• 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Really I must have missed the part in South African history where they had any blacks on their Supreme Court.

    Regardless, the defining characteristic of Apartheid is rule over the uncontenting majority by the minority. That is the harm of apartheid and that the thing that makes it a crime against humanity as opposed to regular old discrimination.

    • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Regardless, the defining characteristic of Apartheid is rule over the uncontenting majority by the minority.

      Source for the majority/minority claim?

      That is the harm of apartheid and that the thing that makes it a crime against humanity as opposed to regular old discrimination.

      But “regular old discrimination” is still not a good thing, right?

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        It’s baked into the definition of any primary source you might look at. For example the UN convention defines the crime of apartheid as something like “such discriminatory policies as practiced in South Africa,” etc., etc. it’s also inherent to the hallmarks of Apartheid, like, what would have been offensive to humanity about a political majority discriminating or disenfranchising itself? If they didn’t like the discrimination or disenfranchisment, they have the majority power to stop it. “As practiced in South Africa,” refers to little else if not the majority who had been systemically denied their inherent majoritarian political power.

        I realize modern organizations use the word apartheid to to describe Israel and I’m sure it’s great for their fundraising. Self interested experts and thinkers say all sorts of things. Most of them, at least disinterested scholars writing in law reviews, for example, if you look closely, are saying that Israel is like Apartheid.

        To the extent some make the argument that Israel is literally apartheid, they are glossing over the actual state of things in South African Apartheid that made it so offensive to humanity. Like LaFayette said “the good fortune of America is closely tied to the good fortune of all humanity.” He was talking about the idea of government of, by, and for the people, likez to be copacetic with humanity, a government must derive it’s legitimacy through the popular consent of the governed, who is represented by people chosen from among them, it means a constitutional compact, things South Africa did not have as a result of how its black majority citizens were treated by their own government’s laws. Those that defeated Apartheid speak of its downfall in terms of “gaining our democracy” and “the democratic transformation.” The day apartheid died is considered the day they had the first election afterward. Israel has free elections. Hama could host elections too if it wanted. It had an election once, then immediately cancelled all future elections, which is a crime against humanity in itself.

        Also, take note, if you look closely at analysis that says Israel literally is Apartheid, they are citing work of scholars, jurists, and experts, who were doing research in comparative law. I.e., they were comparing Israel and South Africa from the starting point that, although they are alike in certain ways which are useful for legal scholars to compare in peer reviewed journals, they are materially different things. In other words, like if you decide to go click through KeepOnStalin’s non-profit link spam, check for yourself and see if the authorities they cite for their presuppositions aren’t being misrepresented, and that they aren’t going circles, i.e. B’Tselem citing HRW, HRW citing Amnesty, Amnesty citing B’Tselem, and that all of them aren’t citing unverified reports published in veritable tabloids owned by Qatar and Egypt, or directly from Hamas. They also gloss over their presupposition that Apartheid can be something a country does to non citizens. No country afaik gives full rights to non citizens.

        Yes, run of the mill racial discrimination is bad. There is racial discrimination all around and it should be rooted out and made equitable. That’s where strong minoritarian rights and protections come into play, a constitution based on something other than biblical nonsense, for example.

        A policy of discrimination voted on by all people is far more palatable than one arising from religious proclamation or superstition, or from a minority, such as they have in Iran.

        • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          The convention says:

          the term “the crime of apartheid”, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

          Then it goes on to list some acts. Note that it says similar to not identical to. And it says over any other racial group. Absolutely nothing in there about majority/minority status.

          So where did you see this? What makes you think this?

          what would have been offensive to humanity about a political majority discriminating or disenfranchising itself? If they didn’t like the discrimination or disenfranchisment, they have the majority power to stop it.

          Nobody is suggesting this.

          What about if the majority discriminates against a minority , who doesn’t have the political power to stop it? That is offensive to humanity, so why would you exclude this from the definition of apartheid? That’s why they wrote the definition the way they did. South Africa isn’t the only way it can be.

            • ???@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              @[email protected] here is the legal definition of the crime of Apartheid

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

              "The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of 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" .”

              The other definitions are similar. Nothing about majority or minority. Nothing about having to be exactly like South Africa.

            • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Then why is that explicitly not part of the definition?

              “Similar” =/= identical. If all of the societal prejudice, injustice and disparity is still there but it’s 51% oppressing 49% instead of 49% oppressing 51% are you seriously saying that this is a totally different thing?

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Amnesty International has analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and examined its key components: territorial fragmentation; segregation and control; dispossession of land and property; and denial of economic and social rights. It has concluded that this system amounts to apartheid. Israel must dismantle this cruel system and the international community must pressure it to do so. All those with jurisdiction over the crimes committed to maintain the system should investigate them.

      Amnesty International Report

      Across these areas and in most aspects of life, Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy. In pursuit of this goal, authorities have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity. In certain areas, as described in this report, these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.

      Human Rights Watch Report

      B’Tselem rejects the perception of Israel as a democracy (inside the Green Line) that simultaneously upholds a temporary military occupation (beyond it). B’Tselem reached the conclusion that the bar for defining the Israeli regime as an apartheid regime has been met after considering the accumulation of policies and laws that Israel devised to entrench its control over Palestinians.

      B’TSelem Report, Explainer

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        More irrelevant and false presuppositions.

        Amnesty International has analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians

        Okay that’s great. Apartheid is way more than a system of oppression. Amnesty needs to grow up. Great fundraising pitch, though.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Did you miss pages 44-59? There is an entire chapter going through the international definitions of Apartheid

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            See that’s called a pin cite, even if it is 16 pages, now you’re approaching making a coherent argument instead of just spamming. They gloss right over the key part of the definition though, because they are torturing the word to force a square peg into a round hole and they have to do that because that’s how they raise money.

