Skip to main content

Why have some observers, including former USA president Jimmy Carter, current Secretary of State John Kerry, archbishop Desmond Tutu, along with many black South Africans warned that Israel is or risks becoming an apartheid state.

It is a fairly straightfoward observation. Since 1967, Israel has exercised complete sovereignty over the occupied territories. 4 million people of arab ethnicity are ruled over by Israel but granted none of the rights and privileges which are accorded to citizens or legal residents of Israel. These 4 million ethnic arabs are stateless persons who are denied participation in Israeli society based on ethnic grounds. A person of jewish ethnicity born in the West Bank is automatically granted all the rights of citizenship, whereas a person of arab ethnicity born in West Bank is a stateless person governed by military law. This is, in effect, an ethnic test for citizenship.

The crime of apartheid is specified as follows:

International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,

Article II[1]

For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane 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:
a.
Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person

i.
By murder of members of a racial group or groups;

ii.
By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

iii.
By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;

b.
Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

c.
Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

d.
Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

e.
Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

f.
Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.

Israel is has been in full violation of sections c. and d. for the past 47 years.  Some defenders of Israel acknowledge this fact, yet state that it is only temporary. If the stateless arabs in the occupied territories were to be granted a fully sovereign nation, Israel would no longer be committing the crime of apartheid. This is true, but the current system is indisputably apartheid and the current prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has ruled out the possibility of a sovereign nation for Israel's stateless population.

If Israel is unwilling to give its stateless population either equal rights or allow them a sovereign nation, then it will always remain an apartheid state.

Historically, Israel was also an apartheid state from 1948 to 1966. During this period, the population that is now known as Israeli Arabs lived under military law within Israel. In 1966, Israeli Arabs were granted citizenship.

Now citizens, Israelis of arab ethnicity are permitted most of the rights of citizenship. Israeli courts have ruled, however, that laws and organisations are allowed to discriminate based on ethnicity. Israeli citizens of arab ethnicity are currently discriminated against in over fifty laws. This however is a question of civil rights and does not contribute to the ongoing crime of apartheid which concerns the treatment of Israel’s population of stateless people of arab ethnicity living in the occupied territories.

I hope this helps explain the situation.

Please be civil in the comments.

8:30 AM PT: correction:

Someone helpfully pointed out in the comments that there is a factual error in this diary.  Israeli arabs were eligible for citizenship from 1948 - 1966. They were governed by martial law at the time but were not stateless persons such as the palestinian of the occupied territories are now.

In light of this, my assertion that Israel was an apartheid state from 1948 - 1966 becomes very debatable.  I therefore withdraw that assertion and will leave that argument to the historians.

The fact remains that Israel is currently acting as an apartheid state with respect to the occupied territories and has been for 47 years.

My apologies for the error and for the distraction that it has caused

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  10, 9, 8, (9+ / 0-)

    I am counting down until win and other smiths come and attack you.

    3, 2,  . . .

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 06:44:48 AM PDT

    •  They certainly will. (7+ / 0-)

      But the diarist does a good job of laying out the case based on facts.

      I've got three tools in my arsenal: my voice, my wallet and my vote.

      by ExpatGirl on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 06:54:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  please stay civil, thank you. (4+ / 0-)

      please don't mock others based on a difference of opinion. I understand that emotions run high on these issues, which is all the more reason to stay polite and respectful of those you disagree with.

      •  despite many provocations and lies, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Diane Gee, SoCalSal

        by others, I have been doing my best to remain civil, or when their bullshit is overwhelming, in the face of innocent children being bombed or strafed, I simply move away.

        It is not mocking them based on a difference of opinion. It is my expression of horror that any human could ignore the plight of children with such utter disregard, hatred, and lack of empathy. That's not mocking, and that certainly is not something based on a difference of opinion.

        What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

        by agnostic on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:43:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  See, this comment is not civil (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JNEREBEL
          I have been doing my best to remain civil
          Your own comments belie your purported efforts.  You called out a member before he even showed up in the diary with your 10, 9, 8 comment.  That was provocative, not civil.  Then, in the very same sentence that claimed to be civil, you accused people of offering "overwhelming bullshit" before they even commented.  

