Sal
The occupation of the territories, in 1967, was strictly a consequence of the Six Day War. Their continued presence there is of course a matter of debate – I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t have been out of there sooner, or that things have gotten complicated with a poorly thought out settlement policy. As far as I know, though, the only parts of the territories that have been annexed is Jerusalem and perhaps part of the Golan.
I’d also like some kind of cite that Israel has purposefully driven dissent in the territories. Prior to the first Intifada, things in the West Bank were quite peaceful and there was bustling commerce between Israel proper and the territories. I have never heard that Israel was ever involved in stirring unrest intentionally – I think that would be extraordinarily stupid and I would be interested to see someone who said that they have.
To both Pjen and Sal – I’m not going to debate on a plan (Olmert’s) that a) hasn’t taken shape yet b) is mostly word of mouth and c) probably won’t happen in its current incarnation. When Israel divides the West Bank into Bantustans then we can start talking. For right now, we can only say that they are thinking about phased withdrawal. The real problem isn’t whether Israel will completely withdraw to some 1967 arbitrary border, it is whether there will be the land and the mechanisms put in place to actually create a functional Palestinian state. Land, especially a few square kilometers of untenable desert, is among the least of the Palestinian worries currently. Not that it doesn’t matter, but there is so much more – air space, entry rights, border control, water, trade, etc. – that also has to be worked out.
To Pjen – The actions of the Israelis in the territories have been terrible towards the innocents affected, I agree. But it ain’t Sharpeville. At Sharpeville, undertrained riot police opened fire on a peaceful protest, killing 69, shooting many more. A large proportion were shot in the back. The situation in the territories is much more akin to a street battle type of situation, often with armed militants and exchange of fire. Collateral damage is supposedly investigated, and examples of overuse of force are (in theory) punished (like with that Druze commander who opened fire on a six year old last year). I’m not saying Israel is guiltless, or hasn’t been heavy handed. But you can’t say that those deaths in the territories were the government specifically targeting a race of people. Or that they were due to opening fire on peaceful protests.
I don’t have a cite because this is a question of interpretation. The Israelis have been extremely heavy-handed at times in the territories, and it doesn’t take a prophet to see that these actions would draw a violent Palestinian response. And the violent Palestinian response lets Israel whip out the security card, which often results in the taking of Palestinian territory. There is, after all, no inherent reason why the so-called “security fence” shouldn’t be built entirely on the Israeli side of the Green Line. Hence my perhaps cynical interpretation that the Israelis manipulate “security” so as to take territory.
Meant to comment on this as well. Your remarks about Olmert’s plan are well taken. What’s instructive is that Israel has never, to my knowledge, put forward a plan that would call for full sovereignty of the Occupied Territories. “Self-government” is not the same as full sovereignty, where Palestine would own its own airspace, for example, or be able to enter into treaties with whoever it pleases. In short, I don’t know of any Israeli proposal that doesn’t call for the territories to be a Bantustan (leaving aside Mr. Dibble’s contention that the OTs are now, and always have been, a Bantustan).
The fact is that this is a situation that has been festering for close on 40 years now. Israel is clearly in no rush to solve it. Olmert’s absence of an actual plan is indication of more of the same. And it’s obvious to me that whatever plan eventually emerges, it will call for some degree of land grab in the West Bank, which will inevitably spark a new round of fighting.
Defensive much? “Apartheid” is an Afrikaans word that means “apartness”, it’s not any discrimination, sure, but the people who are using it to describe Israel aren’t using it to describe just any old discrimination. It refers specifically to the doctrines of “seperate development” that are in place in Israel.
Are you arguing that there is no policy of seperate development in Israel?
Are you arguing that Arabs have exactly the same rights of travel, property ownership and equal access to equal education and welfare?
I don’t care why the situation is as it is - any competent govt. can create a security situation to its benefit - see “Homeland Security”, for instance.
To me, the thing that stands out the most, is that the people who are making the allegations of Israeli Apartheid are those who suffered under apartheid. Bishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela (Nobel Peace Laureates both) are not the kind of people given to flaming political rhetoric. They’re both serious, wise men who’ve seen and suffered much. I’d certainly trust their views more than yours.
