There's a degree of politics intertwined into the standup acts of many comedians. Carlin - my all time favorite, was one of the best at it. When done properly, it can act as powerful and thought provoking social commentary . When done in a blatant and unimaginative way, such as Oliver's recent effort, it tends to have the opposite effect of coming across as desperate and unfunny. Stewart could pull it off pretty easily. Oliver, unfortunately, isn't nearly as effective at it.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
There's a degree of politics intertwined into the standup acts of many comedians. Carlin - my all time favorite, was one of the best at it. When done properly, it can act as powerful and thought provoking social commentary . When done in a blatant and unimaginative way, such as Oliver's recent effort, it tends to have the opposite effect of coming across as desperate and unfunny. Stewart could pull it off pretty easily. Oliver, unfortunately, isn't nearly as effective at it.
You raise some interesting points (thanks for articulating them) and I think it deserves some expanding on.
I don't think we need to comment on the Palestinians and apartheid. It's clear as day and I think even the most staunch Zionist can't get away from this fact.
The latter point on Israeli Arabs is indeed an interesting one, which I will comment on. Although overtly, you would think that there is no apartheid for Israeli Arabs, in practice, and in reality, there are a number of discriminatory laws, barriers to employment, anti-Arab rhetoric, instances of racism and a 'second class citizen' feel to their existence.
You firstly have laws such as the nation state law which is absurd and gives a clear preference to Jewish ethnicity. I mean let's look at this one for example -
“The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.”
There's articles online that do a better job of explaining it, but this is an absurd law. How can the right to self determination only exist to Jews? How can a state be determined by a ethno-religious group and not take into account other citizens such as Israeli Arabs, Christians, Druze? You're basically alienating the Arab ethnicity and preventing them from having a voice whilst also governing them.
Netanyahu himself said:
It's racist, in my opinion, and a clear agenda to give Israeli Jews a status above Israeli Arabs (and more broadly a status above anything that isn't Israeli Jewish).
This law also demotes Arabic as a state language (giving it a 'special status' - where have we heard about statuses before) and makes Hebrew the state language. Again, it's an absurd law to pass and even the articulation is absurd It's a state preference to one race of citizen, giving preference over the other.
You also have the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) who have released a publication a couple of years ago highlight the discrimination faced by most Israeli Arabs -
The highlighted bit is also interesting when you consider comments from former ministers as well...
It's this type of rhetoric (which is fairly common in this thread from the usual pro Zionist few) who have it ingrained in their psyche that any Arab state in the land would automatically just annihilate any Jews in the area. It's nonsensical hyperbole and again, it's a convenient way to detract from the larger point. What's different here is that this accusation is levelled at Israeli Arabs. The reason I highlight it here is that I don't believe Moshe is in the minority in terms of how he views the Israeli Arabs, and I believe it's this type of language and rhetoric that further fuels the issues we see. And I believe there's a deliberate use of language to get this ingrained into the Israeli psyche.
If you have discriminatory laws, and discriminatory rhetoric, then by hook or by crook, you're creating a discriminatory state.
There's an insight into life as an Israeli Arab here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/13/netanyahu-israel-palestinian
There's a clear ethno-racial preference for Israeli Jews with Israeli Arabs (which constitutes Christians, Muslims and Arabs) as a second class citizen. The laws and discriminations felt is a culmination of institutional discrimination, being written into Israeli law. So to me, it's a less overt apartheid than say the life of Palestinians there but the reality is the Israeli Arabs are doing marginally better. Their state probably won't be considered apartheid by our regular Zionist weirdos, but the reality is that it is.
Last edited:
Stop deflecting and answer this - why are the Israelis forcibly evicting Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah?
Why was the west so interested in apartheid South Africa?
You lot seen the video of the Palestinian girl getting shot in the back in her house by Israeli Army.
I hope whoever shot her dies a slow and painful death
I hope whoever shot her dies a slow and painful death
@Frosty i thought, on the question of apartheid, this account by a visiting american jew was quite telling, especially the scenes at the border checkpoint, the court, and the camp in jerusalem
https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/why-did-you-throw-stones/
different from a formal report, of course, but conveys a lot.
https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/why-did-you-throw-stones/
different from a formal report, of course, but conveys a lot.
Last edited:
Was posted earlier in the thread. She was only 15 years old, and she's being shot at. Absolutely pathetic. You have posters in this thread basically defending any action by the IDF moaning "but Hamas are terrorists" rather than engaging with all the evidence at hand.
