Maybe sometimes honesty requires using more than a single word rather than trying chop off toes to make a concept fit the shoe of the word that is so readily available. The use of the loaded, inaccuracte and dishonest word “apartheid” polarizes honest debate. Just as badly as labelling someone who calls Israel apartheid an antisemite does.
RTF I am sure you already are aware of the tradition of refering to ships and countries as female rather than as its. Deal with it.
bluethree, I’ll answer for John (I hope that such does not offend). 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab Israelis who ethnically self-identify as Palestinian. Israel can rightly be accused of not having some minority rights in practice issues visavis this population but not in law and not to any level worse than say America has with Black American civil rights. Certainly there are a few extreme right-wingers who would love to see Israel proper become apartheid and fear the birth rate of Israel’s Arab population and what that may mean eventually to Israel’s identity. But they are far outnumbered and powered by the secular nature of the State. Israel’s Arab citizens have full rights. The only difference is, as previously noted, that they are not required to serve in the army (except for the Druze who have requested no exemption be made.)
Arabs of the OT are not citizens and have no rights of citizenship. They are denizens of an occupied land and as such restrictions on them as required for the occupier’s security needs are legit. Those actions should also be balanced against the obligations that an occupier has to provide for the well being of the occupied. Israel has IMHO done poorly in that balance and failed in full consideration of the needs of the occupied. Settlements provided no security benefit, were in fact a security detriment, and interfered with proper stewardship for the needs of the occupied. They were a mistake.
In the first statement I was referring to Arabs (Palesitinians, if you wish) who do not live in Israel, and in the second I was talking about those who do. If Isreal did deport it’s Arab citizens to the OT*, then I would be more open to the use of the term “apartheid”.
*When I first saw OT used in the post above, I read it as “Old Testament”, not “Occupied Territories”.
Heh, I guess we can look forward to a new book on the whole subject: “Carter: Antisemitism, not Aparthied”.
I haven’t actually seen anyone actually call Carter an anti-semite so far in this debate, at least here. I think most people simply assume from the title of his book that he has quite a bias (unless of course they share that bias). With such a title, only the converted are likely to actually read the thing - though I admit I’m very curious, and will give it a look-see when it comes to the library.
You are very trusting, you ought to get out and eyeball things.
What one reads is often cr/p, ever had lunch in a restaurant with a bunch of Israeli Arabs ? Nice guys. Ever been around during the first Intifada in 1991 ? Well it was interesting, you had to slip quietly into apparently locked tourist shops, but I was sharp eyed enough to spot my Jewish Israeli guide get his slice from the Arab shopkeeper - I bought a Star of David necklace/pendant for a UK-Jewish lass that I was infatuated with at the time.
‘Occupied’ Bethlehem was even more comical.
You are excluded from having ‘common knowledge’, you have not been out there and you do not know what is really going on. You have one Palestinian ex-girlfriend who probably never set foot in Jaffa. I however have been observing things with interest since 1991 - I’ve seen things ebb and flow, I have been through one heck of a lot of security checks in Israel - and know the form.
Before things got seriously nasty I wandered around the West Bank, people got on pretty well - they had a common objective - fleecing tourists.
The West Bank and Gaza are a state, they are also a failed state
Blair and Bush together would add up to an IQ of about 110
Mostly the ‘Palestinians’ would be a lot better off if they ignored those half wits.
‘Palestine’ is a bit similar to Northern Ireland prior to 9/11
As a little test, name the President of ‘Palestine’, then name the Prime Minister and explain in 500 words why they hate each others guts.
Don’t believe what you read, don’t believe what you see on the TV
Also don’t take this personally - I just get a bit narked occasionally.
‘Occupier’ and ‘citizens’ are just fig leaf words, used to evade the fact that the Israelis intend to ‘occupy’ the West Bank forever, but to exclude most of the people who live there from political participation.
Settlements are not apartheidt but worse, ethnic cleansing of desirable territories.
Never in life will I concede that such criticism could be called “anti-Semitic.” Anti-Semitism is real, and calling something “anti-Semitism” when it really isn’t anti-Semitism diminishes the severity of genuine anti-Semitism.
I don’t think it’s unfair at all. Carter called it right: marginalizing a population and putting them on strictly-defined reservations of sorts is what South Africa did, and is what the current Israeli government is doing. And current Israeli apartheid is just as wrong as South Africa-style apartheid.
Oh, I am. I’m dealing with it by noting that in the case of nations, it’s an archaic usage that one almost never sees anymore (for most countries, it’s incongruous to think of them as ‘she’), and that one has to wonder if there’s a subtext for using it in this context - e.g. trying to paint Israel as a damsel in distress, in need of rescue.
This would be a most odd impression to attempt to give of Israel, but I couldn’t help but notice you used the formulation of Israel as female in the context of Israel being attacked.
If my noticing these things and wondering about your motivations bothers you, deal with it.
You don’t seem to understand what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is using an attack on a person in lieu of attacking their arguments. Being snarky in the course of doing that isn’t ad hominem. Ironically, however, dismissing my response because you don’t like how I characterized how you argue IS a form of ad hominem.
Apartheid is a system of systematic segregation within a territory or legal entity. as I already explained, that’s what’s going on in the areas in question: Israeli-only roads, Palestinian-only security rules and checkpoints and laws, and so forth.
For that better, Starving, you should know better than to get your history or anything else from a source with David Horowitz’ name on the masthead. Dude’s a crank.
