Why Israel is an apartheid state

[Dean]

I felt that this warranted its own thread, since the issue is brought up occasionally and it deserves special attention.

This is also about the left's concept of race, racism and what it means to assume intent (that a state is driven by racist ideals) and to assess materialized racism (if race doesn't exist, how can racism be an objective interpretation of material conditions if we can't be certain of intent?).


Apartheid, really?

Any nation which has explicit policies of racial, religious or cultural discrimination - especially along land borders - is a good example of apartheid.


a·part·heid noun /əˈpärtˌ(h)āt/  /-ˌ(h)īt/ 



(in South Africa) A policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race
Segregation in other contexts

Many people will point to the "race" issue, claiming that the Palestinians (or Jews) are not a "race." This is irrelevant; strictly speaking, historical examples of apartheid - more recently the US, Germany & S. Africa - all allowed certain members of the target group special status, often based on some propertarian grounds (i.e. freed slaves in the US) or professional grounds (many Jews, and probably other target groups, were spared in Hitler's Germany solely because they had valuable skills).

The left tends to argue that race itself does not exist. The data make this point seem likely. But interestingly, the concept of racism can't be applied to material conditions in this case. If race is a fiction, racism is ideas or structures based on that fiction. And material structures can only be racist insofar as they are guided by racist attitudes.

But in analyzing material structures, here the Israeli state, it is irresponsible to jump to conclusions about intent. We can only look at trends in legislation and execution of laws and policy to make judgements on the manifestation of the state. Without confirming intent, we are left with the religious, cultural and ethnic discrimination that Israel is responsible for daily.

And this picture of the Israeli regime shows a form of discrimination based on bigotry and xenophobia.

In simple terms, race as an objective fact doesn't exist - but the moral and social irresponsibility of cultural and religious discrimination is just as bad. Those who try to disassociate real forms of bigotry and discrimination from these labels based on semantic arguments are simply vindicating a system (Israeli white nationalism) which already has too much political and media capital on its side.

It is a hindrance to talk about Israel as if its xenophobic program is not "racist" per se. It is not clear how Israel differs from other apartheid systems in such a way as to distance itself from the rest. If apartheid is to mean anything, it fits Israel just as well.

[Bud Struggle]

I guess then it's a matter of useage. I'm not disagreeing that all of this fits--I just think the term apartheid is a South African word with a particular meaning that describes a particularly bad time in human history in a specific case.

To use the term in this context lessens the value of the suffering and oppression that happened in South Africa and confuses the issues in Palestine.

[Sasha]

i think its the opposite, it makes the situation in palestine a lot more clear.

people are always going to make analogies to try to understand an contemporary situation, the nasty habit of anti-israeli activists to liken israel to nazi germany, even when its germany in the early 30's makes little to no sense and excludes you from the debate.

Apartheid SA makes a lot more sense on a lot of levels
- like israel SA was for those in the privileged categories a functioning democracy.
- gaza and the westbank are as economically tied in to israel as the townships are to SA, complete and hostile national independence will probably end in a disastrous situation not akin to that of current swaziland.
- both can make a, to a lot of people, convincing argument about the surrounding hostile nations that want to overthrow them thus excusing their internal oppression of in the case of israeli's the Palestinians and the arabs and in the case of SA of the blacks as an nescecary evil against the 5th column of the barbarians at the gate.
- the clear military superiority directs the way the struggle should be primarily fought, mass moral civil disobedience argumented by small hit and run/guerrilla armed resistance.
etc etc etc

[pluckedflowers]

I guess then it's a matter of useage. I'm not disagreeing that all of this fits--I just think the term apartheid is a South African word with a particular meaning that describes a particularly bad time in human history in a specific case.

To use the term in this context lessens the value of the suffering and oppression that happened in South Africa and confuses the issues in Palestine.

While the term originated in South Africa, it is also a general term for a specific form of crime against humanity and legally defined as such (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid).

[RGacky3]

To use the term in this context lessens the value of the suffering and oppression that happened in South Africa and confuses the issues in Palestine.


I don't think it lessens it at all, its not like the problems in palestine are better htan they were in south africa.

[ComradeMan]

A lot of nations could be deemed apartheid states if we start playing around with definitions. I don't think it helps either to understand what happened during apartheid or what happens in other nations by using analogies. The other problem is that by using this analogy you inadvertently leave the door open for a whole host of counter-arguments that damage the position you are trying to argue. Analyse apartheid for what apartheid was and analyse Israel for what Israel is- but don't make bad analogies that only appeal to rhetoric.

[pluckedflowers]

A lot of nations could be deemed apartheid states if we start playing around with definitions. I don't think it helps either to understand what happened during apartheid or what happens in other nations by using analogies. The other problem is that by using this analogy you inadvertently leave the door open for a whole host of counter-arguments that damage the position you are trying to argue. Analyse apartheid for what apartheid was and analyse Israel for what Israel is- but don't make bad analogies that only appeal to rhetoric.

You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that, as has already been pointed out, the term apartheid does not refer only to a single historical institution, but is a term of international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid) to describe such things as:


Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.

[ComradeMan]

You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that, as has already been pointed out, the term apartheid does not refer only to a single historical institution, but is a term of international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid) to describe such things as:

No I don't, and the trouble is the hardcore Israelis will demolish the argument quickly.

Arab-Israelis officially have the same rights, can vote and sit in parliament. In all of that definition Israel will be able to turn around and say that none of it applies to the situation within Israel and according to Israeli law.

The occupied territories/Palestinian State are not part of Israel and as such they do not have the same rights as Israeli citizens. If such were the case then Israel would have to annex the occupied territories as part of Israel.:confused:

Now, if discrimination exists in real life- it's not really sanctioned by law and that's the problem. The only thing they can perhaps use is the relatively recent marriage law.

Using the apartheid analogy, in my opinion, is counter-productive because instead of analysing the problems Israel faces for what they are it almost creates a self-defeating analogy-strawman and diverts attention to arguing about what does and does not constitute apartheid and why it does or does not apply to Israel.

[RGacky3]

The occupied territories/Palestinian State are not part of Israel and as such they do not have the same rights as Israeli citizens. If such were the case then Israel would have to annex the occupied territories as part of Israel.http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-israel-apartheid-t160767/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif


In practice they are part of Israel, they are occupied, not officially but for all intents and purposes Israel has dominion over them that they do not want to give up.

[ComradeMan]

In practice they are part of Israel, they are occupied, not officially but for all intents and purposes Israel has dominion over them that they do not want to give up.

No, they are not part of Israel. This is the problem with the analogies. Now, apartheid South Africa set up independent homelands for black Africans that they deemed as not part of South Africa- but these were never recognised- unlike Palestine and also black South Africans born in the non-homeland areas were still designated as citizens of these tribal homelands, Israel does not do this as regards Arab-Israelis.... and so on.

Like I said before, those who consider themselves to be the most vehement critics of Israel, at least in my opinion, do not actually help themselves by throwing up spurious analogies of apartheid.

[pluckedflowers]

The occupied territories/Palestinian State are not part of Israel and as such they do not have the same rights as Israeli citizens. If such were the case then Israel would have to annex the occupied territories as part of Israel.:confused:

This is just absurd. The fact that Israel is an occupying power does not lessen its responsibility when it deprives those it occupies of basic rights. And, of course, as pointed out in the previous thread, Israel refuses to declare its own borders because it is constantly in the process of expanding into the occupied territories.


Now, if discrimination exists in real life- it's not really sanctioned by law and that's the problem. The only thing they can perhaps use is the relatively recent marriage law.

Bullshit. The expropriation of Arab land has been an Israeli state project since 1948 and has proceeded by way of the legal institutions of said state.


Using the apartheid analogy, in my opinion, is counter-productive because instead of analysing the problems Israel faces for what they are it almost creates a self-defeating analogy-strawman and diverts attention to arguing about what does and does not constitute apartheid and why it does or does not apply to Israel.

No, it's counter-productive in your opinion because you are simply ignorant of the matter and repeat fragments of bullshit from wherever you happen to find them. It is you and people like you who divert attention through the kinds of sophistry exhibited in your comment.

[Che a chara]

If you don't hold Israel to the same standard and in comparison to another nation, then usually Zionists and their apologists accuse you of anti-semitism. Israel carried/carries out similar policies/crimes as apartheid South Africa, so I don't see why the term 'apartheid' or 'apartheid-like' shouldn't be used to describe the Israel/Palestine situation.

