re: #257 Axolotl

I don’t want to pick a fight around here but can someone please make a cogent argument about why what we are seeing is not a form of apartheid?

Before you attack me for this question some context. My wife and kids are jewish and in college. Assume you are answer this question for them because in a manner of speaking you are. (In other words, that’s how they see it)

It is not apartheid because Israel has palestinian arabs in its parliament. Israel offered the Palestinians East Jerusalem in 1947 for their capital. Palestinians responded by cutting off the water supply to West Jerusalem and spending the next 70 years attempting to drive Jews into the sea. I hope it absolutely eats up Palestinians every time they consider that they could have had a large country in 1948 with a capital in Jerusalem, prosperous countryside filled with orchards, while Israel would be a tiny little nation-state without enough room for an international airport, and that the reason why millions of Palestinians are living in camps is because they and their ancestors were mostly a bunch of religious bigots. Sorry, there’s my two cents’ worth. And yes, Israel has its religious bigots as well, but that’s hardly surprising, considering history. Territorial triumphalism kind of gets baked into everything when every conversation is about land.