Cry, our beloved country

[DuctapeFatwa]

Perhaps Israel's real friends will increase the pressure on the government. Perhaps they will understand that, even in Israel, external pressure is not always bad, because it may be the last chance to bring Israel back on the straight and narrow and make it a more just state.

After most of its construction was completed, incarcerating thousands of families in compounds without anyone caring, a feeling of discomfort arose in Jerusalem. Yosef Lapid even warned of turning Israel into South Africa in the eyes of the world.

Good morning, justice minister, but your warning is too late. South Africa has been here for a long time already, and this is how most states of the world see it. Still, better late than never, only it's a pity the justice minister needed The Hague threat to understand that the fence his government built is an apartheid fence.

Had he bothered to go and see with his own eyes the thousands of school children waiting every morning, in all weather, for the IDF or Border Police jeep to arrive and open the gate for them on their way to school, the farmers cut off from their fields, the patients kept away from their clinics, the villages locked and bolted and the sight of a town behind barbed wire, he would not have needed the threat from The Hague to understand the injustice. After the settlements, the fence is the next punishment to be forced on the Palestinians. Israel, as usual, ignored it.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/381538.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. Apartheid

Ah, another in the endless stream of "apartheid" propaganda. I think we need to talk to the Arab nations about apartheid. They are vastly bigger experts on how to do it than is Israel, which has a full one-sixth of its population non-Jewish. And even the 5/6 Jewish population is wildly diverse.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Didn't run away from the subject

I consider the concept to be entirely bogus. I picked it up, looked at it and then threw it away as it deserved.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[brainshrub]

5. Jim Crow in the United States

did not justify aparthid in South Africa.

Nor does Arab policy in their own countries justify Israels behavior.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. It does in this case

If the Arab nations consistently ethnically cleanse ALL Jews from their nations, it certainly impacts Israel's necessary world view and adds to the reality that a binational state can't and won't happen.

[brainshrub]

7. Sesame Seeds! (nt)

[Jack Rabbit]

8. I know you hate this term, Muddle, but it's still a tu quoque fallacy

We aren't talking about what crimes Arabs have committed. They've committed them. Does that make it right for Israel to commit them? You are avoiding the issue with that special form of the red herring called the argumentum ad hominem: tu quoque. In other words, you are saying that it can't be a wrong for Israel to commit this wrong because the Arabs do it, too. It you don't like having that error pointed out, learn what it is and stop committing it.

As for your accusation that this is "propaganda", you should note that his piece of Palestinian propaganda is written by an Israeli writer in a leading Israeli newspaper. Perhaps you should look at what Mr. Levy says more seriously. After all, Ha'aretz may not be Conrad Black's fish wrap, but neither is it Electronic Intifada or al-Jazeera.

While the Palestinians are not blameless, many of the problems Israel has in the Palestinian Territories are of her own making. In 1977, Prime Minister Begin declared that the West Bank and Gaza were "an integral part of Israel." He even called the territories "liberated Israel". Yet, these territories had never been part of the modern state of Israel. What did Begin think he was doing? Annexing them to Israel by his personal decree?

If the territories are an "integral part of Israel", then what does it mean when the Government of Israel builds on that land segregated settlements that are accessed by roads on which Palestinians are prohibited from traveling? What do you call that, Muddle, if not apartheid? If you don't like that term, perhaps we can settle on the American variant, Jim Crow. Let's not call it democracy, anyway. It certainly isn't democracy when some people have rights that others do not.

Of course, if Begin was just out of his gourd and the territories are not a part of Israel, integral or otherwise, then the settlements are just illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Israel's occupation of the territories is tainted with racism. As Mr. Levy says:

Even without the wall, the Israeli occupation could be compared to South Africa's apartheid, even if the Israeli ideology is less despicable. Don't roads for Jews only, as most West Bank roads are today, justify the comparison? Aren't roadblocks distinguishing among people on the sole basis of origin racist?

This was not necessary. Israel could have occupied the Palestinian territories for her security and made it clear that the occupation was only about security. However, Begin's pronouncement said otherwise. It was about conquest and Israel's "right" to rule over land inhabited by other people. The day Begin declared the territories "an integral part of Israel" was one of the darkest in modern history. It changed the status of the territories from occupied land that was to be exchanged for a peace treaty to one of conquered land with which the conquerors had the right to do as they pleased. However, they could do as they pleased with the land only by subjugating the interests and rights of those already living on it.

