Indeed there is Apartheid in Israel

[Tom Joad]

A new order issued by the GOC Central command bans the conveyance of Palestinians in Israeli vehicles. Such a blatant violation of the right to travel joins the long list of humans rights violations carried out by Israel in the Territories.

By Shulamit Aloni

01/05/06 "Ynet " --- - Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population’s movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians’ land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing “Jewish only” roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night – all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.
more at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16075.htm

In Hebrew: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3346283,00.html (printed in the most popular daily in Israel)

Shulamit Aloni, the Israeli Prize laureate who once served as Minister of Education under Yitzhak Rabin

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

2. What we need is a united response that replicates grassroots activism

to support freedom in South Africa.
Politicians never cared until we made them care about South Africa.

The same will be said about justice in the Middle East.

Here is a place to start:
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/

[Scurrilous]

3. 8 rights groups ask High Court to rescind W. Bank driving ban

<snip>

"Eight human rights groups petitioned the High Court of Justice on Sunday against a military order prohibiting Israelis from driving Palestinians in private vehicles in the West Bank.

Attorney Michael Sfard, who filed the motion for Yesh Din, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Gisha, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and others, criticized GOC Central Command Yair Naveh's order, slated to take effect January 19.

Sfard said the order will "lead to a rift between Israelis and Palestinians who have legitimate social, political and commercial ties."

The groups call the order reminiscent of apartheid, as it "implements an ideology of separation by creating criminal sanctions on different peoples."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/810817.html

[Tom Joad]

4. Basically the law illegalizes Israeli/Palestinian friendships.

Can you imagine living in such a place that it would be illegal to give a friend a lift?

[Scurrilous]

11. Gush Shalom ad published in Haaretz, January 12, 2007

As from next Friday
Israeli drivers will
Be forbidden
To take Palestinians
In their cars
In the West Bank.

That stinks of Apartheid.

No "security" need
Will be served
By this disgraceful order
Of the occupation authorities.

Drivers with a moral sense
Will ignore it.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/weekly_ad/1168561605

[breakaleg]

5. Israel once again shows its true colors. When will the world see them? When it's too late?

[Tom Joad]

6. Ironically, this article was printed in Hebrew in the most popular

paper in Israel. So its fully discussed there. Don't expect a US paper to discuss it here. US media knows not to offend US allies.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. The title of the article needs a bit of a tweak, imo...

It should read 'Indeed there is apartheid carried out in the Occupied Territories by Israel'.

[Tom Joad]

9. That may be what Carter (and Aloni) may believe, but for many

Arab Palestinians within Israel they too feel the brunt of institutionalized & legalized systematic oppression.

They have nominal Israeli citizenship, and unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa, they do vote for the country's parliament. Yet this is where any sense of equality ends. In Israel's history, no Arab-led party has ever been asked to join a coalition government. And, among scores of Jewish ministers, there has only ever been one Arab minister, of junior rank.

Discrimination against non-Jewish citizens both informal and legalized is systematic. Non-Jewish children attend separate schools and live in areas that receive a fraction of the funding of their Jewish counterparts. The results can be seen in the much poorer educational attainment, economic, health and life outcomes of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Much of the land of the country, controlled by the quasi-governmental Jewish National Fund, cannot be leased or sold to non-Jews. This is similar in effect to the restrictive covenants that in many U.S. cities once kept nonwhites out of certain neighborhoods.
and more...
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6310.shtml

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I also believe it...

There can be discrimination without it being anything resembling apartheid. There's a lot of indirect discrimination here against indigenous Australians yet it's not apartheid, because for something to be resembling apartheid there's segregation being carried out by the government. That's why I believe that while there is a system reminiscent of apartheid in the Occupied Territories, there isn't in Israel itself...

[Shaktimaan]

29. You realize that none of that land can be sold to anyone, right?

Much of the land of the country, controlled by the quasi-governmental Jewish National Fund, cannot be leased or sold to non-Jews.

No one can buy it. They can only lease it. Oh, and anyone can lease it. Even JNF land. Which, by the way, "much of the country?" What is it, like 10%? "Much of the country." lol. Gotta love that.

