Israel and Palestine

For those who would like to read the research rather than the news reports of it, it was a bit hard to find, so I'm going to link to it here:

The apartheid contention and calls for a boycott: Examining hostility towards Israel in Great Britain

It was conducted between October 2016 and February 2017, and published at the end of January 2019. The study is about attitudes towards the State of Israel, and how attitudes towards Israel might predict antisemitism. The paper focusses on the link between the apartheid and boycott questions and correlates them to antisemitism statements.

Page 3 lists the twelve statements that it used to measure antisemitism:

And Page 10 contains the list of anti-Jewish tropes that the researchers chose to try and measure the concept of anti-Semitism.

The correlation coefficients are discussed on page 11. The results find that there is stronger correlation (0.37) between who support boycotting with antisemitism than there is between people who think Israel is an apartheid state and antisemitism (0.23). On page 12, they conclude that the correlation between boycotting and antisemitism should be 'considered strong'.

Speaking statistically, the strength of correlation is defined by how close to 0, or 1/-1 the result is (0 is no correlation, 0.5 would be moderate, 0.7-1.0 is considered strong). The closer to 0, the weaker the correlation. The above two results are actually weak correlation, not strong. The strongest correlation they do find is between people who believe Israel exploits the Holocaust and antisemitism (0.57).

Anyway, the study has definitely got its issues with some of the assumptions being made (they make it clear they're guessing about why people choose 'Don't know' and their boycott question is generalised to Israel rather than BDS specifically), but it's certainly an interesting read.

Edited to add: Well, that's a hell of a page-topper. I've been ninja'd, too.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Feb 4th 2019 at 10:35:14 AM

I would like to point out that you don't have to be genuinely bigoted to acquire a misconception that more non-Israeli Jews support Israel's existence at the expense of Palestinian rights and international law than those who oppose. It certainly doesn't help that Tel Aviv insists on that being literal fact (and equating any criticism and opposition of its actions/existence from Jews as them being treasonous Boomerang Bigots).

With such a misconception, it's quite plausible that people may indeed answer "yes" to some if not all of the questions about those stereotypes.

Pretty much.

I understand that jews have been badly burned by anti semitism, and that they can't afford to be overly trusting. Certainly a lot of anti semitism does hide behind legitimate criticism. However there's also a certain naiveté about this; I've seen individual Jews get offended if you point out that groups like AIPAC have thrown around false accusations of anti semitism to shut up the critics, or made the point that such actions are going to make people less inclined to notice actual anti semitism. Again it’s irrational and stupid (like assuming all Muslims are terrorists because Bin Laden claims to speak for all Muslims) but it happens.

Last year Open Hilel moved to have Hilel banned on the grounds that it was basically an advocacy group for Israel rather than actually helping Jewish students. It was pointed out that Hilel has done a lot of dicy moves (slandering someone of being a terrorist, blocking supporters of Jimmy Carter from the mikes to make it look like the students were opposed to him, passing of Deborah Lipstadts questions as their own) and basically bullied critics into being silent......and some people still gave a "I don't care" response, or tried to imply that because they gave out services they were above reproach. I'm sorry but if you're engaged in that kinda shit and don't reform you can hit the fucking road.

Edited by LordYAM on Feb 4th 2019 at 9:38:47 AM

Why Jews consider BDS anti-Semitic.

Anti-Jewish boycotts have a long history, both with regards to Israel and without any relation to Israel. The most notorious was the German boycott of Jewish-owned businesses in the 1930s before their genocide. There was also the Arab League boycott of Israel which prevented Israel from having any economic relations with any of its immediate neighbors for decades after its founding, and which predated the founding of the state by many years and began as a boycott against Jews in general. BDS is seen as the latest in a long line.

BDS advocates often target Jews regardless of any affiliation with Israel. There was a high-profile incident in Spain where American Jewish singer Matisyahu was scheduled to sing at the Rototom Sunsplash reggae festival when BDS activists pressured the festival organizers to demand that he publicly denounce Israel and declare his support for a Palestinian state. Matisyahu correctly noted that he was the only singer who was called to make a political statement and that it was only because he was Jewish. It was far from the only incident, just the most high-profile.