[ComradeMan]

This is just absurd. The fact that Israel is an occupying power does not lessen its responsibility when it deprives those it occupies of basic rights. And, of course, as pointed out in the previous thread, Israel refuses to declare its own borders because it is constantly in the process of expanding into the occupied territories.

Indeed, but it does not fall under the definition of apartheid as those territories are not part of Israel.

The Green Line and East Jerusalem are what Israel claims.


Bullshit. The expropriation of Arab land has been an Israeli state project since 1948 and has proceeded by way of the legal institutions of said state.

It's not apartheid by your or the official definition of apartheid though, is it?


No, it's counter-productive in your opinion because you are simply ignorant of the matter and repeat fragments of bullshit from wherever you happen to find them. It is you and people like you who divert attention through the kinds of sophistry exhibited in your comment.

LOL--- the ad hominem attack. Well let me respond. You really think you can help the situation in Israel by promulgating absurd and stupid analogies that any hardcore Zionists will be able to shoot holes through citing Israeli law, constitution and "ground-facts"? Do you? Really? Well- then you are their dream come true but you're obviously too obtuse to realise it.

[pluckedflowers]

Indeed, but it does not fall under the definition of apartheid as those territories are not part of Israel.

As already pointed out repeatedly, that is entirely irrelevant.



It's not apartheid by your or the official definition of apartheid though, is it?

Do you even read what is written to you? For fuck's sake:
"Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;"

[Olentzero]

I don't have it immediately at hand, but Omar Barghouti's recent book BDS has a great section detailing how Israel is, in fact, an apartheid state because it specifically violates UN anti-apartheid laws. I'll actually try to get back to this thread in the next day or so because some of Barghouti's arguments are incredibly useful.

Moreover, he quotes Archbishop Desmond Tutu - one of the leading figures of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa - after a visit to Israel, where Tutu says "What I saw here reminds me of South Africa. This is apartheid." Can't get a much better source than that, I think.

[ComradeMan]

Do you even read what is written to you? For fuck's sake: "Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;"

Yet another problem- because the Israelis will argue that it's not about race and will use the example of the Arab-Israeli citizens who live in Israel as support for that argument. There is no racial separation in Israel- that's why the apartheid analogy is a bad one. It doesn't actually deal with problems as they are but rather badly portrays them as something else.

Here's an article:-
"ISRAELI ARAB LEGAL SCHOLAR: ISRAEL IS NOT AN APARTHEID STATE"
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=6929

[pluckedflowers]

Yet another problem- because the Israelis will argue that it's not about race and will use the example of the Arab-Israeli citizens who live in Israel as support for that argument. There is no racial separation in Israel

First of all, drop the fucking "Israelis will argue" bullshit. These are your arguments, fucking own up to them.

Secondly, you have yet to show how this arbitrary distinction between what is in Israel and what isn't, a distinction not meaningfully recognized by Israeli law in practice since it continues to annex territory in this supposedly non-Israeli region, is of any relevance whatsoever.


Here's an article:-
"ISRAELI ARAB LEGAL SCHOLAR: ISRAEL IS NOT AN APARTHEID STATE"
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=6929

God, you're even awful at being a troll. That article does not provide any substantive arguments about the issues currently under discussion. But, hey, great headline. Next up: AMERICAN WORKER: THERE IS NOTHING EXPLOITATIVE ABOUT CAPITALISM

[Column No.4]

I felt that this warranted its own thread, since the issue is brought up occasionally and it deserves special attention.

This is also about the left's concept of race, racism and what it means to assume intent (that a state is driven by racist ideals) and to assess materialized racism (if race doesn't exist, how can racism be an objective interpretation of material conditions if we can't be certain of intent?).



Any nation which has explicit policies of racial, religious or cultural discrimination - especially along land borders - is a good example of apartheid.

Many people will point to the "race" issue, claiming that the Palestinians (or Jews) are not a "race." This is irrelevant; strictly speaking, historical examples of apartheid - more recently the US, Germany & S. Africa - all allowed certain members of the target group special status, often based on some propertarian grounds (i.e. freed slaves in the US) or professional grounds (many Jews, and probably other target groups, were spared in Hitler's Germany solely because they had valuable skills).

The left tends to argue that race itself does not exist. The data make this point seem likely. But interestingly, the concept of racism can't be applied to material conditions in this case. If race is a fiction, racism is ideas or structures based on that fiction. And material structures can only be racist insofar as they are guided by racist attitudes.

But in analyzing material structures, here the Israeli state, it is irresponsible to jump to conclusions about intent. We can only look at trends in legislation and execution of laws and policy to make judgements on the manifestation of the state. Without confirming intent, we are left with the religious, cultural and ethnic discrimination that Israel is responsible for daily.

And this picture of the Israeli regime shows a form of discrimination based on bigotry and xenophobia.

In simple terms, race as an objective fact doesn't exist - but the moral and social irresponsibility of cultural and religious discrimination is just as bad. Those who try to disassociate real forms of bigotry and discrimination from these labels based on semantic arguments are simply vindicating a system (Israeli white nationalism) which already has too much political and media capital on its side.

It is a hindrance to talk about Israel as if its xenophobic program is not "racist" per se. It is not clear how Israel differs from other apartheid systems in such a way as to distance itself from the rest. If apartheid is to mean anything, it fits Israel just as well.

However the segregation you are referring to is segregation for security purposes. If Israel were an apartheid state it wouldnt have any Palestinians living among Israelis, of which it does. A Wolverine is related to the cat but that doesnt make it one.

[Sasha]

Yet another problem- because the Israelis will argue that it's not about race and will use the example of the Arab-Israeli citizens who live in Israel as support for that argument. There is no racial separation in Israel- that's why the apartheid analogy is a bad one. It doesn't actually deal with problems as they are but rather badly portrays them as something else.

Here's an article:-
"ISRAELI ARAB LEGAL SCHOLAR: ISRAEL IS NOT AN APARTHEID STATE"
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=6929



Racism against Arabs on the part of the Israeli state and some Israeli Jews has been identified by critics in personal attitudes, the media, education, immigration rights, housing segregation, and social life. Nearly all such characterizations have been denied by the state of Israel. The Or Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Or_Commission), set up to explain the October 2000 unrest in many Israeli Arab communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2000_events) found,

"The state and generations of its government failed in a lack of comprehensive and deep handling of the serious problems created by the existence of a large Arab minority inside the Jewish state. Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory. The establishment did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action in order to allocate state resources in an equal manner. The state did not do enough or try hard enough to create equality for its Arab citizens or to uproot discriminatory or unjust phenomenon."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-4)
According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Israeli government had done "little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination) against the country's Arab citizens."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-state.gov-2004-5) The 2005 US Department of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Department_of_State) report on Israel wrote: "[T]he government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas, including... institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country’s Arab citizens."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-USDS2005-6) The 2010 U.S. State Department Country Report stated that Israeli law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, and that government effectively enforced these prohibitions.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-7) Former Likud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud) MK and Minister of Defense Moshe Arens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Arens) has criticized the treatment of minorities in Israel, saying that they did not bear the full obligation of Israeli citizenship, nor were they extended the full privileges of citizenship.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-8)



According to a 2001 report by Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch), Israel's school systems for Arab and Jewish children are separate and have unequal conditions to the disadvantage of the Arab children who make up one quarter of all students. Israeli law does not prohibit Palestinian Arab parents from enrolling their children in Jewish schools, but in practice, very few Palestinian Arab parents do so.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-hrw-21)[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-Bar-Tal.2C_Daniel_2006.2C_pp_135-152-23) The report stated that "Government-run Arab schools are a world apart from government-run Jewish schools. In virtually every respect, Palestinian Arab children get an education inferior to that of Jewish children, and their relatively poor performance in school reflects this."[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-24)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-25)[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-26) In 1999, in an attempt to close the gap between Arab and Jewish education sectors, the Education Minister of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Minister_of_Israel) announced an affirmative action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action) policy which promised that Arabs would be granted 25% of the education budget, proportionally more funding than their 18% of the population, and supported the creation of an Arab academic college.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-27)
A 2009 study from the Hebrew University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_University)'s School of Education demonstrated that the Israeli Education Ministry's budget for special assistance to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds "severely" discriminated against Arabs. The study found that because there were more needy Arab students, but fewer Arab students overall, educationally needy Jewish students receive anywhere from 3.8 to 6.9 times as much funding as equally needy Arab students. The Education Ministry said in response to the report that a decision has already been made to abandon this allocation method.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-Haaretz_2009-28) The Follow-Up Committee for Arab Education notes that the Israeli government spends an average of $192 per year on each Arab student compared to $1,100 per Jewish student. The drop-out rate for Arab citizens of Israel is twice as high as that of their Jewish counterparts (12 percent versus 6 percent). The same group also notes that there is a 5,000-classroom shortage in the Arab sector.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-29)[verification needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)]
A 2007 report of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_the_Elimination_of_Racial_Discriminat ion) noted that separate sectors are maintained for Jewish and Arab eduction. It recommended that Israel should assess the extent to which maintenance of separate Arab and Jewish sectors "may amount to racial segregation", and that mixed Arab-Jewish communities and schools, and intercultural education should be promoted.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-CERD-30) In a 2008 report, Israel responded that parents are entitled to enroll their children in the educational institution of their choice, whether the spoken language is Hebrew, Arabic or bilingual. It also noted that Israel promotes a variety of programs that promote intercultural cooperation, tolerance and understanding [24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-Bar-Tal.2C_Daniel_2006.2C_pp_135-152-23)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-31)
In Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education, Nurit Peled-Elhanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurit_Peled-Elhanan), a professor of language and education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_University_of_Jerusalem), describes the depiction of Arabs in Israeli schoolbooks as racist. She states that their only representation is as ‘refugees, primitive farmers and terrorists’, claiming that in "hundreds and hundreds" of books, not one photograph depicted an Arab as a "normal person".[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-32)[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-33)



