Israel Policies Point To Apartheid: U.N. Report

[Purveyor]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM/GENEVA: Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip appear to amount to apartheid due to its systematic oppression of the Palestinian people and de facto expropriation of their land, a United Nations investigator said in a report.

Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, said that Palestinian rights are being violated by Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory and “ethnic cleansing” of East Jerusalem.

Ahead of the arrival of Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany’s foreign minister said Monday Israel’s settlement policy is “disruptive” to peace talks with the Palestinians.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier made the blunt remarks shortly before Merkel was to arrive with almost all of her Cabinet.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Feb-25/248388-israel-policies-point-to-apartheid-un-report.ashx#ixzz2uHhhcBTG

[Scootaloo]

1. well, I'm glad they're finally catching up...

Expect the usual "It's not apartheid when you do it to Arabs" arguments and a reminder that Richard Falk is worse than Hitler.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

2. Have you ever noticed the most hasbarist hostility is directed towards

Israeli or Jewish-born critics of Israel?

[Scootaloo]

4. Well, of course

Racist movements always have the deepest loathing for the "race traitors."

[shira]

36. Guess u didn't notice all the hostility here by your team against Khaled Abu Toameh....

Is he an opportunistic race traitor in your opinion?

[Scootaloo]

38. I don't use the term "race traitor," Shira, and I find the term and its synonyms deplorable

[shira]

41. But you just accused someone else of believing that. It's why I included those words. n/t

[Scootaloo]

44. Yup, because racist movements DO harbor the most hate for those they see as such

But you asked me if i thought someone else is a "race traitor," and you have my answer.

[shira]

45. And you see Zionism as a racist movement? Not simply a movement calling for self-determination....

...for Jews wanting sovereignty in their own land? Which is what it is actually...

[Scootaloo]

48. Wow, you must have forgotten a lot.

Not simply a movement calling for self-determination for Jews wanting sovereignty in their own land? Which is what it is actually...

Well because it's not "simply" that. This particular approach towards "self-determination for Jews" necessitated the stripping of self-determination, and the violent subjugation of other people.

For Zionism to work, someone has to be removed from their land. Obviously there was no place in the world with a Jewish majority - especially not after the Holocaust, if there ever were before (I think even the Ukrainian Pale was still majority christian-Slavic? I could very well be wrong - but between nazis and Soviets, it's a moot point for the time period at hand.) For a Jewish state to be established would require one of the three following conditions.

1) Terra nullis, a land not in use by or claimed by another people. Outside of Antarctica, portions of the Sahara, and other fairly hellish places on the planet, there was no such place; and it's perfectly understandable if nobody wanted to start up a Jewish nation on the island of Jan Mayen or in the middle of the Taklamakan. Despite Herzl's claims, Palestine was not such an empty land.

2) A population willing to be ruled by an immigrant minority (exceedingly unlikely), or alternately, a population that can be beaten and cowed into such an arrangement, as happened in South Africa and Liberia.

3) The existing population of some portion of the earth would have to be removed or heavily reduced, and their territory then claimed for the state as happened with Stalin's purge of the Tatars from Crimea and re-population with Russians.

Since obviously no racial nationalist movement is planning to set up shop in Marie Byrd Land, this by default means that the only options are subjugating another race, or removing another race. The first is certainly a racist action, the second... usually is.

To their credit the early bird Zionists were perfectly reasonable, buying land from people who were selling, in the hopes of sewing it together as a Jewish state. Nothing wrong with that. But when it became clear not enough was going to get purchased to make a state (unless they wanted to settle for a Jewish Sealand, perhaps) the movement turned towards forceful methods, first getting the British to unilaterally seize land for the movement, and then by war and occupation. Both cases lead to the depopulation of the territories seized and the subjugation of the remainder, which takes us right back into racist territory.

If you adhere to a political belief that necessitates the expulsion and subjugation of a race of people, then yes, you're a racist. it doesn't matter how you try to fluff it up - "Self-Determination or the Jewish people," "the right of white people to live among other white people," "freedom for the black man to find his own way," whatever you want to frame it as, it all still boils down to a movement where a bunch of people obsessed with race and racial purity drive others forth and take their stuff.

[shira]

49. Here we go... Ready?

Well because it's not "simply" that. This particular approach towards "self-determination for Jews" necessitated the stripping of self-determination, and the violent subjugation of other people.

Come on now.

The Jews accepted partition in 1947. No one had to be stripped of self-determination or subjugated. Israel's enemies chose war and you blame Israel for the nakba.

For Zionism to work, someone has to be removed from their land.

Ridiculous. Jews accepting 1947 Partition is proof against such an assertion. No Palestinians would have been removed back then.

If you adhere to a political belief that necessitates the expulsion and subjugation of a race of people, then yes, you're a racist. it doesn't matter how you try to fluff it up - "Self-Determination or the Jewish people," "the right of white people to live among other white people," "freedom for the black man to find his own way," whatever you want to frame it as, it all still boils down to a movement where a bunch of people obsessed with race and racial purity drive others forth and take their stuff.

When you bring up the option of other land out there that the Jews could have tried claiming for their own, you essentially argue that the Jews are not indigenous to the land of Israel, a land ruled by Jews that was historically the same, both culturally and religiously and with the same language 3000 years ago. You're arguing that Israel is no better a home for the Jews as Montana or some part of Siberia.

Do you argue against the indigenous rights of any people to their land besides the Jews?

[Scootaloo]

58. Sure, though I'm afraid this is the last one tonight

Come on now.

The Jews accepted partition in 1947.

Point of fact, neither side accepted it - the Jewish delegation wanted more territory, the Palestinian delegation was holding out for a binational state. Israel only "accepted it" when it declared itself a state within those boundaries in 1948. However it's largely irrelevant if the Jewish side accepted it or not, because the entire concept revolved around robbing Peter to pay Paul, basically - taking land from the Palestinians to give to the Jews.

No one had to be stripped of self-determination or subjugated.

Except for the problem that even within the Jewish section of partition, Arabs were still the majority.

Israel's enemies chose war and you blame Israel for the nakba.

Well, considering that the nakba was fully under way before "Israel's enemies" got involved, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying Shira.

Ridiculous. Jews accepting 1947 Partition is proof against such an assertion. No Palestinians would have been removed back then.

That is a pretty bad logic fail there, Shira, arguing that nobody's land had to be taken, because the Jewish side of argument supposedly (actually didn't) agree to a land grant that was taken from someone else. There's again that Arab majority which I can't imagine would have liked to have been ruled by an immigrant minority, be they Jews or Buddhists.

When you bring up the option of other land out there that the Jews could have tried claiming for their own, you essentially argue that the Jews are not indigenous to the land of Israel, a land ruled by Jews that was historically the same, both culturally and religiously and with the same language 3000 years ago. You're arguing that Israel is no better a home for the Jews as Montana or some part of Siberia.

My point was that the only way to avoid the problem of ethnic cleansing or subjugation, would have been to find a patch of territory that was in fact without people to expel or subjugate. There aren't many such places in the world, and all of them are unpeopled for damn good reasons.

But since you want to bring it up...

Do you argue against the indigenous rights of any people to their land besides the Jews?

If the Apache decided that they were going to lay claim to northern Alberta, against the wishes of all the people currently living there, because two thousand years ago that's where the ancestors of the Apache lived... Yeah, I'd think they're full of shit. Same if a bunch of Hawaiians, Tahitians, and Maori showed up to "take back" Taiwan.

[shira]

64. Just one thing. Are you not aware that the Partition Plan of 1947....

...would have made Jews the MAJORITY in their apportioned land?

[Scootaloo]

73. Unless we're talking about different 1947 partition plans, no it wouldn't have

Perhaps you're thinking of 1937, the Peel commission? That one would have indeed done so... By expelling two hundred and fifty thousand Arabs from the "Jewish" section. The 1947 Partition plan did base its lines on the Peel commission's suggestion - but also included the Naqab which was occupied almost solely by Bedouin Arabs.

[shira]

74. Jews outnumbered non-Jews 538K to 397K

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/partition_plan.html

These boundaries were based solely on demographics. The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state's frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.

[Scootaloo]

75. Not according to the United Nations.

According to the Survey of Palestine conducted prior to forming the partition plan's lines, the divisions allotted to the "Jewish state" were peopled by 447,480 Jews and 535,390 Arabs (there's an "other" category, but they all number in the tens, so... whatever.)

The majority of the Jews in these portions were within Jaffa (264,100) and Haifa (104,510) - Jaffa was the only place where Jews made a majority of the population, at they outnumbered either Christians or Muslims in Haifa, but as both of those groups are Arab, for our purposes they are counted together, numbering 115,790.) Even in Jaffa, the majority of private land was owned by Arabs, a split of 47% to 39% (with the remainder as public land.)

Since we are talking about the 1947 partition plan, Jerusalem is not included in this math.

I'm not sure where JVL got their numbers - it's uncredited. I had surmised that they had done some creative engineering with the Survey of Palestine numbers - perhaps omitting Christians, or perhaps including Jerusalem - but I tried it, and didn't get JVL's numbers. maybe you know where htye got those from?

[shira]

76. Here's an Australian newspaper dated Dec 1, 1947

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/43745490

Look under the title "Three New Entities".

[Scootaloo]

82. I've looked all over for a primary source

The UN, the British Mandatory government, someone - and I can't find it. It seems an often-repeated figure, but also unverified.

Though the Adelaide Advertiser is the earliest source I've found... which probably makes it the originator. Unfortunately it doesn't note where the data comes from (unsurprising, it was just a morning broadsheet in '47.) it's certainly not from 181 itself, nor anything else connected to the UN effort, all of which points to the opposite conclusion.

