Israel appoints first Arab female professor in country's history

[IndianaGreen]

Let's see, an Iranian-American woman is jailed because her research on status of women in Iran is perceived as a threat to the patriarchal religious establishment. In Afghanistan, girls are blinded with acid for daring to attend school. In Somalia, a 13-year rape victim is stoned to death for violating Shariah Islamic law.

Last update - 18:13 23/11/2008

Israel appoints first Arab female professor in country's history

By Ofri Ilani, Haaretz Correspondent

The Appointments Committee of the Higher Education Council on Sunday bestowed the title of professor on Haula Abu-Bakar, a teacher and lecturer at Jezreel Valley College, making her the first ever female Israeli-Arab professor in Israel.

Dr. Abu Bakar, 53, a resident of Acre, is seen as a trailblazing figure in the study of mental health in the Arab sector, focusing on how the issues of gender, mental health and sexual violence affect the community.

Abu Bakar also authored the book "On an unpaved path", dealing with the female Arab political leaders, and "The Upright Generation", which dealt with the lives of Palestinian youths in Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1040202.html

[provis99]

1. I don't see what your introduction has to do with the newspaper topic

Muslim countries are barbaric while Israel is not? That seems to be the gist of your post.

[LeftishBrit]

3. IndianaGreen is certainly not blindly pro-Israel...

and it's an interesting and important bit of news.

[IndianaGreen]

5. My intro is very much related to the OP article

In most countries in the region, women like Haula Abu-Bakar would probably be killed or jailed by ultra-religious.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Sadly true at the moment

[BlooInBloo]

2. In one stroke, Israel has done more for Arab women's rights than Arab countries.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Good for Dr. Bakar!

Sounds like she's doing really important work. And it's really great that she got this appointment.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

8. I've been told, on here

that Israel is the most racist country on earth at the moment. That they match or beat out South Africa for implementing an apartheid system.

I wonder what those people have to say to this. But somehow I suspect they won't say anything.

[Grimm]

9. Israel is a country like any other

And like any other country, it's far too simplistic to just look at one group, say the settlers, and come to a conclusion about Israel or Israelis at a whole. In fact, given Israel's heavy proportional representation democracy, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to say there are almost too many voices wanting to pull Israel in a number of directions. Off the top of my head, some of the political conflicts in Israel these days include:

Jewish majority vs. non-Jewish rights
Orthodox power structure vs. non-Orthodox Jews
Secular vs. Religious
Settlers vs. Everyone
Ethiopian (and other minority group) Jews vs. the current political structure (e.g. Blood services refusing Ethiopian blood)

And this is without even bringing in the Palestinians, which opens up a brand new can of worms.

Just look at the original article to show how fractured the country can be. In the same article that shows the milestone achievement accomplished by Dr. Bakar, it links to an article showing that racism against Arabs is still at high levels. Ultimately, given the level of tension between all these different political groups and the shrillness of the debate that tends to be rife in the Israeli political landscape, it's unfair to only look at one group (be it the settlers or this professor) and apply it as a picture for all of Israel. I guess as an analogy, imagine if you let people claim Dubya represents all of the U.S., including DU.

Also, as a sidenote, the original commentary does no help for anyone. Israel constantly claims to be a modern first-world nation in the same vein as the U.S., Canada, U.K., etc. and should be held up against their standards. Saying Israel is just better than the Taliban is insulting to just about everyone and only gives strength to those arguing the "Israel = Apartheid" mantra.

[azurnoir]

11. Your quote

Israel constantly claims to be a modern first-world nation in the same vein as the U.S., Canada, U.K., etc. and should be held up against their standards. Saying Israel is just better than the Taliban is insulting to just about everyone and only gives strength to those arguing the "Israel = Apartheid" mantra.

On this board it the ProIsraeli posters that protest against Israel being held to the same standards as the countries you mention, when ever the term apartheid is mentioned it should be noted that term is not applied to the treatment of Israeli Arabs residing in Israel but the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territory that being thew West Bank, but if not apartheid what do you call Jews only roads and villages, not to mention government sanctioned settlements who are supported both financially to some degree and militarily by IDF guards. As for what standards some want Israel held to Darfur, Saudi Arbia, Iran, and a host of other mostly African countries are routinely brought up as examples setting the bar for Israel as low as possible

[Behind the Aegis]

12. There are no "Jews only" roads.

"On this board it the ProIsraeli posters that protest against Israel being held to the same standards as the countries you mention, when ever the term apartheid is mentioned it should be noted that term is not applied to the treatment of Israeli Arabs residing in Israel but the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territory that being thew West Bank,..."

That's down right laughable, but it goes to show you have no idea what apartheid really is.

[azurnoir]

17. Note while are no Jews only roads

on the West Bank and I knew that in princible an Israeli Arab can use the roads but I must wonder how many times they would have their papers checked and how long they would be detained while that was being done.

Also while can you try to deny apartheid tell me what would you call the policy of "Israeli" only roads?

BTW I left a spelling error just for you

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

13. There are no "Jews only" roads in Israel or the West Bank

There are, of course, roads in the West Bank that Israel does not permit Palestinians to use, but those roads can be used by Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.

[azurnoir]

15. Playing word police

My mistake albeit a conscious one, yes an Israeli Arab can in principle use the road but how many times would their identity papers be checked and rechecked?

[Behind the Aegis]

16. It is not "playing word police," it is pointing out your inaccurate remark.

"yes an Israeli Arab can in principle use the road but how many times would their identity papers be checked and rechecked?"

Got any proof? Or just making shit up and seeing what sticks?

[azurnoir]

19. Ah yeah

is this your personal brand of "fact checking" again? ie I know it to true but I'll insinuate that you are a liar anyway? go ahead I always consider the source

[Behind the Aegis]

21. So, no facts, eh?

I figured as much.

[azurnoir]

24. No, just common sense n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Seems another word to your list which needs understanding.

"Common sense," you might want to look it up as it has nothing to do with wild speculation and "guesstimates."

[azurnoir]

27. And yours are firmly based in

"it's one thing to know and another to show" something we have become familiar with in the past 8 or so years.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. And yet you can show nothing.

All you do is make allegations, provide no proof other than "you are in the know," and use ad hominems.

[eyl]

29. apartheid by definition

refers to esgregation of the basis of race. Given that Israeli Arabs can also use those roads (and you have offered no evidence beyond speculation that they would have difficulty doing so) the prohibition against Palestinians using those roads is not racial in character and thus fails the definition of apartheid.

[shaayecanaan]

34. Are there any Jews who are unable to use the road?

The Samaritans are Palestinian, speak Arabic, have lived in the West Bank for two thousand years and are culturally similar to most other Palestinians. Yet they are Jewish. Consequently, they are permitted Israeli license plates for their cars and the ability to travel through checkpoints and on Israeli-only roads.

[shira]

35. what don't you understand about ALL israelis using those roads?

ALL Israelis, regardless of race, political affiliation, original nationality, etc...can use those roads. The desperation some people have to try showing Israel is racist is pathetic and hateful. But to answer your question, I'd imagine if there were any Jews willing to live under Palestinian control in the W.Bank and they didn't have Israeli issued license plates, they would NOT be allowed to travel on the roads....just like any other W.Bank citizen without Israeli citizenship or license tags.

[azurnoir]

40. So you are claiming that Israeli Arabs or better parsed for Google

Arab citizens of Israel can travel freely between Israel and the Occupied Territories?

[eyl]

44. AFAIK yes

except for areas where Israeli citizens are forbidden to enter.

[shaayecanaan]

55. It depends

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PWvFtRx8G40

[shaayecanaan]

53. *sigh*

Lets try this again:-

1) Most Palestinian Jews are Samaritans. There are about 600 of them. They mostly live near Nablus, where they have lived for two thousand years. There are some Samaritans that moved to Israel and they mostly live in Holon.

2) The Samaritans are undoubtedly Palestinians. A seat in the Palestinian Legislative Council is reserved for Samaritans. They hold Palestinian "citizenship".

3) The Samaritans are undoubtedly Jewish. The only major religious point of difference is that they regard Mount Gerizim as the site of the temple, rather than the Temple Mount.

3) If discrimination against West Bank Residents had nothing to with religion, one would expect the Samaritans to be treated like any other resident of the West Bank.

4) This is not the case. Samaritans are given Israeli passports, Israeli license plates, and are permitted to use Israeli-only roads, even if they have never resided in Israel. Samaritans may fly out of Ben Gurion airport and return the same way.

5) Arab Israelis are also technically able to do all of these things, however, in practice Arab Israelis are frequently impeded at checkpoints.

[oberliner]

64. Nothing that you are saying has anything to do with the claim being made

The claim was that there are "Jewish only roads".

This claim is proven false by demonstrating that Non-Jewish people are permitted to use the roads.

Israeli Arabs, who are not Jewish, are permitted to use the roads.

Thus, the claim that they are "Jewish only roads" is false.

That the Samaritans can use these roads does not have anything to do with the claim.

Even if you could show that every Jew everywhere in the world can use the roads, it still would not make them "Jewish only roads" if there are non-Jews who can use them.

[eyl]

43. Wrong question

The right one is are non-Jewish Israelis allowed to use those roads - a question to which the answer, AFAIK, is "yes".

And the Samaritans generally aren't considered Jews (well, except by themselves)

[shaayecanaan]

54. No

To use an analogy:- if you were wanting to establish whether slavery was based on racism - the right question is not whether there were free blacks in America (there were), but whether there were white slaves (there were n't)

And the Samaritans generally aren't considered Jews (well, except by themselves)

The Samaritans don't call themselves Jews, as they believe themselves to be descended from the Kingdom of Israel (via Ephraim) rather than the Kingdom of Judah. Nevertheless, I think they can be roundly considered Jews by the common definition of that word.

As for the Arab Israelis, getting past checkpoints tends to be rather touch and go:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWvFtRx8G40

[eyl]

56. On the contrary

the equivalent statement to mine would be "only blacks are slaves" - the existence of white slaves would disprove that

So to map the analogy:
"are slaves"<->"can use Israeli-only roads"
"blacks"<->"Jews"
"whites"<->"Israeli Arabs"

Again - the asssertion here is "Israeli-only roads restricted to Jews". The use of those roads by Israeli Arabs disproves that assertions.

The Samaritans don't call themselves Jews, as they believe themselves to be descended from the Kingdom of Israel (via Ephraim) rather than the Kingdom of Judah. Nevertheless, I think they can be roundly considered Jews by the common definition of that word.

In what way?

As for the video, not to deny the guard was acting like a jackass, but you'll notice they did let him through (and bear in mind that there are times that checkpoints - and I can personally attest to that - are barred to Israelis).

[shaayecanaan]

60. No

the equivalent statement to mine would be "only blacks are slaves" - the existence of white slaves would disprove that

So to map the analogy:
"are slaves"<->"can use Israeli-only roads"
"blacks"<->"Jews"
"whites"<->"Israeli Arabs"

Again - the asssertion here is "Israeli-only roads restricted to Jews". The use of those roads by Israeli Arabs disproves that assertions.

No - quit fucking up my analogy. It should go something like this:-

"are slaves"<->"cannot use Israeli roads"
"blacks"<->"Arabs"
"whites"<->"Jews"

Are there white slaves, ie are there Jews who are unable to use the roads? No.

In what way ?

In the usual way. The Samaritans are descended from ancient Israel (or at least their claim to that is as good as anyone's) and they practise the Judean religion, more or less.

You may well regard them as apostate Jews but they are still Jews, in the same way that Messianic Jews may well be apostates but are still Jews.