          Hill? What hill? No one said there was going to be a hill . . . . Was there a sign?

          by Jersey Jon on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:18:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sorry, charlie, but wrong! (0+ / 0-)

            The utter bullshit I referred to are many comments by a very few, organized, Israel can do no wrong, commentators who attack en masse, who defend each other, and who try to game the system for their own ends. Too often, they succeed in destroying otherwise valid and informative discussions. They gang up on the unsuspecting, they turn people away from conflict rather than to call them on their lies. They are a destructive force here.

            This is based on their past behavior, not their future lies. To deny their actions is to act just as reprehensibly as they.

            What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

            by agnostic on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:33:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  whoa, this is some serious H/R'able crap right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rduran

              here.  

              organized . . . who try to game the system for their own ends

              Better than a trifecta:

              1.  Conspiracy theory
              2.  Old anti-semetic trope about secret Jewish conspiracies
              3.  Ad-hominem (we all know whom your talking about)
              4.  No support cited whatsoever

              Stuff like this is bad for progressives, and bad for Dkos.

              Hill? What hill? No one said there was going to be a hill . . . . Was there a sign?

              by Jersey Jon on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:54:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Has there ever been a secret Jewish conspiracy? (0+ / 0-)

                I mean Mossad is like the chattiest intelligence agency ever.  And Shabak's infamous secretiveness didn't last much longer than it took for the first generation to retire.  I mean look at this guy; can't shut'im up!

      •  It's not mocking. It's accusing. (3+ / 0-)

        And it is justified.

        -9.63, 0.00
        "Liberty" is deaf, dumb, and useless without life itself.

        by nobody at all on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:24:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  noble ethics (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco
        please don't mock others based on a difference of opinion. I understand that emotions run high on these issues, which is all the more reason to stay polite and respectful of those you disagree with.
        Your noble ethics, reflected in this reasonable request, are applauded by all thinking persons including myself.

        Certain persons have created, by their actions in various prior Diaries on the Israel-Palestine matters, serious suspicion that they will not abide by your perfectly reasonable request.

        We whom you would doubtless prefer to have in this Diary would prefer that no such concerns exist; but alas, they do.

        Please allow me to express my heartfelt desire that your request be honored in this Diary. And my serious fear that it won't be, along with my advance apologies for my fellow Kossacks who can't seem to honor the same.

        "I have to remember that while Jesus dined with publicans, there is no record of his consorting with Republicans." -- entlord

        by thanatokephaloides on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 12:44:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  These sort of "predictions" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lady Libertine

      are often self fulfilling and never useful.

      No War but Class War

      by AoT on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:03:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds rather cut and dried. (6+ / 0-)

    Apartheid.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 06:54:22 AM PDT

  •  Conditions in the West Bank (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thanatokephaloides

    have some features of Apartheid.  We don't seem to have any influence on the trends.
    It could become very volatile, very soon unless the Gaza operation ends soon.  Might be too late.

  •  To save some time and various apologists (6+ / 0-)

    for the current Israeli government, I have a few sites here that will cover most of the arguments they will make.  This is in the interest of parsimony in the comments section.
    However, I did run across this today, which while a bit off thread, is worth a read: http://marksteelinfo.com/...

    Now on to the reasons why Israel is not an apartheid state: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...
    (BTW, please note some of the defenses are based on parsing various terminology or misrepresentation of the situation on the ground in Israel and the OT)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/...
    http://www.factsandlogic.org/...
    http://www.latimes.com/...
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
    http://www.bloombergview.com/...
    http://www.jewishpress.com/...

    Now some of the defenses present problems as to their view of the current situation or their view of the history of the problem but I think the articles above more or less present all of the possible arguments against Israel being an apartheid state.  I would only point out that most of the authors have a binary view of the world so everything is either black or white.  Either a country is apartheid or it is not, with no shades or gradations of gray.  Personally I think the world is much too complicated to be explained by that world view  

    •  I'm sticking with "Absent massive evidence to (11+ / 0-)

      indicate dishonesty, I'm going to trust black South Africans when they tell me they've witnessed Apartheid".

      I mean, I'm not one to ever place special pleading above clear evidence - but it would take a lot to outweigh that personal authority.

      I have found myself repeatedly confronting very affluent American whites who keep telling me they know more about what Apartheid is than Desmond Tutu.

