Is Israel an Apartheid state?

[Guest]

So which Muslim group do you support, Sunnis or the Shiites? They're well known for their balanced behaviour (cough GENOCIDE) in the name of religion.

This is not about the internal struggles of Islam so stop trying to divert the subject away from the point under discussion, which is Israel the genocidal apartheid state.

Israel doesn't become the good guy because some Islamic factions are worse.

Br Cornelius

[Antilles]

This is not about the internal struggles of Islam so stop trying to divert the subject away from the point under discussion, which is Israel the genocidal apartheid state.

Israel doesn't become the good guy because some Islamic factions are worse.

Br Cornelius

Oh please. Not a good rebuttal argument.

[Guest]

Oh please. Not a good rebuttal argument.

When you stop attempting diversion tactics you might get a reply to you relevant point.

Until then I will satisfy myself in pointing out your tactics.

Br Cornelius

[+and-then]

When you stop attempting diversion tactics you might get a reply to you relevant point.

Until then I will satisfy myself in pointing out your tactics.

Br Cornelius

I take this to be a discussion about the survival of a distinct people. Neither the Arabs nor the Persians, for example, have ever been faced with annihilation. Neither have ever had to survive a single war of attempted annihilation. Israel has fought several corporately and Jews have had to fight them on a personal level for a couple of millennia. I find it interesting that the emphasis always skews back to the sins of one group and not both. The irony of this failed argument about separate and unequal is that for Israel to try to actually maintain a democracy where the state also had an essentially Jewish character( their right) they WOULD have to become an apartheid entity. Especially if "right of return" ever became a reality.

[Antilles]

When you stop attempting diversion tactics you might get a reply to you relevant point.

Until then I will satisfy myself in pointing out your tactics.

Br Cornelius

And you were elected as the relevance policeman when?

Buddy, still a losing rebuttal argument.

[Antilles]

I take this to be a discussion about the survival of a distinct people. Neither the Arabs nor the Persians, for example, have ever been faced with annihilation. Neither have ever had to survive a single war of attempted annihilation. Israel has fought several corporately and Jews have had to fight them on a personal level for a couple of millennia. I find it interesting that the emphasis always skews back to the sins of one group and not both. The irony of this failed argument about separate and unequal is that for Israel to try to actually maintain a democracy where the state also had an essentially Jewish character( their right) they WOULD have to become an apartheid entity. Especially if "right of return" ever became a reality.

And then, the only way some posters here want to view Israel is non-existent. They have no right to their homeland. Let them go and wander in the desert again for another 40 years.

The Palestinians have proved themselves time and again to be reliable and steadfast in government, committed to a lasting peace and promoting Arab Israeli links.

Yeah, right.

[Guest]

And you were elected as the relevance policeman when?

Buddy, still a losing rebuttal argument.

Remember that adage "two wrongs don't make a right". My point is common knowledge - yours is just a p*** poor argument for an apartheid state.

Br Cornelius

[buckskin scout]

And then, the only way some posters here want to view Israel is non-existent. They have no right to their homeland. Let them go and wander in the desert again for another 40 years.

The Palestinians have proved themselves time and again to be reliable and steadfast in government, committed to a lasting peace and promoting Arab Israeli links.

Yeah, right.

394 Palestinian cities, towns, and villages were destroyed. 750,000 Palestinians became refugees.

From a biblical argument, bull.

Furthermore, the promises of the land of Canaan to Abraham and Moses were fulfilled literally in the conquest under Joshua and reached its fruition upon the Davidic Kingdom.

Those promises were conditioned on obedience to God's law and were invalidated when that law was broken and the people sent into exile.

The New Testament stressing that promises to Abraham included all nations, not only the Jews, inteprets these promises in terms of a spiritual redemption from captivity to sin, a redemption available to Gentiles as well as to Jews.

To link salvation with the destruction of another people's ancestral home is blasphemous. God is just.

And here is an excellent quote regarding the Balfour Declaration and its often misinterpretations:

"Great Britain had no sovereign rights over Palestine; it had no proprietary interest; it had no authority to dispose of the land. The Declaration was merely a statement of British intentions and no more." Sol Linowitz, American diplomat

Also, Zionists had no legal claim to Palestine because the UN Partition Plan violated Article 1 of the UN charter. That is the Article that sets forth the principle of self-determination for all peoples on Earth, including the 70% of the Palestinians who then owned 94% of the land.

The Resolution was not binding since it was not passed by the Security Council but by the General Assembly, which can only recommmend rather than legistate.

The Resolution, like the Balfour Declaration, was a product of great power machinations, orchestrated by the United States, rather than the result of political idealism.

So, in other words, both the Partition Plan and the Balfour Declaration is a steaming crock of ****.

