Are Israel and apartheid South Africa really different?

[IndianaGreen]

Are Israel and apartheid South Africa really different?

By Akiva Eldar

One of the myths among whites in South Africa was that "blacks want to throw us into the sea." Many of apartheid's practices were formally based on security, mostly those involving restrictions on movement. Thus, for example, at a fairly early stage, black citizens needed permits to move around the country. During the final years of apartheid, when the blacks' struggle intensified as did terrorism, its practices became more severe.

To avoid the rude word apartheid, Beinisch pulled out the well-known argument that apartheid is "a policy of segregation and discrimination based on race and ethnicity, which is based on a series of discriminatory practices designed to achieve the superiority of a certain race and oppress those of other races." Indeed, systematic segregation (apartheid) and discrimination in South Africa were meant to preserve the supremacy of one race over others.

In Israel, on the other hand, institutional discrimination is meant to preserve the supremacy of a group of Jewish settlers over Palestinian Arabs. As far as discriminatory practices are concerned, it's hard to find differences between white rule in South Africa and Israeli rule in the territories; for example, separate areas and separate laws for Jews and Palestinians.

Last Wednesday, Israeli policemen blocked the main road linking Nablus and Tul Karm. Dozens of taxis with Palestinian workers on their way home from another day on the job in the settlements were told to park on the side of the road. Cars with yellow license plates passed by. There was no roadblock for security inspections; it was just the memorial ceremony for Rabbi Meir Hai. Just as long as they do not say that there is apartheid.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1139724.html

[Jim Sagle]

1. Yes, they're different.

This has been a another in the series Simple Answers to Really Dumbshit Questions.

[polly7]

2. Not a dumbshit question at all.

Thanks for the article. I happen to agree with much of it.

[shergald]

62. Six Israeli peace plans that lead to Apartheid.

View any one of these six Israeli plans and you will have read them all.


Allon Plan

Netanyahu Plan

Generous Offer

Sharon Plan

Ehud Olmert I

Ehud Olmert II

Unfortunately, the six peace plans shown above, which were proposed over the years, including the one Netanyahu is now trying to sell the world, are all versions of the same plan: it defines an Apartheid state for the Palestinians, a collection of bantustans lacking sovereignty, contiguity, independence, and borders. If we can just call it the Israeli peace plan, it lacks any possibility for creating the two state solution. The configuration of territory is not side-by-side, but the inside-outside, the design of Apartheid.

Lawrence of Cyberia (diane) pulled together these various plans showing that irrespective of the party in power, they all lead to the Greater Israel concept with Palestinians living in bantustans within Israel.

And in repetition of Afrikaaner South African racist Apartheid will be with us again. People just refuse to learn from history.

...the Israeli govt's plan for the West Bank (and Jerusalem).

The Allon Plan was put forward in 1967 by Israeli Deputy PM Yigal Allon, under which Israel would solve the "Palestinian problem" by annexing Greater Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley and confining the Palestinians to a northern (Nablus/Jenin/Ramallah) bantustan and a southern (Hebron/Bethlehem) bantustan.

The Netanyahu Plan was put forward in 1995 by Benjamin Netanyahu, under which Israel would solve the "Palestinian problem" by annexing Greater Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley and confining the Palestinians to a northern (Nablus/Jenin/Ramallah) bantustan and a southern (Hebron/Bethlehem) bantustan, plus Jericho.

Ehud Barak's Generous Offer was put forward at Camp David in 2000, under which Israel would solve the "Palestinian problem" by annexing Greater Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley and confining the Palestinians to a northern (Nablus/Jenin) bantustan, a central (Ramallah) bantustan, and a southern (Hebron/Bethlehem) bantustan, plus Jericho.

The Sharon Plan of 2003 shows the final route that Ariel Sharon intended for Israel's Wall, which was to encircle the Palestinians from both the east and the west. This would allow Israel to solve the "Palestinian problem" by annexing Greater Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley and confining the Palestinians to a northern (Nablus/Jenin/Ramallah) bantustan and a southern (Hebron/Bethlehem) bantustan.

The next map was prepared by the BBC in 2006, showing the borders that Ehud Olmert was imposing at that time on the Palestinians through the construction of the Wall and the exclusion of Palestinians from the Jordan Valley, under which Israel would solve the "Palestinian problem" by annexing Greater Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley and confining the Palestinians to a northern (Nablus/Jenin/Ramallah) bantustan and a southern (Hebron) bantustan, plus Jericho.

The last map was prepared by the UN in 2007, showing the borders that Ehud Olmert was next imposing on the Palestinians, again through the construction of the Wall and the exclusion of Palestinians from the Jordan Valley, even as he was talking about negotiating a two state solution with them. Not surprisingly, it still involves Israel annexing Greater Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley and confining the Palestinians to a northern (Nablus/Jenin/Ramallah) bantustan and a southern (Hebron/Bethlehem) bantustan, plus Jericho.

