• Kichae@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Indeed. And if the NDP won’t allow its members to recognize that Israel is an apartheid state, then members who see it as such should abandon the party. Both those serving as public representatives, and regular members and donors.

    • settinmoon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Asking a genuine question regarding the apartheid terminology here. When someone refers to Israel as a apartheid state with regards to Palestinian civilians it always doesn’t make sense to me. Because for that to be true, one needs to consider Gaza and Westbank to be Israeli territory, which I don’t think is a concept that anyone who makes this claim agrees with. To me, that’s like saying North America is an apartheid continent because Canadians and Mexicans don’t get the same rights as Americans in America.

      • acargitz@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        During the Apartheid era in South Africa there were also nominal “independent” countries, known as Bantustans. Israel occupies the West Bank, effectively controlling it the way a Bantustan were controlled. The blockade of Gaza has a similar effect. Finally, there are discriminatory laws in Israel proper. For more information, read this as a starter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid

        • settinmoon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thank you for the explanation. To me it still seems to be a case of expanding the terminology beyond it’s original meaning given the context. The situation today is more of a country occupying part of another country while laying siege on another part of the said country. If this can be referred to as apartheid I don’t see why it can’t be used on most invasions and occupational wars in human history. Furthermore, I’m too young know what people thinks of South Africa back then, but as far as I can remember South Africa has been seen as a single unit in my lifetime. Hence, referring to Israel as an apartheid state in my mind has the implication of Israel somehow has the right and responsibility of ruling over Palestinian territory. Treating the citizens of an occupied country poorly is bad but shouldn’t automatically qualify as apartheid, even though I agree there are some resemblance in practice.

          The case with Israel proper is more interesting because you can make the case that there are some apartheid elements such as the fact only Jews enjoys the right to automatically become Israeli citizens which isn’t available to other ethnic groups that currently resides in Israel. However to my knowledge Israel proper isn’t what most people think of when they make the case that Israel is an apartheid state, even tho imo it makes a more compelling case per definition.