Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumIsrael, the un-apartheid state – a comparison with Australia
They like to imagine that their campaign of aggressive protests around tiny retail cosmetics stands and chocolate shops is comparable to the mass protests against the Springbok rugby team that characterized the campaign against South African apartheid in the 1970s and 80s.
But the analogy between Israel and apartheid South Africa is false on every level. A comparison of Israel with Australia, a country generally admired for its freedom and successful multiculturalism, reveals this clearly.
As will be demonstrated below, Israel is one of the most un-apartheid states in the world, with a record of successful multiculturalism, protection and integration of minorities that puts most western countries, including Australia, to shame.....
....But there is more to the elimination of racism in a society than repealing racist laws and passing laws outlawing racial discrimination. Practical outcomes of successful multi-culturalism and integration of minorities at all levels is the true measure of the elimination of racism in a society.
And it is by this measure that Israel puts Australia and much of the western world to shame.....
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Israel-the-un-apartheid-state-a-comparison-with-Australia-323822
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)The leadership has said so on numerous occasions.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)FarrenH
(768 posts)with their own governments and own police, not South Africa, according to the South African Apartheid government. The fact that they were encircled by South Africa, subject to military and police incursion by South Africa at any time and had key resources, like their water supply, effectively controlled by South Africa, meant that the international community recognized the claimed distinction as a sham.
And the West Bank is different how? Oh wait, it isn't. It's exactly the same.
shira
(30,109 posts)All you just described are the fruits of the Oslo process, which gave autonomy to Palestinians in parts of the W.Bank. The entire world co-signed on this agreement as part of the Arab/Israel peace process. It's based on Israel's security needs (see UNSCR 242). All legal.
The Palestinians signed onto it willingly. Since then, they've rejected several offers for their very own independent state (meaning they prefer the current "apartheid" situation).
So not only is the so-called "apartheid" situation in the territories legal, the Palestinians prefer it over their own state.
There is no fair comparison b/w Israel and S.Africa.
Sorry.
============================
BUT, if you are looking for BONAFIDE anti-Palestinian Apartheid, that's happening throughout the Arab mideast; an example of which is Lebanon where Palestinians are denied the right to work in numerous professions, denied land ownership, as well as public and social services. Generations of Palestinians. For the last 60 years....
Bad.
Challenge for you...
Look to see whether the commissions/organizations you cite regarding "Israeli Apartheid" are somewhat legit - in that they have ruled on the most blatantly obvious Lebanese version of apartheid; condemning it in no uncertain terms. Check to see whether they falsely accuse Israel of apartheid within Israel too. Let's see how legit they are.
Do they conclude there's Israeli Apartheid only in the territories, as well as Arab apartheid vs. Palestinians in Lebanon? Or are your trusty sources purely political, worthless Israel haters not at all concerned about apartheid - but smearing and demonizing Israel?
You believe that the WB belongs to Israel?
I believe that there is no material, *functional* difference between the decades long military occupation of the West Bank and South Africa's relationship to its nominally independent bantustans. Who holds the title deed is of little concern to me. That it is an almost functionally identical power and infrastructure relationship is, however, of considerable concern. I think its profoundly disingenuous when people split legal hairs over distinctions without differences. SA treated its bantustans as foreign powers, with both the responsibilities and (supposedly) privileges that implies. They had their own governments. But Apartheid SA effectively controlled their trade, borders, resources, airspace, et al, for the benefit of white South Africa, denying those governments most of the powers enjoyed by the governments of sovereign states, and in consequence denying their nominal citizens proper self-determination. Israel does the same in the West Bank.
shira
(30,109 posts)There's no apartheid in the W.Bank either.
If you're truly concerned about anti-Palestinian apartheid (which I guarantee you're not) try Lebanon.
Israeli
(4,132 posts)in answer to :
There's no apartheid in the W.Bank either.
you obviously have never done the guided tour .... would you like me to fix you one ?
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel
by SHULAMIT ALONI
@ http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-is-apartheid-in-israel/
We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".
And :
A Freedom Ride
by Uri Avnery
@http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1169333948/
shira
(30,109 posts)....there was not apartheid in the territories? IOW, no apartheid before Intifada 2? I think you know where I'm going with this...
Israeli
(4,132 posts)except deny deny ......or call Shulamit Aloni a liar .
BTW do you think your own President was lying to ???
You know what my greatest fear is shira .... that when these latest peace talks fail, and they will , this Gov or the next will annex Judea and Samaria .
Then its goodbye to a Two State Solution ......and then what ???
no apartheid before Intifada 2
you really need to read this in its entirety:
http://972mag.com/in-west-bank-the-logic-of-annexation-supersedes-the-rule-of-law/77651/
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's a good approach. Post an op-ed piece and then if anyone tries to criticize it, you can just accuse them of calling this person a liar. Good way to get a conversation going! Remember, this is a discussion forum.
Israeli
(4,132 posts)but perhaps you missed the previous time when she did just that , but I dont think you did .
BTW ... what do you think about your President Carters views :
" Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? "
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew."
- President Carter (discussing his book)
What do you think of those views?
shira
(30,109 posts)I don't know what your article has to do with my question. And I'm not at all worried about Israel annexing the W.Bank. Wasn't long ago Bibi was offering to withdraw from 60% of the W.Bank to give the Palestinians a provisional state there. Of course it was rejected and probably opposed by you and your folks too. I would think people like yourselves would be THRILLED that Bibi wants out of at least most of the W.Bank. But probably not... You guys thrive on the occupation. What would you do without it?
Maybe this paranoia of annexation that post-zionists seem to have is one reason you all remain a minority within a minority.
Israeli
(4,132 posts)Of course you are not worried shira .... that is exactly what our religious right wing want .
Bibi does not want out of at least most of the W.Bank shira , he doesnt want to budge an inch .
What would we do without the occupation she asks .... why shira we would hold our heads up high once again instead of living in constant shame as to what is being done in our name for you and those like you .
shira
(30,109 posts)What was that about Bibi not wanting out of most of the W.Bank?
You oppose that, don't you?
Israeli
(4,132 posts)Yes , what was that ?
http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/gershon-baskin-sums-up-the-peace-movement-perspective-on-netanyahus-phony-peace-offer-to-be-made-in-a-talk-to-the-republican-dominated-house-of-representatives
shira
(30,109 posts)That was Bibi's offer in 2010. To get out of most of the W.Bank, giving Palestinians temporary borders.
You're against.
You're even denying Bibi offered it & are still pretending he wants it all.
Israeli
(4,132 posts)Aims of Gush Shalom
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/aims/
shira
(30,109 posts)...of most of the W.Bank.
Bibi can't even hand most of the W.Bank over for nothing in return.
Unreal.
Israeli
(4,132 posts)I'm anti-occupation and all for getting our boys out of the hell hole that the Wild West Bank has become .
Just like Arik got them out of the Gush .
Dont expect you to understand .... nobody is asking you to sacrifice your son to the alter of Greater Israel .... nobody is asking anything of you .
You are " Unreal." shira .
shira
(30,109 posts)...to get out of 60% of the wild-West-Bank.
Israeli
(4,132 posts)I will never agree with " hardcore settlers " on anything .
shira
(30,109 posts)Israeli
(4,132 posts)..........and saying anything to get off the subject you started .
Back to your post # 12
Yes there is shira .
Now seeing how you disdain the viewpoint of us Israeli post zionists let me give you the viewpoint of an American Zionist :
The A-Word in Hebron
Opinion
By Letty Cottin Pogrebin
A few weeks ago, I spent an afternoon in places you wont find on most synagogue tours, and there is no other word to describe what I saw. In the settlement of Kiryat Arba, Hagit Ofran, director of Peace Nows Settlement Watch project, told our delegation from Americans for Peace Now, From here, only Israelis can enter Hebron by car; Palestinians have to go on foot. I thought she was joking. She wasnt.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/136418/the-a-word-in-hebron/#ixzz2d3LznCOu
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 03:18 PM - Edit history (2)
Even in Hebron. Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, Israeli Muslims, Israeli Druze, Israeli Bedhouin, Israeli Muslims all are governed under Israeli civil law. Palestinian citizens under military law.
No apartheid.
====================
Your and your anti-zio friends are the ones for apartheid.
You look the other way while it's happening in Lebanon against the Palestinians there, while at the same time supporting a future Palestine that will be 100% Jew-free (so says Abu Mazen).
Shameless hypocrites that you all are, throwing stones from your glass houses....
Israeli
(4,132 posts)do you think that Letty Cottin Pogrebin is an "anti-zio" ?
FarrenH
(768 posts)"Don't you know? Its not Apartheid if you ignore the Bantustans"
And the fact that anyone with Jewish heritage can become a citizen, but the relatives of Israeli Arabs who's families left two generations ago cannot.
shira
(30,109 posts)Maybe you should try correcting them.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)whereas the term "apartheid" is applied to israel and only to israel....if we look at its new revised definition we'll find this "apartheid" alive an well in:
canada, austrailia, france, the US, and of course in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Syrian Lebanon, S.Africa, Zimbabwa, Japan, S.Korea, ....
BUT...the actual world with its emotional baggage is only applied only to israel, and that is where the difference is. if some one here or perhaps in the NYtimes would write an article about the apartheid in the US or other western states, then i would see it differently, but its never has.....
thats why its use on israel is part of the usual demonization campaign using words that are far more emotional than factual.
FarrenH
(768 posts)because none of those countries have bantustans with striking structural similarities to the bantustans of Grand Apartheid. Israel however does, and ostensible equality under law for *some* of the indigenous Arabs makes the difference only one of degree, not nature. See my reply to aranthus above. In fact a research paper compiled by an international team of experts in international law at the South African Human Sciences Research Council lays out in painstaking detail how Israel's relationship with the West Bank, coupled with various measures like a discriminatory right of return and discriminatory bureaucratic measures outside of basic law within Israel, constitutes Apartheid by definition under the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
In Saudi Arabia and Iran you'll certainly find contemptible bigotry, sexism, religious intolerance and oppression of minorities and all right minded people should condemn them for it. I wholeheartedly support sanctions against the worst offenders on your list. But Israel, unlike most other examples in the middle East, receives billions in aid from the USA. Even if one accepts that Egypt does too and itself has a troubling record on human rights, *that aid is almost entirely a result of their relationship to Israel*. For those of us in the nominal Western cultural and economic sphere, long European and even moreso American complicity in Israeli colonialism and Apartheid makes it a more pressing issue because its long been a "Western enclave" in the Middle East and therefore a standard bearer in the region for nominally Western traditions like secular democracy. That it fails so spectacularly in this role and in fact is held up as an exemplar of the duplicity and bigotry of the traditions we're trying to foster by its more repressive neighbours, and that that claim has considerable substance, makes its practicing of Apartheid a particular concern.
shira
(30,109 posts)...advocated against the Lebanese version of S.African style apartheid vs. Palestinians in the mideast? I mean, Lebanon's apartheid is w/o question blatantly obvious.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm pointing to bleedingly obvious hypocrisy.