However, even if the numbers you present are true - The "extra" Jews could be explained by those fleeing Europe after WW2, but I'm at a loss for the disappearance of over a hundred thousand Arabs - the regional demographics would still be reliable, with Jews only comprising a sizable portion of the population in Jaffa, Haifa, and Tiberias, and even then not likely a majority in the latter two - certainly not in the Beersheba or al-Ramla devisions. This is like saying all of the American southwest belongs to California because most of the people in the region defined as "southwest" live in the stretch between San Diego and Los Angeles.

[shira]

85. Here's one from the UN, with different numbers but still a Jewish majority

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument

498,000 Jews
407,000 Arabs and Others

905,000 Total

Based on official figures up to the end of 1946.

[Scootaloo]

12. Case in point, our buddy Shaktimaan, just below n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

14. Yep. I jest replied to the kindly old helping of slap me.

How some can just go on and on how Israeli is just the icing on the cake makes me want to .

[Shaktimaan]

5. That's funny

It's actually falk who compared the Israelis to nazis. Not the reverse. As far as "It's not apartheid when you do it to Arabs" argument, I've certainly never heard that before.

About half of the UNHRC's resolutions condemn Israel. The same amount as all other resolutions condemning other states combined. The list of respected officials who have criticized the HRC's singular focus on Israel is long and varied. Falk isn't exactly known for being objective or impartial on this subject. I wonder why you would grant him any credibility at all.

Well, no actually. I know why you would. You selectively accept anything that supports the worldview you've chosen while rejecting all that doesn't. It's why your arguments rely on random cherry picked bits of data and ephemera plucked from any historical context. I love it when you take the time to back up your beliefs. They reek of someone struggling to support a predetermined conclusion.

It's what leads you to aligning yourself with odious people such as falk.

[Scootaloo]

6. Oh right, knew I left one out.

"THE UN IS BIASED AGAINST ISRAEL!"

If people keep telling you that your ass stinks, maybe it's time to consider washing it.

[Shaktimaan]

9. There we go.

So if enough people share a belief then that makes the belief valid?

Just to be sure, you don't believe that falk, the UNHRC, the UNGA or any other similar organizations have expressed any bias towards Israel in their actions or decision making or conclusions, correct?

[Scootaloo]

11. It means maybe you should take it into consideration.

Particularly when it's coming from a body of people who you have invested with the authority to make such calls, and they provide data to back up their findings about your butt-stink.

Israel could always leave the UN, if it's not liking the results its voluntary membership is getting.

Just to be sure, you don't believe that falk, the UNHRC, the UNGA or any other similar organizations have expressed any bias towards Israel in their actions or decision making or conclusions, correct?

I believe they're less biased than you are, and am more inclined to take the word of multinational investigations with studies and collected data, over some goober on the internet whose arguments always devolve into yelping about how the other guy is an antisemite.

Plus there's, y'know. the reality that if two people live next door to each other but live under different legal systems on basis of their ethnicity, it's fucking apartheid. The very fact that there IS such a different is apartheid. The reality of an immigrant population having authority of life and death over hte majority in the territory they have invaded... again with the apartheid.

I don't need Richard Falk to sign off on this to see what it is. I was praising him for catching the fuck up, not for pointing it out.

[Shaktimaan]

15. Poor baby

Thank you for so cogently illustrating my point about how you consistently rely on exaggerations and falsehoods to make your points.

I have never, to my recollection, accused anyone of being an antisemite here. Out of thousands of posts I recall once when I criticized one of your statements as being antisemitic. Of course, in your imaginary world of hyperbole that constitutes me ending EVERY argument with such an accusation. It allows you to dismiss my valid discourse by painting yourself as a victim. Of course it hardly matters that it's patently untrue.

Now then. You didn't answer the question. Do you feel that the UNHRC and falk are objective regarding Israel?

If you truly do respect the opinions of agencies like the UN then how do you discount all of the criticism leveled by UN officials towards their unfair bias against Israel? Ignoring that, I'm just curious if you think that falk's accusations are based on unprejudiced evidence? That the UNHRC approaches Israel with an unbiased eye? Are they a fair organization?

Plus there's, y'know. the reality that if two people live next door to each other but live under different legal systems on basis of their ethnicity, it's fucking apartheid.

Yes but since Israel doesn't do such a thing what is the reason you consider it apartheid? After all, 20% of Israelis live under the same laws as the other 80%. Regardless of ethnicity. Another example of how you constantly ignore blatant truths in order to hold tight to your
nonsensical beliefs.

My advice. Stop whining about how you're being unfairly attacked, especially if you have to make it up to do so.

Stand by your beliefs. If you think Israel's being treated fairly then say so. It'll be hard to defend without looking hypocritical. But they're your beliefs, not mine. Own up to them or fold.

Worry less about my views on you. I don't think you're antisemitic anyway. I think you're uneducated and a victim of prejudicial propaganda. But then I think most bigotry stems from a lack of knowledge. I think you genuinely believe that you know what's really going on about any subject you stumble across. You're the type who doesn't feel the need to bother reading a book or 20 on a subject before espousing expert insight. Which is how you "know" so much about Zionism despite having never read a single book about it.

[Scootaloo]

17. I notice you ignore the occupation. That's cute.

Also this one's a hoot

Which is how you "know" so much about Zionism despite having never read a single book about it.

Not many, I'll admit. Most of my experience with Zionism comes from "the wild" interacting with Zionists, reading zionist webpages, blogs, news articles, commentaries... Is there some quality that dead, pulped trees impart to your perspective? Maybe the fumes from the ink?

[Shaktimaan]

20. I figured as much.

Yes, there is "some quality" books offer over merely sifting through online blogs and commentary. Namely, perspective, the expertise of a respected historian working in long form, accuracy, full narrative (if the author is unbiased.) and most importantly it gives one a way to compare narratives from different positions and sources with the knowledge necessary to critique them oneself.

Personally I read books from all points on the political spectrum. Not just what agrees with me.

Since you never bothered to really read any of the books that inspired the founders of Zionism. Much less their own, you rely on abridged bits of quotes used to support ideologies which may or may not fit with the authors intent. You have no way of knowing. You lack the perspective that real education brings.

Which explains why your history is do pathetically lacking in pertinent details or correct information. Sometimes you'll triumphantly post a scrap of ephemera as proof without knowing the decades of obvious history that falls after it, rendering it void.

Yes. Books offer more than blogs. But out if curiosity. What have you read? What's the most instructive book you consumed regarding this topic? And then what's the one you read outlining the other sides perspective? And what are these quality commentaries and articles you read anyway? I'm curious.

And yes I ignored the occupation. If Israel's apartheid then you have to include all of it. And since Israel obviously doesn't offer dual laws for its citizens the charge is disproven. Israel treats non-citizens differently. Not non Jews. Your argument has no sense to it. Perhaps you don't know what apartheid is. A book would come in handy here.

[Israeli]

21. Incorrect Shaktimaan...

Ref : " And since Israel obviously doesn't offer dual laws for its citizens the charge is disproven. Israel treats non-citizens differently. Not non Jews. "

See : http://adalah.org/upfiles/2011/Adalah_The_Inequality_Report_March_2011.pdf

Plus ...

Lawsuit challenges Israel’s discriminatory citizenship definition

Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalization, access to land and employment.

The interior ministry has adopted more than 130 possible nationalities for Israeli citizens, most of them defined in religious or ethnic terms, with “Jewish” and “Arab” being the main categories.

The group’s legal case is being heard by the high court after a district judge rejected their petition two years ago, backing the state’s position that there is no Israeli nation.

The head of the campaign for Israeli nationality, Uzi Ornan, a retired linguistics professor, said: “It is absurd that Israel, which recognizes dozens of different nationalities, refuses to recognize the one nationality it is supposed to represent.”

The government opposes the case, claiming that the campaign’s real goal is to “undermine the state’s infrastructure” — a presumed reference to laws and official institutions that ensure Jewish citizens enjoy a privileged status in Israel.

“There are even two laws — the Law of Return for Jews and the Citizenship Law for Arabs — that determine how you belong to the state,” he said. “What kind of democracy divides its citizens into two kinds?”

Yoel Harshefi, a lawyer supporting Ornan, said the interior ministry had resorted to creating national groups with no legal recognition outside Israel, such as “Arab” or “unknown,” to avoid recognizing an Israeli nationality.

“Imagine the uproar in Jewish communities in the United States, Britain or France, if the authorities there tried to classify their citizens as ‘Jewish’ or ‘Christian,’” said Ornan.

The professor, who lives close to Haifa, launched his legal action after the interior ministry refused to change his nationality to “Israeli” in 2000. An online petition declaring “I am an Israeli” has attracted several thousand signatures.

Ornan has been joined in his action by 20 other public figures, including former government minister Shulamit Aloni. Several members have been registered with unusual nationalities such as “Russian,” “Buddhist,” “Georgian” and “Burmese.”

The distinction between Jewish and Arab nationalities is also shown on interior ministry records used to make important decisions about personal status issues such as marriage, divorce and death, which are dealt with on entirely sectarian terms.

Only Israelis from the same religious group, for example, are allowed to marry inside Israel — otherwise they are forced to wed abroad — and cemeteries are separated according to religious belonging.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/lawsuit-challenges-israels-discriminatory-citizenship-definition/8767

[Shaktimaan]

25. Interesting link

While it made many important and accurate points highlighting various disparities between Jews and Arabs in Israel, all of which are worth discussing and represent very real discrimination and racism endemic to Israeli society, it fell FAR short of demonstrating that significant legal differences exist for Israelis of different ethnicities, insofar as preferential treatment goes.

The law of return: yup. For Jews and not Palestinians, true. But we're discussing laws affecting citizens. All states have the right to craft their own entry requirements and Israel is far from the only one that grants a preference to specific ethic identities. I mean, when Palestine becomes a legit state it will likely do the same for Palestinians, right? Just like Greece or Japan or Germany do. Anyway, that doesn't apply to Arabs who are already citizens. It's not as though Israel bars Palestinians from immigrating or anything. East Jerusalem residents also get preferential immigration status.

