You are aware that Israel withdrew from all the settlements in Gaza about a decade ago.  There are currently no Israeli settlements in Gaza.  This has not done anything to change Hamas' policies.  I don't agree with the settlements in the West Bank, but to claim that settlements are the cause of the conflict is simply false.  

Israel is a terrorist state how in the hell do they get away with everything they do. Google USS liberty and many others there a diagrace

 The left didn't care about illegal immigrant children being separated from their parents while obama was in office and alot of those pics being used by the media of kids in dog cages were taken then. The left didn't care until it was a convenient political club to hit Trump with. Feigning empathy for political points is lefty. 😂 

Its the direction thats most important. Saudi Arabia just gave women the right to drive cars, of course there are countles other things that they should also change, but at least they are changing for the better not for worse, which seems to be the case with Israel. Also Israel is often kind of paired with western countries and with that, one might expect more from Israel than from for example Iran. Turkey has now been also heavily critiqued for its actions that have taken it to the wrong direction, same goes for Poland and Russia. The fact that many seem to blindly defend Israel seemingly just because its the holy Jewish nation that god promised to jews or something, makes the opposition more aggrevated.

If you actually look at when violence has broken out between Jews and Arabs in the small strip of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and what set off those rounds of violence, it becomes clear that land and settlements is not the issue. The 1929 attacks on Jews, including the massacre of the ancient Jewish community of Hebron, was precipitated by a false claim that Jews were attempting to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque - the 'proof' being that Jews were setting up benches by the Western Wall. The Second Intifada, while pre-planned, used Ariel Sharon's pre-arranged visit to the Temple Mount as an excuse. The so-called knife-intifada of 2015 was caused by the Palestinian Authority's condemnation of the growing number of Jews visiting the Temple Mount. Abbas' exact words: "“Al-Aksa is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet. We won’t allow them to do so and we will do whatever we can to defend Jerusalem." Last year Israel installed metal detectors at the entrances to the Temple Mount after terrorists smuggled guns into the compound and used them to kill 2 Druze policemen. The PA and Arab religious leaders used the metal detectors to forment more violence, riots, and murder until the metal detectors were removed. Trump recognizes part of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel while going out of his way to leave the door open for part of Jerusalem to become the capital of Palestine, and the PA and Hamas forment riots. Jews walk on the Temple Mount, and Arab media says that 'radical settlers storm Al Aqsa Mosque' even though not one Jew set foot in the Mosque. A Jew dares to say 'The Lord is my Shepard I shall not want" on the Temple Mount and Arab media accuse 'radical settlers' of carrying out nefarious "Talmudic rituals" - and the Jew is likely to be arrested just for reciting a single verse from a Psalm.

Settlements don't cause such violence. No building announcement ever set off mass riots and terror attacks the way Jews attempting to pray at the holiest site in Judiasm or asserting their rights does. There is a fundamental issue in which Jews are seen as inferior to Muslims and to Christians, and therefore when they assert that they have rights beyond what is granted to Dhimmis, such as the right to pray on the Temple Mount or at the Western Wall, for instance, that is an affront that must be corrected. It's closer to the violent reaction many southern racists had to African Americans asserting that they had the right to sit at the front of the bus or eat in the same restaurants as white people than it is a fight against oppression or loss of land other than the shame of it being the lowly Jews who control land which Muslims controlled for over 1,000 years. If it was a major European power or the US or Russia it would be one thing, but for the Jews to build their own state in the Middle East is an affront to the natural order in which Jews are at the bottom and that must be corrected.

This pretty much demonstrates the point.  Saudi Arabia is without a doubt an apartheid state.  If you are not a muslim, or rather not the right kind of muslim, your rights are severely restricted, you are typically unable to participate in in politics, if you are Jewish you cannot even enter the country, etc.  The fact that they have made one concession to human rights does not change this fact.  

Calling Israel the new face of apartheid is laughable when you compare the rights of Arabs in Israel (who face some discrimination but enjoy most of the benefits of citizenship) to non-muslims in the Middle East (in most countries they have practically no rights).  In terms of human rights violations, Israel represents a very small part of the problem.  A part worth noting, but a small part.  They somehow draw the majority of international condemnation.  

Face palm :P You completely missed my point.

Regarding to civil rights, equality and such, with what countries would you group Israel with? And in your opinion, is Israel going to the right direction?

