Israel accused of 'apartheid'

[bemildred]

Jimmy's "aparthied" meme seems to be spreading.

A UN human rights envoy has likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians in occupied territory to "apartheid", and said that failure to tackle the situation will make it hard to solve abuses elsewhere.

John Dugard, a UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, made his remarks to the UN Human Rights Council on Thursday.

Dugard, a South African lawyer, said restrictions on movement and separate residential areas gave a sense of "deja vu" to anyone with experience of apartheid, noting that apartheid was "contrary to international law".

He said: "Of course there are similarities between the OPT and apartheid South Africa."

al Jazeera

[Larkspur]

1. Archbishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela also labeled Israel's government as apartheid

Jimmy Carter borrowed it from them, but it's good that it is spreading as an appropriate label for Israel's practices against Palestinians.

[barb162]

4. here's Mandela and Tutu quotes

Mandela:I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel, within secure borders.
Nelson Mandela
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nelsonmand178788.html


Tutu: We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html

Notice how Tutu mentions suicide bombers too? That this isn't a one-sided condemnation and it's not at all just about "apartheid"?

[Larkspur]

27. Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid' (BBC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1957644.stm

...The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".

In a speech in the United States, carried in the UK's Guardian newspaper, Archbishop Tutu said he saw "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about".

The archbishop, who was a leading opponent of apartheid in South Africa, said Israel would "never get true security and safety through oppressing another people".
SNIP

Israel must "strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders," he said.

Archbishop Tutu, Israel: Time to Divest New Internationalist magazine, January / February 2003

Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu calls for international campaigners to treat Israel as they treated apartheid South Africa.

SNIP

[Tom Joad]

29. Yes, Tutu and many South African leaders think that it is way past time for divestment for Israel

It is a nonviolent way to change the fundamental injustice of occupation of Palestine. Tutu believes in peace, but it must be with justice.

He never advocated simply ending resistance, it must come with ending the injustice.

[Tom Joad]

2. Of course what Israel is doing in the OPT is much worse than what South Africa did.

[barb162]

6. Aren't Christians in the PT leaving because of Palestinian apartheid

policies? How many Jews are living in the Palestinian Territories?


"How many Jews do you think there will be in the new sovereign state of Palestine?"
snip
It's not clear what he means by using the loaded word "apartheid", since the book makes no attempt to explain it, but the only reasonable interpretation is that Carter is comparing Israel to the former white racist government of South Africa. That is a foolish and unfair comparison, unworthy of the man who won - and deserved - the Nobel peace prize for bringing Israel and Egypt together in the Camp David Accords, and who has lent such lustre to the imaginary office of former president.
snip

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html

[Violet_Crumble]

26. No. Also I think you used the wrong link in yr post...

..because the one you linked to was Desmond Tutu's article 'Apartheid in the Holy Land' and it doesn't contain what you quoted...

[Tom Joad]

33. hehe again with wrong links... at least it wasn't to a hate site this time. Booboos happen.

a link that would have "backed up" such nonesense would be something like Rev Hagee's material or Pat Robertson... not credible sources to be sure, but at least they backup the idea of Palestinian actions, and not the occupation, are the main cause of Christian Palestinians leaving the West Bank.

[oberliner]

45. Or an article from a well-respected liberal columnist?

The link that contains the article is not from Rev Hagee or Pat Robertson.

It is from an editorial written by Michael Kinsley.

Link: http://www.slate.com/id/2155277/fr/rss/

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Looked like an article from a moron to me n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. Palestinian Christians tell a very different story:

link to full poll and article:

http://www.openbethlehem.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=17

" -- 76.4% of Palestinian Christians in the Bethlehem area believe that the main cause of the emigration of 400 Christian families in the past few years is due to the Israeli aggression and occupation, whereas

-- 3.1% only believe that it is due to the rise of Islamic movements.
-
--66% of the Christians believe that Israel deals with the Christian Heritage of Bethlehem with brutality or indifference.
-

--73.3% of Christians believe that the Palestinian National Authority deals with the Christian Heritage of Bethlehem with respect.

"The Questions

The first question was directed to Muslims asking if they have Christian friends, 87.5% answered that they do have Christian friends, whereas 12.5% answered that they do not have Christian friends.

The second question was directed to Christians asking whether they have Muslim friends, 92.2% answered that they do have Muslim friends, whereas 7.8% answered that they do not have Muslim friends"

"The question whether the respondent did have a friend or relative that was arrested by the Israeli forces for political reasons 65.3% say that at least one of their family members or friends was once arrested for political reasons as opposed to 34.1% who say no. 0.6% gave no answer.
41.5% say that they had at least one friend or family member killed by the Israeli army. 58.5% said they don’t. 53.9% of the Muslim respondents and 32.9% of the Christian respondents answered in the affirmative.

When asked about how Israel deals with the Christian Heritage of Bethlehem 65% of Christians answer that it treats it with either brutality or indifference (rising to 76% for respondents over the age of 60), 4.3% say that Israel has nothing to do with it, while 4.6% express no opinion.

A majority of 73.3% of Christians and 83.3% of the Muslims believe that the Palestinian National Authority treats the Christian Heritage of Bethlehem with respect."

"The Palestinian Center for Research and Cultural Dialogue (PCRD), was commissioned by Open Bethlehem to conduct this poll on a random group of 1000 Palestinian adults (18 years and older), from the cities of Bethlehem, Beit-Jala, and Beit-Sahour (three cities that form the conurbation of the Bethlehem district).
The margin of error was 3.1%. The percentage of Christian respondents was 59.2% and the percentage of Muslim respondents was 40.8%. The percentage of male respondents in the sample was 49.7% and female respondents was 50.3%

According to the Palestinian Central of the Bureau of Statistics, the city of Bethlehem is divided into 34 residential groups, whereas Beit-Jala and Beit-Sahour are both divided into 20 residential groups each.

The methodology the Palestinian Center for Research and Cultural Dialogue (PCRD) followed was that the Center chose 20 residential groups from the city of Bethlehem, 10 residential groups from Beit-Jala and 10 from Beit-Sahour, a random starting group was chosen in each of the cities, the researchers then moved from one group to the other. That is if the researchers choose to give the questionnaire to group number (1), they would disregard group number (2) and go to group number (3) and so on. And to ensure the random selection of the sample, 25 questionnaire forms were given to each residential group, hence that each residential group consists of about 150 residential units. So the residential unit that did receive the questionnaire was each sixth unit of the group, accordingly 503 individuals participated in the poll from Bethlehem city, 246 individuals from the city of Beit-Jala and 251 from the city of Beit-Sahour.

The Palestinian Center for Research and Cultural Dialogue was careful to have the ratio of the male respondents almost equal to the female respondents, for example if a male was questioned in the sixth residential unit, a female would be questioned in the twelfth unit, and then a male would be questioned in the eighteenth unit and so on. The researchers used the Kish Grid, which is internationally used in opinion surveys."

link to full poll and article:

http://www.openbethlehem.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=17

[Tom Joad]

32. That is false. Christians are leaving, and muslims are leaving because of intolerable conditions of

the occupation.

[HamdenRice]

3. I lived in South Africa during the late apartheid years

I have not visited Israel or the occupied territories, but from what I've seen and read in the mainstream media, and comparing it to South Africa, I would say it's now much worse than late apartheid South Africa.

Dugard is one of the greatest human rights lawyers ever and wrote a landmark book in human rights in South Africa in the early 70s (I may be off on the date), but I think he is pulling his punches.

For example, South Africa imposed restrictions on residence not restrictions on movement, of blacks (except during emergencies when access to townships was limited usually for short durations). So, for example, an African living in Soweto near Johannesburg, could not relocate freely to, say, Durban's townships for work; but he could visit Durban without going through roadblocks, etc.

Also, South Africa's system was less militarized. Most of the governmental physical abuse in South Africa was carried out by the South African police -- which was a national police force system, not localized like ours -- and in particular by the security police. In Israel and the occupied territories, the physical oppression is carried out by the military, which is poorly suited to policing, because militaries are trained mainly to use deadly force.

There was an odd period in the late apartheid emergencies when the police would lose control of townships and the army was called in. In many such cases in the late 80s, the township leaders actually welcomed the South African Defense Force (ie the army) into the townships, because it was less abusive and would get the security police under control.

Lastly, the South African government never starved out any township or homeland, preventing the movement of food, medicine and other necessities into black areas.

[barb162]

5. If people are starving in the PT, I suggest you look at World Bank

and Fayyad's numbers on the hundreds of millions of dollars reaching the PT. Then ask yourself why it isn't going toward food.

[HamdenRice]

7. The food crisis is a result of border closures

The PA may very well be corrupt, but the humanitarian crisis, especially the food crisis, is the result of the restrictions imposed on the movement of goods and services, as well as the financial sanctions imposed on the territories.

[barb162]

8. Corrupt? Oh, no kidding. Ask the corrupt leaders what they

are doing with the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid before the word apartheid is brought up. Look at Hamas and ask why their hate supercedes food for their own needy.
The borders get closed because of terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks are the cause of food shortages, if any.

[HamdenRice]

11. The point you are not addressing is simply this:

As an African American who lived in South Africa for nearly two years, and witnessed conditions there first hand, I can say that conditions in late apartheid South Africa were not as horrific as they currently are in the West Bank and Gaza.

The fact that there is a political/military conflict does not justify collective punishment of the Palestinian people, nor the international community allowing this humanitarian crisis to worsen.

[msmcghee]

12. You said,

"The fact that there is a political/military conflict does not justify collective punishment of the Palestinian people, . . "

This is the standard talking point - typical of the grand sounding but unfounded claims made here constantly about this conflict. Here are some actual facts for you to consider.

a) There is a state of war that currently exists between Israel and the government of the Palestinian people - initiated by the Palestinian government. The PA refuses to acknowledge the existence of Israel, refuses to stop the "resistance" - which means attacks on Israel. That is why the "occupation" is so damaging to Palestinians.

b) The heavy handed aspects of the occupation are there because of their "resistance". Not the other way around. No amount of whining or statements from the loonie left that killing Israeli civilians is justified because of the "occupation" can change that. No objective person believes that.

c) Nothing in International law prevents a state from defending its citizens from attack. States are permitted to defend themselves as necessary from ongoing attacks and attempts at attacks - within certain limitations to safeguard civilians.