LWT is not a stand up routine. The purpose is social commentary , frequently through heavy sarcasm which can indeed be very funny, however getting you to laugh is not the primary objective. I don't see how Oliver is "losing credibility as a comedian".
Given his background, if he's going to do social commentary he should at least be a bit creative or witty about it. Otherwise, why go to a comedy show to get your social commentary ?
He is creative and witty, in case you don't watch the show. He just decided to do a serious segment about this conflict, because frankly, it is not funny at all. And again, it is not a comedy show.
We can agree to disagree. Stewart had a touch of genius about him and could actually pull this stuff off. Oliver is mediocre at best when attempting to do the same.
Attempting to comment on Israel or his show in general?
He’s very good and is often spot on as far as I’m concerned. He sticks up for the underdog.
I agree about Stewart, but his format was a little bit different - daily short show , without much time to take a dive into a subject. He was fantastic at it though.
Nearly every comedian sticks up for the underdog. Some are a bit more thoughtful and funny about politics. I occasionally find Oliver funny, but politics just isn't his forte imo.
Can't argue with that, Carlin was the guy I had in my head when I replied. I don't know much about Oliver, but it is a tricky balance to pull off.
Thank you for this. I think this is a very worthwhile read, and you won't see me disagreeing with the overarching points about the occupation of the West Bank.
It is an apartheid state generally because of state-sanctioned apartheid practices in the WB, Gaza, and all OPT.
I don't think the claims are quite different at all. There is a discrepancy regarding non-Jewish rights in Israel, too. Five independent human rights organisations have now settled upon Jewish supremacy, apartheid, and an overall consensus that the Jewish State is a racist endeavour. All five are correct. It has been true since at least 1968, too (post-73 if you really wanted to play Devil's advocate).
Cheers, much appreciated.
I have split your post up and added my comments to each section.
The occupation of the West Bank and the vice like grip on Gaza must end. There's no other way around it. Personally speaking when engaging with others I have found the language of apartheid to be closely equated with South Africa for obvious reasons.
The crime of apartheid defined in the Rome Statute (page 4 of this document: https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf) gives precise detail to what is a loaded word, as below:
I think this is a more helpful definition to use, and I think could be applied to many countries around the world too (showing that the crime was not created simply to apply to one geopolitical situation) - Sudan, Myanmar and China are obvious ones which spring to mind.
I am not here to focus solely on formal equality under the law, and to ignore the realities of a situation, but it is worth stating two things.
First, that Israel does not have a codified constitution of the type in the US. There are basic laws which build on previous ones. But this also means that new basic laws can be introduced, just as Netanyahu's Government did. And you won't find me defending it, not least because it seems to run up against key parts of the Declaration of Independence:
and appeals to:
Much like structural discrimination in the United States ignored the fundamental principles of the Constitution in speaking of equal protection of the laws, this discrimination threatens the equality promised in 1948. The situation is one which can be changed and improved, in other words, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Again, you won't find many complaints from me about the Basic Law change. It was only passed by the Knesset by 62-55 too - not a sweeping mandate by any means.
I am not defending this but the growth of an ethno-nationalistic politics is very much is a worrying trend in countries today, not just Israel: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglo...o-religious-nationalism-in-an-age-of-anxiety/
There have been attempts to draft a codified constitution for a Jewish democratic state, including a right of return (which is a right protected by many nation states today). See the Constitution by Consensus attempt here: https://en.idi.org.il/media/6361/constitutionbyconsensus_draft.pdf
They proposed:
The State of Israel is a Jewish state in the following two senses: it is the political framework in which the right of the Jewish people to self-determination is manifested and it is a "Jewish nation-state." A first and necessary condition to being a Jewish and democratic state is a decisive majority of Jews in the State. Israel's attribute as a Jewish and democratic state is conveyed through aspects of Zionism and Jewish heritage; first and foremost, each and every Jew has the right to immigrate to the State of Israel. Other aspects are Hebrew being the main official language of the State and the inextricable link to Jewish culture in public life. On the other hand, the characterization of the State as Jewish is not intended to bestow extra privileges on its Jewish citizens and does not obligate the imposition of religious requirements by state law.
The State of Israel is democratic in the following sense: the sovereign is the entire community of the nation's citizens (and it alone), irrespective of ethnic-national origin. In the main, the character of the State as a democratic country is manifested by two basic principles: the first being the recognition of the dignity of man qua man, and the second, derived from the first, is the recognition of the values of equality and tolerance. Arrangements regarding free and equal elections, the recognition of the core human rights, including dignity and equality, separation of powers, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary, are all drawn from these principles. Democracy's basic principles require equal treatment of all those included as citizens of the State, without regard to their ethnic, religious, cultural, and linguistic affiliations.
