The leadership has said so on numerous occasions.

with their own governments and own police, not South Africa, according to the South African Apartheid government. The fact that they were encircled by South Africa, subject to military and police incursion by South Africa at any time and had key resources, like their water supply, effectively controlled by South Africa, meant that the international community recognized the claimed distinction as a sham.

And the West Bank is different how? Oh wait, it isn't. It's exactly the same.

All you just described are the fruits of the Oslo process, which gave autonomy to Palestinians in parts of the W.Bank. The entire world co-signed on this agreement as part of the Arab/Israel peace process. It's based on Israel's security needs (see UNSCR 242). All legal.

The Palestinians signed onto it willingly. Since then, they've rejected several offers for their very own independent state (meaning they prefer the current "apartheid" situation).

So not only is the so-called "apartheid" situation in the territories legal, the Palestinians prefer it over their own state.

There is no fair comparison b/w Israel and S.Africa.

Sorry.

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

BUT, if you are looking for BONAFIDE anti-Palestinian Apartheid, that's happening throughout the Arab mideast; an example of which is Lebanon where Palestinians are denied the right to work in numerous professions, denied land ownership, as well as public and social services. Generations of Palestinians. For the last 60 years....

Bad.

Challenge for you...

Look to see whether the commissions/organizations you cite regarding "Israeli Apartheid" are somewhat legit - in that they have ruled on the most blatantly obvious Lebanese version of apartheid; condemning it in no uncertain terms. Check to see whether they falsely accuse Israel of apartheid within Israel too. Let's see how legit they are.

Do they conclude there's Israeli Apartheid only in the territories, as well as Arab apartheid vs. Palestinians in Lebanon? Or are your trusty sources purely political, worthless Israel haters not at all concerned about apartheid - but smearing and demonizing Israel?

You believe that the WB belongs to Israel?

I believe that there is no material, *functional* difference between the decades long military occupation of the West Bank and South Africa's relationship to its nominally independent bantustans. Who holds the title deed is of little concern to me. That it is an almost functionally identical power and infrastructure relationship is, however, of considerable concern. I think its profoundly disingenuous when people split legal hairs over distinctions without differences. SA treated its bantustans as foreign powers, with both the responsibilities and (supposedly) privileges that implies. They had their own governments. But Apartheid SA effectively controlled their trade, borders, resources, airspace, et al, for the benefit of white South Africa, denying those governments most of the powers enjoyed by the governments of sovereign states, and in consequence denying their nominal citizens proper self-determination. Israel does the same in the West Bank.

There's no apartheid in the W.Bank either.

If you're truly concerned about anti-Palestinian apartheid (which I guarantee you're not) try Lebanon.

in answer to :

There's no apartheid in the W.Bank either.

you obviously have never done the guided tour .... would you like me to fix you one ?

Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel
by SHULAMIT ALONI

@ http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-is-apartheid-in-israel/

....there was not apartheid in the territories? IOW, no apartheid before Intifada 2? I think you know where I'm going with this...

except deny deny ......or call Shulamit Aloni a liar .
BTW do you think your own President was lying to ???

You know what my greatest fear is shira .... that when these latest peace talks fail, and they will , this Gov or the next will annex Judea and Samaria .
Then its goodbye to a Two State Solution ......and then what ???

no apartheid before Intifada 2

you really need to read this in its entirety:

http://972mag.com/in-west-bank-the-logic-of-annexation-supersedes-the-rule-of-law/77651/

That's a good approach. Post an op-ed piece and then if anyone tries to criticize it, you can just accuse them of calling this person a liar. Good way to get a conversation going! Remember, this is a discussion forum.

but perhaps you missed the previous time when she did just that , but I dont think you did .

BTW ... what do you think about your President Carters views :

" Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? "

“I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew."

- President Carter (discussing his book)

What do you think of those views?

I don't know what your article has to do with my question. And I'm not at all worried about Israel annexing the W.Bank. Wasn't long ago Bibi was offering to withdraw from 60% of the W.Bank to give the Palestinians a provisional state there. Of course it was rejected and probably opposed by you and your folks too. I would think people like yourselves would be THRILLED that Bibi wants out of at least most of the W.Bank. But probably not... You guys thrive on the occupation. What would you do without it?

Maybe this paranoia of annexation that post-zionists seem to have is one reason you all remain a minority within a minority.

That was Bibi's offer in 2010. To get out of most of the W.Bank, giving Palestinians temporary borders.

You're against.

You're even denying Bibi offered it & are still pretending he wants it all.

...of most of the W.Bank.

Bibi can't even hand most of the W.Bank over for nothing in return.