Neither Mr. Begin nor anybody else who is not a Palestinian has the right to determine what are the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people on their behalf. Palestinian Arabs are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves and deciding among themselves what those interests are.

If the Palestinians were to ask my advice, I would tell them that their interests are in making peace with the Jewish state and recognizing its existence. However, I would also tell them that there interests lay in resisting a political system in which foreigners tell them that they must accept segregated housing and segregated roads on their own land. It goes without saying that their interests lay in controlling the resources of their own land and using them for their own benefit.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Any language you use, the argument is still merde

Israel has a right to survive. Based on the NUMEROUS past actions of the Arab world, Israelis have every reason to expect they would be, AT BEST, ethnically cleansed in a binational state. That does relate to this topic and is not worthy of the lame Latin attack.

The Arab nations, the supporters of the Palestinians and, yes, the Palestinians themselves, are far worse perpetrators of ethnic cleansing than Israel has ever been. Quick survey, how many Jews live in the Palestinian controlled areas? So if you want to talk apartheid, talk about them, not Israel.

As for the author of this propaganda, there have always been those who deceived themselves enough to do the bidding of their enemies. Has always been thus.

As you have no doubt noticed, neither I, nor the state of Israel is advocating taking all of the West Bank or Gaza and making it part of the state of Israel. What Begin did 30+ years ago is long past.

If that was the case and those areas would be walled off in that state, THAT would be apartheid. To call this transitional situational apartheid is silly. Yes, that's what this is, transitional. Where we are going and when, who knows, but it certainly is transitioning and not staying a status quo.

Israel builds settlements for its people (5/6 Jewish by the way), so those settlements are logically Jewish also. The access to those places is not so much a demographic one as a security one. Perhaps if Jews went around blowing themselves up with bombs, then Israel would try other measures. Thankfully, that is not the case.

I don't why you don't want to call it democracy. Every CITIZEN of Israel can vote. The Palestinians in question, much like you or I, are NOT citizens of Israel. Non-citizens typically DO NOT have the same rights as citizens. Yes, I know that might be a shocker to some here.

Ultimately, your claim of racism also falls short. It is not racist when a group really IS out to get you. Then, you must protect yourself from that group. So yes it can be denied.

What I especially love is how the pro-Pal posters are allowed to make this heinous comparison, but if I compared them to something equally offensive, my posts would be banned. In fact, I don't even dare use an appropriate example, because I don't want the effort of this post to go to waist. Instead, I have to suck it up and accept that a couple posters here will find every article on the planet and post ANYTHING that even uses the word "apartheid" and Israel even if it is only about a Palestinian getting a parking ticket.

As for the roads, I am surprised you buy into that. The roads are for ISRAELIS not Palestinians. Palestinians, again you might recall, are NOT citizens of Israel. The roadblocks are a security measure. Perhaps, if none of the Palestinians was seeking to get through and blow up women and children, then you might have a valid point. As it is, your comment belongs in the ivory tower along with the original article.

Yes, the Palestinians must be perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. Thus far, they have spoken about war, perpetual terror (ala Hamas, in case you want to challenge that assertion) and no realistic peace. Yes, I hear them quite clearly.

As you know, I would like to see peace somehow occur, but I see NO REASON to believe even a substantial minority of Palestinians support that concept. Nor do I see any believable move on their part to do so. Until they do, Israel will do what it must to protect its own citizens.

[bluesoul]

10. Hmmm

"As you know, I would like to see peace somehow occur, but I see NO REASON to believe even a substantial minority of Palestinians support that concept."

Unbelievable...

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Please, please

Prove to me otherwise. Lets see, they support terror according to multiple surveys. Many even oppose the existence of Israel and, let's not forget, they continue to support Arafat who has his own terror past and present.

[bluesoul]

15. You said not even a substantial minority!

¨That's like saying almost all are against peace. BS!

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Nope, not what I said

I said: "As you know, I would like to see peace somehow occur, but I see NO REASON to believe even a substantial minority of Palestinians support that concept."

I see no reason to believe. I didn't say they don't. I said I see no reason to believe they do. If they do, they are darned silent about it.

[Madrugada]

29. Apartheid

In July 2002, Ronnie Kasrils, South Africa's minister of water affairs, said in an interview:

"The South African apartheid regime never engaged in the sort of repression Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians. For all the evils and atrocities of apartheid, the government never sent tanks into black towns. It never used gunships, bombers, or missles against the black towns or Bantustans."