The reason Israel marks nationality is because Arabs don't have to serve in the IDF. nor do any similar service, as Jews and Druze do. They're certainly welcome to volunteer. But to reap the benefits of avoiding national service means that they won't qualify later for some jobs or benefits that require having served as a pre-requisite. That's hardly racial discrimination though. They COULD do it. They just aren't forced to.

The fact is that anti-Arab discrimination is a very real problem in Israel. But the law has consistently enforced equal rights be upheld in every case brought up. And no ACTUAL laws that discriminate against non Jews exist.

Discrimination exists. As it does everywhere. But there's a bright line between discrimination and de facto segregation vs apartheid.

[Israeli]

32. Sure they do Shaktimaan...

" The fact is that anti-Arab discrimination is a very real problem in Israel. But the law has consistently enforced equal rights be upheld in every case brought up. And no ACTUAL laws that discriminate against non Jews exist. "

Lets put " anti-Arab discrimination " aside and concentrate on Israeli citizens who are neither Arab or Druze or Jewish ....

I suggest you read here :

Like Yair Netanyahu's 'girlfriend,' am I Israel's non-Jewish enemy within?

Non-Jews in the Jewish state are familiar with the vitriolic and bigoted responses of fanatics to Yair Netanyahu's on-off girlfriend: We are, apparently, the greatest threat facing Israel right now.

If you want to know what the worst threat in the whole history of the Jews actually looks like, you should meet my son Eli.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.571304

and here :

Does Israel hassle non-Jewish spouses?

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/.premium-1.559377

An Israeli male meets and falls in love with " a goy " .....he marries her , not here because here its forbidden ....they have children but she does not convert ....although she chooses to live here and bring up her children here ... her children serve in the IDF and do all the other socially acceptable things one does to become good citizens ....except convert .

Is she or her children Jewish Shaktimaan....or are they Israeli ???

[Scootaloo]

30. More I meant to say but lacked time for...

I have never, to my recollection, accused anyone of being an antisemite here. Out of thousands of posts I recall once when I criticized one of your statements as being antisemitic.

Hmmm. Searching seems to back this up. My apologies, I was probably thinking of one of the other Ziontologists around here.

It allows you to dismiss my valid discourse by painting yourself as a victim. Of course it hardly matters that it's patently untrue.

considering you compared yourself to a victim of Stalin's purges when someone disagreed with you, I don't think you have any space at all to claim someone else is "painting themselves as a victim."

Now then. You didn't answer the question. Do you feel that the UNHRC and falk are objective regarding Israel?

If you truly do respect the opinions of agencies like the UN then how do you discount all of the criticism leveled by UN officials towards their unfair bias against Israel? Ignoring that, I'm just curious if you think that falk's accusations are based on unprejudiced evidence? That the UNHRC approaches Israel with an unbiased eye? Are they a fair organization?

]

You're right, I didn't answer the question. I dismissed it. I understand this game quite well, having played it extensively. An answer of "yes" prompts ever-more minute minutae as you explain to me how one time Richard Falk bought local produce instead produce from Golan while vacationing in Greece in 1988 or something, thereby proving that he's irredeemably "biased." If I say "no," you simply prace aroundlike a peacock that just got laid. Anything more nuanced than a binary yes or no draws accusations of "avoiding the question."

Which is all just a side amusement anyway, as you have not quantified "bias," and the simple fact is, any bias present is irrlevant to the discussion - as I said in the other reply to this post, I'm giving Falk a thumbs-up for getting on board the reality train, not because he pointed it out or something.

So. To recap. I regard these parties as less biased and more informed than I regard you.

Yes but since Israel doesn't do such a thing what is the reason you consider it apartheid? After all, 20% of Israelis live under the same laws as the other 80%. Regardless of ethnicity. Another example of how you constantly ignore blatant truths in order to hold tight to your nonsensical beliefs.

And as you demonstrated downthread in response to Israeli, no infringement of equality under the law against Arabs will ever be worth you considering it such.

"It's not apartheid when you do it to Arabs." remember?

My advice. Stop whining about how you're being unfairly attacked, especially if you have to make it up to do so.

How's that gulag treating you, comrade?

Stand by your beliefs. If you think Israel's being treated fairly then say so. It'll be hard to defend without looking hypocritical. But they're your beliefs, not mine. Own up to them or fold.

I'm sorry, have I been being especially subtle or something? I try to avoid that - the internet operates best in broad, bold strokes, since nuance, inflection, body language, all those subtle cues get lost in pure text.

I hold that Israel is being treated more than fairly, Shaktimaan. I would have figured this opinion would have been pretty obvious, but I suppose you were too busy imagining yourself as a bullet-riddled ex-apparatchik slowly freezing in Sakhalin because Daniel disagreed with you.

I don't think you're antisemitic anyway.

I could give a good shit less either way, frankly. We live in an era where not buying sodastream goop is put on the shelf right next to burning a synagogue. There was a post not too long ago where someone claimed a popular men's haircut was antisemitic because the Germans call it "jugend" (i.e., the boy's cut) and one of the local ziontologist village idiots decided I was a jew-hater because I thought this claim was fucking dumb.

Y'see it's less that I think i'm a victim, and morethat I see you guys as blathering dumbasses.

You're the type who doesn't feel the need to bother reading a book or 20 on a subject before espousing expert insight. Which is how you "know" so much about Zionism despite having never read a single book about it.

Thing is, I can read Herzl and Weizman all the live-long day, and while I will indeed learn about the roots, I'm not going to learn much about the fruit. You might as well tell me to read a biography of Abraham Lincoln to address my concerns about Republican politicians in 2014. I could learn about Nathan Bedford Forrest, but my spy account on stormfront is far more informative about what those freaks are doing these days. So on and so forth. Even if I found either of those guys to be good dudes worth admiring (Abraham Lincoln sure. Forrest... not so much) it would bear no relevance to my opinion of the current incarnation of their movements. I can admire the shit out of Gandhi and still see that those who followed in his footsteps in India were seriously corrupt.

If you followed my posts as closely as your vaguely creepy stalking would suggest, you'd see I don't hold any particular animosity or spite towards the "pioneers" of the philosophy - barring that it was a bad idea based on some distinctly European conceits, perhaps. But hey, there were a lot of bad political ideologies going around at the time, so Zionism's hardly unique in that regard.

However, the likes of Bennet, Sharon, and most Zionist posters here - to say nothing of the freaks I've met elsewhere! - are surely far from those old roots.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. Israel is an apartheid state, Shak.

For one to keep trying to condemn those that point that out, instead of admitting how horrible the Israeli policy of apartheid against the Palestinians really is, shows how far that person is willing to go to discredit the truth.

BDS.

[Shaktimaan]

8. Is it?

News to me. I have no issue with legitimate criticism of Israel's policy regarding Palestine. But using inaccurate terms like apartheid for emotional effect is just intellectually dishonest. So I will reject them. There seem to be plenty of Israeli Arabs living without this apartheid being applied to them. Implying it has nothing to do with their race but rather their citizenship. Palestinians living in Lebanon however, that's much closer to meeting the definition than anything in Israel. Shame no one seems to care about them.

[Israeli]

10. Not news to me ....

Remembering Shulamit Aloni

by Stephen Lendman

On January 24, longtime Israeli MK, minister, human/civil/women's rights champion, and outspoken critic of Israeli apartheid passed. She was 86.

Her roots were Polish. Her parents were rabbinical family descendants. She was born in Tel Aviv.

She was a prominent peace advocate. She opposed occupation harshness. She championed Palestinian rights.

As a youth, she was a socialist Zionist Hashomer Hatzair (Youth Group) member. During the British Mandate period, she was a Palmach brigade member.

Its mandate was much more than military. It contributed significantly to Israeli culture, values, character and spirit.

After Israel was established, she worked with child refugees. She helped establish a school for immigrant children. She studied law. She taught. She wrote. She spoke out forthrightly.

She held various government posts. She was a longtime MK and Israeli minister. Her portfolios included Education and Culture, Communications and Science and the Arts.

In 1973, she founded the Movement for Civil Rights and Peace (Ratz party). She established the Israel Consumers Council.

She led the Meretz party. She advocated Israeli secularism. She believed religion has no place in politics.

During Israel's 1982 Lebanon war, she established the International Center for Peace in the Middle East.

Ahead of 1984 elections, she aligned with Peace Now and the Left Camp of Israel. She advocated electoral reform.

She argued for establishing a constitution. Israel has none. Basic laws substitute. They fall way short of what's needed.

She opposed student tours to Nazi concentration camps. She said conducting them helps make Israel a warrior nation. It turns youths into aggressive, nationalistic xenophobes.

She was a Yesh Din board member. It defends Palestinian civil and human rights. It exposes Israeli abuses. It champions long denied accountability.

She believed anti-semitism is misused. It's done to suppress legitimate Israeli criticism. She was outspoken to the end.

She made fundamental rights her core issue. She was true to her values. She challenged Israel's establishment.

She stood up against government officials, generals and extremist rabbis against peace, equity and justice. She was fearless. She was unflinching.

In 1985, she received the Kreisky Prize for Human Rights. In 1996, the International Academy of Humanism awarded her a Decoration of Honor.

In 1998, she received a special lifetime Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award. In 2000, she was awarded the Israel Prize.

It's Israel's highest honor. Aloni won it for her lifetime achievements. It was for her contribution to Israeli society.

She received honorary doctorates from Hebrew Union College, South Korea's Kon-Kon University, Brussels' Free University, and the Weizmann Institute of Science.

She taught courses at Ben-Gurion University, Tel Aviv University, Princeton University, and the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliyyah.

She was often a voice in the wilderness. Israel is more ruthless today than ever.

In January 2007, she headlined "Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel," saying:

"Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes."

"It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds."

"Nevertheless, the state of Israel practices its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population."

It "practices a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies."

"Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp."

It turned Occupied Palestine into an open-air prison. "Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not 'the most moral (one) in the world' as we are told..."

