This was well written snipa.

I would counter argue that the bombing in Gaza supports Israeli claims which you have put forward as rhetoric rather then truth. Indeed, when noting the Israeli rhetoric in this thread is: "we now believe what they say" it would therefore be hypocritical if we dont believe what Israeli's say (re: kill them all).

moving on, the term Apartheid (and ethnic cleansing) is very easy to resolve and confirm - its easy when one uses a simply premise:

EITHER:
1. Gaza and the West Bank are NOT a part of Israel, and therefore the actions by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank are Ethnic Cleansing, with Gaza and the West Bank being the cultural and sovereign home of the Palestinian people (in which case Israel should recognize them, which, they dont).
OR
2. Gaza and the West Bank are a part of Israel, and therefore the segregation of the people of Gaza constitutes Apartheid, noting that Gaza is effectively an open air prison, and Israel is still committing Ethnic Cleansing. When Israel treats the people of Gaza and the West bank differently, it automatically becomes Apartheid, and the noting of ethnic cleansing is even more easy to support via Israel's actions of transferring people into Gaza over the last decade.

So in conclusion It is very easy for all parties to acept the terms Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing in relation to Israel but the term Genocide, even while backed up with mass casualties and genocidal intent, is more elusive noting its a spectrum, which Israel appears to be trying to make more visible.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 19 2025 11:28am

i'd only push back on apartheid in simple terms.

south africa, where it derives from, it was simple. white = has full rights, black = doesnt have full rights.

in israel it is not as simple, at all. jews = full rights, arabs in israel = full rights, arabs in gaza/WB = not have full rights. so the govt's action isn't racially or religiously based in it's right's refusal. they also dont control the "rights" in a pure sense of either gazan's nor west bank citizens predominately. PLO and Hamas provide most of those rights, outside of the right to travel being removed from Gazans.

apartheid used to mean rights or no rights along objective lines. skin color, religion, ethnicity, etc. Now it apparently applies also to withholding only a few rights from just some of that group. by this logic the US govt is apartheid because of the % of black males that are in prison or out of prison and cannot own a gun. seems odd.

still as i say im more sympathetic to the use of the term than i am "genocide".

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 19 2025 11:45am

your logic re: the US is flawed. the % of black males in prison is not apartheid but rather a product of environment, society and education. In the US you have freedom of travel, one law for all and equal rights. having said that our conversation is probably making some of our more fundamentalist israel's grind their teeth and give them an itch to type and after seeing yesterday's posts I am not inclined to entertain that today so ill bow out.

can the same not be said for Gaza, and the responding treatment by Israel? i mean i dont agree with what israel does to gaza entirely, maybe not even mostly, but that's their justification. that gaza literally trains people to hate them and want to kill them.

No because it is a blanket treatment of everyone in gaza, whereas in the US crime leads to jail, rather then existence leading to jail.

yes, everyone in gaza, but not all arab muslims in "israel".

but let's look at this in a more fruitful way, which rights are there that Israel withholds from the people of gaza?

they do not have the right to import items without going through the blockade. so they cant import guns, bomb materials, etc. but they can import food, clothes, building materials, etc.

they do not have the right of free travel, not solely adjudicated by Israel, Egypt also imposes this. HOWEVER, Israel would not object to them leaving, in fact they support it. if Iran, Qatar, etc would take them in Israel would likely transport them and even pay them per person. so its not the right to travel, its the right to enter Israel. and no one has a universal human right to enter into someone's nation (see US southern border).

they were given the right to vote for their own govt in 2006, and chose Hamas.

not a trick question, and im not an expert. just wondering, when compared to apartheid south africans, what rights do gazans lack?

this is an old argument in this topic and was previously well trashed out. a simple request to chatgpt or deepseek would outline the differences between the treatment gaza:thewestbank:the rest of israel

someone showed me this. presumably its from some noteworthy book

The passage you quoted is nearly word-for-word from Chapter 1 of Nahum Goldman’s book:

In the full context of Nahum Goldmann’s memoir, David Ben-Gurion was not saying that Jews objectively “stole” the land, but rather that this is how the Arabs understandably perceive it

I should probably read it. if only to further educate myself.