What are your thoughts on calling Israel an 'Apartheid State'? Is the Barrier an 'Apartheid Wall' or a 'Security Fence'?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on January 4, 2010 at 8:50am

1) There is no IDF policy of bombing children

2) and note that about Richard Falk:
According to a UN press release, then Israeli H.E. permanent resident Ambassador to the United Nations Itzhak Levanon said that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was "hopelessly unbalanced," "redundant at best and malicious at worst." Referring to Falk's statement that it was not "an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with the criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity," Levanon argued that "someone who had publicly and repeatedly stated such views could not possibly be considered independent, impartial or objective." He stated the council was "missing an opportunity" to lay "the groundwork for better cooperation with Israel."

Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, criticized Falk's appointment to the United Nations Human Rights Council, stating that "This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council" and that "He was picked for a reason, and the reason is not to have an objective assessment — the objective is to find more ammunition to go after Israel."

Yitzhak Levanon, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, criticized Falk's appointment in an address to the council, stating: "He has taken part in a UN fact-finding mission which determined that suicide bombings were a valid method of 'struggle'. He has disturbingly charged Israel with 'genocidal tendencies', and accused it of trying to achieve security through 'state terrorism'. Someone who has publicly and repeatedly stated such views cannot possibly be considered independent, impartial or objective."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on January 4, 2010 at 9:03am

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

Here Akiva Eldar from haaretz show the different trends within Israel about relationship with Palestinian and consideration of the term apartheid.

I do not agree with him. but I think this is relevant to this discussion.


Akiva Eldar / Is there really a difference between Israel and apartheid South Africa?
By Akiva Eldar
Tags: South Africa, Israel News

The day after the murder of the settler Meir Hai about 10 days ago, Major General (res.) Amos Gilad was asked to comment on the claim by settlers that the attack was able to take place because roadblocks had been lifted on West Bank roads. The security-political coordinator at the Defense Ministry told his radio interviewer that the policy of thinning out internal roadblocks has greatly contributed to the West Bank's impressive economic growth. According to Gilad, who until recently was coordinator of activities in the territories, the improvement of the Palestinians' economic lot has contributed substantially to Israelis' security.

An army man, who is not suspected of belonging to a human rights organization, thus upsets the simplistic and most accepted formula: restrictions on Arabs means more security for Jews. The Supreme Court ruling last week to lift the ban on Palestinians using Route 443 shows that members of the judiciary also no longer stand at attention when they hear the magic word security. Nonetheless, the judiciary members, like politicians and the media, still find it hard to let go of their paralyzing dependency on this term. This is intentional: If discrimination is not mandated by security considerations stemming from the threat of Palestinian terrorism, how can we diagnose this regime as segregationist? If it is not diagnosed as such, there is no need to treat it.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which appealed against the ban on Route 443, dared suggest the word apartheid and was reprimanded for it. In her ruling, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch wrote that "the great difference between the security means adopted by the State of Israel for defense against terrorist attacks and the unacceptable practices of the policy of apartheid requires that any comparison or use of this grave term be avoided." A similar argument was voiced during the days of Israel's military administration over its Arab citizens, which was lifted in 1966, and which is today considered a dark period in the country's history.

Beinisch herself is a co-author of about a dozen rulings that exposed the malicious use of the segregation regime in an effort to take over Palestinian land. In some cases, most notably one concerning the separation fence near Bil'in, she wrote that the invasive route set by the army was inferior from a security point of view to the route proposed by experts at the Council for Peace and Security. In another case the state admitted that the person in charge of planning the fence did not inform government lawyers that the route had been adjusted to the blueprint for expanding the settlement of Tzofin. Were it not for human rights organizations and conscientious lawyers, who would prevent shortsighted politicians from annexing more and more territory "for security against terrorism"? asked Beinisch.