Bisharat also trots out the false Palestinian propaganda that “Palestinians have restricted access to land (most real property in Israel is owned by the state or the Jewish National Fund and is leased to Jews only.)” Legally and practically, Israeli Arabs have equal access to state-owned land (80.4 percent of all land in the entire country). About half of the land Israeli Arabs cultivate is directly leased to them by the Israeli government through the Israel Land Administration (ILA) (“Rural-Urban Land Use Equilibrium,” Tel Aviv: Ministry of Agriculture, 1979), as cited by David Kretzmer, The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Westview Press, 1990, pp. 60-61).

Moreover, Israeli Arabs have even enjoyed an affirmative action-type program, providing them with access to land at a cheaper rate than Jews. For example, the ILA charged Jewish citizens $24,000 for a capital lease on a quarter acre of land near Beersheva, while a Bedouin family in nearby Rahat paid only $150 for an equivalent plot of land (Ezra Sohar, Israel's Dilemma, New York, Shapolsky Publishers, 1989, p. 97). In another case, Eliezer Avitan, a Jew from Beersheva, applied to the ILA to lease land at the same subsidized price that was made available to local Bedouins. The ILA rejected his application, so he sued, but Israel’s Supreme Court ruled in ILA’s favor, saying the administration’s discriminatory policy was justified affirmative action for Bedouins (Israel Supreme Court, Avitan v. Israel Land Administration, HC 528/88).

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=136&x_article=624

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Talk about nit-picking...

No one can buy it. They can only lease it.

I live in an area where residential land is leasehold. I haven't yet met another homeowner who says: 'when I leased my block of land' instead of 'when I bought my block'. Which is why I find such nitpickery as the one in yr post to be quite silly...

I'm sure yr already aware that the JNF handed over control of a large chunk of its land holdings to the ILA (with an agreement that the JNF nominates ten of the 22 board members), and that the JNF did (and may still) has a Charter that forbids the selling of land to non-Jews.

btw, when trying to back up an argument, if you want to have an honest discussion, you really should try and use a less biased source than CAMERA, which I notice you have a huge fondness for posting links to here at DU. If you have anything that's worth reading that doesn't come from such a strongly biased site, I'd be interested in reading it...

[Shaktimaan]

33. my point exactly

It IS nitpicking. No one says "lease" when it implies "buy" for all practical purposes.

I see the accusation leveled all the time at Israel that Arabs are not allowed to buy land in Israel. Which, of course, is absolutely true. The fact that no one else can buy land is always left out however. That kind of cheap semantic hocus pocus is what I was trying to call out. I wasn't actually doing it myself.

btw, when trying to back up an argument, if you want to have an honest discussion, you really should try and use a less biased source than CAMERA,

Fair enough. I'm just lazy and I wanted to find something specifically on the Bedouin affirmative action thing. I'll find you something about the legality of blackballing non-Jews from somewhere else tomorrow. I'm hitting the sack. But I had a conversation with my brother-in-law about it a few months ago (who is Israeli.) I remember him looking at me like I was nuts when I asked about this and he mentioned some supreme court rulings against this kind of discrimination and the affirmative action thing. I was left with the distinct impression that I had asked the Israeli equivalent of whether or not black kids are allowed to use the same water fountain as white kids. Point being, I've heard about the Bedouin thing and the land legality thing a few times before.

[Scurrilous]

10. An Israeli Defense of Jimmy Carter

<snip>

"There is an ugly cynicism to the attack on Jimmy Carter that has been launched by Americans who well recognize that the former president's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, says nothing that has not already been said about the Middle East conflict by Israeli politicians and commentators.

So why is Carter, a longtime friend of Israel and the Jewish people, being smeared as an anti-Semite for suggesting that the occupation by Israeli forces of Palestinian territory inspires troubling comparisons with the apartheid system that white South Africans once imposed on their country's black majority?

One of Israel's most prominent political figures suggests that it has a lot to do with the determination of Carter's critics to allow their emotions to trump the facts."

<snip>

"In a defense of Carter penned for the mass-circulation Israeli newspaper Yediot Acharonot, the woman who served as former Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin's education minister wrote that, "Indeed apartheid does exist here."

<snip>

"A recipient of the Israel Prize, the highest honor awarded by her country's government, the internationally-respected parliamentarian has long been a critic of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Some will disregard her remarks for that reason. Others who respect Aloni's history may disagree with her current critique. But no one who has followed Israeli affairs can doubt that she speaks for a meaningful number of her countrymen and women when she defends Carter.

