DSeid, I don’t think you understand. The entire West Bank and Gaza Strip are the “bantustans”.
Sorry for having to be so brief here, but long hard day at work and little time now. In reverse order:
I must not understand. The entire West Bank is a “Bantustan”? That seems patently absurd. The accusation usaully refers to the false accustion that Israel plans to carve the West Bank into seperate small areas as a long term strategy, and is usually accompanied by false renditions of the proposed fence. There is no real basis for that claim.
Sal, there is a difference between “enemies of the state” and not being placed in the most sensitive of positions. I agree that it represents some discrimination and that there is no reason that an Arab Israeli cannot be a loyal Israeli even when it comes to issues of security regarding Arabs of the West bank, but it does potentially raise a conflict. Maybe if you had an Israeli Arab who had volunteered to serve in the army and came out the other side applying for a security position you’d have a good case to take to the Israeli Supreme Court. I wonder how it would turn out? But not too many Israeli arabs have done that.
As to the op, well, I have reason to doubt the accuracy of this report since they have otherwise distorted and reported inaccurately in the same piece. It certainly is possible. There are some hardline pricks in positions of power in Israel and have been for years. Israelis are not all saints any more than they are all sinners. I can imagine that abuses have occurred, and any abuses need to be identified, investigated, and rectified. No doubt the Israeli government would prefer to see East Jerusalum Arabs be part of a PA for demographic reasons. It is for this reason that some copmpromise on the city’s status will ikely someday occur.
Pjen, the lie is the statement regarding Olmerts plans. Olmert is clearly wanting to disengage to a secure location. That is his platform. No it won’t be to exactly the Green Line, but projecting power beyond the fence after it is completed is not in the cards as a matter of daily course. It would defeat the point of the fence, to allow disengagement. Responding with air strikes to attacks would still be in the cards.
Olmert has disclosed further information about the proposed route of the final border of Israel and the land earmarked for appropriation.Israel Plans to Keep Main Settlements
This does appear to envisage 'projecting power" beyond the barrier.
Interestingly Pjen, Olmert has come out today confirming the plans for unilateral disengagement, to withdraw from the vast majority of the West bank excepting three major settlement blocs, two of which are suburbs of Jerusalum. As per this Washington Post article
The issue of controlling the eastern border in the absence of final status agreements is put in greater context in a Haaretz article about the interview:
Of note: no criss crossing division of the West bank into seperate non-viable areas by either fence or by settlements and their influence. No Bantustans.
Let us review.
The Guardian article alleges that Israel is as unto apartheid, even as it acknowledges that Israeli Arabs have full legal protections under the law (the absence of which ibeing what defines apartheid) and claims it on the basis of an alleged treatment of some East Jerusalum Arabs who have been allegedly falsely classified as living outside of the city limits, and on the basis that an Afrikaaner liked Israel and Israel did business with S. Africa. Nope. Not apartheid. Not even close. Having problems with discrimination and profiling of a minority population, yes. And this is inexcusable even given that the rights and conditions of Israeli Arabs are better than anywhere else in the ME and that the rights of Jews and minorities in Arab countries are abysmal. Israel must do better. But apartheid? No.
Get back to me when you actually understand what a Bantustan is, then, rather than what you think it is based on the pictures that go with the articles you’ve read.
No. This is how you define apartheid. *I *define apartheid as a particular kind of dicrimination of one ethnic group by another, carried out by the machinery of the state. That discrimination is best described as “seperate development” for the two ethnicities. There don’t have to be any laws on the books to reflect it, although Israel clearly has such laws or else development guidelines, when it comes to development, to education, to right of free passage from one part of the country to another.
http://www.mideastweb.org/map_israel_settlements.htm
This is a map which clearly shows the current Bantustan apparoach. Only the shaded areas are currently Palestinian. Note the large number of settlements by Israel in the intervening areas. It looks just like the Bantustans in SA.
Note especially the similarity to KwaZulu geographically.
Unless Olmert means to dismantle all of these settlements as Sharon did in Gaza, then any claim to be avoiding Bantustanisation of the West Bank.
Please give a clear cite for the fact that Israel intends to demolish all these settlements and return full control to the Palestinians for these intervening areas. If this was the case, then Israel would seem to be proposing to return even more control than it did in the Oslo accors. :eek:
I won’t even try to argue about the Jordan Valley control, as although this is questionable, it does not result in Bantustanisation, and is merely a land-grab.
As I said above, clear cite please.
Found the description of Olmert’s proposal;
**Israel unveils plan to encircle Palestinian state **
The acting Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said yesterday that he plans to annex the Jordan Valley and major Jewish settlement blocks to Israel in drawing new borders, according to a television station that recorded an interview with him yesterday.