Yes, indeed I am arguing that the 20% of Israeli citizens that are Arab have the same freedom to travel as do Israeel’s Jewish citizens. That the rights to property ownership is the same (the one exception, property owned in a particular non-governmental trust, has been over-ruled by the Israeli High Court, acording to material already cited by noone … or but you only believe it if it is in the Guardian). Education is indeed inequitably funded in Israel with the poorer minority having less monies for school systems and regions populated by the poorer minority being less well funded for economic development. Sounds just like the regretable situations in the US with both Black Americans and other minority groups … and in France for the Arab population … and China for many sub-populations … and, well in most of the world.
And oh Desmond Tutu also calls America’s situation as similar to that of S. Africa and has advised that we have an equivilant of The Truth and Reconciliation Process that S. Africa had to deal with our issues. (Cite is a radio interview on NPR, not sure I can find it, but can try if you don’t believe me). He may or may not be right, but just because he is serious, wise and has suffered doesn’t mean that he’s right. Want to play dueling serious wise men who havew suffered? I’ll see your Tutu and raise you a Wiesel. It would be a silly game to play.
You’d be arguing wrongly on both counts. Try googling “Jewish-only roads” and see what you get. Or look into the case of Adwan Shalhat, who was banned from traveling for unspecified reasons. Housing is an area of particular and entrenched discrimination. See a cite here to get a good idea of the flavor of it.
You continue to be guilty of downplaying how much deliberate, institutionalized discrimination there is in Israel proper. Have a look at the issues presented here, for example. This is not about the Guardian, your nitpicks and those of LavenderBlue aside. The discrimination is well documented elsewhere, and is obviously much more profound, deliberate and entrenched than discrimination in the U.S.
And further, talk about discrimination in Israel proper does not even begin to address the much more seriously abusive situation in the Occupied Territories. I think all of us would agree that if we don’t take the OT off the table, Israel does indeed have much more of an apartheid complexion. And why should we take the OT off the table, except to downplay the apartheid nature of Israel? Arguments that the OT is somehow “disputed” were made permanently moot by Israel’s act of settling hundreds of thousands of its citizens there. Like it or not, the OT are part of the problem, and the dispossession of the Palestinians there is indeed comparable to the dispossession of blacks in South Africa.
I know that I should let this thread die its ignoble death, but I just an’t stop myself from responding to that.
Nitpicks? Nitpicks?!?
I hardly would call pointing out major factual errors “nitpicks.”
Now onto your claims.
I’ve tried googling “Jewish-only roads” and get some links about the OT and one proposed stretch of road near Jerusalum. Arab Israelis have freedom to travel withinn Israel. No policy by the machinary of the state to limit Arab Israeli travel. Googling Adwan Shalhat does bring me up anything, and anyway, one anecdote does not a systemic policy make.
Do you actually read and think about the cites you post? The first one is the Arab Association for Human Rights. Their big point? The land that is now Israel used to be Arab property until 1948. It is administered, to no small degree, by Jews. Shocking in Israel that adminstraters and bueracrats would often be Jewish. Arab cities are crowded (well poverty does tend to promote a high birth rate), more proof of systemic state discrimination. Boy, you know there is real discrimination against Arabs in Israel, but this cite barely discusses it, they are so concerned with over-reaching polemics.
The second group also seems unlikely to sucessfully raise the banner of more equitable treatment of Israel’s Arab minority, since this year’s annual report seems more concerned this year with the human rights violation of capitalism:
and Arab rights within Israel are mainly impaired by some housing discrimination and excessive police force at a demonstration, and the admittedly unfair law that will not automatically grant Israeli citizenship to a Palestinian spouse of an Israeli citzen. Not exactly a case of trying to keep the Israeli Arabs seperate and downtrodden through system use of the apparati of the state.
Now onto the OT. I know I am not alone in having been critical of Israeli policies in the OT. A large portion of Israelis have been critical of governmental policies. The Israeli High Court has been critical. The nature of Israeli poitics has allowed a small number of Israelis with dreams of a greater Israel lead Israel into a nightmare situation. Of course the terror emanating from some Palestinian groups has contributed to that nightmare too, but the obligation of an occupier is to steward for those occupied and to provide for them. Israel has not done the best job at that, even grating difficult circumstances. Nevetheless, the OTs are not the state of Israel and its Arab inhabitants do not have the rights of citizens and cannnot be expected to. A heavy handed approach to dealing with terror and security is usually unproductive and unwise as it results in way too many innocents harmed but does not apartheid make.