In fact, the website of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom recently featured a call for visitors to" "Please consider adding your voices to those who are grateful to Jimmy Carter for writing a brave and important book, Peace Not Apartheid. While the media tries to blank him out, and some would cast aspersions at President Carter for being 'anti-Israel,' in fact the book offers much needed wisdom about how to support a just peace in Israel and Palestine."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070108/cm_thenation/1155513

[Nimrod2005]

55. I love the book, I am reading it.

[Englander]

12. Kick, for Shulamit Aloni. n/t

[eyl]

13. Well, yeah, I admit to an occasional desire

to kick Shulamit Aloni

:)

[Shaktimaan]

14. So, this law applies to all Palestinians?

And Jews are the only ones allowed to utilize the roads in question? And anyone else gets their car confiscated?

I'm having a little trouble buying this story on its face. I'm willing to bet the real story is not quite the same as this one.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. The law applies to all Palestinians...

In the article it says the only exemptions are for those Palestinians who are labourers on settlements, and that they and the driver need to obtain permits. If you've got anything to show that's not the case, feel free to post it here...

And the confiscation of Palestinian vehicles is a reality. From B'tselem...

"The roads regime is enforced through a variety of means: an aggressive and discriminatory enforcement of the traffic laws against Palestinians only, prolonged delays of Palestinians, and confiscation of Palestinian vehicles with no due process. As a result, many Palestinian drivers refrain from using even those roads nominally open to them."


http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200408_Forbidden_Roads.asp

[breakaleg]

17. This is not new. Given your support of Israel I'm surprised you wouldn't know

of this.

[Shaktimaan]

18. So then Palestinians who are also

Israeli citizens are included in the ban I presume? I'm having trouble believing that Israel has set up roads that 20% of their population are not allowed to travel on.

Is it possible that when the author said "Jewish only" he really meant "Israeli only?" Or are say, Israeli Druze, for instance, forbidden to travel on them? Seems odd considering that the Druze serve in the army and all.

[furman]

19. The roads may be used by all Israeli citizens, not Jews only

All Israeli citizens regardless of religion or ethnicity may use the roads.
Israeli vehicles have yellow license plates, and Palestinian vehicles have blue plates.

It should be noted that prior to the second Intifada beginning in 2000, Palestinian Arabs had almost unrestricted access on all the West Bank roads.
Shootings targeting Israeli vehicles caused more restrictions to be put into place.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Oh, that makes it okay then!

Not...

"Israel contends that the restrictions on Palestinian travel along these roads result from imperative security considerations and not from racist motivations. Indeed, since the outbreak of the intifada, in September 2000, there has been an increase in the number of attacks by Palestinian organizations against Israeli civilians inside Israel and in the Occupied Territories. More than 600 Israeli civilians, including over 100 minors, have been killed. Attacks aimed at civilians violate fundamental legal and moral norms, and constitute war crimes in international humanitarian law. The attacks are unjustifiable, regardless of the circumstances. Not only is Israel entitled to take measures to defend its citizens against such attacks, it is required to do so. However, its actions must comply with Israeli and international law.

The roads regime infringes the Palestinians' right to freedom of movement and the right to equality. Israel is therefore in breach of fundamental principles of international law set forth in treaties to which Israel is party, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism, and the Fourth Geneva Convention."

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200408_Forbidden_Roads.asp

[Shaktimaan]

23. OK, but the point I was making wasn't to say that this is OK or not OK.

My point was that many of the claims in the article were false and misleading. I said that I was having trouble believing this story on its face, with good reason. Many people refer to these roads as racist, yet there does not seem to be a racial aspect to deciding who is restricted from using them. There does not even seem to be a religious or ethnic aspect. The qualifying trait is nationality. Big difference.

Making the racism charge when that clearly isn't the motive here is not helpful if you want to have an honest appraisal of the situation. It takes the focus off of the actual issues and places it on a politically volatile yet tertiary issue. This isn't like the slave trade or Jim Crow laws where one group is seeking to subjugate another because they view them as inferior. It is a nationalist struggle between two groups who have conflicting views and goals. How can anyone think of discussing a just solution if we aren't even willing to have an honest discussion about the problem?

Racism is A problem, sure. And it is even a problem here, no doubt. But it is not THE problem and it has nothing to do with the restrictions on these roads. If anything it is a symptom of the conflict, not a cause. Calling this conflict intolerable because it is racist is like calling Stalin evil because he smelled bad. Missing. The. Point.