Nor, it is worth adding, did the South African government apply a systematic policy of bringing the black population to starvation. What we are witnessing in the occupied territories -- Israel's ethnically based penal colonies -- is the invisible and daily killing of the sick and wounded who are deprived of medical care, employment, civil rights, education and everything else that gives dignity and worth to human life.

[Jack Rabbit]

30. The twisted logic of democracy and occupation

Once again, I resurrect my ideal definition of democracy as a state where:

• Citizenship is universal.Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voted based on the principle of one man/one vote.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or even absurd.

No matter how you slice it, Muddle, a quarter of a century ago, an Israeli Prime Minister unilaterally decided that Palestinian land taken in the 1967 was part of Israel. At the same time, he said that the Arabs living there would have autonomy, but they would not be Israeli citizens. That, sir, is apartheid on its face. Begin's arrangement denied the Palestinians citizenship and made them inherently unequal. If land is incorporated into a state, then either all the people living there become citizens of that state or that state is not a democracy. Period. No excuses. No exceptions.

Of course, Mr. Begin did not ask any Palestinian how they felt about this arrangement. Israelis simply decided that this is how it would be arranged and Palestinians would be expected to go along. Please don't call that democracy, either. There was no discourse between Israelis and Palestinians about the civic affairs that affected the ownership of Palestinian land. Moreover, that decision-making process, in the very exclusion of those most affected by it, is racist. It seems to be a very undemocratic process to impose a decision on a population without consulting them, especially considering that Begin undoubtedly knew that almost every man, woman and child among them would dissent.

On the other hand, no one but the Israeli right wing and a few of their supporters abroad recognized Begin's annexation by decree. It would seem that you don't. And I certainly don't. That means that the land is occupied. The Fourth Geneva Convention has something to say about an occupying power transferring parts of its own population to occupied territory: to wit, it's illegal.

The West Bank and Gaza are either parts of Israel or they are foreign to Israel and the IDF is a hostile occupation force. There is no in between. You have been trying for several days, without success, to have it both ways. Even in your last post, you deny that there is apartheid, but admit that there are roads for Israels and not for Palestinians. That is a double standard that cannot stand.

Many people arguing for the rightness of the overall conduct of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza try to have it both ways. They tell us the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel when Israel imposes its law on the land and why the Fourth Geneva Convention doesn't apply but it's merely occupied territory when we are talking about whether Palestinians have any rights as Israeli citizens.

I would agree that the problems of racial discrimination faced by Arabs inside the Green Line -- that land that most of us agree really is Israel -- does not approach levels that could be characterized as apartheid. And it is certainly true that Israeli Arabs have the right to vote and are represented in the Knesset. In terms of democracy, there are problems, but not insurmountable one. In my view, Israel inside the Green Line passes the democracy test.

However, Israel's administration of the occupied territories is another matter. By no stretch of the imagination is this democratic or just, even in terms of what a military occupation ought to be. Israeli settlements should not be there at all. Their very presence necessitates IDF security to protect them from natives who resent the imposition. Rules of engagement are written so that the IDF may not interfere with settlers who be acting in a provocative manner towards Palestinians, but then demands those same settlers be protected if provoked Palestinians strike back. The resources of the Palestinian territories that should be for the benefit of the Palestinians are diverted to support the settlements. The security roads and checkpoints exist to protect Israeli settlers from Palestinians.

Again, this security apparatus is made necessary by the presence of settlements that exist in violation of international law. Were they not there, these security problems would not exist, either. There would be no segregated settlements nor segregated roads leading to them.

Were the land on which these settlements stand in Israel, then there would be no question that settlements would pass the legality test. However, in that case, Israel would flunk the democracy test. There would be over three and a half million native non-citizens in her midst. Democracies do not have native non-citizens or second class citizens.

In closing, it is not true that Mr. Begin's acts of a quarter of a century ago are long past. This double standard resulting from treating the land as belonging to Israel but the people on it as not Israeli is his legacy. Even the settlements and checkpoints that were built after his passing are a result of his decision to promote the rapid growth of such settlements without regard to the people displaced by them. That decision was based on the assumption that Jews have rights in land where Palestinians live that Palestinians do not. That is racism.

[GabysPoppy]

11. Something you might want to know

Gideon Levy is the other end of the "radical seesaw" that you mentioned in the other thread.