I have spoken a lot with the One State crowd. The problem I have there is that I think it is practically unachievable, no matter how desirable. Again, if it cannot work in Bosnia, I cannot see it operating in Israel/Palestine.
As has been stated elsewhere in the thread, there has been a realignment in Israeli politics over the past two decades, and the former dominant Labour Party are no more. The immigration to Israel from the former Soviet Union has moved the populous as a whole to the right too.
I have always thought that the best way to ensure the security of Israel is to reach a settlement with the Palestinians and then peace treaties with her neighbours.
I will focus on a different point about Arab states if I can - I think that for a lot of the leadership in those states feels that the Palestinians are useful. Especially in Egypt under Mubarak for example - the press were full of anti-Semitic tropes about Israel and sympathies with the Palestinians as a neat way to distract from the corruption and human rights abuses committed in those polities. I suspect many authoritarian and dictatorial leaders are afraid of what a democratic Palestinian state will do to their own grips on power. That makes it even more important for me to bring it about.
Secondly, your point "If you have discriminatory laws, and discriminatory rhetoric, then by hook or by crook, you're creating a discriminatory state." I can accept this as a straightforward principle. Also I would ask - surely this can be applied to many democratic states around the world as well? I would say so. That doesn't diminish your point about Israel, but it does show that we are not holding her to a standard we would not expect from the UK, France and so on.
Lord Steyn who was a judge in the House of Lords once described Guantanamo Bay as a 'legal black hole'. I read a piece by an academic disagreeing stating that the detention camp was a 'gray hole'. The prisoners had some rights, which the US could point to, but it still didn't change the fact that they were in a desperate position.
I'm not comparing Israel to GITMO before anyone asks. Merely that structural discrimination does not mean that individuals don't have rights. We see that in the UK and USA with the structural racism against non-white citizens, who have the same rights as everyone else.
If I was gay and had to pick a Middle Eastern country to live in, it would be Israel. We can, I think, both state that Israeli Arabs can be discriminated against and also that they have many more rights than in other Middle Eastern countries. The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that Israeli Arabs sit on the Supreme Court and are members of the Knesset is laudable, and should not be discounted, or ignored, but it seems the question is how to rectify and improve the prosepcts of 20% of the country, and not point to the achievements of a few and state that there is no problem?
A final point - Likud only won 24% of the total votes in the recent elections. Israel's electoral system goes well beyond PR, and gives minor parties much more power than they would have in other countries. It also means Likud needs right-wing parties and settler supporting parties to govern. If Israel moved to FPTP, could that give a political party a majority in the Knesset, giving them the votes and time to properly pursue a two state solution without relying on other parties votes?
That is pie in the sky I know, but I have been wondering if the political paralysis cannot be solved under the current voting system, which simply means a continuation of the status quo.
This is the problems with this thread..You're either a or b. And even if i already said many times I'm pro palestine it doesnt stop people to throw pettu insult (not you) around.
I'm not justifying. I'm just saying in my country it's like that. That's all.
I havent got to the part on my take on it. Simply saying it is what it is. And it's naive to think that anti semitics sentiment isnt prominent in this issue. At least in my country.
They are distinct in that one is claiming that Israel is occupying territories and enacting structural discrimination and oppression against the people in those territories.
The other is claiming that every aspect of the state itself is discriminatory. More or less.
Claiming that the nation state of Israel is a racist endeavour is another matter entirely. As well as running up against the IHRA definition, what exactly does this mean?
I've heard it in conjunction with the notion that Israel is a settler colonial state.
But if Israel is a racist endeavour then surely we can say the same about many other countries on earth. Australia say. America. Canada. Japan. Scores of others too.
Again, I agree with the HRW's definition.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/...s-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution#_ftn84
Israel is in effect a state defined by Jewish Supremacy. Which means that in practice defining it as an apartheid state is not the difficult task you make it out to be. Bobby Sands was technically an MP when he starved himself to death, was that commendable on the part of the UK? I think you''re trying very hard to not see something which isn't particularly difficult to understand. Israel practices apartheid.
The HRW report is not as absolute as implied though.
Apartheid has a colloquial and a legal definition, and HRW are careful with the distinction and application.
"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."
"The term apartheid has increasingly been used in relation to Israel and the OPT, but usually in a descriptive or comparative, non-legal sense, and often to warn that the situation is heading in the wrong direction. In particular, Israeli, Palestinian, US, and European officials, prominent media commentators, and others have asserted that, if Israel’s policies and practices towards Palestinians continued along the same trajectory, the situation, at least in the West Bank, would become tantamount to apartheid."