Different Israeli govts, but always the same plan. From the Israeli perspective, the only purpose of the peace process was to drag on inconclusively long enough for these bantustan borders to be imposed on the Palestinians.

Now we have Netanyahu repeating the same plan. In successive announcements, Netanyahu has made claim to all of Jerusalem, the settlement lands, the Jordan Valley, and the borders of any Palestinian state (read bantustans), in short, all of original Palestine. Given that nothing will change on the ground, Apartheid is therefore already with us. And by default it is supported by American financial and military aid to Israel, by the American taxpayer. In the 1980s. Reagan supported South African Apartheid which was eventually brought down through boycotts and grassroots efforts. Will Obama support Israeli Apartheid in turn?

And as for the Middle East, nothing has been more profoundly disingenuous than the history of Israeli peace efforts.

[tabatha]

5. South Africans who experienced apartheid

went to Palestine, and said it was worse than apartheid.

[Jim Sagle]

7. How many SA blacks wanted to drive the whites into the sea?

How many took up suicide bombing?

If you want respect, you better show basic decency. The Palestinian side uually doesn't.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I've got no idea. Nor do I know how many Palestinians want to drive Jews into the sea...

Why don't you tell us the answers, Jimbo? What I do know is that none of that has anything to do with apartheid...

Looks like the Israeli side better get the ball rolling and try showing some basic decency for a change..

[Jim Sagle]

9. It's not apartheid if it's based on security.

The Israeli side is just trying to get by. The other side is trying to put one over, as usual.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Spoken like a true white South African of the era...

And no, that's not what defines apartheid either...

Yeah, it's so hard to get by discriminating against Palestinians and trying to promote that as something to be proud of...

[Jim Sagle]

11. It's not discrimination if it's based on criminal behavior and threats of genocide.

Not on Earth, anyway.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. The population of the West Bank haven't done that...

So it is discrimination. Surely you understand that institutional discrimination is a disgusting thing that no left-winger should support?

[Jim Sagle]

13. Self-protection is not discrimination.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. That's right, but what Israel's doing in the West Bank isn't self-protection...

And is most definately is discrimination. The KKK used to claim self-protection as well...

I don't think you've realised that while a lot of 'supporters' of Israel would argue that it's not apartheid, only the complete lunatic division of them would attempt to argue that there's not discrimination against the Palestinian population (remember them? they're the ones you've been trying to portray as genocidal terrorists?)

[Ken Burch]

35. Palestinians don't want to drive ISRAELIS into the sea.

In fact, no record has EVER been found of any Arab or Palestinian leader EVER expressing that idea.

And during apartheid, the ANC was constantly referred to(by people in the U.S. government at times) as a terrorist organization whose objective was to drive all whites out of South Africa.

[shergald]

61. Here's the suicide bombing reality: a story of retaliation for child deaths..

People who mention suicide bombings forget that in this context most of it was motivated by Israeli state terrorism, the wanton killing of defenseless civilians, such as occurred again recently in Gaza.

SUICIDE BOMBINGS:

The first suicide bombing in the second intifadah was on Dec. 22 (no Israelis died in it). By that time, 86 Palestinian children had been killed by Israelis. http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2000.html

The first Israeli child was killed on Jan. 17, 2001. By that time, at least 90 Palestinian children had been killed by Israelis.
http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2001.html

Alison Weir, in her documentary Off the Charts, noted the following:

Before a single suicide bomber had entered Israel after the start of the Second Intifada, sometimes called, after Sharon’s provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the al Aqsa Intifada, during its first month, 27 Palestinian children had been killed by Israeli Defense Forces in the West Bank and Gaza, the youngest only four months of age, and the majority due to gunshots to the head. Numerous children were also wounded. In the first three months alone, 159 children lost an eye presumably to rubber bullets shot from IDF rifles. Clearly the IDF were intentionally targeting these children, aiming at their heads with either rubber bullets or real bullets in the case of the child kills. We are talking here about a trained, mechanized army versus civilians, children participating in the intifada, the nonviolent resistance instituted by child and teenage Palestinian boys and girls. Oh, yes. Let’s be fair. We did hear that an Israeli soldier lost his eye from a rock thrown by a Palestinian boy from a pretty IDF spokeswoman, but it was the only such incident reported in three years.

In addition to these children, many more innocent adult civilians were killed, in the month before suicide bombings commenced. If terrorism is the intentional killing of civilians, then clearly, Israel’s armed forces were deep into terrorism, state sponsored terrorism, long before the Palestinians engaged in it to any degree. As a people fighting a military occupation, it would seem that the ultimate cause of all of these horrors on both sides rests with Israel and the purpose for which it continued its long occupation, the stealing of Palestinian lands.