      These people often claim to be "liberals".  It's disturbing, at best.

      The UN should give Iraq a restraining order against the US.

      by JesseCW on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:13:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  However the apologists also have their (7+ / 0-)

        witnesses lined up to say Israel is not apartheid
        http://unitedwithisrael.org/...
        (note some of these sites I am now accessing are advocacy sites; please do not be upset with me as I am not agreeing with the sites but am trying to provide examples of what I am saying.  I am doing this after being called out a couple of times over statements I have made in the past which I was accused of fabricating despite citations to prove my accuracy)

      •  I am impressed that Hendrik Verwoerd (6+ / 0-)

        is on the list of those saying that of course Israel is an Apartheid state, and that he said it proudly while building up Apartheid in South Africa.

        In 1961, the South African prime minister, and the architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, Hendrik Verwoerd, dismissed an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations, saying, "Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude ... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."
        Quoted in the Wikipedia article cited in the comment above, from The Empire's New Walls: Sovereignty, Neo-liberalism, and the Production of Space in Post-apartheid South Africa and Post-Oslo Palestine/Israel. Andrew James Clarno. 2009. p. 66–67.

        Israel and the apartheid analogy

        I am inclined to take him at his word, as the world's foremost expert on the subject at the time.

        Israel was for a long time South Africa's staunchest ally, in spite of such earlier votes. See the Wikipedia article Israel–South Africa relations for the narrative plus references.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 10:09:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not actually good evidence (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thanatokephaloides

          You can certainly make an argument about Israel being an apartheid state, but anything in 1961 is a bad example.  Israel did have significant restrictions on Arab citizens (de jure, not only de facto) until 1965.  So the situation he was describing is not the situation that exists today, even solely within the pre-1967 border.

          •  So the fact that it has gotten worse, (0+ / 0-)

            both in Israel and particularly in the occupied territories, counts for nothing with you?

            Feh.

            Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

            by Mokurai on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:05:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

              Except that things are far, far better in Israel itself than they were pre-1965.  Arabs in Israel 1948-1965 did not have free rights of travel, they did not have the rights of employment that they have now, etc.  They did have the right to vote (which in some ways put them ahead of African Americans in the US at the time), but that's about it.  Are things worse in the West Bank now?  Yes.  Should there be accountability for that?  Yes.  Could you even call what goes on in the West Bank apartheid, which was the diarist's point?  Yes (and as the diarist noted, the real issue here is that it doesn't seem like there's any sort of proximate remedy).  Is an Israeli Arab citizen, living inside of the Green Line, far more equal today (both de jure and de facto) than they were in 1961?  Yes.  So it's poor logic to use that particular quotation, because it's not directly related to the situation at hand.

  •  Ethnically Jewish state (6+ / 0-)

    Is it possible to maintain an ethnically Jewish state without policies akin to apartheid? I think it probably isn't possible. (I don't endorse the idea of an ethnically pure state, but I think the question deserves examination.)

    •  Good point. And while we can understand why (5+ / 0-)

      they might want this, it does seem counter productive in the end. The actions a state takes to maintain ethnic purity are never pretty.

      "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

      by merrywidow on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:26:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Israel is not trying to maintain ethnic purity (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thanatokephaloides, CupaJoe

      It is trying to maintain religious domination. Those are two very different ideas and goals.

      Jews are not primarily an ethnicity, even though there are halakhic rules about Jewishness being transmitted through the mother, and Israeli laws that anybody coming under the Nuremberg definition of a Jew is automatically eligible for Israeli citizenship. There are, to begin with, Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews from all over Europe and the Turkish Empire of old. Also Arab Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, Chinese Jews, Black Jews in the US, and so on. Marilyn Monroe and Sammy Davis, Jr. converted to Judaism. (Also my mother, Mary Monroe. So close!) All such Jews are all legally welcome to Israel, even though there are racists among Israelis who would say that some of them, especially the shvartzers, aren't real Jews.

      Israeli law privileges Orthodox Judaism and Hasidism, and makes Reform and even Conservative Jews second-class citizens. Marriage law in Israel is particularly vexed, since it comes under the authority of the various religions recognized by the state, and no others. For example, no Protestant authorities are recognized. In particular, non-Orthodox Jews cannot legally marry within Israel. They can take the ferry to Cyprus to marry, and have their marriages registered and accepted on their return.