This guy sees anti-Palestinian apartheid where it isn't & willfully ignores it where it is. Yet another example of fake humanitarian concern from the anti-zio contingent.
Open season for scorn and ridicule IMO.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)so your second paragraph is simply an attempt to excuse the use of the word for israel and not elsewhere.
either there is one definition that is used to describe all societies or there is a double standard, which is clearly what your going for.
Apartheids new definition (its original definition was based on race, "blood" that is no longer the case as when its applied to israel, it uses a much more general version based on a loose definition of groups:
so with that same definition in use:
we have Palestinians in lebanon with major restrictions
we have gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia as well as religious apartheid
in Iran and in parts of the US we have homosexual apartheid
all fit this new definition....that certain groups are not allowed rights because of the group that they belong to.
I understand you attempt to redefine aparthied to fit israel and only israel, but that is the core of the demonization:
_____
why dont you actually write out the definition of apartheid.....just define it as per the dictionary, then we'll start applying it
FarrenH
(768 posts)Having comprehension problems? Or just in the habit of misrepresenting everything that challenges your ethnic nationalist perspective? That kind of argument in bad faith was common in South Africa not so long ago. I said massive financial support, rather than censure, makes people who live in secular western democracies peculiarly concerned about Israeli Apartheid. Israel purports to represent the system of government and values we would like to see propagated, but instead is a symbol of the duplicity and hypocrisy of the West and thus works against that aim. That hyprocisy is underlined by the massive support it receives from the West. Moreso, it is of peculiar concern to the descendants of Europeans living in secular Western democracies because Israel is essentially Europe's last great colonial project and the sins of colonialism have been acknowledged in every other case, with little dissent. To make it abundantly clear, that part of the post was an answer to the tired crap "Why focus on Israel? Why not look over *there*?"
Its because of you. You and all the other so-called liberals that support Apartheid and ensure that elected governments in the West provide it with material support. That's why we're not looking over *there*.
What makes it Apartheid is having a gigantic bantustan in it's midst, where people under nominal self government have, in fact been denied nationhood and had their borders, airspace, resources and land rights subject to the whim of the government of a surrounding country, an authority in which they have no representation, for decades. What makes it Apartheid is that it is their ethnicity and the desire to maintain complete control by another ethnicity in the country surrounding them that informs this condition, which has existed for decades. That the surrounding state has a minority of members of that ethnicity with nominal representation does not obviate that, especially since their are unequivocal and visible measures in place to ensure they remain a minority, where only a century ago they were a majority.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)what i see with your post is simply a need to demonize israel.
I have no need to "look over there" i'm just trying to figure out if you have one standard for all countries or if have singled out israel for your own reasons.
the way to discover this, is simply to ask for your definitions of aparthied and colonization. Its a simple task, but in fact I've noticed its usually avoided since if you do actually write out the definitions we will discover that you have in fact just singled out israel.
so why dont you write out those definitions as per the dictionary...devoid of jr high school/ freshman college immature emotionalism....
well?
FarrenH
(768 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:40 PM - Edit history (2)
Really? I'm more interested in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. And that cap pretty much fits. As does my use of "colonization". My English skills are excellent, thank you
[edit] I will be happy to call another situation Apartheid, if someone takes me through the substantial similarities in terms of the international convention mentioned above. I try to be consistent. But I won't stop calling what Israel is doing Apartheid. And I will remain more interested in an Apartheid state that is massively supported by secular democracies and my nominal co-travellers in the left-liberal sphere.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)the only way to test your consistency is if you give me the definition of Apartheid and colonization that your using..apparently it has multiple definitions, depending upon the emotional age of the writer....
if your english skills are so good, this should not be a problem, you will note this is the third post that I have asked, and despite your superior english skills, you seem unable to write out the definitions.
why is that?
FarrenH
(768 posts)otherwise my posts would be extremely long and they're already quite wordy. But stepping back from my admittedly too emotional tone and assuming you're asking in good faith, this document answers your question, and represents my view (oddly enough the HSRC website itself has an executive summary but no download link to the full report). It also addresses the "colonialism" charge, with ample reference to international law:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8wjYp5g27StVFphUnAzTWkyMGM/edit
pelsar
(12,283 posts)starting on page 152....it defines apartheid as based on race.....
so your claiming that the Palestenians are a race.....and the israeli arabs are not part of the same race, since they do not face the same discriminatory practices
___________________
do the Israeli arabs know this?, that they are not part of the same race as the Palestenians? and who decided this for them?..(let me guess, the great white europeans?)
and i gave a reply to your excuse to "not use the dictionary because it wont give you the reaction that your prefer", on 51
FarrenH
(768 posts)It accepts that Christian and Muslim Israeli Arabs and Palestinians are the same ethnic group and like myself, doesn't see that as obviating the practical reality that when both measures to keep members of that ethnic group with Israel a minority and the subordination of those who live in the occupied territory are taken together, it amounts to Apartheid, differing more in degree than form from what existed in South Africa. There were privileged black people under Apartheid. There were even so-called "honorary whites" for the purposes of legal rights. In effect the Israeli situation amounts to "we have a larger minority of the ethnic group who in general suffer discrimination, that suffer less discrimination". It is a difference of degree, not a qualitative difference. Race, here, is understood as a social construct, which for the purposes of defining Apartheid, it clearly always has been, since Apartheid never relied on cladistics (which is the closest proxy biology has to race) but on perceived ethnicity. Mizrahim might well be included in this category if they weren't more strongly identified with the Jewish ethnicity for the all practical purposes.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)this should be be good......what is israel doing to the christians and muslims and druze to make sure that they are a minority?
and pleaes dont tell me that jewish immigration should be limited as a kind of reverse apartheid.....since apartheid against the jews is legit as a "social constraint"
_____
but you've already clarifed yourself:
Race, here, is understood as a social construct, which for the purposes of defining Apartheid
and would you like to confirm this please:
this definition is solely used on israel and no other country in the world today
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)There exist just criticisms of Israel, but this is not one of them. It's an obscene accusation intended only to slur.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Both Israeli settlers and foreigners are subject to civilian law in the West Bank. An Israeli settler who throws a stone at a Palestinian on the streets of Hebron is subject to being charged and tried within the civilian courts in Israel.
If the Palestinian were to pick up that same stone and throw it back, he would be subject to martial (or military) law rather than civilian law. He would be charged and convicted in a military court, and in general receive a much heavier sentence than would be the case in a regular Israeli court.
If you have two systems of law applying to different people in the same area on the basis of race or nationality, then this is characteristic of apartheid.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 07:00 AM - Edit history (1)
If you have two systems of law applying to different people in the same area on the basis of race or nationality, then this is characteristic of apartheid.since you have added "nationality" to the definition of apartheid, we can then start applying it to the illegal immigrants in the US, the Native Indians in the the US. Quebec has apartheid laws that discriminate agains the english speakers, Austrialia, different laws for the aborigines etc etc etc etc.
basically you've just made "apartheid" into discrimination....the reason its been done is not to call out Lebanon, or the Canadians.....the sole reason is to single out israel
unless of course i missed the apartheid articles in the NYT about mexican apartheid...did I?
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)Palestinians in the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship, and thus are not administered by Israeli civillian law. An Israeli Arab throwing a stone would be tried in a civillian court.
Now to be clear, I'm genuinely opposed to the settlements and many occupation policies, which is part of why it's so frustrating to me to see this fallacious comparison being made. I feel like I'm trying to encourage a kid not to do drugs while another guy says things like "a single joint will give you permanent brain damage!" I have to split my arguments into "Well, no, it isn't that bad" and "But you still shouldn't do it."
FarrenH
(768 posts)Jewish Israelis want to maintain a Jewish majority. Selective right of return laws within Israel are the result of that. The discounting of a one state solution is because of that and the bantustan-like nature of the West Bank is a direct result of that. It is thoroughly disingenuous to claim otherwise. The West Bank resembles the bantustans of South Africa in both intent and form. And that is why it is Apartheid. An Israeli Arab minority that enjoys nominally equal rights doesn't change that (and even then, they don't, for a variety of reasons. The most obvious of which is that they do not share an equal right to be reconciled with expatriate family members or have their spouse achieve citizenship in the country of their birth if that spouse is Palestinian)
Its Apartheid. I grew up under Apartheid and I know what it looks like. Tutu, Mandela and just about every great humanitarian South Africa has produced because of our own struggles think its Apartheid.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)israeli arabs are not related to Palestenians arabs in the west bank...since you have declared the different laws to be based on ethnicity.....
the only problem with your definition is that Israeli arabs disagree with you and believe that in fact they are of the same ethnicity as Palestenians arabs..and are subject to the same laws as christian, muslim, druze israelis....
non israelis get differenet laws...its not based on genes, color, height.....just citizenship.
and whats a "nominal" equal right...i believe the arab judges in the israeli court system (including the supreme court) might just disagree with you...(but hey what do they know ...they're arabs and your white.
our conclusion? you dont believe the israeli arabs nor the Palestinian arabs that they are in fact of the same ethnicity. And you can declare this because you are a "white european WASP, that knows better than the local "brown people."
aranthus
(3,385 posts)He really hits all the bases.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)what was said is that the RoR for Jews only most of whom have not seen let alone lived in the region for couple of millennium, while forbidding it's non-Jewish citizens even the right to live with their nonIsraeli spouses in Israel that is the problem
now go ahead go through whatever contortions you wish in an to attempt to explain away or justify this
aranthus
(3,385 posts)He leads off with, "Jewish Israelis want to maintain a Jewish majority." That's his thesis. That this fact is the root of the apartheid evil. You're diverting.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and no I;'m am not diverting anything but I will point out an attempt to outline something as what it is not
aranthus
(3,385 posts)It is true that the Jewish state seeks to maintain a Jewish majority. What FarrenH, and I believe you, are saying is that it isn't legitimate for the Jewish state to want to do that. That it is apartheid.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and no what I do know is someone is attempting to frame an argument as something it is not
aranthus
(3,385 posts)I answered directly. Yes, it is true. Your turn.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)I'll add obfuscation and bordering incoherence. You asked me if it was true that Israel is trying to maintain a Jewish demographic majority. I have said that it's true. So what? What is your point?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)seems truth hurts depending upon who speaks it
aranthus
(3,385 posts)It's like someone pointing out that France wants to maintain a French majority and French culture. It's obvious, it's to be expected, and it's completely legitimate. What I was pointing out is that FarrenH doesn't think it's legitimate. That's the point of contention, as I have already posted.