[Frank Merton]

At this point in history, regardless of what happened in the past, Israel is a legal sovereign state entitled to do whatever is reasonably necessary to protect itself. From time to time this requires espionage and other unpopular acts to pro-actively disarm those who have made their intention to destroy the country perfectly clear. While we all may from time to time disagree with a specific act of any given country, it seems to me that Israel is subject to far more of this sort of thing than most other countries, and I have to conclude that it largely stems from rather ugly remnants of anti-Semitism.

[buckskin scout]

At this point in history, regardless of what happened in the past, Israel is a legal sovereign state entitled to do whatever is reasonably necessary to protect itself. From time to time this requires espionage and other unpopular acts to pro-actively disarm those who have made their intention to destroy the country perfectly clear. While we all may from time to time disagree with a specific act of any given country, it seems to me that Israel is subject to far more of this sort of thing than most other countries, and I have to conclude that it largely stems from rather ugly remnants of anti-Semitism.

What you just said is complete bull, because the Palestinians have been denied all their rights. People like you treat them as an invisible people even though at the time of the UN Partition Plan was introduced, they made up 70% of the population and owned 94% of the land.

Jews weren't interested in the Holy Land for hundreds of years because of the lack of opportunities in Palestine and financial advancement lie elsewhere such as Europe, Asia, and elsewhere.

This isn't anti-semitism.

And Christian Zionists are using the Bible as an instrument of oppression rather than an instrument of liberation.

[Frank Merton]

When someone starts out with "what you said is complete bull", is there any need for me to read further when I know what is coming? An "I must disagree" would get you read.

[+and-then]

What you just said is complete bull, because the Palestinians have been denied all their rights. People like you treat them as an invisible people even though at the time of the UN Partition Plan was introduced, they made up 70% of the population and owned 94% of the land.

Jews weren't interested in the Holy Land for hundreds of years because of the lack of opportunities in Palestine and financial advancement lie elsewhere such as Europe, Asia, and elsewhere.

This isn't anti-semitism.

And Christian Zionists are using the Bible as an instrument of oppression rather than an instrument of liberation.

And when the world body decided to allow a state on that land they were righteously p***ed - just as all others who've lost out in such agreements. They said NO. They're STILL saying NO. But Israel is inconveniently surviving and prospering. The Palis are locked in an all or nothing struggle and since they'll never get it all....

[Zaphod222]

What you just said is complete bull, because the Palestinians have been denied all their rights. People like you treat them as an invisible people even though at the time of the UN Partition Plan was introduced, they made up 70% of the population and owned 94% of the land.

Jews weren't interested in the Holy Land for hundreds of years because of the lack of opportunities in Palestine and financial advancement lie elsewhere such as Europe, Asia, and elsewhere.

This isn't anti-semitism.

And Christian Zionists are using the Bible as an instrument of oppression rather than an instrument of liberation.

I don´t even know where to start dissecting this pile nonsenical and bigotted claims. Every single one of your statements is factually wrong.

All I can suggest is that you look beyond islamist and leftist conspiracy sites and read some objective history.

Fact is, the attempt to label Israel as an "apartheid state" is absurd, especially when it comes from islamists, considering that by definition every islamic country is an apartheid state. That these apartheid states accuse Israel of being one is the height of hypocrisy.

[+and-then]

394 Palestinian cities, towns, and villages were destroyed. 750,000 Palestinians became refugees.

From a biblical argument, bull.

Furthermore, the promises of the land of Canaan to Abraham and Moses were fulfilled literally in the conquest under Joshua and reached its fruition upon the Davidic Kingdom.

Those promises were conditioned on obedience to God's law and were invalidated when that law was broken and the people sent into exile.

The New Testament stressing that promises to Abraham included all nations, not only the Jews, inteprets these promises in terms of a spiritual redemption from captivity to sin, a redemption available to Gentiles as well as to Jews.

To link salvation with the destruction of another people's ancestral home is blasphemous. God is just.

And here is an excellent quote regarding the Balfour Declaration and its often misinterpretations:

"Great Britain had no sovereign rights over Palestine; it had no proprietary interest; it had no authority to dispose of the land. The Declaration was merely a statement of British intentions and no more." Sol Linowitz, American diplomat

Also, Zionists had no legal claim to Palestine because the UN Partition Plan violated Article 1 of the UN charter. That is the Article that sets forth the principle of self-determination for all peoples on Earth, including the 70% of the Palestinians who then owned 94% of the land.

The Resolution was not binding since it was not passed by the Security Council but by the General Assembly, which can only recommmend rather than legistate.

The Resolution, like the Balfour Declaration, was a product of great power machinations, orchestrated by the United States, rather than the result of political idealism.

So, in other words, both the Partition Plan and the Balfour Declaration is a steaming crock of ****.