      Marriage in Israel

      The objection to Palestinians is not that they are Arabs, or that they are Muslims. There are plenty of Arab Muslim citizens in Israel. It is the delusion that Palestinians want to destroy Israel so badly that they would refuse any offer of a state with mutual security, or worse, use it to build up a military capacity and then set out to destroy Israel and kill all of The Jews.

      Yes, there are some such people, as there were Irish who wanted all of the English and Scots Protestants out of Ireland, and South Africans who wanted all of the Afrikaner Boers out of South Africa, or even wanted to carry out massive revenge killings. The examples of Northern Ireland and South Africa demonstrate that such existential paranoia has no basis in reality. It requires the radically racist assumption that Palestinians are subhuman, in fact worse than the most vicious animals, and don't actually want peace and human dignity.

      Peace negotiations in both countries began during times of heightened violence on all sides, in one case the IRA, the Orange Order, and the UK police and military, and in the other the ANC, the Apartheid South African government, and the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging. Violence subsided over a few years, becoming a normal police problem rather than the province of the lawless security state.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:00:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  legally jewishness is an ethnicity in Israel (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thanatokephaloides, CupaJoe

        In terms of Israeli law, jewishness is an ethnicity. One's status as a jewish person in Israel is not affected by which religion one practices, if any. The only consideration is one's familial lineage, in other words ethnicity.

        •  No, inheritance of Jewishness in halakha (0+ / 0-)

          has nothing to do with ethnicity. It applies to Beyte Ethiopians just as much to Ashkenazim and Sephardim.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:10:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  classifications of persons under Israeli law (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wigwam

            As you rightly point out, there is a lot of ethnic and religious diversity within the group that is recognized by the government of Israel as Jewish for legal purposes.

            What I was trying to explain is that the legal classification of a person under Israeli law is not determined by that person's religious self-identification, but rather by the religion traditionally practiced by one's family line.

            About 40% of Israeli Jews are secular or atheist but they are still considered Jewish for legal purposes.

            There are large numbers of Russians of Jewish ethnicity who practice Christianity. They are also considered Jewish for legal purposes.

            There are smaller numbers of Israeli Jews who practice other religions such as Buddhism, they are still considered Jewish for legal purposes.

            The same is true for Israeli Arabs who are labeled Christian or Muslim whether they practice those faiths or not, based entirely on their family line.

            When Israeli political parties fret about the 'Demographic Question', they are concerned not about how many people do or do not attend religious services or believe in a higher power.  They are concerned with the social cultural groups that are defined by shared cultural identity and legally determined at birth according to the legal classification of the parents.

            I hope I have cleared up the point I was trying to make. I am not trying to negate in any way your nuanced look at the diversity within the group which is legally classified as Jewish for legal purposes by the Israeli government.

  •  the question is sovereignty. With a two-state (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeeDee001

    implementation the U.S. would control Palestinian politics. Israel's interest is to retain sovereignty and cut off direct U.S. absorption of the West Bank and Gaza into the U.S. sphere of influence. The interests are directly in conflict, but Israel has backed the U.S. off so far. For Israel, giving Palestinians a state would be like the U.S. renouncing the Mexican War and giving California its independence.

    •  I disagree to the far right in Israel giving the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Musial

      West Bank and Gaza to Palestinians is not like giving CA it's independence because these groups are not saying that the whole of the US was given to them by God.  And because God gave them the whole of  Israel they cannot break up what God has given them, it would be question and fiddling with God's intent.

      Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

      by Clytemnestra on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:45:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Manifest Destiny did in fact claim (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Musial, thanatokephaloides

        that the whole of the US was given to them by God. Certainly at this point few people would explicitly make that argument, but that was the argument made at the time to justify the expansion of the US.

        No War but Class War

        by AoT on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:19:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  true, but no one had a book that said God gave (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Musial

          the US to you . . . which I should have added to my comment
          (Native American Reservations though rather dismantle that argument since they are considered their own nation)

          Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

          by Clytemnestra on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:34:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reservations are not their own nations (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clytemnestra, thanatokephaloides

            at this time. And while the book didn't specify the land which was "given"* to the US, the fact remains that in both cases the land is "god given." At least while it's being conquered. I'm sure a hundred years after Greater Israel becomes a reality, if indeed it does become a reality, the justification will not be that it is god given, but instead that we can't just give the land back because it been so long.