So the question is, do you think it is legitimate for Israel to want to maintain a Jewish demographic majority?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so exactly what standards do you use to decide who's French?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Since I did ask that question first, and you have not yet answered it. Once I have your yes or no answer, I will answer your question.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)However, this once, I will answer your question in the hope that you will answer mine. The answer is that I don't have any standard other than what the French decide is French. That's the whole point. That the French nation gets to decide for itself what is French, and gets to maintain French culture in their country as that is the entire point of having a country. I would say then that immigrants have to conform to that standard. To transfer that to Israel it means that the Jews get to define what it means to be a Jew. And to be clear, the citizenship is Israeli. The nationality is Jewish
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the specific ethnology/religious group is Jews, same with France to be French all one has to do is be a French citizen, now ethnic French that would include the Frankish, and Norman (Scandinavian) ethnic groups, along with many other these days
aranthus
(3,385 posts)The majority gets to define the controlling culture of the state. But fine, using your false terminology, the point then is that the majority get to define the controlling ethnology of the state. In France it's French. In Israel that's Jewish. Still want an answer to my question.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it's minority citizens have, and you support this?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)I said that the majority gets to decide the structure of the society. That does not mean that the majority gets to decide the civil rights of minorities. Still waiting for the answer to my question.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however the structure of society is a very carefully chosen and rather fluid term, but if that societies structure decides to discriminate against it's minorities then you're okay with that?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)It was a yes or no question. Here it is again: So the question is, do you think it is legitimate for Israel to want to maintain a Jewish demographic majority? The answer is either yes or no, and you haven't answered it, and you know it. I won't be answering any more of your BS questions, since you have refused to give me a straight answer to my questions. You make it impossible to have any kind of discussion with you. Sad.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)if you wish repeat th question, perhaps you can reword it in some way, make it failsafe or something
aranthus
(3,385 posts)The "answer" would be either "yes," or "no". Stop evading.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Israel's preference of one ethnic/religious group over all others, no matter how far back those 'others' can trace their family histories back in Israel is not at all like France preferring French people or culture
and on those points I asked how one determines or by what standards is someone French, you refused to answer
and culture, which you speak of as though it is an immutable thing, when most certainly is not
Living cultures change and grow
aranthus
(3,385 posts)I wasn't clear from that answer that you meant no to the questions I was asking. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it is a military holding of Israel's nothing more there is no inherent right for Israel to transfer it's civilian Jewish population to to it's military holdings to be used as anchors, in Israel's quest to fatten it's "narrow waist"
pelsar
(12,283 posts)if you want to widen the definition of apartheid...go ahead, but once you define it to include 'nationality" then i shall expect that you'll have no problem defining the US/Canada/Australia as apartheid countries as well.
one just has to have a clear definition and have the guts to state it..something that apparently is a problem for many.
and the settlement policy also is devoid of apartheid
israeli arabs living across the 67 border, as israeli jews as israeli christians are subject to the same set of laws...it has nothing to do with their genes.....whereas Palestenians, as a nationality live under a different set...based on their nationality and nothing to do with their genes
the proper definition is discriminatory....
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)apart·heid
noun \ə-ˈpär-ˌtāt, -ˌtīt\
Definition of APARTHEID
racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apartheid
In this case it would be non-Jewish groups primarily in the OPT
aranthus
(3,385 posts)The distinction in the I/P dispute is national not racial, and for it to be apartheid you have to have racial discrimination per the definition you gave. Second, the definition states that apartheid was about racial segregation in the Republic of South Africa. To transfer that to I/P you would have to show racial segregation in Israel proper, particularly political discrimination. Good luck with that.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the discrimination comes in when a non-Jewish Arab of Israeli citizenship marries a Palestinian living in the West Bank but can not bring them to Israel whereas any Jewish citizen of Israel can marry a Jew from anywhere in the world and bring them to Israel no problems
but do keep contorting
pelsar
(12,283 posts)can a jew or christian marry a Palestinian in the west bank and bring them to israel? the answer is, they can, if they follow the same process that an arab israeli does...which is apply for permission
can a non jewish citizen of israel marry a jew from anywhere in the world and bring to them to israel without a problem?
_________
....so where is the ethnic discrimination against the Palestenians?
emigration laws throughout the world are discriminatory and yet I've never heard of japan/Canada or the US being called apartheid countries because of that...is that how your defining apartheid....if the immigration laws are discriminatory?
I have no problem with you modifying the definition to fit your ideology (though i admit i always find it annoying how people avoid the dictionary and prefer emotional laden words for descriptions...), but as long as your consistent and apply it across the board,
if you want to redefine 'ethnic" to be the nationality of a person, then just write it out, make it clear.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 25, 2013, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)
the applications of non Jews marrying non-Jewish Israeli citizens commonly get held up for years, in some cases more than a decade, so sugar coat any way you please but in the US at any rate spouses do not have to live separately until someone gets around to okaying their applications and here is the reveal, it is possibl for a non Jew in Israel to marry a Jew from anywhere in the world and that person can get rapid citizenship based not on their being married to an Israeli citizen, but indeed under RoR based on their religious/ethnic ancestry
thanks you made it so very easy and in the process outlined my point
pelsar
(12,283 posts)well at least we can take that new definition and now call american an apartheid. country.
the applications of non Jews marrying non-Jewish Israeli citizens commonly get held up for years
according to the news the IRS has been holding up tea-party applications for tax-free status ....same concept, the govt is "holding applications"..probably because they're "white old men"
and since I believe in one single definition applied equally across the board, and your "new and improved" aparthied definition includes bureaucractic hold ups, we can now include probably every country in the world with your version
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)what I described is systematic discrimination based on ethnic/religious ancestry for citizens of the same country where Israel inside the Green Line is concerned, nothing more nothing less is needed, citizens of the same country treated differently due to their ethnic/religious backgrounds
FarrenH
(768 posts)is a better metric for what should be called Apartheid. Merriam Webster's definition is historic rather than speaking to the kind of situation we recognize as meriting the same reaction as South African Apartheid, and therefore attracting the same label. The ICSPCR drafted by the General Assembly represents the general crime under international law, defined in order to establish consistency in dealing with future occurrences.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)old definitions are out?....especially since its just so difficult to "update" them in this day and age...
we recognize as meriting the same reaction as South African Apartheid, and therefore attracting the same label
You want a certain action to take place and you want to get support for that very same action, you (and others) believe its perfectly legitimate to change word definitions in order to get the emotional reaction and hence the support you want.
a summary would be that whatever your write has nothing to do with any reality, your more interested in getting the result you want, whatever it takes...and if its demonization of a whole people, making up new words and definitions...obviously thats ok with you as per your claim. Infact we can comfortably say that you have no credability in claiming anything to be true, since as per your own admission, you have no problem in making things up.
_____
whats makes you any different from the blood libels? that israeli jews kill Palestinians to drink their blood, sell their organs, give them chewing gum laced with "aids" ......all designed to get a reaction. I would assume that you agree with them.
_____
you get 2 points for clarity and honesty (-100 for redefining a word to create an emotional reaction- a very immature communication technique, used primarily by politicians).
btw can anyone redefine words? is that a legitimate technique for everyone including israelis or just for the "great white man". i.e. Can i call the Palestinian society an apartheid society since they dont like homosexuals and put them in jail? and its all for a good cause dont forget, so I'll assume you'll agree with me. correct?
FarrenH
(768 posts)There's a far simpler explanation. Merriam Webster says Apartheid is purely a South African phenomenon, because it's definition is purely historical. Since hundreds of nations signed a convention saying otherwise, that convention is obviously a more salient definition. I'm was simply elaborating on the *reason* they felt the need to define it and establish it in international law. To wit, to allow future generations to say "Despite not being South African, this other situation is Apartheid. And it is received wisdom that Apartheid is wrong".
pelsar
(12,283 posts)The dictionaries are a bit more flexible...usually mentioning segregation based on race, cast...(though others are more general and define it as "groups" which would be things like size, weight, color of eyes, height, number of toes, etc),
but my intentions were simple, to clarify how your defining "apartheid" and you made yourself clear, you not so much interested in the actual word definition but by the emotional and hopefully actions that will be caused by calling israel an apartheid state.
hell why not just call us "nazi-like" you might get a lot more emotional backing for that. You've already crossed the line of using actual definitions and having any credability you might as well go further
FarrenH
(768 posts)Is purely to establish what I mean by Apartheid and why that is reasonable, because that is what led me to the conclusion that what Israel is doing is Apartheid, not the other way around. You're obviously free to erect your own straw man, but can assure you it bears no resemblance to my actual motivations.
Just getting this out of the way in case you're imputing some secret anti-semitism, which seems to be a standard trope around here: Ten years ago I was neutral on the topic of Israel and the occupied territories. I didn't know quite as much as I do today and what I knew was mainly from my many Jewish acquaintances, including an ex-girlfriend and Jewish convert aunt. Some of them served in the IDF and spent time in kibbutzes. I have no secret beef with the Jewish community, if that's what you think. In fact I consider some Jewish friends inspirational mentors who shaped my entire world view, and grew up greatly admiring of Jewish culture. I've eaten bitter herbs and matza at Seder with a dear friend who now won't speak to me because of my evolving views on Israel, which she cannot accept. Whatever dishonest and insidious motives you might ascribe to someone half way across the world that you do not know at all, I must suggest they're a product of a siege mentality, not the small window you have on my world view. Its been a hard road for me and has lost me some friends and made my relationship with others who I still love and respect difficult, but my views are entirely premised on the desire for ethical consistency and the great harm I see liberal support for Israel's sins doing to the propagation of values I hold dear, as well as many very personal connections.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)I object to any argument that uses emotional based terminology that corrupts word definitions for a political goal, its wrong an unethical and it reminds me of globals, he too had a noble goal'
if you want to lie and make up stuff for your "greater goal" which requires you to demonize and entire people an entire country, that is beauty of free speech.....your methods however are despicable in my eyes.