BDS advocates usually only target Israel. There is no similar movement to boycott Turkey for occupying Cyprus, Morocco for occupying Western Saraha, China for Tibet, Taiwan, or its forced reeducation of Muslims, Russia for all its crap, or Syria for murdering half a million people. Roger Waters, the most high-profile BDS advocate, is a staunch supporter and defender of Assad, Russia, and now Maduro in Venezuela. It is hard to take people in good faith when they single out the only Jewish State and don't care about the rest of the human rights abusers in the world, even if you believe that Israel's actions may be problematic.

The sheer emotional reaction the mere mention or thought of Israel creates in many anti-Israel activists. The level of hate for a tiny state thousands of miles away does often seem to go far beyond the reasonable and reach levels similar to the hatred for the Soviet Union during the Cold War or Germany during the World Wars, except that Israel is not the enemy of any western or European nation. To many, the level of hatred directed at a non-enemy is most easily explained by bigotry.

The first reason - the history of anti-Jewish boycotts, is something BDS should have addressed but never has. Instead, by acting the way it does, it reinforces the perception that it is just the latest in a long line of 'don't buy from the Jews' movements.

Edited by uncannybeetle on Feb 5th 2019 at 1:46:41 AM

There have been a lot of accusations over the last few page that don't have any links or specifics, from the Israeli government constantly calling all criticism of Israel anti-Semitic to Hillel falsely accusing someone of being a terrorist. I would appreciate some specifics, because I do not recall any statements by the government calling 'all' criticism anti-Semitic, but rather responses to specific criticisms or actions. And even then, many times the government says 'anti-Israel bias' rather than anti-Semitism. And I suspect that the 'falsely-accused terrorist' was Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, who is indeed a terrorist who murdered 2 university students in a bombing in 1969. If I am wrong I would appreciate a name.

Edited by uncannybeetle on Feb 5th 2019 at 1:55:01 AM

,

The idea of boycotting Israel has never sat right with me, I fully support criticizing Israel for their actions but boycotting Israel and no-one else has always seemed to be a problematic double standard. I don't think everyone who supports BDS is anti-semitic but I absolutely think that the idea is vulnerable to anti-semitism in a way that normal criticism is not.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 5th 2019 at 9:58:57 AM

Well, I just thunk that if you walk the Apartheid walk, you shouldn't be all that surprised if you get boycotted. <shrugs> There kind of is precedent there.

It has bugger all to do with anti-Semitism and everything to do with treating Palastine worse than South Africa did Namibia. Or Soweto. I'm being dead serious, here.

Behaving in ways that have attracted boycotts before, then pulling the "but you can't boycott us because boycotts and Jews have a terrible history" is disingenuous in the extreme.

If you don't want the boycotts, quit treating the West Bank like your personal, more densely populated, Caprivi Strip.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Feb 5th 2019 at 3:02:08 PM

I could understand if someone considers the upsides of BDS to outweigh the downsides but do you not see how it's problematic to say that anti-semitism has no connection? Do you truly believe that?

Honestly, if that's a common sentiment then that makes me likes it even less. If you reject the possibility of bigotry in your circle then you're just going to encourage it, discrimination can only be fought if we acknowledge the possibility of allies being motivated by the wrong thing.

I don't care about BDS.

I care about seeing Apartheid playing out in all its horrible glory all over again. To me, there's a direct correlation between Holocaust denialism and Apartheid denialism. They have exactly the same underlying roots.

And it genuinely scares me with a visceral reaction that isn't very translatable into words.

This should not be. Not again.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Feb 5th 2019 at 3:06:40 PM

You’re seeing a double standard in the existence of the boycott because you’re comparing apples and oranges, Israel is a democracy and a cultural partner, Russia, Turkey, Morocco, China, ect.. are not. Aparthied was and that’s why it faced a similar boycott.

Now beyond the basic concept of a boycott you’re right, the boycott movement is going to inherently draw towards it anti-semites, as such any boycott movement that wants to have an ethnic leg to stand on has to clean house constantly and keep the anti-semites away. Currently the boycott movement hasn’t done that, it pretends that the problem of anti-semitism within it doesn’t exist, which is a bald faced lie.

The closest we’ve had to any Palestinian right group cleaning house has been Corbyn in the Labour Party (which is the least anti-Semitic UK political party and the only one trying to address internal anti-semitism), but that’s run into serious problems because of both UK domestic politics (Corbyn’s UK opponents are using Corbyn’s attempt to clean house to make Labour look like it’s the only party with an anti-semitism problem) and Israeli politics (the Israeli government doesn’t want a clean pro-Palestine movement because it would have an opponent with the moral high ground, so it’s been allying with the UK’s far right to try and damage Corbyn).