[Tom Joad]

24. Learn from the minister of education.

Shulamit Aloni, the Israeli Prize laureate who once served as Minister of Education under Yitzhak Rabin.

People may also choose to not believe the story, because they like to pretend this is not happening.

I don't think that is helpful.

[breakaleg]

25. nationality is a bit misleading as well.

Because if Israel had it's way, the only Israelis would be Jews and there have been posts here recently that state they have suggestions in place to make that happen.

It seems to me that the Arabs in Israel are a something to be dealt with rather than a equally welcome group of citizens.

[Shaktimaan]

26. you're right.

Arab Israelis are certainly not treated the same as Jewish Israelis are. They don't have the same responsibilities or place in society. And they don't identify with the nation more than they do their ethnicity, (generalizing here.)

Better integration in Israel is going to be a little while coming. A lot of the friction is directly related to the conflict. Once that's over it will be a lot easier to make larger civil rights strides. Unfortunately there is a limit to what can happen under the present circumstances. It's not just a case of Israel trying harder or doing more, much of the identity of being Palestinian or Israeli is tied to the friction between the two. My fiancee is Israeli. She grew up on a kibbutz and has an Arab Israeli friend who grew up there as well, with foster parents I believe. He had a really tough time with balancing his identity between those two poles. He served in the army and petitioned to have his religion stricken from his ID. But at the end of the day he is a Palestinian living in the Israeli side of the society. Not easy.

Consider how long this conflict has been going on and what a large percentage of Israel is Arab. Contrast that with how the US handled their Japanese citizens during WWII. Sure, people talk about transfer, especially when the conflict heats up. I seriously doubt many Arab Israelis would want to switch from Israel to Palestine though.

Ultimately, if Israel had its way they would be living in a peaceful society. No Israelis I know, (and I know a lot) don't harbor any real animosity towards Arabs, despite lost friends, family members and the occasional tooth. (Rocks.) They just want this thing to be over already. If there's a way for everyone to integrate then they're for it, that's preferable. They don't care about the religion, it's a secular country for the most part. Identity is a different story. But the most important thing is peace.

[Lurking Dem]

27. FYI

Thought this might be of interest:

http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Views%5El282&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Views&

[Shaktimaan]

28. cheers for that.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Have you spotted the false claims in that ridiculous article yet?

The writer tried to claim that the term apartheid is being used by Jimmy Carter and people who are critical of Israels policies in the Occupied Territories to refer to Israel and the treatment of Israeli-Arabs. That's not the case at all, and I find attempts to make out that it's the case to be extremely disingenous and not at all conducive to honest discussion :)

[Shaktimaan]

34. Huh?

You lost me there.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I checked what I posted and it was totally clear...

I don't really understand what's causing you to get lost, so if you want to tell me where yr getting lost, I'll help so yr on the right track...

[Shaktimaan]

37. oh, I see what you mean.

funny.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. What's funny? n/t

[Shaktimaan]

42. you mean you're not kidding?

You're serious?

I didn't get that at all from the article.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Anyone who'd read the article would know I'm not kidding...

Try reading it and then come back and explain how you could not get that out of an article that outright states it. The fact that he says: 'After all we hear about Israel, these findings can boggle the mind. Isn't Israel that awful ''apartheid'' state, as Jimmy Carter implies with the title of his peculiar new book?' and then goes on to talk about nothing but the treatment of Israeli-Arabs should give you a massive hint...

[Shaktimaan]

46. I think...

People rarely refer to an apartheid occupation or of a Palestine under apartheid. They just say simply, Israel is an apartheid state. (look at the subject of this thread for instance.) So you are saying that refuting the notion of Israel as an apartheid state by talking about what happens in Israel is dishonest? But calling Israel an apartheid state based solely on things that happen outside Israel, to non-Israelis is being straightforward? You accuse me of splitting hairs, Violet, and then raise this criticism?

Now, I know that your point in this thread has been to dispel the idea that apartheid is always related to race. My point has been that its actual definition is less relevant than the fact that it was chosen because most folks believe that the word signifies discrimination based on nothing BUT race, or ethnicity or religion, or some other general category. (and I still don't buy into your definition.) Certainly we hear plenty of criticism that focuses solely on Israel's practices being racist or discriminatory against arabs. And I think the idea of an apartheid state that is only so in some places and under certain circumstances, none of which involve the discrimination in question being applied against the nation's actual arab citizens, would fall outside of the generally held idea of what an apartheid state actually is.