            *I use quotes because while it does say that god gave the land to Jews it also clearly says that the Jews killed a bunch of people to get the land. As was the case with the US. God seems to be really shitty at giving gifts, I can only imagine how people would think of me if I gave people things the same way.

            "Here's a shiny new car! You just have to fight off everyone at the dealership, along with the police, to have it! Best gift ever."

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:47:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  the missionization of native americans subjected (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, Clytemnestra, thanatokephaloides

            them also to criminalization of their religion until recently. US new testament Protestantism as a city on the hill reform movement under Sen. Dawes, was inside the project of Christianization of the New World launched by Columbus.

    •  None of this is the case (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco

      It is entirely paranoid fantasy.

      The US cannot control its own politics. It has failed completely to control politics in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where do you get the colonialist, Neo-con notion that we could control Palestine, or would even attempt to in any way?

      California? You make me laugh.

      Free Republic is over there ----------------------------->

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:05:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why only C and D? (5+ / 0-)

    Certainly, Palestinians are subject to murder and arbitrary arrest in the occupied territories, and the destruction of infrastructure (hospitals, power plants) along with the stated intent of government officials to punish all Gazans makes a pretty compelling case as well based on a and b.

  •  This is such bullshit (7+ / 0-)

    Go into any supermarket in Israel and you'll see Jews and Arabs shopping together.  There is simply no forced separation like in South Africa, where black people were not permitted in white stores.

    Non-Jews are in Israel's parliament and on its Supreme Court.

    Even the list of laws in your link shows no apartheid.  Most of those laws are about the Territories, not Israel.  The first link I opened was the link to the Foreign Property Ownership law, which gives the same rights to non-Jewish citizens as Jewish citizens.  Virtually every country, even the US, has restrictions on foreign ownership.

    •  You make it sound as if Israel (10+ / 0-)

      is not responsible for the occupied territories. It most certainly is.

      I found a good article in Counterpunch

      That Israel is an apartheid regime cannot be denied. In the occupied West Bank, Israel builds roads that Palestinians cannot drive on. And if a new Israeli road crosses over an existing Palestinian road, Palestinians cannot even cross over it.  Palestinian homes are routinely bulldozed, with only a few hours notice, to make room for illegal Israeli settlements. Farmers must apply to Israel for permission to plant on their own fields, and to harvest their own crops. It is not unusual for Israel to grant permission to plant only after planting season has passed, or to harvest only after the crops have long since spoiled. If farmers are fortunate enough to get permission to plant and harvest at reasonable times, when taking their crops to market, they may be delayed at illegal internal checkpoints for so long that the crops spoil. Palestinians in need of critical and acute medical attention may be delayed at illegal checkpoints for so long that they die. Countless women in labor over the years have been delayed so long at illegal checkpoints that they give birth there. Dozens of newborns in need of medical attention have died, because IDF terrorists manning the illegal checkpoints have arbitrarily delayed them at the checkpoint.
      Also from Counterpunch, here's the late Shulamit Aloni from a few years back.

      … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

      by mosesfreeman on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:29:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Arabs sit in Israels Knesset but can NOT vote (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, angel d, Diane Gee, cybrestrike, maregug

      they are window dressing.

      In the West Bank there are two separate laws.  And it's been observed by tourists and the press alike.

      Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

      by Clytemnestra on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:52:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course they can vote (8+ / 0-)

        Just like in the US, if a member of the Green Party or the Libertarian Party were to be elected to Congress, they would have the right to vote on all matters in Congress.  Their policies, of course, might not be enacted if those policies fail to win a majority of the members of Congress.

        •  No, they cannot. (4+ / 0-)

          They are not and have never been a member of a ruling coalition. So they have never had any say in determining policy. Not to mention the fact that Arabs and Arab parties are regularly kicked out of Knesset.

