probablyaCat

What do you consider their colonialism?

Jesus fuck. I wasn't reductive of apartheid. I was pointing out that apartheid was the policy and south Africa was the nation state. You are reductive of apartheid by trying to simplify it enough that Israel fits your definition of it.

And again, it did not start from scratch. There was a lot of things that were done and existed during the change. A constitution is only one part of a nation state. They already had international recognition. No one was disputing the borders of south Africa. Changing internal borders is an entirely different thing to changing international borders. Literally right next door was south West Africa. Which, if you really want to shoehorn this comparison is a clearly better comparison. But they had an entire civil war forming national and international boundaries. Seriously. It is clear you've just read a few lefty articles about how some people from SA say that Israel is an apartheid state.

But let me show you. SWA was a territory controlled by Germany until WWI (check), British gain control (check), UN defines it as mandatory swa governed by SA governed by great Britain (check), great Britain makes plan for SA to be independent and swa to be independent, but (now this is where things differ) SA is like nah and takes control, doesn't give it up, and institutes apartheid there as well. Eventually the whole region falls into a border war and closely intertwined civil war in Angola. And then we got Namibia.

There are a lot of parallels. But that doesn't mean it is the same. And when you try to make it the same it is reductive for both sides. The apartheid of SA and SWA is orders of magnitude above the restrictions in the west bank and Gaza. It ignores the backgrounds and why some of those things exist. It was made to have essentially an entire slave class in SA and SWA. Palestinians are not slaves. Arab Israelis certainly experience systemic racism in Israel. But not something that can be classified as apartheid.

Like what things specifically do you think qualifies it as apartheid.

Do you often like to toss out obvious statements that no one was debating into conversations?

What do you mean by fuck off?

See. You obviously weren't actually interested in my answer. You just wanted to spew overly simplified nonsense. You didn't answer a single question I asked so that I could answer your question appropriately. SA didn't start over entirely. They didn't dissolved the state and then just decide on things like the border after apartheid. Apartheid was a policy. An awful one. South Africa is a place. So what the fuck are you even asking as you talk to yourself.

I mean, you can draw parallels with events from any 2 random countries. That doesn't make it the same. If anything a closer comparison would be the events with South West Africa. But that would have more to do with the territorial aspects than the apartheid aspects.

Because they'd be attacked, kidnapped, and/or killed. Seriously what kind of question is this? How do you propose they go into Gaza, distribute the aid, and not get attacked. Hamas is rolling right up to the aid and stealing it. Are you suggesting Israel completely occupy the region and maintain security in order to distribute aid?

Never said otherwise. What point are you trying to make?

Yes, because borders, territories, and statehood are only creations of eurocentric policies. They are definitely not a natural progression of tribalism that was capable of centralizing authority in some form. I mean it isn't like the earliest examples are largely in Asia and Africa.

Formalizing it for the purposes of stopping wars in the current nation state is somewhat from Europe, but existed in Asia previously in a similar form.

And how is it used as a justification to steal land from natives?

Edit: and how doesn't it matter? Like you tried to make a point and then just said it didn't matter when challenged. And the name being used for a region is not the same as existing as a nation or state or nation state. And what's funny is you ignored the part about how the name started to be used for the area isn't of Judea, because the Greeks wanted it to have a purely geographical name rather than something connected to the Jews.

So what you're saying is that Palestine itself is just some eurocentric creation used to drive off the natives from Judea?

I mean even your link says it wasn't Egyptians first. That Egyptians settlers went to the area when an Egyptian pharaoh unified Egypt. But there people there before that.

Which is why you have to pick a starting point and go from there. And if we are talking about forming a legitimized form Palestinian state, then starting at the partition plan is probably the most reasonable. Why? Because Israel exists and dissolving it and making the whole region Palestine is unreasonable and will not happen. It won't. If you want peace, that is something you must accept.

What needs to happen to settlers, what the exact borders will be, what happens to refugees, and people living on one side of the border but wishes to be a citizen of the other, all has to be discussed. But dissolving an entire country with nearly 10 million people is off the table. Not just because I think so, but because I'm the real world international legitimization matters. Israelis who have are multigenerational at this point will also not accept that and it won't bring peace.

How are you ignoring the fact that Hamas takes the fuel. The UN just said they had their fuel stolen. So those babies will die, more Israelis will die, and more Palestinians will die.

If the UN had forces guarding supplies and stopping theft, that might be different. But you are asking Israel to allow in supplies that are be and will continue to be stolen and used in attacks against Israel. Ignoring that it will not save civilians.

Nah the blockades has been around since 2005 when Hamas took over in Gaza, after Israel demilitarized and demobilized the entire region (this was intended to occur in the west bank as well, but with the way things went in Gaza that idea died). And the blockades has intensified over the years coinciding with attacks.

After this, we are likely looking at an extended dmz if I give my honest thoughts.

Legally, none. If you mean for travel purposes (passport), then they can apply for that with the Palestinian authority. I haven't a clue what their tax system is, but they aren't being paid to Israel. Stateless people exist all over the world. And some people start in one nation, never move, and up in another. This isn't even a point of contention in the situation.