The Levantine Christians (Copts, Maronites etc) and Samaritans used to get on quite well before the white man came. They both spoke Aramaic, you see. Samaritan Aramaic is a bit different from Syro-Aramaic though. Christians generally were well disposed to Samaritans because of the "good samaritan" story. I suppose that's what enabled them to live on the same side of the same hill for two thousand years.

BTW, "eyl" means "God" in Aramaic (Syriac). I think I asked you once whether there was any significance to that, but I don't know if you replied. I was just being friendly.

As for the Arab, I think the fact that they let him through had something to do with the camera running. I'm not positive he would have been quite so sure of himself otherwise.

[eyl]

62. How dows that apply?

using your mapping, you get

"only blacks are slaves"<->"Only Arabs cannot use Israeli-only roads".

Whether all Jews can or cannot use the roads is utterly irrelevent - again, the question is if Israeli Arabs can use the road (hence the difference between "Jew-only" and "Israeli-only"). So you have to establish that Israeli Arabs cannot use those roads, and furthermore, that they cannot use those roads while at the same time Israeli Jews can, irrespective of other considerations (as I said, there have been cases where the roads were blocked to all Israelis).

As for the Samaritans, you're assuming everyone accepts their descent. AFAIK, Jews don't consider them to be descendents of the tribe of Ephraim, but rather Assyrian transplants (the Assyrians had a policy IIRC of moving conquered populations around)

BTW, "eyl" means "God" in Aramaic (Syriac). I think I asked you once whether there was any significance to that, but I don't know if you replied. I was just being friendly.

Sorry, I must have missed your question.

No "eyl" is just a contraction for my name (Eyal) - I keep using it out of habit (my very first username, elsewhere on the Internet, was that plus some numbers)

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Just popping in with a quick question about the Samaritans...

As for the Samaritans, you're assuming everyone accepts their descent. AFAIK, Jews don't consider them to be descendents of the tribe of Ephraim, but rather Assyrian transplants (the Assyrians had a policy IIRC of moving conquered populations around)

When it comes to being Jewish and everyone accepting descent, doesn't that mean that anyone who converts to Judaism isn't considered by Jews to be Jewish? While I know that's the stance taken by some Rabbis, I'm pretty sure it's not something that is a factor when it comes to most Jews....

[eyl]

78. asdf

You're correct. But the claim here is that the Samaritans are Jews by descent, not conversion, so the status of converts has nothing to do with it.

[shaayecanaan]

70. Samaritans...

As for the Samaritans, you're assuming everyone accepts their descent. AFAIK, Jews don't consider them to be descendents of the tribe of Ephraim, but rather Assyrian transplants (the Assyrians had a policy IIRC of moving conquered populations around)

Mostly people do accept their descent. At least Israel must because they gave them Israeli passports.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says:-

The Samaritans have thus preserved the ancient type in its purity; and they are to-day the sole, though degenerate, representatives of the ancient Hebrews.

Apparently y-chromosome analysis also confirms they are of substantially Hebrew descent:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15300852

No "eyl" is just a contraction for my name (Eyal)

Really? I could have sworn you were a girl. Then again I thought that other poster was male, but she was a grandma. I thought she might have been gay too, but she wasnt. I really should stop assuming things about people.

[shaayecanaan]

71. Also, Samaritans are listed as Jews in the National ID Registry AFAIK (nt)

[eyl]

79. Israel giving them passports

does not equate them being Jews! Again, you're ignoring the existence of non-Jewish Israelis.

[Phx_Dem]

81. It depends where the Samaritans live doesn't it?

The ones in Holon would be Israeli citizens while the ones in kiryat luza eg would not.

afaik the Samaritans refer to themselves as bene yisrael but not yehudim. Mainstream Judaism considers them a sect, I would describe their beliefs as a kind of proto-judaism.

[eyl]

89. AFAIK

all of them have Israeli citizenship.

[shaayecanaan]

91. Afaik?

afaik the Samaritans refer to themselves as bene yisrael but not yehudim.

As far as Wikipedia knows, more like...

[Phx_Dem]

92. So what's your point?

The fact is that border crossing restrictions exist in the territories for non-Israelis due to the ongoing security concerns in Israel, whether one is a Samaritan or not has nothing to do with it.

If your interested in actual apartheid roads in the region you can find those in Saudi Arabia not Israel.

[shaayecanaan]

90. Jesus, did you get stood up by a Samaritan girl or something?

As I said above, AFAIK they are listed as Jews in the National ID registry. Most people accept they are of Hebrew descent. As far as them being "Israelites" rather than "Jews" I would imagine that falashas are in the same boat, being descended from one of the ten lost tribes.

You can accuse Samaritans of being descended from Assyrians, but then again they can just as easily accuse you of being descended from Khazar Turks (Im assuming you're Ashkenazi). There are very few people who can point to their pedigree with any degree of certainty, and its generally considered rude to impugn someone else's.

[azurnoir]

41. Defination of apartheid once again

apartheid
One entry found.


Main Entry:
apart·heid Listen to the pronunciation of apartheid Listen to the pronunciation of apartheid
Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈpär-ˌtāt, -ˌtīt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Afrikaans, from apart apart + -heid -hood
Date:
1947

1: racial segregation ; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
2: separation , segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

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

[eyl]

45. I was using the international law definition

and your definition 2 would make almost any form of discrimination apartheid, which is ridiculous

[azurnoir]

48. Another defination and the commonly used loophole

On 30 November 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA)<2> It defined the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."

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

Now it does not say that to be "apartheid" it must parallel the South African form and the word it self is Afrikaans and means "aparthood" a term that could be applied to almost any form of discrimination, including the laws concerning women in hardline Muslim countries

I always find it laughable when Israel's promoters resort to citing International Law because that law is called "imaginary" whenit suits which is far more often than not and then cited in a protectionist way when it can be used in Israel's favor a double standard indeed.

The loophole here is that there are those who claim that what Israel does to Palestinians can not be called racism, because there are Sephardic and African Jews not to mention Israeli Arabs who are either Muslim or Christian that we all know experience absolutely not a whit of discrimination in Israel

[pelsar]

69. i always find it laughable.....

when one tries so so hard to find israel guilty of so many crimes, including racism....admits that what israel does against the Palestinians cannot be called racism...and then declares it really should be racism....even if its not (those damn jews from arab countries ruin the thesis.....)

[Lithos]

72. You have to admit though it is complicated

Before I comment further, I personally agree that apartheid, especially as practiced in South Africa, does not apply. This term is foreign to the equation and seems more designed for Western audiences. I think part of the problem is that people view the settlers as part and parcel to Israel, which they are not.

I've looked at the language between the two groups. The language of the Palestinians is to call these settlers foreigners, or colonies - mustawtanaat. But, the Israeli term is hitnakhluyot which on the surface has some relationship with the notion of "inheritors of the land", but which I gather is "loaded" in both primary and secondary meaning. While at times the tactics seems rather similar to that of classical colonialism (which is not apartheid), the nature of the settlers seems to avoid any interaction with Palestinians muddies the use of this type of language. Colonialism implies economics which is most certainly not the case in the West Bank.

Question for you, how would you describe the practical relationship between the Settlers and the Palestinians? Apartheid doesn't fit because it was first and foremost a mechanism for economic racism which doesn't fit. A non South African example of apartheid would be sharecropping in the US South for the first part of the 20th Century, an economic model which doesn't exist in the West Bank.


On Edit: Grammar.

[pelsar]

73. My take on the settlers and the Palestinians...

i would call it religious based racism...we have it in all forms...settlers (and all religious groups) are racist by nature. After the Palestinians, the extremist settlers dont accept the Christians, the homosexual, secular, etc We see the same with my favorite Rabbi calling non religious teachers "asses" non religious soldiers "cowards" etc.
My "protest" is that israeli society as a whole, which is secular, looks upon the Palestinians as a security threat...which is based on nationalism and not religion, color of the skin etc. There in lies the major difference. Apartheid or a racist based system has nothing to do with the actions of the group, but their mere existence as being the problem. The second the security threat is no longer existent....then all of the barriers are removed and the "racist apartheid system" is no longer (as it used to be). The extremists settlers dont have a "temporary problem" with the Palestinians....

The character of the security checks is one of security that singles out a nationality that in the past has shown a much higher percentage of attempts to kill israelis and jews than any other group in the world.....it is called profiling and its been proved over and over again to be an integral part of our own security.

And the Palestinians as racists?....i actually wouldnt know how much of their society is against jews vs israelis....as the two are intertwined within the language (seen during the many interviews with Palestinians).

[eyl]

80. The relationship between settlers and Palestinians varies

with time and place.

While people not familiar with them often consider the settlers shown in the news to be representative of all of them, the settler movement is actually quite varied. For example, the residents of the Jordan Valley settlements tend to be much more moderate than the rabid nuts around Nablus. Prior to the intifada (and even after, to a lesser degree), a fair number of Palestinians worked in the settlements.

[HamdenRice]

97. I don't think you have a very accurate picture of apartheid

The reason that the claim, that Israel's practices are similar or worse than the apartheid practices of South Africa, is that South Africans themselves, who are experts in apartheid have said so.

John Dugard, South Africa's greatest legal expert on apartheid, was appointed as the head of a UN Human Rights Commission that studied Israeli practices, and showed conclusively that Israel is practicing something very much like apartheid, but worse in its effects.

Other South Africans who have studied the issue closely have come to the same conclusion.

As an African American who lived in South Africa during the apartheid years, I would agree with the South Africans. But don't take my word for it; John Dugard is the world's foremost authority, and he says so.

[oberliner]

99. Other South Africans who are experts in apartheid do not agree

Especially someone like Benjamin Pogrund, who has lived in both South Africa and Israel.

Bio:

Benjamin Pogrund was born in South Africa and was deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail in Johannesburg.

He is the author of books on Robert Sobukwe, Nelson Mandela and the press under apartheid. He has lived in Israel for more than ten years and is founder of Yakar's Centre for Social Concern in Jerusalem, which encourages dialogue across political and ethnic lines.

He writes:

The labeling is wrong because the situations are entirely different.

You can read his entire piece at Ha'aretz:

Catastrophic, but not apartheid

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/980074.html

[HamdenRice]

100. He wasn't an expert on apartheid; plus he's not unbiased.

Dugard was the country's leading expert on apartheid. He wrote the masterpiece, "Apartheid and the South African Legal Order," and then developed the litigation strategy to dismantle it.

Dugard, although white, is the Thurgood Marshall of South African history. He's also a neutral outside observer.

Benjamin Pogrund, having left SA for Israel, obviously has certain ideological commitments to Israel which would lead to bias.

Having read the linked article it seems he begs a lot of questions and defines a lot of similarities out of bounds, such as issues of racial ideology. I'm sure he's a well meaning person who is not racist, but he seems to be imputing his own non-racist beliefs to the Israeli system and the ideology of the people who create, settle and police the West Bank, whose beliefs are states for all to see and hear. By the same token, I could argue that many white South Africans, including people who ran the South African government and even the homelands system were not personally racist.

The point of South African experts comparing Israeli policy to apartheid is precisely that they are neither Israelis nor Palestinians, and therefore are objective outside observers.

When Dugard (or Bishop Tutu or Carter) call the Israeli system apartheid, the entire value of their analysis comes from the fact that they are neither Israeli nor Palestinian.