          Their policies, of course, might not be enacted if those policies fail to win a majority of the members of Congress.
          When the policies of a specific ethnic group never win and that ethnic group is systematically excluded from ruling coalitions then it is the equivalent of not having a vote. You can pretend as if it's the equivalent of Libertarians not getting to be elected, but when it is based on the ethnicity of the group being excluded then it is not a matter of mere political minority, it is a matter of racism. If blacks were never included in a major party there would be outrage in the US, even if there were a black representative or two in congress, and rightfully so. This is the situation in Congress. Arabs have no political power.

          No War but Class War

          by AoT on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:24:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not being part of a ruling coalition (6+ / 0-)

            does NOT mean they can't vote. It just means they probably won't get their way. Right now, the Republican Party controls our House of Representatives. Does that mean the Democrats in the House cannot vote? Of course not. Right now, the Democratic Party controls the Senate. Does that mean the Republican senators cannot vote? Of course not.

            •  I don't think you understand parliamentary (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cybrestrike, Clytemnestra

              systems. Arabs have no political power in Israel, and never have. The facile act of voting is not power no matter how often apologists for the racist Israeli government want to pretend it is. Technically blacks had the power to vote after the civil war, that did not make them equal.

              And excluding people based on their ethnicity is not at all like a political party based on a political ideology losing an election, not even close. You can pretend that Arabs in Israel are just like the libertarians or greens, but it's bullshit.

              Arab parties are regularly outlawed if they say things the Jewish government doesn't like. A recent example.

              A vote alone means nothing. A vote that can never have the power of law because of the ethnicity of the person voting is not a vote, it is a sham. When the GOP gerrymanders congressional districts to make black voters powerless this is true, as it is true when Arab parties in Israel are excluded from every single government ever in Israel.

              No War but Class War

              by AoT on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 09:09:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Very informative video (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clytemnestra, Diane Gee

        That poor little boy crying as he was falsely accused of throwing stones at a settler being taken away by six soldiers ... his father blindfolded ....

    •  as stated in the diary (3+ / 0-)

      The ongoing crime of apartheid in Israel concerns the exercise of sovereignty by force over 4 million stateless people in the occupied territories on the explicit basis of ethnicity.

      I clearly stated that the treatment of Isreal citizens of arab ethnicity within Israel proper does not contribute to the crime of apartheid but is a civil rights issue.  In that sense, we are in partial agreement.

      •  Very deceptive (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jersey Jon, RedsFanForever, Mannie

        You call Israel an "apartheid" state because of things that happen outside Israel.

        That makes absolutely no sense (unless you're just trying to score propaganda points).

        •  So Israel (5+ / 0-)

          just happens to be occupying the West Bank and Gaza, since 1967, and building settlements, but that doesn't count because why?

          1. Books are for use.

          by looty on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:33:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's not outside Israel according to the ruling (5+ / 0-)

          parties.

          The Likud charter includes Greater Israel as a reality, as does the minor partner in the current ruling coalition. The Israeli government pretends otherwise, while settlements continue to expand. Israel has complete control over the West Bank, that makes it a part of Israel for all practical purposes, especially since Israel is claiming more and more of the West Bank as time goes on. Since Israel doesn't recognize the Palestinian state then the only other option is that Israel is the rightful owner of the West Bank.

          No War but Class War

          by AoT on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 09:02:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't know Likud had a "charter" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mannie

            They had a party platform in the past that has changed.

            You might also remember that the Democratic Party used to support slavery as part of its party platform.  I believe that's changed too.

            •  The Dems didn't support slavery in 1999 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco

              Likud did support Greater Israel in 1999. And Hamas's charter is not its platform. In fact, Hamas dropped the destruction of Israel and Jews from its platform in 2006 when it won the election. Certainly I am skeptical as to the reality of Hamas's platform in 2006, but I'm also skeptical that Likud really doesn't want Greater Israel, and that the GOP here in the US actually believes its platform and doesn't want women enslaved again.

              Neither Likud and the GOP are barred from political participation because of their horrible flaws, and yet Hamas is, and violently. That's what reasonable people call hypocrisy.

              No War but Class War

              by AoT on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:49:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  not in dispute (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, poco

          Israel's status as an occupying power exercising sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza by military force is not in dispute. That is the official position of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and every other international body that I'm aware of.

          The Republic of South Africa also created bantustans that were not a part of 'official' South Africa, but over which it maintained military sovereignty.  The fact that Israel has not announced an official 'annexation' of the land that it has controlled for 47 years is meaningless both legally and in the practical sense of how the land is governed day to day.