It's the ying/yang effect. When a country is dealt such a blow, it must carry out the same resentment eventually. I'm all for world peace and love the average jew, but you can't say anything these days without being labelled anti semitic.

I didn't miss your point... I just didn't think it was a good point.

Firstly, Saudi Arabia made one concession to modern humanistic society, something which has not been an issue in other countries for about 100 years.  That's an isolated example, and doesn't indicate that they are on the right path.  They've also been taking some very questionable actions in interfering militarily in Yemen, and economically in Qatar.  They're engaging in a Cold War with Iran, and if either side loses the results could be absolutely disastrous.  So, I don't think you've demonstrated Saudi Arabia is on the right track.  They're doing some things right, and some things wrong.

If we assume that they are however, I still don't agree.  When a country is so far behind in human rights, I don't think we should just let them do whatever they will as long as they're making some progress, and focus on places that have less severe issues.  If you're an ER doctor, and there's a patient with severed thumb, and a patient that's having a stroke, you take care of the stroke patient first.  Not that a severed thumb isn't serious, but it's a different degree.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by grouping countries in terms of civil rights.  In terms of the rights they have, Israel is more or less in line with westernized countries in terms of the rights that people have (actually in Israel, not necessarily in Palestine).

In terms of right or wrong direction, that's hard to say.  I'm not a big fan of Netenyahu.  I don't think moving the embassy to Jerusalem accomplishes anything aside from unnecessary antagonism, and I don't think this move to make Hebrew the official language really does anything productive either.  They have a lot of the nationalistic chest beating that's going on in other countries, but in a country in such a volatile situation, it's more concerning.  I also find the new settlements in the West Bank troublesome considering that the West Bank government has shown itself to be far more open to peace than Hamas.  Unfortunately there is a far right contingency in Israel who, similar to Hamas, feels that the land is divinely granted to them, and care more about what they think god wants than what is actually good for the peace process.  The right wing party needs to appease that religious coalition to keep more progressive Israelis from being elected.

On the other hand, there are some things Israel is doing well.  They continue to provide valuable intelligence to the US to help keep us safe, they continuously provide medical and technological breakthroughs, and the country is becoming more secular, which I think generally leads to improved human rights.  There are programs being made to help Arab citizens in their border, and I think that they are generally doing an ok job of treating minority citizens, particularly compared to other countries in their region.

I think their response to Gaza in generally has been appropriate (which is not to say every single action was justified).  Hamas has, this has been documented by the UN, engaged in tactics such as storing rockets from schools, encouraging children to protest in dangerous areas, and of course suicide bombings.  The blockade on Gaza is not a unilateral Israeli decision, as it is also enforced by Egypt, and lifting the restriction has at times led to tunnels being built with intent to attack Israel, and more rockets being constructed.  That's not to say the situation isn't completely fucked, and it doesn't suck miserably to live in Gaza, but I attribute that more to Hamas.

To sum it up, I think "right direction wrong direction" is overly simplistic.  I agree with some of Israel's actions, and not others past and present.  In general, I think Israel's primary concern is the safety of its own citizenry.  They don't have anything to gain from the continued conflict with Gaza, aside from diminishing the potential threat, and I believe that if they were convinced that there were no longer a threat they would most likely end the conflict (although as I mentioned earlier maybe their actions in the West Bank undermine this).  If Hamas were similarly inclined, I think an agreement would probably be reached.

So that should answer that.  So here's my question.  Is the humanitarian situation in Israel superior to surrounding countries?  Do you think terms like "the new face of apartheid" are justified?

To understand the situation with regards to Israel, we need to consider the context. Israel was conceived in part due to widespread and long-standing antisemitism and a major impetus for its ultimate founding was the build-up to WWII and the Holocaust. Jewish immigrants to the Palestine area were not warmly received and the creation of the state of Israel was met with immediate warfare: for the purpose of the destruction of Israel. Whether running hot or cold, express or implied, that basic situation of the Arabs trying to destroy Israel has persisted ever since.

If the ongoing Israeli response to that aggression has not been ideal -- and when has war ever been fought in an ideal manner? -- it should still be understood as essentially self-defense. If the wider Arab world was prepared to live in peace, and accept a genuine "two-state solution," so would Israel. It is because powerful elements of the Arab world insist on the ultimate destruction of Israel that this peace has not yet been achieved.