Edited by Silasw on Feb 5th 2019 at 3:11:39 PM

BDS was originally organised by a coalition of Palestinian NGOs, which miiight explain why they're targeting Israel and not other countries.

Practice Apartheid, earn yourself your own Anti-Apartheid Movement with links to terrible organisations who hate your guts like the ANC (and the MK... especially the MK), ETA, SWAPO and <over dramatic scare chord> the UDF? (Jano, the UDF was never as scary.)

It's hardly rocket science: you practice hate on a group, you get hate back from the group and those associated with that group (including by extension — and some of them won't be very nice). The cycle sustains itself until you break it.

FYI — the ANC did horrible things, sang horrible things and is currently doing some boomerang horrible things now the moderates have lost focus. But, none of these are surprising things. And, however bad the boomerang gets, I have hope. Of more international boycotts against South Africa, maybe, if they go whole hog.

But, it's not too late to stop being hideous whichever side is in power and waving the Apartheid dick about, even if it will hurt down the line. It never is too late.

It does suck being called "Kaffir Killer" when you, say, go back to the UK for school, though, by people who don't get exactly what they're saying, but do want to express how much they hate the country you came from. But, it's not a surprising thing. It beats slashing your foot on leftover, escapee razor wire. Or having your phone bugged. Or the very frequent bomb and fire drills. Or the lessons in what to do if you see UXO. Or the conscription. Or the accidentally viewed burned husk of a corpse you might get if you turn the wrong corner at the wrong time. And such.

Just saying.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Feb 5th 2019 at 3:47:30 PM

Apartheid is a very specific form of discrimination. Inside Israel proper it clearly does not exist at all, as Arab citizens have full legal rights and are not restricted from going anywhere, voting, or holding office, and it is illegal for individual communities to refuse Arab residents. The only place I can see the accusation of Apartheid holding any water is Area C, which is the only area of the West Bank that is under full Israeli control, and maybe Area B, which is under a joint form of control. Area A is under full PA control, is where over 90% of the Arab residents of the West live. Jews are not allowed in Area A altogether. In Area C Arabs are not exactly banned from anything, but life is still made difficult by things like checkpoints and all people living there, Jew and Arab alike, have to deal with a terrible bureaucracy. Gaza is another matter entirely as Israel withdrew from it entirely.

The way Lebanon treats Palestinians is much closer to what actual Apartheid was like in South Africa than what Israel does. Palestinians in Lebanon are legally banned from owning property and banned from working in many professions. Lebanese public hospitals won't even admit Palestinians, while Israeli hospitals do admit Palestinians from the West Bank and even from Gaza. That is the central aspect of Apartheid, segregation on a massive scale.

This isn't to say that Israel does not discriminate, mistreat, or make life worse for Palestinians in any area under its control, but the Apartheid accusation looks suspiciously like an attempt to brand Israel as the current 'in-thing to hate' than an actual description of what is happening. This is another sad trend in anti-Semitism, that the Jew becwhatever it is most acceptable to hate in that time period. Before the enlightenment Jews were hated as christ-killers. In the age of 'science' Jews were hated for being genetically inferior. Communists hated Jews as wealthy capitalists while capitalists hated Jews as dirty commies. White supremacists hate Jews as non-white, and now Jews are being hated for being the whitest of the white. The Apartheid accusation looks like it fits that pattern, especially when so few ever criticize Lebanon or Syria for how they treat Palestinians.

Edited by uncannybeetle on Feb 5th 2019 at 7:59:25 AM

Apartheid was quite difficult to spot when you were white and in the middle of White Only zones, too.

Except, it was never just restricted to White Only zones, because conscription and a host of other knock-ons. It was just harder to consciously see. Until you turned the wrong corner and had to pretend you didn't see what you had seen to the point you could almost forget you had seen it, so you could keep telling yourself that "This Is Normal" because, if you didn't pretend it was, others would call you stupid or worse.

Jano. Keep telling yourself how very, very different it is. The more you do, the more I feel sympathy for the very few remaining Holocaust survivors trying to tell you the same damned thing I am telling you.

They're not going to be around for much longer, but I'm here. And, I'm telling you. Apartheid is Apartheid. I know these patterns that I see.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Feb 5th 2019 at 3:58:48 PM

Except the PA has no true legal authority, it’s a joke that answers to the Israeli government and has no real ability to act over either its own territory or on the international stage. It’s made up of a bunch of anti-Semitic crooks who like using the Israeli government as a scapegoat for their own criminality, a role that the Israeli government for some reason is happy to fulfil.