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

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

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

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

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on January 4, 2010 at 9:53am

Neri,

I actually said the same thing as Akiva Eldar. Israel is engaging in Jewish supremacy. It's, actually, sad to say that because many American Jews were victims of white supremacist and the idea of any ethnic supremacy associated with Jews is rather horrifying, I think. Why is there Jewish supremacy? Jews are imposing themselves on Palestinians and pushing them out of their homes in East Jerusalem, and they are pushing Palestinians out of areas of the West Bank to build Jewish only housing and roads. That's segregated housing and what existed in the US South was white supremacy enshrined in a legal manner with Jim Crowe Laws. Israel has its own Jim Crowe Laws vis-a-vis Palestinians, who are Semites just like them. Obviously, what existed in South Africa is not identical to what existed in South Africa (Sud Afrika), but apartheid means segregation, and it's hard to argue that Israel doesn't have policies of segregation. It's rather, obvious, that it does. How many Arab Israelis get to live in settlements?
At least, the South Africans were honest about their segregation. Israel doesn't want to be because it wants this charade of being like Western Europe, which was against apartheid.


http://mostlywater.org/tale_two_apartheids

Israeli leaders are usually loath to publicly admit that Israel is an apartheid-style state. Yet there are moments of candor.

Former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Force, Gen. Rafael Eitan, speaking at a closed meeting of Israeli professionals in 1983, gave a presentation that considered South Africa's Bantustan policy as a possible solution to the Palestinian problem.

Last November, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a statement that if Israel was unable to implement a two-state solution, it would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."

He had warned four years earlier: "We don't have unlimited time. More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle--and ultimately, a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."

Israel leaders look with horror on the prospect of the struggle for a democratic, secular Palestine--a state for all its inhabitants--because the whole basis of the existence of Israel as an exclusively Jewish state would be destroyed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on January 4, 2010 at 10:24am

I think that some of the motives to call the situation in Israel "South Africa Apartheid" is to claim same solution - "one state solution with Arab majority as south Africa".

I think that is the secret motive and I think it is wrong, we need to have two state phase in order to build confederation. one state solution will be disaster for Jews and Arabs and destroy more they create a good future.


there are many problems with Jews Arabs relationship and there are many racist Jews in all ranks of governance and military but Israeli values are much more evolved then the Afrikaners and I do not think that Israel segregation is outcome of the conflict more then the potential of the Israeli society.

please notice that there is open debate in Israel and the courts rule against the army and government including on cases where Arab were rejected from living in "Jewish" places (within "Israel territory"). Arabs are ministers in the government and there are many Israeli jews who work together with Arabs to bring change.

at the moment all the "resistance" people focusing on Israel apartheid claims instead of build Palestinian capacities that are needed for the Palestinian future. this is why Fayyad initiative is so important and show other way to address it.

As Israeli citizen I have a commitment to change in my country; but when such claims of Apartheid appear ... it just make to work harder on us as Israel political system is so "public opinion" based such "attacks" on Israel society strengthen the right wing claims that Israel existence is under attack.

some of the people here think that Israel need to disappear, and one arab state is what we need to have, but this is ignoring the 21st century of trans-national understanding we have in our societies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on January 4, 2010 at 12:39pm

Israel never claimed West Bank and Gaza in 1967 !

The international law consider these territories as Egypt and Jordan at that time.

There is a movement in Israel the claim settlements in these territories and they also built settlements in Sinai but israel never claimed this territories, it just controlled them.

"The reason that Gaza has been bombed, is precisely to perform ethnic cleansing. " this is total confusion, if israel wanted ethnic cleansing you know it has the weapon and ability to achieve that but Israel try to control the population while the conflict (and the Nakba) continue with inner political dynamic push settlements supported by aggression from palestinian groups which translate into justification of the control for security purposes.

Israel is different from palestine as it has strong social identity with Jewish nationalism while the Palestinains has strong culture bonds to the arab world and has arab-Palestinian national identity. the economy and social connection is different. this gap need to be respected ... the palestinian do not want to be israelis and the Israelis do not want to be arab ... so we need different way to progress.