All the Palestinians have to do to relieve what you describe as "collective punishment" - but is actually Israel's only workable defense - is recognize Israel's right to exist in peace and stop attacking Israel. Until the Palestinians are at least willing to try that - the world will just do what any sane person would do - realize that Palestinians mean exactly what they say - that they will not stop killing Israelis until Israel is destroyed no matter what Israel does.

At this point you will respond with the standard excuses that they don't really mean what they have been saying and doing for 60 years.

Then I will say - if what you say is true, what do the Palestinians have to lose by trying it? Israel already has the power to do whatever it wishes in the disputed territories. What would Israel do worse to them if the PA decided to negotiate and establish recognized state borders? Put in more checkpoints?

Most people ask themselves this question and come to the only realistic answer. Your view of "Israel the great Imperialist oppressor" only makes sense to those who hate Israel more than they love peace. That's why your view will never be endorsed by any realistic Dem presidential candidate.

Any intelligent person who does not already hate Israel can't understand why, if the Palestinians really want peace, they don't just stop killing Israelis? Why instead, do they keep firing rockets and sending in suicide bombers and keep saying in their mosques and publicly that they will never stop until Israel is gone from the ME?

Until you can address this reality - only a very few unrealistic people and religious fanatics will think that you make any sense at all.

Reality is a strong wind that's blowing against the Palestinians as a result of their own destructive decisions over the years. If they wish to actually improve their position in life their only choice is to try a different tack - which they will be ever more unlikely to do as long as some fringe groups in the West keep telling them they are heroes and martyrs.

[HamdenRice]

14. You seem to believe you know not only what I'm thinking but

how any conversation between us would proceed.

Are you not aware that the African National Congress was "at war" with the South African government? Yet that government did not engage in this kind of collective punishment against the black South African population.

Moreover, South Africa was in a state of hostilities with Angola and Mozambique, while fighting a separate colonial war in Namibia. It was also in a much more demographically weak position -- representing about 15% of the population, or less considering a very significant minority of white South Africans was opposed to apartheid.

The South African government was, bizarrely enough, simply more humane toward the black South African population than the Israeli government is toward the Palestinians.

I believe that is for two reasons. First, and this is not understood well in the West, apartheid was one of those "failed ideologies" of development, sort of like Leninist capitalism, which was indeed actually trying to compete for legitimacy. Apartheid was also called "separate development," and while oppressing and exploiting its black population, the South African government also sought to point to its achievements in "developing" its black population. Black South Africans were not "the enemy" -- and certainly not the external enemy -- of the South African government; they were a citizens of a second class nature.

Isreali's and Palestinians, by contrast, seem to regard each other as enemies pure and simple, rather than citizens of the same country trying to figure out the relationship between the races.

Secondly, I think black and white South Africans shared much more culture, religion, and history than Israelis and Palestinians. Most Americans are not aware that black South Africans acquired a limited vote in South Africa in 1870 in the Cape, and had representatives in Parliament for much of the first half of the 20th century.

Apartheid was considered by many black and white South Africans as a temporary abberation. Keep in mind that apartheid only began in 1948, but blacks and whites had been living and working together for hundreds of years, albeit in an inferior/superior social system.

Your somewhat hysterical rant, it seems, is designed to prevent a meaningful open minded dialogue of the comparison of these two societies and whether Jimmy Carter's and John Dugard's assessments are useful and what they tell us about both societies and the possibilities for a way forward.

Your understanding of international law is simply wrong. Israel, as a power occupying the West Bank and Gaza, as very significant obligations toward the civilian population.

[msmcghee]

17. I see you failed to address my main point.

Here it is again.

Any intelligent person who does not already hate Israel can't understand why, if the Palestinians really want peace, they don't just stop killing Israelis? Why instead, do they keep firing rockets and sending in suicide bombers and keep saying in their mosques and publicly that they will never stop until Israel is gone from the ME?

Until you can address this reality - only a very few unrealistic people and religious fanatics will think that you make any sense at all. Can you offer a explanation for this that will sense to any rational person?

[HamdenRice]

18. Why do you make unwarranted presumptions?

I don't hate Israel, so why start off that way? Is it just to prevent meaningful dialogue?

As for the substance of your question, this is one that the South Africans answered very effectively and that the Israelis cannot seem to master.

Remember when South Africa began negotiations with the ANC? A big issue was whether Mandela and the ANC had to renounce violence (the "armed struggle") before negotiations could begin.

Mandela and the ANC refused to renounce violence, because (and this is sadly true about the politics of transitions) violence was the main leverage that the ANC had to bring the South African government to the negotiating table.

The parties did enter into a tactical cease fire. As negotiations proceeded, violence erupted, and the South African government suspended negotiations saying that the violence had to end before negotiations could continue. The ANC also insisted that governmental attacks and "third force" or false flag attacks on black South Africans cease before negotiations continue.

But instead of violence decreasing, it increased. That's when both the government and the ANC had their joint eureka moment: If they made a cessation of violence a precondition for negotiations, then they were handing a veto over negotiations to the most violent factions of each side.

Both the South African government and the ANC came to a very profound, explicit and public realization that negotiations had to continue during periods of violence as the only means of reducing that violence.

And that's exactly what happened. For some reason, Americans have the false belief that South Africa had a peaceful transition. It didn't. It had a transition during a civil war in which more people were being killed than in the war in Yugoslavia which was occurring at the same time. They very bravely continued negotiating as the country was plunged into ever deeper violence -- and not just government/ANC violence, but Zulu nationalists, Afikaner separatists, and homelands government obstructionists.

Are you aware that the Afrikaner separatist party stole from the Army (or was given) an armored personnel carrier which they literally crashed through a wall into the negotiating conference hall to try to stop the negotiations? And the negotiators went right back to work within a few days.

That's the lesson that Israel's government failed to learn. During the years when the PLO controlled the PA, the government kept suspending contact and talks as a result of Hamas sponsored violence.

That simply gave Hamas a veto over the peace process.

[msmcghee]

20. Again your comparisons fail.

In Israel's case there is no "faction" that wants to negotiate on the Palestinian side. There is no faction that says if we can decide on borders and some other details then we want to live in peace - so let's negotiate toward that goal.

The Palestinian leadership says they will not give up their goal of having a ME free of Jews, of having a Palestine from the river to the sea, and their intention to use violence to achieve that goal. (I can post the Hamas Charter if you wish but I'm sure you've seen it by now.)

If I am wrong then show me this imaginary group's statements and authority to speak for Palestinians.

[HamdenRice]

21. Well, now I see where you are coming from

If you believe that, if you believe that the Rabin and Barak era negotiations never happened, that great progress was not made with the PLO led PA, then we don't live in the same factual universes.

Have a nice day.

[msmcghee]

23. Yes, I am "coming from" discussing the reality . .

. . as it exists today - not years or decades in the past.

But you are right about us not living in the same factual universes if you think there is now anyone in the Palestinian leadership either prepared to negotiate for peace with Israel - or with the ability to deliver it if they did.

Until that happens there is no point in Israel negotiating the details of their own destruction.

[msmcghee]

13. Addressing your comparison of S. African . .

. . apartheid to what's happening on the WB - is not realistic.

Did black S. Africans send suicide bombers into white areas to kill white civilians over a period of several decades? Did black S. Africans fire rockets or artillery into white areas that required strict segregation barriers and checkpoints and curfews for defense?

You can not compare defense against a longstanding terrorist campaign financed by foreign money - with brutal segregationist policies undertaken to maintain the white supremacist status quo in S. Africa.

I mean you can if you don't want to be taken seriously but there really is no comparison between the two. Israel has a right to defend itself from attack. S. Africa had no right to treat its black citizens in the way that it did.

[HamdenRice]

15. Again, you seem not to know much about South Africa

The African National Congress did indeed send bombers into South Africa. Urban bombers struck repeatedly in Johannesburg and other major cities. They generally did not have artillary or rockets, but they did plant mines, especially on the northern border area that at the time was known as the northern Transvaal (province names have changed since majority rule). They also engaged in the destruction of infrastructure.

That's why the South African government called the ANC a "terrorist" organization, and why Republican administrations sought to label the ANC as such. The ANC's main financial source of support for its military actions was indeed foreign -- from the Soviet Union -- and its diplomatic and humanitarian aid came mainly from the Scandanavian countries.

Just because you believe that anyone who makes the comparison "won't be taken seriously" doesn't mean it isn't so. John Dugard is one of the greatest human rights lawyer in history, and Jimmy Carter is obviously well known and respected for his efforts toward peace in the middle east.

Just because you would like to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these two great figures are not making this valid comparison doesn't mean it isn't true or will go away.

Finally, I would note that I have, as I said, first hand experience living in South Africa during the apartheid era, and as bad as apartheid was, it simply was nothing like what is going on in Palestine today.

[msmcghee]

16. Your comparison is quite selective.

Black and white S. Africans - were all S. Africans. Just as black and white Americans were always both Americans.

Palestinians are not Israelis. Israel is not at war with Israeli Arabs who live in Israel and neither have Israeli Arabs declared war on Israeli Jews. If they were your points might have some relevance.

If you lived there and can't even see the difference between two races living in one state dealing with issues of equality on the one hand - and attacks on the civilians of one state inside their borders from another outside group with the intent to destroy them - then I don't know how useful the rest of your analysis could possibly be.

There are many good lawyers. That only means that they are persuasive. Alan Dershowitz is also a good lawyer and he disagrees with you and Carter.

[HamdenRice]

19. Why are you so hostile about this

Your post is actually in agreement with what I am saying -- namely that South Africans generally thought of themselves as fellow countrymen, and Israelis and Palestinians don't.

[msmcghee]

22. The point is how that profound difference affects . .

. . the two situations (S. Africa / Palestine) and the actions and responsibilities of the two conflicted parties in two very different ways.

[msmcghee]

25. Sorry if my statements appeared hostile . .

. . toward you. It was your ideas and premises that I was directing my words at. I'll try to tone things down a bit.

[Tom Joad]

30. Israelis live in the West Bank though... so the government does not seem to think

it as another nation. There seems to be no border that Israel needs to respect.

