Apartheid? Really?

[louie888]

“Not only is this group of people [Palestinians] being oppressed more than the apartheid ideologues could ever dream about in South Africa, their very identity and history are being denied and obfuscated.”

--Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, 2012


More than the apartheid ideologues could ever dream about in South Africa?

Think on that!

 

[Hollie]

“Not only is this group of people [Palestinians] being oppressed more than the apartheid ideologues could ever dream about in South Africa, their very identity and history are being denied and obfuscated.”

--Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, 2012


More than the apartheid ideologues could ever dream about in South Africa?

Think on that!

You copied and paste an opinion - even using gargantuan text. You might want to offer some support for that opinion.

 

[louie888]

Tutu is the support. Noone believes you know more of apartheid than he.

And what about the South African ambassador to Israel?

In June 2013, the recently retired South African ambassador to Israel, Ismail Coovadia, wrote that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is a "replication of apartheid."

Is Israel an Apartheid State? | IMEU

 

[Hollie]

Tutu is the support. Noone believes you know more of apartheid than he.

And what about the South African ambassador to Israel?

In June 2013, the recently retired South African ambassador to Israel, Ismail Coovadia, wrote that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is a "replication of apartheid."

Is Israel an Apartheid State? | IMEU

What of the South African ambassador to the "country of Pal'istan"?

 

[Shusha]

There is no great difference in laws. Native languages and culture were respected, in fact the whites encouraged the non-whites to pursue their own separate culture and languages. That was a goal of Apartheid, separate development.

But again, you are stretching the meaning of "apartheid" to its breaking point. Separation of culture and languages ALONE is not the definition of apartheid. Canada has legislation to protect and preserve its French culture. We have different schools for French and English speakers all over Canada. Are you going to say that Canada is an apartheid state?

 

[montelatici]

There is no great difference in laws. Native languages and culture were respected, in fact the whites encouraged the non-whites to pursue their own separate culture and languages. That was a goal of Apartheid, separate development.

But again, you are stretching the meaning of "apartheid" to its breaking point. Separation of culture and languages ALONE is not the definition of apartheid. Canada has legislation to protect and preserve its French culture. We have different schools for French and English speakers all over Canada. Are you going to say that Canada is an apartheid state?

Israel is an Apartheid state. Canada does not bomb enclaves of French speakers. Israel rules over the occupied territories like Apartheid South Africa ruled over the Bantustans. Neither are/were self=governing. Stop being foolish.

 

[Shusha]

There is no great difference in laws. Native languages and culture were respected, in fact the whites encouraged the non-whites to pursue their own separate culture and languages. That was a goal of Apartheid, separate development.

But again, you are stretching the meaning of "apartheid" to its breaking point. Separation of culture and languages ALONE is not the definition of apartheid. Canada has legislation to protect and preserve its French culture. We have different schools for French and English speakers all over Canada. Are you going to say that Canada is an apartheid state?

Israel is an Apartheid state. Canada does not bomb enclaves of French speakers. Israel rules over the occupied territories like Apartheid South Africa ruled over the Bantustans. Neither are/were self=governing. Stop being foolish.

Your contention in the previous post was that separate culture and languages defines apartheid. Defend that claim. Don't go introducing other subjects or making broad and general statements like this second post. Defend your original claim.

 

[montelatici]

There is no great difference in laws. Native languages and culture were respected, in fact the whites encouraged the non-whites to pursue their own separate culture and languages. That was a goal of Apartheid, separate development.

But again, you are stretching the meaning of "apartheid" to its breaking point. Separation of culture and languages ALONE is not the definition of apartheid. Canada has legislation to protect and preserve its French culture. We have different schools for French and English speakers all over Canada. Are you going to say that Canada is an apartheid state?

Israel is an Apartheid state. Canada does not bomb enclaves of French speakers. Israel rules over the occupied territories like Apartheid South Africa ruled over the Bantustans. Neither are/were self=governing. Stop being foolish.

Your contention in the previous post was that separate culture and languages defines apartheid. Defend that claim. Don't go introducing other subjects or making broad and general statements like this second post. Defend your original claim.

Why should I defend "separate development" or Apartheid? Separate culture and language is just a part of Apartheid. The most important feature is rule by a particular class/ethnicity/race/ religion of people over other people. A minority of Jews rule and/or control an equal number or majority of non-Jews in Israel and the occupied territories. Your Hasbara training doesn't work with me Shusa, I'll outsmart you every time. I read the Hasbara Handbook.

 

[Shusha]

Separate culture and language is just a part of Apartheid. The most important feature is rule by a particular class/ethnicity/race/ religion of people over other people.