See Alison Weir’s short documentary, *Off The Charts: Media Bias and Censorship in America* for the names, ages, places, and dates of these child killings.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5600677940569035557&q=Alternate+Focus

To be accurate, there were sporadic bombing incidents engineered by Hamas extremists in Israel during the Oslo period. None at all occurred between 1998 and 2000. But the strong resumption of attacks after 2000, over fifty in the first year, was directly related to civilian and child killings by IDF, and it was not just Hamas, but Islamic Jihad and other Fatah associated organizations that were involved.

This Time.com article apprises of what motivated Palestinian suicide bombers at this particular moment: Why Suicide Bombing Is Now All The Rage. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020415-227546,00.html

"Until recently most Palestinians believed they had alternatives to the kind of militancy practiced by Hamas. For years after the 1993 Oslo peace accord, which brought limited self-rule to the Palestinians and the prospect of an independent state, polls showed a strong majority of Palestinians supporting the peace process with Israel and only a minority endorsing suicide bombings. Thus, in their headhunting, the fundamentalists were limited to stalwart followers of their doctrine, which holds that any kind of peace with Israel is anathema. Even then, Hamas and Islamic Jihad had to cajole--some might say brainwash--young men into believing that the rewards of paradise outweighed the prospects of life on earth.

But with the breakdown of the peace process in the summer of 2000 and the start of the latest intifadeh that September, the martyr wannabes started coming to Hamas--and they didn't require persuading. "We don't need to make a big effort, as we used to do in the past," Abdel Aziz Rantisi, one of Hamas' senior leaders, told TIME last week. The TV news does that work for them. "When you see the funerals, the killing of Palestinian civilians, the feelings inside the Palestinians become very strong," he explained."

From the mouth of Rantisi, but it also motivated Fatah supporters, to exact revenge for the killing of Palestinian civilians. Revenge is not a formal use of terrorism. See Alison Weir's film, Off The Charts, at Google Video.

This commentary is from an article by Rami Khouri, editor of the Beirut newspaper, The Daily Star, which cynically denounced Olmert’s statements professing concern for the well-being of Palestinian children:

(Ehud Olmert's Profound Ethics and Deep Lies; http://www.ramikhouri.com/)

“For anyone interested in the facts about the impact of Israeli policies on Palestinian children, a good place to start is the carefully checked data disseminated by the Palestinian Nongovernmental Organization Network (www.palestinemonitor.org). Their data is compiled and verified on the ground by the Ramallah-based Health Development Information and Policy Institute, which has been honored by the World Health Organization for its work in promoting Palestinian health needs. So these people know what they are talking about when it comes to health conditions on the ground in Israeli-occupied Palestine. Some of the facts they provide are as follows.

In just the first two years of the second intifada, from September 2000 to November 2002:

• 383 Palestinian children (under the age of 18) were killed by the Israeli army and Israeli settlers, i.e. almost 19% of the total Palestinians killed; those figures have increased since then.

• Approximately 36% of total Palestinians injured (estimated at more than 41,000) are children; 86 of these children were under the age of ten; 21 infants under the age of 12 months have been killed.

• 245 Palestinian students and school children have been killed; 2,610 pupils have been wounded on their way to or from school.

• The Israeli policy of widespread closure has paralyzed the Palestinian health system, with children particularly vulnerable to this policy of collective punishment. Internal closures have severely disrupted health plans which affect over 500,000 children, including vaccination programs, dental examinations and early diagnosis for children when starting schools.

• During the first two months of the intifada, the rate of upper respiratory infections in children increased from 20% to 40%. Almost 60% of children in Gaza suffer parasitic infections.

• An overwhelming number of Palestinian children show symptoms of trauma such as sleep disorders, nervousness, decrease in appetite and weight, feelings of hopelessness and frustration, and abnormal thoughts of death.

• There have been 36 cases of Palestinian women in labor delayed at checkpoints and refused permission to reach medical facilities or for ambulances to reach them. At least 14 of these women gave birth at the checkpoint with eight of the births resulting in the death of the newborn infants.

The Israeli army killing of Palestinian children continues apace. In its annual report May 16, the respected global human rights organization Amnesty International accused the Israeli army of killing 190 Palestinians, including 50 children, last year (2005).”

Here is some commentary from Jonathan Cook on a grandmother suicide bomber, just to get some idea as to what motivates self destruction among Palestinians:

“If one thing offers a terrifying glimpse of where the experiment in human despair that is Gaza under Israeli siege is leading, it is the news that a Palestinian woman in her sixties -- a grandmother -- chose last week to strap on a suicide belt and explode herself next to a group of Israeli soldiers invading her refugee camp.

