Wait, isn't that statistic from the same source that claims that in the entire war, not a single hamas member was even targeted at all? That these numbers come from hamas?
(well, I should clarify, because I am going to bet a lot that you don't even understand how hamas' claims really work. Hamas is not claiming Israel isn't targeting and killing hamas members. Their claim comes directly from the religion, namely that there isn't any difference between civilians and soldiers, between 3 year old girls and "what you call" terrorists (and they call mujahid), between Gazan grandmothers and leaders of hamas. That all of the above are killing Jews or dying trying, and it is just a stupid mistake of Israel not to target everyone. And no I'm not putting it badly here, if you read the hadith you will find much worse images, involving pregnant women and wombs, involving crowds beating ... Hamas says this because they see it (I'd even say "sell it", both to you and to their muslim patrons) as simply what their religion demands. Hamas is not putting out those numbers because they think this death toll on their side is terrible. They're putting out these numbers because they're proud of them, to prove they deserve more money, more support, more ... from muslims, they're putting out these numbers because they see these deaths as "the ultimate expression of muslim faith". In other words they're not claiming Israel isn't hitting hamas members, they're claiming that even if a baby was still in the womb and got hit, even that baby was convinced by hamas to fight for allah and thus was a hamas member. Of course the people actually dying don't really agree, but hamas has guns)
In other words, hamas isn't exaggerating these numbers to get a reaction from you. They're exaggerating them because it proves to their financiers how well the recruitment drive "to defend islam" is going. It should be understood as propaganda for arabic consumption. Should be understood as "look how well we're doing! Even 50.000 children are dying for our holy intifada! Send more money!".
I'm not even sure what is currently on it, but I'm sure it will get the point across that they're not neutral and not afraid of changing the truth as required.
It is not apartheid because the law is not actually making this distinction. The article does three things, and the title ... the title just does not cover the contents:
1) a law is proposed to make it possible to get the death sentence for the worst terrorism offenses. The law does not specify the religion of the terrorist as a factor, though obviously it would predictably affect one group much more than another.
2) a far-right politician with very bad taste in Jewellery claims that no Jew would ever commit terrorism. Incidentally, this politician has been convicted many times by the Israeli legal system. And then he got elected again.
Imho, these two statements do not correctly combine to the sensationalized title of the article.
3) the article points out that this is not the first time a law like this is proposed in Israel, for the same exact reason: the PA uses funds from the UN to pay terrorists and their families, literally per Jew killed. This is why there are claims that the UN pays for terrorists to hunt Jews, because that statement is literally true, just not directly. Palestinians swear in English they'll stop this practice on a regular basis since at least 1995. In arabic they shout on TV they'll never stop doing this. And then they don't stop doing that.
Note: these pay-per-slay payments are referred to by most media, even the BBC, as the "social safety net" of Palestine. Reality: can't work? (try to) kill some Jews, and the Palestinian government will pay your family a living wage based on how much damage you did.
> It was characterised by an authoritarian political culture based on baasskap (lit. 'boss-ship' or 'boss-hood'), which ensured that South Africa was dominated politically, socially, and economically by the nation's minority white population.[4] Under this minoritarian system, white citizens held the highest status, followed by Indians, Coloureds and black Africans, in that order.
Israeli settlers living in the West Bank fall under a different legal code than the non-Israeli citizens living there. Israelis fall under Israel's civilian legal code while the occupied non-citizens fall under a harsher military occupation system without due process. That system of segregation and separated legal codes is the very nature of apartheid. One class of people has less protections than the other without a means of redress.
That distinction in practical terms is that people in the citizen status are rarely held to account for violent crimes against the people in the non-citizen class while the people in the non-citizen class are severely punished for extremely minor offenses. For example there are cases were IDF soldiers commit first degree homicide on video and yet still receive lighter penalties than minors of the non-citizen class for throwing stones.
By the way, the US used to have a less formalized system of apartheid system as well called separate but equal, but it was eliminated in 1954.
> Israelis fall under Israel's civilian legal code while the occupied non-citizens fall under a harsher military occupation system without due process.
Every country treats citizens and non-citizens differently. Apartheid is about discrimination based on race, not based on citizenship.
You are incorrectly commingling the concepts of legal status and legal system. People can have different status assignments and still fall under the same legal system, which is how most countries work, but not Israel.
It does make it apartheid when one group imposes separate legal systems to intentionally advantage one party over another. That is the most essential nature behind the term apartheid. In both cases of South Africa and Israel the primary motivation is to transfer land from the disadvantaged party without their consent.
It’s like saying that border control with Mexico is apartheid because the main motivation is racism against Mexicans. There’s a grain of truth (racism exists), but it’s not really the reason we have border control, and even if it was it still wouldn’t be apartheid.
To see why Israel ended up with the current system, we have to consider a bunch of possible alternatives (eg giving citizenship to all residents), each of which runs into legal and/or security problems.
Wow, if this is how you think, you must really hate Palestine and even Islam ... after all that is exactly what Islam as a religion proscribes, and the Palestine government applies those laws and makes them worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi, note the laws on ownership and inheritance. That is definitely taking advantage of one party. And, of course, it's muslims taking advantage.
But Palestine, of course, has actually gone further, and has done exactly what you say makes a system apartheid, alter laws to transfer land from a disadvantaged party without consent:
So now we pretend you see your mistake and you don't just change what was never your opinion on apartheid, just to keep hating Jews? I mean I expect you to call me a racist for pointing out that you're making up excuses for hating Jews, but I keep getting told to expect the best from people.
I'm not changing the subject, I just pointed out that your description of apartheid really fits the people you claim are victims here. Somehow I think you do not wish to discuss what your definition means about them. Because, well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say: you checked ... and found that I'm right about at the very least the contents and existence of those laws. And of course that those laws, both the Palestinian ones and the islamic laws are racist and frankly inhumane. That they both violate human rights and are far worse than anything you've mentioned ... and that they are directly related to the subject.
So you're grooving on the Palestinian discriminatory laws he cited but sidestepping that whole issue because it's inconvenient? Or, let me guess, what-about-ism?
The problem is that this looks like an excuse to just murder people under military occupation. It does not look like it has anything to do with defense.
If you want this to be about defense then end the occupation. Emancipate all occupied peoples into full citizenship with equivalent protection under the same civilian legal code. Until that happens the government of Israel looks like a bunch of racist savages hell bent on murder.
I am not qualified to interpret what that means in the context of Israeli law, America's equal protection clause seems to live in its own multiverse of interpretation, so I assume it is the same everywhere else.
> “There is no such thing as a Jewish terrorist,” said Limor Son Har-Melech, of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party, as she and the other noose-wearing supporters insisted the measure will deter militant attacks.
reply