Jack Rabbit (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-11-04 03:38 PM
Response to Original message

3. Another bunch of right wing morons with a platform of ethnic cleasing

Edited on Sun Jan-11-04 03:40 PM by Jack Rabbit
Hopefully, the only place these idiots will go is west of the Green Line.

-----------------------------------------------

I would research Mr. Levy a little more before you give him any gravitas just because Haaretz publishes him. To that newspaper's credit is the fact that their editorial writers have the expanse of all sides of the issue. Freedom of the press is a virtue practiced by very few countries in the Middle East.

[bluesoul]

12. Radical?

Like too much liberal and open-minded like Chomsky?

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Chomsky

Chomsky is so open-minded in regards to this conflict, much of it spilled out long ago.

[bluesoul]

16. I guess

I am "too liberal" for your taste. Not so middle of the road...

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. I don't know

I have no idea where you stand on the thousands of issues that get discussed in a given day on DU. I really only know one.

[bluesoul]

19. Well there are so many of it you could ask

but I'll try. Pro choice, pro environment, pro homosexual rights (legalized marriage, right to adopt),pro affirmitive action, for liberal immigration laws, end the war on drugs, decriminalizing prostitution and a bunch I probably forgot to mention... ;)

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Actually, we might agree on a bunch of that

Sometime, in another thread or PM, let's have that chat.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Muddle...

Everyone's worked out by now that you don't like Chomsky. However, you haven't ever explained why based on reading his work. I just think that it'd be a bit more constructive than regular claims that he's not intelligent...

Violet...

[GabysPoppy]

20. Please tell me what you know of Gideon Levy

If you wish to claim that there are no radicals either left or right in this world who are trying to hijack their respective parties, then I can't discuss the subject with you.

I have some Republican friends who would be totally pissed off with me if I made the charge that Ann Coulter or Tom DeLay represented their beliefs.

[bluesoul]

21. You compare Levy to Coulter and DeLay?

Is promoting peace and trying to be fair to all sides a radical idea? :eyes:

[GabysPoppy]

26. When it comes to radicalists

yes I do.

Once again I ask you what you know about Gideon Levy? If you believe that it is impossible for anyone to be a "radical leftist", you don't have to bother asking.

[bluesoul]

27. You would have to define

"radical leftist" and the negative connotation you'r giving it...

[GabysPoppy]

32. Meet Mr. Levy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=45635


He authored this piece of garbage

[Violet_Crumble]

38. That's it???

After all that big build up, I was expecting to click on a bit of anti-semitic nonsense or a call for a fundamentalist Islamic state to replace Israel. Instead, I find an article that bluesoul had obviously already read, and which was most definately not a piece of garbage, not unless stories that turn victims of the conflict into real people and not one dimensional non-people who can be demonised and stereotyped at will are now in the garbage pile...

To consider Mr Levy at the other end of the spectrum to those right-wingers who advocate ethnic cleansing is very wrong. For him to be a mirror-image of those extremists, he'd have to support suicide bombings (which he doesn't), support the destruction of Israel as a state (which he doesn't), and advocate ethnic cleansing of Israelis (which he doesn't). He's a damn good journalist for the fact alone that his articles do put a human face on peoples suffering. To consider Mr Levy an extremist means that you'd also consider anyone who supports a just and fair two-state solution and an end to the occupation, as well as not being scared of criticising Sharon, as being extremists as well. And if that's the criteria for being an extremist, then that makes a lot of very decent progressives who give a stuff about human rights for ALL and not for some, extremists...

Violet...

[Madrugada]

23. Levy

Levy is obviously a man of great courage, integrity and talent. He is one of the few journalists in Israel who dare to tell the truth on a regular basis, the others being Amira Hass and Neve Gordon (who's not really a journalist, but an academic like Tanya Reinhart).

[meti57b]

22. if "tu quoque" means ....

"we weren't talking about that" (with reference to Arab nations), then perhaps we *should* be talking about it. Why are we not talking about Arab apartheid? I don't see any discussion of it on the FA forum. Why all the discussion on apartheid with reference to Israel. If we are against apartheid in some cases, why are we not against it in all cases. If apartheid is not of much interest when some countries engage in it, why is it of interest when it is alleged that Israel has engaged in it.

Israeli writers are just as capable of negative propaganda against Israel as US citizens are of negative propaganda against the US. That the writer is an Israeli does not mean his article isn't propaganda.