Discrimination has been claimed regarding ownership and leasing of land in Israel, because approximately 13% of Israel's land, owned by the Jewish National Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Fund), is restricted to Jewish ownership and tenancy, and Arabs are prevented from buying or leasing that land.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-35)


Israel's Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law) bars immigration by family reunification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification) to couples of an Israeli citizen and a Palestinian resident of the Israeli-occupied territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories). Amnesty International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International) says this mostly affects Arabs.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-55)[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-56) The law has been condemned by Amnesty International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International) as "racial discrimination".[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#cite_note-57)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#Racism_against_Arabs

[ComradeMan]

First of all, drop the fucking "Israelis will argue" bullshit. These are your arguments, fucking own up to them.

Okay, seeing as you want to be hostile and start flaming.... shit for brains. If you want to present legal definitions of apartheid as a case against Israel then you had better make sure that what happens in Israel, in legal terms- not just opinion and what everyone knows etc- actually fits that fucking definition. I'm sorry to say this, but it doesn't.

It's not hard really is it? And what the fuck good is using "apartheid" analogies either seeing as the Israelis can and will legally refute those arguments- unlike the South Africans who actually had apartheid and all of those defined enshrined in their official legal system?

If you want a meaningful way to criticise Israel and Zionism, go ahead- but criticise it for what it is without problematic analogies.

It's all very well saying what "everyone knows" or what "x- group claims against y" but that doesn't work if you want to start bringing legal definitions into things.

[Dean]

A lot of nations could be deemed apartheid states if we start playing around with definitions. I don't think it helps either to understand what happened during apartheid or what happens in other nations by using analogies. The other problem is that by using this analogy you inadvertently leave the door open for a whole host of counter-arguments that damage the position you are trying to argue. Analyse apartheid for what apartheid was and analyse Israel for what Israel is- but don't make bad analogies that only appeal to rhetoric.


It's not clear whether or not you even read the post. There was no "redefinition" - I merely took the dictonary term and showed that the only way Israel doesn't fit is if we take "racism" to be purely an issue of intent (i.e. policies are driven by racist ideas) rather than effect (i.e. policies which discriminate based on race). The only ambiguous issue here was whether or not races and therefore racism exists - but I doubt that you will find many who disapprove of the notion of "race" arguing that racism is only an idea.

Without delving into these nuances, the character of Israel as an apartheid state is obvious.

[ComradeMan]

It's not clear whether or not you even read the post. There was no "redefinition" - I merely took the dictonary term and showed

The dictionary term is not what matters here, what matters is the legal definition and whether Israel can be deemed an apartheid state.


Without delving into these nuances, the character of Israel as an apartheid state is obvious.

Sorry but it doesn't. The Israeli legal system guarantees equality and freedom for all citizens. The problem with the whole analogy is that it will always be shot down time and time again on the basis of the laws of the State of Israel. Discrimination may well exist, but it's not really enshrined in law and that's why you can't call it apartheid and I feel it's a bad analogy. The West Bank and Gaza are occupied territories, they are not part of Israel and there comes another problem- if they are not part of Israel but occupied territories for "security reasons" then Israel can and will argue there is no onus upon them to give the residents of those territories the same rights as Israeli citizens- if a fully independent and recognised state of Palestine exist this situation will not change. No nation grants exactly the same rights to non-citizens as citizens other than perhaps Great Britain with regard to citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

I personally feel that the apartheid analogy is bad because it destracts from the problems Israel and Palestine face, it's problematic at all levels and furthermore it's odiously political in that it implies the State of Israel, like the apartheid regime, de facto and de jure has no right to exist whatsoever- however, you might note, under apartheid the oppressed black Africans did not call for the destruction or abolition of South Africa but demanded full emancipation as citizens of South Africa- this is not the case with Israel and Palestine, is it?

[RGacky3]

The dictionary term is not what matters here, what matters is the legal definition and whether Israel can be deemed an apartheid state.


No, its the dictionary term which decides whether or not its a good analogy, and btw, it fits the UN legal term as well.

Sure you can find details in which its difference, or technicalities, but the overall effect is exactly the same.


The Israeli legal system guarantees equality and freedom for all citizens.

Yes, and Palestinians are not citizens, yet they are under Isreali authority, and palestinians get consitantly dispossesed.

If South Africa changed their law to make most blacks non citizens would that change things?


if they are not part of Israel but occupied territories for "security reasons"

I'm glad you put security reasons in quotes, because both you and I know that is not the reason.


if a fully independent and recognised state of Palestine exist this situation will not change. No nation grants exactly the same rights to non-citizens as citizens other than perhaps Great Britain with regard to citizens of the Republic of Ireland.


Yeah, but not many nations occupy a land next to it for decades and systematically disposseses them and strips them of any rights or self determination ...

In practice its the same thing.


I personally feel that the apartheid analogy is bad because it destracts from the problems Israel and Palestine face

Thats not why you object to that analogy, you object to it becuase it makes Israel look bad and everytime this comes up your #1 goal is to make a false equivilancy, i.e. blaming the oppressed for their oppression.


it's problematic at all levels and furthermore it's odiously political in that it implies the State of Israel, like the apartheid regime, de facto and de jure has no right to exist whatsoever

errr ... No, South Africa has a right to exist, juts not as an apartheid regime, don't know if you know this, but South Africa exists ...


this is not the case with Israel and Palestine, is it?

Actually for the most part it is. The palestinians for the most part want juts Israel to LEAVE them alone.

[ComradeMan]

No, its the dictionary term which decides whether or not its a good analogy, and btw, it fits the UN legal term as well.

Not really- yet again your circular arguments, it is because you say it is. :rolleyes:


Sure you can find details in which its difference, or technicalities, but the overall effect is exactly the same.

Well a) it can't be exactly the same really if there are differences b) the overall effect is not exactly the same either c) the differences and technicalities are of vital importance if you are going to use an analogy.


Yes, and Palestinians are not citizens, yet they are under Isreali authority, and palestinians get consitantly dispossesed.

Indeed, but they are not Israeli citizens and are not part of the State of Israel, furthermore the Israelis will argue that they are under the Palestinian Authority and if they get full recognition as a Palestinian State then Israel will have no more responsibility whatsoever. However within the State of Israel the law guarantees rights for all citizens and the situation of non-Jewish citizens of Israel can in no way shape or form be compared to those of non-white citizens of apartheid South Africa.


If South Africa changed their law to make most blacks non citizens would that change things?

Well apartheid South Africa did do that, but Israel didn't. :rolleyes:


Yeah, but not many nations occupy a land next to it for decades and systematically disposseses them and strips them of any rights or self determination ...

*Cough. China-Tibet? Soviet Imperialism? etc etc etc


Thats not why you object to that analogy, you object to it becuase it makes Israel look bad and everytime this comes up your #1 goal is to make a false equivilancy, i.e. blaming the oppressed for their oppression.

No, I object to it because it's a stupid analogy in my opinion and inadvertently plays into the hands of hardcore rightwing Zionists to the detriment of analysing the problem and the issue correctly and therefore also to the dertriment of ever securing a long lasting peace in the area for all Israelis and Palestinians, you know the ordinary people that usually get caught in the crossfire. ;)


errr ... No, South Africa has a right to exist, juts not as an apartheid regime, don't know if you know this, but South Africa exists ...

