Over the first four days of Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange, Israel arrests 133 Palestinians while releasing 150.
…
But the worry for Palestinian prisoners does not end after their release. The majority of those freed are usually rearrested by Israeli forces in the days, weeks, months and years after their release.
Dozens of those who were arrested in a 2011 Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange were rearrested and had their sentences reinstated.
…
Many of the women and children released during the truce have testified to the abuse they experienced in Israeli prisons.
Several videos have also emerged in recent weeks of Israeli soldiers beating, stepping on, abusing and humiliating detained Palestinians who have been blindfolded, cuffed and stripped either partially or entirely. Many social media users said the scenes brought back memories of the torture tactics used by United States forces in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in 2003.
They have less rights by law its unquestionably apartied.
when you are not a french citizen, you indeed have less right in France than a french. The problem is the definition of Israel’s border is really blurry
You’re not listening, Israel also classifies people based on religion and again there are nationalistically Palestinians in Israel. They’re forced to have citizenship but that doesn’t mean they identify as isreali.
It’s not at all blurry, they’ve been defined by multiple nations and the UN itself.
…because the Zionist Jew-Nazis of Israel have absolutely zero respect for any defined borders. They’ve defied the ones set up in 1938, 1947, and again in the 60s when the UN stepped in again. You can look at the progression maps over time, that 100% is the Jew-Nazis violating repeatedly the treaties set.
No they don’t. Israeli Arabs are full citizens.
Palestinians aren’t Israeli, which is the core of why this argument devalues the concept of apartheid.
No one said they weren’t, I said they have fewer rights because it’s an ethnostate.
There are Palestinian isrealis dumb dumb, as I’ve said before do research before you comment.
… So palestine doesn’t exist/shouldn’t exist as a free state. No Israel is not an ethnostate because Israeli isn’t an ethnicity but a nationality made from ethnicity of all over the world including arabs. Palestinian is also a nationality.
You see an ethnostate generally don’t have more than four current language in use
Are you really gonna triple post the same shitty argument scb?
It’s literally not an ethnostate if there are people of different cultures and ethnicities with full citizenship.
There are Israelis of Palestinian origin. However, policies against the different nation of Palestine aren’t apartheid. They’re often bad policies, but apartheid doesn’t mean “dumb shit policy.”
It is if they have fewer rights by law, that’s called apartied and makes it an ethnostate.
Just delete all the parts about how minoritarian rule is central to apartheid, as is denying representation, as well as racial segregation
Find a better definition of it then boss. You say I’m wrong, prove it to be.
I literally just did that.
You literally didn’t. Try again.
Palestine is a nation… not a race usian
Palestine is not a nation according to Israel, the settler politics prove it as such
Race doesn’t exist anyway on a scientific level, if we’re going to be tedious and specific it’s geographic phenotypical deviation.
Full citizens with less rights. That’s like saying Jim Crow America was fine because African Americans were full citizens.
No it isn’t. At most, it’s like saying Jim Crow America wasn’t apartheid. It wasn’t. It was just shitty. For one thing, apartheid is explicitly minoritarian.
What “fewer rights” do they have? How is the power structured?
See the reason I ask is that Arab Israelis have almost exactly proportional representation in Israel’s government, which is not how apartheid works at all.
No, that’s South African specific. Everyone knows what you mean when you say apartied, it’s called colloquialism.
You say there equal prove it, should be easy.
Almost exactly the same or the same, there’s big difference there bud.
Apartheid is not a colloquialism. It is a sanctions-inducing offense, internationally.
This is what happens when you dilute serious words like “genocide” and “apartheid.” You are unintentionally downplaying worse affairs.
Things can be bad and not be literally the worst.
It’s the same effect causing everyone in these threads to assume i’'m super jazzed about what Israel does. This is political grandstanding to you, not serious discussion.
Destroying the meaning of terms has serious consequences, because it enables similar steps. Israel deserves serious criticism, not this joke of a throwaway insult.
As in apartheid South Africa, Israel classifies its citizens according to ethnicity and privileges one group over all others. Today, there is a de facto caste system within the territories that Israel controls between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. At the top are Israeli Jews, while Muslim and Christian Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza are at the bottom. Between them are Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinian residents of occupied East Jerusalem. Each has different rights according to the regime Israel has implemented, with Jews enjoying the full benefits of democracy in a “Jewish state,” and Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza accorded no political rights whatsoever, being ruled by Israeli military decree.