[oberliner]

101. Inside Apartheid: The Benjamin Pogrund Collection of Southern Africa Materials

Historical evidence is a frequent casualty of turbulent times. Documents that might enable historians to chronicle the events and actors in periods of war, insurgency, and political upheaval are too often lost or destroyed through oversight or deliberate action. During the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, journalist Benjamin Pogrund worked tirelessly and at great personal risk with the Cooperative Africana Microform Project (CAMP) at the Center for Research Libraries to ensure the survival of thousands of documents of the period.

Benjamin Pogrund was a journalist and editor for the Rand Daily Mail in Johannesburg, South Africa from 1958 until its closing in 1985. Working with a series of visionary editors, Pogrund helped transform the Mail from a publication of the privileged class into an impartial daily that covered all sides of the news during the apartheid era. Because the Mail publicized anti-apartheid activities, the government attempted to suppress the paper, put Pogrund on trial several times, and imprisoned him once.

http://www.crl.edu/FocusArticles/Inside_Apartheid.htm

I do not see how you can claim that Benjamin Pogrund is not an expert on the subject of South African apartheid. In addition to the work cited above, he has written books on Robert Sobukwe, Nelson Mandela and the South African press under apartheid.

[HamdenRice]

102. Completely off point. Dugard is neither an Israeli nor Palestinian

As for the claim he was an expert in apartheid, all South Africans knew something about apartheid, but some knew more than others. Dugard knew more than Pogrund. Ever read/seen the film adaptation of "Cry Freedom"? Donald Woods was also an anti-apartheid newspaper editor who had the honesty to admit that because of the way South African life was segregated, he knew almost nothing about how apartheid actually operated in the lives of black people. Dugard, however, did.

Also, everything you cite about him has these glaring factual errors that make me question the veracity of the source. The Daily Mail was owned by the mines and then by Anglo American, South Africa's biggest mining corporation, so I'm not sure I would call it an outright anti-apartheid newspaper. It didn't shut down in 1985; Anglo said it was going to shut it down, and it was instead sold to a cooperative and became the Weekly Mail, which I read every week. It eventually became the Mail & Guardian and is still published. All these errors are quite questionable

But the main point is that he has ideological commitments to one side or the other.

Is there a South African expert in South Africa who is neither an Israeli nor a Palestinian who thinks that Israeli policy toward the Palestinians is not comparable to apartheid? If so, please provide that information.

Moreover, as an African American who lived in apartheid South Africa for two years, I can tell you from first hand experience of one of those situations that what is going on in the West Bank and Gaza is much, much worse than what happened under apartheid. That's why I trust Dugard's, Bishop Tutu's and President Carter's judgment.

[oberliner]

103. With all due respect, you wrote as your subject line "He wasn't an expert on apartheid"

Therefore, I do not see how you can say what I wrote was "completely off point" as it was a direct response to your claim that Pogrund was not an expert on apartheid.

One online encyclopedia entry begins this way:

Benjamin Pogrund is a South African-born Apartheid expert currently living in Israel.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Benjamin-Pogrund

About the site: NationMaster is a vast compilation of data from such sources as the CIA World Factbook, UN, and OECD.

I do believe that the various pieces of evidence that I included in my last piece ought to provide enough support for the claim that Benjamin Pogrund is, indeed, an expert on South African apartheid.

As to your claim that everything I cite about him has "glaring factual errors" that make you question the veracity of the source, allow me to provide additional evidence in support of what I have claimed that I hope will illustrate that everything I cite about him does not, in fact, have glaring factual errors.

The source of the paragraph about Pogrund and The Rand Daily Mail is The Center for Research Libraries:

The Center for Research Libraries (CRL) is a consortium of North American universities, colleges and independent research libraries. The consortium acquires and preserves newspapers, journals, documents, archives and other traditional and digital resources for research and teaching. These resources are then made available to member institutions cooperatively, through interlibrary loan and electronic delivery.

http://www.crl.edu/content.asp?l1=1

You dispute their information and claim: "It didn't shut down in 1985"

Here are some other sources that state The Rand Daily Mail did, in fact, shut down in 1985:

former English-language newspaper published in Johannesburg. It crusaded against South Africa’s racial segregation but, because of financial losses, ceased publication in 1985.

Encyclopedia Brittanica entry for The Rand Daily Mail: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/490998/Rand-Daily-Mail

Just 20 years ago, the Anglo American Corporation closed the Rand Daily Mail, leaving behind a trail of sacked editors and loyal journalists and readers who even now express their sorrow at its departure.

From an article from The Helen Suzman Foundation website: http://www.hsf.org.za/publications/focus-issues/issues-31-40/issue-39/the-rand-daily-mail-convenient-scapegoat

Here's a selection from the book, "A Culture of Censorship: Secrecy and Intellectual Repression in South Africa" by Christopher Merrett

On 30 April 1985 the Rand Daily Mail ceased publication, an event heralded by the government as a step towards 'consensual politics'. (p88)

http://books.google.com/books?id=C_ME-s1UJPcC&dq=isbn:0865544557

From the University of North Carolina's website announcing Allister Sparks' being hired as a professor there:

Sparks was dismissed as editor in 1981 after the newspaper company’s board of directors decided to make the paper appeal more to the country’s affluent white community and less to poorer blacks. Subsequently, the venture failed, and the paper was closed in 1985.

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/aug01/sparks081501.htm

And from The Mail & Guardian Online's website:

Mail & Guardian newspaper
The Mail & Guardian was conceived, funded and launched in just six weeks in early 1985, by a group of journalists who had been retrenched after the closures of two of South Africa's leading liberal newspapers, the Rand Daily Mail and Sunday Express.

The paper, originally known as the Weekly Mail, was launched on a shoe-string budget of R50 000 (about $10 000), and relied for its survival on the sweated -- and often unpaid -- labour of a small staff and part-time volunteers.

http://www.mg.co.za/page/history

I do believe that I have provided sufficient documentation to support the claim that the Rand Daily Mail did shut down in 1985.

You do not identify what any other "glaring factual errors" that you claim could be found in everything that I cited about him.

The other things that I cited about him were the years that he worked for the Rand Daily Mail and that he wrote books about Robert Sobukwe, Nelson Mandela and the South African press under apartheid.

Here is more detailed information including the ISBN numbers for his books:

Sobukwe and Apartheid
By Benjamin Pogrund
Published by Jonathan Ball Publishers, 1990
ISBN 0947464204, 9780947464202

Nelson Mandela: Strength and Spirit of a Free South Africa
By Benjamin Pogrund
Published by G. Stevens Pub., 1992
ISBN 0836803574, 9780836803570

(Please note that this book is aimed at children/young adults)

War of Words: Memoir of a South African Journalist
By Benjamin Pogrund, Harold Evans
Contributor Harold Evans
Published by Seven Stories Press, 2000
ISBN 1888363711, 9781888363715

(This book also indicates the years in which Pogrund worked for that newspaper)

I would respectfully ask you to take back your assertion that "everything I cite about him has glaring factual errors".

[HamdenRice]

104. Provide an example of a South African apartheid expert who is neither Israeli nor Palestinian

who would disagree with the assertion that Israeli policy in the West Bank and Gaza is comparable to, but worse than, apartheid. That's the issue.

Can you?

No?

That's because it is obvious to any South African with experience of apartheid that what Israel is doing is comparable to, but worse than, what South Africa did to its African population.

As for the other issues, you raise, it is a classic tactic of time wasters to want to go down an infinite number of dead end minor topic pathways. The issue is whether Israeli policy in the West Bank and Gaza can be described accurately as like apartheid, but worse.

It can.

Now, for a brief disposal of your ridiculous side issues. Nina Totenburg is a journalist who covers the Supreme Court. On one superficial level you could call her an expert on Supreme Court jurisprudence. Lawyers like David Bois regularly argue cases before the Supreme Court. In the context of a discussion of people like David Bois, only an idiot would call Nina Totenburg an expert in Supreme Court jurisprudence. In the context of the expertise of Dugard and Tutu, Pogrund is not an expert.

Moreover, Pogrund migrated to Israel. He obviously has ideological commitments that cloud his objectivity. Similarly, a Palestinian's objectivity could be questioned. But South African experts who are neither Israelis nor Palestinians agree that Israel is practicing apartheid.

Lastly, the biographical material you provided is full of self-contradictions and factual errors that make me doubt the veracity of Pogrund, who seems to be a well meaning fellow who nevertheless sees fit to exaggerate his own background in order to make himself credible. Instead for me, it makes him less credible.

That material includes the phrase, "Because the Mail publicized anti-apartheid activities, the government attempted to suppress the paper," suggesting the paper was "suppressed." The paper closed over a tawdry business deal: the South African government was introducing pay tv to South Africa in the form of M-Net, when the Mail was owned by the South African mining multinational Anglo American (hardly revolutionaries there), so the government said, we'll give you M-Net if you shut the Mail, which they did. The Weekly Mail staff purchased some of its assets including its name, which is what any rational businessman would call, continued under new ownership. The various cites you provide are full of contradictions, saying that the Mail was aimed at Blacks, then that it was aimed at affluent Whites. Both claims can't be true. So I don't put much faith in any of it.

That said, I won't debate these side issues. The issue is whether Israeli policy in the Palestinian areas is comparable to, but worse than apartheid. I saw apartheid in person, and I can say as bad as it was, as horribly as the South African government treated its black people, it was not as horrible as the way Israel is treating the Palestinians.

[oberliner]

107. So you are not going take back your claim that everything I cited had glaring factual errors?

I don't know what the source of your information about the Rand Daily Mail is as you have provided no citations, but I do believe that I have demonstrated that the paper shut down in 1985. Do you still dispute that?

If you do not dispute that, can you tell me what the "glaring factual errors" were in my post?

In the context of your claim not to wish to debate side issues, I'm not sure what the purpose of the Nina Totenberg analogy was other than to imply that I am idiot.

If after reading Pogrund's book (or even just some of the free excerpts available online) you do not think that he is capable of making an intelligent determination as to what constitutes apartheid then I would be quite surprised.

I'm not sure how claiming that The Rand Daily Mail was aimed both at blacks and affluent whites is a contradiction that makes you question everything about Pogrund's credibility. Almost wherever the newspaper is mentioned, it is said to be one of the few apartheid-era publications that reached both black and white audiences.

I'm also not sure how you know more about this newspaper than someone who worked there for almost thirty years.

You mention that you lived for some time in South Africa under apartheid. Have you also lived in the West Bank and/or Gaza? If not, how are you able to compare the two situations if you have only lived under one of them?

[oberliner]

109. How about Rhoda Kadalie?

Rhoda Khadalie

Executive Director, Impumelelo

Prior to joining Impumelelo, Ms Kadalie was a Human Rights Commissioner responsible for the Western Cape and Northern Cape, an academic and founder of the Gender Equity Unit at the University of the Western Cape. Ms Kadalie has travelled extensively internationally, presenting lectures and papers on human rights and gender politics in South Africa.

http://www.impumelelo.org.za/about_staff.php

About Impumelelo:

The Impumelelo Innovations Award Trust rewards exceptional projects, which involve partnerships with the public sector that enhance the quality of life of poor communities in innovative ways. Approximately R1 million is distributed annually to the most exceptional award winning poverty reduction projects.

http://www.impumelelo.org.za/about_fs.htm

Excerpt from her article on the subject:

A False Analogy

One reason is that the equivalence simply isn't true. Israel is not an apartheid state. Israel's human rights record in the occupied territories, its settlement policy, and its firm responses to terror may sometimes warrant criticism. And Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself recently warned that Israel could face an apartheid-style struggle if it did not reach a deal with the Palestinians and end the occupation in the West Bank.<8>

But racism and discrimination do not form the rationale for Israel's policies and actions. Arab citizens of Israel can vote and serve in the Knesset; black South Africans could not vote until 1994.<9> There are no laws in Israel that discriminate against Arab citizens or separate them from Jews. Unlike the United Kingdom, Greece, and Norway, Israel has no state religion, and it recognizes Arabic as one of its official languages.