Despite the "Man bites dog" news value of the story, most of the Israeli media played down the incident. Not surprisingly -- it is difficult to portray Fatma al-Najar as a crazed fanatic bent only the destruction of Israel.

It is equally difficult not to pause and wonder at the reasons for her suicide mission; according to her family, one of her grandsons was killed by the Israeli army, another is in a wheelchair after his leg had to be amputated, and her house had been demolished.

Or not to think of the years of trauma she and her family have suffered living in a open-air prison under brutal occupation, and now, since the "disengagement", the agonising months of grinding poverty, slow starvation, repeated aerial bombardments, and the loss of essentials like water and electricity.

Or not to ponder at what it must have been like for her to spend every day under a cloud of fear, to be powerless against a largely unseen and malign force, and to never know when death and mutilation might strike her or her loved ones.

Or not to imagine that she had been longing for the moment when the soldiers who have been destroying her family's lives might show themselves briefly, coming close enough that she could see and touch them, and wreak her revenge.

Yet Western observers, and the organizations that should represent the very best of their Enlightenment values, seem incapable of understanding what might drive a grandmother to become a suicide bomber. Their empathy fails them, and so does their humanity.

Just at the moment Fatma was choosing death and resistance over powerlessness and victimhood -- and at a time when Gaza is struggling through one of the most oppressive and ugly periods of Israeli occupation in nearly four decades -- Human Rights Watch published its latest statement on the conflict. It is document that shames the organization, complacent Western societies and Fatma's memory.”

[ConsAreLiars]

64. Thank you. Bookmarked this post.

These facts should be obvious to everyone whose has paid a bit of attention and is not a willfully blinded bigot, but paying attention to facts is something that the Corporatist Mass Media will never facilitate, so only truth-seekers with the ability to get beyond the state's propaganda machinery have been able to see them.

Bookmarking because the facts are rarely told and the links very hard to discover via searches.

[invictus]

40. +1

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Excellent article that everyone should read...

Even for the folk who try to shut down any discussion of what Israel does in the West Bank by whining and screeching about the use of the word *apartheid*, there's absolutely no denying that there is severe institutional discrimination being carried out by Israel against Palestinians...

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Hardrada]

4. Thanks for the article. A must read!

Only one knee jerk response so far? I suppose the others will wander in when it's their shift.

[shergald]

59. Sharon's BANTUSTAN solution. An interesting story published by Lawrence of Cyberia

Source: http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/

"During his visit two weeks ago to Israel, former Italian prime minister Massimo D'Alema hosted a small group of Israelis - public figures and former diplomats - to a dinner at a Jerusalem hotel.

The conversation quickly turned to the conciliatory interviews Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave to the press for their Independence Day editions. One of the Israelis, of the type for whom it's second nature, no matter who is in government, to explain and defend Israeli policy, expressed full confidence in Sharon's peace rhetoric. He said the prime minister understands the solution to the conflict is the establishment of a Palestinian state beside Israel.

The former premier from the Italian left said that three or four years ago he had a long conversation with Sharon, who was in Rome for a brief visit. According to D'Alema, Sharon explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict.

The defender of Israel quickly protested. "Surely that was your personal interpretation of what Sharon said."

D'Alema didn't give in. "No, sir, that is not interpretation. That is a precise quotation of your prime minister."

Supplementary evidence backing D'Alema's story can be found in an expensively produced brochure prepared for Tourism Minister Benny Elon, who is promoting a two-state solution - Israel and Jordan. Under the title "The Road to War: a tiny protectorate, overpopulated, carved up and demilitarized," the Moledet Party leader presents "the map of the Palestinian state, according to Sharon's proposal." Sharon's map is surprisingly similar to the plan for protectorates in South Africa in the early 1960s. Even the number of cantons is the same - 10 in the West Bank (and one more in Gaza). Dr. Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa, notes that the South Africans only managed to create four of their 10 planned Bantustans.

The Bantustan model, says Liel, was the ugliest of all the tricks used to perpetuate the apartheid regime in most of South Africa's territory. By 1986, unrest in the Bantustans turned into ongoing rioting and terror, which descended into coups in the so-called independent regimes, and South African intervention. The minuscule support the Bantustan governments did enjoy evaporated, so by January 1994, they were finally dismantled and became integrated into the united South Africa of black majority rule.

No country recognized the Bantustans nor did any drop embargoes against South Africa. But veteran leaders of the black struggle against apartheid remember that business people from Israel and Taiwan were the only foreigners who developed business relations with the Bantustan governments. The permission given to the largest of the Bantustans, Bophutatswana, to open a diplomatic office in Tel Aviv infuriated American opponents of the apartheid regime, including Senator Ted Kennedy, and some of the Jewish congressmen of the time.

An Israeli who spent many years nurturing Israeli relations with Africa was also at the dinner hosted by the Italian prime minister. He said that whenever he happened to encounter Sharon, he would be interrogated at length about the history of the protectorates and their structures..."

-- Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hope, by Akiva Eldar; Ha'aretz, 13 May 2003.

[AnOhioan]

6. Are they different? Not so much

[Behind the Aegis]

15. There are very different.

But, this kind of mindless drek is predictable from the likes of Eldar, Hass, Levy and Gideon. This is another "apples and oranges" comparison, but passed off, "well, they are both fruits aren't they?!"

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Yeah, what would Desmond Tutu know about apartheid?

It's definately not the OP that's mindless drek...

[azurnoir]

16. As far I can see the major difference

between what is happening in the Israeli occupied West Bank and in South Africa is that in SA the whites were greatly out numbered

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Israeli settlers in the West Bank are greatly outnumbered...

Including East Jerusalem, there's just over 2 million Paletinians and around 300,000 Israeli settlers (don't quote me on those figures coz I went on memory and I could be wrong)...

Of course there are differences between the situations in the West Bank and South Africa, but differences can be found between any situation. That's why I always say that what's happening in the West Bank is reminiscent of Apartheid, not that it is actually Apartheid...

[azurnoir]

19. That is why I said "Israeli occupied"

the settlers are hardly isolated or "on their own" so to speak as they have IDF to defend them as recent events when a settler was killed by Palestinians, "justice" was meted out quickly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x296621

but your right we must be very careful of what say or how we say it lest the "truthiness trolls" are watching

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I didn't say that the settlers were isolated or on their own...

I pointed out that numerically they're far smaller in number than Palestinians in the West Bank, so I don't think that's a big difference when compared to Apartheid South Africa, that's all...

[azurnoir]

21. I myself have thought that the SA whites may not

have "given in" so to speak were they not so outnumbered

[tabatha]

22. Actually, it was not the numbers.

Please do not guess at reasons.

It had more to do with the fact that economically, the country had been brought to its knees ---- from 1$ = 1R to 4$ = 1R or worse.

By 1987 the growth of South Africa's economy had dropped to among the lowest rate in the world, and the ban on South African participation in international sporting events was frustrating many whites in South Africa. Examples of African states with black leaders and white minorities existed in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Whispers of South Africa one day having a black President sent more hardline whites into Rightist parties. Mandela was moved to a four-bedroom house of his own, with a swimming pool and shaded by fir trees, on a prison farm just outside Cape Town. He had an unpublicized meeting with Botha, Botha impressing Mandela by walking forward, extending his hand and pouring Mandela's tea. And the two had a friendly discussion, Mandela comparing the African National Conference's rebellion with that of the Afrikaner rebellion, and about everyone being brothers.

A number of clandestine meetings were held between the ANC-in-exile and various sectors of the internal struggle, such as women and educationalists. More overtly, a group of white intellectuals met the ANC in Senegal for talks.<113>

There were also Whites who were liberal enough to start promoting the end of Apartheid. One of the best selling books at the time was "After Apartheid: The Solution for South Africa". One of the authors of this book was one of the group of white intellectuals that met with the ANC in Senegal.

It also had to do with what Mandela did. He both assuaged the Whites and outmaneuvered them.

The story is complex - and not just one simple reason.

Also, Apartheid was ridiculous to some extent, because Blacks lived intimately with Whites as their servants and gardeners, cooks and waiters, etc. There was far more mixing of Whites and Blacks in SA than there was in the US, so it was a really stupid construct.

[azurnoir]

23. Thanks for your input

seeing as how you feel it was BDS that brought SA apartheid to "it's knee's" do you support the same for Israel?

[tabatha]

24. It will never happen.

There needs to be a movement from within Israel to make changes.
Just like the US, most of the public are terrified of terrorists.
Something has to be done about that.


And you took my spelling of "its knees" and changed it to the incorrect "it's knee's".

Knees is the plural of knee, NOT knee's. "Knee's" is used for something like the "knee's skin".

"It's" is a shortening of "it is". It is not used for the possessive.

[azurnoir]

25. Really thanks for the grammar correction

it's always a good way of diversion from a comment that one is uncomfortable with
so can we take it that in your opinion things are different because its Israel?

[tabatha]

26. It was not a diversion.

I have a pet peeve about incorrect use of apostrophes.

I don't know Israel as well as I did South Africa.
I grew up in South Africa, and followed the politics even after I left.
I can talk about it, and write about it.

I don't know Israel at all, and do not follow the minutiae.

The only comment I could make was what I knew about South Africans going to Israel and commenting on what they saw.

[polly7]

28. I've noticed my post on this was deleted and am trying to

understand why. Maybe it was the site? If so, here is another with the same article, though maybe it isn't allowed either.

Ma’ale Adummin: Annexation and the Architecture of Apartheid

"Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, recently traveled to the Middle East as part of the Gaza Freedom March, a delegation of activists who planned to challenge Israel's blockade of Gaza by delivering desperately needed humanitarian supplies."