As for the article, she is just talking about the perception that Israel is a racist state that discriminates based on ethnicity. She isn't implying that the charge of apartheid is one people have tried to erronously applied solely to arab-isrealis. She is saying that for everything you hear about Israel's racist policies it would be surprising to learn that Arabs actually living in Israel do not share this same belief. It's another way of saying that the I/P conflict is not based on ethnicity. Or that Isreal is not really a racist state, despite all of the rhetoric you might hear. And calling a state 'apartheid' is a well publicised example of such rhetoric.

Also, Carter DOERS imply that Israel is an apartheid state in his new book. The proof is that both his publisher and carter himself have had to repeatedly state in interviews and public speaking engagements that the title only refers to the territories and not to Israel itself. If there was no possible implication to the contrary then Carter wouldn't have to spend so much time and energy explaining what he really meant.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Yr wrong...

People rarely refer to an apartheid occupation or of a Palestine under apartheid. They just say simply, Israel is an apartheid state.

I think you'll find yr wrong if you go back into the archives of this forum and read some threads. Though I find this attempt to insist things be taken literally strange coming from someone who insisted that everyone must read their comment that Israel withdrew from the West Bank to actually mean Israel only was talking about withdrawing from a tiny part of the West Bank ;)

So you are saying that refuting the notion of Israel as an apartheid state by talking about what happens in Israel is dishonest?

Yes

Also, Carter DOERS imply that Israel is an apartheid state in his new book.

Don't take offense that after reading yr posts here, I have little time for what you claim people imply. I'm interested in what people are actually saying, and even though I haven't read the book, even I know that Carter is discussing the Occupied Territories and not Israel, and claims that he is doing anything else are incorrect...

[Englander]

36. Lol!11!

After all we hear about Israel, these findings can boggle the mind. Isn't Israel that awful ''apartheid'' state, as Jimmy Carter implies with the title of his peculiar new book?

Gee, blatant falsehoods, ad hominem arguments, & serious misrepresentations of what has been
repeatedly explained? ie, that the apartheid claim refers to the "State of Judea", & not Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. So start trotting out the claims you think are false and misleading...

Yr going on about the racism charge, but there was only one reference to race in the entire article. I'm willing to call it what it really is, which is bigotry. If yr trying to make out that apartheid can only happen between different races, yr very wrong. It denotes segregation and for every definition you find that claims it only applies to South Africa between blacks and whites, I can find you another ten that says otherwise...

[Shaktimaan]

38. not my point.

I realize that when the word "racist" is used in this context it implies "bigotry" or "xenophobia" or whatever. I wasn't making an argument based on a technical definition of the words used. My issue is with the implication.

Simply, words like apartheid and racism don't fit the motives of this conflict at all. They are chosen by some to describe the I/P situation because of their extremely negative connotations, not because they accurately illustrate the problems. If you are saying that apartheid is a word that applies to any situation where there is segregation then I think that's an overly broad definition. (Is the US/Mexico border where the two nationalities are kept segregated an example of apartheid?)

I think it is disingenuous to look at this conflict, which is basically a low intensity war, and attach a label like "racist" to it because the combatants are of different ethnic groups. Racism usually implies that the animosity is unwarranted and based on prejudice instead of on another, more valid reason, such as a war. For example... Overwhelmingly white and Christian, American and British soldiers stationed in Iraq are occupying the country, live there, have built roads, some only for soldiers, have checkpoints, seperate living areas, etc. just like Israel does. Not all are soldiers. Some are support of one kind or another. Some are press. Heck, a relative of mine was there to film the Saddam Hussein trial. He sure didn't leave the green zone, which was relatively safe and from which the general public (Arab) was excluded.

Apartheid? Racist? Or is that not really the best way to describe what's going on in Iraq?

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Yes, it was...

Yr attempt at an argument is that apartheid must be a thing where one race segregates another. That argument doesn't stand up because apartheid is about segregation. Using the US/Mexico border to claim that using segregation rather than race as an indicator of what is and isn't apartheid is a ridiculous one. No, the US/Mexico border isn't an example of apartheid because they are two different states and both have the right to control the flow of people over their borders. Neither country is in a situation where one is occupying the other and encouraging its own citizens to move into the territory its occupied and set up home there....