Err... I said apartheid South Africa. ;)


Actually for the most part it is. The palestinians for the most part want juts Israel to LEAVE them alone.

Actually for the most part it's completely different, it would only be comparable if the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza actually did the opposite of what they are doing and demand to become part of Israel with full rights as Israeli citizens. :rolleyes:

You see you automatically jump on a bandwagon and start typing before you think so you instantly assume this is some kind of apologetics line for the actions of successive Israeli governments whereas in actual fact if you are going to critique something that is indeed worthy of critique you ought to do in a better way than throwing up stupid analogies.

[Olentzero]

Hey ComradeMan, how about foregoing the low-hanging fruit and addressing what psycho posted back on Page 1?

[RGacky3]

Not really- yet again your circular arguments, it is because you say it is. http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-israel-apartheid-t160767/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


Basically if something fits the dictionary term .... I mean, I don't konw waht else you want ... Its just common sense.


Well a) it can't be exactly the same really if there are differences b) the overall effect is not exactly the same either c) the differences and technicalities are of vital importance if you are going to use an analogy.


No one said its exactly the same, thats why its an analogy.


Indeed, but they are not Israeli citizens and are not part of the State of Israel, furthermore the Israelis will argue that they are under the Palestinian Authority and if they get full recognition as a Palestinian State then Israel will have no more responsibility whatsoever. However within the State of Israel the law guarantees rights for all citizens and the situation of non-Jewish citizens of Israel can in no way shape or form be compared to those of non-white citizens of apartheid South Africa.


In practice Israel occupies and controls those territories ... SO they are under juristiction of the Ireali authority.

BTW, YOU would argue, these are your arguments.


Well apartheid South Africa did do that, but Israel didn't. http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-israel-apartheid-t160767/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


Well then the blacks were not citizens were they .. so that technicality deosn't work, South Africa provided equal rights for all its citizens too :), ahhh, no aparteid there either.


*Cough. China-Tibet? Soviet Imperialism? etc etc etc


Yes ... I agree, and I'm against that imperialism too.


No, I object to it because it's a stupid analogy in my opinion and inadvertently plays into the hands of hardcore rightwing Zionists to the detriment of analysing the problem and the issue correctly and therefore also to the dertriment of ever securing a long lasting peace in the area for all Israelis and Palestinians, you know the ordinary people that usually get caught in the crossfire. http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-israel-apartheid-t160767/revleft/smilies/wink.gif


Yes, WE play into the hands or right wing zionists by calling their state what it is, and yes we do analyse the problem correctly (not will the oppressed do this and the oppressor does that, so its all even), which is why aparteid is an ANALOGY to get a point across.


Err... I said apartheid South Africa. http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-israel-apartheid-t160767/revleft/smilies/wink.gif


Yes apartheid south africa has no right to exist just as Ireal as an aparteid state has no right to exist, (it can exist if it leaves the palestinians alone though).


Actually for the most part it's completely different, it would only be comparable if the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza actually did the opposite of what they are doing and demand to become part of Israel with full rights as Israeli citizens. http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-israel-apartheid-t160767/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


That is a difference between the 2, but the effect now, on palestine, is aparteid basically, btw, its an ANALOGY not point for point the carbon copy

(btw, you making the argument pretending you don't wnat to fall into the hands of hardcore zionists is ironic considering you are the resident Isreali apologist here).


You see you automatically jump on a bandwagon and start typing before you think so you instantly assume this is some kind of apologetics line for the actions of successive Israeli governments whereas in actual fact if you are going to critique something that is indeed worthy of critique you ought to do in a better way than throwing up stupid analogies.

If it fits the DICTIONARY definition, its not THAT dumb of an analogy.

And yes you have a history of Isreali apologism.

[ComradeMan]

Basically if something fits the dictionary term .... I mean, I don't konw waht else you want ... Its just common sense.

A situation as complex as the Israel-Palestine conflict summed up with two online dictionary definitions of a sentence each. :rolleyes: Pluckedflowers presented the legal definition of the term and that's where the problem lies.


No one said its exactly the same, thats why its an analogy.

Now for two things to be analogous we have to establish at least a proportional similarity between those two things and if we can't then we do indeed have a problem with that analogy. The situation within the State of Israel and apartheid South Africa has far more differences and contradictions than any similarities and therefore the analogy is a bad one, it doesn't work.

Analogies are classically used in political rhetoric in the absence of a strong argument.


In practice Israel occupies and controls those territories ... SO they are under juristiction of the Ireali authority.

Indirectly through the "democratically" elected Palestinan Authority and they are still not part of the State of Israel.


Well then the blacks were not citizens were they .. so that technicality deosn't work, South Africa provided equal rights for all its citizens too :), ahhh, no aparteid there either.

Again it doesn't work because it's not comparable to the situation in Israel for several reasons. Firstly black South Africans and not "coloured" (mixed race), Indian, Chinese and other non-white groups were only deprived of their citizenship as South Africans in the 1970 after apartheid had been established- the other groups did not have the same rights (under law) as whites but were still South African citizens. In Israel all Israeli citizens have the same rights regardless of religion or "race" which is hardly applicable to the Israeli situation. Secondly, the Palestinians in the occupied territories don't want to be Israelis and don't want to be part of Israel, do they? Whereas in apartheid South Africa the whole issue was full emancipation and citizenship for all South Africans regardless of race as part of South Africa. Thirdly whereas an Arab-Israeli born in Israel, not the occupied territories is an Israeli citizen to full effect, under apartheid in South Africa, this was not the case to a non-white citizen, especially a black "non-citizen" regardless of the geographical location of their birth.

Yes ... I agree, and I'm against that imperialism too.

So you would agree that China is also an apartheid state viz. Tibet?

You might also argue, again not in justification as such of excesses by Israel but rather to put things into context, that many members of the Arab League are also apartheid states in their treatment of the Palestinians who fled to those countries. Those countries in which Palestinians are denied citizenship, full rights and on anecdotal evidence basically treated like shit. Sometimes it doesn't even reach the idea of citizenship but rather just the basic granting of civil rights. But interestingly no one accuses these nations of being apartheid states. Don't you think it's a bit ironic that from many perspectives an Arab-Israeli has better prospects in the "Zionist" state than a Palestinian refugee in an Arab/Islamic state? Remember we are also talking about refugees who were born in these nations in the refugee camps or to refugee parents.


Yes, WE play into the hands or right wing zionists by calling their state what it is, and yes we do analyse the problem correctly (not will the oppressed do this and the oppressor does that, so its all even), which is why aparteid is an ANALOGY to get a point across.

More irrational, knee-jerk appeals to emotivity. The analogy is trite and you don't successfully critique people, no matter how much you disapprove of them, with strawmen and false analogies.


Yes apartheid south africa has no right to exist just as Ireal as an aparteid state has no right to exist, (it can exist if it leaves the palestinians alone though).

Apartheid South Africa no longer exists indeed but Israel as a state is not an apartheid state. Like I've said before, it's not pretty but it's not apartheid.


(btw, you making the argument pretending you don't wnat to fall into the hands of hardcore zionists is ironic considering you are the resident Isreali apologist here) ... And yes you have a history of Isreali apologism.

How is arguing that an argument against hardcore zionists is a bad argument that will fail in any way apologism for hardcore zionism. It's like saying that if you went fishing using a banana as bait and someone said it wasn't a good idea they somehow were in league with the fish.

Please could you demonstrate how I have a history of Israeli apologism? You know full well that I have only ever argued for a one-state binational solution with equal rights for all more or less along the lines of what is proposed by Moshe Arens amongst others. Here's an article about this argument from Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-official-accepting-palestinians-into-israel-better-than-two-states-1.287421

[Iron Felix]

The Israelis imprison the Palestinians in what only can be called Bantu stands.

Not apartheid? Oh, ok.

[maskerade]

I guess then it's a matter of useage. I'm not disagreeing that all of this fits--I just think the term apartheid is a South African word with a particular meaning that describes a particularly bad time in human history in a specific case.

To use the term in this context lessens the value of the suffering and oppression that happened in South Africa and confuses the issues in Palestine.

Use of the word Apartheid to describe Israel's actions towards Palestinians should be discouraged because it makes Apartheid South Africa look like a nice place to live.