Dershowitz believes in the destruction of Palestinian villages as a way to punish individuals. Bush is not as reactionary.

[msmcghee]

34. You said,

"Israelis live in the West Bank though... so the government does not seem to think (of) it as another nation."

So, if you go to live in Mexico, say in one of those settlements in Mexico full of American retirees on SS, does that mean the US does not see Mexico as another nation - or that the US does not respect the border of Mexico?

[breakaleg]

35. If the US built roads leading to the homes of the US citizens in Mexico and permitted only

those citizens to use them, banning Mexicans from doing so, then I guess that would show how they view it. Doesn't Israel do just that?

[msmcghee]

38. If the government of Mexico ever disintegrated to . .

. . the point where they could no longer protect the safety of US residents there while Mexican nationals were crossing the border to shoot Americans or bomb the discos in US border towns, maybe shooting WWII era rockets into US towns across the borders - and had declared that their goal is to kill Americans until we left the USA - then yes, the US would absolutely occupy Mexico.

I think that rather than simply allow a state on our border to become a rogue nation of anti-US terrorists - the US would probably go in there and take control (occupy Mexico at least for a good ways into Mexico from the border) until some order could be created by Mexicans themselves to control their own state.

For the occupation to end they'd have to agree to behave according to the accepted standards of modern nation states. That means at a minimum they would be required to recognize the US borders and US sovereignty and abide by all treaties.

If they also shot at US residents on Mexican roads then I don't see any problem with the US building safer roads for them. Once peace is established the Mexicans would get to have those roads back to do with what they wish anyway. That part's a win - win as far as I can see.

If the problem persisted, the US would still be better off with military and checkpoints inside Mexico than waiting on our side of the border for the next suicide run. And better off with American settlements in Mexico as well to provide more reasons for those troops to be there.

It's the kind of thing that happens when a weak state is infected with fanatics they can't control - that start killing innocent civilians in a neighboring democratic state that has lots of resources and a big military. They will "sit on them" as humanely as possible - with gradually escalating force and restrictions on movement - until the attacks can be controlled.

If the rogue state tried that on a neighbor state with a similarly violent culture as theirs there would probably be some genocide and ethnic cleansing on the schedule.

[Tom Joad]

42. So if they hated us so much, we would set up US colonies there?

counter-intuitive, to say the least.
Way beyond counter-intuitive even. flat-out insane.

what israel is doing is basically annexing portions of the West Bank for itself. And that is the root of the problem.

If the US were to do that to Mexico, i think there would be an increase of violence between the two.

[msmcghee]

46. You are out of sync with my scenario.

I explained that the attacks from Mexico on US citizens both within the US and US residents in Mexico occurred first. Similar to attacks on Israelis from inside the territories. There were no onerous military restrictions in Palestine after 1967 until that occurred.

Again see post #38.

If a wealthy state with a big military is attacked repeatedly by terrorists from a neighboring state that can't or won't control its own borders - then the big state will control those borders for it. And it will sensibly do so from inside the weak state - not from inside its own borders.

And it will use as much force as necessary to quell the attacks - if it's an enlightened democracy - like say Israel. The amount of force they use will depend on how well organized and financed the terrorists are. If they have lots of weapons and money then it could get pretty bad for the civilians in those border areas and could last many years. But certainly you don't expect the wealthy state to go someplace else. (Well, maybe you do. But they won't.)

That's just the only possible outcome from a situation like that. The amount of violence and hardship the civilians will have to experience is unfortunately - up to the terrorists to a great extent.

[Tom Joad]

49. Say again?

"There were no onerous military restrictions in Palestine after 1967 until that occurred."

Yes, no military restrictions on Israelis.
Palestinians have a very different perspective, however. This in turn bred resentment and violence.

The settlement program -- of sending Israeli civilians... whole families, to Occupied Palestine, was not meant to bring peace... it was meant to take land. To create facts on the ground.

[msmcghee]

50. Why so? There are plenty of Arab villages in Israel. n/t

[Tom Joad]

60. ???

Your point?

[Tom Joad]

61. Those Palestinian villages have been there for many hundreds of years...

In contrast,the Israeli settlements were built in violation of international law.

It is illegal to transfer a nations civilian population into territory it occupies.
So you see, it's not just a good idea not to do that, it's the law. Not that Israel has paid much attention to such things.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Article 49
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

[msmcghee]

62. As had Jewish villages and holy places in Samaria and Judea. n/t

[Tom Joad]

66. Israel sends its citizens into the West Bank, then you think it should be

allowed in reverse... refugees currently in the West Bank, originally from what is now Israel, can return to live in the villages they were evacuated from in '48 or '67?

But Jews from Russia, for example, who have no direct family ties to the land, can go to the West Bank?

[msmcghee]

67. Israel is a nation with its own immigration policy.

Those wishing to go to Israel must abide by those restrictions - which every free nation is entitled to impose according to its own interests and laws.

The West Bank is a disputed territory with no state government capable of controlling it own borders or people. As long as Israel occupies that area - as a necessity of defense against attacks from that area - Israel should also get to determine who can settle there IMO.

That's one of the many prices that Palestinians pay for living in an area where terrorist attacks are continually launched against a sovereign neighbor that has more wealth and a vastly superior military. It sucks but Israel has little choice in the matter. Are you suggesting that some other body like the UN determine who can live in the territories - but Israel still has to remain there to defend itself? Or maybe the UN should take over Israel's border defenses - kind of like how their presence along Israel's northern border prevented attacks against Israel from Hisb'allah last summer. :sarcasm:

The Palestinians have had the opportunity for 40 years to end the occupation and Israeli control of their lives (and the creation of new settlements) simply by recognizing the right of Israel to exist in peace and stopping terrorist attacks against Israel from that region. They have not only failed to do so - they have refused to so.

But the opportunity has been there all along. All they have to do is want to create their own state - more than they want to destroy Israel's.

[breakaleg]

68. So, Israel gets to have it both ways. I can see the locals defending this act

but to see an American support it is downright shocking. And to read your little scenario where you suggest that the US would be justified in doing the same to Mexico should the right set of circumstances present itself was also quite telling.

You seem quite willing to defend the indefensible. So, is there any area in which you can find fault with Israel?

[msmcghee]

69. My point was that the US would have no other choice.

But yes, in that sense, it is justifiable. If the US simply wanted to annex Mexico and there were no attacks coming from Mexico against US citizens - then it would not be justified.

I find your opinion that a democratic peaceful state has no right to defend the lives of its citizens from terrorist attacks along its border the interesting one here.

[breakaleg]

74. Can you point out where I said that a state has no right to defend itself?

As for your classification of "a democratic peaceful state" being Israel, do you read what you right? Peaceful guns, peaceful weapons, defensive deaths, where do you get this shit?

[msmcghee]

76. I didn't say you said it. I implied . .

. . that I find that to be the core of your opinion on the matter based on your many statements.

As far as Israel being a democratic peaceful state - Israel has never attacked another state or nation except in defense. It has a democratic form of government and attempts to provides its citizens with human rights regardless of ethnicity or religion.

That's how I define a democratic peaceful state.

[breakaleg]

78. I suggest you refrain from guessing what my or anyone else's core opinions are.

You are usually wrong. The only question is, do you misread people's posts on purpose or is there some basic understanding of the written word that you fail to grasp?

[Violet_Crumble]

80. You didn't answer breakaleg's question...

Which was: 'So, is there any area in which you can find fault with Israel?'

I'd be interested in seeing yr answer to this question...

[msmcghee]

70. As far as Israel having it both ways . .

I am sure Israel would much prefer to be living in peace next to the prosperous state of Palestine with its own successful secular government.

What you describe as having it both ways - is actually a very expensive morally degrading situation that Israel can not escape because of the relentless danger of terrorism that is directed at Israel from the territories.

It is an ugly dirty job but it's what is minimally necessary to protect the lives of its citizens and I seriously doubt that anyone in Israel thinks of the occupation as "having it both ways".

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. There are NO disputed territories. there are OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.

This has been reaffirmed over and over and over and over again by the UN Security Council, The UN General Assembly and the World Courts and every credible and independent international body that deals with this issue.

There is no dispute. This is not an issue of opinion or interpretation.
This is a matter of indisputable International Law.

In spite of the Palestinians renouncing their claim on 77% of their homeland and offering concession after concession after concession, Israel to this day has never once offered even one single concession on that which it is entitled to under International Law.

Israel to this day has never once renounced the use of violence and terror to enforce and expand their illegal occupation and engage in the theft of Palestinian land.

Israel to this day has never recognized the right of Palestine to exist and relentlessly engages in policies to fragment and undermined Palestinian civil, economic and political society.

Israel had relentlessly done everything possible to weaken Palestinian law enforcement capabilities, administrative capabilities, civil society and economy. Obviously they knew perfectly well that would mean an increase in violence and make Palestinian ability to restrain attacks all the more impossible. They knew that and they did it anyway.

Here are just a few of almost countless infractions of International Law. I could spend all night looking up a very long, long list :

"465 / 1 Mar 1980
Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices. Calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation."

"471 / 5 June 1980
Expresses deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population. Calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Calls again upon the Government of Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of the Convention as well as with the resolutions of the Council, calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem."

476 / 30 June 1980
Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Reiterates that all measures taken by Israel which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Reaffirms that all such measures and actions constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter to secure full implementation of this resolution.

478 / 20 Aug 1980
Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular, the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem. Calls upon all members of the United Nations (a) to accept this decision, (b) and upon those States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City.

http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/Palestina/palestina274.htm

[msmcghee]

72. Reality always trumps rhetoric. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. indeed it does

I did like your post comparing the racist settlements on stolen and occupied land to American retirement communities in Mexico though.

That was creative.

[breakaleg]

75. You say this, yet all you post is rhetoric. No matter what the topic, what they day

every single post you make is the exact same. You are long on words but you say nothing new. It's the same old shit every day.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. The Fourth Geneva Convention trumps anyone's personal opinion...

As long as Israel occupies that area - as a necessity of defense against attacks from that area - Israel should also get to determine who can settle there IMO.

While Israel has the right under international law to militarily occupy territory to defend against attacks from that area, Israel does not have the right under international law to settle its citizens in that territory...

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

[msmcghee]

81. Yes, well what I said was . .

. . reality trumps rhetoric.

