Would you have made the same arguments in the 1970s-1990s about South Africa?
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
No, because as stated before it was a completely different situation. There was general unanimity on South Africa at the time in the 80s.
And why is that?
The US only supports one side in this so how they can pretend to be peace makers is laughable.
You (USA) basically whitewash apartheid and think you still have some moral authority to question when other people call that same apartheid out and immediately label it as anti semitism, is part of the problem.
I really hate to jump back into this thread but here goes.
If international pressure (like the South African position) will not do anything because the only country that matters is the USA, and if the USA is "generally going to support any peace deal if it sees both sides realistically working towards one", then (and I will be diplomatic here) doesn't that mean that both sides have an effective veto on stopping a peace settlement from taking place?
Meaning if one side wants peace and a two-state settlement (for the sake of argument) and the other doesn't, then the one that doesn't can do whatever they want, knowing that the USA won't be swayed by what other countries think, and will only get actively involved when both sides decide they want to come to the table?
If international pressure (like the South African position) will not do anything because the only country that matters is the USA, and if the USA is "generally going to support any peace deal if it sees both sides realistically working towards one", then (and I will be diplomatic here) doesn't that mean that both sides have an effective veto on stopping a peace settlement from taking place?
Meaning if one side wants peace and a two-state settlement (for the sake of argument) and the other doesn't, then the one that doesn't can do whatever they want, knowing that the USA won't be swayed by what other countries think, and will only get actively involved when both sides decide they want to come to the table?
Not to mention, I wouldn’t characterize the attitude toward South Africa as “unanimous”. The 1980s saw the US and UK label the ANC as a terrorist group. Mandela wasn’t off the US terror list until the 2000s.
Clearly not correct. It supports peace deals when it sees both sides are amenable to them. See all of the previous deals from Camp David onwards.
Last edited:
Yes… to which the US can absolve itself of responsibility for not stepping up and putting pressure on the people who actually wield political and military power in the conflict.
Because people thought South Africa was wrong in its policy. This isn't the case on Israel given that most of the world is on friendly terms with them, including most importantly, western nations. Therefore there is no valid comparison between the two, and the Israeli - Palestinian situation has to be evaluated on its own unique merits.
There was sufficient unanimity in Congress to override a Presidential veto on SA in the 80s. No other legislation in the present would see Dems and Rs coming together like that.
And what changed people’s minds about South Africa? Are we going to pretend that there wasn’t an international movement to bring South Africa’s actions to the public eye in order to sway public opinion? Apartheid wasn’t overthrown by passive voice.
The world wasn’t stagnant in its beliefs towards them and it doesn’t have to be stagnant in its beliefs towards Israel. It was a decades long process to end the regime in South Africa, and it will take that and more in Israel, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
Key phrase there. You wouldn’t have seen that over ride in Congress in the 1960s either. Times and opinions change. They change because of actions.
Like I said USA only supports one side in this arguement, they are happy to let the occupiers do whatever they want and not hold them accountable.
The whitewashing of those crimes by the self proclaimed Police of the World isn’t that shocking anymore.
You nor I (even being on two different sides) will make much of a difference to what goes on, thats why initiatives like BDS are needed. At least they raise the question and are trying to hold isreal to account in some way. And I know you don’t think it works but it does work to the point that its raising awareness of the issues, and if it was as futile as isreali supporters think they wouldnt be pressurising governments to ban it.
Edit: sorry dont know why I quoted Carolin Red
They also change because of public sentiment, which was the case on SA in the 80s. That dynamic doesn't exist on Israel-Palestine, nor will it any time in the near future because both side are currently driven by factions who don't want a long term peace deal.
Successive UK Governments were defenders of apartheid South Africa for decades. We also used our UN veto 19 times to protect apartheid South Africa. The issue was nowhere near unanimous around the world, especially when France and the USA joined the UK in many of those vetos.
Social norms changed on SA. That won't happen on Israel because of the power dynamic of Israel's relationship with influential western states. Therefore the only way out of this is through a negotiated deal with both sides, and in order for that to happen, both sides need to lower the temperature and language and start speaking on diplomatic, not incendiary terms.
In the 80s, there was quite a bit of global agreement on SA, including by the US Congress. I don't see anything remotely similar with this case. If anything, more Americans are likely to come down on the Israeli side of debate (even now), which means the politicians they elect aren't incentivized to do as they did with SA in the 80s.
You have AIPAC whose sole purpose is to stop and dissenting voices regarding israel…its no wonder you support that side.
Public sentiment is included in “opinions” when I say “opinions change”. The public sentiment is changed by action the same as anything else.
Regarding the “doesn’t exist now”… no movement for change ever existed until it did. Abolition, ending Jim Crow, ending Apartheid, ending the oppression committed by Israel. I lived in one of the cities where the Woolsworth Lunch Counter sit ins happened. Should they have not done that because at the time there wasn't a congressional or public sentiment to end segregation? I think we both know the answer to that.
Again… you can’t just ignore that western states were friends with South Africa too, until they weren’t.
That is only half the story though, surely?
Congress tried and failed to pass the Act in 1985, and Republicans only agreed to a voice vote in 1986 on the expectation the Comprehensive Anti Apartheid Act would die in Committee, which unexpectedly did not happen. Then you do correctly note that Reagan vetoed the Act, and whilst there were enough votes to override it was not unanimous (Senate 78 to 21, the House by 313 to 83).
In 1989 the General Accounting Office noted that the Reagan Administration had only partially enforced the sanctions, and it was only totally enforced by George H W Bush in 1989.
I think we are in danger of misreading history quite a bit here. It has happened in the UK with the Tories too. They paint themselves as anti-apartheid and pro-socialised medicine when they simply were not at the time.