I do not claim this is the only way, but I think this can work:

1) end the settlement movement in Israel for good.
2) have a territory for Palestinian state that respect the population
3) share Jerusalme with the world as center of Abrahamic religions.
4) end the Palestinian inner conflict and form one political system that recognize existence of Israel
5) sign territorial agreements
6) support the creation of Palestinian national state economically
7) create co-federation that aim to protect the citizens of Israel and Palestine for ecological and social dissasters
8) respect the memory of the past, focus on creating a future that include all

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Weis on January 5, 2010 at 12:57am

Lilia, it wouldn't make sense for Israel to just bomb Gaza children to reduce the population for a few reasons:

1. Israel removed thousands of settlers from Gaza in 2005. This shows that Israel has no interest in annexing Gaza or to rule it. Hence the Gaza demographic does not play into the overall makeup of Israel.

2. Thousands of Gazans have gone to Israeli hospitals, even after 2005. On a side note, Israel trains a lot of Arab doctors, some of whom are from the territories. Also noteworthy, 30% of Technion Medical students are Arab, in an Israeli university funded by Jewish donors abroad and the Israeli government.

3. In the 90's, Israel upgraded Gaza's hospitals. Additionally, Israel gives discounted medical service to Palestinians. Israel gives the same medical service to its Arab population that it gives to its Jewish population (though lacking in some areas because of a few diverse reason I won't mention here).

4. Israeli Arabs have a much higher life expectancy than Israel's Arab neighbors. Also, West Bank Palestinians enjoy a high life expectancy, mostly due to Israeli medicine.

You should freshen up on your international law studies. When one country takes over another, it is not entitle to conquered territory, nor is it obliged to integrate the territory into itself. It has several obligation as an occupying power. No matter how democratic and free the conquering country is, there is no moral or legal basis for annexation. The US conquered Iraq, you can't possible entertain the idea that the US should integrate Iraq as a 51st state.

Israel is not Palestine. Israelis and Palestinians are two different nations. What you argue for goes along the wishes of both Israelis and Palestinians. They need mediation, not intrusion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 4, 2010 at 5:44pm

Hi,
i am not sure how to respond to what you wrote, quite shocking... I was curious as to your statement:" Israel internationally is known also as lacking in caution even in terms of putting their own citizens on the front line.". How does Israel put it's citizens in the front line. Last I checked there were no army bases in Sderot, Ashkelon, Kiryat Shimone.... I think what you meant to say is that Arabs leaders like dead arabs. Time after time missles and rockets are shot from homes of civillians, schools and kindergardens. The more children dead, the more news coverage. I live in Israel and whenever there is death of civillians it is met with much sympathy and regret. whenever an arab decides to blow himself up in the middle of a mall or cafe. Arabs are dancing in the streets..... I never understood that, it makes them look for like animals than humans.

The fact that Israel is willing to release hundred of murders and terrorist for one nothing soldier should show you how important we believe life is. The fact that the arabs take children and strap bombs to their chest sould show u how irrelivent it is to them.

So as for your putting the civillians on the front line comment, it is beyond me. By the way to u think it is ok to put civillians on the front line? Maybe that is your point...?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 5, 2010 at 12:03pm

Connie
Does this mean Israeli are better then Arab because they can show symphathy. - I am not even talking about symphathy I am talking about new regard for human life.

Does this mean Arabs can not show Sympathy? I do not know I just said do not

In a way I do not understand you call Palestinians Arabs. Palestine as a state never belonged in history to Arabia - From my understanding Arabs invaded the whole Mideast and Northern Africa in the 7th century and were spread all over - this is why there are Arabs al over. Furthermore even the partition plan called for a Jewish and arab homeland in Palestine. I believe there is a Arab League which includes a PA representative so acturate or not this is how they define themselves and are defined politically . They are also I believe the same ethnicity....