It doesn’t matter if there’s also discrimination in US, France, China, freaking Timbuktu. This is not relevant in the slightest to whether there’s discrimination in Israel.
And here in your last post you approach the problem, then dance away -
This is the problem - the OTs are “not the state of Israel”, but who really rules the OTs? Israel! That is why they are exactly equivalent to the Transkei, Ciskei and Kwazulu of my youth, and that is why Israel is an apartheid state. They’ve shoved all their problems into the OTs, and then point and say “but these Arabs here, they can vote” - “Oh, those ones, they can vote for their own government, too”
When the people in the OTs can vote in Israel’s elections, they stop being bantustans, and that is when Israel stops being an Apartheid state.
But is relevant to the use of the inflamatory term “apartheid.”
Your debate apparently now rests on the existance of the OT in and of itself- Israel, per your perspective, is as unto apartheid because she did not annex the OT when she won it in war. The only non-apartheid option for Israel is to eliminate the existence of a Jewish majority state and a two-state solution that allows Israel to continue to function as a Jewish majority state would be the perpetuation of apartheid. Israel is, in its very desire to be a Jewish homeland state, a racist/apartheid entity. And that is worthy of attack; the fact that the other countries of the region are without any rights for minority citizens, or even many for majority citizens, is not worth working against.
Okay. NIce to at least get the cards out in the open.
On the other hand, if the site in question is that bothered by the inaccuracy of the Guardian, they ought to show a greater regard for accuracy themselves. Let me give you an example: “Do Arab citizens of Israel have the right to pursue any type of education of employment they choose in Israel? Yes.” You have admitted yourself that that is not true, which also invalidates the site’s claim that Israeli Arabs are citizens “with full rights.” So what do we conclude – that that site is ignorant of the situation in Israel, or worse, that they know the truth and are willing to twist it?
Of course. Do you? If so, how could you have missed the following?
[ul]
[li]“To further the goal of dispersing the Jewish population, the state has maintained a policy of continually establishing new settlements for Jews only. The settlements are established for Jews only (even when they are on public land) and Palestinian Arab citizens are not allowed to move there.”[/ul][/li]
[ul]
[li]"…the practice that public land can be limited to use by Jews only through the Jewish Agency continues to be upheld."[/ul] [/li]
[ul]
[li]"…planning laws are enforced unequally: while illegal building is tolerated in Jewish communities, it is harshly punished among Arab communities. Demolition orders are used to change settlement patterns: a 1996 Ministry of Interior report recorded that though Arab construction accounted for 57% of unlicensed building, it accounted for 90% of all demolitions."[/ul][/li]
[ul]
[li]“This policy is particularly hard on residents of a number of [Bedouin] villages unrecognised by the state, who are unable to get permits under any circumstances. The entire villages face prosecution in the courts and demolition orders, as well as suffering very hard living conditions: Houses without a permit cannot by law be connected to water, electricity or any other basic service network.”[/ul][/li]
[ul]
[li]“The report, using numerous examples, reviews the difficulties and mistreatment encountered by non-Jewish individuals who request a formalization of their status in Israel, including foreign national spouses of Israeli citizens and their children… Thus, in some cases, children who are Israeli citizens are separated from one of their parents who is deported by the state, and children who are eligible by law to Israeli citizenship are denied registration, and are therefore denied basic rights including medical care provided by state health insurance… citizenship and residency are routinely revoked without due process and with no right of appeal; applications submitted to the Ministry are not dealt with for many years; applicants are repeatedly asked to produce numerous and strange documents, some of which are impossible to find, etc.”[/ul][/li]Mind you, this is just a sample, but how this adds up in your mind to the notion that Israel is fair to its Arab citizens, I don’t quite understand.
