Zone1 Antisemites lie about Israel being an apartheid state

[alang1216]

Israel wanted to go it alone. Netanyahu made a speech to Congress.

But Bill Clinton talked him out of it.

Israel wanted to go it alone because Netanyahu didn't want a peace treaty.

That is a fascinating historical moment that highlights the complex "power-sharing" dynamic between the U.S. and Israel. You are likely referring to the events surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu’s first term as Prime Minister in 1996 and his famous address to a joint session of Congress on July 10 of that year.

The "go it alone" sentiment you mentioned manifest in two ways: one economic and one political.

1. The Economic "Go It Alone": Ending U.S. Aid​

In his 1996 speech, Netanyahu made a bold and unprecedented proposal. He told Congress:

"I believe that we can now begin to move towards that day when Israel will no longer need your economic aid. We are going to achieve economic independence... Israel is going to stand on its own feet."

At the time, this was a shock. Netanyahu’s vision was to shift Israel from a "client state" to a free-market partner. While he wanted to "go it alone" financially, the Clinton administration and many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment were wary. They viewed economic aid not just as a gift, but as diplomatic leverage. If Israel didn't need the money, the U.S. had less "stick" to use during peace negotiations.

Ultimately, Clinton didn't "talk him out of it" entirely, but they reached a compromise: economic aid was phased out over a decade, but military aid was actually increased, ensuring the U.S. remained Israel's indispensable partner.

---

2. The Political Friction: "Who's the Superpower?"​

The "talking him out of it" part of your story likely refers to Netanyahu's attempt to "go it alone" by bypassing the Oslo Accords.

Netanyahu had been elected on a platform skeptical of the peace process. During his 1996 visit, he tried to use his speech to Congress—which was controlled by Republicans at the time—to appeal over President Clinton's head. Clinton was famously livid. After their first meeting at the White House, Clinton reportedly vented to his staff:

"Who the f* does he think he is? Who’s the f*ing superpower here?"

Clinton’s strategy from that point on was to "talk him out of" his unilateralist stance by applying intense pressure to keep the peace process alive. This culminated in the 1998 Wye River Memorandum, where Clinton essentially sequestered Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat for nine days until a deal was reached.

---

A Note on the Phrase "Go It Alone"​

It is worth noting that the specific phrase "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone" is actually a famous quote from President Lyndon B. Johnson to Israeli diplomat Abba Eban in 1967 (on the eve of the Six-Day War).

Netanyahu’s 1996 speech was, in many ways, an attempt to prove that Israel could go it alone if the U.S. pushed too hard for concessions he didn't want to make.

 

[alang1216]

Your bias against Jews s showing. Israel bent over backwards to accommodate the Islamic monsters who want them dead by vacating GAZA in 2005 - and their reward was the Oct 7 slaughter.

And your antisemitic bias is also showing by how you ignored the point of this thread - that Israel is NOT an apartheid country, while many Islamic countries are - and yet the antisemites ignore the latter to focus all their ire in the former.

You’re doing it right now. Not a word against the Islamic apartheid countries, and focused solely on smearing the “Jew country.”

It’s looking more and more like you are in the 95% who smear Israel due to antisemitism rather than then 5% who are just stupid ignoramuses,

How many Israeli Jews would you put in the 95%? Plenty of them seem critical of their government.

Again, you do Israel no favors by dismissing how the world views them.

 

[Lisa558]

How many Israeli Jews would you put in the 95%? Plenty of them seem critical of their government.

Again, you do Israel no favors by dismissing how the world views them.

And you do JEWS no favor when you continue to spread antisemitic lies from the UN against Israel while ignoring the REAL genocides and apartheid by black and Muslim countries.

That’s the difference: the double standards you apply where the Jew Country is concerned.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You may think you are a friend of Israel but you are not. Claiming any criticism of Israel is due to anti-Semitism only reinforces the world's view that Jews believe they deserve special treatment and can do what they like because of what was done to them. In the long run that will only harm Israel.