Whereas apartheid was established through a series of oppressive laws that governed which park benches we could sit on, where we could go to school, which areas we were allowed to live in, and even whom we could marry, Israel was founded upon a liberal and inclusive Declaration of Independence. South Africa had a job reservation policy for white people; Israel has adopted pro-Arab affirmative action measures in some sectors.

Israeli schools, universities and hospitals make no distinction between Jews and Arabs. An Arab citizen who brings a case before an Israeli court will have that case decided on the basis of merit, not ethnicity. This was never the case for blacks under apartheid. Moreover, Israel respects freedom of speech and human rights. Its newspapers are far more independent, outspoken, and critical of the government than our newspapers in present-day, post-apartheid South Africa, let alone those of old.

http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/franchising-%25E2%2580%259Capartheid%25E2%2580%259D%253A-why-south-africans-push-the-analogy.html

[HamdenRice]

112. She seems like a very nice lady, but hardly a Nobel Prize winner

I respect that she has her opinion and is the head of a modest human rights organization in Cape Town.

I should note, however, that Ms. Kadalie did not enter the human rights field until after apartheid ended, before which she was a university lecturer in anthropology.

Dugard was the country's main strategist for understanding and dismantling apartheid from the 1970s onward when apartheid was at its height. As mentioned earlier, because of his masterwork of scholarship, "Apartheid and the South African Legal Order," and his creation of a legal strategy to defeat apartheid, and his implementing that strategy by founding the country's most important public interest law firm -- in other words because of his stature as South Africa's Thurgood Marshall -- as well as his investigation of Israel as a United Nations rapporteur, I am much more persuaded by his opinion than Ms. Kadile's.

Bishop Tutu, who also says that Israel is practicing apartheid, won the Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-apartheid efforts. In this country he is mainly known as a speaker, but his work that won him a Nobel Prize involved setting up community organizations all across South Africa under the South African Council of Churches to resist the implementation of apartheid and assist communities -- to "gum up the works" very much along the lines pioneered by Dugard. His understanding of apartheid was national in scope and depth. If Dugard was the Thurgood Marshall of South Africa, then Tutu was South Africa's Martin Luther King, the SACC operating much like King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Jimmy Carter is also a Nobel Peace Prize winner with extensive experience in international comparative human rights. He also says that Israel is practicing apartheid.

So while I respect Ms. Kadalie's opinion, given my own first hand experience of apartheid and the judgment of these three world historical figures, two of them Nobel Peace Prize winners, I think it's clear that Israel's policies are comparable to, but worse than, apartheid.

[oberliner]

105. In response to your other points

First, I would encourage you to read Benjamin Pogrund's book, War of Words, much of which is available for free online at Google Books. I think that you would agree that Pogrund knew quite a bit about how apartheid operated in the lives of black people.

John Dugard calls himself "an observer on the fringes of the dramatic events concerning human rights in South Africa".

http://www.chr.up.ac.za/about/dugard.lecture.doc

I think that both these men can claim to have a considerable amount of knowledge about South African apartheid. Of course, neither had to suffer under its restrictions as they were both white.

You are certainly free to theorize that Pogrund may have "ideological commitments" that may influence his perception of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. However, it is also fair to claim that John Dugard is similarly saddled with such "ideological commitments." You will note that he has been mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council specifically to document human rights violations by Israel against the Palestinians, and not vice versa. This Council has been criticized by many, including Human Rights Watch, for having some biases of its own.

In any case, I think you would agree that no one is entirely neutral and free from bias. I hope that you would accept that both of these men's opinions on the subject are worthy of consideration.

As for South Africans who are neither Israeli or Palestinian, how about South Africa's current Chief Rabbi, Warren Goldstein. He received a Ph.D. in constitutional law from the University of the Witwatersrand, the same place where John Dugard used to teach.

President Mbeki said of Rabbi Goldstein:

"Indeed, we are blessed to have a Chief Rabbi who is a formidable Torah scholar whose doctorate is in human rights and constitutional law, including that of our own Constitution."

http://www.southafrica.info/what_happening/news/chiefrabbi-04045.htm

Rabbi Goldstein wrote the following article in The Times in August of this year:

Israel does not have apartheid

Excerpt:

These accusations defame the Jewish state, and also diminish the victims of the real apartheid — the men, women and children of our beloved South Africa — who suffered for centuries under arrogant, heartless colonialism, and then for decades under the brutal apartheid policies of racial superiority, oppression and separation inflicted by the National Party. If everything is apartheid, then nothing is apartheid.

In Israel, all citizens — Jew and Arab alike — are equal before the law. Israel has none of the apartheid legislative machinery devised to discriminate against and separate people. It has no Population Registration Act, no Group Areas Act, no Mixed Marriages and Immorality Act, no Separate Representation of Voters Act, no Separate Amenities Act, no pass laws or any of the other myriad apartheid laws.

http://www.thetimes.co.za/article.aspx?id=814070

[HamdenRice]

106. How about a South African who has no emotional commitments to Israel or Palestine?

The point is, we can "trade" experts all night. Both Pogrund and Goldstein are likely to be biased because, not surprisingly, they have an emotional commitment to Israel.

Dugard isn't biased. I realize that to you, I'm just an anonymous internet poster, but I met Dugard several times, and as a consultant, reviewed over several years, his grants from US based human rights organizations. He was extremely even-handed even within South Africa during apartheid. He's in a different category from partisans of any positions.

While journalists like Porgrund wrote about apartheid, Dugard read through all the laws (the stack of statutes governing apartheid was said to be six or seven feet high), then founded the equivalent of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund of SA (the Legal Resources Center) and then litigated cases that pretty much ended apartheid even before the democratic transition. His cases ran from thousands of routine pass law cases to impact litigation that changed the law. There's pretty much no one in his league of expertise on apartheid except maybe Constitutional Court Justice Arthur Chaskalson. He knew everything about apartheid. Comparing Dugard to Pogrund is essentially very, very silly.

If Dugard, as well as Tutu and Carter, say Israel is practicing apartheid, well, Israel is practicing apartheid.

Plus, I was there, on and off from 1986 till 2000. I have published articles about apartheid. I know very well what was happening in South Africa, and what Israel is doing is comparable but much, much worse.

That's the issue. Israeli policy is indeed worse than apartheid.

[oberliner]

108. Have you ever lived in Israel or the West Bank or Gaza?

If you have not, I do not see how you can make the claim that what Israel is doing is "much much worse" than what happened in South Africa.

There are people, like Benjamin Pogrund for instance, who have lived in South Africa and Israel and have not reached that same conclusion.

I have not met Dugard, and I will certainly defer to you regarding his credentials.

The only claim that I am making is that other South Africans who are experts in apartheid do not agree with his comparison.

You continue to be dismissive about Pogrund, however this is a man who had a long-standing and deep friendship with Robert Sobukwe. Yale University has a collection entitled "The Pogrund Papers" that document this relationship and some of the other work that Benjamin Pogrund did in the struggle against apartheid.

Pogrund himself was jailed for violating those apartheid laws.

[pelsar]

110. would love some examples...

of how israeli policy is "worse than apartheid"....

and btw is there a difference between Arab israelis and Palestinians?.....just to clarify before you get stated on those examples.....

[HamdenRice]

111. Sure

One part of my job in South Africa in 1988-89 was driving around the homelands collecting data with black South Africans. We drove all around Bophutatswana, above all, but also around KaNgane and KwaZulu (Zululand). There were no restrictions on the movement of people, goods and services in, through and out of the homelands. There was never anything like the quarantine of Gaza imposed ever on any homeland or township. There were security perimeters during maximum unrest and a few checkpoints, but absolutely nothing like what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza. In two years of driving all over South Africa and the homelands, I only met three checkpoints, all three only temporarily thrown up in the wake of "terrorist" incidents, and two of them near international borders (Botswana and Zimbabwe), and one in the middle of downtown Pretoria. All took about a minute to get through.

South Africans had restrictions on residency, not on travel or the movement of goods and people. There were generally no checkpoints, no separate roads, no "wall", no highways plowed up to prevent movement, etc.

The effective right to movement of people and goods within and throughout the country, including within and between the homelands and between "South Africa" and the homelands, is the single most striking difference between the Black South African and Palestinian situation, and the most troubling way in which the situation of the Palestinians is much worse. Nothing like what is happening to Gaza ever happened to a South African Black area. That example alone pretty much proves that Israeli actions toward the Palestinians is far harsher than South African policy toward Black South Africa.

Another big difference is that South Africa never deployed heavy firepower against the Black population. Never once did South Africa use an attack helicopter or fighter bomber against its Black civilian population. South Africa never fired a tank round or missile at a target in a South African civilian population area. South Africa deployed its army primarily against the Angolan military and against liberation movements based in neighboring African states. It primary force for repression was the South African Police. While the SAP were brutal, they were never provided with the firepower (which was limited to small arms) that Israel deploys against civilian populations. During periods of maximum unrest, SA did deploy the army in townships, but the army was so well disciplined that the Black population preferred it to the police, and during many periods of maximum unrest, one of the demands of Black leaders was that the government withdraw the police and deploy the South African Defense Force in the townships. Hence an operation like the Israeli operation in Jenine was unimaginable in South Africa.

I think a third way that Israeli policy is much more devastating than apartheid is related to basic social conditions and goes to the ideology of apartheid. Apartheid was an incredibly complicated system that was developed for many conflicting reasons. Even today, one of the recent books from SA on apartheid starts out by saying that we still don't understand why apartheid was implemented. If you put five South African historians in a room and ask what was apartheid and why was it implemented, you would get at least five different answers -- or more likely ten, because most historians believe apartheid had multiple causes.

That said, there was a Department of Cooperation and Development (later Department of Constitutional Development) that was mainly in charge of "grand apartheid," namely building the homelands and "developing" the African population toward "independence" and "statehood." In the wake of the Soweto uprising, a group of reformers were put in charge of DCD, called the "verligtes" (enlightened). They wanted to follow the original Tomlinson Commmission Report to massively invest in the homelands to actually try to create ten separate developed nations. (To give you a sense of the demented sense of mission the verligtes had, the leader of this faction, Gerrit Viljoen, revealed right after majority rule was achieved in 1994, that he had a long term Coloured mistress, and he then divorced his white wife and married the Coloured woman.) In this respect for this ideological group that "captured" DCD, apartheid was one of the big world systems competing to see who produced the best development and best outcomes for the population, so they poured money into things like health care and education. The OP is about the first Israeli Arab woman professor, but by the 1980s, DCD had helped establish or expand funding for dozens of universities and technikons in Black areas, where there were hundreds of African professors, including women. Apartheid produced immense poverty and suffering, but nothing like the collapse of living standards in the West Bank and Gaza being experienced today. African living standards in urban areas were increasingly, not decreasing, during the late apartheid era.