Thank you. So we agree that all apartheid regimes have, as a marker, a separation of peoples (based on race, religion, language, ethnicity, etc) BUT that not all societies which have a separation of peoples are necessarily apartheid, yes? See, how that works?

Now, let's apply the same mode of thinking to the idea of "self-rule". All apartheid regimes will have an element of the domination of one group over another BUT not all societies where there is a minority population without self-rule are apartheid. So, for example, First Nations peoples in Canada, the US and Australia do not have self-rule. Are Canada, the US and Australia apartheid states? The Hindus of Pakistan do not have self-rule, is Pakistan an apartheid state? The Catalans of Spain do not have self-rule, is Spain an apartheid state? Further, Palestine and Gaza DO have a form of self-rule. The lack or presence of self-rule alone is not enough to create the crime of apartheid.

The definition of apartheid has to be precise and meaningful. You broaden it -- you are forced to broaden it -- in order to demonize Israel. But by your definition, nearly any country in the world can be shown to meet it and be considered apartheid regimes.


And, in a delicious irony, you regularly and consistently have a pattern of behaviour on this board which uses racial language and genetic markers to specifically separate out and deny rights to a certain group. You believe people should be sorted by "race" (DNA). You believe "race" (DNA) is relevant to the discussion. (Though, of course, you apply that criteria unevenly and only to one side). It is nothing more than a high-tech alternative to dividing people by skin color and assigning rights based on that skin color. THAT, my friend, is apartheid.

 

[montelatici]

Separate culture and language is just a part of Apartheid. The most important feature is rule by a particular class/ethnicity/race/ religion of people over other people.

Thank you. So we agree that all apartheid regimes have, as a marker, a separation of peoples (based on race, religion, language, ethnicity, etc) BUT that not all societies which have a separation of peoples are necessarily apartheid, yes? See, how that works?

Now, let's apply the same mode of thinking to the idea of "self-rule". All apartheid regimes will have an element of the domination of one group over another BUT not all societies where there is a minority population without self-rule are apartheid. So, for example, First Nations peoples in Canada, the US and Australia do not have self-rule. Are Canada, the US and Australia apartheid states? The Hindus of Pakistan do not have self-rule, is Pakistan an apartheid state? The Catalans of Spain do not have self-rule, is Spain an apartheid state? Further, Palestine and Gaza DO have a form of self-rule. The lack or presence of self-rule alone is not enough to create the crime of apartheid.

The definition of apartheid has to be precise and meaningful. You broaden it -- you are forced to broaden it -- in order to demonize Israel. But by your definition, nearly any country in the world can be shown to meet it and be considered apartheid regimes.


And, in a delicious irony, you regularly and consistently have a pattern of behaviour on this board which uses racial language and genetic markers to specifically separate out and deny rights to a certain group. You believe people should be sorted by "race" (DNA). You believe "race" (DNA) is relevant to the discussion. (Though, of course, you apply that criteria unevenly and only to one side). It is nothing more than a high-tech alternative to dividing people by skin color and assigning rights based on that skin color. THAT, my friend, is apartheid.

The delicious irony is that you have changed a few words, but it is the Hasbara answer which tries to claim that Israel is doing what other countries do with minorities. Of course, this is untrue, because Australia, Canada, the U.S., who did employ settler colonialism, do not call themselves "European" or "Christian" states. Nor do they assign different citizen status to minorities, i.e. an ID card with racial, ethnic or religious affiliation is issued to minorities.

Furhermore, it is important to understand that, today, there is a de-facto single state, one regime, maintained by the Israeli authorities, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Since 1967, successive Israeli governments have steadily incorporated the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, into the fabric of the state, through settlements, a road network, and so on. Within this single regime, incorporating pre-1967 Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Jews and Palestinians are afforded or denied rights based on ethnicity, ID card, and geography.

Within Israel, inequality is institutionalized; even the U.S. State Department acknowledges that Palestinian citizens of Israel, approximately 20 percent of the population inside the pre-1967 lines, face “institutional and societal discrimination.” The legal rights centre Adalah, has identified more than 50 laws that discriminate against non-Jewish citizens, affecting areas of life such as land ownership, housing rights, family life, citizenship, education, and more. Indeed, contrary to a widely-held perception, there is not even a legal guarantee of equality; in January 2016, the Knesset voted against a draft bill calling for the inclusion of an equality clause in a key Basic Law.

So while Palestinian citizens of Israel can vote in parliamentary elections, and become Members of Knesset or Supreme Court justices, none of that changes the documented discrimination outlined above. Moreover, their representation in the corridors of power and judiciary is extremely limited; since 1948 there have only even been two non-Jewish ministers, out of more than 600, while there has only ever been non-Jewish judge on the Supreme Court (from 66 justices past and present).

