Over the first four days of Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange, Israel arrests 133 Palestinians while releasing 150.
…
But the worry for Palestinian prisoners does not end after their release. The majority of those freed are usually rearrested by Israeli forces in the days, weeks, months and years after their release.
Dozens of those who were arrested in a 2011 Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange were rearrested and had their sentences reinstated.
…
Many of the women and children released during the truce have testified to the abuse they experienced in Israeli prisons.
Several videos have also emerged in recent weeks of Israeli soldiers beating, stepping on, abusing and humiliating detained Palestinians who have been blindfolded, cuffed and stripped either partially or entirely. Many social media users said the scenes brought back memories of the torture tactics used by United States forces in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in 2003.
The people arrested will have been charged, right?
Thousands are under “administrative detention” which is imprisoned without charge.
That just sounds like hostages with extra steps.
Oh it’s okay, these people aren’t from Gaza. So they’re not related to the conflict going on.
This is just what day-to-day life for Palestinians is like under Israeli occupation. This stuff has been happening for decades.
No, no, no.
Just like there can’t be such a thing as State Terrorism “because it’s legal so can’t be terrorism”, there can’t be State Hostage-taking “because it’s legal”!
/s
The term I’ve heard for this the establishment equivalent of a terrorist: a “horrorist” (best link I could find here (2007) about Israel/Palestine conflict, America’s “War on Terror,” etc).
Basically what they do is legal, and according to plan, and somehow more respectable and orderly than what the terrorists do, but still the outcome is human suffering, often on a much grander scale than what any terrorist could hope for. For instance the accidental bombing of a school (oops!), or in the use of white phosphorous (which turns the divine human into a lump of abject suffering).
“Horrorists” can make you quake with fear, but unlike the terrorist, they have the legitimacy of a democratic state, and powerful allies to back their actions.
The term I heard for this is “state terrorism”.
The actions speak for themselves and how established or not the power of the actors doing the deed is, has no relevance for the moral quality of such actions.
Using different language is a trap put in place by those in established power - it segregates what morally are the same kind of acts into two groups, by how established the power of those doing the deeds are, and the acts of the well established power are relentlessly portrayed using those special separate designations as if they had a morally different character - ann acceptable one - than the exact same acts when committed by those outside established power structures.
This is why, say, when an Israeli soldier shoots on the head a child throwing stones at an armored digger, it’s not designated in the media as “murder” or even “terrorism” even though from a strict “taking no sides” judicial point of view it is definitelly the former and depending on intention might very well be the latter.
So yeah, murder for the purpose of scaring the rest is terrorism, no matter if those doing the deeds are part of a well established power structure, called “soldiers” and using 500lb bombs dropped from military planes that cost many millions of dollars or part of a group which is not a well established power structure, called “rebels” and using knifes - the means and how well entrenched the power structure behind the acts is are both irrelevant for the dtermining the moral quality of that deed.
I agree, but I do feel like the harm committed by “state terrorism” is worse, in a way I find hard to articulate. It’s true that using a separate word can be a useless distinction, but it does feel different to me in an important way.
But I’m not the kind of person who needs convincing that the state can sin just as well as the individual, so maybe my perspective isn’t applicable.
oh yes you can… However when you are sentenced for stabbing two people literally like at least one of the prisonner freed you are not, in fact an hostage
That explains 1 in 5200.
Only 5199 to go to explain it all away: so go on, don’t be shy.
I would love to hear how you explain the ones in administrative detention (guilty of the crime of “walking whilst being Arab”?!)
And don’t get me started on all the kids convicted of “assauting with stones an armored digger razing their home” and the palestinians convicted of “hurting ‘colonist’ fists with their faces” or “defending their homes from a superior race”.
you must really believe in 13/50 eh? or does racism stop being a factor when you do enough of it?
Just learning from the US.
thing is when HAMAS gives it prisonners list, it is, strangely, more the “I stabbed schoolchildren” than “I tagged anti zionist slurs on the police station wall” crowd that is requested to be free
What that other person said, but also being charged under Israeli law doesn’t prove much about a Palestinian’s innocence or guiltiness. The word Apartheid is an understatement of what’s going on in Palestine.
Being charged never says anything about anyone’s guilt or innocence, anywhere.
yes mainly because they aren’t recognized as citizen of Israel
And even when they are, they are not good enough.