Well first off, you included my comments as “nitpicks” and as you point out, I have been very willing to acknowldege the failings of Israel as I see them. Yes, there is one area in which Arab Israelis are discriminated against: they are not up for highly sensitive security positions. Now that’s a nitpick … on your part. 99.99% full rights, they can’t have a job that they don’t want anyway (and that assessment is based on the fact that few Arabs volunteer to serve in the military, which they can do.) Other than that one small area of the economy they are not legally discriminated against and have full legal rights. I am sure that it occurs anyway just like all poor minorities face everywhere. Education is indeed open to all and Arabs make up a large portion of the University population, but I am convinced that there is inequitable funding in the primary levels, just like exists for most other poor minorities elsewhere. You and I have had this conversation before: Israel needs to do better for its minority population and the fact that other countries (like the US) do equally poorly is no excuse. Raising the SES and average educational level of her Arab citizens is in everyone’s best interests. The sad fact is, however, that social justice will not make it to the top of any political agenda while people are more worried about not having their kids’ schoolbus blown up. To compare insufficient action on social justice issues to apartheid is, OTOH, nothing other than polarizing rhetoric designed to attempt to demonize one group in particular. It does not foster real conversation about what the actual problems are and how to fix them in realistic ways.
Dibble’s premise aside, the issue is the rights of Israel’s Arab citizens. Their first point refers to the OT. And I am not sure about that. I think that if a group of Arab Israelis wanted to build a settlement in the OT that no one would stand in their way.
The second is blatantly untrue.
The third has been true in the OT in the past, although of note Olmert has taken these illegal settlement outposts on. I am unaware of any illegal building by Jews in Israel itself that is tolerated.
I honestly do not know the details of the Bedouin situation. On the face of it they are not getting a fair shake, but even if so, that hardly qualifies as systemic discrimination against Arabs as a class with the full force of state apparati.
The last is an unfortunate situation too but one which is common in all states. A child being a citizen does not grant automatic citizenship to the parent.
I am not claiming that Israel is 100% “fair to its Arab citizens” I’d think that such would be clear by now. I again am claiming only that the charge of “apartheid” is specious inflamatory rhetoric unsubstanitiated by the facts. Being imperfect is a far cry from being apartheid. Relative to the region, Israel is a bastion of minority rights and equality and opportunity for all. Relative to the world’s countires, she is far above average. Relative to Western democacies she is right in the middle. She should do much better than that and it is everyones interest that she does.
There is obviously a difference between having “full legal rights” and having full rights in practice. The existence of Jim Crow in the American South, despite Constitutional guarantees of equality, should prove that to anyone’s satisfaction. Again, you’re minimizing here (“99.99%!”), especially with the assertion that “they don’t want the jobs anyway,” which is condescending and dismissive. Imagine what it would say about America if Jews, on no other basis than their ethnicity, were denied security clearances. And imagine how you would feel if I then said, “Oh, well, they don’t want those jobs anyway!”
And every informed observer of Israel knows that Palestinians are kept out of the military by one means or another – either they’re not called, or if they were to volunteer, they would be told, “Oh, we don’t want you,” or “Well, we do have a few openings in the 52nd Sanitation Battallion.” But a Palestinian who wanted to sign up and be a helicopter pilot or a tank commander? He can forget about it. And why? Wrong ethnicity, that’s why. I previously used the term “enemies of the state,” and I used it advisedly. What other construction can you put on a blanket exclusion by ethnicity, than that said ethnicity is held to be disloyal as an ethnic characteristic?
Relevant how? Israel either is or isn’t an apartheid state. How does discrimination in other nation-states (which may or may not also be apartheid, noone’s said “Only Israel” yet ) matter to that fact?
My Bolding
Did I ever say it didn’t? Just because you have your way of seeing Israel, doesn’t mean those of us with a different historical perspective don’t see it differently.
…or completely relinquish control. It’s that “effectively ruling while saying it isn’t our territory” bit that makes for a bantustan, you see.
Well, it’d have to be, wouldn’t it, almost by definition.
One quote where I’ve said that we should ignore what goes on in the neighbouring states with regards to minorities, please? This debate wasn’t about whether Arab states have abyssmal human rights records (which, AFAIK, they do), it’s about whether Israel is an apartheid state. “They’re so much worse” doesn’t fly as a valid debate tactic, DSeid
Oh, please, if you want to call me an anti-Semite, have the balls to say it directly. Let’s see how well that dog hunts.