            I agree there are similarities and useful comparisons to be drawn. Still, Amnesty literally says that all apartheid requires is a system of oppression and that’s just not correct, and that’s why when people try to force this definition onto Israel, it just comes off as anti-semitic.

            I wonder if this dude still agrees that the security concerns aren’t valid, after October 7: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/19/israel-apartheid-state-south-africa-netanyahu

            I’m of the mind that if the majority has the opportunity to vote for their leadership, the situation is not like South Africa in the way that matters that is so offensive to humanity as to be a crime against it.

            • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              You are mistaken that minority rule is fundamental to Apartheid. It’s not simply ‘a system of oppression’, it is the establishment and maintaining of systematic oppression and domination of one racial group over another. Let’s look at Article II of the Apartheid Convention for one. We can also look into the definition from the Rome Statute.

              Article II then lists specific inhuman acts that committed in this context amount to the crime under international law of apartheid, ranging from violent ones such as murder and torture to legislative, administrative and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participating in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and deny them basic human rights and freedoms. The specific inhuman acts enumerated are: 
              

              a. Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person:

              (i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;

              (ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

              (iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;

              b. Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

              c. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

              d. Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

              e. Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

              f. Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.

    • zerog_bandit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s funny because I think the entire middle east is apartheid. Jews are only allowed to live in one small strip. They are not allowed to own land in Jordan. They are not allowed to practice their religion in Saudi Arabia. They have been ethnically cleansed from Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria.

      • Andy@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I’m just going to answer you and @[email protected] 's comment above at the same time.

        What’s the hell is your point?

        Generally, when someone mentions something like the existence of some admirable quality in a country facing criticism or a terrible quality in a different country, it’s irrelevant to the point at hand. It’s either to derail a conversation or terminate it.

        The conversation thread is about the fact that Israelis should not be held responsible carte blanche for atrocities committed by their government, because many lack political representation and face extremely oppressive prejudice from their government.

        If you’re arguing that the presence of any Arabs within power at all disproves their overall repression, in this context you’re arguing against my point that they should NOT be held responsible for the crimes of their government. Is your point that Israel Palestinians are guilty of genocide in Gaza? Think about how inane that is.

        And if you’re pointing out that regionally, Jews are an oppressed group… well then what? What does the fact that Qatar and UAE and Jordon are repressive mean in this context? It is wildly off-topic, and also utterly irrelevant that Israel’s neighbors suck too. You know what? I don’t think we should send weapons to Iran or Egypt or Saudi Arabia either. That’s not exactly a hot take.

        Figure out what the hell your point is.

        • ???@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Almost everyone absolutely thinks Saudi Arabis is abhorrent, any involvement they hsve with any human rights groups is instantly identified as whitewashing and becomes a meme. Protests in Iran receieved wide global attention and support. We don’t hold Israel to a different light. It’s the same light, Israel is just one if the really bad baddies.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I don’t know that dude’s point but my point is that even though the light of democracy may seem dim right now in Israel, it’s still there and must be protected. No legitimate human rights will come from Islamic law or pan Islamism because religious law is made up by church muckity mucks as they go along, and any right they grant can be taken at their whim. Meanwhile, the good fortune of democracy on this earth is closely tied to the humanity of all mankind, and ill fight anyone that violently insists otherwise. Like it’s fine if you want to live like it’s the dark ages but don’t cross the border or shoot at boats. Maybe if the Likuds survive the next election the idea of smothering the baby in its crib might be more palatable to me. I’m not ready to feed a burgeoning democracy to Iranian far-right extremists or their proxies, just yet.

          • Andy@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I agree with you. I’d like more democracy is Israel.

            I think that people ARE going to need to reimagine what Israel is, though. People – including folks like Einstein – have been saying since it’s founding that it is fundamentally incompatible to have a multi-ethnic democratic ethnostate. It’s internally contradictory. You have to lose one of those words.

            Jewish nationalists would like to lose the multi-ethnic part. Religious extremists would like to drop the democratic part (and probably the multi-ethnic part too). I’d like to drop the ethnostate. I think Israel can be a democracy that welcomes Jews AND Palestinians. But to be frank, democracy and Zionism have been looking increasingly incompatible for a long time, and a lot of folks in the US need to start recognizing that.

      • ???@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Some clarifitcations and corrections:

        ALL non-Muslim religious practices are not allowed in Saudi Arabia, they hate EVERYONE else, not directed specifically at Jews. Alsp, I lived in Jordan for most of my life and have never seen any law to indicate that claim. I also tried to google that. Could you source that claim? Because if it is true, then it would be directly contradicting the Jordanian constitution.

        My friend’s grandmother is a Palestinian Jew who lives in Jordan and never seems to have had any legal trouble (even in the religious marriage court).

        And yes, Jews from Arab countries have been cleansed and forced to leave during this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world But that was only one factor. Many simply immigrate for pull or push factors. That is not to undermine the terrible event of anyone being forced out of their home.

        Finally, it’s good to remember what Israel did to those Yemeni Jews, whether expelled or leaving to build a better future:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemenite_Children_Affair

        We need to recognize that supremacy and oppression are symptoms of destructive settler-colonial Zionism. And that it needs to end. Israel is not the Jewish state Jews deserve… they deseeve much better as dignified people than to have this country (founded on violence, lies, and colonialism) drag their name in the mud and use the holocaust to justify genociding Palestinians. Jews deserve better than an undemocratic apartheid state that indoctrinate them from the cradle to the grave.