If you start calling out the Palestenians for their own apartheid, the americans for their version, the japanese for their version, i might take a second look at your version..it would still be dispicable in my eyes but i do like consistency.
so how do you feel about the Japanese Apartheid or that of the PA in the west bank? this is not a "look over there" this is.....lets see who else is in the apartheid club question
FarrenH
(768 posts)When I see statements like this
"if you want to lie and make up stuff for your "greater goal" which requires you to demonize and entire people an entire country, that is beauty of free speech."
They look no different in my eyes from white nationalists in South Africa saying, 20 years ago
"if you want to lie and make up stuff for your "greater goal" which requires you to demonize and entire people an entire country, that is beauty of free speech."
You know, they used to call Apartheid over here "separate development". They said it wasn't racist. They said it was because different cultures were at different stages of development, and that there was a thread of unreasonable animosity among black South Africans towards the long-suffering boers, so they could not risk the alternatives. They said the "homelands" that they crowded black South Africans into, with their own governments and police forces and everything, were to give black people self-determination while whites had self-determination in the rest of South Africa. They said white people in Southern Africa faced an existential threat if we didn't maintain that separation, and that was simply a lamentable reality. They said the foreign press and activists lied about us, and didn't understand the realities on the ground. Afrikaner nationalists, especially, considered themselves the white tribe of Africa, with their own unique language and no home to go back to in Europe, unlike the smaller white English population. They raised their children on stories of the terrible injustices suffered by boer women and children in the British concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer war, where more than 100,000 died, and intimated that that justified their desperate need to establish a safe haven in perpetuity on the Southern tip of Africa, a place they could call their own.
Its an emotional appeal that doesn't address my moral reasoning, or the facts that inform it. And it is not attended by some compelling argument why my facts, definitions or conclusions are wrong. I have not lied. I'd be interested to know what you base that on. I'm not "demonizing an entire people". I obviously have common cause with Israelis and Israeli Jews in particular that share my feelings, just as I had common cause with the minority of whites of good conscience that shared my feelings, growing up under Apartheid.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)your using the word apartheid, not because its really describes the environment, but because you want the same reaction to S.Africa and use it on israel.
i dont care how good your cause it, or how noble.....i dont believe "raping word definitions" serves any noble purpose. It works for the other side as well. Good communication requires real definitions of words not made up ones.
whereas you gave a description of S.Africa, do you really believe that it parrallels Israels and jews history with the Palestenians and the surrounding arabs states? Are you going to ignore the past wars, the attempts in 48, 67, 73.....the missiles of 82 landing randomly in the north? busses blowing up in the streets of Israeli cities? Rockets landing almost daily from gaza for over 6 years?
do you even know that pre intifada I there were no restrictions on Palestenians movement in israel? do you know why it changed?
are these the parallels to S.Africa? if not then perhaps you should find a more accurate way to describe the environment?
___
btw, given that the PA and hama both have discrimination as part of their foundation documents, apparently you have no problem in the supporting the creation of a state that has apartheid "built in".....any reason why you don't?
FarrenH
(768 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 25, 2013, 05:22 AM - Edit history (1)
Although its funny you mention that, because SA was in a state of war with Angola for something like 15 years and every young man of a certain age was forced to do two years military service, either on the border or quelling protest in black townships. Thankfully, I was conscripted near the end of Apartheid, when the military was especially sensitive to both local and international perception, and got away with declaring openly that the Apartheid government was my enemy and I would give my weapon to the "enemy" (instead of military detention, they took away my weapon and made me do makework administration for most of the next two years)
Another plank in the narrative of existential threat. We really were told we were under constant existential threat from our neighbours up North. And they certainly were outraged at the system of Apartheid we were practicing and provided aid and support for then-banned organisations like the ANC, Azapo, the PAC and so on that were conducting bombing and other sabotage campaigns in South Africa. In consequence, he SADF was running covert operations in other neighbouring states that were seen as hostile and a threat, not just the country we were nominally at war with. White high school children periodically attended "veld school" camps where they were filled with tales of terrorism and instilled with a great fear of the enemy within and without. It was from that time I learned how countries can create and nurture their own monsters, then justify their actions based on the havoc those "monsters" wreak, just as the IDF materially helped Hamas achieve the power it has today, in an effort to divide and rule. A militaristic nationalism is often built on the foundations of an eternal threat, and it serves militant nationalists well to not only exaggerate that threat, but constantly inflame it.
But having read about Israel's many wars, I cannot find justification for its treatment of the Palestinians or continual enroachment on their land. Firstly because the current occupants of the West Bank and Gaza weren't the primary aggressors in most of them, secondly because overt and covert support for the settlement project brazenly contradicts the "security only" narrative, thirdly because aquifer use and control casts further doubt on the "security only" narrative, fourth because some historical documents suggest a growing and quite deliberate intent to use defensive war as a cover to secure more land, rather than simply being a reluctant necessity... I mean, the border with Jordan? The country hasn't even been vaguely threatening to Israel in recent memory. I could go on and on. Suffice to say, listening to the most fervent defenders of the things I find reprehensible about Israel today, there is an enormous sense of familiarity.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:52 AM - Edit history (2)
why were they firing at us from the very day israel left gaza?.....30 rockets that first night and almost daily after that, doesnt matter who was in charge....and they're still shooting at us. Perhaps you can explain why? or is there some kind of "ghost apartheid" in gaza. Given your flexible word definitions, i see no reason why you shouldn't claim gaza is still under apartheid.
Jordan?
I mean, the border with Jordan? The country hasn't even been vaguely threatening to Israel in recent memory
I bet a year ago you would have said the same thing about egypt? and already attacks have come from the Egyptian border both on the ground and via rockets.
Syria...
3 years ago, who would have thought that jihad and friends might take over syria....who knows whats in store for israel..hints are coming with the weekly mortar attack from syria on to israel.
funny thing about dictatorships...they're not to stable and jordan is not a democracy, nor is gaza nor apparently will the PA be (looking at its present structure, laws etc)
_____
and of course you didnt justify your pushing for a society that has already stated in word and deed that is against the western values and has in its foundation documents apartheid type laws (all theocratic states have such laws) as in the PA....so how can you justify that?
________
your comparison to of S.Africe and Anglola to Israel's environment really doesnt make it does it?
and the water?
there is no question that the Palestenians are getting screwed with the water, but their govt is not some innocent victim here
I view the PA as govt that in fact does have responsibility and hence has a very active part in the water distribution in the west bank. However if your one of those that claims "victimhood" allows the victim to claim no responsibility no matter what they do (its like claiming blacks cant be racists), then israel gets all the blame....
http://www.ibtimes.com/world-water-wars-west-bank-water-just-another-conflict-issue-israelis-palestinians-1340783
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)A foreigner in Israel is not subject to military law. Only the west bank Palestinians are.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)the obvious information...do you really think people here are that dumb?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Israel occupies the West Bank.
Israel governs both the Israeli settlers in the West Bank, as well as the Palestinians (outside of Area A).
There are two systems of law that Israel administers in the West Bank. These two legal systems are not administered according to territory, but according to the nationality of the person that is subjected to the law in a particular circumstance.
A Jewish settler that throws a stone at a Palestinian is not subject to military law. He may not be arrested by soldiers. He may be arrested by the border police, presuming that a soldier could be bothered arranging for that to happen. If it does, he will be tried according to civilian law and will receive a slap on the wrist, relatively speaking.
A Palestinian that throws a rock at a Jewish settler is subject to military (martial) law. He will be tried by a military court. In Hebrew, which he may or may not understand. The conviction rate is in excess of 97%. The average sentence for stone throwing is three years, far in excess of what it would be for Jews.
While technically, foreign activists are subject to arrest by soldiers, the Israeli government is very hesitant to treat foreigners in the same way it treats Palestinians. If soldiers do arrest foreigners in the West Bank, they are almost always quickly deported, rather than subjected to military detention.
This is not so in the case of American citizens with Palestinian ancestry, who have been subjected to military detention, foreign sensitivities be damned. Americans of Palestinian ancestry are also precluded from entering Israel via Ben Gurion airport, and must enter Israel via the Allenby bridge just like any other Palestinian. This is despite the official US stance that the Americans insist that all their citizens are treated equally, irrespective of their ethnic background.
Now, Arab citizens of Israel (being about 15% of ethnic Palestinians within historical Palestine) are not, technically, subject to military law. Of course, on the practical level, Arab Israelis are treated at checkpoints more or less as Palestinians (witness, for example, the phenomenon of the "Arab sticker"
http://972mag.com/palestinian-celebrity-gets-the-jewish-sticker-at-ben-gurion-airport/71429/
pelsar
(12,283 posts)_____________________
While technically, foreign activists are subject to arrest by soldiers, the Israeli government is very hesitant to treat foreigners in the same way it treats Palestinians. If soldiers do arrest foreigners in the West Bank, they are almost always quickly deported, rather than subjected to military detention.
so i guess foreign activists in the westbank are subject to military law, since under military law they are being detained and consequently deported...see? its not hard to admit it
one doesn't need to go into the various levels of discrimination to avoid stating the simple truth....just correcting your one line post.
______
....is it so bad to attempt to stick to the facts? or is the "ends justifies the means" an acceptable method?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)For example, in Tibet, there is no system of law which applies specifically to ethnic Tibetans, and one which applies specifically to Han Chinese? In fact, for the most part, the Chinese government treats Chinese people as well (or as poorly) as citizens of Tibetan origin.
There is something called the principle of "territoriality".
That is, that specific laws apply to territories, not people. So if military law is applied to people within a territory, it should apply to all people, and not just a specific people within that territory.
Can you point to any non-Palestinians that have been dealt with by the military courts system within the West Bank?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)is it unusually? i really don't know since i've never really looked in to the issue. I was just pointing out that your one line correction was in fact wrong.
foreigners are arrested in the westbank based on military law and tossed out of the country, you know that, i know that .....if you want to explain that its unjust, unfair, unusual...thats fine and I have no quarrel with that.
you were wrong and i was just wondering as a second thought if your one of those who believe that the "ends justifies the means."
__
just admit it, get a few points of credit for credability and move on to the next demonization
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)That there is a separate legal system, a state within a state, that exists only to deal with the Palestinians?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)there is a separate and unequal system for non israeli citizens in the occupied territories, run by the military...this is not a surprise to anyone
That there is a separate legal system, a state within a state, that exists only to deal with the Palestinians? AND FOREIGNERS
this is an incredibly stupid discussion:
you've already said that foreigners are not subject to military rule and you've said that they are...so make up you mind, and may i suggest you stick with the truth and it will be easier?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)not being of Palestinian heritage, that has been dealt with by the military courts system in the West Bank.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)JERUSALEM Israeli security forces arrested a foreign activist in a raid in the West Bank town of Ramallah overnight, her lawyer said on Monday.