        •  Get someone to recommend new (0+ / 0-)

          talking points, because the ones you are using are monstrously ineffective.

          Just a thought.

          … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

          by mosesfreeman on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:43:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  How would you describe (0+ / 0-)

          Israel's governing of the occupied territories.  even if that's "outside Israel" its a race-based (ethnicity based? religious based?) system.

          can you agree with this:
          Israel's administration of the Occupied Territories resembles apartheid

          in that there is a system controlling where individuals can live, different controls of movement for Arabs than Jewish citizens, Arab residents face military law while Jewish residents in the territories have the same laws as Israel proper, and Jewish and Arab residents of the occupied territories vote in different elections.

  •  Which explains the college divest from Israel (4+ / 0-)

    movement, same as what happened in reaction to South Africa

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:24:04 AM PDT

  •  Black Christian friends of mine said this 10 years (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Diane Gee, maregug

    ago after visiting Israel.  They had also not been raised in this country.  Other friends of mine who have been in Israel recently  also came away with this observation.

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:39:06 AM PDT

  •  At this point apartheid is the least of it n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Diane Gee, protectspice

    Everything good a man can be, a dog already is. - pajoly

    by pajoly on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:58:18 AM PDT

    •  True. White South Africa never did anything (4+ / 0-)

      remotely as horrific as the Israeli massacre of Gaza.

      •  most likely because black South Africans (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jersey Jon

        did not have anything resembling Hamas.

        •  So what was the ANC? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maregug, AoT, poco

          Chopped liver?

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:16:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The "rehabilitation" of Mandela (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco

            is being put into good effect by the defenders of Israel. Pretending he was a second Gandhi is the party line now in spite of his support of violent action.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 12:23:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Red State is that way -----------> eom (0+ / 0-)

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:05:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why is pointing out that Mandela supported (0+ / 0-)

                violence a red state opinion? The rehabilitation I spoke of was the white washing of his importance and turning him into someone who merely represents a sort of apolitical passive nonviolence. Except those weren't the things that made his great, it was his forgiveness and his ability to get others to forgive after the fall of apartheid and the fact that that brought reconciliation, as well as his hard headed support of freedom no matter the odds, whether that meant through violence or non-violence.

                Wiping history of the violent resistance to Apartheid is a tool of repression.

                No War but Class War

                by AoT on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:12:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The ANC turned to serious violence (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AoT

                  after Mandela was imprisoned. Before that, they did some sabotage that was planned not to harm people. That plan failed on one major occasion, and claiming that Mandela intended to kill people in that case is the stuff of racist Apartheid apology.

                  I do not whitewash ANC violence after that.

                  Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                  by Mokurai on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 10:31:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Is that supposed to be snark? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza, agnostic, poco

        Or are you actually that historically challenged?

        Sharpeville Massacre

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:16:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  full force of modern military (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OrganicChemist, poco

          Your point is well taken. However, the government of the Republic of South Africa did not employ the full force of its modern military (artillery, air bombardment, etc) on the residential areas of the bantustans, as far as I am aware. 69 people killed by security forces is certainly a massacre. In the past few weeks in Gaza the death toll is already over 1700.

          •  Sorry, still wrong (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cailloux

            Many hundreds killed in South Africa by police and military. Many hundreds more in neighboring countries. For example, Cassinga Massacre, May 4, 1978: South African forces kill some 700 refugees in Angola.

            Tens of thousands dead in Black on Black political violence stoked by government actions such as relocating Blacks to supposed tribal homelands with no economic possibilities, and by direct provocation by secret government services.

            Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

            by Mokurai on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:38:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Factually challenged... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cailloux, Jersey Jon, Mannie

    contrary to this diary, Israeli Arabs were citizens from the very beginning.  They had the right to vote and were elected to the very first Knesset.

  •  A crime against humanity (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maregug

    ethnic cleansing, apartheid, piecemeal genocide, land theft ... all of these crimes happening before our very eyes and we are helpless to do anything about it because our own government supports these crimes.