Overwhelmingly white and Christian, American and British soldiers stationed in Iraq are occupying the country, live there, have built roads, some only for soldiers, have checkpoints, seperate living areas, etc. just like Israel does.

What you neglect to mention (of course) is that the major factor in why the segregation of Palestinians in the West Bank is due to something the US and British govts don't do when it comes to Iraq, which is encourage US and British civilians living in their countries to move to Iraq and build settlements for them...

[Shaktimaan]

41. So then...

Yr attempt at an argument is that apartheid must be a thing where one race segregates another.

I think the distinction you are making here about how apartheid and racism are not connected is not one made by most people. I've certainly never heard it before. It's pretty clear from the article anyway that many are comfortable framing this issue as one centered around ethnicity, with statements like "Jewish only roads."

No, the US/Mexico border isn't an example of apartheid because they are two different states and both have the right to control the flow of people over their borders.

Israel and Palestine are different states, are they not? The fact that the borders are not set or that Palestine hasn't declared itself does not mean that the two groups do not consider themselves seperate nationalities. It is nationality that is the sole factor in this segregation, isn't it? So, when Israel segregates its citizens from non-citizens that is what you deem apartheid? Since it has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion, right?

What you neglect to mention (of course) is that the major factor in why the segregation of Palestinians in the West Bank is due to something the US and British govts don't do when it comes to Iraq, which is encourage US and British civilians living in their countries to move to Iraq and build settlements for them...

OK, so its not just about segregation alone then. The fact that Israel is building settlements is what makes it apartheid? By that token then do you feel that apartheid is restricted to areas of the west bank? Not in Gaza or Jericho where settlements don't exist and the situation more closely resembles that of Iraq? What about the situation in places like Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, etc. in regards to their own Palestinian population? Are they all apartheid states?

Maybe you should give me your definition of apartheid, spelled out clearly. Because right now it's looking like that old saw about how to tell pornography from art. "I know it when I see it."

[Violet_Crumble]

44. No, Palestine is NOT a state...

Israel and Palestine are different states, are they not?

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the conflict knows that Palestine isn't a state. How come you don't? As for the rest of yr post, I'm not going to waste my time going round and round in circles over something that's been explained clearly to you already. I'd rather have honest discussions with posters in this forum who are interested in something other than asking stupid questions designed to try to steer the conversation into the realms of silliness...

[Shaktimaan]

45. I don't think it is silly at all.

Nor am I being facecious. I am certainly not being dishonest.

I think that when charges like "apartheid" are leveled at Israel it is done against the interests of genuinely understanding the situation and for the purpose of shock and bias. I want to know what it is about Israel that makes it an apartheid state if other nations in similar or worse scenarios are not.

At the very least, if you gave me a definition of apartheid that you feel is accurate it would shed some light on your opinion for when it is applicable. Because my complaint is that I believe you are subjectively deciding when it is appropriate based on your personal views and not any kind of objective standard.

I'm sure you are aware of how Palestinians are treated in Lebanon. They are certainly segregated and oppressed, many would say in worse ways than those living in the West Bank. So if the charge of apartheid against Israel is not politically motivated but objectively arrived at I think I'm justified in asking what the differences are.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. I didn't expect you'd admit yr own questions were silly...

..but someone who claims to have a knowledge of the I/P conflict asking whether or not Israel and Palestine are states ranks right up there with silly questions, right alongside trying to make out that the US/Mexico border is an example of apartheid....

I think that when charges like "apartheid" are leveled at Israel it is done against the interests of genuinely understanding the situation and for the purpose of shock and bias.

If you think that, then how about you sit here and try and explain how there isn't a system of segregation happening in the West Bank right now? Personally, I've always been on the opinion that Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories are reminiscent of apartheid, so you might also like to try explaining how that's wrong...

At the very least, if you gave me a definition of apartheid that you feel is accurate it would shed some light on your opinion for when it is applicable. Because my complaint is that I believe you are subjectively deciding when it is appropriate based on your personal views and not any kind of objective standard.

My definition of apartheid is a govt's system of segregation of people based on race/nationality/ethnic groups/religion over any territory it controls. If you think I'm being subjective by pointing out that the US/Mexico border isn't reminiscent of apartheid at all, then personally I think yr the one who's being subjective, not me...