Was the topic we were we talking about, either Menachem Begin or the year 1977? I don't think so but if the topic has changed to what do various others have to say in the past, I'm sure we could dredge up a few things the Palestinian Arabs have said about running Israel into the sea.

The writer of that article has made no case at all that Israel is an apartheid state; it is just a lot of propaganda.

alleged Similarities:

"The pressure on apartheid South Africa began with a decision of the same ICJ the fence has now been brought before.

Even without the wall, the Israeli occupation could be compared to South Africa's apartheid, even if the Israeli ideology is less despicable. Don't roads for Jews only, as most West Bank roads are today, justify the comparison? Aren't roadblocks distinguishing among people on the sole basis of origin racist?"

Differences:

Race is not a required or intrinsic part of being a Jew. There are Jews of all ethnicities and races. As a result, race does not apply.

In apartheid South Africa the minority had complete control over the government and the far larger majority had none, including not having voting rights. Israel is a democracy. Minorities have voting rights and have representatives in the Knesset. If Israel were an apartheid state, minorities would not have these rights.

Israel is prohibiting the entry of Palestinians into Israel and their free movement in the WB for purposes of defending against terrorist attack. Perhaps one could disagree with their methods but their motives are not apartheid.
.................

The alleged similarities in the article are not substantive. The differences are substantive.

[Madrugada]

25. Why?

"Why are we not talking about Arab apartheid? I don't see any discussion of it on the FA forum."

Why don't you start a thread and talk about it? Nobody's stopping you, right?

On the other hand, if you expect to excuse immoral behavior of one country by reference to immoral behavior by another, don't expect to get away with it.

[meti57b]

28. I am not commenting that I haven't seen ....

me, myself and I talking about it, ... I am commenting that I haven't seen the folks that appear to be alleging that Israel is an apartheid state, ... talking about it. My starting a thread on it would not resolve that issue.

I very seldom start threads on any topic.

"it" being .... apartheid in other nations.

late edit: typing

[Jack Rabbit]

31. "Tu quoque" means "you, too"

Muddle's defense of charges that Israel practices apartheid is to point out that Arab countries do, too.

That may be true, but it is no more a defense for Israel than it would be for the Arabs that Isreal pactices apartheid in the territories if we were discussing Arab shortcomings. Using such a defense either way is a red herring.

My use of Mr. Begin's declaration that the West Bank and Gaza were an integral part of Israel was for hisotrical purposes. It was at this point that Israel began a policy in which Israeli Jews would be permitted to settle land in the occupied territories and the Palestinians living there would not be Israelis. Although there were settlements prior to that, they were few in number. If there were no more today than there were in 1977, they would not the serious obstacle to a peace agreement that they have become. The Oslo process would have been much less complicated and probably would have succeeded.

Race is not a required or intrinsic part of being a Jew. There are Jews of all ethnicities and races. As a result, race does not apply.

While race may not be all there is to being a Jew, it is still something like that and the Israeli law of return treats it very much that way. One does need to be a observant Jew to take advantage of the law; if one's mother is a Jew, then one is a Jew according to the law. Does one's mother have be observant? It seems this has as much or more to do with who one's ancestors are as what one's religious habits are.

Another interesting test is the phenomenon of your humble servant and his ancestors. My grandmother was a Methodist, but I attend no church. I am not a Methodist; it would be nonsense to say that I am part Methodist. On the other hand, my great grandfather was a Jew. He died about a humdred years ago. We don't really know that much about him and, from what little we do know, we would surmise he was not very observant. However, few would not what I mean if I said (as I do when discussing such matters) that I am part Jewish.

Answers to your other points are addressed in post number 30.

[meti57b]

33. Sorry to misinterpret your French. Perhaps using English ....

would be of benefit.

My interpretation of MOTR's post is ..... if apartheid is a topic of interest, then apartheid by any and all nations is of interest and not just apartheid that is alleged against Israel. I do not interpret MOTR's post to mean, ... if it's okay for the Arabs it's okay for the Israelis.

"My use of Mr. Begin's declaration that the West Bank and Gaza were an integral part of Israel was for hisotrical purposes."

Thank you for explaining that. I thought you had intended that information as a proof that Israel is an apartheid state. but apparently I was wrong. My mistake.