Apartheid is "an international crime," she said. Israel "rob(s) (Palestinians) of their freedom, land and water."

"We apply collective punishment to millions of people" and much more.

After Operation Cast Lead (December 2008 - January 2009), she said the disgraced IDF is no longer Israel's Defense Forces.

She keynoted "A Gathering to Protest and to Mourn" Association for Jaffa Arabs program. Standing room only heard her.

She pulled no punches calling the IDF a "brutal and hedonistic army of conquest."

She called Gaza "a giant detention camp...with no way in or out."

"The (Israeli) public unashamedly celebrates the killing and the destruction. They rejoice that we have a large, strong army, but meanwhile Israel has abandoned its values..."

On her 81st birthday, she discussed the condition of the State of Israel. "What we do in (Gaza) and the West Bank is worse than all pogroms done to Jews," she said.

"It's hard for me to say a kind word about the state today. We are in great distress morally and socially, as well as in the realms of politics and law."

"The Right has two left hands. The Left doesn't exist...Since 2000, with the launching of the Second Intifada, we have murdered thousands. We have blood on our hands."

She denounced extremist settler violence and vandalism. "We are a nefarious people," she said.

At age 80, she published "Israel: Democracy or Ethnocracy?" She minced no words criticizing her homeland, saying:

"The state is returning to the ghetto, to Orthodox Judaism, and the rule of the fundamentalist rabbinate is becoming more profound."

In 1994, after Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 Muslims at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, she forthrightly denounced settler violence.

She was a pioneer peace, equity and justice champion. On Friday, allies and opponents praised her. They called her "a moral compass," "a special breed," "an inspiration for all women."

Eighty-eight-year-old former right wing Israeli MK Guelah Cohen said:

"It was impossible not to admire such a combative woman who fought for what she believed in and was prepared to pay the price."

Former Ratz/Meretz MK/minister Yossi Sarid called her "a phenomenon." She feared "absolutely nothing."

"She wanted to change the national and social agenda, and she did so on her own by virtue of her own capabilities, and attained great and unparalleled achievements."

Current Meretz leader Zahava Gal-On called her "trailblazing." She inspires Israeli human rights activists.

"She transformed Israel into a better place to live and never stopped fighting for the values she believed in with which she will forever be associated: peace, absolute equality irrespective of religion, gender and race."

Labor party leader Issac Herzog said she set an example for others. She "instigated significant change in Israeli public discourse."

She "broke down walls that protected antiquated ways of thinking. (A)s a nation, we must respect her. She will be remembered as a courageous fighter for peace, coexistence and minority rights."

Haaretz editors said "Farewell to one of Israel's true fighters on the left." With her death, "one can only hope (Meretz leader) Zahava Gal-On remains true to her opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu's government."

She uncompromisingly supported right over wrong. &quot S)he was an undaunted fighter for human and civil rights as well as equality for women, while opposing religious coercion, the occupation and the settlements."

She warned about Israel on a "slippery slope of religious fascism, war crimes, and the silencing of freedom of expression."

Her ideals are more important today than ever. Netanyahu and Knesset extremists "turn(ed) Israel into an isolated fortress, repressing its citizens and threatened by international boycotts."

Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy called her Israel's "first lady." She became a legend in her own time. &quot N)o one disputed her honesty, determination or courage."

"She invented Israeli enlightenment." She inspired others to follow her example. She was "a warrior for justice."

"Most of her dreams did not come true. Israel became a worse place - racist, ultranationalistic, occupying, theocratic and bullying."

It's polar opposite what she stood for. "Was she ahead of her time," asked Levy? "Absolutely not. She came at exactly the right time." She's gone too soon. It's when she's most needed.

She was humble. She was one of the least egoistical politicians of her time. She cared only about issues mattering most.

Peace Now mourned her passing. "The pillar of fire has been extinguished," it said.

She was "synonymous with the struggle for peace, security, equality and social justice." She wrote books on civil, women's and children's rights.

She was "a teacher and leading legal and ethical expert on these issues. She was a leading feminist and a courageous liberal voice of progressive values."

She died peacefully at her Tel Aviv District Kfar Shmaryahu home. Family members were with her.

Cause of death wasn't disclosed. One of her sons attributed it to old age. On Sunday she was laid to rest. An era passed with her.

Her friends called her Shula. She's survived by three sons, eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

Her books include The Citizen and His Country; Children's Rights in Israel; and Women as Human Beings among others.

She remained a human rights champion to the end. She's sorely missed. She leaves a huge void to fill. Hopefully others are up to the task.

Source: http://sjlendman.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/remembering-shulamit-aloni.html

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

13. "using inaccurate terms like apartheid for emotional effect"

It's not "emotional effect", shak, its just telling the truth that some will continue to deny as long as they can. And when their denials run hollow they will revert to calling the truth tellers anti-Semites, liars or self-hating Jews. Since these individuals, shak, just can't seem to grasp that keeping a people in crushing bondage, poverty and continual harassment as anything but Democratic they will go to great lengths to attempt to discredit the truth tellers.

Taking another people's land, for use for ones own at the expense of the former, is Apartheid.

Inserting another group of people (over 500k illegal settlers) onto that land is Apartheid.

Having two sets of laws, one (look the other way) for the illegals - one (draconian) for the Palestinians is Apartheid.

Being in a constant state of harassment against the Palestinians, as they do anything to survive, is Apartheid.

Destruction of Palestinian homes, crops, livestock, even life (as f it were sport) is Apartheid.

Looking the other way (IDF clowns) as settlers attack Palestinains and their property then driving the Palestinians off for settler protection is Apartheid.

Reducing the Palestinians living within Israel to "*Arabs" besides being just a tad overtly racist is Apartheid.

Suggesting that "*Israeli Arabs" be forcibly removed from Israel to Palestine...revoking their citizenship, from a politician from the only Democracy in the Mid East is Apartheid.

Forcing Palestinians (aka *Israeli Arabs...aka Bedouin) off off their lands within Israel so as to construct Jewish-only settlements is Apartheid.

Suggesting the annexation of more of the West Bank to Israel is Apartheid.

Cheering this kind of crap on, while attempting to discredit the truth tellers is is Apartheid.

Trying to deflect attention away from Israeli apartheid to Lebanon, while the real problem lays at the feet of Israel, is not only Apartheid but also is the laziest form of racism that I would expect from the Hasbaradists to belch forth into conversation.

It's a shame that one can't even try and attempt to defend the apartheid picnic without the stale old excuses of empire, racism and bottom-shelf ignorance.

[Shaktimaan]

16. So

According to you the act of pointing out the reality that Palestinians living in Lebanon face conditions that far more accurately hew to the accepted definition of apartheid, is itself a for of apartheid? And also racism?

How is pointing out the oppression of a people an act of apartheid? You seem to be implying that anyone who disagrees with you is himself engaging in apartheid.

You're out of control.

ps. How is referring to Palestinian Israelis as "Israeli Arabs" racist? How is it apartheid? Please explain.

[Scootaloo]

18. We're talking about Israel, chuckles. Try to keep up. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

19. No. We're talking about apartheid.

And whenever someone tells me that I am practicing apartheid by merely disagreeing with them I tend to get suspicious about their motives. Once we start labeling discourse as being an act of apartheid we eliminate the ability to discuss it rationally at all. Which is dangerous thinking in the extreme. Stalin used to accuse all dissenters as plotters against the revolution.

Words have meanings. It's important to use them accurately.

[Scootaloo]

28. "Words have meanings. It's important to use them accurately. "

A sentiment which I agree with in full. It's part of why it takes me so long to generate a post, I try to choose the perfect words, place and frame them correctly, it's a whole "thing."

So, again. Israel practices apartheid. You are defending apartheid.

While we're on the subject of appropriate word uses...

Do you realize you just compared the act of telling you you're an apartheid apologist, to Stalin's mass murder and erasure of dissenters from Soviet history in total? It's not even a loose allegory on your part. You are drawing direct comparison to a DU'ers post telling you what your rhetoric amounts to, to Stalin's Yezhovshchina in which a million and a half people were sent on Gulag and another six hundred and eighty thousand-off people were shot?

And you have the balls to gripe about the use of the word apartheid to describe a situation where it is perfectly applicable.

[Shaktimaan]

31. Hahahaha

You should spend more time reading these posts before going off and writing so much nonsense, lest it's also based on such faulty reasoning and miscomprehension.

First, I was told that the act of arguing was itself apartheid. Not that I was being an apartheid apologist, but actually engaging in apartheid by virtue of merely voicing my opinion.

Next, I said nothing about Stalin's mass imprisonment or murder. I drew a clear comparison between the argument Stalin used (to justify those actions), and the argument leveled against me. Both Stalin and my detractor argued that mere disagreement was the equivalent of actual sedition (Stalin) or apartheid (in this case.)

I can explain it slower if you are still confused.

Btw. I'm not defending apartheid. I'm explaining why Israel's actions don't qualify as being apartheid. Those two things are also very different. You see, if I were actually defending apartheid I'd be explaining why Israel's actions are justified despite meeting the definition. But what I am doing is demonstrating that none of Israel's actions meet the definition of apartheid to begin with.

Making such an argument is also not apartheid in and of itself. The poster I replied to just went off and began listing everything he opposed as "apartheid." As though apartheid and "bad" are similes.

Even if I was defending apartheid, that is still different from engaging in apartheid. Do you understand the difference at all?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

26. The reality that Palestinians are living under the Israeli apartheid picnic

is what I was writing about. You can deflect any ole way you want, and I won't stop you. I encourage you in fact.

I can see no better way for DUers to see the face of apartheid than to see it in your defense of the indefensible.

[WatermelonRat]

24. It's entirely for emotional effect.

I have literally never seen any other country on Earth accused of it post-1994 except Israel. I've never even heard it used to describe segregation in the United States, which bore far more resemblance to Apartheid-era South Africa than anything in Israel.