Why can't this world feel symphasy with the Palestinians. First people hate Islam. Then they hate Palestinians for being Islam. Yet Palestine is not a Islamic state. What a lies spreat. People know nothing about the life style of Palestinians. The hatered that you are refering too has nothing to do with religion it has to do with a group with spawns and in many cases supports terrorism. As for not an Islamic state do you know the rules that are being enforced in Gaza and to an extent in the PA authorites, you dont get more Islamic then that.

A Palestinians can be Catholic, Jewish and Islamic etc... I agree because Palestine is just the name of an area it is not a state or nationality. It is like saying Medeterainian people. There is no such nation just were people live.

The facts are that 90% ofthe area west of the Jordan is made up of Jews orr Moslems. Israel believes in freedom of workship and religion for all but that does not negatethe fact that Jews want a Jewish state as do England, France and Italy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thea Berkhout on January 4, 2010 at 4:11pm

I think the Zionists are provoking a third world war. Israel has nuclear weapens.
Than the Holy land is gone and nobody can live there anymore.
Mayby they prefer that, in stead of sharing the country with others. ( Christians and Muslims)

I think the Zionists do not give a dam on that country, or the Jews and the other people, who are living there.

That is why the conflict can not be solved.

I hope they come to their senses in the Newyear 2010.
Yes, they can!.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MICHAEL STOLZ on January 5, 2010 at 12:28am

Connie.

The first terror attack came in 1929, 1937 and than a long series between 1949 and 1967 by Palestinians in Egypt Jordan (Judea and Samaria) and Lebanon. They precipitated the Suez War in 1956, The 6 Day war in 1967, various actions against Jordan as well as the first Lebanon War in 1982. All of these before any walls or checkpoints.

Please stop making up history as you go along.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on January 5, 2010 at 7:15am

Mike,

I didn't follow you and Connie's back and forth, but you both aren't really engaged in a lot of positive over here. It's fine to disagree, but I don't see any give and take or talk of peace from either of you. It's fine to defend what you view to be a Palestinian or Israeli position and also to talk about peace and your desire for peace. I haven't seen that emanate from you thus far.
As far as your recounting of history, it's debatable that the Arabs started the 6 day war. It depends on whose narrative. I am sure you are aware that the Egyptian Air Force didn't even get off the ground in the six day war. That's rather odd if Egypt attack Israel first. No historian denies that. Egypt close the straits of Tiran, and Israel used it as its Casus Belli, i.e., reason to go to war. It was a pre-emptive attack, and, by definition, a pre-emptive attack is when someone physically attacks you first. Regardless of your interpretation of the events, it's a fact that the Egyptian Air Force didn't get off the ground, and that it was a pre-emptive war. You don't want to mention that part.

You neglect to mention that Syria and Israel were firing at each other. That's when Nasser did the dumb thing out of solidarity to close the Straits of Tiran in solidarity with Syria. He didn't intend to go to war, and Israel knew it. Part of the Egyptian army was in Yemen.

Back to the Syrians and Israelis firing at each other, were the Syrians simply the guilty party? Not according to Moshe Dayan.



Along the Syria border there were no farms and no refugee camps — there was only the Syrian army... The kibbutzim saw the good agricultural land ... and they dreamed about it... They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land... We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.
On pre-1967 clashes with the Syrians, in a 1976 interview with Rami Tal, as quoted in The New York Times and Associated Press reports (11 May 1997)


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on January 5, 2010 at 1:51pm

Hi Basil,

You and others may want demonise Israelis and think that Israelis are not concerned about non-Jewish lives, but you can accept I trust that Israelis are concerned about Jewish lives.

I doubt the accuracy of the Dayan quote. The Syrians routinely shelled the kibbutzim below the Golan Heights. That is why Israel wanted to control the Golan Heights. The agricultural value of the Golan land is just not worth the lives lost in gaining control of the Golan Heights.

Please read what Salameh from the West Bank wrote in http://www.mepeace.org/xn/detail/661876:Comment:405651 and my response.

Thanks...
Paul R.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• Next ›
• Page