Immigration police accompanied by Israeli soldiers carried out the late-night operation to seize Eva Novakova, a Czech citizen, from her home in central Ramallah, lawyer Omer Shatz told AFP.
"Her visa had expired, but that's not a reason for them to arrest her," he said, adding that the Israeli interior ministry has no authority to operate in the Palestinian territories.
"The ministry of the interior was acting outside of the sovereign territory of Israel... They wouldn't invade Poland to arrest someone."
He added that Novakova had since been escorted to Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, and the Czech foreign ministry said it was expecting the Israeli authorities to send her home on Tuesday.
"We are informed about the case. The woman... should be deported tomorrow," Czech foreign ministry spokesman Milan Repka was quoted as saying by the Czech News Agency.
The 28-year-old had been working as a media coordinator for the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gXNAsRkRtvacmJ4rhcgIrJPL2EWQ
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)as I made clear before, the military occasionally arrests and deports foreign activists, however they are never dealt with by the military courts.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)after this short list are you still going to claim that that foreigners are not arrested by the IDF in the west bank.....
Palestinian youth and a European activist were arrested by IDF soldiers near Hebron on Sunday for throwing rocks.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/european-activist-attacks-idf-officer-in-hebron/
______________________________
from 972
DF detains Palestinian children and foreign citizen in Hebron
http://972mag.com/watch-idf-detains-palestinian-children-and-foreign-citizen-in-hebron/70340/
_________
IDF arrests 6 foreign activists near Bethlehem
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879619,00.html
___________
you are wrong...so big deal, we all are wrong at times, the simply fact that you can't admit the obvious is whats weird. What is it? that your not an expert on israel? that someone here knows some things more than you? so big deal...
or is it that "apartheid attempt to demonize israel failed?...dont worry you'll find some more faults with israel, its easy in open societies
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)they don't seem to exist do they?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They call that moving the goal posts in some circles.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Didn't think so.
Which makes your interjection appear rather...pointless.
So about the only argument you have against the fact that an entire apparatus of military courts has been set up specifically to deal with Palestinians, is the fact that foreign activists are sometimes arrested by soldiers, and then deported. But they are never sentenced in or required to appear before the military courts set up in the West Bank. Only Palestinians are.
Do you not agree that that is significant in discussing whether the issue of whether apartheid exists in the West Bank?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)has now become:
you still can't find a non-Palestinian that has been sentenced by a military court?
____________
do yo think such a simple switch would not have been noticed?
as far as your answer goes...israel obviously prefers to arrest them under military law and then deport them as opposed to try them......you'll notice they don't deport the Palestenians, since that would probably be illegal not to mention raise an international outcry though its been done in the past.
________
so would you like NOW to admit that your original post correction was wrong? Being arrested by the army means that they are being arrested by military law.
or do you insist on continuing to make a fool out of yourself?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Because that would be interesting. Certainly an fascinating experience for tourists wanting to visit Israel - I dare say that most of them would not have experienced martial law before.
I'm not expecting an answer that is cogent or logically consistent, of course. But you seem to enjoy pumping out your usual stream of run-on sentences, tenuous fragments and other gibbering bullshit.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)non israeli citizens in the west bank are subject to military law
foreigners in israel are subject to civil law.
Palestenian citizens in israel are subject to a mixed set of security provisions, etc, of which is very confusing
simple enough for you? care to challenge it? disagree?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)from Jewish citizens of Israel, in some circles they call that apartheid
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Palestenian citizens...i..e citizens of the PA who are visiting in israel are subject to the civil laws of the state and a few more tossed in for security reasons
if you want to pretend that israel has separate laws for arab citizens of israel then go right ahead, i assuming that your not actually interested in any of the facts.
_________________
since your already believing what in fact is not true, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Jewish citizens of Israel, this is irrefutable, undeniable fact
pelsar
(12,283 posts)so basically the jews are discriminated against, as are the muslims as are the christians and the druze and the bediouin...each religious group has in fact specific laws for them which in turn can be defined as discrimination...
or it can be defined as laws for the benifit of the individual communities that they themselves have requested....
but i assume your against communities in israel having laws to protect their culture...like the Druze, muslims and christians.....am i correct?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)non-Jewish citizens in Israel, the rest is babble
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 02:17 AM - Edit history (1)
all countries have immigration laws that are discriminatory...can we now call all countries "apartheid" countries?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)What do you mean by that?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i'm assuming, this is not based on any real factual knowledge, but I suspect that if a palestenians is working in israel and breaks the law, i'm sure its easier to pick him up, interrogate him, if these is some suspicion of a security problem before sending him back to the PA area vs a foreigner from sweden who is caught doing the same thing.
its just a guess......
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)A Palestinian is working legitimately in Israel on a work permit. A soldier approaches him, says give me your work permit. Now get in the back of the truck. He is dumped back in Tulkarm, no explanation needed. He is refused all further work permits.
Doesn't seem like civil law, does it?
There are cases in which high profile Palestinians have been tried in civilian courts - Marwan Barghouti comes to mind. However it seems that most of the time Palestinians are deported to the west bank and tried in the military courts.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:18 PM - Edit history (2)
It wont be regular soldiers doing that in israel....at least not in my experience. Soldiers within israel aren't concerned with the Palestenians. That would be the special units of the army/police that deal with internal security, and they would probably threaten the family's permits as well, if they felt it necessary, or just didnt like him.....
They would have that ability, and use 'national security" as the reason....standard western country practice to skirt around any civil law
in case you didnt notice..national security in every country in the world supersedes civil rights...thats the worldwide standard. just ask the NSA
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The US does occupy territories where it applies martial law (Guantanamo Bay for instance). However, there aren't any civilians there.
If there were Cuban and American civilians living in Guantanamo Bay, and the US sought to apply military law to the Cubans whilst giving civil rights to the Americans, then I think you would be justified in calling that apartheid.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and i believe i can assume that a US marine who was born in Cuba but stationed in Guantanamo Bay would be treated like an american....
______
so far I've seen on this thread and others several new versions of apartheid...all going beyond discrimination based on race. Another poster claims you can call it apartheid if it serves a purpose to create the change that he wants.
to make the point, that this new version of yours is in fact just pointed at israel, has anybody called the Chinese's occupation of Tibet Apartheid? or for that matter Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara? any talk of turkeys apartheid in cypress? If that were in fact the case, it might lend some credibility to a change in the definition, but it hasn't happened has it?
if your going to change the definition, then at least be consistent and apply it world wide as well. And since your adding citizenship to the definition do you mind if if i add sexual orientation to the definition of apartheid as well as simply ones sex?
______
a correction: Perhaps the definition is changing...( I was reading up on jordan) to include govt positions.
Palestinian rights and accusations of apartheid - Palestinian scholars and political activists including Samer Libdeh and Mudar Zahran have described the political system of Jordan as anti-Palestinian apartheid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Jordan
____
i personally think its a bad idea since it cheapens the definition, but words do change in time
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)China does not have two systems of law in Tibet (ie one for ethnic Tibetans, and one for Han Chinese). China treats the Tibetans fairly shabbily, but treats ethnic Chinese more or less the same.
Ditto Northern Cyprus. Turkey does not apply military law to Greek Cypriots and civil law to Turks.
Are we getting there yet? Im sure that the penny will drop sooner or later.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 10:02 AM - Edit history (4)
Chinas version in Tibet of two legal systems is that both are civil (which is actually closer to that of S.Africa in the past)
And in N. Cyprus....
Turkey racially discrimates against Greek Cypriots by preventing them from returning to their homes and lands, whereas turks can settle there, amongst other things
what happened the west sahara and morocco? you've got settlers, wall, military occupation....but no apartheid?
and our Cuban born US marine.....is he subject to the same laws that the cubans are? or to the laws that the americans are....his citizenship is american, but his blood and race are cuban.
____________________________
so your saying that though the above examples have two legal systems (military and civilian) for different citizens living in the same area, and but they are not Apartheid
whereas israel, also having two legal system for different citizenships in the same area is....
did i get that right?
(if i understand your definition....its states that apartheid can only exist if of the two legal systems, one is military and the other civilian, except for morocco which although it does in fact have a military occupation of west sahara and it has military and civilian laws for different people, its still not considered apartheid)
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)is essentially that laws should apply to places, and not people.
For example, if martial law were declared in New York City, it would apply to blacks, whites, Asians, foreigners and citizens alike.
However, the martial law in the West Bank does not apply to all people. It does not apply to Israeli settlers, who are exclusively Jewish. It applies to the Palestinians.
They don't.
There are not two separate systems of laws in Northern Cyprus, one for Turks and one for Greeks.
There may well be discrimination at the official level (as there is in many socieities). But a Turkish Cypriot and a Greek Cypriot who commit a crime will both be tried in the same courts system.
Are we getting there yet?
shira
(30,109 posts)Thousands of Israeli Arabs live in the settlements.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32702595/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa#.UTVWa6VAtvc
There's also a small anti-Apartheid movement against the Turks in N.Cyprus.
Are you denying there's apartheid there in North Cyprus?
Lastly, do you deny there's anti-Palestinian Apartheid going on in your home country of Lebanon against the refugees?
shira
(30,109 posts)Aren't you living in Australia?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)israeli "settlers" as defined by so many, are also arab israelis living the area of jerusalem beyond the green line.
so were back to nationality and citizenship.......
_____________
I see three choices for you:
claim that arab -israelis in the jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the green line are also subjected to marital law
claim that apartheid now includes nationality and / or citizenship and not just religion, skin color, blood
claim that apartheid (as per another poster) that it really doesnt have to fit a real definition, to be called such, but can be used for its emotional value
__________
and the cyprus citizens under turkish law have their own definition of apartheid, if you can modify the definition, why can't they?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)it was possible for some Blacks to gain "honourary white" status if they were elite athletes, or well connected, or foreign dignitaries. All Japanese people were granted honourary white status by the SA government in order to promote trade links. Chinese people then sought and were granted honourary white status on the basis that they were similar to the Japanese. Ironically, after the fall of apartheid, Chinese people then sought to be classified as coloured again in order to benefit from affirmative action policies.
Essentially, your argument is that because apartheid does not apply uniformly to all Arabs, it does not apply at all. But that argument is about as poor as it sounds. It doesnt have to be a perfect system of apartheid in order to be apartheid.