  •  Israel caught spying on Kerry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Diane Gee, agnostic

    And stealing America miltary technology,Mainly the technology for Iron  Dome,

  •   "Israel was built on a blue print of exclusion" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT

    Another good video

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:49:58 AM PDT

  •  All Jews are not Semites (0+ / 0-)

    Semites consist of those group original from the area of Middle East and Babylon area , European Jews are not ethnic Semite ,just like White Muslim are not  ethnic  Semites

    •  Umm.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mokurai, JLan

      Recent genetics work shows differently ~ and that the story is likely very complicated (with possible differences on the maternal and paternal sides ~ a common pattern....). Wikipedia actually has a decent summary of recent findings ;-)

      One of the more obvious ways this is shown is via the Cohen Modal Haplotype. Simple version (still being tweaked as DNA testing gets more refined): a certain category of Jewish men (those who claim descent from the ancient Jewish priestly class) are descended from a very small group of men, whether the living man is Sephardi or Ashkenazi ~ two groups that didn't mix genetically much for about 2000 years (from the destruction of the Temple and the resulting diaspora until the founding of the modern state of Israel).

      In fact, discounting the Middle Eastern/Semitic roots of Jews is a classic anti-Semitic (a.k.a. anti-Jewish) tactic ~ up there with blood libel and dual loyalty claims. It even makes its way into some American white supremacy thought as British Israelism.

      Now, it's quite possible to argue what impact (if any) that ancestral tie has to Jewish claims to any particular piece of land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean.... but it's best to stay away from claims that the population of Jews whose ancestors spent centuries in Europe don't have ancestral ties to ancient Israel.  

      The worst sin - perhaps the only sin - passion can commit, is to be joyless. (Gaudy Night, Dorothy L. Sayers)

      by mayim on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 10:18:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Netanyahoo is finally making clear (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    protectspice, maregug, agnostic

    that Israel has no intention of a two state solution. So in effect they have been falsely negotiating all along, negotiating in bad faith. They are incapable of rational thought because their very premise is irrational; that "God" gave them the land in question, the land of the west bank as well as the land they now know as Israel. They DO NOT CARE that they are seen as an apartheid regime.

    No rational nation or individual should support them.

    •  I don't think that Israel, (0+ / 0-)

      especially the bRain tRust that has orchestrated this Little Gaza Invasion actually thought it all out or had a workable action plan in mind.

      Israeli bombings, sanctions, and its "forced diet for arabs" that it unilaterally imposed on Palestine has no rational end game.

      They situation they forced upon a million beings is unsustainable. It cannot last, and Israel cannot continue to impose its iron will and lead based tyranny on them. But Israel has tied its own hands.

      If it loosens sanctions and opens borders up to trade and imports, Hamas has "won" in the eyes of the muslim world. - this is something that no conservative or Likkud member would ever allow or could stomach.

      If it maintains the horror that it has imposed on its neighbors, the death rates will sky rocket. Food, water, hygiene, fuel, medicine, medical care, schools - these have been flattened by Israel and all that can follow is mass deaths due to infections, plague, disease, suicide, and other horrible means. Israel will rightly be blamed for this homicidal mass murder, especially of children. Israel loses, and no amount of PR or AIPAC bribes can change it.

      If it tries to tone down the worst aspects of its war crimes, Israel still has lost. The colleges and business beginning to boycott Israeli policies can only grow. And it will grow.

      There is no exit, no rational way to reverse course, and no way to undo the damage it has done. Eventually, Israel will suffer badly for all the harm that it has caused.

      What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

      by agnostic on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 01:04:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I disagree (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe this time - finally - it will bring a different result, but the continued abuses of Israel against Palestinians and anyone who tries to support or aid them (remember the Gaza Freedom Flotilla) follow a very well thought-out plan:

        1) Oppress the Palestinians close to territory claimed by Israel
        2) Use any reaction as a pretext to bomb and level whole neighborhoods
        3) Keep the razed areas as a "buffer"
        4) Let settlers move illegally into the buffer, until there is no buffer left between them and the Palestinians
        5) Repeat step 1

        Israel is actually getting some degree of pushback for this heavy-handed slaughter that would have gotten any other country in the world invaded. Sad as that is, it's progress. So maybe it will be different in the years ahead. And maybe there will still be Palestinians alive by the time that change finally takes root.

        "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by Jaxpagan on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 01:27:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site