I'm sure you are aware of how Palestinians are treated in Lebanon. They are certainly segregated and oppressed, many would say in worse ways than those living in the West Bank. So if the charge of apartheid against Israel is not politically motivated but objectively arrived at I think I'm justified in asking what the differences are.

I use the same definition of what Israel does in the Occupied Territories to come to the opinion that the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanon is an apartheid style system. Yr problem now is that you've been so busy trying to argue that there isn't even a hint of apartheid in the Occupied Territories that you'd be unable to then turn around and claim that there is an apartheid style system at work in Lebanon without being completely hypocritical...

[Shaktimaan]

50. No, because I'm not interested in Lebanon as an analogy.

What Lebanon is doing is inexcusable. Just because you labeleled almost every middle eastern country as being apartheid (they all discriminate against Palestinians in the same way as Lebanon does, just not as harshly in most cases) does not mean that your definition is vindicated.

I don't think Israel's actions resemble Lebanon's though. I think they, as a military occupation, more resemble Iraq. And according to your definition, Iraq is in fact under apartheid. But you don't think so because there aren't settlements in Iraq, right?

I'm genuinely trying to understand your definition of apartheid here as it can only relate to one occupation and not any others. My mexico analogy exists to show you that your definition of apartheid is ludicrous enough to actually apply to it. Segregation on the basis of nationality is NOT apartheid. If it is then we all live under apartheid, don't we?

I think you're trying to come up with a definition that you can use that allows you to label Israel apartheid without being overly broad as to include everyone. The fact that no one uses your definition doesn't seem to faze you though.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. If yr not interested in it, don't bring it up in yr posts...

Easy...

I'm genuinely trying to understand your definition of apartheid here as it can only relate to one occupation and not any others. My mexico analogy exists to show you that your definition of apartheid is ludicrous enough to actually apply to it. Segregation on the basis of nationality is NOT apartheid. If it is then we all live under apartheid, don't we?


No, you aren't. You asked for my definition and I gave it. Yet here you are pretending that I actually said something different to what I actually said. So I'll give you my definition AGAIN and stress the bit of the definition you chose to ignore. "My definition of apartheid is a govt's system of segregation of people based on race/nationality/ethnic groups/religion over any territory it controls." In the case of the US and Mexico they both control their own territory and neither practice segregation, though in the past the US certainly did...

I think you're trying to come up with a definition that you can use that allows you to label Israel apartheid without being overly broad as to include everyone. The fact that no one uses your definition doesn't seem to faze you though.

Wrong again.

a·part·heid (ə-pärt'hīt', -hāt')
n.
An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

http://www.answers.com/topic/apartheid

Now, I'd be interested to hear what yr definition of apartheid is. You've been so busy insisting that what Israel does in the Occupied Territories isn't reminiscent of apartheid that I'm very curious to see yr definition...

[Shaktimaan]

47. one more thing...

Yr attempt at an argument is that apartheid must be a thing where one race segregates another. That argument doesn't stand up because apartheid is about segregatio

I decided to check out officially agreed upon definitions of apartheid. Here's what I found...

From the International Criminal Court.
The 'crime of apartheid' means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime".

From the General Assembly of the United Nations agreed text of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) in 1973.

For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
(a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
(i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
(ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
(b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

It goes on but for the sake of space I'm not pasting it all. The important thing for our purposes is that they make certain to specify that it only applies to discrimination based on race in every section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

Since these definitions contradict your statement, and because I have never seen you give a clear explanation of what you think apartheid is exactly, my obvious questions are, what is your definition of apartheid, and how was it arrived at?

[Violet_Crumble]

52. But in another thread you called antisemitism racism...

'I am not coldly objective in the face of blatant racism.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=164361&mesg_id=164408

So what yr trying to argue is that while you think Palestinians aren't a race, Jews are?

[Shaktimaan]

53. wait a minute.

You think my argument against apartheid's relevance here is based on Palestinians not technically being a race?
You think I am making a semantic argument?

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I don't think it. I know it...

Yr focus on insisting that apartheid only relates to racial groups is something else?

[eyl]

21. Delete

[dtotire]

22. An Article From Haaretz on this Subject

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/814345.html

This is posted elsewhere on this board.