Of course, Israel’s policies of systematic discrimination, state-sponsored racism, and brutal repression of dissent, is even harsher in the occupied Palestinian territory; from the colonization of land in the West Bank, to the inequality and displacement faced by the Palestinian ‘residents’ who are neither full citizens nor under military rule in East Jerusalem. In the Gaza Strip, Palestinians are subjected to the collective punishment of blockade, fenced-in, and subjected to periodic, brutal massacres.

You can continue with your Hasbara canned responses, but even Israel's strongest supporters understand that Israel is an Apartheid state. They couch their accusation in terms of "if there is not a two-state solution" using the charade that the occupied territories are independent states, but that Bantustan defense was debunked long ago.

 

[Hollie]

Separate culture and language is just a part of Apartheid. The most important feature is rule by a particular class/ethnicity/race/ religion of people over other people.

Thank you. So we agree that all apartheid regimes have, as a marker, a separation of peoples (based on race, religion, language, ethnicity, etc) BUT that not all societies which have a separation of peoples are necessarily apartheid, yes? See, how that works?

Now, let's apply the same mode of thinking to the idea of "self-rule". All apartheid regimes will have an element of the domination of one group over another BUT not all societies where there is a minority population without self-rule are apartheid. So, for example, First Nations peoples in Canada, the US and Australia do not have self-rule. Are Canada, the US and Australia apartheid states? The Hindus of Pakistan do not have self-rule, is Pakistan an apartheid state? The Catalans of Spain do not have self-rule, is Spain an apartheid state? Further, Palestine and Gaza DO have a form of self-rule. The lack or presence of self-rule alone is not enough to create the crime of apartheid.

The definition of apartheid has to be precise and meaningful. You broaden it -- you are forced to broaden it -- in order to demonize Israel. But by your definition, nearly any country in the world can be shown to meet it and be considered apartheid regimes.


And, in a delicious irony, you regularly and consistently have a pattern of behaviour on this board which uses racial language and genetic markers to specifically separate out and deny rights to a certain group. You believe people should be sorted by "race" (DNA). You believe "race" (DNA) is relevant to the discussion. (Though, of course, you apply that criteria unevenly and only to one side). It is nothing more than a high-tech alternative to dividing people by skin color and assigning rights based on that skin color. THAT, my friend, is apartheid.

The delicious irony is that you have changed a few words, but it is the Hasbara answer which tries to claim that Israel is doing what other countries do with minorities. Of course, this is untrue, because Australia, Canada, the U.S., who did employ settler colonialism, do not call themselves "European" or "Christian" states. Nor do they assign different citizen status to minorities, i.e. an ID card with racial, ethnic or religious affiliation is issued to minorities.

Furhermore, it is important to understand that, today, there is a de-facto single state, one regime, maintained by the Israeli authorities, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Since 1967, successive Israeli governments have steadily incorporated the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, into the fabric of the state, through settlements, a road network, and so on. Within this single regime, incorporating pre-1967 Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Jews and Palestinians are afforded or denied rights based on ethnicity, ID card, and geography.

Within Israel, inequality is institutionalized; even the U.S. State Department acknowledges that Palestinian citizens of Israel, approximately 20 percent of the population inside the pre-1967 lines, face “institutional and societal discrimination.” The legal rights centre Adalah, has identified more than 50 laws that discriminate against non-Jewish citizens, affecting areas of life such as land ownership, housing rights, family life, citizenship, education, and more. Indeed, contrary to a widely-held perception, there is not even a legal guarantee of equality; in January 2016, the Knesset voted against a draft bill calling for the inclusion of an equality clause in a key Basic Law.

So while Palestinian citizens of Israel can vote in parliamentary elections, and become Members of Knesset or Supreme Court justices, none of that changes the documented discrimination outlined above. Moreover, their representation in the corridors of power and judiciary is extremely limited; since 1948 there have only even been two non-Jewish ministers, out of more than 600, while there has only ever been non-Jewish judge on the Supreme Court (from 66 justices past and present).

Of course, Israel’s policies of systematic discrimination, state-sponsored racism, and brutal repression of dissent, is even harsher in the occupied Palestinian territory; from the colonization of land in the West Bank, to the inequality and displacement faced by the Palestinian ‘residents’ who are neither full citizens nor under military rule in East Jerusalem. In the Gaza Strip, Palestinians are subjected to the collective punishment of blockade, fenced-in, and subjected to periodic, brutal massacres.