"While race may not be all there is to being a Jew, it is still something like that and the Israeli law of return treats it very much that way. One does need to be a observant Jew to take advantage of the law; if one's mother is a Jew, then one is a Jew according to the law. Does one's mother have be observant? It seems this has as much or more to do with who one's ancestors are as what one's religious habits are."

If your mother has made an authentic and accepted conversion to Judaism, it doesn't matter what ethnicity/race she is. She is then a Jew just like any other Jew. "Once someone has converted to Judaism they have the full status of Jews. They are Jews in every way, and, just like any other Jew, they can never cease to be Jews." (Abrahamson) And if she converted before your birth, then you are a Jew.

If your grandmother, (your mother's mother) has made an authentic conversion to Judaism, it doesn't matter what ethnicity/race she is. She is a Jew just like any other Jew. Someone who converts is as much a Jew as someone born a Jew. If she converted before your mother's birth, then your mother is a Jew and so are you. There is a qualifier in here somewhere that if the mother or if two generations of mothers convert to some other religion or are not observant, then somewhere down the line, you are not a Jew. But that applies the same to mothers who are born Jews as it does to mothers who are converts to Judaism.

In addition, when children are adopted, the parents can convert them to Judaism and they become Jews just like any other Jews.

So I repeat, race is not a required or intrinsic part of being a Jew. In addition, there are Jews of all ethnicities and races. As a result, race does not apply.

The Law of Return provides that Jews and non-Jews who are either children or grandchildren of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew or the spouse of a child or grandchild of a Jew (on condition that this person was not previously a Jew who had knowingly converted to another faith) have the right to immigrate to Israel and become citizens. There are usually some proposed minor changes to this but basically, that is it.

"Another interesting test is the phenomenon of your humble servant and his ancestors. My grandmother was a Methodist, but I attend no church. I am not a Methodist; it would be nonsense to say that I am part Methodist. On the other hand, my great grandfather was a Jew. He died about a humdred years ago. We don't really know that much about him and, from what little we do know, we would surmise he was not very observant. However, few would not what I mean if I said (as I do when discussing such matters) that I am part Jewish."

I think you have a typo in that last sentence but I'm guessing what you mean is "few would not know what I mean if I said ...... that I am part Jewish."

By religious law, there is no such thing as "part Jewish". You are either a Jew or you are not a Jew. In colloquial conversation you might say your are "part Jewish", but by Jewish law and tradition there is no such thing.

[Jack Rabbit]

35. Thank you for the explanation

I appreciate the information.

Yes, I did make a typo in my haste to finish the post and eat dinner, which you read correctly.

BTW, argumentum ad hominem: tu quoque is Latin, not French.

To further explain my position on the question whether the term apartheid is applicable to the situation, it seems a bit confusing as to whether one considers a Jew a race or an ethnic group or a religion. Whatever it is, Jews make up an identifiable group of people who are distinct from Palestinian Arabs. What we have in the occupied territories is a situation where Jews are given by law certain rights that Palestinians are not. In that, we have something that would seem to be very similar to apartheid and in no way could be called democratic. Were the territories to be annexed to Israel, the case for calling Israel an apartheid state would be stronger. As painful as I would find it, I would concede it as a fact to anyone who would assert under those conditions that Israel is an apartheid state. As it is, this is the situation in the territories. Here, the defense to Israel not being an apartheid state is simply that the discrimination in question is taking place outside the state of Israel.

The question still returns: Is this apartheid?

The Rome Statute defines apartheid as "inhumane acts . . . committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

The defense that Muddle presents is that the discrimination is related to the necessities of security. This is invalid. The reason for the acts that one might construe as apartheid have to do with Israel's insistence on settling the territory. This settlement activity has nothing to Israel's security. In fact, it detracts from it.

It would seem that the only defense is one that you present, namely, that being a Jew is not technically a racial matter. Many would say that such a defense is splitting hairs.

Perhaps some would like to suggest some other name for the practice. Whatever name it is given, I would still find what the fact that Israelis are displacing Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, giving Israeli Jews more rights than the Palestinians in those territories and using the land's resources for their benefit rather than that of the Palestinian people to be very, very wrong.

[meti57b]

43. and thank you for your explanation.

"BTW, argumentum ad hominem: tu quoque is Latin, not French."

Again, I would suggest English. Latin is not a language in use in my profession or avocations.

".... it seems a bit confusing as to whether one considers a Jew a race or an ethnic group or a religion. Whatever it is, Jews make up an identifiable group of people who are distinct from Palestinian Arabs."