Closely related to this "development" model of apartheid and very different from the Israeli attitude toward Palestinians, was the fundamental orientation of White and Black South Africans toward each other. There was always a White majority within the urban areas that wanted to end apartheid. None of the major South African cities (Joburg, Cape Town, Durban) voluntarily voted to implement apartheid (it was forced on them) and none elected a National Party majority on their city councils. The major White universities struggled against apartheid and managed to maintain Black faculty (again, compare to the OP). Whites and Blacks did not generally see each other as "enemies." They saw themselves as groups with different, unequal rights that had to be accommodated in some kind of political system. The had a violent conflict over what kind of system, but I don't think they had the kind of zero sum thinking and hatred toward each other that characterizes the Israeli attitude toward Palestinians. I will grant that that Israelis and Palestinians both have a hatred toward each other that the majority of South Africans did not have; but the Israelis have overwhelming firepower and complete control over the movement of goods and services, and individual Israeli soldiers have the power to express their hatred through personal degradations and humiliations, such that the hatred of one side is massively murderous at this point.

As for your last question, of course there's a difference between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. But South Africa had several groups whose positions were very similar to the positions of Israeli Arabs -- Coloureds, Indians and Africans with "Section 10 rights." Coloureds and Indians had representation in Parliament and Africans with Section 10 rights had completely different life experiences from those without Section 10 rights, and much of the government's doomed political reform project of the 1980s was premised on giving the vote to Africans with Section 10 rights full voting rights.

[pelsar]

113. now you get to explain.....

As for your last question, of course there's a difference between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. But South Africa had several groups whose positions were very similar to the positions of Israeli Arabs -- Coloureds, Indians and Africans with "Section 10 rights."

so please explain about the "limited rights" of the Arab israeli citizens living in israel as per the "section 10 rights"

oh..and do some research about israeli arab rights and where they live and work (include those in tel aviv) before writing...im sure your imagination will be most enlightening..

[HamdenRice]

114. Please respond to the body of the post

The main points were:

1. Restrictions on movement in Israel/Palestine are much more severe.

2. South Africa never used military firepower against civilians. Israel does.

3. Development indexes regarding standard of living actually improved for most Black South Africans during late apartheid.

4. Less "hatred" implemented as policy.

Can you address the main points rather than the subsidiary point about Section 10 rights? Because it seems to me a problem with this forum is that posters generally avoid the main issues others present and tend to go down long rabbit holes of side issues.

[pelsar]

115. its easier to dispel you argument one step at a time.....

section 10 is not a subsidy point....its actually the foundation to dispel the apartheid thesis.

start with, as i understand your basis, that arab israelis are discriminated against on an institutional basis.......(this section 10 rights)
_____

its goes like this: (i'll help) after its clarified that israel infact does not discriminate on an institutional basis and in that arab israelis are part and parcel of israeli life, the "apartheid" theory of hatred for arabs or muslims goes down the drain....(I'll save you some time: there is no "section 10 rights, arabs israelis serve on the supreme court, in commando units, as professors, live in tel aviv, and other major cities etc)

that leaves you with discrimination based on nationality...i.e Palestinians. From there we go back a few years to pre oslo where the Palestinians had almost no restrictions on movement within israel (simple irregular security checks for non citizens)...and that destroys the apartheid argument based on mere nationality....

then we move ahead in time to the suicide bombers.....and thats when the checkposts went up, and travel restrictions were slowly put in place which then helped stop the busses from being blown up....so in the end the conclusion is that the wall, checkpoints and other restrictions etc are based primarily on national security issues and not skin color or other racial features....

and since they are there, as history has shown because of security issues, when the security issues are no longer relevant so to will the checkpoints etc no longer be relevant....that kind of destroys the "apartheid/hate" theory. And its based on actual historical events-history is your friend, study it

___________
that leaves you with helicopter attacks by the IDF, the use of armor etc.....and your complaint is that never happened in S.Africa.....so how many RPGs did the blacks of South Africa shoot?..how many 100kg land mines did they plant?...how many missiles did they shoot? How many ambushes were planned and executed against civilians and the army?

[HamdenRice]

116. In other words, you agree that Israeli policy is worse than apartheid. Thanks!

I'll put aside all the Section 10 stuff. It is perfectly irrelevant, and was only mentioned as an analogy to Israeli Arabs. Everything you wrote about it is irrelevant to the main issue: Has Israeli policy created conditions that are worse than conditions created for Black South Africans by apartheid.

The answer is yes, and in your last paragraph you seem to be agreeing. That's because you shifted from an argument based on Israeli policy not being comparable to apartheid to one justifying how bad it is, based on the perceived threat. That seems to mean you concede the point that Israeli policy is indeed worse than apartheid, and you would like to argue why it is justified.

I don't really care, however, about the issue of military justification. My only question is: Are conditions worse than apartheid.

A state power that has assumed responsibility over a population never has justification for engaging in the conduct practiced by South Africa or Israel because of the actions of armed groups.

South African delegation after delegation to Israel and South African expert after expert has concluded that Israel's policies are worse than apartheid. One of the reasons they cite is Israel's use of military firepower against civilian areas -- something South Africa never did. Another is the restrictions on the movement of people and goods and services.

That said, the ANC did indeed infiltrate South Africa through its armed wing, Mkhonto we Sizwe (MK). Recall that Nelson Mandela was arrested and convicted of carrying out "terrorist" acts such as planning the bombing of infrastructure. There were border skirmishes and many mines were planted by the ANC from the 1970s onward. There were huge bombings in Johannesburg and Cape Town. By the early 1990s, there were thousands of armed combatants inside South Africa, and more people were killed in the civil war preceding the 1994 elections than were killed in the civil war in Yugoslavia.

However, what the ANC did and what the Palestinians do is irrelevant to the question of whether Israel's practices are worse than South Africa's.

Thanks for being open minded and agreeing that they are.

[pelsar]

117. war is worse than apartheid... i agree with that 100%

What the US forces did in Germany, Japan, Iraq....what russia did to germany, east europe...what the arabs attempted in 48...what the Palestinians attempted in the 90's are all worse than apartheid....but its not apartheid and cant be compared to S.Africa-which is what your trying to do.

war is alway worse than apartheid.......

----

but this is the classic: its takes away the responsibility for ones actions
However, what the ANC did and what the Palestinians do is irrelevant to the question of whether Israel's practices are worse than South Africa's.

S. Africas apartheid simply has no relevance here....

israels reactions are in direct response to the actions of the Palestinians....to assume that what they have done and what they are trying to do has no bearing on the israeli reactions is absurd....but i admit, if one is trying to blame israel for the situation then it is the only way of doing it....pretending that whatever the Palestinians do has no relevence...(you wrote perceive threat..what part of busses blowing up is "perceived?)

which brings us the only real conclusion....without those travel restrictions there were a lot of israelis killed.....some prefer it that way......its not apartheid.its called low level war

____

btw this is the part that never gets answered:
A state power that has assumed responsibility over a population never has justification for engaging in the conduct practiced by South Africa or Israel because of the actions of armed groups

given the history of the Palestenians working within israel..and the onslaught of suicide bombers (pregnant women, grandmothers etc).....and the failure to stop them until the checkpoints went up etc...i assume that you have other solutions that would work?

this should be interesting:.......(before answering....take gazas missiles into consideration)

[HamdenRice]

118. There's no argument in your post. But dozens of SA experts say: Israeli policy worse than apartheid

There's nothing coherent to disagree with. Neither South Africa in 1990 nor Israel today faced the condition of Europe in 1944. Both face low intensity civil conflict and the only legal response is to protect the civilian population, refrain from using the military against civilian populations, and provide security, requirements that South Africa, while criticized at the time, was spectacularly better at complying with than Israel.

In the meantime, simply on grounds of objective observations by disinterested South African experts, we should all be able to conclude that the conditions created by Israel are worse than the conditions created by apartheid.

Why do you think all these South Africans would get it wrong?

In addition to the conclusions to that effect drawn by Jimmy Carter, Bishop Desmond Tutu and John Dugard, these other South Africans (including both Jews and Gentiles) have come to the same conclusion:

21 South Activists tour Palestinian areas and conclude situation worse than apartheid:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000976.html

I thought they would feel right at home in the alleys of Balata refugee camp, the Casbah and the Hawara checkpoint. But they said there is no comparison: for them the Israeli occupation regime is worse than anything they knew under apartheid. This week, 21 human rights activists from South Africa visited Israel. Among them were members of Nelson Mandela's African National Congress; at least one of them took part in the armed struggle and at least two were jailed. There were two South African Supreme Court judges, a former deputy minister, members of Parliament, attorneys, writers and journalists. Blacks and whites, about half of them Jews who today are in conflict with attitudes of the conservative Jewish community in their country. Some of them have been here before; for others it was their first visit.
...
They traveled from Jerusalem to Nablus via Highway 60, observing the imprisoned villages that have no access to the main road, and seeing the "roads for the natives," which pass under the main road. They saw and said nothing. There were no separate roads under apartheid. They went through the Hawara checkpoint mutely: they never had such barriers. Jody Kollapen, who was head of Lawyers for Human Rights in the apartheid regime, watches silently.
...
Edwin Cameron, a judge on the Supreme Court of Appeal, tells his hosts: "We came here lacking in knowledge and are thirsty to know. We are shocked by what we have seen until now. It is very clear to us that the situation here is intolerable." A poster pasted on an outside wall has a photograph of a man who spent 34 years in an Israeli prison. Mandela was incarcerated seven years less than that. One of the Jewish members of the delegation is prepared to say, though not for attribution, that the comparison with apartheid is very relevant and that the Israelis are even more efficient in implementing the separation-of-races regime than the South Africans were. If he were to say this publicly, he would be attacked by the members of the Jewish community, he says.

<end quote>


'This is like apartheid': ANC veterans visit West Bank

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-like-apartheid-anc-veterans-visit-west-bank-865063.html

Veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle said last night that the restrictions endured by Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories was in some respects worse than that imposed on the black majority under white rule in South Africa.
...
"Even with the system of permits, even with the limits of movement to South Africa, we never had as much restriction on movement as I see for the people here," said an ANC parliamentarian, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge of the West Bank. "There are areas in which people would live their whole lifetime without visiting because it's impossible."

Mrs Madlala-Routledge, a former deputy health minister in President Thabo Mbeki's government, added: "While I want to be careful not to characterise everything that I see here as apartheid, I just do find comparisons in a number of places. I also find differences."

Fatima Hassan, a leading South African human rights lawyer, said: "The issue of separate roads, of cars driven by different nationalities, the indignity of producing a permit any time a soldier asks for it, and of waiting in long queues in the boiling sun at checkpoints just to enter your own city, I think is worse than what we experienced during apartheid." She was speaking after the tour, which included a visit to the Holocaust Museum at Yad Vashem and a meeting with Israel's Chief Justice, Dorit Beinisch.

One prominent member of the delegation, who declined to be named, said South Africa had been "much poorer" both during and after apartheid than the Palestinian territories. But he added: "The daily indignity to which the Palestinian population is subjected far outstrips the apartheid regime. And the effectiveness with which the bureaucracy implements the repressive measures far exceed that of the apartheid regime."

<end quote>


<South African Intelligence Chief, who is Jewish, Ronnie> Kasrils says Israel's behaviour worse than apartheid

http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=38370,1,22

PRETORIA – South African Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils Thursday accused Israel of conducting a policy against the Palestinians that was worse than apartheid.

Speaking on the sidelines of a UN meeting on the situation in the Palestinian territories, Kasrils said South Africa’s townships had never been attacked by helicopter gunships and tanks, in contrast to the military means employed by Israel.

“The analogy between apartheid and Israel’s occupation of Palestine is often made. It is not the same thing. The occupation is absolutely worse,” Kasrils told reporters.

“It is important that we tell the Israeli authorities they are behaving like fascists when they do certain things, although we are not calling it a fascist state.”