Unreal.

I'm anti-occupation and all for getting our boys out of the hell hole that the Wild West Bank has become .
Just like Arik got them out of the Gush .
Dont expect you to understand .... nobody is asking you to sacrifice your son to the alter of Greater Israel .... nobody is asking anything of you .

You are " Unreal." shira .

...to get out of 60% of the wild-West-Bank.

I will never agree with " hardcore settlers " on anything .

..........and saying anything to get off the subject you started .

Back to your post # 12

Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 03:18 PM - Edit history (2)

Even in Hebron. Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, Israeli Muslims, Israeli Druze, Israeli Bedhouin, Israeli Muslims all are governed under Israeli civil law. Palestinian citizens under military law.

No apartheid.

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

Your and your anti-zio friends are the ones for apartheid.

You look the other way while it's happening in Lebanon against the Palestinians there, while at the same time supporting a future Palestine that will be 100% Jew-free (so says Abu Mazen).

Shameless hypocrites that you all are, throwing stones from your glass houses....

do you think that Letty Cottin Pogrebin is an "anti-zio" ?

"Don't you know? Its not Apartheid if you ignore the Bantustans"

And the fact that anyone with Jewish heritage can become a citizen, but the relatives of Israeli Arabs who's families left two generations ago cannot.

Maybe you should try correcting them.

whereas the term "apartheid" is applied to israel and only to israel....if we look at its new revised definition we'll find this "apartheid" alive an well in:

canada, austrailia, france, the US, and of course in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Syrian Lebanon, S.Africa, Zimbabwa, Japan, S.Korea, ....

BUT...the actual world with its emotional baggage is only applied only to israel, and that is where the difference is. if some one here or perhaps in the NYtimes would write an article about the apartheid in the US or other western states, then i would see it differently, but its never has.....

thats why its use on israel is part of the usual demonization campaign using words that are far more emotional than factual.

because none of those countries have bantustans with striking structural similarities to the bantustans of Grand Apartheid. Israel however does, and ostensible equality under law for *some* of the indigenous Arabs makes the difference only one of degree, not nature. See my reply to aranthus above. In fact a research paper compiled by an international team of experts in international law at the South African Human Sciences Research Council lays out in painstaking detail how Israel's relationship with the West Bank, coupled with various measures like a discriminatory right of return and discriminatory bureaucratic measures outside of basic law within Israel, constitutes Apartheid by definition under the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

In Saudi Arabia and Iran you'll certainly find contemptible bigotry, sexism, religious intolerance and oppression of minorities and all right minded people should condemn them for it. I wholeheartedly support sanctions against the worst offenders on your list. But Israel, unlike most other examples in the middle East, receives billions in aid from the USA. Even if one accepts that Egypt does too and itself has a troubling record on human rights, *that aid is almost entirely a result of their relationship to Israel*. For those of us in the nominal Western cultural and economic sphere, long European and even moreso American complicity in Israeli colonialism and Apartheid makes it a more pressing issue because its long been a "Western enclave" in the Middle East and therefore a standard bearer in the region for nominally Western traditions like secular democracy. That it fails so spectacularly in this role and in fact is held up as an exemplar of the duplicity and bigotry of the traditions we're trying to foster by its more repressive neighbours, and that that claim has considerable substance, makes its practicing of Apartheid a particular concern.

...advocated against the Lebanese version of S.African style apartheid vs. Palestinians in the mideast? I mean, Lebanon's apartheid is w/o question blatantly obvious.

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm pointing to bleedingly obvious hypocrisy.

This guy sees anti-Palestinian apartheid where it isn't & willfully ignores it where it is. Yet another example of fake humanitarian concern from the anti-zio contingent.

Open season for scorn and ridicule IMO.

so your second paragraph is simply an attempt to excuse the use of the word for israel and not elsewhere.
either there is one definition that is used to describe all societies or there is a double standard, which is clearly what your going for.

Apartheids new definition (its original definition was based on race, "blood&quot that is no longer the case as when its applied to israel, it uses a much more general version based on a loose definition of groups:

so with that same definition in use:
we have Palestinians in lebanon with major restrictions
we have gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia as well as religious apartheid
in Iran and in parts of the US we have homosexual apartheid

all fit this new definition....that certain groups are not allowed rights because of the group that they belong to.