The Geneva conventions are not observed by the militants who fire rockets into Israeli towns or send suicide bombers into Israeli discos.

Israel does what it deems in its best interests as far as the settlements are concerned.

In one case we're dealing with the targeted deaths of innocent civilians at the hands of fanatics wielding high explosives.

In the other case we're dealing with complex legal matters that result in people building settlements in mostly uninhabited areas of a stateless region that harbors those fanatics wielding high explosives.

That's the reality that trumps the rhetoric. Personally, I'd love to see both these issues addressed in an international court of law.

PS - I'm gone for a few hours but I'll check in later. Go crazy!

[Violet_Crumble]

82. The Geneva Conventions are reality...

Personal opinions that clumsily try to say the Geneva Convention don't matter are what's rhetoric...

The Geneva conventions are not observed by the militants who fire rockets into Israeli towns or send suicide bombers into Israeli discos.

And why would anyone who thinks that Israel doesn't need to observe the Geneva Conventions have a problem with anyone else ignoring them? Or is there some invisible print, and there's a hidden Article at the end that says: 'This Convention applies to everyone else but Israel'?


Israel does what it deems in its best interests as far as the settlements are concerned.

Refer to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

There's nothing there that says it's acceptable for the occupying power to settle its own citizens in the occupied territories if the occupying power deems it to be in their best interests...


In one case we're dealing with the targeted deaths of innocent civilians at the hands of fanatics wielding high explosives.

Unless you think the entire Palestinian population are fanatics wielding high explosives, how is this any sort of argument for why the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

In the other case we're dealing with complex legal matters that result in people building settlements in mostly uninhabited areas of a stateless region that harbors those fanatics wielding high explosives.

There's nothing complex about the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel is not permitted under international law to move its citizens into territory it's militarily occupying.

That's the reality that trumps the rhetoric. Personally, I'd love to see both these issues addressed in an international court of law.

There's nothing realistic in any of those arguments for why Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Israel....

[breakaleg]

63. Aren't there also plently of Arab villages in Israel that they refuse to acknowledge and put on

their maps? Why is that?

[Tom Joad]

65. Over 500 villages were destroyed in 1948.

Of course, those villages can be rebuilt. I think many will be.

[msmcghee]

64. Please try to address my point. I said,

"There were no onerous military restrictions in Palestine after 1967 until that occurred."

The years immediately after the '67 War were the best years that the West Bank and Gaza have ever experienced in terms of per capita income, health standards, infant mortality, educations, etc.

It took a few years for Arafat to organize his resistance against all that prosperity that was brought to the area by the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who crossed the border easily every day to work in Israel and bring back money and capital for new businesses to the territories.

As the resistance cells proliferated border crossings became more difficult and check points started appearing. As the resistance became more successful and more Israeli citizens died from vicious suicide bombs in Tel Aviv and Haifa - the occupation became ever more onerous. As more Israelis died at the hands of Palestinians, whatever desire some Israelis had to see a sovereign state on her border - especially one dedicated to Israel's destruction - disappeared, of course.

What you see today is the natural result of that successful strategy of terrorism pursued for almost forty years now - if you equate success with the suffering of the Palestinian people.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. The scenario doesn't work...

Mexico IS a state. Palestine isn't and hasn't ever been...

[msmcghee]

56. Again, you're playing games and avoiding the point.

I said - if the gov of Mexico ever deteriorated to the point where they could not control their borders - and became infected with anti-US terrorists that took de facto control of the government.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. The scenario is totally ridiculous...

If, if, if, if. If someone can't have a bit of goodnatured fun with a particularly ridiculous What If?? scenario of the future, then the world would be a very sad and soulless place...

[breakaleg]

43. But you skipped a step. In the US scenario, it's assumed that the American's bought

their homes in Mexico legally. In the West Bank, the Israeli's didn't.

I find it very amusing that you are so entrenched in your defense of Israel that you would advocate the US doing the same thing rather than admit you are wrong. The good news is I don't think anyone else in the US would be foolish enough to get lost in such a scenario. And of course it's all premised on the same falsehoods you love to project - that it's all the fault of one side and the other is completely innocent in every regard.

If nothing else, you've again reaffirmed how useless it is to to have these little conversations.

[msmcghee]

47. When I reply to you, don't assume that I expect you . .

. . to respond in any particular way - or at all. I write posts for a much larger audience. If you give me good material - I'll pick up on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. No, of course the US wouldn't occupy Mexico in that scenario...

Hasn't the recent history of Afghanistan and Iraq taught the world anything? It's obvious that if Mexican nationals were to carry out terrorist attacks on US soil, the US would swiftly bomb the crap out of Cuba, then move on to invade and occupy Canada, and call the thing Operation Enduring Free-Trade ;)

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. under Israeli law..Israelis living in the colonies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

live completely and totally under Israeli sovereignty and jurisdiction and are connected to Israel through a network of Israeli only roads and infrastructure. They are completely and totally a part of the Israeli political system and government. In almost all cases they are subsidized by the Israeli government. Any and all civil, legal and criminal problems are directly and exclusively under the Israeli court and legal system. They are exclusively subject only to Israeli border controls and only Israeli law; both civil and criminal.

Neither the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian courts, Palestinian political system or the Palestinian law enforcements officials have any jurisdiction over them in any way, shape or form.

This would not even remotely be comparable to an American retirement community in Mexico.

[msmcghee]

39. See post #38 n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

48. See post #44 n/t

;)

[msmcghee]

51. I did. Didn't make sense.

Afghanistan and Iraq are not on our borders. And killing 3000 Americans on 9/11 organized by groups working out of Afghanistan is not firing a WWII rocket across our border.

For the record the Iraq war is probably the stupidest blunder in US history - to say nothing of the immorality of it.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Cuba's not on yr border...

And the rest is easily fixed by the US invading and occupying New Zealand....

[msmcghee]

55. C'mon VC . .

. . I know you can understand the larger point I was making. For once, instead of playing with semantics or an analogy that is not 100% perfect - why not take a good look at what I was getting at and addressing that head on. That's what I try to do with your posts.

And I think it was a pretty good point.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Nah, you lost me when you first tried to compare Mexico to the Occupied Territories...

After that, it took a sharp turn into a What If??? future scenario (weren't you only a few hours ago telling someone that you prefer discussing a reality that is happening now?), I thought I'd try to salvage something out of it by taking a smartarse jab at US foreign policy (hence the winky), and to my consternation, I returned to find my lighthearted jab had been taken seriously...

The bottom line is that the US and its relationship with Mexico is a very different thing than the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, and no amount of fudging can make it appear similar...

[msmcghee]

59. I am sometimes amazed at how far you will go to find some . .

. . angle that allows you to escape discussing the actual points of someone's post. You are very skilled.

I was not comparing Mexico and Palestine. I was pointing out that any wealthy nation with a big military that is attacked by an organized terrorist effort along its borders with a less developed nation has very few options. I used a hypothetical situation along our southern border with Mexico to illustrate that point.

We could not bomb Mexico city for example or attack whatever elements of the Mexican army we could locate. Both acts would be inhumane and would accomplish little in terms of defense.

I can understand why you would avoid dealing with the questions and dilemmas posed by discussing this in a straightforward way because it would emphasize how much the Palestinian conflict and the well being of the Palestinian people is really in the hands of those in Hamas, Hisb'allah, IJ, Fatah, etc.

Israel can either occupy the disputed territories - and somewhat brutally because of the well-financed nature of the resistance and the ease of bringing weapons and explosives into the area - or Israel can sit back by their border and allow its citizens to be killed by ever more bombs, rockets and snipers - such as happened when Israel pulled out of Gaza and Lebanon.

The Israelis only have bad choices - which are exactly the choices that the militants wish to give them. The irony of course, is that if Israel was a nation like Turkey or Iraq or Darfur - there would be few Palestinians around at this time to mount any form of resistance against their occupation.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. You did compare US citizens residing in Mexico to Israeli settlers...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=170374&mesg_id=170471

Instead of trying to create ridiculous future scenarios involving the US and Mexico, how about dealing with the reality of what's happening now? After all, that's what you told someone else in this very thread to do...

[Tom Joad]

41. Looks like we all answered at once. Ironically, i was going to bring up the comparison myself,

to draw the distinction, rather than say its the same. Besides, thinking of escaping to Mexico, far from the madness of the Bushies, is so appealing now.

Amazing that someone even thought it was comparable. Like comparing Apples to Bagpipes.

[Tom Joad]

37. Good question. I would be subject to Mexican law. If i broke the law,

Mexican police would arrest me. (same both ways... the US has complained when a US citizen is arrested and mistreated, but it can only ask and deal with it diplomatically... Mexico has complained when they feel one of their nationals is mistreated, but they know they have no direct jurisdiction) furthermore, Mexico would determine if i could emigrate to mexico in the first place. So if my kids had the habit of stoning Mexican kids, they would likely kick me out. The U.S. has not built walls around these retirement communities and annexed them to the US (not yet, at least). Roads to these retirement communities are not restricted to US citizens. Where these homes are built is approved by the Mexican government, not the US government.

If a Palestinian (or Jewish) citizen of Israel marries a Palestinian from the West Bank... they cannot live in Israel... yet there is no restrictions on Israeli living in West Bank settlements.

Thanks for bringing that up, it certainly contrasts the difference!

[msmcghee]

40. See post #38 n/t

[JackRiddler]

121. Apt comparison...

Remember all those recent US bombing raids to kill "militants" in Mexico? And the US checkpoints all over Mexican territory? Remember when they blew up the power plant? Exactly the same thing, right? The West Bank settlements are just a retirement community for people from Brooklyn and Russia, right?

[Tom Joad]

28. There are many people in Palestine, the aid is insufficient, and Israel has destroyed the

infrastructure for Palestine to rebuild their own economy. There are many restrictions on travel of workers, trade, transportation of goods, etc. These restrictions make things much more expensive and difficult. Borders are closed continually.

Palestine is under occupation, after all, and i find it disturbing that people seem to forget that.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

24. No...

And I didn't realise the Palestinians were carrying out an occupation of any land...