In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—the highest court of the United Nations—issued a landmark advisory opinion that fundamentally changed the legal landscape of this debate.

---

1. The ICJ Advisory Opinion (July 2024)​

The ICJ’s opinion addressed Israel's policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), which includes the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

• Breach of Anti-Apartheid Article: The Court found that Israel’s legislation and measures in the OPT create a "near-complete separation" between the settler and Palestinian communities. It concluded that these practices violate Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
• What Article 3 says: This specific article states: "States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature."
• Significance: While the Court as a whole used the term "racial segregation" in its main finding, several judges in their separate opinions explicitly stated that Israel’s policies in the West Bank meet the legal definition of apartheid.

Nobody here claims that ANY criticism of Isreal is antisemitic.

What is antisemitic is nothing BUT criticism of Israel coupled with an unrelenting pattern of lies created by those who seek to kill Jews, support for the most barbaric acts committed against them, unrelenting double standards used against them, repetition of time-honored canards and use of logical fallacies to persecute them.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to what I wrote. I never made a claim that any Muslim country was "apartheid." Your explanation of what that "can't be" makes no sense. I'll lay it all out for you so that you can see the question plainly:

1. You wrote in post 15, "Here's a hint. If a country is 90% Islamic, it's not an apartheid state if it has a powerless non-Muslim minority."

2. I asked about that statement -- whether it applies if the 90% is not Islamic but is another religion. In those cases, would it be an apartheid state?

3. You insisted that I name a country though you did not name one in your claim. I simply explained and restated the question.

As it stands this morning, you have yet to explain why you eschewed a religious label when you said that the issue was religion, and now you are refusing to answer a simple question about a statement you made.

I'm not obligated to defend a country your side won't name.

if you want to talk about a specific country, we can determine if it's actually Apartheid, or just a country with such an overwealming majority that other groups don't matter.

But you've got to name the country first.

On the other hand, Israel is CLEARLY an apartheid country, in that the Arab majority (and yes, they are the majority) is kept politically in check by various laws and contrivances.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

And you do JEWS no favor when you continue to spread antisemitic lies from the UN against Israel while ignoring the REAL genocides and apartheid by black and Muslim countries.

That’s the difference: the double standards you apply where the Jew Country is concerned.

His reference to the U.N. is a logical fallacy, namely, the appeal to authority. Jews should be hated because certain authorities say so. Instead of considering the source, he simply uses the source to pursue an agenda.

 

[JoeB131]

And you do JEWS no favor when you continue to spread antisemitic lies from the UN against Israel while ignoring the REAL genocides and apartheid by black and Muslim countries.

That’s the difference: the double standards you apply where the Jew Country is concerned.

Kind of hard to have a "Double Standard" when no other country engages in the offending behavior.

 

[Lisa558]

Nobody here claims that ANY criticism of Isreal is antisemitic.

What is antisemitic is nothing BUT criticism of Israel coupled with an unrelenting pattern of lies created by those who seek to kill Jews, support for the most barbaric acts committed against them, unrelenting double standards used against them, repetition of time-honored canards and use of logical fallacies to persecute them.

I can’t decide whether leftists like Alang are just too stupid to understand what we’re trying to tell them, or so driven by their perhaps latent antisemitism to side agaims Jews that they don’t understand what they are doing.

Just look at this thread. The topic is how there are several Islamic countries engaged in apartheid, and yet all the items directed toward Israel and LYING that they are. They even ignored the photo of the entrances for Muslims and non-Muslims you see in Islamic countries!

So what happens? The Islamic Apartheid countries continue to get a pass, and the leftists double down on the UN lies about Israel.

They are proving my point.

 

[rosends]

I'm not obligated to defend a country your side won't name.

I don't recall asking you to defend anyone.

if you want to talk about a specific country, we can determine if it's actually Apartheid, or just a country with such an overwealming majority that other groups don't matter.

Why would that "overwhelming majority" have ay impact on the claim of apartheid under the law? What percentage constitutes an "overwhelming" majority? Is it 90%? What about 89% or 83%? or 75%? Where is that standard codified?