It was probably confusing because you did not have the information on who is a Jew and what is a Jew. I hope I have provided enough. I might add that there are movements in Judaism that are less strict in their interpretation of who is a Jew, but those folks also do not base it on ethnicity/race.

If you think that Jews are an identifiable group of people who are distinct from Arabs, perhaps that is even further illustration that ethnicity/race is not an intrinsic part of who is a Jew, as both groups originated in the same place but Jews have traveled widely, through time for many there has been some intermarriage and by Jewish law, are still Jews.

"What we have in the occupied territories is a situation where Jews are given by law certain rights that Palestinians are not. In that, we have something that would seem to be very similar to apartheid and in no way could be called democratic. Were the territories to be annexed to Israel, the case for calling Israel an apartheid state would be stronger. As painful as I would find it, I would concede it as a fact to anyone who would assert under those conditions that Israel is an apartheid state. As it is, this is the situation in the territories. Here, the defense to Israel not being an apartheid state is simply that the discrimination in question is taking place outside the state of Israel."

If Israel were an apartheid state, they would not associate with the "others" inside of Israel. The fact that in Israel Palestinian Arabs are citizens with voting rights and representatives in the Knesset indicates that the problem Israel has is not with their ethnicity/race or religion. Were there non-white people in South Africa who were citizens, with voting rights, in their parliament? In the so-called territories the issue is self-defense and prevention of terrorism inside Israel.

"It would seem that the only defense is one that you present, namely, that being a Jew is not technically a racial matter. Many would say that such a defense is splitting hairs"

Perhaps many would say that it is splitting hairs, to say that Jews are not an ethnicity/race. Perhaps many are inadequately informed or they wish to not be informed in order to hang on to their own opinion of it. To Jews, it is significant and important. Ethnicity/race is not a required or intrinsic part of being a Jew.

"Apartheid" is not a word that can be correctly used to describe to Israel. The writer of that article was grasping at straws in his use of that word with reference to Israel.

[bluesoul]

44. What do you mean by

"so called territories"? Do you dispute that the OT is Palestinian land?

[Gimel]

34. Jewish heritage

I agree with what Meti has said. You couldn't be Jewish because of a Jewish great-grandfather, because the transmission of Jewish heritage is through the mother and grandmother. Also, you wouldn't be eligible for the law of return because that only applies to people who have a Jewish grandparent. Great-grandparents are three generations back and not applicable. So your Jewish heritage is, unfortunately, nil.

While your grandmother may be Methodist, you wouldn't be unless you were baptized a Methodist. However, if you were baptized in any Christian denomination, you would still be considered Christian by every church. I'm sure a clergyman would agree, that even though you don't attend a church or consider yourself as belonging to a religion, baptism is the all important factor in making you a Christian.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. A question about heritage...

I'm just wondering if yr using the word heritage in a different way than what people use when talking of their ancestry? I got the impression the heritage yr referring to is a very official type thing and not the family tree type one. Jack Rabbit isn't Jewish, but he still has Jewish ancestry because of his great-grandfather, so therefore he'd have Jewish heritage, I would have thought. I'm interested because my great granddad was also Jewish and I've always thought that I had Jewish ancestry, just the same as I've got a convict heritage due to the even more distant greatgreatgreatwhatever who came out here on the First Fleet...

If it's a more official type of defining of heritage, I guess I'd see it in the same way as you talked about a church considering anyone who's been baptized to be a Christian. It's just official mumbo-jumbo that means nothing really. I was christened, only attend church for hatches, matches and dispatches, am an Atheist, and there's no way in the world anyone's going to tell me that I'm a Christian. I've always thought the Anglican church should have a resignation process :)

Violet...

[Gimel]

45. In my opinion, the word heritage

implies a transmission of culture. Usually, the family supplies tradition. The mother, usually the nurturing parent, has the largest role in this, traditionally. That is the reasoning behind the Jewish tradition, I've been told.

As such, you can have Jewish or any other "ancestry", but unless that is accompanied by personal transmission of culture, through the teaching of tradition the light of that culture, you could not call it a heritage. The dictionary definition of heritage agrees with that interpretation. Heritage has to be inherited by the teaching of tradition.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. That sounds fair enough...