[RGacky3]

Its funny how much Comrademan will fight against use of an analogy :P

[ComradeMan]

Its funny how much Comrademan will fight against use of an analogy :P

It's funny how when the actual facts are brought into the analysis of the analogy those who were so vehement in defending it can't actually respond to the critique without one-liners or veiled ad hominem attacks.

This a very important issue with global ramifications and as such deserves to be discussed and analysed objectively wihout the use of trite analogies and false equivalencies that actually serve nothing but to obfuscate the whole situation and gain cheap political rhetorical coinage for groups seeking to confirm their own confirmational bias.

[Nox]

The segregation in Israel isn't just between Jews and Palestinians, it's also to an extent between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi/Mizrati Jews - There was a big protest not long ago in which many Orthdox Ashkenazi Jews refused to allow their children to go to the same schools as Sephardi/Mizrati Jews.

[ComradeMan]

The segregation in Israel isn't just between Jews and Palestinians, it's also to an extent between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi/Mizrati Jews - There was a big protest not long ago in which many Orthdox Ashkenazi Jews refused to allow their children to go to the same schools as Sephardi/Mizrati Jews.

There is indeed a lot of bigotry amongst all groups- but it's not enshrined in law and that's what makes it impossible to use the apartheid analogy. In fact recently there was a case were the bigots lost and the Arab-Israeli's won due to an Israeli court ruling.

[RGacky3]

It's funny how when the actual facts are brought into the analysis of the analogy those who were so vehement in defending it can't actually respond to the critique without one-liners or veiled ad hominem attacks.

This a very important issue with global ramifications and as such deserves to be discussed and analysed objectively wihout the use of trite analogies and false equivalencies that actually serve nothing but to obfuscate the whole situation and gain cheap political rhetorical coinage for groups seeking to confirm their own confirmational bias.

I don't see anyone making false equivelancies except for you.

And the analogy, although there are problems with it, make a good point.

[ComradeMan]

I don't see anyone making false equivelancies except for you.

And the analogy, although there are problems with it, make a good point.

Unless you actually look at the facts and are prepared to compare them.....:rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Well people in this thread have presented them and they look good to me, but since your vested in making Israel look the least guilty possible it might not look good to you.

[ComradeMan]

Well people in this thread have presented them and they look good to me, but since your vested in making Israel look the least guilty possible it might not look good to you.

Yeah, they do look good unless you ignore how inaccurate and inapplicable they are. :rolleyes:

Even though Chomsky draws parallels with apartheid South Africa he appears in this article to say it's not really a term he would choose:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040309.htm

[RGacky3]

Even though Chomsky draws parallels with apartheid South Africa he appears in this article to say it's not really a term he would choose:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040309.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040309.htm)

I know, thats why its an analogy, I compare capitalist exploitation to feadalism all the time, as an analogy, because they are both exploitation based on a percieved free contract even though its underlined with coercion.

[ComradeMan]

I know, thats why its an analogy, I compare capitalist exploitation to feadalism all the time, as an analogy, because they are both exploitation based on a percieved free contract even though its underlined with coercion.

Well you just carry on using meaningless analogies then and don't be surprised when no one takes your analysis based on shitty analogy seriously.
As Chomsky says, it's just waving a "red flag".

By the way, feudalism wasn't based on a free contract- serfs were tied to their lands under a form of bonded labour (+/- slavery) by feudal barons and had no freedom of movement/labour as such. ;)

[RGacky3]

By the way, feudalism wasn't based on a free contract- serfs were tied to their lands under a form of bonded labour (+/- slavery) by feudal barons and had no freedom of movement/labour as such. http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-israel-apartheid-t160767/revleft/smilies/wink.gif

It origionally was, the serf had to accept the lords protection and accept the terms, they were tied to the land after they accepted the deal, also feadalism was different in different areas. It was considered a free contract because the serf accepted the lord.

[ComradeMan]

It origionally was, the serf had to accept the lords protection and accept the terms, they were tied to the land after they accepted the deal, also feadalism was different in different areas. It was considered a free contract because the serf accepted the lord.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. You'll do anything not to admit a mistake or error and it's childish- we're not talking about a difference of opinion either.:rolleyes: Your analogies are like saying the Mona Lisa looks like Marilyn Monroe because they both had two eyes and a nose each. :lol:

For a start the serfs were by definition not free men. Free men became serfs as a response to debt usually. Secondly, a serf could not leave the land without permission from the feudal overlord and had no property rights in terms of the land, i.e. could not sell the land. Furthermore the serfs had to pay taxes on everything including things like having a baby and also had to prioritise work for the overlord before all else, even harvesting their own modest crops. The serfs were free, to save money and buy their "freedom" though.;)

As for that bullshit about "free contract" because the serf accepted the lord- well in Medieval Europe someone who had basically the choice of being a vagabond (which was prosecutable) and starving to death didn't have all that much of a free choice, did they? This is where the word villain comes from, originally a villein was a type of serf, if the villein escaped to the city and avoided arrest for a year they were technically free however they often turned to a life of crime (as they had no other means of income etc) and hence the word villein gave rise to the modern villain even though theLatin villanus just means a farm worker. If you really think that Medieval manorial "helots" had free contracts then you have a strange idea of what a free contract means.

[Revolution starts with U]

As for that bullshit about "free contract" because the serf accepted the lord- well in Medieval Europe someone who had basically the choice of being a vagabond (which was prosecutable) and starving to death didn't have all that much of a free choice, did they?
You mean sort of similar to how people now have a choice between a homeless vagrant and starving to death or being employed by capitalists? Oh.. I guess it is not so different after all.

[RGacky3]

Secondly, a serf could not leave the land without permission from the feudal overlord and had no property rights in terms of the land, i.e. could not sell the land.

Actually no one had property rights in terms of the land.


Free men became serfs as a response to debt usually. Secondly, a serf could not leave the land without permission from the feudal overlord and had no property rights in terms of the land, i.e. could not sell the land. Furthermore the serfs had to pay taxes on everything including things like having a baby and also had to prioritise work for the overlord before all else, even harvesting their own modest crops. The serfs were free, to save money and buy their "freedom" though.http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-israel-apartheid-t160767/revleft/smilies/wink.gif


Which can still be argued to be free.

Many freemen became serfs for various reasons, maybe their farm went under.

Either way, feaudalism worked differently in different areas


As for that bullshit about "free contract" because the serf accepted the lord- well in Medieval Europe someone who had basically the choice of being a vagabond (which was prosecutable) and starving to death didn't have all that much of a free choice, did they? This is where the word villain comes from, originally a villein was a type of serf, if the villein escaped to the city and avoided arrest for a year they were technically free however they often turned to a life of crime (as they had no other means of income etc) and hence the word villein gave rise to the modern villain even though theLatin villanus just means a farm worker. If you really think that Medieval manorial "helots" had free contracts then you have a strange idea of what a free contract means.

THATS THE POINT OF THE ANALOGY!!!!!

That even though technically serfs were considered to technically be so voluntarily, in reality they were not free at all, JUST LIKE CAPITALISM.

Which is why "free contract" in capitalism is just as rediculous as "free contract" in feaudalism.

[Dean]

The dictionary term is not what matters here, what matters is the legal definition and whether Israel can be deemed an apartheid state.

The OP had nothing to do with legalism. Don't try to redefine the boundaries of the discussion.




Sorry but it doesn't. The Israeli legal system guarantees equality and freedom for all citizens. The problem with the whole analogy is that it will always be shot down time and time again on the basis of the laws of the State of Israel. Discrimination may well exist, but it's not really enshrined in law and that's why you can't call it apartheid and I feel it's a bad analogy. The West Bank and Gaza are occupied territories, they are not part of Israel and there comes another problem- if they are not part of Israel but occupied territories for "security reasons" then Israel can and will argue there is no onus upon them to give the residents of those territories the same rights as Israeli citizens- if a fully independent and recognised state of Palestine exist this situation will not change. No nation grants exactly the same rights to non-citizens as citizens other than perhaps Great Britain with regard to citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

I personally feel that the apartheid analogy is bad because it destracts from the problems Israel and Palestine face, it's problematic at all levels and furthermore it's odiously political in that it implies the State of Israel, like the apartheid regime, de facto and de jure has no right to exist whatsoever- however, you might note, under apartheid the oppressed black Africans did not call for the destruction or abolition of South Africa but demanded full emancipation as citizens of South Africa- this is not the case with Israel and Palestine, is it?

The Israeli political system relies on the forcible exclusion of religious and ethnic minorities (which are minorities as a result of deliberate expulsion).

