it. You will get tons of complaints from Israeli citizens about it.

Answer 10

Israel is a democracy.



I challenge anyone with one line putdowns to describe African Apartheid & Israel's democracy & find the commonalities. Then describe other democracies like the U.S. & it's commonalities (so false double standards at Israel aren't used).



Even Jimmy Carter was speaking only of the territories, says in his book that it is NOT about apartheid racism, but about land & security -- very real & normal concerns. He has since written a letter published in the New York Times, apologizing for using the word & all the misleading it did.



The demographics aren't that cut and dry. The Israeli Arabs are having much less children now that they are adopting a more educated & democratic/capitalist lifestyle. (Or however you want to put it.) Also now that there are less socialism programs that pay large families. Jews are having a little more.



At no point would Jews consider apartheid. That's absurd once you visit Israel & see how democratic, modern world it is. It's just those who disdain Israel that want to paint with this propaganda. They're jealous of the democracy Israel as... but just wait... the Arabs are fighting for theirs with the Arab Springs!





@DanDan

gives an example of the bigoted double standard at Israel. In many countries, inner cities or certain areas tend to have less equality in how things are distributed. It's not supposed to be that way, and people work against it -- but it happens. To point at Israel vs. all those other countries, is itself a form of discrimination. To call it apartheid is a deep insult to what S. Africans went through when they by law couldn't vote, or hold decent jobs.



As for Desmond Tutu - he's repeating the Ghandi discrimination in reverse. Ghandi for all his genuis was heavily bigoted against "darker skinned, lower casts." Tutu for all his powers is heavily bias against Israel for having "white" people, & for him that's an image of "dominating darker" even though it's not an accurate view of how the country works.





@Sameer's observation

There is an Arab on Israel's Supreme Court & Arabs serving on lower courts, an Arab cabinet member, and about 12 Arab legislators in the Knesset parliament.





@Michardov

Your definition (which you've changed from the original source's wording you used to post) -- isn't distinguishing actions taken in self-defense from apartheid actions for racial or group reasons. A killing for self-defense, (whether slashing or by gun,) is not killing for murder. A description that objects to murdering can not be applied even though many elements appear to be shared, as it ignores the motives involved themselves. You haven't proven your claims.



A conflict between two groups is not defined as "apartheid." Arabs in the territories have been attacking Israel from long before Israel was in the area, when Jordan & Egypt held it, aka conflict. (Tons of bombing attempts into Israel.) Furthermore, essentially none of that can even be pretend to apply within Israel itself, which has the exact same ethnic & religious group, so it's not by group but by actions.



The current arrangements areas a,b & c, are results of prior negotiations, and can not be defined as "apartheid" since again, they are stages of negotiation within conflict & dispute over who owns the LAND - not who controls the PEOPLE.



On a side note - to be apartheid it has to apply to essentially all people within control of the the apartheid laws - not to some but not others. To parse a concept that way, where the essense of the concept is removed - is to not use the definition itself. In your definition, apartheid is oppression of a group because it is that group, not because there are other factors involved such as their behavior, ideology & goals.