These big world-changing events and pieces of legislation are always contentious at the time, before revisionism kicks in and the opponents a few years later decide to remember that they actually supported the legislation. If we are holding out for some kind of unanimity then we might as well wait for a unicorn.
The plight of the Kurds is a horrible illustration of what happens when the world sits back and waits for history to play itself out, rather than insisting on a just solution.
That is irrelevant since there were different dynamics from the present. American Jews are deeply woven into American society, including its power structure (20 out of 100 US Senators are Jewish) and there are untold number of American Jews in leadership positions across US society (and this is before we even get to Christian Evangelicals who support Israel for religious reasons). Therefore there is no valid comparison between SA since South Africans had zero influence in American society, which allowed anti-apartheid campaigns to gain foothold in the US. That won't happen with Israel for the reasons I've just stated.
78 Senators and 313 House members is far more unanimous than anything we would see today. As for the Kurds, they are free today because the US invaded Iraq, so I'm not sure how that would apply to Israel-Palestine.
Yeah to suggest otherwise is grossly inaccurate.
CAAA veto was overridden, but the veto had to be overridden, and the Reagan administration did an awful job implementing it. worse than Bush. Look at the UN vetoes for one. There wasn’t even unanimity within the one party ffs!
Sorry - quoting you here but posting more generally.
Thatcher and Botha
Margaret Thatcher’s shameful support for apartheid
https://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-19-00-margaret-thatchers-shameful-support-for-apartheid/
How Margaret Thatcher helped end apartheid – despite herself
Former PM opposed white rule in South Africa as a sin against economic liberalism rather than a crime against humanity
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela
It is absolutely not irrelevant.
Are you going to pretend like American white supremacists didn’t dominate American politics?
I'm not a fan of AIPAC, just as I'm not one of social media hashtags. Both are unproductive towards moving the sides to the center.
If that is the standard you are looking for then we might as well not do anything.
Quite apart from the increasing polarisation of US politics, House districts are gerrymandered to hell and the Senate and its filibuster structurally support the Republican Party. There has been election after election where Democrats win the national vote once tallied and Republicans still regain federal control, not to mention the state houses which are rigged to favour the dominant party.
Peace in the Middle East by this measure therefore needs the US to sort out its electoral system. That's worse and more dysfunctional than leaving it to the UN with all its flaws.
On the Kurds - they are the biggest people not to have their own homeland. They live across not just Iraq but Turkey, Iran and Syria, and have been woefully mistreated by all those governments as well as the international community.
Waiting for the US Government to get its act together will be measured in deaths.
People who can't even see the reality in front of their eyes will never be part of any solution.
1. On Israel - there is nothing those not involved with the issue can do. That is to say, Israelis, Palestinians, the US, and to a lesser extent regional interlocutors like Egypt (who act as intermediaries between Hamas and the Israelis and US). Anyone not apart of this central group of players is powerless to affect outcomes. This is imo why the narrative has to focus on bringing sides together through diplomacy instead of promoting divisive narratives on either side.
2. Off topic, but on the Kurds, they have their own autonomous region where Kurds who live in neighboring countries can move to. There are complexities as to Kurdistan becoming a country because it would cut them off from access to Iraqi oil revenue (much of which comes from the south of Iraq). Outside Kurds would also have to weigh whether it is more beneficial to be an Iraqi citizen over being a citizen of Turkey where far more Kurds reside than in Kurdistan itself.
@Raoul
There was no unanimity on apartheid. Even in the years leading up to the liberation there was loads of political factions in the west sympathetic to to the regime. Never mind that they had many allies 1-2 decades prior.
The importance of calling the Israeli policies apartheid is to persuade people the situation is actually very similar, because they are, and that's a bad thing that needs changing.
Yes it doesn't directly improve the situation, but it may persuade people to vote for politicians who care about the issue. It's not like the entire state of Israel isn't entirely dependent on foreign support.
There was no unanimity on apartheid. Even in the years leading up to the liberation there was loads of political factions in the west sympathetic to to the regime. Never mind that they had many allies 1-2 decades prior.
The importance of calling the Israeli policies apartheid is to persuade people the situation is actually very similar, because they are, and that's a bad thing that needs changing.
Yes it doesn't directly improve the situation, but it may persuade people to vote for politicians who care about the issue. It's not like the entire state of Israel isn't entirely dependent on foreign support.
Fair points, although I would argue that these linguistic devices are more social media fodder for those interested in the topic, but powerless to do anything about it, than a realistic, tangible recipe to move the needle on the peace process.
Precisely this.
If BDS wouldn't make a difference then you wouldn't see the US enact laws that make it illegal to support BDS (no doubt supported by Israeli government lobbying), if you want a government job. The US government is breaking is own free speech laws in order to keep people from supporting BDS.
Sad but not surprising another child murdered by the only apartheid state in the world.
Very, very sadly and depressingly there are others.
But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one in which America and the EU (in the first instance) could help solve if the political will and pressure were there.
Talking about dead children doesn't help anyone as it doesn't change the political reality. If you are really interested in helping palestinians you should not promote such divisive content.
BDS wont bring those kids back, Ben and Jerrys anti semitic banning themselves from israel wont change the narrative, South Africa what do they even know about apartheid practices, isreal didnt kill that journalist the bullet was meant for a Palestinian kid silly anti semetic kid pushed Shireen in the way so blame him!
Just everyone sit back and not question anything to do with israel because unless the Palestinians are happy with being murdered imprisoned forced out of homes there wont be any solution. Oh and the world loves everything israel does and the Palestinians are the bad guys.
Am I doing the support for isreal right guys?
You guys aren’t moving the needle enough. Try harder.