"I could have been standing in a white only town in South Africa, but I was standing in an Israeli Jewish only town in the occupied territories."

http://michaelratner.com/blog/

[Violet_Crumble]

30. What were you linking to?

If you think someone's going to hit alert on it if you mention it, PM the link to me coz I'd like to know.

[polly7]

32. I PM'd you the site I originally got it from. nt.

[FarrenH]

29. As a (white) South African who grew up under Apartheid

I can see little difference, although Israel's perpetual defenders on this board seem to think any slight difference, however fine, technical, or functionally irrelevant, immediately makes the use of the word unjustified. The occupation (and perpetual blockade of Gaza, and denial of right of return, and second class citizenship of Arab Israeli's) walks, talks, makes the same excuses as and stinks like Apartheid.

[sabbat hunter]

31. Arab Isralies

have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen under the law.

[FarrenH]

33. Yeah and some people of color had 'honorary white' status under Apartheid

That kind of hairsplitting only illustrates differences in degree of various comparable features - in this cases a slight difference in scope only. The majority of Palestinians, nonetheless, suffer the same denial of self determination, freedom of movement et al, for much the same given and real reasons, as the majority of blacks in SA. And denial of right of return along with many other aspects of the occupation/siege clearly intended to ensure that a single ethnic group maintains its dominant position in Israel/Palestine makes it similar enough in nature to Apartheid to warrant using the label.

[shira]

34. wrong again, how many times do you require correction?

The majority of Palestinians, nonetheless, suffer the same denial of self determination,

In the last decade alone, Israel has offered Palestinians their own self-determination in the form of their own state (Barak in 2000 and Olmert in 2008). In 2008, it was a 100% offer (100% of the land beyond the green line in the territories w/ swaps). That means Palestinians have had the choice to realize self-determination, have freedom of movement, and they have rejected the opportunities given. Their leadership didn't want it. How do you explain that? What exactly do they really want?

And denial of right of return along with many other aspects of the occupation/siege clearly intended to ensure that a single ethnic group maintains its dominant position in Israel/Palestine makes it similar enough in nature to Apartheid to warrant using the label.

RoR of millions of Palestinians into Israel is nothing but a strategy to destroy Israel. Olmert offered in 2008 a limited RoR and that too was rejected.

So tell me, do you support giving all Palestinian refugees the choice to become full citizens of any Arab country they desire, according to the existing naturalization rules that exist for other Arabs (but are currently denied to Palestinians for some other reason of course than bigotry/apartheid)? Please be clear and concise when answering this one.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. perhaps in theory, but far from it in practice and many times the law itself discriminates

there is a fair amount of data available on that subject

"Only 3.4% of the 500 Arab citizens of Israel polled by phone felt that the Israeli government treats them as equal citizens. Some 49% said the government treats them as second-class citizens and 24% as hostile citizens who don't deserve equal rights."
according to a poll in the Jerusalem Post

Just taking a look at common Israeli-Jewish attitudes toward Palestinian citizens of Israel can look a bit disturbing:

"The poll showed that 75 percent of Jewish students believe that Arabs are uneducated people, are uncivilized and are unclean.

On the other hand 25 percent of the Arab youth believe that Jews are the uneducated ones, while 57 percent of the Arab's believe Jews are unclean." link:

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3350467,00.html

The poll showed that 68 percent of respondents said they do not wish to live next to an Arab neighbor, compared with 26 percent who said they would agree. Responding to a question about Arab friends, 46 percent said they would not be willing to have Arab friends who would visit them at their home. Some 63 percent of the Jewish public sees Arab civilians as a security and demographic threat.." link:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3231048,00.html

---------------------


Of the two books that I have read on the subject, perhaps the most interesting was Susan Nathan's, "The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish/Arab Divide". It is the personal story of an Israeli Jewish English teacher and lifelong committed Zionist who moved into and still lives in the northern Galilee small Israeli-Arab city of Tamra as the only Jew among 25,000 Palestinian-Muslim Israeli citizens. Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Israel-Journey-Across/dp/0385514565?SubscriptionId=0TBPMRS0W3G0CB5F0902&tag=afncaie-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0385514565

And " Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State by Jonathan Cook". Mr. Cook is a British reporter based in Nazareth and married to a Palestinian-Christian who is an Israeli Citizen. Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Religion-Unmasking-Jewish-Democratic/dp/0745325556?SubscriptionId=0TBPMRS0W3G0CB5F0902&tag=afncaie-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0745325556

=============================

and this from Wiki:

Discrimination: Anti-Arabism in Israel

While formally equal according to Israeli law, a number of official sources acknowledge that Arab citizens of Israel experience discrimination in many aspects of life. Israeli High Court Justice (Ret.) Theodor Or wrote in The Report by the State Commission of Inquiry into the Events of October 2000:

The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation.<188>

The Or Commission report also claims that activities by Islamic organizations may be using religious pretenses to further political aims. The commission describes such actions as a factor in 'inflaming' the Muslim population in Israel against the authorities, and cites the al-Sarafand mosque episode, with Muslims' attempts to restore the mosque and Jewish attempts to stop them, as an example of the 'shifting of dynamics' of the relationship between Muslims and the Israeli authorities.