Yet the Zionists are there. Nearly 70 years now. At what point do you think it would make sense to accept them as neighbors and try to live in peace and create some prosperity for everyone? This is a rhetorical exercise, of course. Rational people accept a fait accompli and make the best of it. Muslims can NEVER do this when the situation leaves Jews in a winning position. My guess is that at some point not too distant now the Palestinians are going to be routed from what part of the land they still possess. And it will be due to their intransigence. When people harm themselves through anger and spite they have only themselves to blame.

[Zaphod222]

The intent was never anti-Israel but to present images of Israel that most Americans and Europeans never have an opportunity to see on their televisions. It was an opportunity to present another side. The duly lollygagging of the IDF and Border Police to the active participation believe you me when that happens in the States it makes news around the world. My apologies, there was no anti-Israel intent.

That is a ridiculus claim. All of the antisemitic spam emanating from you here 100% anti-Israeli propanda.

I find it truly bizarre while in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is in the process of committing a genocide on the Egyptian Copts, our leftist conspiracists are busy lambasting..... Israel, the only state in the region where human rights are actually respected.

"Morons" would be an understatement to describe these fools who are regurgitating all the islamist propaganda they see.

[buckskin scout]

That is a ridiculus claim. All of the antisemitic spam emanating from you here 100% anti-Israeli propanda.

I find it truly bizarre while in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is in the process of committing a genocide on the Egyptian Copts, our leftist conspiracists are busy lambasting..... Israel, the only state in the region where human rights are actually respected.

"Morons" would be an understatement to describe these fools who are regurgitating all the islamist propaganda they see.

Here are three articles for you to read:

Report: Israel practicing apartheid in Palestinian territories

CATEGORY: Democracy, Governance and Service Delivery

DATE: 29 May 2009

AUTHOR: Virginia Tilley

SA academic study finds that Israel is practicing apartheid and colonialism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC) has released a study indicating that Israel is practicing both colonialism and apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The study is being posted for public debate on this website.

The interim report, which will form part of a discussion at an upcoming HSRC conference on the subject, titled Re-envisioning Israel/Palestine, on 13 and 14 June in Cape Town, serves as a document to be finalised later this year.

The HSRC commissioned an international team of scholars and practitioners of international public law from South Africa, the United Kingdom, Israel and the West Bank to conduct the study.

The resulting 300-page draft, titled Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law, represents 15 months of research and constitutes an exhaustive review of Israel's practices in the OPT according to definitions of colonialism and apartheid provided by international law. The project was suggested originally by the January 2007 report by eminent South African jurist John Dugard, in his capacity as Special Rapporteur to the United Nations Human Rights Council, when he indicated that Israel practices had assumed characteristics of colonialism and apartheid.

Regarding colonialism, the team found that Israel's policy and practices violate the prohibition on colonialism which the international community developed in the 1960s in response to the great decolonisation struggles in Africa and Asia. Israel's policy is demonstrably to fragment the West Bank and annex part of it permanently to Israel, which is the hallmark of colonialism. Israel has appropriated land and water in the OPT, merged the Palestinian economy with Israel's economy, and imposed a system of domination over Palestinians to ensure their subjugation to these measures. Through these measures, Israel has denied the indigenous population the right to self-determination and indicated clear intention to assume sovereignty over portions of its land and natural resources. Permanent annexation of territory in this fashion is the hallmark of colonialism.

Regarding apartheid, the team found that Israel's laws and policies in the OPT fit the definition of apartheid in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Israeli law conveys privileges to Jewish settlers and disadvantages Palestinians in the same territory on the basis of their respective identities, which function in this case as racialised identities in the sense provided by international law. Israel's practices are corollary to five of the six 'inhuman acts' listed by the Convention. A policy of apartheid is especially indicated by Israel's demarcation of geographic ‘reserves' in the West Bank, to which Palestinian residence is confined and which Palestinians cannot leave without a permit. The system is very similar to the policy of ‘Grand Apartheid' in apartheid South Africa, in which black South Africans were confined to black homelands delineated by the South African government, while white South Africans enjoyed freedom of movement and full civil rights in the rest of the country.

The Executive Summary of the report says that the three pillars of apartheid in South Africa are all practiced by Israel in the OPT. In South Africa, the first pillar was to demarcate the population of South Africa into racial groups, and to accord superior rights, privileges and services to the white racial group. The second pillar was to segregate the population into different geographic areas, which were allocated by law to different racial groups, and restrict passage by members of any group into the area allocated to other groups. And the third pillar was "a matrix of draconian ‘security' laws and policies that were employed to suppress any opposition to the regime and to reinforce the system of racial domination, by providing for administrative detention, torture, censorship, banning, and assassination."

The Report finds that Israeli practices in the OPT exhibit the same three 'pillars' of apartheid:

The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews".

The second pillar is reflected in "Israel's 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel's extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians".

The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group."