[HamdenRice]

10. Here is Dugard's reference to apartheid, in context

Norman Finkelstein reproduced the Dugard report. Here is the summary:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=910

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967

01.29.2007 | ohchr.org
by John Dugard*

* The report was submitted after the deadline so as to include the most recent developments.

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Fourth session
Item 2 of the provisional agenda

Advance Edited Version,
A/HRC/4/17 of 29 January 2007

Implementation of
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251 OF 15 MARCH 2006

Summary

{He discusses the illegal firing of rockets into Israel and provides other political/military context before discussing the humanitarian crids}

Palestinian Authority by the Government of Israel (estimated at about US$ 50 to 60 million per month) and from the economic isolation of the territory by the United States, the European Union (EU) and other States in response to the election of the Hamas Government. The Temporary International Mechanism set up by the EU to provide relief in certain sectors has gone some way towards reducing the crisis, but over 70 per cent of the Palestinian people live below the official poverty line. Health care and education have suffered as a result of a strike of workers in these sectors against the Palestinian Authority and the international community for the non-payment of salaries. In effect Israel and sections of the international community have imposed collective punishment on the Palestinian people.

Persons responsible for committing war crimes by the firing of shells and rockets into civilian areas without any apparent military advantage should be apprehended or prosecuted. This applies to Palestinians who fire Qassam rockets into Israel; and more so to members of the IDF who have committed such crimes on a much greater scale. While individual criminal accountability is important, the responsibility of the State of Israel for the violation of peremptory norms of international law in its actions against the Palestinian people should not be overlooked.

The international community has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights - colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation. Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. At the same time elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States? It is suggested that this question might appropriately be put to the International Court of Justice for a further advisory opinion.

The Occupied Palestinian Territory is the only instance of a developing country that is denied the right of self-determination and oppressed by a Western-affiliated State. The apparent failure of Western States to take steps to bring such a situation to an end places the future of the international protection of human rights in jeopardy as developing nations begin to question the commitment of Western States to human rights.

[HamdenRice]

83. So we all agree? Palestinians are worse off than Black South Africans under apartheid?

Reviewing this thread, there is an interesting consensus: That indeed, Palestinians are worse off than black South Africans during apartheid.

Note that almost all of the debate on this thread is why conditions are so bad -- are the Palestinians to blame because of the terrorist tactics of their leaders, which required Israel's harsh collective response? or are the Israelis to blame because their long term goal is to seize the West Bank lands for colonization? -- but not if conditions are that bad.

But even those who support Israel on this thread seem to be conceding that conditions for Palestinians are indeed worse than they were for black South Africans. That's the point I was trying to make in explaining how I saw conditions in South Africa when I lived there, and how they compare to Palestine.

If we agree, then I hope we can also agree that there is a humanitarian crisis of world historical significance. I hope we can all open are hearts and think of all Israelis and Palestinians as real people with real material needs. Whoever is to blame, that crisis of material needs must be addressed. The international community generally does not try to solve political crises or assess blame in responding to an immediate humanitarian crisis. So the way forward is to determine what steps both sides can take so that either they or the international community can address the humanitarian crisis.

[kaal]

84. Palestinians are indeed worse of than Black South Africans

But I don't remember hearing of rockets/Katusha's being fired in Johannesburg or suicide bombers ripping buses and restaurants appart...

The two situations need to be looked at differently, but regardless of the measure, yes, Palestinians are indeed worse off.

[HamdenRice]

85. The ANC did indeed carry out bombings

For some reason this mythology has been built up in the US that the struggle in South Africa was peaceful.

It wasn't. The ANC carried out several bombing campaigns, including while I was living there. (Wasn't fun!) The South African government exercised more restraint towards its domestic black population, but was very ruthless towards the ANC on its border and toward front line countries that harbored them.

You are correct, that there is a host of differences that makes comparison difficult.

But there is a catastrophe occurring in the OPT that needs to be addressed.

Just a few examples of ANC bombings:

http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9604/s960429o.htm

AFRIKANER TELLS HOW ANC BOMB ALERTED HIM TO LIBERATION STRUGGLE
A white Afrikaner from Pretoria on Monday said he was alerted to black South Africans' struggle for freedom by an African National Congress bomb that killed his son.
Cornio Smit, 8, was killed in the December 23, 1985 blast at a shopping centre in Amanzimtoti near Durban.

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

Church Street bombing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Church Street bombing was a 1983 attack by the Umkhonto we Sizwe {insert: Umkhonto we Sizwe, literallly "Spear of the Nation" was the ANC's army} in the South African capital Pretoria, killing 19 and wounded more than 200.<1><2> The bombing was one of the biggest attacks committed by the ANC during its armed struggle against apartheid.

The attack consisted of a car bomb set off outside the Nedbank Square building on Church Street at 4:30pm on a Friday. The target was South African Air Force (SAAF) headquarters, but as the bomb was set to go off at the height of rush hour, those killed and wounded included civilians, women and children. The bomb went off ten minutes earlier than planned, killing two ANC operatives in the vehicle, Freddie Shangwe and Ezekial Maseko. At least 20 ambulances took the dead and wounded to hospital.

[Shaktimaan]

109. I have trouble making a clean comparison

between Palestinians and Black S.Africans under Apartheid in many of these categories just because it is comparing apples and oranges. What made south africa's situation something that commanded the world's attention was less about the conditions that existed, (surely there are far worse humanitarian situations elsewhere in Africa,) and more about the institutionalized racism which seemed from a bygone era. To compare any single aspect of the two situations requires stripping away all other aspects that don't mesh together well. The motives, logistics and possible solutions for Palestine don't have easy parallels to S.A.

For example, are Palestinians' situation worse than blacks in S.A.? Some are. Some are not. The ones who are worst off right now are refugees from Iraq trapped by the Syrian border. Palestinians in Lebanon have been living in dismal camps for decades, as in Gaza. Palestinians in Israel are doing fine though. So unlike in S.A. we are dealing with a problem that spans several countries and has many interlacing causes.

There is very, very little the two things share in common.

[Englander]

110. The system of apartheid is in the OPT, not Israel.

[msmcghee]

112. You mean the "alleged" system of apartheid.

And he was using the presence of Palestinians in Israel who are treated like other Israeli citizens to show a weakness in that part of the "apartheid" comparison that depends on an implied racism.

[Shaktimaan]

113. I understand

But it is still an extremely loose comparison. Whenever people try and draw real similarities between the two that have any practical substance the whole thing falls apart. Yet we still talk about it in relation to apartheid in S.A. as in "well, are the conditions better or worse for the Palestinians than they were in S.A.?" But the I/P conflict's causes and possible resolutions bear no resemblance to those in S.A.

Referring to this conflict as apartheid muddles rather than clarifies the situation.

[msmcghee]

86. I certainly don't agree.

Blacks in S. Africa were oppressed because they were black.

Palestinians in the WB are restricted in their movements and their borders are tightly controlled - not because they are Palestinian or Arab or Muslim. It is because they use that area to stage attacks against Israeli civilians.

Blacks in S. Africa could not stop being black.

Palestinians on the WB can stop attacking Israeli civilians. When they do the restrictions will ease. If they actually attempted to make peace with Israel the restrictions would disappear entirely as soon as the Palestinians intentions were deemed sincere.

It's really very simple at that level.

As far as a humanitarian crisis that needs our dollars, there are plenty of US taxpayer dollars going into the territories right now - just not through Hamas. Does that bother you?

I am sure many more of those US taxpayer dollars will be available in quantity as soon as Palestinians drop their desire to destroy Israel. In the meantime there are several Arab states in the close vicinity full of multi-billionaire ruling families with whom the Palestinians share both religious traditions and language - as well as their desire to see Israel "wiped from the map".

No-one is preventing them from providing humanitarian aid.

Added on edit: Anticipating accusations of bigotry I realize I used the phrase "as soon as Palestinians drop their desire to destroy Israel" and I didn't say that I didn't mean "all Palestinians". Of course, I don't. I mean enough of them do that Israel is required to impose restrictions on Palestinians' lives in order save Israeli lives.

[HamdenRice]

87. Again, you are addressing the "why" not the "what"

The point is, both the level of deprivation and the degree of discrimination in the occupied territories is worse than it was in South Africa. Not every Palestinian is a terrorist, yet all Palestinians are suffering that level of deprivation and discrimination. If you believe all Palestinians are terrorists, you disagree with the basic ground rules of this forum.

When we focus on "what" not "why," which I tried to do, I think we can see that the restrictions on movement of people, food and supplies is worse; the system separate roads is worse; the militarization is worse; etc.

[msmcghee]

88. How can anyone possibly discuss . .

. . a complex conflict like this while separating the what from the why?

It makes no difference at all if black S. Africans under apartheid suffered worse, less worse or the exact same treatment as Palestinians under Israeli occupation.

Palestinian suffering is the direct result of Israel's need to defend its citizens from deadly attack. As long as that need is there Israel will continue defending its citizens - and the side effect will be Palestinian suffering.

Your premise seems to be that since Palestinians are being treated worse than black S. Africans were during apartheid and the ANC struggle (according to your opinion of that), that Israel should relax its restrictions in the territories and allow more Israeli civilians to be killed by terrorist attacks.

(I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct that if you like but that's what you seem to be saying.)

Aside from the unrealistic view of human nature you reveal I assure you Israel is not that dumb. Comparisons of the I/P occupation with S. African apartheid is just another attempt to smear Israel with the ugliest possible phrasing and politically loaded hate speech - for defending the lives of its citizens.

[HamdenRice]

89. What I am saying is that there is a humanitarian catastrophe

that needs to be addressed first and foremost. In responding to humanitarian catastrophes, the international community does not try to solve the underlying problem first; it provides aid.

Second, the comparison suggests that Israel is going beyond measures necessary to defend itself (hence the South African comparison) to collective punishment. That is illegal under international law. Unless you believe every single Palestinian is a terrorist, then Israel should stop trying your strategy -- which is to make the Palestinians suffer so much that they will reject their leadership. They won't, and the strategy seems only to be making more Palestinians less willing to work toward peace.

Third, the Israelis can learn from the South Africans. The white South Africans of the post Botha era made courageous and intelligent decisions about how to manage change. The Israeli political leadership (except for Labor leadership) seems not to be making very good decisions.