The purpose of your use of the term is to demonize and spread hatred, not to describe and spread understanding. Not only that, you make it more difficult for reasonable criticism to be heard because you condition one side to see anything less than total demonization as too soft and the other to dig in and become so preoccupied with your charges that. I doubt you'll believe me, but I'm actually strongly opposed to the settlements and Likud policies. I think they are wrong. I do not think they make Israel an apartheid state, and consider the comparison to be shallow and vulgar. This puts me in an awkward spot whenever such a topic comes up and the apartheid accusation is inevitably uttered. I feel like if I don't say anything, I'm giving silent approval to it, while if I do object to it it will inevitably derail the conversation while the original (often just) criticism goes ignored. It's extremely frustrating.

Take the list of charges you make, I see a few half-truths and distortions, but largely they are fair subjects for criticism. Yet because you tack on the obligatory apartheid accusation, it becomes more difficult to engage in a discussion of such topics.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

27. You're more than welcome to point out what you consider distortions. You'll be wrong.

And when you are done being wrong I will link article after article destroying all your claims of distortions.

Any time you wish to start...

[shira]

35. I'll start with your very first distortion

Last edited Wed Mar 5, 2014, 09:58 AM - Edit history (3)

Taking another people's land, for use for ones own at the expense of the former, is Apartheid.

How is Jerusalem Palestinian land? The best that can be said is that Jerusalem was to be an international city according to the UN partition plan of 1947, which was never ratified.

What makes E.Jerusalem strictly Palestinian land? When was E.Jerusalem ever legally allocated to Palestinians specifically?

Lastly, if taking another people's land for one's own use at the expense of the former is apartheid, then that would be the case all over the world for the past century. An example today would be the Turks occupying and illegally settling Cyprus. No one calls that apartheid.

Your second distortion is just as easily refuted:

Inserting another group of people (over 500k illegal settlers) onto that land is Apartheid.

Turkey - Cyprus, again. Why isn't that apartheid?

Your slanderous usage of the term apartheid in order to smear Israel is quite shameful in that it minimizes the historical atrocity that actually was apartheid. It's as shameful as those who minimize the Holocaust by comparing the Jews of Israel to the Nazi killers who murdered their relatives and friends.

IOW, your malicious claims of apartheid are bullshit.

Now it's time for you to "destroy" my claim of your distortion.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

65. First smackdown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, adopted on 20 August 1980, is one of seven UNSC resolutions condemning Israel's attempted annexation of East Jerusalem. In particular, UNSC res 478 notes Israel's non-compliance with UNSC res 476[1] and condemned Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law which declared Jerusalem to be Israel's "complete and united" capital, as a violation of international law. The resolution states that the Council will not recognize this law, and calls on member states to accept the decision of the council. This resolution also calls upon member sta

[shira]

68. But you keep saying Israel steals Palestinian land, as if East Jerusalem....

...is exclusive Palestinian land.

I asked you for something binding that proves it's exclusive Palestinian land. I'm still waiting for that.

I can at least point to the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, which is in fact a binding document that states Jews have a right to settle anywhere they wish in Jerusalem. For those not keeping up, this means Jews living there are not to be considered thieves or criminals.

Jews who made Aliyah to parts of Palestine prior to 1947 were not considered thieves or invaders according to International Law, because International Law mandated that they had every right to live there. That's why 10's of thousands were making aliyah in the decades prior to 1947. They knew they had a right to be there.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

79. You are becoming a caricature of your former self, Shira.

Move the goal posts all you want. I'll just laugh.

[shira]

81. A non-response. Next time just say you've got nothing. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

84. I already answered you in #65. Poor you.

[shira]

86. There's nothing in #65 showing E.Jerusalem as exclusively sovereign Palestinian land.

Try again, Ace.

Find me a binding legal document stating that Palestinians are the exclusive sovereigns of W.Bank and/or Gaza territory.

Only then will you have some basis to call certain people you don't like thieves who steal other people's land.

[shira]

88. You said inserting another people into someone else's land is apartheid...

So therefore Turkey practices apartheid in Cyprus, is that correct?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

93. Try to keep up, shria, after your long vacation. This is the Israel / Palestine group.

No matter how hard you strain to change the dialog away from Israeli apartheid visited upon the Palestinians I will bat you right back on track.


...and you're welcome.

[shira]

96. We're talking about your multiple, whacky definitions of apartheid...

If Israel is apartheid for doing something Turkey is doing, then Turkey must also be apartheid.

Or your definitions are shit.

So what's it gonna be?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

98. Again, my poor shira...

If you want to cry about how Israel is not Turkey I can't stop you, but I can laugh at your for your rusty attempts at distraction.


Now back to the apartheid picnic.

[shira]

100. So admittedly your definitions of apartheid r concocted BS & don't hold up to scrutiny. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

102. My concern within the I/P group is focused on I/P issues, how the Israelis treat

the Palestinians in such deplorable ways, why Israel continues to flood the West Bank with illegal Israeli settlers, why Israel lets those settlers destroy practically anything Palestinian, why Israel confiscates (see definition for theft) Palestinian lands without sound legal justification, why the USA turns a blind eye to these practices as long as Israel remains its proxy in the Mid East and how because of all these things Israel is becoming a pariah state: supposedly the only democracy in the Mid East.

When some decide to come back from their winter vacation and start with the "I'm upset that my Poor Israel is being attacked for the beast that it has become, and every critic is an anti-Semite" attitude, bringing forth distraction after distraction in order to blow smoke up DU's ass, then I generally either ignore them or point out how horribly wrong their position is.

With you I have decided the latter.

Enjoy.

[shira]

106. The problem is u accuse Israel of apartheid using yr absurd definitions of apartheid....

Last edited Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:16 PM - Edit history (2)

To recap:

"using inaccurate terms like apartheid for emotional effect"

It's not "emotional effect", shak, its just telling the truth that some will continue to deny as long as they can. And when their denials run hollow they will revert to calling the truth tellers anti-Semites, liars or self-hating Jews. Since these individuals, shak, just can't seem to grasp that keeping a people in crushing bondage, poverty and continual harassment as anything but Democratic they will go to great lengths to attempt to discredit the truth tellers.

Taking another people's land, for use for ones own at the expense of the former, is Apartheid.

Inserting another group of people (over 500k illegal settlers) onto that land is Apartheid.

Having two sets of laws, one (look the other way) for the illegals - one (draconian) for the Palestinians is Apartheid.

Being in a constant state of harassment against the Palestinians, as they do anything to survive, is Apartheid.

Destruction of Palestinian homes, crops, livestock, even life (as f it were sport) is Apartheid.

Looking the other way (IDF clowns) as settlers attack Palestinains and their property then driving the Palestinians off for settler protection is Apartheid.

Reducing the Palestinians living within Israel to "*Arabs" besides being just a tad overtly racist is Apartheid.

Suggesting that "*Israeli Arabs" be forcibly removed from Israel to Palestine...revoking their citizenship, from a politician from the only Democracy in the Mid East is Apartheid.

Forcing Palestinians (aka *Israeli Arabs...aka Bedouin) off off their lands within Israel so as to construct Jewish-only settlements is Apartheid.

Suggesting the annexation of more of the West Bank to Israel is Apartheid.

Cheering this kind of crap on, while attempting to discredit the truth tellers is is Apartheid.

Trying to deflect attention away from Israeli apartheid to Lebanon, while the real problem lays at the feet of Israel, is not only Apartheid but also is the laziest form of racism that I would expect from the Hasbaradists to belch forth into conversation.


It's a shame that one can't even try and attempt to defend the apartheid picnic without the stale old excuses of empire, racism and bottom-shelf ignorance.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

109. Are you ready for another vacation?

[Scootaloo]

29. You've never seen it used with regard to segregation in the US?

Granted, "segregation" is used more often, since in Americna discourse the word carries all the reliant implications - But I've seen it applied to the conditions of the period plenty of times. I continue to see it applied to the modern US as well, particularly with regards to prisons, schooling, and housing conditions.

And unless you have an even-better word to describe the specific[/i[ instance of Israel, "Apartheid" is the best the language has, and it damn sure close enough to do the job either way.

[shira]

34. Why isn't apartheid used to describe Palestinian conditions in Lebanon?

I've never seen any severe critic of Israel here acknowledge that what goes on in Lebanon vs. Palestinians is apartheid. I've seen denial and indifference which goes to show their hypocrisy and double-standards.

If we can't agree that the situation in Lebanon is apartheid (as it's extremely similar to what SA did for decades) then how can we honestly discuss the situation in Israel - which is more difficult to compare to SA than Lebanon?

[Scootaloo]

37. First of all Shira, welcome back

Second, haven't I already agreed with you on numerous occasions that the situation in Lebanon is at least comparable?

There are differences with the lebanon situation - more differences than one gets with Israel, even. primarily, Palestinians and lebanese are both Arabs. The legal divide then becomes one of nationality rather than ethnicity. This makes some aspects of the problem more similar to the US' response to illegal immigration. Also, Lebanon is not occupying Palestine which does cast a somewhat different light on the issue - Unlike the Palestinians of the west bank and gaza, or the black ethnic groups of South Africa, the Palestinians in Lebanon are not a conquered people being kept under the thumb of the winning military, but rather a social underclass - again, comparable to illegal immigrants or pre-integration blacks in the US, or various castes in India, what-have-you.

So yes, again, the situation for Palestinians in Lebanon is pretty deplorable, and can draw plenty of similarities to apartheid - enough that the term is applicable at least.

So, Since this is Israel / Palestine, and not Palestine / Lebanon, and we've covered this ground dozens of times (you've been away, it's okay if you forgot) might we return to the actual subject at hand?

[shira]

43. You're the first here to acknowledge Lebanon practices apartheid vs. Palestinians...

...so congrats are in order, as I cannot recall any other harsh critic of Israel here ever stating the obvious.