<end quote>


<Head of South Africa's biggest Labor Federation:> Apartheid Israel Worse than Apartheid South African

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2006-07-10-apartheid-israel-worse-than-sa

The "apartheid Israel state" is worse than the apartheid that was conducted in South Africa, Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) president Willie Madisha said on Monday.

He said Palestinians were being attacked with heavy machinery and tanks used in war, which had never happened in South Africa.
...
Madisha said Israel should be seen as an apartheid state and the same sanctions must be applied that were established against South Africa.

<end quote>

So my question is, if several of the highest court judges in South Africa; leaders of South African human rights organizations; John Dugard, the Thurgood Marshall of South Africa while appointed as a UN human rights monitor; Bishop Tutu, a Nobel Prize winner; South Africa's Intelligence Chief; the head of South Africa's highly democratic labor movement, all say Israeli practices are worse than apartheid in South Africa, and you disagree with them, you need to produce a very compelling argument for why you think they are wrong.

Can you explain why they are all wrong?

[Vegasaurus]

119. This is a bunch of hooey

These people should take a visit to the Sudan or Rwanda (as two examples, although there are plenty more worldwide) to see real oppression, real genocide, real ethnic cleansing.

Any one of those people would welcome the "apartheid" of Gaza, where they are fed, clothed, housed, and provided medical care.

[HamdenRice]

120. "bunch of hooey" is not an argument. Please provide facts or logic

Even your examples are nonsensical. Rwanda is perhaps the worst example you could provide. Rwanda experienced a genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus. In the past, taking Rwanda and Burundi as "twin" states, there had been genocides back and forth for decades.

The Hutu genocide of the Tutsi occurred as Tutsi rebels were gaining control of Rwanda. But when the Tutsis gained control, they decided to end the cycle of tit for tat genocide and Rwanda has been peaceful and characterized by power sharing ever since.

But all of this is utterly irrelevant. The issue at hand is: Is Israeli occupation worse than apartheid. The issue is not Sudan or Rwanda, it is a comparison of South Africa to Israel.

South Africa's greatest experts on human rights, its intelligence chief, its Nobel Peace Prize winner, its best experts on apartheid, and its top high court judges agree: The Israeli occupation is worse than apartheid.

Do you have any evidence they are wrong?

[pelsar]

121. its simple why they are wrong...

they're comparing a political "ideal" apartheid..with a low level war where the physical security of israelis is the motivating force.

history can be your friend....before the checkposts, restrictions israelis were being killed weekly with busses and restaurants being blown up..they stopped when the restrictions were put in to place......its really that simple.
___

it seems that to you, and all of those in your list, either have forgotten the history of the area or believe its not relevant......which is your belief?


Lets assume, for a minute, that israeli lives are important, you seem to believe that all of those restrictions are not necessary...so i assume that you have a working alternative that would stop the busses from being blown up by suicide bombers......and your answer is?_______________________(this is the part that is usually ignored, since the answer is too difficult)

[HamdenRice]

122. So you agree, Israeli occupation is worse than apartheid. Thanks for being open minded!

When you shift to an argument about justification, then you are implicitly accepting the judgment of South African experts that Israeli occupation is worse than apartheid.

That said, the justification argument is weak. South Africa handled a security situation more challenging than that faced by Israel without resorting to Israeli tactics.

More to the point, Israel itself has used different tactics that contained the security threat, such as during the government of Ehud Barak. During that period, real hope toward a comprehensive settlement and reduction of daily humiliation actually drastically reduced security threats.

Therefore, given that Israel has in the past deployed tactics that were both much, much more humane, and much, much more effective in providing all population sectors with security, the recent governments are committed to both insecurity and deliberate violations of human rights standards.

[shira]

123. so worse than apartheid in the OT.....not so within Israel?

Israel is guilty of treating arabs in the OT worse than apartheid, but as for the arabs within Israel, that's not worse or even equal to apartheid (arab judges, knesset members, etc..), right? No complaints there?

So what we have here is nothing like the S. Africa model, right? Were the blacks of S.Africa judges, parliament members, etc.....equal rights in every way, like in Israel?

[HamdenRice]

125. "Israel is guilty of treating arabs in the OT worse than apartheid" Agreed

But I'm not sure what relevance the Arab Israelis have to that judgment. The fact that there is some group of Arabs who are not subjected to the treatment of Palestinians in the OT does not ameliorate the treatment of Palestinians in the OT.

It seems to me that this constant refrain about the Arab Israelis is intended to suggest that Israel is not racist toward all Arabs. That argument fails on several levels. For many years, Arab Israelis were severely discriminated against. Then it decided to treat them as "incorporated" into the system. South Africa tried and failed at a similar strategy. In the mid 1980s, it adopted the Tricameral Parliament that included Coloureds and Indians, and made plans to include Africans with Section 10 rights, while more severely excluding Africans who did not have Section 10 rights. That had little effect on the treatment of the Black majority.

If I am racist toward 7 our of 10 people of a particular race and not racist toward 3 out of 10 people of that same race, that doesn't excuse me from being a racist.

[pelsar]

128. incorporated?...

For many years, Arab Israelis were severely discriminated against. Then it decided to treat them as "incorporated" into the system

what does "incorporated" mean....if it means full civil rights than yes israeli arabs are full "incorporated"..kinda like the black, asians, etc in the US.(were they also incorporated?)

and i believe ALL countries treat their non citizens differently from their citizens......or is israeli somehow different from other countries...(sounds like a double standard showing)

[pelsar]

124. its simply not apartheid..

its the same thing as calling it genocide or "worse" than a day in disneyland......those experts might as well walk around any war zone and call it "worse than.." it has no meaning

i'm not sure why your saying S.Africa handled their situation better....the whites did lose in the end didnt they and gave up their govt?...so i'm not sure why your using them as a good example....israel has no intention of "giving up its country."

and more to the point.....your just wrong:
More to the point, Israel itself has used different tactics that contained the security threat, such as during the government of Ehud Barak

i know you want to believe it...but only AFTER the suicide bombers appeared did some of the tactics change.....the timeline is rather important. I understand that you dont want to look at it, since it would destroy your thesis that israel cause the appearance of the suicide bombers, and hence more restrictions on their movements..i'll give you a typical example:

ambulances were at first let through all roadblocks...until it was discovered that they were carrying bombs.....

older Palestinian women were let through without searching.until they were discovered to be carrying bombs

Palestinians with medical passes were let through...until it was discovered that they were carrying bombs....and so it went and this was all AFTER Baraks stint as PM...and that is what you complaining about:
______
i guess what your having trouble with is understanding that first israeli busses and restaurants starting blowing up and only then did the travel restrictions and raids get more intense. Its just history and not too long ago at that.

[HamdenRice]

126. You don't seem to understand Israel's options

"they and gave up their govt?...so i'm not sure why your using them as a good example....israel has no intention of "giving up its country.""

White South Africans did not "give up" their government. They gained democracy, which meant security and fairness. Most whites are better off now than they were under apartheid.

Israel has no intention of "giving up its country," but many Israelis have every intention of giving up the occupation and the occupied territory including farsighted leaders like Ehud Barak. In return, they would gain security, and international acceptance.

It seems to me your chronology is off. Israel/Palestine were quite peaceful during the Barak years. It was Sharon's opportunistic and extremely reckless actions that set off the second intifada and the bombings, leading to an endless cycle of violence and ever greater and inhumane restrictions.

When Israelis become mature enough to embrace the vision of the Barak's, the Rabin's and the Peres's of their system, maybe they will achieve security.

[pelsar]

127. no my chronology is dead on....

the warnings were if the talks fail, violence will break out....intifada II was preplanned and admitted as such by it leaders.....the suicide bombers didnt suddenly materialize out of thin air, they were well planned out with organized planning behind them....and only AFTER did they appear did the restrictions appear.

am i too understand that you believe that the without the roadblocks there would be no suicide bombers?



btw outside of sharons walk on the "holy muslim ground" what else did he do that caused such homicidal violence that the Palestinians simply couldnt contain themselves for the ensuing years?......

The white S.Africans who were fighting for Apartheid lost.....the means they used to preserve it failed....hence they are not a good example of holding back a rebellion/unrest/revolution or whatever you want to call it.

and the "land for peace" has been shown to be a failure without a strong central govt Again history remains your friend: take a look at jordan, egypt, syria, lebanon and gaza......land for peace ONLY works when the strong central govt deems its in their best interests, such is not the case with gaza, lebanon or the westbank today

[Violet_Crumble]

131. That's not right, pelsar...

intifada II was preplanned and admitted as such by it leaders

WHAT HAPPENED?

We are not a tribunal. We complied with the request that we not determine the guilt or innocence of individuals or of the parties. We did not have the power to compel the testimony of witnesses or the production of documents. Most of the information we received came from the parties and, understandably, it largely tended to support their arguments.

In this part of our report, we do not attempt to chronicle all of the events from late September 2000 onward. Rather, we discuss only those that shed light on the underlying causes of violence.

In late September 2000, Israeli, Palestinian, and other officials received reports that Member of the Knesset (now Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon was planning a visit to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Palestinian and U.S. officials urged then Prime Minister Ehud Barak to prohibit the visit.3 Mr. Barak told us that he believed the visit was intended to be an internal political act directed against him by a political opponent, and he declined to prohibit it.

Mr. Sharon made the visit on September 28 accompanied by over 1,000 Israeli police officers. Although Israelis viewed the visit in an internal political context, Palestinians saw it as highly provocative to them. On the following day, in the same place, a large number of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and a large Israeli police contingent confronted each other. According to the U.S. Department of State, "Palestinians held large demonstrations and threw stones at police in the vicinity of the Western Wall. Police used rubber-coated metal bullets and live ammunition to disperse the demonstrators, killing 4 persons and injuring about 200."4 According to the GOI, 14 Israeli policemen were injured.5

Similar demonstrations took place over the following several days.6 Thus began what has become known as the "Al-Aqsa Intifada" (Al-Aqsa being a mosque at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount).

The GOI asserts that the immediate catalyst for the violence was the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations on July 25, 2000 and the "widespread appreciation in the international community of Palestinian responsibility for the impasse."7 In this view, Palestinian violence was planned by the PA leadership, and was aimed at "provoking and incurring Palestinian casualties as a means of regaining the diplomatic initiative."8

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) denies the allegation that the intifada was planned. It claims, however, that "Camp David represented nothing less than an attempt by Israel to extend the force it exercises on the ground to negotiations,"9 and that "the failure of the summit, and the attempts to allocate blame on the Palestinian side only added to the tension on the ground..."10

From the perspective of the PLO, Israel responded to the disturbances with excessive and illegal use of deadly force against demonstrators; behavior which, in the PLO's view, reflected Israel's contempt for the lives and safety of Palestinians. For Palestinians, the widely seen images of the killing of 12-year-old Muhammad al Durra in Gaza on September 30, shot as he huddled behind his father, reinforced that perception.

From the perspective of the GOI, the demonstrations were organized and directed by the Palestinian leadership to create sympathy for their cause around the world by provoking Israeli security forces to fire upon demonstrators, especially young people. For Israelis, the lynching of two military reservists, First Sgt. Vadim Novesche and First Cpl. Yosef Avrahami, in Ramallah on October 12, reflected a deep-seated Palestinian hatred of Israel and Jews.

