[SauciestGNU]

I've got a question for you. When you say that Israeli Arabs are represented and citizens, why do you ignore the residents of Gaza and the West Bank, who are subject to Israeli military rule and/or blockade and have no representation in the government.

Palestinians have been made stateless by Israel, but if they are functionally subject to Israeli apartheid and martial law within their "own borders" then sovereignty is a fiction is it not?

[edanm]

I can't vote in the United States. Does that make the United States and apartheid regime? Of course not, I'm not a US citizen.

The Palestinians who stayed in Israel became Israeli citizens, and have all the same rights as other Israelis. The Palestinians who fled Israel (by choice or force), did not become citizens. They were refugees for 20 years before Israel had control over them (and in that time were not granted citizenship in any other neighboring country, nor were they given the option to create their own state by the then-occupiers of that land).

The situation in the West Bank is indeed complicated, but the agreed-upon-by-all-sides solution is that it will eventually become a separate state (the two state solution). So it doesn't make much sense to wonder why they don't get voting rights in Israel - they are not citizens, and the agreed-upon path is for them to have their own state, not become citizens.

In Gaza the situation is much simpler - Israel doesn't occupy it anymore (or didn't before October 7th, no idea what will happen now).

You throw in the word blockade as if that's the same thing as Israeli control over Gaza, but it's not. The blockade was a legitimate response to Hamas carrying out attacks on Israel. Sovereign nations likewise sanction and/or blockade other countries for these kinds of attacks.

Does the US have control over Iran because of the sanctions it imposes? Is Iran not free?

[Qem]

> I can't vote in the United States. Does that make the United States and apartheid regime? Of course not, I'm not a US citizen.

The attempts to characterize Palestinians as foreigners to deny apartheid are appalling. By that logic, South Africa could have solved apartheid by declaring itself a whites-only country, changing constitution, so every black person could be labeled "foreigner", even if belonging to families born and living in the land for generations.

The only acceptable way to solve apartheid is by ending it, not fixing the dictionary to change the meaning of words like foreigner.

[edanm]

But that's a completely different situation! Palestinian were never citizens of Israel. For the first twenty years of Israel's existence, they were refugees militarily controlled by other countries. So they are foreigners.

You might think the founding of Israel was itself an injustice, that there was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, etc. Those are valid views (and I think they do have some merit, though less than most people think).

But you can't say that there is no difference between Palestinians that stayed during the founding of Israel and were granted citizenship, and between the Palestinians who fled to neighboring countries that proceeded to attack Israel hoping to get all the land, and then lost the war and the land.

[Qem]

A lot of people sought refuge in neighboring countries after the Ukraine invasion, for the duration of the war. At this point a Russian victory seems likely. Can you fathom those Ukrainians being denied entry in the country after the war, because now they are foreigners? Worse, do you think it would be legitimate for them be labeled "foreigners" while even still living inside Ukraine?

[taeric]

This is complicated by the fact that every other refugee situation is handled by an organization that is explicitly rehoming them. At the absolute least, their children will be citizens of the nations they have been moved to. This is in stark contrast to the situation we are talking about, where people can literally be adopted into the refugee status.

Edit: I would also be surprised if Russia does let previous citizens back in to claim any property they had. Do we have reason to think they will?

[edanm]

That's a different situation. They are Ukrainian citizens. There were no Palestinian citizens before because there was no state there, neither Israel nor Palestine.

[Qem]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartography_of_Palestine#/me...

There was land there, they and their ancestors inhabited it for countless generations before present, so they must be considered legitimate citizens, regardless of the names it had back then or today. There was no modern countries in Americas before Europeans arrived, yet we don't call amerindians foreigners because of that.

[wahnfrieden]

States are not necessary for populations to exist or thrive. Politically homogenous states united under a defined hierarchy is a new phenomenon; and much newer than the discovery of agriculture.

[hbt]

The US doesn't control the food intake, the water intake, fuel, electricity, internet and the flow of any goods/people entering/exiting Iran.

Comparing the Gaza blockade to other blockades is ridiculous.