Of course, the problem is that there are no BDS campaigns out there by any anti-zionists, no flotillas, no flytillas, no monster trucktillas, no rallies or protests, no nothing to oppose Lebanese apartheid. Absolute zip. In fact, you're about the only anti-zionist on the internet I've seen who's willing to acknowledge (at the very least) that 'apartheid' is applicable to the situation there.

So I think you'll understand why it's hard for me to take the anti-zionist crowd that opposes "Israeli Apartheid" seriously.

How can I be expected to take seriously an allegedly pro-Palestinian movement that deliberately ignores, minimizes, and tacitly supports apartheid in Lebanon?

It happens in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan as well. Absolutely no one from the anti-zio movement acknowledges that apartheid either.

And then there's the fact that they don't have a problem with the PA/Hamas practicing their own kind of institutional apartheid vs. Jews in the territories (no Jews allowed, Jews cannot buy land there, etc.), but I digress...

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

Back to America, however. No one called America apartheid in the 60's. But Israel is apartheid now, America then was not. Riddle me that one.

[Scootaloo]

46. Pretty sure a few others have, as well.

Of course, the problem is that there are no BDS campaigns out there by any anti-zionists,

Nor are there Zionist movements for the Chechen right for autonomy. THis is sort of a meaningless argument.

No flotillas, no flytillas, no monster trucktillas

Well, because Lebanon isn't subject to a military blockade in the way that Gaza is. There's no need to concoct such measures to deliver goods to a place where the goods are not blocked off.

no rallies or protests, no nothing to oppose Lebanese apartheid. Absolute zip.

Perhaps because at the end of the day the question needs to be asked, "why are there Palestinian refugees in Lebanon?" And the answer to that is very simple - because Israel will not allow them their right of return, or even to go to the Palestinian territories. if Israel ceases its stonewalling on the issue, then that's a major blockage removed for hte benefit of these refugees in Lebanon.

It's of interest to note that Lebanon has restrictions on Palestinians for the same reason israel refuses their right to return - maintaining a particular demographic layout.Is it bad when Lebanon does it, but good when Israel does it? I don't understand.

So I think you'll understand why it's hard for me to take the anti-zionist crowd that opposes "Israeli Apartheid" seriously.

Because Israel is always right, in your mind. We covered that on dya one, pretty sure

How can I be expected to take seriously an allegedly pro-Palestinian movement that deliberately ignores, minimizes, and tacitly supports apartheid in Lebanon?

Ever noticed how you take something like "I haven't seen protests of Lebanon" and turn it into something else entirely like "pro-Palestinians support Lebanese mistreatment of Palestinians?" You're building a case out of straw here, Shira. Imagine if I said "I don't see zionists protesting North Korea, they must support forced abortions!"?

It happens in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan as well. Absolutely no one from the anti-zio movement acknowledges that apartheid either.

Untrue, in all three cases, and we've covered it before. Though Syria really rather sucks for everyone right now, granted.

And then there's the fact that they don't have a problem with the PA/Hamas practicing their own kind of institutional apartheid vs. Jews in the territories (no Jews allowed, Jews cannot buy land there, etc.), but I digress...

Well, given that with a very small number of exceptions, all such Jews would be in express violation of established international law, being a population illegally moving into a territory under military occupation, I can't say I have a lot of sympathy. Especially as the vast and overwhelming majority of them certainly aren't becoming Palestinian citizens and do not follow Palestinian law, and are certainly not subject to the same military law and courts as Palestinians in these territories. You're drawing a comparison between apples and frogs here, really.

Back to America, however. No one called America apartheid in the 60's. But Israel is apartheid now, America then was not. Riddle me that one.

Define "no one?"

By "no one" do you really mean "I've not paid enough attention to notice, ever"?

But the core reasons are twofold.

1) The US was not particularly concerned with South Africa - or Angola or Rhodesia - except as the typical "bulwarks against communism" stuff of the time.

2) The same policy was simply called "segregation" or "Jim Crow" in the US - "apartheid" is an afrikaans word, after all, and we had english words.

King, Malcom X, and many others drew such allusions between the systems in place. It has become more common as time goes on simply because of the adoption of the word "apartheid" to cover all such systems, rather than the region-by region terms.

[shira]

47. You're the only one I'm aware of. Others here are welcome to chime in....

I recall asking several of your fellow advocates here point blank and they refused to acknowledge Lebanese apartheid.

Nor are there Zionist movements for the Chechen right for autonomy. THis is sort of a meaningless argument.

I guess I wasn't clear. BDS anti-zios advertise themselves as human rights activists who are pro-Palestinians, but they only seem interested in Palestinian human rights when Israel can be blamed - otherwise they couldn't give a crap.

Zionists generally care about the human rights of all Jews, not just the ones in Israel but globally.

The anti-zios BDS'ers are posers, not the zionists.

Well, because Lebanon isn't subject to a military blockade in the way that Gaza is. There's no need to concoct such measures to deliver goods to a place where the goods are not blocked off.

The folks behind the flotillas say it's not about delivering humanitarian goods, but rather about attracting attention to the situation. You lose this one.

Perhaps because at the end of the day the question needs to be asked, "why are there Palestinian refugees in Lebanon?" And the answer to that is very simple - because Israel will not allow them their right of return, or even to go to the Palestinian territories. if Israel ceases its stonewalling on the issue, then that's a major blockage removed for hte benefit of these refugees in Lebanon.

That's pretty weak.

You're essentially saying Lebanon, Syria, etc.. can do whatever they want and go to town against their Palestinians. You guys won't protest and in fact you'll just blame it all on Israel.

That argument sucks, you realize that?

It's of interest to note that Lebanon has restrictions on Palestinians for the same reason israel refuses their right to return - maintaining a particular demographic layout.Is it bad when Lebanon does it, but good when Israel does it? I don't understand.

Israel made citizens of their refugees, all of them, including Palestinian ones who were in Israeli camps after 1948. There's no comparison here. Israel also offered to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees at the Lausanne conference, as part of a peace deal.

Ever noticed how you take something like "I haven't seen protests of Lebanon" and turn it into something else entirely like "pro-Palestinians support Lebanese mistreatment of Palestinians?" You're building a case out of straw here, Shira. Imagine if I said "I don't see zionists protesting North Korea, they must support forced abortions!"?

Because we're talking Palestinians, that's why. It's not possible to be pro-Palestinian when only Israel can be blamed.

Untrue, in all three cases, and we've covered it before. Though Syria really rather sucks for everyone right now, granted.

Nah, no harsh critics of Israel here call what happens in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan apartheid vs. Palestinians. They can't even acknowledge Lebanon practices it....

Well, given that with a very small number of exceptions, all such Jews would be in express violation of established international law, being a population illegally moving into a territory under military occupation, I can't say I have a lot of sympathy. Especially as the vast and overwhelming majority of them certainly aren't becoming Palestinian citizens and do not follow Palestinian law, and are certainly not subject to the same military law and courts as Palestinians in these territories. You're drawing a comparison between apples and frogs here, really.

There you go.

You don't have a problem with institutionalized Palestinian apartheid vs. Jews. When the Jews do it, you go all apoplectic. When the Palestinians do it against the Jews, no problem.

You can't expect to be taken seriously about apartheid.

=========

Your points are fair enough WRT 1960's American "apartheid"...

But do you think what Israel does is worse than 1960's Jim Crow, whether within Israel or inside the W.Bank?

[Scootaloo]

50. I believe i've noted in the past that most peopel lack the patience for it...

I guess I wasn't clear. BDS anti-zios advertise themselves as human rights activists who are pro-Palestinians, but they only seem interested in Palestinian human rights when Israel can be blamed - otherwise they couldn't give a crap.

Zionists generally care about the human rights of all Jews, not just the ones in Israel but globally.

The anti-zios BDS'ers are posers, not the zionists.

Once again you're taking focus on one area, and spinning it as "not giving a crap" about something else.

Do free Tibet activists also "not give a crap" about China's activities in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang? Do they "not give a crap" about the fact that the lamaist theocracy really wasn't better than the PRC military rule? or are they just focused on an aspect of the whole picture?

People protesting the XL keystone pipeline aren't out on Gulf Shores mopping Deepwater tar residue off of sea oat stands, they're such hypocrites!

The folks behind the flotillas say it's not about delivering humanitarian goods, but rather about attracting attention to the situation. You lose this one.

The "situation" happens to be an extensive military blockade of Gaza. A situation which is reflected nowhere in the context of Lebanon.

That's pretty weak.

You're essentially saying Lebanon, Syria, etc.. can do whatever they want and go to town against their Palestinians. You guys won't protest and in fact you'll just blame it all on Israel.

That argument sucks, you realize that?

Not weak at all. These Palestinians were rendered refugees by Israel's actions, and remain so because of Israeli inaction. This does not excuse what other nations do, but they wouldn't be able to do it were it not for the Israeli roadblock. Lebanon's mistreatment of Palestinian refugees is a symptom of those peoples status as refugees. You could protest the symptom sure, but it's not going to fix the problem.

And don't you feel a little bit hypocriticla yourself, given your arguments here, paired with the very obvious fact that you don't care about Palestinian refugees unless you can exploit them to deflect away from Israel? it's really a mirror image of what you're accusing others of doing.

Israel made citizens of their refugees, all of them, including Palestinian ones who were in Israeli camps after 1948. There's no comparison here. Israel also offered to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees at the Lausanne conference, as part of a peace deal.

Actually, just one hundred thousand - minus those already within Israel, so less than eighty thousand. Out of an estimated seven hundred thousand total. These eighty thousand would be settled by Israel according to Israel's military and economic desires - they would not be allowed to return to their homes, nor would they be compensated. In addition Israel wanted to annex the lands occupied in 1947-48 as part of this offer. To top it off was a demand that the number of Arabs total within Israel "not exceed 250,000."

Know who rejected this plan? Those awful, peace-hating Arabs no doubt!

Nope. The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine that was overseeing the conference rejected it as completely unsatisfactory. Know who made up the commission? Turkey, France, and the United States.