But you've got to name the country first.

You didn't. Why should I?

On the other hand, Israel is CLEARLY an apartheid country, in that the Arab majority (and yes, they are the majority) is kept politically in check by various laws and contrivances.

Apartheid laws have nothing to do with minority and majority. It is clear you misunderstand the law and how it is applied if you make statements like this.

 

[JoeB131]

His reference to the U.N. is a logical fallacy, namely, the appeal to authority. Jews should be hated because certain authorities say so. Instead of considering the source, he simply uses the source to pursue an agenda.

No, Israel should be held accountable because the standards of an Authority are being violated.

Now, the pro-Zionists are the first ones to scream that the 1948 UN proclamation of a Jewish State justifies the existence of Israel. (I'm going to be nice today and not say, "Zionist Entity".)

But you want to ignore dozens of UN resolutions condemning Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

 

[JoeB131]

Apartheid laws have nothing to do with minority and majority. It is clear you misunderstand the law and how it is applied if you make statements like this.

I understand what's going on, and you probably do as well, you just don't want to admit it.

 

[rosends]

I understand what's going on, and you probably do as well, you just don't want to admit it.

you have avoided answering direct questions, have made claims which indicate a lack of knowledge of the region and of the laws, and then you move on, not defending what you wrote.

I think it is pretty clear what is going on here

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Israel wanted to go it alone because Netanyahu didn't want a peace treaty.

That is a fascinating historical moment that highlights the complex "power-sharing" dynamic between the U.S. and Israel. You are likely referring to the events surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu’s first term as Prime Minister in 1996 and his famous address to a joint session of Congress on July 10 of that year.

The "go it alone" sentiment you mentioned manifest in two ways: one economic and one political.

1. The Economic "Go It Alone": Ending U.S. Aid​

In his 1996 speech, Netanyahu made a bold and unprecedented proposal. He told Congress:


At the time, this was a shock. Netanyahu’s vision was to shift Israel from a "client state" to a free-market partner. While he wanted to "go it alone" financially, the Clinton administration and many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment were wary. They viewed economic aid not just as a gift, but as diplomatic leverage. If Israel didn't need the money, the U.S. had less "stick" to use during peace negotiations.

Ultimately, Clinton didn't "talk him out of it" entirely, but they reached a compromise: economic aid was phased out over a decade, but military aid was actually increased, ensuring the U.S. remained Israel's indispensable partner.

---

2. The Political Friction: "Who's the Superpower?"​

The "talking him out of it" part of your story likely refers to Netanyahu's attempt to "go it alone" by bypassing the Oslo Accords.

Netanyahu had been elected on a platform skeptical of the peace process. During his 1996 visit, he tried to use his speech to Congress—which was controlled by Republicans at the time—to appeal over President Clinton's head. Clinton was famously livid. After their first meeting at the White House, Clinton reportedly vented to his staff:


Clinton’s strategy from that point on was to "talk him out of" his unilateralist stance by applying intense pressure to keep the peace process alive. This culminated in the 1998 Wye River Memorandum, where Clinton essentially sequestered Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat for nine days until a deal was reached.

---

A Note on the Phrase "Go It Alone"​

It is worth noting that the specific phrase "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone" is actually a famous quote from President Lyndon B. Johnson to Israeli diplomat Abba Eban in 1967 (on the eve of the Six-Day War).

Netanyahu’s 1996 speech was, in many ways, an attempt to prove that Israel could go it alone if the U.S. pushed too hard for concessions he didn't want to make.

Twist it any way you like to suit your narrative.

 

[JoeB131]

I can’t decide whether leftists like Alang are just too stupid to understand what we’re trying to tell them, or so driven by their perhaps latent antisemitism to side agaims Jews that they don’t understand what they are doing.

Just look at this thread. The topic is how there are several Islamic countries engaged in apartheid, and yet all the items directed toward Israel and LYING that they are.