The essential element of apartheid was not that no Blacks were treated as well as Whites, because occasionally they were. The essential element of apartheid was THAT NO WHITES WERE EVER TREATED AS BADLY AS BLACKS.
It should be noted that there is absolutely no legal impediment preventing the settlers from being subjected to military law. The order establishing martial law in the West Bank makes no distinction between Jews and Arabs:-
http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/israelmilitaryorders/fulltext/mo0378.htm
However, the military has refused to apply martial law to settlers, arguing that it would lead to political rifts within the Army. Unlike your attempt to airbrush the situation by saying that the matter is purely one of nationality, the Army has made it quite clear that it objects to prosecuting Jews.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-opposes-plan-to-try-jewish-extremists-in-military-courts-1.403783
In the event that Israel ever does treat Palestinians and settlers on an equal legal footing, I will happily concede that apartheid no longer prevails in the West Bank. Until then, you'll just have to live with it.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)that there is discrimination...and i agree completely, there is martial law and there is civil law and two different groups for the same criminal activity go to different systems.
just tell me, whats the difference between an arab israeli and a Palestenian?
both breaking the same law in the west bank (where both live) will go to different court systems.
why? are they not the same ethnic group? how are you defining their differences?
____
and why are you against cypriates claiming apartheid in cyprus where the turks occupy them..why are you discriminating against them? Dont they have the right to claim their own definition of apartheid like you have? or do you have superior rights?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)but it is a bit more profound than that. There is discrimination everywhere, but it is unusual, as I have said previously, to have people tried for the same crime in the same territory in completely different court systems.
It is not identical to South African apartheid. The system there was much more unsubtle, set up along simplistic skin colour lines. I agree that Israel has endeavoured to make its system as palatable to Western observers as possible, while maintaining its core functions.
The essential similarity is this:- apartheid was established to preserve white hegemony in South Africa, and Zionism was established to preserve Jewish hegemony in Israel. Israel must remain a Jewish state. It may be a democratic state for as long as there is a Jewish majority, but were that ever threatened then I imagine Israel will cease to be a democratic state long before it ceases to be a Jewish state.
The red line is that 50%+ of the electorate in Israel must be Jewish, in order for Israel to remain a democracy. If that line were ever threatened, I imagine that Israel would devise some kind of consociationalist model along Lebanese lines, with an entrenched Jewish majority in the Knesset.
Israel could afford to give some rights to the Israeli Arabs, as they were few in number, and to the Golani Druze, and to East Jerusalem residents even, as long as their numbers were insufficient to threaten a Jewish supermajority. But they could never give rights to the West Bankers, who were too many in number.
In contrast, the South African whites were always dwarfed in number by the Black population by so large a degree that it was impossible for them to preserve their status even by some act of partition. The apartheid system was as bad as it was because Whites were as outnumbered as they were. They could not moderate their system even slightly without completely losing their grip on power. If Israel wants to remain a Zionist state, then the more the Arab population rises relative to the Jewish population, the more it must become like South Africa.
Already there are legal impediments to try and restrain the growth of the Arab population, the restrictions on family reunion visas for Arabs, for instance. Now, there are no rules restraining Arabs from swimming in Jewish swimming pools, at least at the moment, although some swimming pools in Israel turn them away anyway. At the moment those rules are not necessary because most towns in Israel are nearly exclusively Jewish or Arab in any event.
However, if Arab Israelis rise to become 35% of the population (which seems likely) then they will have to migrate out of the traditionally Arab areas, because Israel has allowed virtually no construction there, and into the Jewish towns and cities. Then things may change. You may start to see "peace walls" through cities, and segregated areas.
One final point: African-Americans amount to 14% of the American overall population. Notwithstanding their relatively small number, white society was eventually forced to come to terms with them, despite their longstanding dislike of Blacks, particularly in the South. The Arab Israeli population, by contrast, is 20% and rising.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)first reaction is that i've now noticed that the apartheid lable gets a lot of mileage on israel, but now i understand why.
after many posts of me attempting to find this new apartheid definition you and FarrenH apparently cannot really define it clearly so that its exclusively defined for israel (as apartheid was specifically for s.africa). what both of you have done is essentially saying, that though there is no specific definition of apartheid that fits Israel and only israel today, we're using the word because it fits our different BELIEFS.
FarrenH simply says israel is guilty of lots of stuff and using the apartheid label hopefully will get the world condemnation of israel that they want.
we recognize as meriting the same reaction as South African Apartheid, and therefore attracting the same label
You apparently are saying: I can read the future and Israel will inevitably have to become a real apartheid state in the future and so I'm justified in using the label today
Zionism was established to preserve Jewish hegemony in Israel
You may start to see "peace walls" through cities, and segregated areas
so though you cant really find actual apartheid laws in israel, your saying it must exist and will exist because zionism requires it to exist....... (sounds pretty religious to me, believing in something that you cant really find, but that is inevitable)
Your base belief is not that israel today has apartheid, its that you can predict the future and you know it will be one day, because zionism = racism, therefore its inevitable.
and israels present laws? its present democracy? its simply temporary until zionisms real face emerges....
___________________________________________
That explains why you dont want to define clearly what apartheid is in terms of actual laws, It doesn't fit israel
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)with the intention that one set of people get off lightly, and the other, not so much.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 02:21 AM - Edit history (4)
i do believe you clarified your belief that there simply has to be apartheid because zionism is racist..yet you seem to be having a problem actually defining the characteristics of this apartheid.
so lets try again:
please give me a clear definition of these two sets of people
how exactly are they differentiated?...this is what i asked in the very beginning and have yet to get a clear definition.
i see it as citizenship.....if your claiming its not citizenship, then what is it?
what is the difference between Palestinian arabs vs the non israeli jews that also live across the green line (arab muslims, arab christians, etc) that relate to these two sets of laws...
_______________________________
and just for fun...lets pretend you can't tell the future
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)It should also be emphasized that although the security legislation empowers the courts in the West Bank to try any person who commits an offense within their area or jurisdiction, in practice the military courts deal solely with cases relating to Palestinian residents. All cases involving settlers who have committed criminal and/or security offenses in the West Bank are brought before the civilian courts within the State of Israel.
http://nolegalfrontiers.org/general-information/11-the-military-courts?lang=en
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)One for Israelis and one for Palestinians: a perfect example of Apartheid.
Let the screamers begin their dance of denial.
Israeli
(4,132 posts)and dance..... and deny deny deny R. Daneel Olivaw
but never ever give up hope that one day it will all be over :
This is what the beginning of the end of the apartheid regime in South Africa looked like. And who knows, the American determination coupled with European firmness may yet herald the end of the Israeli occupation and our conflict.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/israeli-intellectuals-support-european-sanctions.html#ixzz2dKS0AVu9
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)posting at DU, can pretend to be so obtuse when it comes to a very simple matter of human rights.
I won't name names, but it is if they can just deny away all sorts of things that have happened to the Palestinians: theft of land, loss of purpose, harassment, and make excuses and thump their chest for the state of Israel.
The Palestinians can't be given a clean slate either, but the answer to conflict is not more theft of their land.
America isn't perfect by a long shot, but I cringe every time I see what Israel does in the West Bank and how Gaza is basically a Prison.
No offense. I wish Israel to remain a strong and capable nation, but strength in a Democracy should not be measured out by how many you can grind under your heel.
Israeli
(4,132 posts)but my knowledge of Americans and American politics is very limited R. Daneel Olivaw, so I am probably the wrong person to ask .
As a lifetime member of the Israeli left ( and I am 63 ) I can only say that I agree with every word that you have written above.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Israel is our ally in the region: the only stable Democracy. If it did not have tacit American support in its early years I cannot say that it would have survived in the same shape that it is today.
How do I put this.
Americans feel guilty, Europeans feel guilty for what happened during and before WWII. There was, and in some places still is hostility towards Jews. Probably more than I realize. There is ample guilt over this.
Guilt aside, Israel was...ans still is America's cold war ally: a stepping stone in the Mid East to counter the Russian sphere of influence. The USA could not let Israel be attacked and or defeated so probably helped them with their nuclear program: keeping with Israel being an extension of US dominance in the region.
Hey, we also had the Shah, but that was not a Democracy. We killed Democracy in Iran because it didn't match what we wanted it to be. Also the UK and the USA didn't want the Persians messing with "our oil."
Politically speaking the USA owes Israel a lot for being a cold war ally so that is why I believe that American Presidents have not actively threatened Israel over the West Bank or the Palestinian Issue too much. It is also a non-starter during elections. Any idea that a political candidate would throw Israel under the bus would be met with feelings of anti-Semitic guilt and used by the other party as a rallying cry of racism.
There are also the fundie Xians that believe that we are approaching the end times so Israel has to exist in prophetic form...tra la la lala.
Pretty fekked up.
All the above IMHO is true, but I also believe that patience only lasts so long before one American President says enough. It won't be Obama or Clinton or Biden, but change will come. It always does. I just hope that Israel is prepared for it and meets it with understanding and grace.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Israel is not much of a stepping stone, mainly because the moment you step on it, all the other stepping stones sink into the mud out of principle.
Three large wars in the region have taken place without the Americans so much as sourcing stationery from Israel. The moment that the US even uses Israeli airspace during a war is when its Arab and Turkish allies pull out. Look at the map and see how much more important Turkey or Pakistan is to America's interests.
In 1973, America reluctantly embroiled itself for the first time in one of Israel's wars. The Arab states responded with a devastating oil embargo, which decimated the manufacturing base (particularly car companies) in the US. Chrysler, a large car maker up until that point, was almost killed.
Interestingly, despite the consequent body blow to American business interests, the decision of Nixon and Kissinger to become Israel's security guarantor was never seriously questioned. Exactly why not would be the subject of a fascinating Phdbthesis, IMO. But part of the reason was the resentment that Americans felt towards the the Arab states for puncturing the self-image of invulnerability that Americans had conjured up for themselves.
Despite all that, unconditional support of Israel did not become a political article of faith until much later. Carter and Reagan were both critical of Israel and even Bush I was circumspect about Israel to an extent that would be politically unsustainable today. Again, the exact reasons why this changed at some time in the late 1980s would be a fascinating area of study.
shira
(30,109 posts)..than Israel, you really don't know much at all.
If Israel wasn't there, America would have to deploy WAY more battleships and troops on the ground in the region. Israel is saving America $$$BILLIONS by being there. Look at Syria for one example, in which Israel knocked out their nuke capability a few years ago and is successfully preventing the movement of chemical weapons from Syria into Lebanon with precision air strikes.
Israel also stopped Iraq from nuclear acquisition, which turned out to be in America's best interests too.