Got to admit, I tend to use the words 'ancestry' and 'heritage' to mean the same thing. And even though it could be argued that my tendency to pilfer pens from work is some genetic remnant of my convict ancestry, I guess it doesn't mean that I've got a convict heritage ;) Not being one for traditions of any sort, I can live without having any heritage at all, but I'd not be so keen on it if I were to be told I didn't have the ancestry I have...

Violet...

[Gimel]

50. We all go back

to a common ancestry, if you really want the truth. That is science. Heritage is what humanizes us.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I think you may have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to racism...

Racism occurs when there is discrimination AGAINST a specific group of people. Racism isn't defined by whoever is carrying out the discrimination, so whether or not Jews are a race is completely irrelevant to whether or not there is racism going on in the Occupied Territories...

What's the difference between a democracy where the group being discriminated against don't have the right to vote, even though they are a majority, and a democracy where there's an almost obsessive focus on ensuring that the group being discriminated against is always in a minority? Some of the plans floated for the Occupied Territories have included taking the people in as part of Israel if the OT were to be annexed, but denying them the right to vote and be equal to all other Israelis....

Sorry, but the motive of successive Israeli govts towards the Occupied Territories has been one of apartheid. How on earth do you explain Israeli-only settlements and Israeli-only roads?

As to why apartheid in other Middle Eastern states isn't discussed here, my guess is it has something to do with this being the I/P forum. Which is why you'll find discussion of Israel and Palestine here. Of course if you have some articles on apartheid elsewhere in the Middle East you could always post them. I for one oppose apartheid wherever it rears its ugly head, and I've got no reason to believe that those who are opposed to Israel's racist policies in the Occupied Territories would feel otherwise...

Violet...

[Gimel]

46. Demographic discussions

No where is this related to the right to vote for Israeli Jews or non-Jews.

build and explain Israeli-only roads by a policy suggested by the US administration. In fact, the increase of shooting of settler families by terrorists was the factor that they were supposed to rectify. It changed little, however. Terrorists still targeted Jewish vehicles, usually with women and children being killed.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Racism was being discussed...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but meti's belief is that what Israel is doing in the Occupied Territories can't be racist because she doesn't believe being Jewish is a racial/ethnic thing. And I pointed out that for something to be racism, it's the group being discriminated AGAINST that it would matter if they were a racial/ethnic group...

I wasn't aware that building by-pass roads was a policy suggested by the US administration, though it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Got any info I can read on that policy suggestion?

As the settlements themselves in their very nature of being only for Israelis and not Palestinians confirm for me that there's apartheid happening, claiming that Israeli-only bypass roads are there for security doesn't really work. Security isn't an excuse for racism anyway...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Yes, Apartheid...

I think those 'if they can do it, so can we!!!' lines of argument are pretty silly, and pointing out that Arab states do it in an attempt to deflect criticism of Israel's apartheid policies in the Occupied Territories doesn't convince anyone of anything other than apartheid policies are unacceptable no matter which state has them. And if yr argument is that they do it while Israel doesn't, well that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to anyone who understands what apartheid is. I'd be interested in hearing how you define apartheid to come to such a conclusion...

It doesn't matter how large a minority group is. It doesn't mean it's still not apartheid. After all, in South Africa, the vast majority of the population were victims of Apartheid....

I'm not sure why yr talking as though the article claimed that apartheid was going on in Israel itself. It specifically talked about the Occupied Territories....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. You clearly misunderstand

To look at the Mideast and the best thing you or others here can come up with is going after Israel over apartheid is ludicrous. If you want to pick on those using that practice start with the Arab states and then the PA.

When you are done, you will find that Israel is not doing what you think. It is simply exercising security precautions in the face of an enemy that likes to kill women and children.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Not at all...

As I've already told you that I oppose apartheid wherever it raises its ugly head, I don't know why yr repeating yrself, because what you just said is exactly the same as the post I'd replied to earlier. I notice you didn't provide yr definition of apartheid. Feel free to do so...

Why is it that you think that apartheid must be addressed in all other states before it's addressed for Israel? You appear to be denying that Israel has apartheid policies in the Occupied Territories (and using the tired old *security* excuse is NO excuse for apartheid), yet claiming that apartheid exists in other states. That's why I'd like to see how you define apartheid. So pick an Arab state, give some examples of the apartheid, explain how it is apartheid. Then pick Israel. Take one of the examples of apartheid that have been discussed here, and explain why it's not apartheid. And make sure you don't trot out the old 'security' line, because that would not mean that apartheid doesn't happen, just that 'security' is an excuse for it...

Violet...