I think your interpretation overreaches. As I read it, DSeid is suggesting that you do not see moral justification for Israel continuing as a Jewish homeland state, and that there is hypocrisy involved in singling out Israel for treatment of a minority and ignoring worse conditions in other states in the region.
I see occasional posters on the Dope griping that they are called anti-Semitic for criticizing Israel. The only person raising that issue here is you. You’re being a bit oversensitive, no?
I would only rarely state that I had concluded someone was antisemitic even when I was quite confient of that conclusion, mainly because a poster’s motivations are irrelevant to debating the points made, and also because the motivations of a true antisemite (or racist) are usually self-evident to any other reader by the time dense me picks up on it, so, of course, you are right that I could have been thinking that … but I wasn’t and such was not in way implied. The cards on the table are that you are one of those who for whatever reason, have concluded that Israel has no business existing as a Jewish state. I have long ago learned that debating with people who have that mindset is a waste of good electrons … whatever the reasons, and I care not an iota what they are. I have not entered the fray in that other thread devoted to debate that very question of Israel’s right to exist for good reason. She does and a Palestinan people now exist too.
Sal, I sometimes get a glimmer that you are able see past the polemics but then you descend back into the realm of hyperbole. I may agree that all jobs should be open, but to say that keeping Arab Israelis out of the most sensitive security jobs and only those jobs is classifying all Arab Israelis as “enemies of the state” is one of those times.
“Apartheid” is fast becoming one of those words whose true meaning gets lost by its appropriation by anyone looking for a good way to exaggarate any segregation, like those who call any murder of more than a dozen of one ethnicity a “Holocaust”. France aparently is apartheid, and so is Canada and Russia and of course America is apartheid too. Funny thing though, Iran is the victim of apartheid by the West. Go figger.
Truth is that performance on measures of social justice can only be considered relative to a peer group. If most states, excepting apparently Arab ones, are apartheid regiemes then the word has no meaning other than as a tool to polarize a discussion.
Well perhaps it’s time to ask: What are the salient features of apartheid? Allow me to suggest that it is a system of government that denies a section of the governed people a say in the government and; that the disctinction is based on ethnicity.
That seems to fairly cover the South Africa situation. Israel? I’d say it’s a question of whether Israel exercises government over the Occupied Territories and their population. It denies the place the chance to exercise its own sovereignty and acts as the sovereign in those places, so yes. It does exercise government and by that, apartheid.
While DSeid suggests this is not uncommon amongst wealthier nations, or even poor ones, I’m not seeing it.
If relinquishing its apartheid compromises the Jewish character of Israel, that’s a cost decent people recognise as the lesser evil.
Israel is welcome to continue existing as a Jewish majority state. Israel must just get used to fact that that’s a fundamentally discriminatory basis for a nation, and that it will get called on it.
Let me repeat, once again, for those who couldn’t be bothered to read the first page: I have no problem with the right of Israel as a nation to exist. This does not, however, absolve Israel from being called on its discrimination, nor does it prevent us from naming that discrimination by nearest analogy. That name is “apartheid”, I’m afraid.
Look, at no point, AFAICR, have I called for sanctions or the abolition of the Jewish state. All I have said is that you should treat your minorities as full equals. Is that such a bullshit wish?
If you want a thread about which regimes have worse human rights records, by all means start one. I still say “apartheid” isn’t a comparative monicker as you’d have it, DSeid. It’s a purely descriptive one. There’s no need to drag any countries other than SA and Israel into the question of whether the two systems are comparable. I still don’t see that you’ve justified any other approach.
For the record, I’d sooner live in current Israel than in the old South Africa. Hell, I’d sooner live in Israel than the current USA. But then, I’m not Arab, but I am coloured.
It’s possible. I saw the “cards on the table” statement as a veiled accusation, one that’s easy to step away from. But you’re right, I may be oversensitive.
Could we just drop this “ignoring worse stuff in other ME states” crap, though? I’m certainly no fan of the other states in the region. If I had to pick one place in the region to visit, live in, or set on a pedestal for that matter, it’d be Israel. Doesn’t mean I don’t get to call it on its shit, though.