Another example is Jordan, an American ally in the region that wouldn't be there if not for Israel preventing Syria from taking over there some 40+ years ago.
OTOH, Turkey and Pakistan are becoming MORE Islamist, more unstable, and thus less reliable as future allies for the US and its interests. Turkey supports the MB in Egypt as well as the MB & Al-Qaeda effort in Syria; both movements that cause more instability and another obstacle to American interests in the region. Pakistan was busy hiding OBL for years until he was found in a Pakistani compound just 3 years ago.
You're not even close on this one...
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I suppose its nice to have someone consider my message as worthy of a response, even if its you.
Sure, lets look at Syria. By the way, where do you think the US is considering basing its likely upcoming action against Syria? I guess if Israel was more important than Turkey they would be operating out of Israel, right?
But they're not. They will be operating out of here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incirlik_Air_Base
No, they didn't. The Iraqis doubled down after the strike on Osirak, when the first Gulf War came around they were only six months away from having a device ready:-
Moreover, as Emory University political scientist Dan Reiter details in a 2005 study, the Osirak reactor was not well designed to efficiently produce weapons-grade plutonium. If Hussein had decided to use Osirak to develop nuclear weapons and Iraqi scientists somehow evaded detection, it would still have taken several years perhaps well into the 1990s to produce enough plutonium for a single bomb. And even with sufficient fissile material, Iraq would have had to design and construct the weapon itself, a process that hadnt started before Israel attacked.
The risks of a near-term Iraqi breakthrough were further undercut by the presence of French technicians at Osirak, as well as regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. As a result, any significant diversion of highly enriched uranium fuel or attempts to produce fissionable plutonium would probably have been detected.
By demonstrating Iraqs vulnerability, the attack on Osirak actually increased Husseins determination to develop a nuclear deterrent and provided Iraqs scientists an opportunity to better organize the program. The Iraqi leader devoted significantly more resources toward pursuing nuclear weapons after the Israeli assault. As Reiter notes, the Iraqi nuclear program increased from a program of 400 scientists and $400 million to one of 7,000 scientists and $10 billion.
Iraqs nuclear efforts also went underground. Hussein allowed the IAEA to verify Osiraks destruction, but then he shifted from a plutonium strategy to a more dispersed and ambitious uranium-enrichment strategy. This approach relied on undeclared sites, away from the prying eyes of inspectors, and aimed to develop local technology and expertise to reduce the reliance on foreign suppliers of sensitive technologies. When inspectors finally gained access after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, they were shocked by the extent of Iraqs nuclear infrastructure and how close Hussein had gotten to a bomb.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-02/opinions/35450430_1_nuclear-weapons-israeli-strike-tuwaitha
Israeli
(4,132 posts)I'm really disappointed in Obama .... expected much more .
King_David
(14,851 posts)He very aptly shows how your analysis here on israel is flawed and clueless . Read it carefully how he dissects the nonsense written in 135.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's why you don't see your extreme viewpoints on I/P echoed by more Democrats.
Let's go over your main arguments:
1. Land theft: What makes W.Bank land exclusively Palestinian and in no way, shape, or form disputed? For example, the Temple area in Jerusalem, Hebron...? Judea and Samaria have been populated by Jews for thousands of years. You think that when every last Jew was ethnically cleansed in 1948 (beyond the green line) that Jews lost all rights to be there, and that any claim to any part of that area is bullshit and attempted theft? That's retarded.
2. Apartheid: You admitted it yourself, it's Israelis vs. Palestinians. One nationality vs. another. It has nothing to do with race. No other country on earth treats foreign nationals the same way they treat their own citizens. This is one reason your apartheid accusations are silly and baseless, and therefore only convincing to dupes and those in your echo chamber.
3. Israel grinds Palestinians under their heel: Israel has agreed to or offered the Palestinians their own state multiple times since 1937. The Palestinians don't want their own state if it means Israel will still exist. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Israel has offered to end the occupation/settlements and give the Palestinians pretty much EVERYTHING they say they want in a 2 state deal, and yet the Palestinians rejected those offers w/o making counteroffers and in 2000 started Intifada 2 in response. Let's also remember Palestinian incitement and attacks against the Jewish apes and pigs (their words) have never stopped. Israel cannot be expected to capitulate to every single Palestinian demand, withdraw without a peace deal, and therefore put the security of millions (within rocket range) to those who are CRYSTAL CLEAR about their intentions to murder Jews in masses.
None of this even factors into your thinking, however. But I can assure you most liberals and democrats are well aware of these facts, or at least open-minded enough to consider them and be rational about the situation. Unlike yourself. It's why you're an extreme outlier.
Just saying...
It'd be one thing if you just came out and said you're against settlement policy, Likudnik rightwingers, and extreme settlers. But you can't leave it at that. It's no fun doing that. You just can't help but paint Israel as evil, irrational, racist, anti-peace, thieving shit-bags who have it in against poor, helpless Palestinian victims. Anyone who describes Palestinians in ways you don't like is racist w/o question in your view, but not so when it comes to those like yourself who demonize and slander Israelis and their supporters who actually care for Israel's welfare and understand how vital its importance is to the Jewish people. Your utter lack of empathy for the "other" (in this case Israelis and their Jewish supporters) is one reason you're considered a marginal Israel hater.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)What I wrote was the following.
I won't name names, but it is if they can just deny away all sorts of things that have happened to the Palestinians: theft of land, loss of purpose, harassment, and make excuses and thump their chest for the state of Israel...
You see, Shira. I don't believe that you or the other cheerleaders for Team Apartheid are really Liberals or Democrats at all.
So I can understand why you do what you do, but I couldn't understand why a Democrat or Liberal would do that. They do not = you.
It's very simple. You took the bait and explained your bankrupt position in your reply to me. Congrats, sucker.
shira
(30,109 posts)So congrats, you're a minority within a minority just like our post-zionist friend "Israeli" here.
Nice little cult you're in.
Here's Norm Finkelstein to remind you about your cult....
Israeli
(4,132 posts)never did get an answer to my post #129
so where exactly do you place Letty Cottin Pogrebin ?
shira
(30,109 posts)The point is that activists like yourself have a desire to align yourselves with anti-zionists who hate, despise, and want Israel gone. You want to "fit in" with this segment of the Left that uses you for their purposes. You're only slightly better than a Zionist (by a hairline) to them. Reminds me of Stalin's useful idiots and the Leftists of Iran before the revolution. Those leftists were hung and shot by the Ayatollahs shortly after they came into power.
Israeli
(4,132 posts)now lets get back to my point .....
post # 95 .
Shulamit Aloni is a liar ..... according to you .
and Letty Cottin Pogrebin ???????????????
shira
(30,109 posts)Letty seems okay with me. I may disagree with some of what she believes, but that's okay - right?
Israeli
(4,132 posts)and hasnt been one for a very long time .....and she never lies , she is infamous for being a straight talker . Been a very good friend of mine for a very long time .
Letty Cottin Pogrebin is an American Zionist shira .... she is not a politician ....so ?
no apartheid in the W.Bank either. ........
Yes or No shira ?
shira
(30,109 posts)...and equating Jews and government policy to that of the Nazis. Yes?
Her utter contempt and venom against her political opponents shows a type of intolerance that can justifiably be labeled as bigotry, especially given the way Israel and Jew haters love using another Jew's words in order to justify their own hatred and "resistance" against the Zionists/Israelis/Jews.
Her own words from YNET (English and then Hebrew):
אין לי אף מילה טובה. מה שאני שומעת מעורר בי חלחלה. זה יום השואה היום, ומה עשו בשואה? הרסו בתים ושרפו ספרים. הם לא אהבו יהודים, והמתנחלים לא אוהבים את מי שחושב אחרת.
"I don't have a good word (to say about the settlers). What I hear makes me nauseous. Today is Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. And what did they do in the Holocaust? They destroyed homes. They burned books. They didn't like Jews, and the settlers don't like those who think differently than they do."
She also said:
Aloni's bigoted, intolerant, extreme rightwing hate rhetoric is simply unacceptable.
Letty isn't anything like that, is she?
Israeli
(4,132 posts)Yes or No shira ?
I wanted a straight answer shira .....not an attack on Shulamit Aloni .
Anyhow I'm happy you have acknowledged that she is not a liar .
She doesnt exaggerate either shira .
She is Left wing shira .
You dont seem to know much about us shira , why is that ?
Let me educate you .....
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/aloni-shulamit
shira
(30,109 posts)The reason being that Israeli Arabs in the W.Bank are treated like Israeli citizens while Arab Palestinians are treated like NON-Israeli citizens. If this isn't the case, please explain to me....
I still think Aloni lies AND she exaggerates. She's also ridiculously intolerant and hateful.
Not exactly like Letty CP, AB Yehoshua, or Amos Oz - now is she? Maybe these liberal zionists aren't "Leftist" enough for you?
Israeli
(4,132 posts)what nonsense you write ......
Israeli Arabs in the Wild West Bank ?....thats been explained to you over and over but there is none so blind as they that refuse to see .
what were you saying about Amos Oz ??
http://meretz.org.il/netanyahu-government-israels-anti-zionist-ever-amoz-oz/
you should also read this American from today's news :
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.544882
On Tuesday, a hearing on the petition submitted by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel against the eviction will take place in the High Court of Justice.
shira
(30,109 posts)...and BEYOND the green line don't count in your view? Those in Ariel or those who travel on "Jews Only" roads (those make-believe ones) to get to work or other places are invisible to you?
This, from an "Israeli" who didn't know ANY lived within the settlements just weeks ago.
Hilarious.
I like Amos Oz. He's a Liberal Zionist. The article you linked to ends with his mentioning of a Jewish state. That must infuriate you.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Wearing my Zionist hat, I deplore those feminists whose knee-jerk affinity with the oppressed leads them to deny Israels right to exist, to excuse Palestinian terrorists, or, without parsing the consequences, to disavow the two-state solution in favor of a secular bi-national state.
I lose patience with feminists who fiercely condemn Israels treatment of Palestinians but fall silent when it comes to the treatment of women in Arab countries; who critique Jewish fundamentalism but are so hobbled by cultural relativism or the fear of being seen as Islamophobic, that they hesitate to condemn Muslim gender apartheid, honor killings, female genital mutilation, child marriages or the stoning of women.
I cringe when a Zionist responds to feminist critiques of Israel by calling the critic a "self hating Jew." The fact is, the Zionist dream has not delivered for women.