Fourth, we need to take very seriously the report of someone of the stature of John Dugard and his conclusions. He probably knew more about apartheid's legal structure than any human being, and if he concludes that Israel has created an apartheid structure, then we owe his report very close and careful study, and Israeli political leadership needs to take this report seriously.

BTW, John Dugard, although white, was the Thurgood Marshall of South Africa. Not as in Marshall's role on the Supreme Court, but Marshall's role in designing the NAACP Legal Defense Fund strategy that led from winning small desegregation cases, to Brown v. Board of Education, to the desegregation cases all across the country.

Dugard wrote the masterwork on apartheid and the law, Human Rights and the South African Legal Order; then he founded the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, which systematically litigated black trade union cases and township residency cases, leaving apartheid in such shreds that the government had to repeal it.

When he makes these conclusions, we should take him seriously rather than dismissing his report defensively.

[msmcghee]

91. I didn't realize this was a thread on the need for the international . .

. . community to provide more aid to Palestine. I guess the title "Israel accused of 'apartheid" led me astray.

I was also led astray by your post that I was responding to where you said, "The point is, both the level of deprivation and the degree of discrimination in the occupied territories is worse than it was in South Africa."

Your "point" was quite in line with the title of the thread and that is what I was responding to.

Your statement, "Second, the comparison suggests that Israel is going beyond measures necessary to defend itself (hence the South African comparison) to collective punishment. That is illegal under international law."

The fact that Israeli citizens keep dieing at the hands of Palestinian terrorists and that terrorists are captured every few days attempting to deliver bombs inside Israel suggests even more strongly that Israel is not doing enough to defend itself. Or, is there a certain number of Israeli citizen deaths that would allow Israel to defend itself more vigorously in your opinion? Would these need to be tallied on a monthly basis, quarterly - and then Israel's defensive measures for the following period planned accordingly? I mean a bomb that kills 20 kids in a disco could be the last bomb they were ever planning to deliver - and any defense could be seen as excessive if that was case.

Your comparison is further discredited by your implied suggestion that S Africa's oppression of their black population was the result of white S African's attempts to defend themselves against organized terrorist attacks from blacks. Are you suggesting that the ANC struggle was about black S Africans attacking peaceful whites to create a white-free S Africa - similar to the way Palestinian militants admittedly attack Israeli civilians with the purpose to create a Jew free ME? I didn't think so.

You said, "Unless you believe every single Palestinian is a terrorist, then Israel should stop trying your strategy -- which is to make the Palestinians suffer so much that they will reject their leadership."

Just to be clear I have never said that all Palestinians are terrorists nor do I believe it.

My strategy to make Palestinians suffer? I never even said it was Israel's strategy. I don't know what Israel's strategy is. I said that if Israel perceived that it's options were limited - I could understand why a strict occupation policy in defense against terrorism - that induced the more violent Palestinians to voluntarily move away from the border with Israel - might be a better alternative than a full-scale war that kills many innocent civilians.

Of course that was immediately twisted into a statement that I condone ethnic cleansing - rather than address my actual ideas in an intelligent way. Are you willing to try that? I think it's an interesting area to explore.

Re: Dugard. There are many people of stature on both sides of the argument - that doesn't make any of them right or wrong. Their arguments and positions do.

[Violet_Crumble]

92. You did describe ethnic cleansing....

I said that if Israel perceived that it's options were limited - I could understand why a strict occupation policy in defense against terrorism - that induced the more violent Palestinians to voluntarily move away from the border with Israel - might be a better alternative than a full-scale war that kills many innocent civilians.

Of course that was immediately twisted into a statement that I condone ethnic cleansing - rather than address my actual ideas in an intelligent way.

What you said was: 'I suspect though that eventually, if peace becomes a hopeless mirage in an ever hazier future, that Israel will tire of the constant state of war and killing and may adopt even more stringent defensive policies that would help more Palestinians see the wisdom in living someplace other than next door to Israel.

That may be their only reasonable alternative.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=170359&mesg_id=170494

What you described in that post is ethnic cleansing, and you later used a very clumsy and incorrect analogy which involved portraying Palestinians as racist neighbours in order to try to justify it...

[msmcghee]

93. Keep trying VC. But your premise is hopeless.

As you just admitted, I said,

"I suspect though that eventually, if peace becomes a hopeless mirage in an ever hazier future, that Israel will tire of the constant state of war and killing and may adopt even more stringent defensive policies that would help more Palestinians see the wisdom in living someplace other than next door to Israel."

I stated a guess about what I suspect Israel might do in the future - if certain specific things were to occur.

It is debatable whether my words " . . more stringent defensive policies that would help more Palestinians see the wisdom in living someplace other than next door to Israel . . " - even apply in the usual use of the term "ethnic cleansing".

But, even if they were - is it against the rules to "describe ethnic cleansing" - which is what you just accused me of in this post? I've seen whole threads devoted to the definition of those words.

Or are you implying that I am in favor of it? Or that I like it? Or that Israel would be justified using it? Please be more careful with your words. Someone could misunderstand you.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. I'm repeating word for word what you said. It's as black and white as it comes...

You forgot to repeat the bit you said which showed yr support of ethnic cleansing, and that was: 'That may be their only reasonable alternative.'

There is nothing reasonable about ethnic cleansing, and what you described and voiced yr support of is most certainly ethnic cleansing.

So, no, I'm not implying yr in favour of ethnic cleansing. I'm stating very clearly that you have said that you think ethnic cleansing is a reasonable alternative and went on to create an analogy and asked if it would be so bad...

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[HamdenRice]

95. Here's where I think we disagree

You wrote:

"The fact that Israeli citizens keep dieing at the hands of Palestinian terrorists and that terrorists are captured every few days attempting to deliver bombs inside Israel suggests even more strongly that Israel is not doing enough to defend itself."

I certainly agree with the desire by the political leaders of Israel to prevent any more Israelis from dying from terrorism.

The question is whether the policies adopted by Israel advance that policy.

I think that what the friends of Israel who are not blinded by their uncritical support of Israel are missing (and I consider myself a friend of Israel, or at least a supporter of my Jewish friends who live there, and travel back and forth), is this question: Are the policies that Israel has adopted the best policies or even marginally effective policies, in lowering the risk of terrorism?

Starving the occupied territories is not making Israel safer. It is making Israel less safe. You are assuming that Israel is rationally adopting policies in response to Palestinian terrorist attacks.

I think something more complex is going on. To a certain extent, policies toward the West Bank and Gaza are dictated by security. But they are also dictated by: (1) emotional vengeance, an emotion that you have displayed with astonishing clarity on this thread -- ie a desire to hit back, whether it makes Israel safer or not, (2) a desire to appear tough to the Palestinians, and we know what that did for the US during the Vietnam era, (3) the desire by some elements in Israeli politics to annex the West Bank while claiming that is not a goal, (4) a desire to appear tough to the Israeli electorate, which is basically pandering, and also is not effective (look at what that did for the US with respect to Iraq and the right wing electorate here).

Sometimes, friends have to be brutally honest with friends. If you are a friend of Israel, perhaps it's time to say, "you know, things were much better when courageous Israeli leaders like Rabin and Barak, who had fought "terrorists" all their lives decided to sit down and negotiate with them." A US policy of "Israel right or wrong" actually encourages Israel to make "wrong" decisions, because there is no cost to them for doing so.

You also wrote: "Your comparison is further discredited by your implied suggestion that S Africa's oppression of their black population was the result of white S African's attempts to defend themselves against organized terrorist attacks from blacks. Are you suggesting that the ANC struggle was about black S Africans attacking peaceful whites to create a white-free S Africa - similar to the way Palestinian militants admittedly attack Israeli civilians with the purpose to create a Jew free ME? I didn't think so."

Why do you use terms like "discredited"? You may disagree, but I hardly see why my analysis would be discredited, unless you wanted to end the open and honest discussion. Perhaps you mean, "I disagree."

As to the substance, of course, white South Africans oppressed black South Africans in part because they were defending themselves against organized terrorist attacks. And of course, the ANC attacked "peaceful whites." It was a civil war. And while the ANC always said that they wanted to create a South Africa in which whites were welcomed, whites did not believe that, and feared the majority of whites would be driven out of South Africa just like whites in almost every other African country after independence/majority rule -- Kenya, Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, and Zambia.

Even more troubling to whites was that there were two liberation movements -- the ANC and the Pan African Congress, a more militant, nationalist organization whose steet slogan was "one settler, one bullet." So yes, many whites believed (wrongly) that they were fighting for their survival, not just to preserve their privilege.

But that was an illusion created by white South Africans not listening to what the entire range of black South Africans were saying. When the political leaders of white South Africa realized that there were leaders on the other side who did not want them exterminated, they negotiated a new dispensation.

When Israelis and friends of Israel realize that most Palestinians want peace as well, and learn from history that during periods when progress towards peace was manifest there was little terrorism, that Israel will have a negotiating partner -- just as white South African learned.

[msmcghee]

97. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

First, when I used the term "discredited" I was strictly referring to your premise - not to you as a person. Since I thought your own words falsified your premise - I thought "discredited" was more appropriate than "I disagree".

I want to also point out that your post, while disagreeing with me, actually addresses ideas. I respect that and I'll do my best to reply in kind.

Your main premise in this post seems to be that Israel is not making choices that . . " are the best policies or even marginally effective policies, in lowering the risk of terrorism?"

There are many ways to look at that question. But first, I think the overarching principle here is that Israel is the democratic state being attacked. And the Israelis who elect their government are the one's who will suffer the consequences of their policy decisions - however they turn out.

To me that means that Israel's decisions regarding defense are hers to make - good or bad. No other state or body has the right to tell Israel how to defend the lives of its citizens - or any other state in the world for that matter, that is under attack.

I'd also say that that's a different assertion than the usual one here - that Israel is a colonialist power in the process of annexing and ethnically cleansing the WB and therefore is violating international law.

As far as your main premise, I like posts that make me think. I'll reply to the rest in parts as I digest your points so each part of my reply will be easier to understand and so it won't be so long. Thanks.

[HamdenRice]

115. There is a lot to think about and respond in your posts!

First, I would agree that, "But first, I think the overarching principle here is that Israel is the democratic state being attacked. And the Israelis who elect their government are the one's who will suffer the consequences of their policy decisions - however they turn out."