You can continue with your Hasbara canned responses, but even Israel's strongest supporters understand that Israel is an Apartheid state. They couch their accusation in terms of "if there is not a two-state solution" using the charade that the occupied territories are independent states, but that Bantustan defense was debunked long ago.

Fraud Alert!

Dear. It's in bad form to plagiarize entire contents of articles pretending it's your own.

Article by Ben White: Why Israel is an apartheid state - Palestine Solidarity Campaign

 

[louie888]

• The United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines 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.”
• The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as "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;"...

Is Israel an Apartheid State? | IMEU

It seems Israel's supporters don't even know what apartheid means. I hope the above helps.

 

[Hollie]

• The United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines 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.”
• The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as "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;"...

Is Israel an Apartheid State? | IMEU

It seems Israel's supporters don't even know what apartheid means. I hope the above helps.

Pal'istanians are now a race?

 

[louie888]

• The United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines 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.”
• The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as "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;"...

Is Israel an Apartheid State? | IMEU

It seems Israel's supporters don't even know what apartheid means. I hope the above helps.

Pal'istanians are now a race?

Yeah, they have been around in that region for at least centuries before Christ. And we have archeological (scientific) EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES THAT.

Discovery of Philistine cemetery in Israel could unravel Biblical mystery

So now that you know the definition you can see clearly the apartheid society that you support.

 

[Hollie]

• The United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines 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.”
• The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as "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;"...

Is Israel an Apartheid State? | IMEU

It seems Israel's supporters don't even know what apartheid means. I hope the above helps.

Pal'istanians are now a race?

Yeah, they have been around in that region for at least centuries before Christ. And we have archeological (scientific) EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES THAT.

Discovery of Philistine cemetery in Israel could unravel Biblical mystery

So now that you know the definition you can see clearly the apartheid society that you support.

Addressed in the other thread you cut and pasted the above.

 

[louie888]

There are dozens of laws that privilege Jews or discriminate against non-Jews. These laws affect everything from immigration and family reunification to land ownership rights....

Is Israel an Apartheid State? | IMEU

 

[Hollie]

There are dozens of laws that privilege Jews or discriminate against non-Jews. These laws affect everything from immigration and family reunification to land ownership rights....

Is Israel an Apartheid State? | IMEU

Is this referencing the "race" of Pal'istanians?

 

[Shusha]

There are dozens of laws that privilege Jews or discriminate against non-Jews. These laws affect everything from immigration and family reunification to land ownership rights....

1. No, there isn't. It is illegal in Israel to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual preference, political affiliation, nationality, age, etc. Try reading some of those laws and actually discussing them. I've brought a few of them up, but no one actually wants to actually discuss them because oops! they don't actually say what you think they say.

2. Discrimination is not equivalent to apartheid. There is discrimination in even the best countries. It does not make them apartheid states.

 

[montelatici]

There are dozens of laws that privilege Jews or discriminate against non-Jews. These laws affect everything from immigration and family reunification to land ownership rights....

1. No, there isn't. It is illegal in Israel to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual preference, political affiliation, nationality, age, etc. Try reading some of those laws and actually discussing them. I've brought a few of them up, but no one actually wants to actually discuss them because oops! they don't actually say what you think they say.

2. Discrimination is not equivalent to apartheid. There is discrimination in even the best countries. It does not make them apartheid states.

From the 2016 U.S. State Department Report on Israel:

"The most significant human rights problems were terrorist attacks targeting civilians and politically and religiously motivated societal violence; institutional and societal discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel, many of whom self-identify as Palestinian, in particular in access to equal education, housing, and employment opportunities; and institutional and societal discrimination against Ethiopian Israelis and women.

Other human rights problems included administrative detention, often extraterritorial in Israel, of Palestinians from the occupied territories; stigmatizing of human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); the treatment of asylum seekers and irregular migrants; institutional and societal discrimination against non-Orthodox Jews and intermarried families; and labor rights abuses against Arab and foreign workers."

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016

 

[Hollie]

And then we have this:

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/253139.pdf

During the year according to Israeli Security Agency (ISA, also known as Shabak) statistics, Palestinians committed 47 terror attacks (including stabbings, assaults, shootings, projectile and rocket attacks, and attacks by improvised explosive devices (IED) within the Green Line that led to the deaths of five Israelis and one Eritrean, and two stabbing terror attacks committed by Jewish Israelis within the Green Line and not including Jerusalem. According to the ISA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant groups fired 22 rockets into Israel and in 11 other incidents either planted IEDs or carried out shooting or projectile attacks into Israel and the Golan Heights. Further information on the human rights situation in the occupied territories is in the annex.