I understand you attempt to redefine aparthied to fit israel and only israel, but that is the core of the demonization:
_____

why dont you actually write out the definition of apartheid.....just define it as per the dictionary, then we'll start applying it

Having comprehension problems? Or just in the habit of misrepresenting everything that challenges your ethnic nationalist perspective? That kind of argument in bad faith was common in South Africa not so long ago. I said massive financial support, rather than censure, makes people who live in secular western democracies peculiarly concerned about Israeli Apartheid. Israel purports to represent the system of government and values we would like to see propagated, but instead is a symbol of the duplicity and hypocrisy of the West and thus works against that aim. That hyprocisy is underlined by the massive support it receives from the West. Moreso, it is of peculiar concern to the descendants of Europeans living in secular Western democracies because Israel is essentially Europe's last great colonial project and the sins of colonialism have been acknowledged in every other case, with little dissent. To make it abundantly clear, that part of the post was an answer to the tired crap "Why focus on Israel? Why not look over *there*?"

Its because of you. You and all the other so-called liberals that support Apartheid and ensure that elected governments in the West provide it with material support. That's why we're not looking over *there*.

What makes it Apartheid is having a gigantic bantustan in it's midst, where people under nominal self government have, in fact been denied nationhood and had their borders, airspace, resources and land rights subject to the whim of the government of a surrounding country, an authority in which they have no representation, for decades. What makes it Apartheid is that it is their ethnicity and the desire to maintain complete control by another ethnicity in the country surrounding them that informs this condition, which has existed for decades. That the surrounding state has a minority of members of that ethnicity with nominal representation does not obviate that, especially since their are unequivocal and visible measures in place to ensure they remain a minority, where only a century ago they were a majority.

what i see with your post is simply a need to demonize israel.

I have no need to "look over there" i'm just trying to figure out if you have one standard for all countries or if have singled out israel for your own reasons.

the way to discover this, is simply to ask for your definitions of aparthied and colonization. Its a simple task, but in fact I've noticed its usually avoided since if you do actually write out the definitions we will discover that you have in fact just singled out israel.

so why dont you write out those definitions as per the dictionary...devoid of jr high school/ freshman college immature emotionalism....

well?

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:40 PM - Edit history (2)

Really? I'm more interested in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. And that cap pretty much fits. As does my use of "colonization". My English skills are excellent, thank you

[edit] I will be happy to call another situation Apartheid, if someone takes me through the substantial similarities in terms of the international convention mentioned above. I try to be consistent. But I won't stop calling what Israel is doing Apartheid. And I will remain more interested in an Apartheid state that is massively supported by secular democracies and my nominal co-travellers in the left-liberal sphere.

otherwise my posts would be extremely long and they're already quite wordy. But stepping back from my admittedly too emotional tone and assuming you're asking in good faith, this document answers your question, and represents my view (oddly enough the HSRC website itself has an executive summary but no download link to the full report). It also addresses the "colonialism" charge, with ample reference to international law:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8wjYp5g27StVFphUnAzTWkyMGM/edit

starting on page 152....it defines apartheid as based on race.....

so your claiming that the Palestenians are a race.....and the israeli arabs are not part of the same race, since they do not face the same discriminatory practices
___________________

do the Israeli arabs know this?, that they are not part of the same race as the Palestenians? and who decided this for them?..(let me guess, the great white europeans?)

and i gave a reply to your excuse to "not use the dictionary because it wont give you the reaction that your prefer", on 51

It accepts that Christian and Muslim Israeli Arabs and Palestinians are the same ethnic group and like myself, doesn't see that as obviating the practical reality that when both measures to keep members of that ethnic group with Israel a minority and the subordination of those who live in the occupied territory are taken together, it amounts to Apartheid, differing more in degree than form from what existed in South Africa. There were privileged black people under Apartheid. There were even so-called "honorary whites" for the purposes of legal rights. In effect the Israeli situation amounts to "we have a larger minority of the ethnic group who in general suffer discrimination, that suffer less discrimination". It is a difference of degree, not a qualitative difference. Race, here, is understood as a social construct, which for the purposes of defining Apartheid, it clearly always has been, since Apartheid never relied on cladistics (which is the closest proxy biology has to race) but on perceived ethnicity. Mizrahim might well be included in this category if they weren't more strongly identified with the Jewish ethnicity for the all practical purposes.

There exist just criticisms of Israel, but this is not one of them. It's an obscene accusation intended only to slur.

Both Israeli settlers and foreigners are subject to civilian law in the West Bank. An Israeli settler who throws a stone at a Palestinian on the streets of Hebron is subject to being charged and tried within the civilian courts in Israel.

If the Palestinian were to pick up that same stone and throw it back, he would be subject to martial (or military) law rather than civilian law. He would be charged and convicted in a military court, and in general receive a much heavier sentence than would be the case in a regular Israeli court.

If you have two systems of law applying to different people in the same area on the basis of race or nationality, then this is characteristic of apartheid.