If we take the 2018 basic law as a turning point, then are we saying that this discrimination has been entrenched since this point? Then a future government can repeal the 2018 law and do justice to the language of the declaration of independence.
Does the reference to Sands mean that discrimination can exist even if members of a community get elected to Parliament? Absolutely. The fact that Sands was elected didn't suddenly take away the ingrained structural discrimination experienced by Northern Irish Catholics.
Not subscribing to the notion of Israel being inherently racist to a degree other states are not and being concerned about how and why the language of apartheid is being used does not make me somehow blinded to the reality of the longest ongoing military occupation on the planet. The way forward- the only sustainable way forward - is a two state solution, which should be worked towards by anyone wanting peace and all major nations around the world.
Take the occupation of the WB in 1967 as a turning point. The Basic Law of 2018 is just an interesting trend in terms of uber ultra ethnonationalism.
Although such laws are more frequent and insane in recent years, they aren't without precedent:
I made the reference because you said you'd prefer to be gay in Israel rather than any other Arab state. As if liberalist values somehow detract from apartheid regime activities against minorities (or majorities). It's a strawman.
Most serious people are now of a mind to consider the two state soulution dead. The irony is that Israel will have killed it entirely by its own occupation of, and refusal to retreat from, the WB.
Would you name a few of these serious people who believe the impossibility of two state solution to be a foregone conclusion? And what are their reasons for believing that?
I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the conflict and the history thereof, and I presumed the two state solution to be the best one by default. It appears that UN, USA and King of Jordan have reaffirmed their belief in it. I did find a piece from Brookings Institution which said that both parties are moving away from two state solution but the author reaffirmed her belief that two state solution would be the only one that would be desirable as any alternative implies horrific realities, and also that it is not an impossibility by any stretch.
People talk about John Oliver's or Trevor Noah's segments, I honestly hated both of them. I hated them because both didn't talk about the occupation, and that is that this is all about. Yes Israel have killed many Palestinians, but there's an easy defense for that from their side and it's Hamas firing rockets. But no one ever in these shows talks about the brutal occupation and stealing of land that occurs even when there aren't any rockets being fired, which is what causes the Palestinians to become violent.
The reason why no one does is because there is no defense for this from Israel and anyone who wants to say this on mainstream media, I believe, won't be allowed to do so.
@Frosty here’s a couple of valuable articles which try to conceptualize the nature of the Israeli state. The first uses the idea of Israel as an “ethnic democracy” while the second uses “ethnocracy.” The fundamental difference is that the latter article finds both the fact that Israel has something resembling a modern democratic system and the distinction between “Israel proper” and the occupied territories to be essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things, while the former maintains that these elements must be accounted for:
Smooha - “The Model of Ethnic Democracy: Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State”
Yiftachel - “‘Ethnocracy’: The Politics of Judaizing Israel/Palestine.”
Smooha - “The Model of Ethnic Democracy: Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State”
Yiftachel - “‘Ethnocracy’: The Politics of Judaizing Israel/Palestine.”
Referring to Arab babies as snakes... Beyond the pale
I guess this all Pallywood too?
Good on Ireland.
I wonder what long term plans Israel is putting together to feck up Ireland over the next few years?
A friend called into school and questioned about how his kid knows about Palestine. Referral to PREVENT on the cards.
A recording out on 2 teachers chastising a kid at Oulder Hill school in Rochdale.
Kids being accused if racism for saying free Palestine.
A recording out on 2 teachers chastising a kid at Oulder Hill school in Rochdale.
Kids being accused if racism for saying free Palestine.
Absolutely mental.
@Fearless is writing 'why are Irish people so...' on google and seeing what comes up.
I'm expecting a whole swathe of Protestant and Catholic struggles from him and why one of them was categorically wrong (you guessed it the side that is against Israel). Regardless of the current geopolitical makeup of Ireland today.
In the mean time a poor girl gets shot in the back and it's as though her life was meaningless. A bit like a white cop shooting a black boy/girl in America.
I'm sure Fearless will tell us Blue Lives Matter Too.
I'm sure Fearless will tell us Blue Lives Matter Too.
Can supporters of Israel please justify why the IDF shot a 16 year old girl in her own home? It was caught on CCTV.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/video/sheikh-jarrah-shooting-palestinian-girl-caught-cctv
https://www.middleeasteye.net/video/sheikh-jarrah-shooting-palestinian-girl-caught-cctv