Yes yes the Palestinian Territories aren’t part of Israel so don’t count, Aparthied tried the same thing, putting the vast majority of black people into “totally separate” countries that happened to exist within South Africa, so thy got to claim that they weren’t abusing South Africa’s black citizens, because the black people weren't South African citizens, they were citizens of some other place that South Africa happened to have total effective control over.

Also the Aparthied comparison isn’t a trendy thing, you seem to be forgetting that Israel was a long time ally of Apartheid and is thought to have worked with it to develope both nation’s nuclear weapon programs. The Israeli government invited the comparison when it allied with Aparthied and started trading tips with it on how to abuse people.

People who ally with Aparthied don’t get to complain when they get compared to it, the same way that the organisations who ally with anti-semites don’t get to complain when they get called anti-Semitic.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 5th 2019 at 4:02:18 PM

You haven't listed a single thing that Israel does that constitutes Apartheid. All you've done is say that Israel is guilty and anyone who doesn't agree is a denier.

My definition of Apartheid focuses on segregation. What is your definition and how does Israel fulfill it?

This is the Wikipedia entry on Apartheid:

"Apartheid (South African English: /əˈpɑːrteɪd/; Afrikaans: [aˈpartɦəit], segregation; lit. "separateness") was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa from 1948 until the early 1990s.[note 1] Apartheid was characterised by an authoritarian political culture based on baasskap (or white supremacy), which encouraged state repression of Black African, Coloured, and Asian South Africans for the benefit of the nation's minority white population.[4] The economic legacy and social effects of apartheid continue to the present day.[5][6][7]

Broadly speaking, apartheid was delineated into petty apartheid, which entailed the segregation of public facilities and social events, and grand apartheid, which dictated housing and employment opportunities by race.[8] Prior to the 1940s, some aspects of apartheid had already emerged in the form of minority rule by White South Africans and the socially enforced separation of Black South Africans from other races, which later extended to pass laws and land apportionment.[9][10] Apartheid was adopted as a formal policy by the South African government after the election of the National Party (NP) at the 1948 general election.[11]

A codified system of racial stratification began to take form in South Africa under the Dutch Empire in the late-eighteenth century, although informal segregation was present much earlier due to social cleavages between Dutch colonists and a creolised, ethnically diverse slave population.[12] With the rapid growth and industrialisation of the British Cape Colony in the nineteenth century, racial policies and laws became increasingly rigid. Cape legislation that discriminated specifically against Black South Africans began appearing shortly before 1900.[13] The policies of the Boer republics were also racially exclusive; for instance, the Transvaal's constitution barred Black and Coloured participation in church and state.[14]

The first apartheid law was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, followed closely by the Immorality Amendment Act of 1950, which made it illegal for most South African citizens to marry or pursue sexual relationships across racial lines.[15] The Population Registration Act, 1950 classified all South Africans into one of four racial groups based on appearance, known ancestry, socioeconomic status, and cultural lifestyle: "Black", "White", "Coloured", and "Indian", the last two of which included several sub-classifications.[16] Places of residence were determined by racial classification.[15] From 1960–1983, 3.5 million Non-White South Africans were removed from their homes and forced into segregated neighbourhoods, in one of the largest mass evictions in modern history.[17] Most of these targeted removals were intended to restrict the Black population to ten designated "tribal homelands", also known as bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states.[15] The government announced that relocated persons would lose their South African citizenship as they were absorbed into the bantustans.[8]

Apartheid sparked significant international and domestic opposition, resulting in some of the most influential global social movements of the twentieth century.[18] It was the target of frequent condemnation in the United Nations and brought about an extensive arms and trade embargo on South Africa.[19] During the 1970s and 1980s, internal resistance to apartheid became increasingly militant, prompting brutal crackdowns by the National Party government and protracted sectarian violence that left thousands dead or in detention.[20] Some reforms of the apartheid system were undertaken, including allowing for Indian and Coloured political representation in parliament, but these measures failed to appease most activist groups.[21]

Between 1987–1993, the National Party entered into bilateral negotiations with the African National Congress, the leading anti-apartheid political movement, for ending segregation and introducing majority rule.[21][22] In 1990, prominent ANC figures such as Nelson Mandela were released from prison.[23] Apartheid legislation was repealed on 17 June 1991,[2] pending fully democratic, multiracial elections set for April 1994"

I think it's pretty obvious how Lebanon lines up with the things South Africa did over the decades. The restrictions to specific areas to live, the banning from professions, the banning from political life, ect. In what way do Israel's actions line up with the above?