High on life honeypie. Correct me if I wrong here, but do not settlements involve displacing the indigenous population to make way for a preferred group? Aren’t the locals driven out first?
Sev Nope, no locals driven out, to the best of my knowledge anyway. Happy to see a cite that educates me otherwise. Settlements were built where there were not Arabs currently living. Lots of unused space there. The only area that one could argue about is in Hebron, which is an interesting case. Hebron historically had a large Jewish population until they were mostly murdered by Arabs in 1929 and the survivors then forcibly removed by the Brits. Later Jewish buildings and cemeteries were destroyed. That I would call ethnic cleansing. Now there is a settler community outside of Hebron and a small section of Hebron itself that is under Israeli control and from which Arabs have left in the main, apparently because of harrassment by IDF and settlers. A “there goes the neighborhood” kind of thing. Hard to call that “ethnic cleansing.” Stupid, yes. An impediment to security and to peace, yes.
Again, settlements have been the wrong thing to do because it has not been Israeli land to use other than as needed for security purposes and to provide for the needs of the occupied. Settlements served neither of those goals. They were a bone to throw to subgroups in the Israeli political universe that grew into a T-Rex. Would there be more than enough space for both groups to coexist and have plenty extra? Yes. The problem isn’t space or physical resources even, it is percieved wrongs and percieved threats.
Apos you continue to define apartheid as it pleases you but in a way that devoids the term of any significant meaning. Again, the territory of North America has systemic segregation of populations (Mexican citizens on one side, Canadians on another); is it apartheid? The legal entity of the EU similarly segregates, is it apartheid? Or to approach it another way, please provide me a list of examples of occupied areas in which the occupied have not been subject to restrictions and are give full rights of citizenship in the occupier country without annexation.
As to my use of the feminine form in referring to countries. No, I do not imply that Israel is “a damsal in distress.” Israel is far from helpless or weak or in “need of rescue.” (And I find your association of female with weakness to be quite archiac and chauvinistic really.) If I wanted to anthropomorphize Israel I’d prefer an image of the former 98 pound weakling who had sand kicked in his face, back on the beach after having become a gym rat and ready to respond if someone wants mess with him now. Or the woman who everyone thinks is weak but who will kick your ass if called for. But who keeps getting harrassed anyway just because of her gender. And is really tired of having to kick your ass. Nah, I just like the old-fashoined sound of it. I particularly tend to use that form when discussing a country’s motivations or goals, since an “it” really doesn’t have goals or motivations (to me). Next just ask though. Your sarcasm doesn’t work. Deal with that.
BG no country believes that the OTs are part of Israel and that the Arabs there are Issraeli citizens. Most recognize that someday a true Palestinian state must be set up within that area and any pragmatist understands that such a state will not exactly follow the arbitrary Green Line but will instead include a package of land and resources and investments such that a nascant Palastine could prosper. Pragmatists understand that such an outcome is in informed self-interest for both groups’ long-term futures. The problems are in how to get there, in how to get past what are short-term vested interests of various subgroups. The Israelis have suceeded in marginalizing the subgroups that have a vested interest in promoting either “a Greater Israel” or conflict without end. For now. Even in face of attacks from Gaza and the continuation of threats by Hamas and Hezbelloh, Israel is committed to substantial withdrawl in return for security. But she (yes “she”, “it” just doesn’t sound right to me) must get security in return. The Palestinians have not yet been able to marginalize the equivilant vested interests on their side. To be fair, Israel’s actions often do not help those forces of potential moderation reach ascendency.
The Arabs don’t have a lock on stupidity, plenty to go around it seems.
Well as DSeid pointed out, the settlements did not involve much displacement, although I have heard of cases where locals were seriously inconvenienced.
I too, hold the view that the settlements were a stupid idea, and that they will disappear.
Personally I consider the use of words like ‘apartheid’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ completely inaccurate and inappropriate - they don’t describe the past or present situation.
I would agree that to some extent, the West Bank is ‘occupied territory’ but that is what happens to people who lose wars.
WRT the settlements, my WAG is the settlers hoped to achieve a Jewish West Bank, not by ethnic cleansing, but by what might be better labeled ethnic swamping. (You know, like what the Chinese have been trying to do in Tibet and Xinjiang.) If the settlements were successful more and more would be planted . . . until finally most of the Arabs would get so discouraged/disgusted they would pack up and move to Jordan or Egypt or someplace.
As a root cause of human suffering, optimism runs a close second to malice.
Depends what you mean by driven out. Not in the ethnic cleansing sense but in the ‘robbing people with a fountain pen sense’ settlements are based on stolen land. Land stolen using seperate systems of planning law. My ex-gf’s family had personal experience of finding land they owned ‘legally’ stolen from them. Fortunately they were relatively wealthy and could afford to fight it for years until their legal claim was recognised. Empty land does not mean un-owned land. Settlements built on seized land
Anyway - whatever the legalities they are beyond Israel’s legitimate border and have no right to exist except as part of a palestinian state under palestinian authority. If I built a housing estate for Brits in NY it doesn’t become british territory no matter who owns or owned the land.
the fact that nobody in the USA can question anything about the actions of the israeli government, and not be labelled an “anti semite”. The fact is, this area has been in a state of continual unrest since 1948. if there is to be any resolution, there has to be an open, and honest debate. carter was quite right to refuse to debate Dershowitz-Dershowitz is NOT interested in discussing the situation. he is just trying to discredit carter 9in any way he can).