This obsession with legislation is bizarre to me. There are laws which fulfill this role as well (right of return laws, for instance). It's not clear to me why you think you have any footing in the legalistic argument; legalism is not what we were discussing anyways. Apartheid and other terms are deliberately defined under law to exclude condemnation of important power brokers (this is why the issues of Israel owning the territories matters, though the moral and material differences between annexation and totalitarian occupation are nil).

I'm not concerned with proving whether or not legal scholars would agree that Israel is an apartheid regime. I'm merely pointing out what makes an apartheid regime; points which you have failed to even address.

[freepalestine]

i noticed some one say that there are equal rights for all non jews in the isreali borders,ie what we call palestine 48..
this is untrue.
will post links ,or someone else can to let others decide to see if israel is not a racist state.

[ComradeMan]

The OP had nothing to do with legalism. Don't try to redefine the boundaries of the discussion.

When citing the "crime of apartheid" as defined under international law- 2002 Rome Statute of International Law, then "legalism" has everything to do with the argument. No one is redefining the boundaries of the discussion but rather attempting to answer the points within the boundaries of the discussion posited.


The Israeli political system relies on the forcible exclusion of religious and ethnic minorities (which are minorities as a result of deliberate expulsion).

Why are there Arab-Israeli political parties, Arab members of the Knesset and why does the Israeli constitution guarantee equal rights for all?


I'm not concerned with proving whether or not legal scholars would agree that Israel is an apartheid regime.

Well don't cite legal terminology then.


I'm merely pointing out what makes an apartheid regime; points which you have failed to even address.

.... according to you then. The fact that people blatantly ignore the far greater differences and also the fundamental differences between apartheid South Africa and Israel and the Palestinian Territories makes the debate impossible- unless you are claiming now that the Palestinian Territories are in fact part of Israel- something that I think few Palestinians would claim. What's worse is that by using a flawed and fundamentally bad analogy it detracts and distracts from any genuine arguments concerning the problems that Israel and the Palestinian people face.

[RGacky3]

you are claiming now that the Palestinian Territories are in fact part of Israel- something that I think few Palestinians would claim.

In practice they are.

[Dean]

When citing the "crime of apartheid" as defined under international law- 2002 Rome Statute of International Law, then "legalism" has everything to do with the argument. No one is redefining the boundaries of the discussion but rather attempting to answer the points within the boundaries of the discussion posited.

I wasn't talking about the "crime" of apartheid. Indeed, I have rarely shown much regard for legal nuances when I'm talking about material conditions or moral concerns. I simply wasn't talking about law.


Why are there Arab-Israeli political parties, Arab members of the Knesset and why does the Israeli constitution guarantee equal rights for all?

...and Native Americans even enjoy preferential treatment under certain laws in the US. This doesn't change the apartheid nature of native reservations and maintaining their forced exclusion from their historic homelands.

Your appeal to law should be hard to stomach for any Pro-Israeli. After all, the body of UN resolutions condemning Israel are large enough to overrun your position.



Well don't cite legal terminology then.

Quit being a pedantic child. Just because there is a legal definition (there is for nearly every term!) doesn't make the term exclusively legal.



according to you then. The fact that people blatantly ignore the far greater differences and also the fundamental differences between apartheid South Africa and Israel and the Palestinian Territories makes the debate impossible- unless you are claiming now that the Palestinian Territories are in fact part of Israel- something that I think few Palestinians would claim. What's worse is that by using a flawed and fundamentally bad analogy it detracts and distracts from any genuine arguments concerning the problems that Israel and the Palestinian people face.
And yet its supposedly not worse to endorse your position, which consistently minimizes the importance of Israeli white nationalist policies.

Face it. You're a pitiful grasping, ideologue. You have absolutely no interest in the debate except to defend Israel's policies. You'll cling to whatever whitewashing or cynical posturing it takes to make you feel as if criticism of Israel has been delegitimized, all the while ignoring the very real material conditions which indicate that the regime is a white nationalist, exclusionist state, representing European capital and cornering and exploiting the Palestinians in whatever way is possible.

[ComradeMan]

I wasn't talking about the "crime" of apartheid. Indeed, I have rarely shown much regard for legal nuances when I'm talking about material conditions or moral concerns. I simply wasn't talking about law.

Are you the only one in the thread? If you care to look back through the thread someone, pluckedflowers if I recall correctly, brought in the "legal" definition of "apartheid"- so take up the issue with him/her.


...and Native Americans even enjoy preferential treatment under certain laws in the US. This doesn't change the apartheid nature of native reservations and maintaining their forced exclusion from their historic homelands.

Well I can't really speak about Indian reservations as I don't know enough about them. Interesting that you mention historic homelands, because don't the zionists also talk about historic homelands?

But anyway, really no one was talking about "preferential" treatment within the state of Israel were they? Tell me, which nation does grant exactly the same rights to non-citizens as citizens? Now as far as Arab-Israelis are concerned they do have the same rights as any other Israeli. No one is denying that prejudice and bigotry exist in Israel, they exist everywhere sadly but that is a far shot from deeming a state an "apartheid" state. The analogy as far as Israel is concerned does not correspond to the historical apartheid of South Africa nor to the legal definition of apartheid under international law.


.Your appeal to law should be hard to stomach for any Pro-Israeli. After all, the body of UN resolutions condemning Israel are large enough to overrun your position.

Where have I ever said that Israel was the "perfect state" without flaws? I don't think you'd even find many Israelis who would take that line. Didn't the UN under Koffi Annan say that the Iraq was illegal, oh- let's now say that the US/UK and Allies are all apartheid states shall we.... :rolleyes:


Quit being a pedantic child. Just because there is a legal definition (there is for nearly every term!) doesn't make the term exclusively legal.

:laugh: But, but, but... when people cite legal definitions (seeing as the historical analogy doesn't work) then a legalistic approach is the only one. Otherwise how would things like war-crimes etc ever be dealt with?


And yet its supposedly not worse to endorse your position, which consistently minimizes the importance of Israeli white nationalist policies.

"My position"- :laugh: . What is my position? White nationalist policies- funny how some of the most hardcore zionists in Israel are not the ones you may be thinking of... ;)


Face it. You're a pitiful grasping, ideologue. You have absolutely no interest in the debate except to defend Israel's policies.

Ah..... the ad hominem because your argument actually holds about as much water as a sieve. Well, I might be all of those things but you still seem to know f.all about Israel.

Where have I ever defended any Israeli policy in particular? Time and time again I have stated my position- a courtesy which you have yet to do, re your advocacy of "peaceful Zionism" which you have yet to explain. As far as serious and objective analysis the best I see here is the pitiful Israel-bashing of the uninformed and (perhaps) closet anti-semites of old. Funny how the Arab-Israelis enjoy a better standard of living and rights etc than the Palestinians do in Arab countries. :rolleyes:


You'll cling to whatever whitewashing or cynical posturing it takes to make you feel as if criticism of Israel has been delegitimized, all the while ignoring the very real material conditions which indicate that the regime is a white nationalist, exclusionist state, representing European capital and cornering and exploiting the Palestinians in whatever way is possible.

Ignoring the non-"white"/Middle-Eastern Jews, the Arab-Israelis in the Knesset, the Bedouin in the IDF, the Christians and the Druze as well- and the fact that the state of Israel is constitutionally very little of what is claimed.

Like I have said before, the situation is complex and messy, it isn't particularly pretty but it's not apartheid. I have yet to see any serious critique of Israel here to be honest...

[Judicator]

And this picture of the Israeli regime shows a form of discrimination based on bigotry and xenophobia.

If every one of my neighbors hated me, I'd be pretty xenophobic too.


In simple terms, race as an objective fact doesn't exist - but the moral and social irresponsibility of cultural and religious discrimination is just as bad.

Who is to say culture and religion aren't just as much "constructed" as race is?

[RGacky3]

If every one of my neighbors hated me, I'd be pretty xenophobic too.


Well maybe if Isreal stopped occupying, dispossessing and blockaiding Palestine, stopping any attempt of theirs to create their own state and basically sabotage them for hte last 70 years, maybe people would stop hating them.


Who is to say culture and religion aren't just as much "constructed" as race is?

Well ... They are just as much constructed, but that does'nt make discrimination based on it any worse.

[ComradeMan]

Well maybe if Isreal stopped occupying, dispossessing and blockaiding Palestine, stopping any attempt of theirs to create their own state and basically sabotage them for hte last 70 years, maybe people would stop hating them.