Do not downplay the term Apartheid like this. The conflict between Israel and Palestine and the clear mistreatment of civilians is bad enough without lying. About 1,6 million Palestinians are Israeli citizens, they number about 20% of the total population and live and work anywhere and anything in Israel without segregation. Some thousands of them volunteered for the Israeli army and are fighting against Hamas. None of that would be possible in an Apartheid state.
War is bad enough; there is no need to label everything with misused terms like „Apartheid“, „holocaust“, „genocide“.
Israeal literally has separate citizenships for arabs - specific an Israeli Arab Citizenship - and for jews - who have an Israeli Jew Citizenship - and in that country rights which in any other country in the world would be associated with nationality (i.e. Israeli) are in fact associated with citizenship and they’re different for Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews, with the former having less rights.
In fact one of the limitations that Israeli Arab citizens have which Israeli Jew citizens do not is that they can be blocked from living in certain places and also they can be kicked out of their homes much more easilly (which is being used to kick them out of their homes in Old Jerusalem) so they most definitelly do not “live anywhere in Israel”.
It is not just de facto Appartheid, it’s de jure (by Law) Apparheid and a pretty extreme one at that.
what they do have though is different obligation… notoriously regarding military service
It must be hard to have carte blanche to kill palestinian kids and get a medal for it, or avoiding it with a “religious exception” like the ultra-orthodox, rarther than suffering the consequences that principled Israeli Jews who are refuseniks suffer…
What the fuck nonsense are you spreading?
There is no separate Arab Citizenship. The only thing I can think of is that there are certain villages that have in their charter that they can reject someone who wants to purchase a home there - but this is literally only legal for villages that have fewer than 700 houses (used to be 400 until 2023).
If they’re not Israeli citizens then obviously they won’t get the same rights - they aren’t citizens. There are around 2 million Israeli Arabs who have full citizenship and not whatever bullshit you’re slinging here.
You aren’t aware of the Israeli Land Administration owning 93% of the land in Israel and actively preventing homes on that land from being sold to non-Jewish peoples?
It’s a long-term and well-known fact: https://www.haaretz.com/2009-07-21/ty-article/most-arabs-cant-buy-most-homes-in-west-jerusalem/0000017f-e0a3-d75c-a7ff-fcafbc6b0000
Did you read that article?
The article also says they can freely rent apartments wherever they want (as noncitizen residents), and that the law isn’t widely applied meaning that if they did go to purchase it would likely just happen anyways. So for that population of 360k or so people life is more complicated by not being Israeli citizens yet living inside Israel but it’s a far stretch from what you’re claiming.
They have less rights by law its unquestionably apartied.
when you are not a french citizen, you indeed have less right in France than a french. The problem is the definition of Israel’s border is really blurry
You’re not listening, Israel also classifies people based on religion and again there are nationalistically Palestinians in Israel. They’re forced to have citizenship but that doesn’t mean they identify as isreali.
It’s not at all blurry, they’ve been defined by multiple nations and the UN itself.
…because the Zionist Jew-Nazis of Israel have absolutely zero respect for any defined borders. They’ve defied the ones set up in 1938, 1947, and again in the 60s when the UN stepped in again. You can look at the progression maps over time, that 100% is the Jew-Nazis violating repeatedly the treaties set.
No they don’t. Israeli Arabs are full citizens.
Palestinians aren’t Israeli, which is the core of why this argument devalues the concept of apartheid.
No one said they weren’t, I said they have fewer rights because it’s an ethnostate.
There are Palestinian isrealis dumb dumb, as I’ve said before do research before you comment.
… So palestine doesn’t exist/shouldn’t exist as a free state. No Israel is not an ethnostate because Israeli isn’t an ethnicity but a nationality made from ethnicity of all over the world including arabs. Palestinian is also a nationality.
You see an ethnostate generally don’t have more than four current language in use
Are you really gonna triple post the same shitty argument scb?
It’s literally not an ethnostate if there are people of different cultures and ethnicities with full citizenship.
There are Israelis of Palestinian origin. However, policies against the different nation of Palestine aren’t apartheid. They’re often bad policies, but apartheid doesn’t mean “dumb shit policy.”
Full citizens with less rights. That’s like saying Jim Crow America was fine because African Americans were full citizens.
No it isn’t. At most, it’s like saying Jim Crow America wasn’t apartheid. It wasn’t. It was just shitty. For one thing, apartheid is explicitly minoritarian.
What “fewer rights” do they have? How is the power structured?
See the reason I ask is that Arab Israelis have almost exactly proportional representation in Israel’s government, which is not how apartheid works at all.