Certainly Israel has the right to determine its own policies just like any state. But in a politically interdependent world, other states and international organizations have the right to observe, criticize, negotiate, and even impose sanctions on states that make "bad" decisions.

Surely you would agree that the international community has the right to criticize the Bush administration on its invasion of Iraq, its adoption of torture, its adoption of detention without trial, and so on, even though the Bush administration is the elected (???????????) government of the US.

Israelis, it is correct will suffer the consequences of bad decisions. But so will the Palestinians, and as essentially stateless people, the international community has special obligations toward them, that they do not have toward, say, Israeli Palestinians.

[msmcghee]

98. My thoughts on this part - vengeance . .

"I think something more complex is going on. To a certain extent, policies toward the West Bank and Gaza are dictated by security. But they are also dictated by: (1) emotional vengeance, an emotion that you have displayed with astonishing clarity on this thread -- ie a desire to hit back, whether it makes Israel safer or not, . . "

Are you saying that I personally display emotional vengeance toward other posters in my posts? I'd be surprised if you were but your statement is not really clear about that.

As far as emotional vengeance being a component of Israel decisions. All human behavior decisions are related to survival at some level. All human behavior decisions are emotional - in that emotions are the mechanism that underlie behavior decisions.

Nothing is as emotional as a direct threat to one's survival. I was shot at once by the police using rubber bullets during a demonstration back in the sixties. I will never forget the extremely intense emotions I experienced - and my immediate hatred of the police and the political system that put them there that day to shoot at me and my friends - and my desire for vengeance which I did not exercise.

Having experienced that, even in such an inconsequential way, I can see very clearly why Israelis have very good reasons to believe that their survival is at serious risk and the kinds of emotions they must experience regularly. That is why it is so dangerous for any people to believe their political desires justify violence - such as some Palestinians' desire to see a Palestine from the river to the sea that is repeatedly expressed with deadly violence.

Once violence is employed to reach one's goals in a conflict the genie is out of the bottle - and that genie immediately starts using more violence to generate its own reality which becomes the dominant reality in the conflict - and the result is the inevitable deaths of large numbers of innocent persons on both sides.

So yes, I agree that vengeance has to be a component of Israel's response. Psychologically there's no way it could not be. At the same time I see Israel keeping that component (those emotions) in check pretty well - which is what I generally expect from diplomats and politicians in democracies.

I am sure that individual IDF could be guilty of acts of vengeance but I think that is rare and not only discouraged but usually punished. I have read of trials of individual IDF for that. That means it is not a policy of Israel.

Also, there have been very few Palestinians killed by Israel in the whole history of this conflict especially when compared with Arab vs. Arab conflicts during the same period. Wiki says 4209 since 2000 - perhaps the deadliest period. And these were the result of Israel's defense in an ongoing war that was declared on Israel by Palestinian militants.

In contrast Jordan killed more than 10,000 Palestinian refugees in 3 days when Jordan's king felt that his survival was threatened. Palestinian supporters here seem unconcerned about those 10,000 that died at Arab hands - but the 4000 that Israel killed while defending its citizens from attack elicit very emotional expressions regarding Israel's motives.

I guess all-in-all I don't see Israel's to-be-expected feelings of vengeance playing a significant role in their policy decisions.

[HamdenRice]

116. Reminds me of South Africa in another way

Back in the 1970s, I remember that many Americans, especially African Americans, and Africans from other parts of Africa saw white South Africans as not just citizens of a country with a bad policy, but as actually evil people. In other words, it's possible to work oneself up into a lather about the citizens of countries and territories that are pursuing bad policies. Like if you met a white South African you actually didn't want to shake his hand.

But when I first went to South Africa on a human rights fact finding mission in 1986, and as I started working with white South Africans who were coming to the US on various fellowships, I found that they were just regular people. In fact, I was shocked at how many progressive white South Africans there were who hated the ruling party of South Africa, the National Party, which had implemented apartheid in 1948. Did you know that the three big cities of South Africa -- Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban -- never elected a National Party majority on their city councils, always elected the liberal white party, and that apartheid had to be imposed on these reluctant cities?

People would ask me how I could work with them or talk to white South Africans, but in reality they were just people.

That's what I see happening between Israelis and Palestinians. I think that the hate is now so visceral that they can't make peace. But this isn't the first time. I remember reading that Rabin actually could barely bring himself to shake hands with Arafat during that ceremony at the White House in 1993, but that hand shake led not just to formal negotiations, but the beginning of real reconciliation on a people to people basis in Israel and Palestine that was widely reported in the press. As distasteful as it may seem, that is the only path to peace still.

Another thing that worries me is that many non-Jews (and non Christian-Zionists) are beginning to think of Israelis the way they thought of white South Africans -- that visceral distaste -- and it is not from traditional anti-Semitism but from watching a powerful state beat up on relatively defenseless people. That distaste in turn is morphing into real anti-Semitism. I've been amazed over the last few years how many non-Jewish white people will off handedly say anti-Semitic things to me usually connected to Israel. But it's what's been going on in Israel that is creating the anti-Semitism. That can't be a good thing.

[msmcghee]

99. My thoughts on - bluster . .

Or,(2) a desire to appear tough to the Palestinians, and we know what that did for the US during the Vietnam era,

Almost all animals, prior to combat, employ methods to appear larger, more menacing, etc. to their adversaries. So this isn't just human nature, it is in the nature of almost all complex organisms.

And its evolutionary purpose is to allow conflicts to be settled by one side backing down - rather than one side getting killed.

Your example of Viet Nam - in which you didn't even attempt to correlate the outcome with the cause you proposed - hardly makes the case that 5 billion years of evolution is wrong.

If Israel uses it to advantage and some lives are saved - especially if those were Israeli lives that can hardly be faulted. But you have not established that they do employ such tactics to the extent that they would significantly affect the outcome.

I don't want to be dismissive but I don't see any compelling evidence that Israel uses these tactics - or if they did, that their use is counterproductive either for Israel or the militants.

[msmcghee]

100. My thoughts on - annexation lust . .

Or, (3) the desire by some elements in Israeli politics to annex the West Bank while claiming that is not a goal,

I am sure that "some elements in Israeli politics" would like to annex the WB. I am also sure that others see that as the most foolish thing they could possibly do.

Israel is a democracy. Many people participate in the decision-making. I say let them work it out. They'll have to live with the results.

Annexing all of the WB, while probably foolish, is hardly criminal IMO - especially considering the ambiguous legal status of that region. And especially compared with the ongoing criminality of attacks against Israeli civilians - that's repeated murder as a stated policy of a people's elected government. It's a policy that causes things like annexation to be explored by some as a possible solution to that.

If annexing the WB and placing it under complete Israeli control would save both Palestinian and Israeli lives, bring peace to the area and bring the same prosperity to WB Arabs that Israeli Arabs enjoy - I can see why such an idea might be appealing to some.

However, I think such a thing is not a practical possibility for many reasons that we don't need to get into now. And I doubt very much that the result would be good for Israel or the Palestinians. I think they'd all will be far better served with a peaceful Palestinian state next door - if there's any way that can possibly be achieved.

Again, I am not an Israeli - and I don't have to suffer the most immediate and permanent consequences of a bad decision. So, I'm just saying what things look like from my rather remote vantage.

[msmcghee]

102. My thoughts on - pandering - erased

Or, (4) a desire to appear tough to the Israeli electorate, which is basically pandering, and also is not effective (look at what that did for the US with respect to Iraq and the right wing electorate here).

(I just erased a half hours work on this one. I'd erase the others if the time limit allowed it.) I did that because this whole exercise has stopped making sense for me. Sometimes reality screams at you and tells you that it's time to step back and look at the bigger picture. Here's what I see when I do that.

After having been chased around a largely antisemitic world for the last 1800 years where they were shat upon and spat upon by just about the whole world (the diaspora) - and then losing 6 million of their family members, friends and relatives in an unimaginably horrible way to a very sick and more efficient form of that same antisemitism - what is left of the Jewish people is now established in its own state.

And what is Israel doing there? It is now defending itself from a sixty year campaign of attempts to destroy it - a campaign that started before Israel was formed and has relented periodically only long enough for Israel's enemies to rearm and re-organize since that time - and continues unabated as we speak.

And who is it that is leading the effort to destroy Israel today? People who elected as the operational arm of their government - a party that swears in its charter to never relent in their jihad until the last Jew is gone from a Palestine that exists from the river to the sea.

Now you say you only want what's best for Israel and your Jewish friends who you visit there. You say that Israel's defensive tactics are not working - that they are counterproductive. You list several psychological and political factors that could be influencing their decisions in negative ways.

The fact is though that in the last two years Israel has taken steps that have greatly reduced the success and mortality of the attacks against it. Many Israelis are no-doubt alive today - Jewish mothers and fathers, children and grandparents, maybe some of your friends - who would not be alive if Israel had not found more effective methods of defense.

Now you tell me. Do you really think that Israel gives a damn what you or I think about the tactics they have adopted that are saving Israeli lives? Sometimes I wonder at the arrogance of people like us even discussing such things.

[HamdenRice]

90. John Dugard was the Thurgood Marshall of South Africa

<I wrote this in response to another post, but thought it might be useful to expand it and post it separately with a subject line so everyone can put this report in context.>

John Dugard, although white, was the Thurgood Marshall of South Africa. Not as in Marshall's role on the Supreme Court, but Marshall's role in designing the NAACP Legal Defense Fund strategy that led from winning small desegregation cases, to Brown v. Board of Education, to the desegregation cases all across the United States.

In the late 1970s, Dugard wrote the masterwork on apartheid and the law, Human Rights and the South African Legal Order; then he founded the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, which systematically litigated black trade union cases and township residency cases, leaving apartheid in such shreds that the government had to repeal it.

It was the trade unions perhaps above all other black South African organizations that brought down apartheid, because their general strikes could bring the country to a standstill to enforce their demands for the dismantling of apartheid, and it was Dugard's CALS that enabled the trade unions to organize, and later to combine into giant trade union federations.

Indeed, it was a trade union negotiator and lawyer, Cyril Ramaphosa, who is considered the father of the South African constitution, as the negotiated for the ANC at the constitutional talks of the early 90s.