And if the Jews of the first aliyahs had not been attacked by the Arabs and if the Grand Mufti had not conspired with Hitler to exterminate the Jews and if the embryonic state of Israel had not been attacked on all fronts and if certain Palestinian groups had not indiscriminately attacked innocent civilians and conspired with anti-semitic groups/persons and if people would stop launching rockets into Israel provoking retaliation all the time.

The endless cycle of tit-for-tat, an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth mentality that seems to reign supreme on the extremes of both sides. Until this cycle is broken then there will never be peace, and it takes both sides to be willing.

[RGacky3]

And if the Jews of the first aliyahs had not been attacked by the Arabs and if the Grand Mufti had not conspired with Hitler to exterminate the Jews and if the embryonic state of Israel had not been attacked on all fronts and if certain Palestinian groups had not indiscriminately attacked innocent civilians and conspired with anti-semitic groups/persons and if people would stop launching rockets into Israel provoking retaliation all the time.

The endless cycle of tit-for-tat, an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth mentality that seems to reign supreme on the extremes of both sides. Until this cycle is broken then there will never be peace, and it takes both sides to be willing.

I don't think the occupation, settlements and blockaid are a response to the Grand Mufti, or a response to the wars of the 40s.

Also enough of this false equivelancy, this is why no one takes your arguments against Isreal being an apartheid state seriously, because your always trying to make it seam like palestinians and Isrealis are equally guilty (thus lessening Isreals guilt).

What it takes, NOW, is Israel to end the occupation, end the blockaid and draw back the settlements, and you can yelp all day long about palestinians not recognizing Israel as a state, that has no real consquences, Israel is activeley preventing palestine from any self-determination, that is real.

Its obvious your objection to Israel being called an aparteid state is'nt academic, its not because its shifts the discussion or makes peace somehow harder, its because your constantly creating false equivilancy and trying to lessen Israels guilt by shifting it on the palestinians.

[Dean]

Are you the only one in the thread? If you care to look back through the thread someone, pluckedflowers if I recall correctly, brought in the "legal" definition of "apartheid"- so take up the issue with him/her.

Actually, you brought this point to me as if I had brought it up. You need to bring it up with them.


Well I can't really speak about Indian reservations as I don't know enough about them. Interesting that you mention historic homelands, because don't the zionists also talk about historic homelands?

And it turns out that the occupying power in the US had just dispossessed those Native Americans from those historic lands, proving the legitimacy of their claim. There is no evidence that any "Palestinian state" dispossessed Jews.


But anyway, really no one was talking about "preferential" treatment within the state of Israel were they? Tell me, which nation does grant exactly the same rights to non-citizens as citizens? Now as far as Arab-Israelis are concerned they do have the same rights as any other Israeli. No one is denying that prejudice and bigotry exist in Israel, they exist everywhere sadly but that is a far shot from deeming a state an "apartheid" state. The analogy as far as Israel is concerned does not correspond to the historical apartheid of South Africa nor to the legal definition of apartheid under international law.

Israel is an occupying power which refused to annex the lands it governs because it would change the ethnic makeup of their nation, calling its "democratic" character into question (and indeed undermining Jewish nationalism if full democratic rights were extended).

The fact is that the de jure borders of a state do not really change the de facto sphere of control. The military occupation of Palestine and the repeated, deliberate destruction of their state-building institutions, coupled with the extensive program of checkpoints and settlements makes a pretty clear economic, political and social division that is enforced by military power across ethnic lines. It's hard to see how that could be seen as anything but apartheid - despite appeals to semantic points like declared borders.


Where have I ever said that Israel was the "perfect state" without flaws? I don't think you'd even find many Israelis who would take that line. Didn't the UN under Koffi Annan say that the Iraq was illegal, oh- let's now say that the US/UK and Allies are all apartheid states shall we.... :rolleyes:

I never said that you claimed Israel was perfect.

You're appealing to legal semantics again. It has no bearing on the material conditions.


:laugh: But, but, but... when people cite legal definitions (seeing as the historical analogy doesn't work) then a legalistic approach is the only one. Otherwise how would things like war-crimes etc ever be dealt with?

The deliberate military and economic division along ethnic lines is indeed a racist, apartheid program.


Where have I ever defended any Israeli policy in particular? Time and time again I have stated my position- a courtesy which you have yet to do, re your advocacy of "peaceful Zionism" which you have yet to explain. As far as serious and objective analysis the best I see here is the pitiful Israel-bashing of the uninformed and (perhaps) closet anti-semites of old. Funny how the Arab-Israelis enjoy a better standard of living and rights etc than the Palestinians do in Arab countries. :rolleyes:

Peaceful Zionism refers to the right of Jews to live in the lands of Palestine without dispossessing the natives. I've explained this before, and its not complicated.

Your position is to defend Israel against criticism. You've failed to explain any further - what would you call the racist occupation of Palestine?


Ignoring the non-"white"/Middle-Eastern Jews, the Arab-Israelis in the Knesset, the Bedouin in the IDF, the Christians and the Druze as well- and the fact that the state of Israel is constitutionally very little of what is claimed.

There were black slave owners in the US south. That doesn't make US slavery any less racist. They are called Uncle Toms, and in the context of an occupation enforced along ethnic lines, it's pretty accurate.

So, too, is the deliberate enforcement of segregation by Israel apartheid:



a·part·heid

   [uh-pahrt-heyt, -hahyt] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
noun 1. (in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid policy of segregation of the nonwhite population.

2. any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.

And the settlements that consistently expropriate non-Jews, barricading them outside of where their demolished homes just stood - not apartheid, right?






Like I have said before, the situation is complex and messy, it isn't particularly pretty but it's not apartheid. I have yet to see any serious critique of Israel here to be honest...

If the deliberate segregation across ethnic lines (as Jewish descent is determined by blood line by the official laws) isn't in fact segregation, and therefore apartheid, what is it?

[ComradeMan]

I don't think the occupation, settlements and blockaid are a response to the Grand Mufti, or a response to the wars of the 40s.

Well that's where I feel you are wrong. The current situation is a the product of all the other situations that have led up to it and if you are not prepared to look back into history then you shouldn't comment.


Also enough of this false equivelancy, this is why no one takes your arguments against Isreal being an apartheid state seriously, because your always trying to make it seam like palestinians and Isrealis are equally guilty (thus lessening Isreals guilt).

It's not false equivalency when you highlight the tit-for-tat nature of the radicalisation of both sides in the conflict.

I couldn't care less who takes the arguments seriously or not- the arguments are there and seeing as none of the loud-mouths with their sanctimonious Israel-bashing can actually deal with facts I'm rather glad- but then you are the person who was, a while ago, shocked to learn that Hamas were anti-semitic because despite pontificating on the subject you had never read any of their stuff. :laugh:


What it takes, NOW, is Israel to end the occupation, end the blockaid and draw back the settlements, and you can yelp all day long about palestinians not recognizing Israel as a state, that has no real consquences, Israel is activeley preventing palestine from any self-determination, that is real.

More conveniently ignoring certain facts and realities from you I see....


Its obvious your objection to Israel being called an aparteid state is'nt academic, its not because its shifts the discussion or makes peace somehow harder, its because your constantly creating false equivilancy and trying to lessen Israels guilt by shifting it on the palestinians.

You really are being stupid now. The objection to the analogy has nothing to do with apportioning blame or shifting guilt- it's because it's a bad analogy and in my opinion plays right into the hands of the most hardcore on the Israeli rightwing- but of course many here are too dense to see that.

[RGacky3]

Well that's where I feel you are wrong. The current situation is a the product of all the other situations that have led up to it and if you are not prepared to look back into history then you shouldn't comment.


Yeah, but you can't change history, what you can change is the CURRECT causes for the conflict and the current main inhumanities causing the problems.


It's not false equivalency when you highlight the tit-for-tat nature of the radicalisation of both sides in the conflict.


Yes it is, because Palestinians are not occupying Isreal, they are not blockaiding them, nor are they building settlements in Israel, nor are they dispossessing them, the violence Israel commits DURING occupations, blockaids, setteling and dispossessing, is not the same as the violent backlash against those things.


I couldn't care less who takes the arguments seriously or not- the arguments are there and seeing as none of the loud-mouths with their sanctimonious Israel-bashing can actually deal with facts I'm rather glad- but then you are the person who was, a while ago, shocked to learn that Hamas were anti-semitic because despite pontificating on the subject you had never read any of their stuff. :laugh:


Your arguing whether or not apartied is a good analogy .... Seriously, unless your aim is nothing more than shifting blame from Israel, why are you arguing this so hard, when clearly its a pretty damn good analogy.