According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Israeli government had done "little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens."<178>

The 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices<178> notes that:

"Approximately 93 percent of land in the country was public domain, including that owned by the state and some 12.5 percent owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). All public land by law may only be leased, not sold. The JNF's statutes prohibit the sale or lease of land to non-Jews. In October, civil rights groups petitioned the High Court of Justice claiming that a bid announcement by the Israel Land Administration (ILA) involving JNF land was discriminatory in that it banned Arabs from bidding."
"Israeli-Arab advocacy organizations have challenged the Government's policy of demolishing illegal buildings in the Arab sector, and claimed that the Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth."
"In June, the Supreme Court ruled that omitting Arab towns from specific government social and economic plans is discriminatory. This judgment builds on previous assessments of disadvantages suffered by Arab Israelis."
"Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged as discriminatory the 1996 "Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel," which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab towns."
"Israeli Arabs were not required to perform mandatory military service and, in practice, only a small percentage of Israeli Arabs served in the military. Those who did not serve in the army had less access than other citizens to social and economic benefits for which military service was a prerequisite or an advantage, such as housing, new-household subsidies, and employment, especially government or security-related industrial employment. The Ivri Committee on National Service has issued official recommendations to the Government that Israel Arabs not be compelled to perform national or "civic" service, but be afforded an opportunity to perform such service".
"According to a 2003 Haifa University study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail."
"The Orr Commission of Inquiry's report <...> stated that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"
The 2007 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices<189> notes that:

"According to a 2005 study at Hebrew University, three times more money was invested in education of Jewish children as in Arab children."
Human Rights Watch has charged that cuts in veteran benefits and child allowances based on parents' military service discriminate against Arab children: "The cuts will also affect the children of Jewish ultra-orthodox parents who do not serve in the military, but they are eligible for extra subsidies, including educational supplements, not available to Palestinian Arab children."<190>

According to The Guardian, in 2006 just 5% of civil servants were Arabs, many of them hired to deal with other Arabs, despite the fact that Arab citizens of Israel comprise 20% of the population.<172>

Although the Bedouin infant mortality rate is still the highest in Israel, and one of the highest in the developed world, The Guardian reports that in the 2002 budget, Israel's health ministry allocated Arab communities less than 0.6% of its budget for healthcare facility development.<172>

Property ownership and housing
The Israel Land Administration, which administers 93% of the land in Israel (including the land owned by the Jewish National Fund), refuses to lease land to non-Jewish foreign nationals, which includes Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who have identity cards but are not citizens of Israel. When ILA land is "bought" in Israel it is actually leased to the "owner" for a period of 49 years. According to Article 19 of the ILA lease, foreign nationals are excluded from leasing ILA land, and in practice foreigners may just show that they qualify as Jewish under the Law of Return.<191>

Israeli law also discriminates between Jews and Arabs regarding rights to recover property owned before the dislocations created by the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.<11> The 1950 Absentees Property Law stipulated that any property within post-war Israel which was owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who had merely been abroad or in area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property. Palestinians who fled or were expelled from their homes by Jewish or Israeli forces, before and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but remained within the borders of what would become Israel, that is, those currently known as Arab citizens of Israel, are deemed present absentees by the legislation. Present absentees are regarded as absent by the Israeli government because they left their homes, even if they did not intend to leave them for more than a few days, and even if they did so involuntarily.<192>

Following the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel occupied the West Bank, from where it annexed East Jerusalem, Israel then passed in 1970 the Law and Administration Arrangements Law allowing for Jews who had lost property in East Jerusalem and the West Bank during the 1948 war to reclaim it.<12> Palestinian residents of Jerusalem (absentees) in the same positions, and Arab Israelis (present absentees), who owned property in West Jerusalem or other areas within the state of Israel, and lost it as a result of the 1948 war, cannot recover their properties. Israeli legislation, therefore, allows Jews to recover their land, but not Arabs.<13>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Discrimination

[invictus]

41. +1

[shergald]

36. The similarities are too obvious to ignore.

Palestinian and Israeli writers alike have been referring to Apartheid for years, and it only follows from everything we know about the military occupation in the midst of a half million Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories. It is also the place where Netanyahu is taking Israel. Barak just gave a speech on it: it is either peace with the Palestinians or Apartheid, even though the configuration for the latter has already been set up by the ongoing colonization.