When someone like John Dugard makes these conclusions, we should take him seriously rather than dismissing his report defensively.

[breakaleg]

101. U.N. envoy likens Israeli actions to apartheid

Updated: 1:46 p.m. PT March 22, 2007

GENEVA - A United Nations human rights envoy on Thursday likened Israeli treatment of Palestinians in occupied territory to apartheid, and said its settlement policy amounted to colonialism.

South African lawyer John Dugard warned Western states they would never rally support among developing nations for effective action against perceived abuses in Sudan's Darfur, Zimbabwe and Myanmar unless they tackled the plight of Palestinians.

"This places in danger the whole international human rights enterprise," he told the U.N. Human Rights Council, a Geneva-based watchdog agency.

Dugard, special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, said restrictions on movement and separate residential areas gave a sense of "deja vu" to anyone with experience of apartheid.

"Of course there are similarities between the OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territory) and apartheid South Africa," he told the council.

But Israel, which Dugard has regularly confronted since taking up his appointment in 2001, dismissed the statement and his regular report to the Council as "one-sided, highly selective and unreservedly biased".

"The resort to inflammatory and inciteful language does nothing to contribute to the process of constructive dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians," said Israel's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Itzhak Levanon.

Dugard said Gaza was an imprisoned society, with the situation in the West Bank little better.

"Settlers, largely unrestrained by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), subject many Palestinians to a reign of terror — particularly in Hebron," he said.

He said some 500,000 Israeli settlers were now living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, territories seized by Israel during the 1967 Middle East War.

"Apartheid and colonialism are contrary to international law," he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740381/

[Shaktimaan]

103. What a prick.

I love this part best.

South African lawyer John Dugard warned Western states they would never rally support among developing nations for effective action against perceived abuses in Sudan's Darfur, Zimbabwe and Myanmar unless they tackled the plight of Palestinians.


So unless we solve the I/P problem first, then we can have no hope of demanding human rights reformation in places that make Gaza look like the south of France. Wonderful. Noew Israel is also responsible for oppression in Burma, as well.

Who are the states supporting Mugabe again? Because he is one of the worst dictators in the world today, who the hell is keeping him in business anyway. Oh, wait... could it be, SOUTH AFRICA? Oh my, it IS! So this guy is saying that we'll never be able to rally support in HIS country to stop aiding Mugabe unless we deal with something completely unrelated first.

Nice. But why stop there? Why not draw a link between Sharon and... I don't know. How about Hun Sen? How can we expect former Khmer Rouge militant and Cambodian dictator Hun Sen to stop throwing hand grenades at his rival's political rallies when Sharon is allowed to instigate riots like he did in 2000 at Al Aqsa? Until Sharon stands trial, how can we expect Hun Sen to stop killing everyone who annoys him? We can't! All of this violence has Zionism as a root cause.

And if it wasn't for Israel I wouldn't have nearly do many cavities either! I don't know how yet, but I am sure the Zionist regime is behind it.

:sarcasm: (do I even need to put this here? yes, I think I do.)

[breakaleg]

104. That "prick" as you call him, knows what he's talking about when it comes to Apartheid. nt

[Shaktimaan]

105. That's nice.

But since all of the truly hideous examples of oppression in the world are merely "perceived abuses" his perspective is seriously warped.

Consider this. If Israel were not a relatively free and open society, none of these fact finding missions, HR reports or news articles could be researched or reported on in the first place. I'd like to see the UN send someone to Burma. Seriously, I would. I love Burma and without tremendous aid from China they would not be able to continue one of the most oppressive regimes in the world.

Do you feel that Israel is so much more oppressive than Burma that it is a good allocation of resources for the UN HR Commission (or whatever it's called now) to investigate Israel eight times and Burma none?

Do you feel that Israel IS in fact more oppressive than Burma?

[Englander]

106. Translation;

"Yes, Dugard knows what he's talking about when it comes to apartheid."

[Shaktimaan]

107. you lost me dude

[Englander]

108. Way!

[HamdenRice]

117. This is a red herring

The point isn't that Isreal is the worst offender. It is that a prominent fact finder, John Dugard, has found Israel has implemented apartheid, which is a violation of international law.

If you were arrested for mugging an old lady of $25.00, would it be a valid defense against your arrest that across town, someone has robbed a bank of $25,000?

The UN and various other human rights agencies do indeed investigate open and closed societies and make reports based on their fact findings of conditions in those particular countries.

[Shaktimaan]

118. It isn't that Israel need by the worst.

But so far it is the only country that has been condemned or had resolutions passed against its actions. I believe 8 times so far. So while I could not defend myself for mugging an old lady by pointing out the 25,000 thief, I could defend myself on the premise that neither the bank robber, the diamond thief, the kidnapper nor anyone except me were ever prosecuted.

I am not really talking about Israel's actions here. I am questioning the bias and motives of the council. If the council can only properly do its job in regards to Israel, leading it to prosecute Israel over and over at the expense of other nations, then it is pointless to ask if its findings for Israel are valid.

Having laws that are only really enforced (or disproportionately enforced to a great degree) against a single nation is to abandon rule of law.

[HamdenRice]

119. That's a myth -- there are many UN resolutions, reports etc

on other human rights situations that have arisen -- on South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Namibia, East Timor, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Myannmar, Darfur and other countries. In no way is Israel "singled out".

You have pointed out that Israel is an open and democratic society with close ties to the US. That may be the very reason that such resolutions are even more effective in the case of Israel - namely it has a rational leadership more sensitive to diplomatic pressure.

In other words, UN resolutions are more likely to have an effect on someone like Ehud Barak (when he was in office) than on someone like Liberia's Charles Taylor who really couldn't give a shit.

[Shaktimaan]

120. If that were true then I would have no issues.

But, I just looked at the council's documentation, and there is tremendous bias.

First off, there's a huge difference between reports and resolutions. There have been many reports for different nations, but the only resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Council so far have been condemning Israel. By all means, if I'm mistaken please show me.

If the UN is condemning Israel over other states based on the premise that Israel must be held to a higher standard because it is a western state and thus has greater visibility and effects on developing nations then the UN is not really following its own protocol. At any rate, whatever the reason given, there is a difference between excusing bias for the greater good and insisting that no bias exists.

The UNHRC should be immune to political considerations when it makes statements and passes resolutions. It is critical to the validity of the council that their opinions are based solely on the facts at hand. They really have no business deciding whom to condemn based on extrapolated political possibilities. It hurts their cause as it brings into question the even-handedness of their process. Regardless, I have trouble believing that Israel is more influential or more lax on HR issues than countries like China or even America (since Iraq began.)

At any rate, this isn't the reason for the diplomatic efforts against Israel. There is no practical reason behind the many resolutions passed by the HRC (and the myriad of machinations that the UN itself has allowed against Israel) aside from political bias. There is a practice of Muslim states to vote as a block to protect their own regimes while scapegoating Israel. Countries vote according to their interests, NOT according to a blind accounting of culpability.

[HamdenRice]

122. Let's at least get our factual basis for discussion right

It seems like the goal posts have been changing constantly in this thread. The OP is about a Report by the UN Human Rights Council, authored by an independent expert, the great human rights lawyer and apartheid expert, John Dugard.

But in your argument, you sometimes throw around UN Human Rights Resolutions, and UN Resolutions and UN fact finding.

First, let's look at the UN Human Rights Council reports, of this, the fourth session, by independent experts and Rapporteurs, of which Mr. Dugard's report was one. Clearly the Human Rights Council has not "singled out" Israel in terms of similar reports.

Here is a list of similar reports concerning countries for this session. They cover Haiti, Somalia, Burundi, Liberia, Congo, Cuba, Sudan, Myannmar, North Korea, Belarus, the Palestinian territories, Cambodia and Colombia.

How is Israel being singled out?

* Report of the independent expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Haiti (Mr. Louis Joinet)

* Report of the independent expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Somalia (Mr. Ghanim Alnajjar)

* Report of the independent expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Burundi (Mr. Akich Okola)

* Report of independent expert on technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia (Ms. Charlotte Abaka)

* Report of the independent expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Mr. Titinga Frédéric Pacéré)

* Report of the Personal Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Cuba (Ms. Christine Chanet)

* Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (Ms. Sima Samar)

* Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro)

* Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Mr. Vitit Muntarbhorn)

* Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus (Mr. Adrian Severin)

* Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (Mr. John Dugard)

* Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia (Mr. Yash Ghai) *

* Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia

These reports you can think of as being carried out by experts, whose independence is protected from political interference.

The Council itself is composed of member state representatives. The Council is much less active than the staff and indeed has adopted a resolution on Israel. But the Council has only been in operation for about a year. You cannot tag on all the resolutions of all the organs of the UN over many years concerning Israel, without also acknowledging all the resolutions and reports of other organs of the UN pertaining to other countries.

Are we talking about the council and its reports (the OP) or are we talking about the UN and all of its resolutions and reports?

[pelsar]

111. there was this as well

"This places in danger the whole international human rights enterprise," he told the U.N. Human Rights Council
_________________

wow....those zionist really have power....the WHOLE intl human rights enterprise is dependant upon them....now i understand why the muslims in chechnia are pissed at israel as are those in dafur, uganda, congo, zimbabwa,....etc.....no UN human rights agency can help them until the zionists give the "go ahead"....

[HamdenRice]

114. You are misinterpreting what Dugard is saying and what he represents

Dugard is saying that we must address the problems in Darfur, Zimbabwe and Mynmar, but that if we exclude the problems in Israel/Palestine, then third world countries will say there is a double standard, and hide behind that excuse to avoid doing anything.

It is true that South Africa's position on Zimbabwe has been shameful. There are reasons for this -- not excuses -- but complex political reasons, that have to do with the ongoing crisis in land reform across southern Africa (including Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa) and South Africa's reliance on Zimbabwe's cooperation in ending the catastrophe in Congo. South Africa does not "support" Zimbabwe, but has chosen to use diplomatic means rather than open condemnation to pressure it to address its many crises. But that's another talk show.

The point is that although South Africa's dununciations of Zimbabwe has been muted, Dugard does not represent South Africa in his role as human rights reporter, nor does he share the South African government's views.

That is like saying that you support George W. Bush's policies on human rights in Guantanamo, simply because you are a US citizen.