In apartheid South Africa, blacks weren’t allowed to vote for the national government. While Palestinian citizens of Israel can vote in Israeli elections, millions of Palestinians in the occupied territories cannot, even though Israel has ruled them for almost half a century.
In apartheid South Africa, the government used a complex pass system to control the movement of blacks, while Israel has instituted an elaborate permit and checkpoint system to control Palestinian movement in the occupied territories.
**In South Africa, blacks were forced into bantustans where they were more easily controlled by the apartheid regime. ** Israel has divided the occupied territories into several isolated territorial units, cut off from one another and from the outside world and surrounded by walls and checkpoints, so that the Israeli army can more easily control the Palestinian population. Meanwhile, within Israel’s internationally recognized pre-1967 borders, approximately 93% of the land is state-owned and controlled by the Israel Land Authority and quasi-governmental agencies like the Jewish National Fund, which systematically discriminate against non-Jewish citizens in its allocation. Combined with private discriminatory rental policies, Israeli government policies have ensured a concentration of the non-Jewish Arab population into several geographically constricted, overcrowded and underserviced ghettos.
In apartheid South Africa there were whites-only areas, while inside Israel there are more than 300 rural Jewish-majority towns that under Israeli law can reject residents who do not meet a vague “social suitability" standard. Critics, including Human Rights Watch, have slammed the law as an attempt to allow Jewish towns to keep Arabs and other non-Jews out. In the occupied Palestinian territories, Israel has built a network of Israeli-only roads that Palestinians are barred from traveling on, while Jewish settlers living right next door in exclusive housing can use them.
**Many veterans of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa consider Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to be a form of apartheid. ** One of the most outspoken voices has been that of Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, one of the heroes of the struggle against South African apartheid. Tutu has repeatedly made the comparison, writing in 2012 that Israel’s version of apartheid is actually worse than South Africa’s, stating: “Not only is this group of people [Palestinians] being oppressed more than the apartheid ideologues could ever dream about in South Africa, their very identity and history are being denied and obfuscated.” In June 2013, the recently retired South African ambassador to Israel, Ismail Coovadia, wrote that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is a “replication of apartheid.”
One of the first people to use the word “apartheid” in relation to Israel was Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, who warned following the 1967 War of Israel becoming an “apartheid state” if it retained control of the occupied territories. In 1999, then-Israeli prime minister and current defense minister Ehud Barak stated: "Every attempt to keep hold of [Israel and the occupied territories] as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state.” In 2010, Barak repeated the apartheid comparison, stating: “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic… If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Over the entirety of its 65-year existence, there has been a period of only about one year (1966-67) that Israel has not ruled over large numbers of Palestinians to whom it granted no political rights simply because they are not Jewish. Prior to 1967 and the start of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, Palestinians who remained inside what became Israel in 1948 were ruled by martial law for all but one year, similar to the way that Palestinians in the occupied territories have been ruled ever since.
Inside Israel there are more than 50 laws that privilege Jews or discriminate against non-Jewish Palestinian citizens, affecting everything from immigration and family reunification to land ownership rights. In the occupied territories, Palestinians have lived under a brutal and repressive Israeli military regime for more than 46 years while Jewish settlers protected by the Israeli army colonize their land and lord it over them. In the words of a 2010 Human Rights Watch report entitled "Separate and Unequal: Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories”
Its use is bud, if you’re going to be tedious at least be correct.
Not at all, you’re the one playing things down if anything. Similarly no one said genocide, stay on topic.
Painting in shades of genocide, weird hill to die on bud.
You’re super jazzed about it, you’re a fucking racist bigot we know this for a fact.
That’s how language changes, cool doesn’t literally mean cool. Want to take a guess at how that came to be?
But why can’t you just accept that this serious term applies in this case? Countless evidence and organizations calling for it. What’s the problem? Should Israel not be tried for its war crimes?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This is not accurate.
Gaza is not an “open air prison.” That is figurative language, to describe the awful conditions in Gaza.
It is not a literal prison. No Israeli citizen is “rounded up and sent to Gaza.”
Ok fair, it’s a concentration camp.