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 07:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Palestinians in the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship, and thus are not administered by Israeli civillian law. An Israeli Arab throwing a stone would be tried in a civillian court.

Now to be clear, I'm genuinely opposed to the settlements and many occupation policies, which is part of why it's so frustrating to me to see this fallacious comparison being made. I feel like I'm trying to encourage a kid not to do drugs while another guy says things like "a single joint will give you permanent brain damage!" I have to split my arguments into "Well, no, it isn't that bad" and "But you still shouldn't do it."

Jewish Israelis want to maintain a Jewish majority. Selective right of return laws within Israel are the result of that. The discounting of a one state solution is because of that and the bantustan-like nature of the West Bank is a direct result of that. It is thoroughly disingenuous to claim otherwise. The West Bank resembles the bantustans of South Africa in both intent and form. And that is why it is Apartheid. An Israeli Arab minority that enjoys nominally equal rights doesn't change that (and even then, they don't, for a variety of reasons. The most obvious of which is that they do not share an equal right to be reconciled with expatriate family members or have their spouse achieve citizenship in the country of their birth if that spouse is Palestinian)

Its Apartheid. I grew up under Apartheid and I know what it looks like. Tutu, Mandela and just about every great humanitarian South Africa has produced because of our own struggles think its Apartheid.

israeli arabs are not related to Palestenians arabs in the west bank...since you have declared the different laws to be based on ethnicity.....

the only problem with your definition is that Israeli arabs disagree with you and believe that in fact they are of the same ethnicity as Palestenians arabs..and are subject to the same laws as christian, muslim, druze israelis....

non israelis get differenet laws...its not based on genes, color, height.....just citizenship.

and whats a "nominal" equal right...i believe the arab judges in the israeli court system (including the supreme court) might just disagree with you...(but hey what do they know ...they're arabs and your white.

our conclusion? you dont believe the israeli arabs nor the Palestinian arabs that they are in fact of the same ethnicity. And you can declare this because you are a "white european WASP, that knows better than the local "brown people."

He really hits all the bases.

what was said is that the RoR for Jews only most of whom have not seen let alone lived in the region for couple of millennium, while forbidding it's non-Jewish citizens even the right to live with their nonIsraeli spouses in Israel that is the problem

now go ahead go through whatever contortions you wish in an to attempt to explain away or justify this

He leads off with, "Jewish Israelis want to maintain a Jewish majority." That's his thesis. That this fact is the root of the apartheid evil. You're diverting.

and no I;'m am not diverting anything but I will point out an attempt to outline something as what it is not

It is true that the Jewish state seeks to maintain a Jewish majority. What FarrenH, and I believe you, are saying is that it isn't legitimate for the Jewish state to want to do that. That it is apartheid.

and no what I do know is someone is attempting to frame an argument as something it is not

I answered directly. Yes, it is true. Your turn.

I'll add obfuscation and bordering incoherence. You asked me if it was true that Israel is trying to maintain a Jewish demographic majority. I have said that it's true. So what? What is your point?

seems truth hurts depending upon who speaks it

It's like someone pointing out that France wants to maintain a French majority and French culture. It's obvious, it's to be expected, and it's completely legitimate. What I was pointing out is that FarrenH doesn't think it's legitimate. That's the point of contention, as I have already posted.

So the question is, do you think it is legitimate for Israel to want to maintain a Jewish demographic majority?

so exactly what standards do you use to decide who's French?

Since I did ask that question first, and you have not yet answered it. Once I have your yes or no answer, I will answer your question.

However, this once, I will answer your question in the hope that you will answer mine. The answer is that I don't have any standard other than what the French decide is French. That's the whole point. That the French nation gets to decide for itself what is French, and gets to maintain French culture in their country as that is the entire point of having a country. I would say then that immigrants have to conform to that standard. To transfer that to Israel it means that the Jews get to define what it means to be a Jew. And to be clear, the citizenship is Israeli. The nationality is Jewish

the specific ethnology/religious group is Jews, same with France to be French all one has to do is be a French citizen, now ethnic French that would include the Frankish, and Norman (Scandinavian) ethnic groups, along with many other these days

The majority gets to define the controlling culture of the state. But fine, using your false terminology, the point then is that the majority get to define the controlling ethnology of the state. In France it's French. In Israel that's Jewish. Still want an answer to my question.

it's minority citizens have, and you support this?

I said that the majority gets to decide the structure of the society. That does not mean that the majority gets to decide the civil rights of minorities. Still waiting for the answer to my question.

however the structure of society is a very carefully chosen and rather fluid term, but if that societies structure decides to discriminate against it's minorities then you're okay with that?

