If Israel under Likud rule isn't apartheid, what is?

You as an anti-Zionist insist that the occupation is "Apartheid" since Arabs of the West bank and Gaza cannot vote and cannot work in Israel, and they are separated by an "Apartheid Wall" (the security fence) from Israel. It is very hard to claim that this separation is racist, considering that the Arabs on the Israeli side of the border can vote, work and own land and generally have all the attributes of citizenship. Occupation always treats occupied persons different from citizens. Japanese and Germans could not vote in US or British or French elections during the allied occupation of Germany, nor could they work in those countries. Israel did allow Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza to work in Israel for many years, raising the standard of living of those areas approximately 8 fold until 1992. However, the increase in terror activity made it unsafe to allow Palestinians into Israel in large numbers. The security fence was not constructed as a means of racial segregation, but as a way of keeping controlling the terror and keeping suicide bombers out of Israel proper.

Too simplistic explanation for a complex problem. The important question is if Palestinians are ready to affirm their allegiance to the Land of Israel. If they do, Israel can surely come out with open hands to embrace them. In fact they were offered everything that you say, way back in 1948, but they under the influence of other neighboring states rebelled against the very idea of Israel. They are responsible for the condition they are in and they have to come out to improve the conditions.

Israel under Likud is not apartheid. Neither is New York under Patterson. It is difficult for me to believe that your question was not asked as a joke. In case you are serious, apartheid would be treating the Arabs there in a discriminatory manner. The Arabs get all the benefits of living in Israel (Israel taught the Arabs about keeping sanitary, about building hospitals and roads and schools and clean water). Israel provides the Arabs with medicine, water, electricity, food, building materials, etc. Was it apartheid when Abraham Lincoln would not let states secede and forbade slavery? (By the way, slavery is actually still permitted in Arab society. Israel is also teaching the other countries in the mid-east to eliminate slavery from their countries.)

You seem not to have the vaguest idea of what apartheid was. For that reason, you really should withdraw the question. Israel was a consistent opponent of apartheid (which is what makes it preposterous to accuse Israel of this very crime). Israel had some trade with South Africa, but it also had trade with the free nations of the world. Former president Jimmy Carter is a paid propagandist for the Arabs. Carter has now come out with a new bestselling book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." It's not clear what he means by using the loaded word "apartheid," since the book makes no attempt to explain it, but the only reasonable interpretation is that Carter is comparing Israel to the former white racist government of South Africa. That is a foolish and unfair comparison, unworthy of the man who won -- and perhaps deserved -- the Nobel peace prize for bringing Israel and Egypt together in the Camp David Accords, and who has lent such luster to the imaginary office of former president. What's the parallel? Apartheid had a philosophical component and a practical one, both quite bizarre. Philosophically, it was committed to the notion of racial superiority. The official philosophy of the Israel government is quite the opposite, and sincere efforts are made to, for example, instill humanitarian and egalitarian attitudes in children. That is not true, of course, in Arab countries, where hatred of Jews is a standard part of the curriculum. The practical component of apartheid involved the creation of phony nations called "Bantustans." Black South Africans would be stripped of their citizenship and assigned to far-away Bantustans where often they had never before set foot. The goal was a racially pure white South Africa, though the contradiction with the need for black labor was never resolved. Here might be a parallel with Israel, which needs the labor of the Arabs it is currently trying to keep out. But in other ways, the implied comparison is backward. To start, no one has yet thought to accuse Israel of creating a phony country in finally acquiescing to the creation of a Palestinian state. Palestine is no Bantustan. Or, if it is, it is the creation of Arabs, not Jews. Furthermore, Israel has always had Arab citizens. They are Arabs who were living in what became Israel prior to 1948 and who didn't leave. No doubt they suffer discrimination. Nevertheless, they are citizens with the right to vote and so on. There used to be Jews living in Arab nations, but they also fled in 1948 and subsequent years - in numbers roughly equivalent to the Arabs who fled Israel. Now there are virtually no Jews in Arab countries - even in a moderate Arab country like Jordan. How many Jews do you think there will be in the new sovereign state of Palestine? And the most tragic difference: apartheid ended peacefully. This is largely thanks to Nelson Mandela, who turned out to be miraculously forgiving. If Israel is white South Africa and the Palestinians are supposed to be the black population, where is their Mandela? And the answer to your question is, in one word, nonsense! .

ITS FULL ON APARTHEID, worse then South Africa, because the Israelis use violence against civilians daily. They kill children throwing stones. And the jews wonder why the arabs dont like them, after taking their land, occupying their land illegally and killing their people- and USA funds ISRAEL WE HAVE TO STOP> ITS A BAD NATION. it make the USA look bad.

A rock and a hard place.

So what. Israel is a Jewish state. That means something. The Arabs and Muslims are invaders and can go back to THEIR historic homelands. You are very ignorant of the history of the land. Why don't you try to move to Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria et. al. and live as you want. It would take you doing that for you to actually learn something. The Land Of Israel, from Dan in the north to Eliat in the south is the land of the Jewish people by Divine Right. Arabs and Muslims believe in "their" Divine Right until they have a Holy War and lose. Then they don't mention that every single one of them believed their god was with then and fighting for them. Disguising antisemitism as moral indignity or compassion is so old fashioned it's boring. Hate someone for a change. You might like it. Daniel Joab Abraham

the south african minority rule government, which didn't allow blacks any rights was apartheid. in israel, jews are the majority, and minorities like arabs have full civil rights, including voting rights. they're completely different. they have nothing in common. and no, the west bank is not part of israel. likkud favors self-rule for palestinians, if not a state for them. they can move freely throughout the fatah controlled parts of the west bank. that is their country, not israel.

ITS APARTHEID. and USA should stop financial aid to a country that prieveleges one ethnic/ religious group. At best israel is a theocracy. most jews/ zionists will scream ' you're an anti-semite' so as people cannot discuss the problems and crimes that the jewish state is committing freely, but it should not be taboo to investigate the crimes of anyone.