If the Jewish state were to annex all of the Jordan Valley, which is dotted with small settlements, it would leave a future Palestinian state on the West Bank entirely surrounded by Israel and without a direct link to neighbouring countries.
The pressure group Peace Now estimates 185,000 of the 244,000 Israelis in the West Bank outside Jerusalem are resident in the settlements Mr Olmert wants to keep within Israel’s border.
So, Bantustanisation is the plan.
Sorry for jumping in to post what is probably just a nitpick but this line of thinking has always been a huge pet peeve of mine.
The idea that just because someone else out there is truly reprehensible somehow justifies our own flaws has never held any weight with me. We heard it during the Abu Garib scandal when people claimed, “But the terrorists cut off people’s heads!” as if our not sinking as low as terrorists was some how an accomplishment. We heard it during the cold war, when civil rights abuses “weren’t so bad” just because the Soviet Union was doing so much more terrible things. And of course, we hear it here. Israel’s treatment of Israeli Arabs is somehow mitigated because neighboring nations treat their minorities even worse. The obvious parallel would be using SA Apartheid to minimize civil rights abuse in the US, which I’m sure was done as well.
Now DSeid, if your intent wasn’t to minimize Israeli discrimination by bringing up abuses by such human rights pioneers as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran [you didn’t mention them specifically but they’re the first three that spring to mind] then I apologize. However, I’m not sure what other intent you might have had in citing the human rights record of neighboring nations since otherwise, I don’t see what they have to do with this thread.
The fact that other nations or individuals hold themselves to a lesser standard does not excuse a given nation or individual the obligation to strive to meet their greater one.
Doh, I even previewed.
Your agument seems to be that because the Guardian is biased, the specific case it identifies, namely the Said Rhateb case, can only be called an “alleged” abuse, and on this basis you downplay the whole issue. In fact, Israel’s treatment of Arabs in Jerusalem in particular is a known problem that’s been going on for years, without much complaint from Israel’s supporters (a good summary can be found here.) Noone Special’s post above is telling – he tries to pass the whole thing off as a minor bureaucratic snafu.
Israel as a state has ethnic discrimination as a foundational premise – just as apartheid South African had. And like South Africa, Israel has resorted to a variety of fig leaves – the Occupied Territories being one – so that it can manipulate the demography while still claiming to be a democratic state.
I don’t think you’re going to make much headway with Pjen here, given that he is having so much fun repeating “Bantustan”.
Actually, it makes as much or more sense to regard Israel as Bantustan, considering the continued attempts by its adversaries to carve it up territorially and isolate it via deceptive and historically inaccurate propaganda.
Or one could drop the sub-Godwinesque use of South Africa and apartheid as labels altogether, and work on finding solutions to the conflict instead of indulging in simplistic “four legs good, two legs bad” diatribes.
I think that if you ask the moderators, they’d be willing to make this the default opening for all the threads you start. It’d save time.
The point, should it need to be made clear, is that South Africa is an example of the International Community, eventually and incompletely recognising an abhorrent situation. Then, international pressure was sufficient to create a humane change in South Africa’s internal policies.
I believe that is the endpoint of the OP’s analogy.
Slight nitpick - international pressure was only a factor in ending aprtheid. The homegrown rebellion and insurgencies played at least as big a role, if not more so. Sanctions etc. only made it harder for the Govt. to keep fighting.
To throw in a little argumentum ad verecundiam: “In a speech last year in Boston, Tutu was quoted by the Israeli daily Ha’aretz as saying the Palestinian experience ‘reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa… I say why are our memories so short? Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation?’” (Quoted from here.) Nelson Mandela has made similar statements.
I was born in Port Elizabeth back when South Africa had a sizable Jewish population. Except for my grandparents, some uncles, and some cousins, all of them have left for Israel and the US. My family left in 1978 for the US, but I have been back many, many times. I have also visited Israel many, many times.
I think those who compare South Africa to Israel have a deep misunderstanding of the situation. The biggest difference, as I see it, is Israel has had its hand forced by war. The occupation of the territories was strictly to ensure their own security. Verwoerd and the architects of apartheid did it to protect wealth, power, and an imperial legacy in the first-world economy of South Africa.
This is evidenced by the overlooked fact that Israeli Arabs have full voting and travel and other rights than all other Israelis, as is pointed out above. Israeli Arabs are exempt from the obligation to serve in the Army, but the Army is open to them. If jobs are closed to them because of security concerns, that is a wrong that must be righted but to compare that with the evil of apartheid is akin to a Godwinization.