It was a yes or no question. Here it is again: So the question is, do you think it is legitimate for Israel to want to maintain a Jewish demographic majority? The answer is either yes or no, and you haven't answered it, and you know it. I won't be answering any more of your BS questions, since you have refused to give me a straight answer to my questions. You make it impossible to have any kind of discussion with you. Sad.

The "answer" would be either "yes," or "no". Stop evading.

Israel's preference of one ethnic/religious group over all others, no matter how far back those 'others' can trace their family histories back in Israel is not at all like France preferring French people or culture

and on those points I asked how one determines or by what standards is someone French, you refused to answer

and culture, which you speak of as though it is an immutable thing, when most certainly is not

Living cultures change and grow

I wasn't clear from that answer that you meant no to the questions I was asking. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

it is a military holding of Israel's nothing more there is no inherent right for Israel to transfer it's civilian Jewish population to to it's military holdings to be used as anchors, in Israel's quest to fatten it's "narrow waist"

if you want to widen the definition of apartheid...go ahead, but once you define it to include 'nationality" then i shall expect that you'll have no problem defining the US/Canada/Australia as apartheid countries as well.

one just has to have a clear definition and have the guts to state it..something that apparently is a problem for many.

and the settlement policy also is devoid of apartheid

israeli arabs living across the 67 border, as israeli jews as israeli christians are subject to the same set of laws...it has nothing to do with their genes.....whereas Palestenians, as a nationality live under a different set...based on their nationality and nothing to do with their genes

the proper definition is discriminatory....

apart·heid
noun \ə-ˈpär-ˌtāt, -ˌtīt\
Definition of APARTHEID

racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apartheid

In this case it would be non-Jewish groups primarily in the OPT

The distinction in the I/P dispute is national not racial, and for it to be apartheid you have to have racial discrimination per the definition you gave. Second, the definition states that apartheid was about racial segregation in the Republic of South Africa. To transfer that to I/P you would have to show racial segregation in Israel proper, particularly political discrimination. Good luck with that.

the discrimination comes in when a non-Jewish Arab of Israeli citizenship marries a Palestinian living in the West Bank but can not bring them to Israel whereas any Jewish citizen of Israel can marry a Jew from anywhere in the world and bring them to Israel no problems

but do keep contorting

can a jew or christian marry a Palestinian in the west bank and bring them to israel? the answer is, they can, if they follow the same process that an arab israeli does...which is apply for permission

can a non jewish citizen of israel marry a jew from anywhere in the world and bring to them to israel without a problem?
_________

....so where is the ethnic discrimination against the Palestenians?

emigration laws throughout the world are discriminatory and yet I've never heard of japan/Canada or the US being called apartheid countries because of that...is that how your defining apartheid....if the immigration laws are discriminatory?

I have no problem with you modifying the definition to fit your ideology (though i admit i always find it annoying how people avoid the dictionary and prefer emotional laden words for descriptions...), but as long as your consistent and apply it across the board,

if you want to redefine 'ethnic" to be the nationality of a person, then just write it out, make it clear.

Last edited Sun Aug 25, 2013, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

the applications of non Jews marrying non-Jewish Israeli citizens commonly get held up for years, in some cases more than a decade, so sugar coat any way you please but in the US at any rate spouses do not have to live separately until someone gets around to okaying their applications and here is the reveal, it is possibl for a non Jew in Israel to marry a Jew from anywhere in the world and that person can get rapid citizenship based not on their being married to an Israeli citizen, but indeed under RoR based on their religious/ethnic ancestry

thanks you made it so very easy and in the process outlined my point

well at least we can take that new definition and now call american an apartheid. country.


the applications of non Jews marrying non-Jewish Israeli citizens commonly get held up for years

according to the news the IRS has been holding up tea-party applications for tax-free status ....same concept, the govt is "holding applications"..probably because they're "white old men"

and since I believe in one single definition applied equally across the board, and your "new and improved" aparthied definition includes bureaucractic hold ups, we can now include probably every country in the world with your version

what I described is systematic discrimination based on ethnic/religious ancestry for citizens of the same country where Israel inside the Green Line is concerned, nothing more nothing less is needed, citizens of the same country treated differently due to their ethnic/religious backgrounds

is a better metric for what should be called Apartheid. Merriam Webster's definition is historic rather than speaking to the kind of situation we recognize as meriting the same reaction as South African Apartheid, and therefore attracting the same label. The ICSPCR drafted by the General Assembly represents the general crime under international law, defined in order to establish consistency in dealing with future occurrences.