I was'nt shocked to learn that Hamas had some anti-semetic sentiments within it, but point was back then that it was irrelivant.


More conveniently ignoring certain facts and realities from you I see....


I'm sorry, what is preventing Israel from ending the occupation, dismanteling the settlements, ending the blockaid and stopping the dispossession? Or even allowing them to be a state?


You really are being stupid now. The objection to the analogy has nothing to do with apportioning blame or shifting guilt- it's because it's a bad analogy and in my opinion plays right into the hands of the most hardcore on the Israeli rightwing- but of course many here are too dense to see that.

Well considering your bent on shifting blame, and on making a false equivilancy, its pretty clear the motive here.

Also it does'nt play into the hands of the ISreali rightwing at all, because most people in the world are against apartheid.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, but you can't change history, what you can change is the CURRECT causes for the conflict and the current main inhumanities causing the problems.

The causes are rooted in history.... :rolleyes: You can't just separate what's happening now from its causes in the past.


Yes it is, because Palestinians are not occupying Isreal, they are not blockaiding them, nor are they building settlements in Israel, nor are they dispossessing them, the violence Israel commits DURING occupations, blockaids, setteling and dispossessing, is not the same as the violent backlash against those things.

Here we get into chicken and egg arguments. Why is Israel doing these things and in response to what? You also forget that Israel actually invests in Palestine and a few years ago even Netanyahu called for the Diaspora Jews to invest in order to help build stability for the Palestinians. You also choose to ignore the accusations of faction fighting within the Palestinian leadership and wholescale corruption. Billions were poured into Palestine post-1994, where did it go? Why do certain groups instead of seeking peace choose to carry out terrorist attacks against civilians and launch rockets indiscriminately into Israel and train children to be suicide bombers?

The Palestinian National Authority is hardly a beacon of light in terms of human rights either. To sell land to a Jew, for example, is punishable by death- source (http://www.haaretz.com/news/jordan-pa-arrest-2-palestinians-for-selling-hebron-house-to-jews-1.217018). But of course no one here ever mentions those things.... :rolleyes:


apartied is a good analogy .... when clearly its a pretty damn good analogy.

It is if you choose to ignore all the factual, historical, legal and current reasons why it is not. :rolleyes:


I was'nt shocked to learn that Hamas had some anti-semetic sentiments within it, but point was back then that it was irrelivant.

Err... I think you did actually write that it was pretty shocking or words to that effect.


Well considering your bent on shifting blame, and on making a false equivilancy, its pretty clear the motive here./QUOTE]

FFS- it's not about shifting blame- it's about dealing with facts historically and objectively which is something that seems to be worryingly absent here.

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2238216]Also it does'nt play into the hands of the ISreali rightwing at all, because most people in the world are against apartheid.

That's pretty pathetic. So, by using an analogy that can be dismantled pretty easily by a quick look at the facts by those who you would, I presume, be against and subsequently diverting the dicussion into whether something is or is not apartheid etc etc instead of focusing on important issues like the West Bank settlements, Palestinian aggression, the Israeli right, Hamas and the blockade- but more importantly innocent people on both sides suffering and being killed and maimed- you don't think you're actually doing more harm than good?

It is telling too that a while back when there was a thread about the appalling conditions of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Lebanon- a sovereign state not occupied by Israel- what happened? The blame got shifted back to Israel--- so don't talk to me about shifting the blame.

[RGacky3]

The causes are rooted in history.... http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-israel-apartheid-t160767/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif You can't just separate what's happening now from its causes in the past.


Ok ... But you can't change history, you can change material conditions now.


. You also choose to ignore the accusations of faction fighting within the Palestinian leadership and wholescale corruption.

What does that have to do with the israeli-palestinian conflict? faction fighting and corruptoin is'nt stopping Isreal from ending the occupation and so on.


You also forget that Israel actually invests in Palestine

yeah, and the US "invests" in guatemala as well.


Why do certain groups instead of seeking peace choose to carry out terrorist attacks against civilians and launch rockets indiscriminately into Israel and train children to be suicide bombers?


over the last couply of years palestinians overall HAVE been seeking peace and its been totally ignored by Israel who refuse to do anything or give anything up for palestine.

The terrorists of some of the palestinians (which has dropped significantly since the main leadership has shifted to peaceful means) pales in comparison to Israels terrorism.


It is if you choose to ignore all the factual, historical, legal and current reasons why it is not.

Well I've read the arguments, and they seam to have a pretty good point, and your arguing small details, and you might want to rest your eyes for a while.


FFS- it's not about shifting blame- it's about dealing with facts historically and objectively which is something that seems to be worryingly absent here.


False equivilancy IS shifting blame, we are dealing with the facts on the ground and what can and cannot be done to fix the situation, and right now the side that is preventing peace is the Isreali side.


So, by using an analogy that can be dismantled pretty easily by a quick look at the facts by those who you would, I presume, be against and subsequently diverting the dicussion into whether something is or is not apartheid etc etc instead of focusing on important issues like the West Bank settlements, Palestinian aggression, the Israeli right, Hamas and the blockade

Well its not dismantled pretty easily, and its only really argued against by people like you who live to make a false equivilancy and try and shift blame, or people who support Israel unconditionally.

Palestinian aggression? Are you serious? Its like talking about the Native American's aggression against the europeans.

At this point the ONLY thing that will stop the conflict is ending the blockaid, stopping the occupation and pulling back the settlements, and palestine being recognized as an independant and autonomous state with rights as such, all of thoes things are being prevented by Israel.

[ComradeMan]

Gacky if the best you've got in the debate is a bunch of vague and "fuzzy" comparisons and analogies and ad nauseam ad hominem attacks and strawmen- e.g. "people like you...." and little discussion of the facts then you should bow out.

Re Palestinian aggression- so would you deny that attacks like the Munich attack were not acts of aggression furthermore aimed at people who largely had no control or involvement with the situation? Or the constant firing of Qassam rockets at Israeli targets with usually civilian deaths as a result such as the people of Sderot had to put up with or the kindergarten in Beersheba?
Speaking of Palestinian aggression, you also conveniently forget about intra-palestinian violence too.

"In the Gaza Strip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip), Hamas officials have killed and tortured thousands of Fatah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah) members and other Palestinians who oppose their rule. During the Battle of Gaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_%282007%29), more than 150 Palestinians died over a four day period. The violence among Palestinians was described as a civil war by some commentators.[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#cite_note-83) By 2007, more than 600 Palestinian people had died during the struggle between Hamas and Fatah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict).[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#cite_note-Over600-84)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Palestinian_v iolence_against_Palestinians

You don't see how this undermines stability and dictates Israeli security policy at all? :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

Dean needs to get back in here. It was pretty exciting then :lol:

[ComradeMan]

Dean needs to get back in here. It was pretty exciting then :lol:

It is strange that the usual Israel-bashers have fallen silent and freepalestine is about two weeks late on the promised sources and references.... :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

It was a great back and forth tho. I was thanking every post for a minute there. (I thank mostly on quality of argument, not content :lol:)

[La Comédie Noire]

I never really got heavy into the Palestine/ Israel conflict, it just seems like one big headache.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The key is that there is no way out within capitalism for the working class and humanity as a whole.

Apartheid no longer exists in South Africa, and look how great black workers are doing there. Oh wait...

[freepalestine]

It is strange that the usual Israel-bashers have fallen silent and [I]freepalestine [I]is about two weeks late on the promised sources and references.... :rollyes:i think most leftists know zionism/isreal is an apartheid state and racist etetec...

n.b. the 1975 u.n. res3379 'zionism is racism'
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1




It was a great back and forth tho. I was thanking every post for a minute there. (I thank mostly on quality of argument, not content :lol:). i think conrademan is a poor example of a zionist ....his so-called debate did no favors

[ComradeMan]

i think most leftists know zionism/isreal is an apartheid state and racist etetec...

Where are all these sources and references you were going to provide to back up your counter-claims? :rolleyes: It's also a bit of a "no true Scotsman" argument that you are trying to build here....


. i think conrademan is a poor example of a zionist ....his so-called debate did no favors

Err... did you not notice throughout the debate my point of the argument was that it was a bad analogy because it did not help but rather hinder serious discussion of the issues? :rolleyes: This certainly is not taking sides as you would like to portray.

The fact that you don't actually debate anything but post one-liners and trite comments or copy/past whole pages of material from whatever website you find indicates that you don't actually have much of an argument other than to posture and act sanctimoniously.