What began as a series of confrontations between Palestinian demonstrators and Israeli security forces, which resulted in the GOI's initial restrictions on the movement of people and goods in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (closures), has since evolved into a wider array of violent actions and responses. There have been exchanges of fire between built-up areas, sniping incidents and clashes between Israeli settlers and Palestinians. There have also been terrorist acts and Israeli reactions thereto (characterized by the GOI as counter-terrorism), including killings, further destruction of property and economic measures. Most recently, there have been mortar attacks on Israeli locations and IDF ground incursions into Palestinian areas.

From the Palestinian perspective, the decision of Israel to characterize the current crisis as "an armed conflict short of war"11 is simply a means "to justify its assassination policy, its collective punishment policy, and its use of lethal force."12 From the Israeli perspective, "The Palestinian leadership have instigated, orchestrated and directed the violence. It has used, and continues to use, terror and attrition as strategic tools."13

In their submissions, the parties traded allegations about the motivation and degree of control exercised by the other. However, we were provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act; neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising.

Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI to respond with lethal force.

However, there is also no evidence on which to conclude that the PA made a consistent effort to contain the demonstrations and control the violence once it began; or that the GOI made a consistent effort to use non-lethal means to control demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians. Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly.

The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada." But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/3060.htm

[pelsar]

133. i know about the various versions....

i believe bagroutti mentioned it was planned in london interview...but I'm not going on that....i was in the reserves during camp david, in the westbank.....the briefings were that if the talks fail....this is what we can expect to happen...and they basically layed out the events of Intifada II. It really wasnt a surprise since we would watch the various jihadnikim have "weddings every night"..(the Palestinians shoot guns during weddings, hence the "weddings" were the cover for the training)


What was not clear was when it would take place.......Sharons walk was simply the catalyst. Obviously he knew that his walk would probably set it off.....but that doesnt mean it wasnt planned. I suppose one could claim it was a contingency plan, since all armies have such things, but it had a very very different character than that of intifada I

[shira]

134. PA officials say Intifada planned right after Camp David

Palestinian Communications Minister Imad al-Faluji:

“Whoever thinks that the intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to Al-Aksa Mosque is wrong… The intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the tables upside down on President Clinton.”

Jerusalem Post, (March 4, 2001) quoting from Al-Safir (Lebanon), March 3, 2001

"The Intifada was no surprise for the Palestinian leadership. The leadership had invested all of its efforts in political and diplomatic channels in order to fix the flaws in the negotiations and the peace process, but to no avail. It encountered Israeli stubbornness and continuous renunciation of the rights... The PA instructed the political forces and factions to run all matters of the Intifada ..."

Al-Ayyam (PA), December 6, 2000

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

Fatah Central Committee member, Sakhr Habash:

"In light of the information, analyzing the political positions following the Camp David summit, and in accordance with what brother Abu Ammar said, it became clear to the Fatah movement that the next stage necessitates preparation for confrontation, because Prime Minister Barak is not a partner who can respond to our people's aspirations. Based on these assessments, Fatah was more prepared than the other movements for this confrontation. In order to play the role given to it, the Fatah coordinated its administrative, civilian and sovereign apparatuses, and was not surprised by the outbreak of the current Intifada... The Fatah movement believed that the phenomenon of comprehensive struggle would appear at the final settlement stage..."

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), December 7, 2000.

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

[Vegasaurus]

129. Right of return is a nonstarter, and yet continues to be a demand

When the Palestinians become "mature enough" to realize that they will never ever get a state unless they learn and apply the meaning of the word COMPROMISE, maybe they will finally get out of their misery.

Unrealistic demands and constant terrorism has not accomplished anything.

And yet, they continue with the same path, with continued bad results.

Israel has compromised again and again. The Palestinians have never compromised, and they are the ones in the unenviable position.

Therefore, if they ever want their lives to improve, they will have to learn to compromise.

[Boojatta]

135. Neither George W. Bush nor Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an Israeli.

Neither George W. Bush nor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Palestinian.

Therefore George W. Bush and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are objective outside observers, right?

The point of South African experts comparing Israeli policy to apartheid is precisely that they are neither Israelis nor Palestinians, and therefore are objective outside observers.

[azurnoir]

87. The only one using the term "racist" here is you

you have been repeating that charge against me and others for more that a year now, albeit you waited a bit longer than usual this time to trot it out again, I have given explanation more than once.

[Shaktimaan]

52. Oh for Christ's sake!

Are you joking around here or do you really have no clue what Apartheid is?

The second definition, (which you highlighted) "segregation/separation" specifically refers to the meaning of "apartheid" that's used in terms such as "cultural and gender apartheid." Meaning that it isn't describing the political system ie: South African Apartheid!

The second usage of the word is a different meaning. That version has to be qualified. As in Gender. Cultural. Ethnic. etc. It means something completely different than the first definition! You were using the term "apartheid" to describe the oppressive political system, which was clearly defined under definition ONE here. You are trying to compare Israel to South Africa, right? Well, that is definition ONE! You bolded definition TWO which refers to a different definition, aka: an alternate meaning.

One of three things is happening here:
1) You are joking. (I hope this is the answer.)

2) You truly have no idea whatsoever what apartheid actually is, to the extent that you honestly didn't know which of two possible meanings to highlight.

3) You knew what apartheid meant, but don't know how to use a dictionary, so when you saw the two definitions you assumed that they were completely interchangeable, not realizing that sometimes words can look and sound the same and even sometimes have similar or related meanings while still referring to entirely different things altogether. (For more examples of this phenomenon, look up the words "fine" or "saw" in the dictionary.)

I mean what do you think... that apartheid is just a synonym for separation? Wouldn't that make every single nation on the face of the planet guilty of apartheid then because they segregate based on differences of nationality? I mean, come on!

[pelsar]

31. i dunno...how can one tell if its "an israeli arab" vs jew?

this out to have a really interesting answer:

since there are no differences between the cars that israeli arab and israeli jews drive, and the "israeli roads" have checkpoints as far as i know in the beginning and "end" the question begs to be asked:

how many times can the israelis even be checked and rechecked?....

and the answer is___________

[shira]

32. yes, please, can anyone here tell the difference between an israeli arab and israeli jew?

they look the same to me, at least the secular ones. And here all this time, I thought Israel was "racist" and taking it out on people who didn't already look like them.

And on it goes.

[azurnoir]

50. Your comment only proves you own ignorance

so Jews and Arabs all look alike to you? Or is it only the ones in Israel, please do expand on that thought.

[shira]

51. rotflol

FYI, I have Iraqi, Moroccan, Syrian, and Iranian Jewish friends (and family) who are indistinguishable from the Arabs of the mideast. Shhh....lots of these types of Jews still live in Israel but don't tell anyone, it's a secret. Sorry this bursts that "racial" card you hold so dear.

Just for fun, did you ever see the movie "Paradise Now", about the 2 arabs, one dressed as a Hassid on a bus destined to be blown up? Gee...who could ever fall for an Arab posing as a Jew? For that matter, put a beard on Jerry Seinfeld and dress him up in arab gear (after the tanning salon) and try telling the difference, okay?

Is it enough that I and some of my Jewish friends are constantly pulled over at the airport security counter (a bit moreso than normal caucasians) because we look a tad mideastern?

Thanks for the laugh.

ps
Before calling someone out on their alleged ignorance, you may wish to educate yourself just a little bit. You have such stong opinions on these matters, make all kinds of ridiculous insinuations, and yet never seem to be embarassed or humiliated when you're proven wrong.

[eyl]

57. And in the other direction

I've seen PAlestinians who might be able to pass for Scandinavian.

[azurnoir]

59. your right

but you know LB and I discussed this a year ago, I was simply amazed at Shira's statement.

[shira]

65. so why are you amazed at my statement?

If you agree with eyl that some Palestinians look Scandinavian - just as some Jews do - then how do you distinguish between (secular) arabs and jews in Israel based only on appearance?

You know there are black jews in Israel too? You think they sometimes get confused for muslims?

[azurnoir]

88. So just when did you learn about the Falasha? n/t

[shira]

93. once again....why the initial shock at my statement about not being able to distinguish?

And since you are now aware that there are no "racial" features that distinguish Jews from any other people, how can you continue to justify your accusations that Israel is "racist"? Can we assume you've given up that ridiculous argument?

[azurnoir]

94. What ridculous argument?

There actually was no shock at your statement, in my comment to another poster the word used was amazement not shock, it was a completely rhetorical statement. However it was you who made the statement that atleast you could not tell the difference between Israel Jews and Arabs and have insisted for how many days to quite unsuccessfully try to to extricate yourself from it. As to my supposed assessment as to Israel being a racist country I've had that conversation with a far more respected and unbiased opponent, as to your continuing to desperately "turn the tables" with you oh so tired "quick look over" technique go for it as you become more obvious with each and every post
And as far as there being no problem between "races", "ethnics", religions were ever it suits you to draw the line; how are things in Akko these days, so no I do not for one moment withdraw my statement except to say that line goes beyond racial and that I do understand your need to oversimplify with such things.

[shira]

95. let's see now

when I claimed that in many cases there is simply no way to tell the difference between an arab and a jew (from a racial perspective) you called me out for making such an ignorant statement (my comment supposedly proved my own ignorance) and you requested I expand on that thought.

So I did, eyl added to it, you agreed with eyl and then repeated how "amazed" you were with my statement - now adding that I was trying to "clean it up" somehow or trying to unsuccesfully "extricate" myself from the original statement (even though I still stand behind it and YOU have come to agree with it).

When I asked you how YOU tell the difference between Jew and Arab, you said "simple, you cant", not without checking papers - which was MY POINT all along. You agreed with me! The point YOU thought was ignorant and that YOU think I'm trying to unsuccessfully extricate myself from or "clean up", you agree with!

So again, how do you justify your ridiculous statement that Israel or Israelis in general are racist, back racist policies, that the society is "founded" on racism, or that zionism = racism? Please riddle us that one, especially now that you admit you cannot even tell the difference in looks between arabs and jews without "papers".

I can't wait for your oh-so-inspiring and knowledgable response.



ps
I wasn't thinking of Falasha black Jews at all. In my congregation, there are a few black Jews who converted and my kids go to school with several (not in my congregation...and yes, they're rare), and some Americans may remember Sammy Davis Jr. and Rod Carew. None of whom are Falasha. But nice try. Remember my advice to you to think twice about calling others out on their "ignorance" while you seem to be the unapologetic and clueless poster child for ignorant accusations here?

[azurnoir]

96. Why do you keep an ignorant you made statement alive

for 5 days? I would have let it go after my reply to you. You made a sweeping remark that YOU could tell the difference between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, the you statement was and is ridiculous you apparently became belatedly educated and for almost a week now keep on trying to spin that statement, personally it seems a bit OCD to me, as a kindness and because it is getting not just boring but actually disturbing I am done, If you feel the need or that getting the last word somehow makes you a winner of what I;m not sure or right be my guest dear.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

132. you agreed with that "ignorant" statement

I never said I could tell the difference b/w Israeli Jews and Arabs. Read that original post again. I wanted to see YOU try to distinguish between the two and you came to agree with that "ignorant" statement. Now it's you trying to back down.

Whatever.

This is stupid.

[azurnoir]

58. Ah yeah right try to clean it up

but your statement still stands

yes, please, can anyone here tell the difference between an israeli arab and israeli jew?

they look the same to me, at least the secular ones.
But I am not the one overexplaining and how did you prove me wrong?

[shira]

66. so....

how do you tell the difference between an arab and jew who both look scandinavian, or when the jew comes originally from Morocco, Iraq, or Lebanon?

[azurnoir]

68. Simple you can't

not at least without checking their papers or ID which is presumably done at the crossings between Israel and the OT.