And yes, good for Israel, with its own survivors of camps pushing to end the condition of Palestinians in camps... within their line of sight, at least. It's something, which is technically better than nothing.

Because we're talking Palestinians, that's why. It's not possible to be pro-Palestinian when only Israel can be blamed.

Noting who bears the bulk of responsibility is a different thing from "only blaming them." I think you want some sort of narrative where these other nations are at least "As much to blame" for the refugee issue as Israel, if not vastly more so.

Well... that's just not how it is, Shira. That makes as much sense saying Israel's "as bad as" Sudan for the situation of all those south Sudanese refugees - it cna be noted that Israel doesn't treat those refugees right, but it's still Sudan that caries the bulk of the blame for their condition... since it's the one who made those people refugees in the first place.

There you go.

You don't have a problem with institutionalized Palestinian apartheid vs. Jews. When the Jews do it, you go all apoplectic. When the Palestinians do it against the Jews, no problem.

You can't expect to be taken seriously about apartheid.

The situations just aren't in any way comparable, is the thing. Again with a handful of exceptions - returned refugees in Jerusalem and whatever few people have taken legal Palestinian citizenship - all these people are Israelis who have illegally invaded and occupied territory outside the borders of Israel. They are breaking the law in other words. They're criminals. They also happen to be criminals who benefit from a military occupation that treats the natives of the territory as enemy combatants, but the criminals as privileged sons and daughters.

Wanting a bunch of foreign nationals who have no right to be there and who are taking your stuff to leave isn't remotely apartheid, Shira.

But do you think what Israel does is worse than 1960's Jim Crow, whether within Israel or inside the W.Bank?

I don't think I can make a "worse or better" judgement on this as both are completely shitty situations with no redeeming features.

That said, the United States military was not involved and invested in the enforcement and perpetuation of Jim Crow. The IDF very certainly IS so invested in the west bank.

[shira]

60. You're still comparing apples to oranges...

Once again you're taking focus on one area, and spinning it as "not giving a crap" about something else.

Do free Tibet activists also "not give a crap" about China's activities in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang? Do they "not give a crap" about the fact that the lamaist theocracy really wasn't better than the PRC military rule? or are they just focused on an aspect of the whole picture?

A better comparison is Free Tibet activists not giving a crap about Tibetans in other contexts that are as bad or worse than Chinese rule.

The "situation" happens to be an extensive military blockade of Gaza. A situation which is reflected nowhere in the context of Lebanon.

It's about "human rights" and the human rights of Palestinians don't matter unless Israel can be blamed.

Not weak at all. These Palestinians were rendered refugees by Israel's actions, and remain so because of Israeli inaction. This does not excuse what other nations do, but they wouldn't be able to do it were it not for the Israeli roadblock. Lebanon's mistreatment of Palestinian refugees is a symptom of those peoples status as refugees. You could protest the symptom sure, but it's not going to fix the problem.

The only reason they remain refugees is due to an effort to eventually destroy Israel. And there wouldn't be refugees if the Arab world didn't declare war on the Jews in 1948. So the refugees are not the fault of Israel, no more than the situation for Germans of the Sudetanland are the fault of the Allies.

If we take that argument, then Germany was under no obligation to give citizenship to 12-16 million ethnic Germans after WWII. They and their offspring numbering in the 10's of million now could be languishing in refugee camps. And THAT would be the Allies fault.

Absurd reasoning.

And don't you feel a little bit hypocriticla yourself, given your arguments here, paired with the very obvious fact that you don't care about Palestinian refugees unless you can exploit them to deflect away from Israel? it's really a mirror image of what you're accusing others of doing.

I don't advertise myself as pro-Palestinian. You guys do. And I support a national homeland for Palestinians. One that is democratic and liberal, which is more than can be said of the pro-Palestinian BDS camp...

Actually, just one hundred thousand - minus those already within Israel, so less than eighty thousand. Out of an estimated seven hundred thousand total. These eighty thousand would be settled by Israel according to Israel's military and economic desires - they would not be allowed to return to their homes, nor would they be compensated. In addition Israel wanted to annex the lands occupied in 1947-48 as part of this offer. To top it off was a demand that the number of Arabs total within Israel "not exceed 250,000."

Know who rejected this plan? Those awful, peace-hating Arabs no doubt!

Nope. The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine that was overseeing the conference rejected it as completely unsatisfactory. Know who made up the commission? Turkey, France, and the United States.

It was good offer, considering Israel didn't start the war that led to their refugee status. And it's easy to see why Turkey, France, and the USA would have rejected such an offer. Money talks. IOW, oil. Same situation as today.

Noting who bears the bulk of responsibility is a different thing from "only blaming them." I think you want some sort of narrative where these other nations are at least "As much to blame" for the refugee issue as Israel, if not vastly more so.

Israel's neighbors are absolutely to be blamed for the ongoing refugee crisis. They are obligated to make citizens of their refugees, at least the children of those refugees - according to the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 7). Just like all other nations on the planet where such a refugee situation is unheard of.

Well... that's just not how it is, Shira. That makes as much sense saying Israel's "as bad as" Sudan for the situation of all those south Sudanese refugees - it cna be noted that Israel doesn't treat those refugees right, but it's still Sudan that caries the bulk of the blame for their condition... since it's the one who made those people refugees in the first place.

If Israel intentionally treats the Sudanese badly just like the Arab states, keeping the Sudanese and their kids in atrocious conditions for decades, then my point would stand and Israel really could take the bulk of the blame for their situation. No double standards...

The situations just aren't in any way comparable, is the thing. Again with a handful of exceptions - returned refugees in Jerusalem and whatever few people have taken legal Palestinian citizenship - all these people are Israelis who have illegally invaded and occupied territory outside the borders of Israel. They are breaking the law in other words. They're criminals. They also happen to be criminals who benefit from a military occupation that treats the natives of the territory as enemy combatants, but the criminals as privileged sons and daughters.

1. You once labeled holocaust survivors as invaders of Palestine guilty of criminal acts against the indigenous Palestinians. So you'll have to excuse me for not taking you seriously WRT settler "invaders" now. I wonder if you consider Israeli Arabs who choose to move into settlements as illegal invaders. I somehow doubt it. Rest assured that PA and Hamas' apartheid would not apply to them, but only Israeli Jews.

2. There's nothing criminal about Jews in Jerusalem who are indigenous to the area going back thousands of years (that's like arguing native Americans are illegals in parts of America and Canada). Besides, Jerusalem was never Palestinian territory. It was to be an international city according to the Partition Plan of 1947. What makes Jerusalem exclusively Palestinian territory? The answer is absolutely nothing, as there is no binding agreement making the Palestinians sovereigns of Jerusalem or any other part of the WB for that matter. BTW, there's a reason countries like the USA, Australia, and Canada do not recognize Israel's illegal activity in the WB. It's because it's not illegal, that's why.

Wanting a bunch of foreign nationals who have no right to be there and who are taking your stuff to leave isn't remotely apartheid, Shira.

It's not exclusively their stuff, and Jews are indigenous to the land, not foreign invaders who have no right to be there. You wouldn't dare argue that certain Aboriginal people have no rights to parts of their historic homeland going back thousands of years, or that they're foreign invaders, thieves, etc... That would be beyond ugly.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

53. This is the Israel / Palestine group, Shira. It's not the "let's blow smoke up their ass" group.

Whenever Israel acts like an apartheid state then I will call them on it, and I am sure that there will be a relentless few that will try and distract the well-deserved criticism that Israel has come to attract.

Certainly there are plenty of human rights abuses in the Mid East, but for one to continue to use this group as a forum to distract in embarrassing.

[shira]

55. You guys advertise yourselves as pro-Palestinians but do not appear to give a rip....

...about Palestinians under anyone else's rule other than Israel.

Not even Palestinians in Gaza under Hamas.

I know of no BDS, "anti-apartheid", anti-zio groups out there who do more than a tiny little bit of lip service for Palestinians in Gaza, Lebanon, etc. Forget about DU....I'm referring to the BDS movement in general.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

59. When my lovely daughter asks me for a cookie at dinner I calmly tell her that she can have fruit.

When she persists with her need for a cookie dinner I let the asks pass and serve her what I believe is best for her and don't engage in what other parents might find as a ritual argument: especially with toddlers.

In somewhat the same way I guess that I have to serve those who persist in a stubborn attempt to deflect from Israeli human rights violations a healthy dose of reality...food for thought, and with all due respect I hope that they take the time to digest it.

This is the I / P Group, and this is the place where we discuss topics surrounding the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. While some wish to heartily distract from that and attempt to move the uncomfortable discussion away from Israeli Apartheid over a captive population I will move it back: helping them realize their mistake.

[shira]

61. How is discussing Palestinian human rights in Gaza, the WB, or Lebanon not on topic? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

63. You can always post that query in the Mid East Forum where it belongs.

[shira]

66. So Palestinians in Gaza under Hamas is off-topic for DU I/P? For real?

Discussion of Palestinians within Israel works, but not within Gaza or the WB under PA administration?

Maybe you should reconsider.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

78. While you were on vacation did you forget that Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories?

I'm not sure what you are rambling about, but please go on. The more things change the more they stay the same.

[shira]

33. So now it's an apartheid picnic to simply point out Lebanese apartheid vs Palestinians...

Here's a Maan News article on Lebanese apartheid:
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=582832

Apparently, Maan News practices apartheid for pointing that out. Call it an apartheid circus going on over there in the Maan offices...



Good to know.

[azurnoir]

39. oddly the article from Maan does not mention the word apartheid

in fact it's about changes in Lebanese law concerning employment for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon

but it's nice to see you've become less Spice and Ice again

[shira]

40. you're right... so there's no apartheid going on in Lebanon, is that correct?

In Israel, yes.

But Lebanon, not so much.

Is that what you believe?