The research team included scholars and international lawyers based at the HSRC, the School for Oriental and African Studies (London), the British Institute for International and Comparative Law, the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal (Durban), the Adalah/Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel and al-Haq/West Bank Affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists. Consultation on the study's theory and method was provided by eminent jurists from South Africa, Israel and Europe.

The HSRC serves as the national social science council for South Africa. The Middle East Project of the HSRC is an independent two-year project to conduct analysis of Middle East politics relevant to South African foreign policy, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Government of South Africa. The analysis in this report is entirely independent of the views or foreign policy of the Government of South Africa and does not represent an official position of the HSRC. It is intended purely as a scholarly resource for the South African government and civil society and the concerned international community.

http://www.hsrc.ac.z...ian-territories

ASSESSMENT OF RESTRICTIONS ON PALESTINIAN WATER SECTOR DEVELOPMENT

The Six-Day War was forced upon us; however, the war's seventh day, which began on June 12, 1967 and has continued to this day, is the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.

The Six-Day War's seventh day has transformed us from a moral society, sure of the justice of Israel's creation, into a society that oppresses another people, preventing it from realizing its legitimate national aspirations. The Six-Day War's seventh day has transformed us from a just society into an unjust one, prepared to expand its control atop another nation's ruins. The discarding of our moral foundation has hurt us as a society, reinforcing the arguments of the world's hostile elements and sowers of evil and intensifying their influence.

The intifada is the Palestinian people's war of national liberation. Historical processes teach us that no nation is prepared to live under another's domination and that a suppressed people's war of national liberation will inevitably succeed. We understand this point but choose to ignore it. We are prepared to engage in confrontation to prevent an historical process, although we are well aware that this process is anchored in the moral justification behind every people's war of national liberation and behind its right to self-determination, and although we are well aware that this process will attain its inevitable goal.

This is the background of the difficult testimony we have received about actions of Israel Defense Forces personnel in the occupied territories. No need to repeat the details of the painful phenomena entailed in the occupation regime and in our battle to prolong it. Suffice it to recall the killing of little children fleeing for safety; the executions, without trial, of wanted persons who were not on their way to launch a terrorist act; and the encirclements, closures and roadblocks that have turned the lives of millions into a nightmare. Even if all these actions stem from our need to defend ourselves under an occupation's conditions, the occupation's non-existence would render them unnecessary. Thus, a black flag hovers over these actions.

This is a harsh reality that is causing us to lose the moral base of our existence as a free, just society and to jeopardize Israel's long-range survival. Israel's security cannot be based only on the sword; it must rather be based on our principles of moral justice and on peace with our neighbors - those living next door and those living a little further away. An occupation regime undermines those principles of moral justice and prevents the attainment of peace. Thus, that regime endangers Israel's existence.

It is against this background that one must view the refusal of IDF reservist officers and soldiers to serve in the territories. In their eyes, the occupation regime is evil and military service in the occupied territories is evil. In their eyes, military service in the occupied territories, which places soldiers in situations forcing them to commit immoral acts, is evil, and, according to their conscience, they cannot be party to such acts. Thus, their refusal to serve is an act of conscience that is justified and recognized in every democratic regime. History's verdict will be that their refusal was the act that restored our moral backbone.

http://www.haaretz.c...nth-day-1.51513

Edited August 25, 2013 by B Jenkins

[+and-then]

I think the entire region is undergoing a major transition. It will be painful but Israel will survive and thrive and probably sit on even more territory than today. If Assad becomes desperate and decides to launch on Israel to revenge the US strike that is currently being planned then a major war in the region will follow.

[Frank Merton]

I think the entire region is undergoing a major transition. It will be painful but Israel will survive and thrive and probably sit on even more territory than today. If Assad becomes desperate and decides to launch on Israel to revenge the US strike that is currently being planned then a major war in the region will follow.

I doubt that Assad is foolish enough to do that. The use of chemical weapons and then the restriction of visits until there has been enough time for the traces to clear indicates desperation, and gives NATO a reason to intervene even if Russia and China remain obdurate. I think the interference will be limited to no-fly and maybe some air strikes along with helping the Saudis provide aid. Israel would be wise to keep a low profile and respond only when something happens that requires it.

[+and-then]

I doubt that Assad is foolish enough to do that. The use of chemical weapons and then the restriction of visits until there has been enough time for the traces to clear indicates desperation, and gives NATO a reason to intervene even if Russia and China remain obdurate. I think the interference will be limited to no-fly and maybe some air strikes along with helping the Saudis provide aid. Israel would be wise to keep a low profile and respond only when something happens that requires it.

He is a survivor, so no, he wouldn't dream of it until it's his last stack of chips. That could be approaching if Oby gets too heavy handed. I worry more about how Obama might play it than Assad. Not comparing the two in any other way except experience in international gamesmanship. Assad has been playing quite a bit longer.