So what happens? The Islamic Apartheid countries continue to get a pass, and the leftists double down on the UN lies about Israel.

They are proving my point.

Except you haven't named these supposed Islamic Apartheid Countries, or what makes them "Apartheid", exactly.

Most of the middle east is non-democratic. But that has more to do with the West propping up corrupt monarchies and dictatorships than the will of the people.

Take Egypt. The one time they had an election, they elected the most radical Islamist they could find. He was immediately overthrown by the military with the collusion of the US and murdered in prison.

 

[Lisa558]

you have avoided answering direct questions, have made claims which indicate a lack of knowledge of the region and of the laws, and then you move on, not defending what you wrote.

I think it is pretty clear what is going on here

I’m keeping him on ignore, but I’m sure he’s derailing my thread about Islamic countries committing apartheid to keep lying about Israel, which is not.

In Israel, Muslims are 20% of the citizenry, and vote, hold office, etc.

In Islamic countries, Jews (along with anyone who has not submitted to Islam and Allah) are separated out:

 

[Lisa558]

Twist it any way you like to suit your narrative.

His narrative is to figure out how to justify his bias against Jews, which is apparent in this thread.

 

[Thethingsz]

Much like they do with the “genocide” lie, antisemites accuse Israel of being an apartheid state while ignoring the non-Jewish countries that are. This falsehood is driven both by blatant Jew-hate as well as the desire to advance it.

THIS is what an apartheid state does:
View attachment 1198722

All the buzzwords lost their meaning since the israelophobes abused them.

Here is a concise piece dismantling all these words:

'Antizionism = Hate'.
Grant Arthur Gochin, Dec 25, 2025.

The Blogs: Antizionism = Hate

From the blog of Grant Arthur Gochin at The Times of Israel

blogs.timesofisrael.com

Excerpt:

1. The Apartheid Lie

Israel is routinely labeled an “apartheid state,” yet apartheid requires a system differentiating rights by race. Israel’s laws distinguish by citizenship, as in any nation-state. Over two million Arab citizens—20% of the population—enjoy full rights, voting power, and Knesset representation. An Arab Supreme Court justice, George Karra, even convicted and imprisoned a former Jewish President, a feat impossible under true apartheid. Security measures in Judea and Samaria stem from citizenship and threat assessments; an Israeli Arab passes checkpoints freely while non-citizens do not.

Bigots who peddle this lie should be mandated to define exactly what they see as apartheid and how it differs from standard nation-state laws—and why they fail to apply that same standard to their own countries. Their failure to do so reveals that this is not a legal critique, but a targeted attack echoing historical libels that isolated Jews as “other” to justify exclusion.

1. The Genocide Lie

Claims of genocide assert systematic extermination. By definition, this demands intent and population decline. In reality, Palestinian numbers have surged from ~1.4 million in 1948 to over 15.2 million globally by mid-2025, with approximately 5.61 million residing in the West Bank and Gaza. A 1000% increase over 77 years contradicts any accusation of efficient extermination. These narratives cheapen real atrocities like the Holocaust, reviving the age-old trope of Jews as bloodthirsty killers, now projected onto their state.

 

[Lisa558]

All the buzzwords lost their meaning since the israelophones abused them.

Welcome to the message board. You are a much-needed addition. The place is swarming with antisemites claiming their double standards, demonization, and delegitimization of Israel (the 3 Ds of antisemitism) has nothing to do with being antisemitic.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No, Israel should be held accountable because the standards of an Authority are being violated.

Now, the pro-Zionists are the first ones to scream that the 1948 UN proclamation of a Jewish State justifies the existence of Israel. (I'm going to be nice today and not say, "Zionist Entity".)

But you want to ignore dozens of UN resolutions condemning Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Funny how this "authority" fails to address the systematic apartheid in Muslim countries.

 

[Lisa558]

Funny how this "authority" fails to address the systematic apartheid in Muslim countries.

No way to blame Da Joos, so they skip over it. (Added to the fact that leftists are reluctant to criticize Islamists, no matter how awful.)