[azurnoir]

42. I believe as has been explained to you many times prior that Lebanon is a sovereign country

and the Palestinians there are refugees not citizens, just as Israel's colonists in the West Bank are not citizens of Palestine

[shira]

51. So that's a no. The problem is the UN says they should be citizens.

Here's Article 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the child, and it explicitly states the following:

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

Lebanon is in violation of this convention.

In no other situation worldwide are the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of refugees considered refugees under International Law, who deserve to be discriminated against.

[azurnoir]

52. article 7 says aquire a nationality not a specific nation there for

the law is as applicable to Israel the country that forces Palestinians to remain refugees by refusing to allow them a home or country in even the West Bank or Gaza

[shira]

56. Right, refugees in Lebanon should acquire Lebanese nationality....

What's difficult about this?

[azurnoir]

57. except it does not state that and yes I know how badly you want other countries to solve Israel's

problems, but obviously that's not going to happen as I have stated many times before the Palestinians having their own state would solve the problem quite nicely

but I will note your insistence on other Arab countries solving the Palestinian dilemma simply because Palestinians are Arabs seems almost rather ethnocentric thinking for a progressive website

back in the 1960's would you have insisted on Liberia solving the civil rights dilemma for Blacks in the US?

[shira]

62. Of course it states just that, and all other countries follow that rule....

There are no other countries out there with refugee populations that are still growing exponentially, because they rightfully grant citizenship to the children of said refugees.

It's fascinating that you're actually against Article 7 on the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

[azurnoir]

67. really all other countries are you sure about that? :)

[shira]

69. Name another country from around the WW2 era, when there were MILLIONS of refugees....

...a country that locked those refugees into camps, denied them and their children citizenship, and saw to it that such a refugee population multiplied exponentially afterwards.

There is no such example.

All other refugee situations from that time period have been solved, as the children of those refugees became citizens according to the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

[azurnoir]

70. olol a change of goal posts eh?

from around the WW2 era, well shall we take a little peek at how Israel treats its non-Jewish refugees? well I guess it can't be all bad after all Israel built a camp for African refugees where they can stay forever unless of course they decide to leave Israel of their own free will of course

[shira]

71. There is no other nation to compare to. The Palestinian refugee situation is unique...

Israel's neighbors are in violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

No other nations have done that to a refugee population in the past century.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

104. I guess that it is time for Israel to let the refugees it has created

by blocking their return a chance to come home. That would end a lot of the problems today for the Palestinians.

Wouldn't you agree?

[shira]

105. Only the original refugees of '48 have a RoR or compensation. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

110. Yes, Shira, that makes it so much easier to rationalize the theft of Palestinian lands

now doesn't it?

If Israel would just wait until they are all dead then it could offer them a few million $ apiece just as long as they cam to collect it in person.

[shira]

112. There is no such law mandating RoR to descendants of refugees....

There is Article 7 on the Convention of the Rights of the Child that calls for nations hosting refugees to make citizens out of the children of said refugees.

If you're at all interested in genuine International Law, that is...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

113. Oh, how nice of you to pile up your brand of BS so high, but the higher you sit on that pile

it still comes down to being nothing more than BS.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194...not to mention Resolution 169 and Security Council Resolution 237 are pretty clear on right or return of refugees, and since Israel wanted admission to the UN, was admitted by the UN it has to abide by the principles of the United Nations.

Another well-known document is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which stipulated in article 13 and 15.

Article 13.
1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 15.
1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.


There are international precedents that predate the nation of Israel which affirm right of return for refugees, and I'm sure that you know this quite well.

[Shaktimaan]

114. sorry

since Israel wanted admission to the UN, was admitted by the UN it has to abide by the principles of the United Nations.

Correct. But since none of those resolutions are considered legally binding, much less LAW, (according to UN principles anyway), they don't do much to further your argument. 237 isn't even about the nakba, it's referencing a war which occurred decades later.

Another well-known document is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

A document that was written after the nakba occurred... and isn't applicable anyway.

Article 13.
1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Great. There wasn't any actual country there at the time, but if there had been, it would be considered Palestine, which only part of eventually became Israel. Moving from Jaffa to Ramallah isn't really leaving Palestine. Refugees from outside Palestine should absolutely have the right to return to Palestine, just as Jewish refugees from the rest of the Arab world were able to go to Israel. Regardless, you can hardly consider the very people who fought to prevent the establishment of a state to be citizens of it retroactively following their failure.

Article 15.
1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

OK. This applies how?

There are international precedents that predate the nation of Israel which affirm right of return for refugees, and I'm sure that you know this quite well.

Name one.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

54. Again, my poor shira, this is the Israel / Palestine group.

You have been told that many times yet there seems to be an inability to fathom what that actually means. I'm not sure that anybody will take you seriously, before or after your vacation, seeing how you don't have the ability to do rudimentary math.

[shira]

72. Seems that discussing Palestinians is part of I/P....

...as much as discussing Israelis would be.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

77. From the I/P guidlines.

Welcome to the Democratic Underground Israeli/Palestinian Affairs discussion forum. As you know, this is where you may discuss issues surrounding the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Just go back to sleep, Shira.

[shira]

80. So how are Palestinian refugees in Lebanon not an issue surrounding the conflict....

...between Israelis and Palestinians?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

83. It's not when it is considered as a byproduct of the Nakba.

But that is not what you were being insistent upthread about. You were trying to blow smoke up the collective ass of DU claiming that a Ma'an article "Here's a Maan News article on Lebanese apartheid" when there is no mention of apartheid in the article.

Shame on you.

[shira]

87. If you believe Palestinians in Lebanon are merely a byproduct of the Nakba....

...then why discuss the Nakba at all here at I/P?



The fact that you deny, ignore, and attempt to minimize genuine Lebanese apartheid vs. Palestinians goes to show you tacitly support said apartheid vs. Palestinians, doesn't it? How am I wrong? Be clear, please.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

94. Palestinians refugees from their villages in what became Israel are

a byproduct of the Nakba; no matter where the have to dwell today.

[shira]

97. If you are pro-Palestinian, and I'm assuming that's why you show so much concern for them....

...you should be pro-Palestinian no matter where they are - whether they're in Israel, Gaza, or Lebanon.

But since you're obviously not pro-Palestinian, why all the hot air? You're anti-Israel more than you're pro-Palestinian, am I right?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

99. My concern for the Palestinians is very clear...especially when I run into those

ne'er-do-wells who would attempt to distract from the apartheid state that Israel has become.

[shira]

101. Yeah, it's very clearly a phony concern since someone claiming to be....

...pro-Palestinian and for human rights doesn't care in the least about the human rights of Palestinians beyond Israeli control.

BTW, I think it's fascinating that you believe discussing Palestinians under Hamas or Lebanese control is off-topic in DU/IP.

Comical, actually.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

103. What is continually comical, my dear shira, is how some

want to continually distract from the apartheid state that Israel has become by clutching at any human rights disaster that the can throw around.

There are plenty of human rights disasters happening all over the world: from Syria, Ukraine, Greater Africa (Uganda) and frankly if one names a country there is probably some dark underbelly that can be found without breaking a sweat.

The worst thing, though poor shria, is that apartheid Israel has rolled over, legs to high heaven, and has exposed its dark underbelly to the world: daring anybody that cares to criticize it or expose its human rights violations as anti-Semites or self hating or comical in order to deflect from the beast it has become. And prying itself away from this underbelly are its willful agents; who having drank from the teet of human hatefulness cry foul and attempt to blot out the light of day being shown against this beast.

It's not working, shira, and the more these agents try to distract the more they are exposed for what they are.

They may cry foul, or bigot, or anti-Semite, or Nazi at the same time calling for an attack against Iran, or that others don't care, but when it comes down to the truth they are the ones who don't care to have apartheid Israel and their decrepit way of life exposed for the world to see.

[shira]

89. Destruction of Palestinian homes is apartheid? Hamas does this in Gaza....

Hamas destroys dozens of homes in Gaza
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3890501,00.html

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

90. It sure is when the ibtent is to

replace those homes with illegal Isreali settlements, and historically when one not encumbered by dumb realizes how many Palestinian homes and properties Israel has destroyed over the yesrs.

[shira]

91. The USA & POTUS don't say settlements are illegal, so enough BS okay?

Last edited Fri Mar 7, 2014, 05:15 PM - Edit history (2)

U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/18/un.israel.settlements/

That failed UN bid was an attempt to label Israeli settlements illegal. It failed. Therefore, settlements are NOT illegal according to International Law. That vote failed. If you need a kleenex, lemme know.

You're also at DemocraticUnderground and you'll find that pretty much all (like around 100%) of Dems in Congress, the Senate, and in the POTUS cabinet call bullshit on most of the I/P propaganda, slime, and slander posted here daily. Whether it's the crap about illegal settlements, apartheid, BDS...

Keep it real. No more slime, slander, and bullshit. Is that too much to ask for?

[Jefferson23]

92. Her intent is to give you a circle jerk of misinformation:

Kerry: US considers Israeli settlements to be 'illegitimate'

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Kerry-US-considers-Israeli-settlements-to-be-illegal-330786

illegitimate:

adjective

Not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules:

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

95. No kidding. Really?

[azurnoir]

22. Apartheid is an entirely accurate and appropriate word for Israel's actions and lawin the West Bank

you can attempt to claim that it is merely that Israel has different laws for it's citizens and it's non-citizens like any other country except that the West Bank is not Israeli sovereign territory, so that simply does not apply to the West Bank, nor does the temporary military custodianship granted to Israel over parts of the West Bank by Oslo apply either

[Israeli]

23. Duck test....

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

Yossi Sarid, who served as environment minister under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, writing in Haaretz stated that "the white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened — a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid."

[shira]

107. But BDS'ers claim Israel is apartheid within the green line. That's a lie, right? n/t

[azurnoir]

108. Keep tryin mmmmkay? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

111. Some just don't learn, now do they?

[azurnoir]

3. a eureka moment for the UN

about time too