The Zionist movement to settle isreal was openly colonialist - many banks and organizations even had 'colonial' in their name before this became unsavory.
In other threads about isreal, you'll see commentors mentioning 'vigour and a sense of pride' this is nationalist pride around a shared identity.
In general, we are pretty (rightly) critical of nationalist colonial regimes. Here we see one that is still in the later stages of colonization and the effects on their subjugated 'others' is hardly surprising.
One wonders then if Rafael Reif, who forbade any pro-Palestinian activism that was deemed too "anti-Israel" as one of his first policies after he became the 17th president of MIT, is now proud of this state of affairs.
The larger problem here of course involves what this rabbi wrote about after it was revealed that Mr. Reif had sent a personally signed thank-you note to a fellow by the name of Jeffrey Epstein:
Thankfully this article lives on in the wayback machine, because it reminds us that the issue here is more than just about their treatment of fellow Palestinians.
The thing is they are all administered by one entity and as one unified whole, Israel, now today a "greater Israel".
It is particularly important for comments to remain thoughtful when a topic is a divisive one. That's in the site guidelines too:
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
> ... both inside the 1967 lines and beyond them, ...
If he would have said Palestinian against "Israelis" then it might be worth to discuss...
Arab-Israelies as they are called, vote and are chosen to the Parliament (Knesset) and have the EXACT same right as any other Jew.
Practical discussion should be aware to not use any hyperboles.
"All Jewish citizens get to vote (and all Jews can become citizens), but less than a quarter of the Palestinians under Israel’s rule have citizenship and can thus vote. "
> 2,747,943 (Including other races?)
We can see that at least 28% Arabs are citizens of Israel (not<25%). Since they live in "official" Israel.
All the others don't since they don't live in Israel. How is it a JEW related problem?
How did your sentence change the problem I suggested.
How does the word JEW make any of it practical?
I understand it will not convince you either, but I hope you will read it.
A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the River to the Sea: This is Apartheid
> Israel accords Palestinians a different package of rights in every one of these units – all of which are inferior compared to the rights afforded to Jewish citizens. The goal of Jewish supremacy is advanced differently in every unit, and the resulting forms of injustice differ: the lived experience of Palestinians in blockaded Gaza is unlike that of Palestinian subjects in the West Bank, permanent residents in East Jerusalem or Palestinian citizens within sovereign Israeli territory. Yet these are variations on the fact that all Palestinians living under Israeli rule are treated as inferior in rights and status to Jews who live in the very same area.
> Detailed below are four major methods the Israeli regime uses to advance Jewish supremacy. Two are implemented similarly throughout the entire area: restricting migration by non-Jews and taking over Palestinian land to build Jewish-only communities, while relegating Palestinians to small enclaves. The other two are implemented primarily in the Occupied Territories: draconian restrictions on the movement of non-citizen Palestinians and denial of their political rights. Control over these aspects of life lies entirely in Israel’s hands: in the entire area, Israel has sole power over the population registry, land allocation, voter rolls and the right (or denial thereof) to travel within, enter or exit any part of the area.
> Yet these are variations on the fact that all Palestinians living under Israeli rule are treated as inferior in rights and status to Jews who live in the very same area.
Which again is a simple LIE since Palestinian citizens within sovereign Israeli territory have the EXACT same rights.
Want to talk how the past influence the present and so they might have less opportunities due to some discriminations in the past? Sure. Saying that TODAY they are "inferior in rights" is just a LIE.
That is why B'tselem's post is an OPNION and not a peer reviewed article.
The biggest proof of it all is how none of the European sanction Israel. If it so obvious that it such a one sided power dynamic, then France, Britain and Germany would act on it a long time ago. But they don't. Since it is not.
You might think that "I am resisting the truth", but I'm just a spoiler to everywhere outside the Internet sphere. No one really think Israel is an apartheid state (majority). And using hyperbolae will not convince anyone. I really don't care what happen a long as peace is achieved but this is not the way.