Bro. Just stop. You’re ackshually-ing all over everyone’s face.
You’re being pedantic. They are second class citizens of the State of Israel. They are rounded up and put into open -air prisons, and they do not enjoy the same rights as Ashkenazi Israelis. Israel is an apartheid state.
This is not accurate.
Gaza is not an “open air prison.” That is figurative language, to describe the awful conditions in Gaza.
It is not a literal prison. No Israeli citizen is “rounded up and sent to Gaza.”
Ok fair, it’s a concentration camp.
In my experience most people who say it’s not an apartheid haven’t really studied the history of Apartheid South Africa.
There are many features that resemble it, such as the tiered rights system, shifting people into designated areas with a system of checkpoints and barriers, creating resource scarcity, etc.
Even the rhetoric about God giving the land to the ruling ethnic group (who in both cases had ancestors subjected to concentration camps) is a similar narrative.
It’s no coincidence that present-day South Africa has been one of the loudest voices calling for UN intervention in Gaza.
You think you’re defending Israel but you’re actually doing a much worse service to it. If Israel is guilty of apartheid, which I think it is, it has a clear path to redemption. If however the Israeli crimes are sui generis, then we end up with a whole new class of crime against humanity called “the crime Israel is doing to the Palestinians”, for which the international order has no precedent for how to redeem. And that’s a huge danger for Israel because it opens up the space of possible reactions, much much more widely than apartheid.
The crime Israel is doing to Palestinians (I’ve seen Nakba suggested as a name, so I’ll use it for brevity) extends beyond Apartheid. The Nakba’s intent is to take apart Palestinians’ ability to exist as a political collective by dividing them and implementing varying levels of Apartheid and violence against them, up to and including genocide. This goes beyond South African Apartheid, whose goal was for black people to serve white people. The Nakba is meant to destroy Palestinians as an entity capable of having political will. This is why they’re currently divided into Israeli citizens, East Jerusalemites, Gazans and West Bankers, with the goal of eventually ethnically cleansing the latter two (along with East Jerusalemites on a larger timescale).
The Nakba includes Apartheid as one of its components, but it’s not Apartheid.
I just imagine a world where Arabs didn’t try to kill jews moving to the region in the lead up to WWII. I wonder if that would have changed anything in terms of now.
So the thing is: While the treatment of Palestinians in Israel proper does also constitute an Apartheid according to several organizations, I’m talking about the West Bank and Gaza here. Israel simply split Palestinians into different groups and subjects them to different levels of Apartheid. Palestinian Israelis are simply the people who were allowed oh so graciously by Israel to get the least bad level.
Also, your use of “mistreatment” is a massive understatement. Many people in high government positions in Israel want to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
See: https://thewire.in/world/israeli-government-population-transfer-gaza-strip
Do not downplay what Israel does by pretending it’s better than South African Apartheid.
Yeah, to use the term apartheid is not accurate to explain the atrocity. Don’t overplay ‘apartheid’, it’s not the accurate term. We need a stronger term here; could be zionistheid or Israelitheid.
I’ve heard the term “Nakba” suggested as a name for the brand new crime against humanity Israel created.
yeah. but the term haven’t got much traction outside of the Arabic-speaking populations.
it also, if I recall well specifically refer to an historical event aka the 1948 expulsion and often subsequent slaughters
Yeah. That’s what I got to know and realize how ignorant I’ve been, learning tha the atrocity was a well executed plan, formulated since more than125 years ago, and the Arabs never knew what was coming.
Anyway thanks to the British, the unsung culprit who taught and set the examples for the Israeli in their coming genocide. I used to think how cruel it is for the Israeli to demolish entire houses of any Palestian suspects or those they found to be guilty. Then. I learned that during the 1936-39 Arab Palestinian revolt, the British would demolish any Arabs’ houseswhere they could find even just one bullet, rendering them to be insurgents. The British severe campaign shut the revolt to the core and left the Arabs incapable of defending themselves in 1948. And the Arabs have suffered time and time again until now. Again, thank to the British.
or you have pogrom, or ethnic cleansing which is what it is
Not really. Ethnic cleansing (or in less flattering terms genocide) is the ultimate goal of the Nakba, but the current state of Palestinians can’t really be summed up as ethnic cleansing. Basically the Nakba isn’t just what happened in 1949, but also the state Israel forces the Palestinian people to exist in to this day.
yep, they’ve been before being exchanged