The societal wrong of the oppression of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians exists as a sticky situation that has never been fully resolved simply because there is no adequate solution that can ensure Palestinian rights and Israeli security. It is a very bad thing, I believe it needs to be resolved with an independent, fully functional Palestinian state, and I believe that Israel can and should have acted faster. I believe that if a Palestinian Mandela had arisen, that if the Palestinians had started with nonviolent protest like the anti-apartheid movement started, the situation would have been resolved quickly, because Israel could have acted without threats to their security. I am not aware of imprisoning or exile of Palestinian poets, musicians, and nonviolent leaders. I am not aware of anything even close to the Sharpeville massacre. The difference is, at the heart, the Israel/Palestinian conflict is really a continuing smoldering battle from the Six Day War in 1967. The soldiers still call the shots on both sides. Apartheid could never be justified like that.
Sharpeville:
On 21 March 1960 at least 180 black Africans were injured (there are claims of as many as 300) and 69 killed when South African police opened fire on approximately 300 demonstrators, who were protesting against the pass laws, at the township of Sharpeville, near Vereeniging in the Transvaal.
**
Israel and Occupied Territories 2004:**
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/isr-summary-eng
Covering events from January - December 2004
The Israeli army killed more than 700 Palestinians, including some 150 children. Most were killed unlawfully — in reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian residential areas; in extrajudicial executions; and as a result of excessive use of force.
If that were true, then Israel wouldn’t be helped itself to sizeable chunks of the Occupied Territories in the form of settlements and annexations. The fact is, Israel has always manipulated the idea of security to further its aims. Its security issues are, and have been since 1948, the result of its militarized posture towards the Palestinians and their neighbors. For example, Israel’s often-brutal treatment of Palestinians in the Territories can be seen as an attempt to produce a Palestinian backlash, which then can be worked up into an exploitable security concern, leading inevitably to the dispossession of more Palestinians.
Olmert’s plans, as alluded to, are more of the same – an attempt to squeeze the Palestinians of the West Bank from both the West and the East, all of which will guarantee future conflict and future “security threats” that Israel will need as an excuse for its actions.
It’s also true that the focus on “security” obscures the fact that, in its conception, Israel does not see itself as a land of equal opportunity for Jews and non-Jews. Zionism always assumes Jews will, and should, have the upper hand. Hence the validity of the comparison with apartheid, even if some details obviously differ between Israel and South Africa.
Well Jack I try to give people a chance until they prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are conclusions looking for data rather than the other way around. Pjen’s recent post has gotten me there. Two cites of that Olmert interview were offered up, one of which included the full context of the statement regarding the Jordan Valley, ie defense will be assured but we must disengage. The Guardian clearly intentional misrepresentation of that comment? “The acting Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said yesterday that he plans to annex the Jordan Valley” Nothing of the sort was said. Pjen’s take? Ignore the other cites and believe as gospel what the Guardian says, in fact until the Guardian says it, it does not count: “Found the description of Olmert’s proposal …” ignoring two other cites that clearly tell that indeed pull back from other settlements than the three mentioned is going to occur.
MrDibble, what Bantustan and apartheid are, are words chosen for their inflamatory quality. “Apartheid” actually means the system that was in place in S Africa. It is sometimes used, as this thread has used it, to describe any segregation that occurs within a society by those who wish to inflame a debate, but that bastardization of the phrase is nothing more than a cheap bit of sophmoric rhetoric. By that usage most of the world’s societies are guilty of apartheid.
Dubious, I agree, and have stated, that Israel is not to be judged relative to the inadequacies of Arab societies, but nevertheless in a thread that invokes the discrimination of Arabs within Israel, the status that Arabs are living under in neighboring countries and that they therefore would be living under if it was not for their living in Israel, is relevant.
Sal, the Guardian has in this thread alone, discredited itself as a source of accurate or truthful information. Again, that does not mean that it is impossible that what they report might be true. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut. But such is a random process. I can certainly believe that systemic discrimination exists visavis Jerusalum’s Arab population and believe that such should be fought against. Once again, Israel is not faultless and I am critical of many of Israel’s past policies. But it is a long way from stating that discriminatory practices exist to “apartheid” and the rhetorical flourish that Godwinizes any failings is counterproductive to establishing real dialogue let alone real solutions. As does your misrepresentation of the history of the West Bank after you have had many chances in past threads to read up on more accurate unbiased histories.
In your view, maybe, but not necessarily in anyone else’s.
Well, here’s the thing: you have said that discrimination is against your principles, which makes me wonder why you spend a considerable amount of your energy defending a state that’s designed in such a way as to violate your principles.
I would ask for a “for instance,” except that I’m not all that interested in hearing your tendentious “unbiased histories” again. You’ll undoubtedly trot out the “three no’s” again, as if what eight random guys said in Khartoum in 1967, for 20 minutes, has any bearing on today’s Occupied Territories, or Israel’s responsibilities thereunto.
DSeid, face it: if Israel has a huge discrimination problem, huge enough that reasonably serious-minded and informed people will compare it to apartheid, then Israel should be criticized, and not defended – by you, even.