Ive faulted women on the left for their deafening silence when Israeli doctors were barred from a breast cancer conference in Cairo; for supporting boycotts of Israeli artists and academics, many of whom are feminists and peace activists; and for endorsing every brand of feminist identity politicsblack, Asian, Latina, Arab, lesbian, disabled, environmentalist, PETAexcept the one that labels itself Jewish and Zionist.
Then, donning my feminist hat, I shudder when any American Jew makes common cause with politicians because of their strong support of Israel and despite their flaccid or nonexistent support of womens issues. It especially rankles when the liberal wing of Zionism fails to shine a spotlight on the anti-women behavior of pro-Israel Americans, and I dont just mean Conservative Republicans and Evangelical Christians.
I cringe when a Zionist responds to feminist critiques of Israel by calling the critic a "self hating Jew." The fact is, the Zionist dream has not delivered for women.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/15/zionism-meet-feminism.html
Okay, I love her. Thank you for introducing me....
So we both love Letty?
==========
As to her article on apartheid, I disagree with her POV. But I liked this part...
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/136418/the-a-word-in-hebron/#ixzz2dUG8V8GY
Israeli
(4,132 posts)thus ......
As to her article on apartheid, I disagree with her POV. But I liked this part...
As a life-long, Israel-loving, peace-seeking Zionist, I disdained the hyperbolic label and the facile, incendiary parallels to pre-Mandela South Africa that, for years, have been propagated by Jimmy Carter and some pundits on the left. Ive made at least two dozen trips to Israel since 1976 and, though strongly critical of its governments policies toward Palestinians within and outside the Green Line whether under Labor, Likud or Kadima leadership I never felt that extreme indictment was warranted by the facts on the ground.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/136418/the-a-word-in-hebron/#ixzz2dUG8V8GY
should read .......
Justice-loving Jews cannot keep denying what is happening under Israeli auspices in Hebron; we can never say we didnt know.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/136418/the-a-word-in-hebron/#ixzz2dWosg5ye
shira
(30,109 posts)I simply quoted what I agreed with....
She and I both have big issues with those who seem to be in the business of sliming and slandering Israel with malicious apartheid accusations.
I probably disagree with her on other things too, so? I can't like her b/c we disagree on some things?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)leaving out the final sentence from that sentence that turns the entire preceding paragraph on its head. Then again, I really expect no better from you.
Israeli
(4,132 posts)American Zionism .... its a wonder to behold is it not ?
" What facile dishonesty... "
Yup ... thats about it .
There is more to it of course ..... this is a good read if your interested :
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/sep/26/american-jewish-cocoon/?pagination=false
Express concern about Israeli subsidies for West Bank settlements and youll be told that the settlements dont matter because they wont accept Israel within any borders. Cite the recent warning by former Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin that over the past 1015 years Israel has become more and more racist and youll be told that whatever Israels imperfections, it is they who teach their children to hate and kill. Mention that former prime minister Ehud Olmert has called Mahmoud Abbas a partner for peace and youll be told that what they say in Arabic is different from what they say in English.
This spring I watched the documentary The Gatekeepersin which six former heads of Shin Bet sharply criticize Israeli policy in the West Bankwith a mostly Jewish audience in New York. Afterward a man acknowledged that it was an interesting film. Then he asked why they dont criticize their side like Israelis do.
I used to try, clumsily, to answer the assertions about Palestinians that so often consume the American Jewish conversation about Israel. But increasingly I give a terser reply: Ask them. That usually ends the conversation because in mainstream American Jewish circles, asking Palestinians to respond to the endless assertions that American Jews make about them is extremely rare.
shira
(30,109 posts)So you have no use for her, right?
Only for Chomsky, Richard Silverstein........just some American Zionists, the ones you agree with?
shira
(30,109 posts)The other part I simply disagree with her, as I wrote to Israeli, for reasons Pelsar has explained numerous times to you. I won't argue that it's not discrimination, but calling it apartheid is ridiculous.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The reviewer says: "if you enjoy the sensation of having your cock slowly ground off with a cheese grater, you'll love this movie." On the poster the next day is the quote "You'll love this movie!" - Reviewer.
I merely noted it as a matter of interest. As I said, I do not expect any better from you, and in any event your politics are far worse than your selective quoting.
shira
(30,109 posts)Of course I cut off the part I disagreed with. Duhhh....
And I expect no better from you either. You lie like a rug here constantly and your politics are closer to that of Hezbollah than anything else. It's no wonder we have little in common.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I supported the rebellion against Syria, with my own money, no less. And I support Western intervention in Syria. I can't think of many Hezbollah supporters that could say the same.
But as I said, I expect no better...
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 06:41 PM - Edit history (3)
And you did back Hezbollah until recently.
It's nice to see you've changed your POV about them, but it appears you now back the MB virtually everywhere; from Tunisia to Egypt and now to Syria.
From one group of ultra-conservative religious fanatics and fascists to another...
=========
And as to apartheid and racism, as the OP successfully argues it's Australia that is FAR worse to its indigenous than Israel. Lebanon is even uglier. It's beyond gob-smacking to see you here making bogus make-believe claims of Israeli apartheid when your 2 home nations make Israel look fantastic in comparison.
=========
So tell me (other than to "Fuck Off" again) why is it only Israel in your view that is guilty of Naziism or Apartheid but NEVER Lebanon or Australia or any host of mideast nations (religio-fascism vs. women, gays, blacks, palestinians, christians, jews)? The best you have against Israel, as you admitted to Pelsar, is that you think Israel WILL be apartheid - not that they are now. And yet, YOUR 2 home nations as well as all of Israel's neighbors are significantly worse NOW. Forget 3rd world, Israel isn't killing 10's of thousands elsewhere in any wars like some Western powers. But they're never compared to the Nazis. Only Israel in your view...
Yours is a great example of anti-Israel mendacious, hypocritical chicanery. Par for the course.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)prove it, post the comment unless of course you can't
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I've made my position quite clear. I was glad that Hezbollah kicked Israel out of Lebanon in the same way that I was glad that the Red Army kicked the Nazis out of Eastern Europe. That doesn't make me a supporter of Hezbollah or a communist, for that matter.
Ha ha. And I successfully argue that you eat dog shit for breakfast. You should stop trying to claim the point for yourself, it just makes you look incredibly lame.
I normally wouldnt bother with this hasbawanker bullshit, but lets go through and debunk the claims one by one:-
Only about 0.6% of Australians are Jews, meaning that Jews are in fact over-represented in parliament by a factor of about 40%. Muslims account for about 2% of the population, meaning that you would statistically expect there to be 2 or 3 Muslim MPs rather than one for parliament to be truly representative. Of course, the OP fudges a bit on the figures, including Arab Christians as minorities in Israel but not in Australia. There are a further two Australian MPs of Arab Christian heritage, including one (Joe Hockey) of Palestinian descent.
16% of Israelis are Arab, but only 10% of MKs are; therefore Arabs are substantially under-represented in the Israeli Knesset.
Blatant cherry picking.
Sir Isaac Isaacs was the last Australian High court judge. However, Australia has had Jewish federal court judges since. Australia has also had two Jewish Governors-General (a position equivalent to the President of Israel), Sir Zelman Cowen being the most recent. Again, given that Jews only constitute a very small part of the population in Australia, this compares very well with Israel.
In Australia Master Chef has not had a single winner from a religious or racial minority.
Notice the sleight of hand there? I'll point it out for you:-
In Australia Master Chef has not had a single winner from a religious or racial minority.
Like Israel, Australia has certainly had Muslim finalists in its own Masterchef series. In fact, the third place-getter in this years series was an Arab Muslim:-
shira
(30,109 posts)As to whether you support Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.... all that I observe here shows you support their efforts vs. Israel and in no way oppose their efforts directed at those they hate (christians, women, gays, blacks, palestinians). What else am I to conclude other than that you support them or at the very least, tolerate them as much as anyone would tolerate the KKK or neo-Nazis?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)about the only thing I've ever seen you do is flap your worthless trap on the internet. If you think that Hamas or HA give two shits about that, good luck to you.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Paraphrasing:
NF: "The public is ready to accept (in his opinion) what international law says. Enforce the law.
The law is clear. It is unambiguous. It's uncomplicated. There is a near unanimous consensus on what the law says.
The law is clear.
The settlements are illegal. That's correct.
East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. That's correct.
The West Bank and Gaza are occupied Palestinian territory. That's correct.
---
All the PA wants to do is bargain behind closed doors with the Israelis, and the Israelis will never give them anything."
Quoting Frederick Douglas: "Power never concedes anything without a demand. It never has. It never will. Unless you have the force to extract it from Israel it will never give you anything."
"The solidarity movement is correct."
That was the first five minutes.
So even Norm Finklestein believes that Israeli settlements are illegal and are within occupied Palestinian land: including East Jerusalem.
That pretty much slaps the shizzle out of your argument here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=47265
But once again, nice cherry picking, Shira. Sloppy at best. Completely unconvincing. If you're going to post something as an argument then don't lead in with a video that blows holes in the main part of you philosophy within the first five minutes.
Derp.
shira
(30,109 posts)The point is you're a minority within a minority and do not at all represent the majority view with the Dem Party on I/P.
So is Finkelstein, actually, as there are no Lib/Dems out there as extreme as he is.
The point is Finkelstein describes you and those like yourself who believe they speak for all Dems/Libs.
Seems you aren't a "real" Lib/Dem.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Well?
And so what?
What he says is his opinion, but if YOU use it you must agree with it, right?
Except you just keep on cherrypicking from sources you don't agree with and pull out a sentence or two to meet your needs.
Major derp there, Shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Posting an opinion doesn't make it canon. But posting an opinion that you want to pass off as canon makes you a hypocrite since the first FIVE minutes on the interview runs counter to your arguments in the past and yesterday on the State of Israel and illegal settlements.
Classic Shira Derp.
shira
(30,109 posts)...to Finkelstein or the bozos in the cult that he's describing?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Probably not.
Congrats. You just may be able to carry on a 1-minute pseudo-conversation with a Kindergartner.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Hell, you aren't even trying to be honest. Were you ever?
shira
(30,109 posts)All you seem capable of is slander, ridicule, and smilies.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)You really misunderstood this. Shira posted the video bc NF made an argument specific to your whole "outside the norm" kind of argument and why it's ineffective. It had nothing to do with whether he agrees with aspects of your beliefs. Of course he does! He's the most radical of the respected scholars on this subject. Yet even he sees the folly in making an incongruous argument. Do you understand? Shira was trying to show you something.
Btw, by saying "even NF believes..." You really showed your ass. You had no idea who he was before, did you?