Thanks for posting the article.

[Jim Sagle]

38. Welcome, my friends, to the thread that never ends.

:boring:

[invictus]

39. Israel is actually worse. Israel would never allow a Nelson Mandela to exist. They would assassinate

him.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Nonsense.

There's a world of difference between apartheid - which I think Israel clearly is practicing - and genocide - which I think it even more clearly isn't.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. They also both had the vowels "i", "a" and "e" in them.

The fact that there are statements which are true of both nations does not make them comparable. The Nazis were responsible for the deaths of coming on for 10^8 people; at even the highest count Israel doesn't make it anywhere near 10^6 and I wouldn't be surprised if it's below 10^5 or even 10^4 by many estimates, and that's in about 5 times as long.

[LeftishBrit]

50. Excellent points!

[LeftishBrit]

48. deleted (dupe)

[LeftishBrit]

49. Would you put the UK and USA in the category of Nazi Germany?

Just asking.

Many countries have been 'greedy for land' and committed mass murder (war) on that account. Our two countries more than most, I'd say.

In fact, one of the unusual points about Nazi Germany was that greed for land, or other self-interest, was rather a small part of the motivation for the Holocaust. Most of it was genocide for its own sake.

The other unusual point, of course, is the sheer scale and systematicity of genocide within a short time. Let me know when Israel murders millions of people.

And by the way it's against the rules, and rightly so, to compare either Israelis or Palestinians with Nazis.

[shira]

45. no - the real question is: "Isn't that what David Duke would ask?"

[IndianaGreen]

46. Israel is not engaged in the systematic extermination of Palestinians

and that's only one of several significant differences between Israel and Nazi Germany.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

52. True or False questions with words such as 'all' or 'always' for example

are red flags that the assertion being made is false. This rule applies to your post!

[LeftishBrit]

53. Agreed!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. Please never take up maths :-)

In politics, though, that's a pretty good rule.

[shergald]

54. I'm seeing almost 1,500 views of this post.

"Apartheid" must be a highly sensitive concept, but before long, it will be a highly sensitive reality, if it is not already.

[shira]

57. "Apartheid" could have been over if Abbas signed onto Olmert's peace plan of 2008

You were wrong about bantustans being offered in 2008, so why did Abbas reject that when he could have effectively ended the "apartheid regime", colonialism, ethnic cleansing,slow-motion genocide, goat raping ....? :eyes:

[shergald]

58. Olmert offered just another variant of an Apartheid state.

The true believers have all been taken in by these pseudo-peace proposals. And while they were being proposed, the ethnic cleansing and colonization continued, even during Olmert's reign. Here's a link to all of Israel's peace plans, including Olmert's.

<b>Six Israeli peace plans that lead to Apartheid</b>
by shergald
Fri Jan 22nd, 2010

View any one of them and you will have seen them all.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/1/22/11595/2847

Sorry that I am unable to post all of these maps, six of them here.

[shira]

60. Abbas admitted Olmert's plan was serious. Your claims are bogus

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135699.html

View the map for yourself.

Do you spew this much BS about any other country or people in the world?

[azurnoir]

63. Does the article state that Abbas took the claim seriously?

what it does state is this

Olmert presented his map to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in September of last year. Abbas did not respond, and negotiations ended. In an interview with Haaretz on Tuesday, Abbas said Olmert had presented several drafts of his map.

perhaps Abbas did not have the chance to respond because Olmert was forced from office a few days later due to corruption

not to mention

again from your link

Olmert is currently suggesting that his map provide the basis for the resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians. In his talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and foreign statesmen, the former prime minister has said the international community must demand a formal response from Abbas to the Olmert proposal and proceed from there in the talks. Olmert has not presented the detailed map to Netanyahu.

Shaul Arieli of the Council for Peace and Security, which developed a map with a final border as part of the Geneva Initiative, said Israel's capacity to swap territory with a future Palestinian state is more limited than what Olmert reportedly proposed.

and then there's this

Netanyahu: I won't carry out an Olmert-Abbas peace deal if elected

Opposition leader favored by polls to sweep elections if held today rejects proposal to divide Jerusalem, says would toss out agreement between current PM, Palestinians

Opposition Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu has said if he is elected prime minister, he won't carry out any peace deal with the Palestinians reached by the current Israeli leader, Ehud Olmert, the Makor Rishon daily reported on Thursday.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3533242,00.html

Netanyahu: I'm not bound by Olmert pledges, won't evacuate settlements

Likud Party Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said he would not be bound by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's commitments to evacuate West Bank settlements and withdraw from the territories.

"I will not keep Olmert's commitments to withdraw and I won't evacuate settlements. Those understandings are invalid and unimportant," Netanyahu said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060126.html