[pelsar]

74. so ...lets enlighten you a bit with a few facts..

and yes i know it might really ruin yet another one of your thesis (the presumably)...not that a fews fact will interfer with ones pre set mind set...but for others who are curious:

simply cant be done not at least without checking their papers or ID which is presumably done at the crossings between Israel and the OT

ready?

most cars (where i have been) with israeli license plates entering the OT aren't checked.......they just slow down while passing through a check point

[azurnoir]

75. Most? that means some are which ones?

how many? 1 in 10 1 in 20 is it random? you did nothing to "ruin my theory" in fact you may well substantiated it thank you

[pelsar]

76. last time i was there....4 months ago

in fact i didnt see a SINGLE car stopped going in....and i was there for about 45 minutes.....I did see the trucks stopped and van with plumping supplies stopped

so how does that work with your "israeli arabs are stopped more than jews theory".....

__

i realize that you have no facts, no testimonials....in fact you have absolutely nothing to base your speculation on......but it never does stop you from trying to "prove" that israeli society is some kind of racist society when infact it is one of the most tolerant diverse ones found on this planet....there is a single point of intolerance and its points to the group that has a higher percentage of members that try to kill israelis than others

other than that your really just trying push an pov that doesnt even exist...but you can keep on speculating about our ingrained and institutionalized racism

[shira]

77. the more Israel is shown in a positive light....

...the more desperate anti-Israel-firsters get. They become even more extreme, more resentful, and more hateful. An inverse relationship.

And it's obvious why.

Goes back many, many centuries in a very well documented history.

But it's "criticism". Sure. Just not very well-founded or well thought out "criticism". The old RW's "criticism" has been adopted by the new LW. Meet the new LW, same as the old RW, same as the very old haters throughout the centuries - whose emotions will not allow facts to persuade them they are wrong, and that they are mere simple-minded haters whose arguments only evangelize the ignorant, the mentally unstable, and those already indoctrinated.

[azurnoir]

82. What proof have you?

45 minutes of observation? As for POV I would have said the thing 15 years ago when I was not a so called for of course rhetorical purposes "Israel hater" only then I also would have called it justifiable security.

[pelsar]

83. just speculating ....but probably more than you....

45 minutes at one place...passing through many in a military vehicle and not seeing any lines entering the westbank..

and i guess you forgot to mention where your information is coming from.......

here....i'll leave you a space to place your evidence___ (is the line too long?)

_____

or were you just speculating that the border guards can tell an arab from a jew in an approaching car...because they have really really sharp eye sight.........

[azurnoir]

84. On your last sentance

perhaps you should ask Shira she is the one who states that it is impossible to tell the difference between an Israeli Jew and an Israeli Arab, the only thing I wonder how many of her cohorts here privately set her straight, her "knowledge" suddenly increased dramatically.

As to the rest uf 45 minutes makes you an expert so be it, those who want to believe will and those who know at least some of the truth to the situation well........

[pelsar]

85. and your truth....

care to explain where it comes from?.......

[azurnoir]

86. Reading here and elsewhere

also talking to people who have lived in Israel and those that have visited more recently. Some leftists some not but all more I'll say "reasonable" than most here.
Also note as far as "racists" go I will admit that now and in past there have been proIsrael posters on this board that I suspect dislike Arabs more than they actually support Israel just as there are proPalestinian posters here that I suspect dislike Jews, personally IMO neither of us fit either category

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

38. The exersize in the meaning of disingenuous is amazing

How would Israeli Arabs be identified? Why when they tried to cross into the West Bank of course, now tell how freely can Israeli Arabs move between Israel and the Occupied Territories:

American citizens of Arab descent are put though "special procedures" but I am sure Israel allows it's own citizens much more freedom

SAFETY AND SECURITY: Israeli authorities strictly enforce security measures. American citizen visitors have been subjected to prolonged questioning and thorough searches upon entry or departure by Israeli authorities. Travelers (including American citizens) with Arabic surnames, those who ask that Israeli stamps not be entered into their passports, and unaccompanied female travelers have been delayed and subjected to close scrutiny by Israeli border authorities. American citizens have been detained and/or arrested at the airport and at other border crossings on suspicion of security-related crimes and members of religious groups have been monitored, arrested, and deported for suspicion of intent to commit violent or disruptive acts in Israel. In some cases, Israeli authorities have denied American citizen’s access to U.S. consular officers, lawyers, and even family members during temporary detention.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1064.html

from 2004 about the restriction on Israeli Arabs, although I am sure Israeli policy is much more lenient today

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:lQlK_6e7eoYJ:coalitionofwomen.org/home/organizations/machsom_watch/MachsomWatch_December_2004.doc+Arab+citizens+of+Israel+get+travel+permits+for+west+bank&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The real question here is purely semantic the roads are not called "Jews only" but how many Israeli Arabs are actually traveling on them?

[pelsar]

42. your knowledge is sooooo limited-but speculation is high

and your attempts to show how racist israel is, only works on those who dont know or dont want to know the facts....
____
The real question here is purely semantic the roads are not called "Jews only" but how many Israeli Arabs are actually traveling on them?

since there is quite a bit of trade going on between arab israelis and the Palestinians the answer is obviously not what you would like to hear..(but your really not insinuating anything, your just wondering.....)

and once more you put forth a "speculative question" that is easy to deny if your wrong-which you are most of the time.

how freely can Israeli Arabs move between Israel and the Occupied Territories:.

...answer: as easy as any other israeli.....and to give further detail, since many times they are carry goods, they, like any other israeli carrying goods will get checked more often than those who are not carrying goods to trade.

[azurnoir]

46. Ah yeah

my second link said that too:eyes:

[Grimm]

22. Now that we're sidetracked

Sorry for opening (or I guess re-opening) a can of worms. Guess I'll just say three things before the thread continues playing either the semantics or "he said, she said" game.

1) I understand the content of most threads on this part of DU are about Israeli vs. Palestinian issues, and the term apartheid is almost always mentioned in that context. That's why it was a sidenote to my main argument that taking any given isolated story, such as this one or a story about settlers gone wild, only gives a glimpse at a portion of a diverse and conflicted country and that simple buzzwords (including apartheid) don't do much to help the situation besides draw battlelines in some raging internet war.

2) As others have mentioned, there's a difference between Jew-only and Israeli-only. The former, which doesn't exist, is a number of things, none of them good. The latter, while also not good, is part of Israeli's national security policy of collective punishment. That policy is certainly up for attack (and given we're on a progressive forum, I expect hostility towards it), but collective punishment isn't the same thing as apartheid. I guess I'm playing the semantics game also, but at least focus the debate on the real issues, not on whether Israel is more similar to South Africa Apartheid or Nazi Germany.

3) The settlement support issue is obviously a contentious one. You'll find plenty of people both for and against the idea in Israel. (One of the) problems is that the PR system tends to make the ultra-Orthodox (and generally pro-settlement) party the kingmaker in elections despite receiving only a small percentage of the vote. The Israeli government has very slowly been moving towards reining in settlers where they can, but there is very little political will to do so at the moment for a variety of reasons. From the cost of forced transfer (numerous ex-Gaza settlers are still homeless), the political cost of having a policy of abandoning former Jewish areas (removing the 500 Jews from Hebron would bring back many memories of the 1920s Hebron pogroms that originally made the city free of Jews) to possibly the safety of the PM and Israel at large (Rabin was assassinated by a very pro-settlement psychopath who followed the teachings of a terrorist "rabbi" who is still praised to this day by a vocal and dangerous minority). Politics is a dangerous game in the Middle East, peaceful politics more so, so all I'm saying is don't throw all of Israel under a bus because the country may be too democratic.

[shira]

30. how revealing - jew only roads

Also, Israel can and should be held to the highest standards - like the USA and Britain. But I do understand that many anti-Israel posters have no standards or very low standards for most countries (racism of low expectations).

USA/Britain in Iraq past 8 years - nearly one million dead
France in Algeria ~ 40 yrs ago - hundreds of thousands dead / Ivory Coast about 10 yrs ago / slaughter
Russia in Chechnya - bloodbath, hundreds of thousands killed
China in Tibet - please

Meanwhile 60,000 dead in all arab wars combined against Israel the past 60 years. With Israel directly under threat - unlike all examples above.

No contest.

You want a REAL humanitarian crisis, look no further than Haiti. That is REAL starvation, real pictures of malnutrition, the aid is unimpeded and STILL that crisis remains for at least 4-5 million Haitians. All we get from Gaza are faux photos of blackout hoaxes. In Hamas' desperation to peddle Pallywood, they never release pics of starvation that resembles even remotely the situation in Haiti.

[azurnoir]

49. How good to know you have so much concern

for the plight of Haitians

[shira]

67. maybe Haitians would get more food and wouldn't be starving so much

...if they went to war with the USA and claimed it was due to oppression. What do you think?

You think the starvation in Haiti is a bigger problem than that of the Palestinian territories?

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Interesting point....

Ultimately, given the level of tension between all these different political groups and the shrillness of the debate that tends to be rife in the Israeli political landscape, it's unfair to only look at one group (be it the settlers or this professor) and apply it as a picture for all of Israel. I guess as an analogy, imagine if you let people claim Dubya represents all of the U.S., including DU.

That's a good point, and it most definately applies also to the Palestinian population as well. There's a bit of a tendency from some to try to look at one group and apply that as a picture for all Palestinians....

[azurnoir]

10. First find that claimed quote

second if this is an honest appointment then good for Israel, however "politically convenient" as a counter point to actions in Gaza the timing of the announcement is.

[oberliner]

14. From the thread on Israel boycotting the US forum on racism

Most of the more odious comments have been deleted (thankfully) so it is probably impossible to find the exact quote that the poster was talking about.

This one remains:

"18. Well, since Israel is the most obvious nation with institutionalized racism...

I mean really, they shouldn't feel too singled out. After all, the UN used similar wording with South Africa in the 80's. Come to think of it, I think Israel protested that, too."

[azurnoir]

20. The quote does not say

Israel is the worst or worse that South Africa at present the it is Israel's actions towards Palestinians in the occupied territories would be an obvious example, as the situation in South Africa has changed. Now should we go for the argument that it's not racism as such because Palestinians are not really a different race?

[oberliner]

23. Please note the first sentence of my post

As I stated, most of the more extreme comments were deleted.

Are you claiming that Israel's actions towards the Palestinians is based on racism?

[azurnoir]

25. no I was trying to avoid that debate racism vs ?

what ever you call it"occupierism"

[JonQ]

33. It was on a thread

of Israel refusing to attend some UN summit on racism because it would have consisted almost entirely of Israel-bashing. A user said that they should get most of the focus as they are the worst. I'm not going to go back through and find it.

And how many jews occupy high positions in the Palestininan government? You can criticize this as politically expedient all you want, but the fact remains that they allow arabs/muslims to have these jobs, while the palestinians don't allow jews the same privilege.

[pelsar]

36. i cant resist....

how is this appointment politically convenient?...what actual actions are happening in gaza that werent happening a week ago, a year ago etc?....that is so so important that the israeli govt just has to distract the world?


a note:

of course i noticed that your not stating any facts, just suggesting the possibility that the israeli govt controls the universities that appoints an arab for political reasons and not merit which then hints of racism....


very subtle of you......i wonder if the others here notice how you always seem to do that?

[azurnoir]

37. Again with the racism shtick ?

guess it's been awhile

[pelsar]

39. just speculating....

wasnt that what you were doing?

[azurnoir]

47. No

just had to adjust my wording for Google