Please go into specifics on what you think Israel has or is doing.

Israel certainly invited the comparisons on themselves, but I’m not sure they’re fully accurate. Apartheid is a very specific thing, and I’ve always found the comparisons to be a bit dismissive of the actual horrific events in South Africa.

Is America an Islamist theocracy because it is allied with Saudi Arabia? Is Syria a communist country because of its decades-long alliance with the Soviet Union and now Russia?

South Africa had relations with many isolated states, including Taiwan, during the Apartheid era. Countries ally with other nations that do not share their values or are absolutely disgusting all the time.

I have. Further back in this thread. I don't keep a file with all the points ready to hand to cut and paste. If you want, you can go back a few years and read. But, I'll understand if you don't.

But, the biggest thing is: read up on the Angolan Bush War (or, the Namibian War of Independence or the Border War, if you will). Better yet, Google for footage; spot the parallels, keeping in mind that the National Party maintained very close ties to Tel Aviv the whole time. They're right there to see in the equipment that was developed and used during that whole mess, if nothing else. Since, you know, there were open channels of information exchange and ideas-testing between the US, South Africa and Israel.

Note that the equipment and methods developed then and used in township suppression has a direct lineage to what os being done to "protect Isreal from the Palestinian" threat. There's a host of reasons for that.

Even your flipping textbooks look very familiar.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Feb 5th 2019 at 4:29:26 PM

I will freely admit that my knowledge of the Angolan Bush War/South African Border War is pretty limited, but that conflict, while fought in defense of Apartheid, is not the same thing as Apartheid. Apartheid is a system of discrimination involving segregation. Military action is not Apartheid by definition. If a nation uses military tactics similar to those used by the Confederacy, that does not mean that that nation practices slavery, and I am not even conceding that Israel and South Africa's actions are so similar in this case, at least not yet.

Yeah, I think the comparison of military tactics is edging into Hitler Ate Sugar territory. The tactics used are similar to tactics used by a wide variety of regimes to suppress local populations, that doesn’t make them all the same politically.

Then take a gander on who developed the equipment and with whom and how designs look suspiciously similar considering they openly had nothing to do with each other.

And, tactics developed in those wars in "insurgencies", bush and urban warfare became standard. Not just because people looked over the shoulders of the rich naughty kid and took notes. The rich naughty kid was part of the after school homework circle and often borrowed pencils and played on the richer kid's computer.

To borrow an example from above, the US has developed equipment in conjunction with Saudi Arabia. The US isn’t an Islamic theocracy. The US has developed tactics alongside the UK, and it isn’t a constitutional monarchy either.

Those facts alone don’t exactly support the assertion that Israel is practicing Apartheid. Those tactics and tools weren’t new then, and they’re relatively common around the world.

Edited by archonspeaks on Feb 5th 2019 at 9:14:53 AM

And, that's not the only reason why. Just the one that came to hand.

Excuse me for not having a ready character sheet open about all my opinions and points past or present, gone into in excruciating detail and sourced six ways just to keep you happy.

There is way, way more than suspiciously similar equipment, tactics, textbooks, talking points and language used, methods of teaching, propaganda, officially spread whataboutisn, conscription culture, opposition suppression, use of resource starvation, etc, etc, etc. Oh, and killing people.

No, the US isn't an Islamic monarchy. It supports one.

Is real, however, is an Apartheid state because it is built like one and even calls itself a democracy like one while not allowing full representation like one. And suppressing an "annexed" population like one.

If not allowing full representation is the bar that needs to be cleared to be an Apartheid state dozens of states could claim to be one. The similarities in military tactics are even more superficial. “They both killed people”? You may as well call the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany an Apartheid state at that point.

Ultimately the comparison seems to end at the superficial level. Once you get into the details you start to run into too many differences. It’s like calling Trump a Nazi; Sure, he exhibits some crypto-fascist tendencies, but when you look closer the comparison breaks down.

I also think the comparison is a little dismissive. Just like nobody knows what a fascist even is anymore because we’ve spent decades calling everyone under the sun a fascist, calling states that don’t really have a claim to the name Apartheid states starts to obfuscate the actual horror of Apartheid.

Edited by archonspeaks on Feb 5th 2019 at 9:53:40 AM