For Palestinian Kids in Hebron, Little Joy on Back-to-School Day
By: Lena Odgaard posted on Sunday, Sep 9, 2012
HEBRON — Catching up with friends, showing off new clothes and getting new books — for most kids, the first day of school is exciting. But for Palestinian children who live in or go to school in the Old City of Hebron, the day is nothing to look forward to. Here, crossing checkpoints manned by heavily armed Israeli soldiers and dodging barbs and attacks from Israeli settlers are unfortunate parts of an ordinary school day.
On Sunday morning (Sept. 2) little girls sporting new dresses, shiny shoes and braided hair, boys in blue shirts, and teenage girls in blue and white school uniforms flocked to the otherwise usually quiet and empty Shuhada street in H2. Israel’s military closed all the shops and sealed off the Old City’s main artery to Palestinian traffic after the 2000 Intifada to avoid recurring clashes between Palestinians and Jewish settlers — between 600 and 800 live in the midst of 35,000 Palestinians. Only settler vehicles can use that street.
At one of the many checkpoints controlling passage from the Palestinian-managed side of Hebron, known as H1 to H2, eight soldiers watched as children, parents and teachers crossed through the beeping metal detector. An 8-year-old girl walked nervously through from H1 and started running as soon as she passed the armored vehicle parked next the checkpoint. A boy, 6, clung to his father’s hand and kept looking over his shoulder toward the soldiers. A group of 6- to-12-year-old girls, who reside in H2, ran down the hill toward the checkpoint while making sure to keep as much distance from the soldiers as possible. The children were heading for the Cordoba school, which is the only school still open for Palestinian children in the H2 area.
Monitoring potential rights violations in the highly volatile part of the city were Chris Cox and Eero Mäntymaa, volunteers with the international organization EAPPI. Cox remarked on the soldiers checking the backpacks of even very young children, even though the school has asked them not to because it frightens the pupils. Many residents in H2, including children, are used to crossing checkpoints, but some still react very strongly. Said Mäntymaa: "Children react how they react, often by crying, and they remind you that it is not normal to have a gun pointed to your face."
MORE...
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/grim-back-to-school-day-for-hebr.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
apartheid hinges on the concept of segregation. In this expanded sense, it seems to be more centered around the concept of enforcing different rules for different groups, regardless of the presence of segregation, correct? And while traditional apartheid referred to the policy of segregation specifically between different races, this newer definition seems to include any of the categories that discrimination is frequently applied to, like citizenship, ethnicity, religion, etc., instead of just race, right? (As you said, "2 groups living under the jurisdiction with different laws governing them according to..."
So here's my problem with this definition of apartheid. According to it, a great deal of nations and institutions clearly qualify as practitioners of apartheid! To start, every Arab state. Jordan has different "levels" of citizenship, Lebanon treats Palestinian refugees very differently, the Saudis practice sexism, etc. Also Iran for similar reasons, both sexist and religious. Palestine, obviously, with their regulations against selling land to Israelis.
Beyond those obvious ones, America is next, for its distinct rules regarding citizens versus greencard holders versus illegals. Not to mention the legal discrimination faced by the LGBT community. Within America there are institutions like the universities who determine entrance credentials via a system that weights them differently depending on things like race and legacies. Once accepted, different groups pay different amounts depending on where they are from. In state tuition is far lower than out of state. Not to mention insurance agencies which discriminate according to criteria such as gender and age.
Lastly is the UN itself which discriminates against certain states based on political considerations. Israel, for example, is the only state denied the opportunity to sit on the UN security council based on a combination of politics and (far moreso) religious persecution. If Israel were not a Jewish state, but instead a Muslim one, there is no question it would be admitted to its regional group and eventually allowed to sit on the UNSC.
Now, when the UN can not even rid itself of apartheid, then doesn't the term begin to lose much of its significance? If everyone and everything practices apartheid, is it even really bad anymore?
in IDF then your claim of apartheid is null and I agreed to nothing
as to why don't more Palestinians with Israeli citizenship or Haredi serve there would be different reasons the Haredi as I understand (and I am sure you'll correct me 
) don't because they pursue religious study and Palestinians with Israeli citizenship do not for a variety of reasons including I am sure not wanting to be a part of the occupation that said I believe all should be required to serve, and there are non-Orthodox even secular Israeli Jews who do not wish to serve either some do anyway, some leave the country, some go to jail, and some seem to fly under the radar as it were, so serving against ones will would hardly be an excuse here
It goes without saying that members of the armed forces (both present and past) are granted special benefits for doing so. That's not just in Israel, it is seen in every country I can think of. That Israel does it too is hardly some big secret conspiracy. They also pay their soldiers, while neglecting to pay citizens who are not their soldiers. This is hardly controversial stuff.
So why isn't this an example of apartheid? It meets every single one of your criteria PERFECTLY! The benefits you mentioned are fully available to any non-Jewish Israeli who wants them. They just have to join the IDF. It's entirely up to them. But if you are Jewish you are not given a choice. You are required to serve. That there are positive aspects to having served such as different sorts of social welfare benefits, in no way negates the fact that Israel's government enforces different laws for different ethnic groups. Despite the fact that EVERYONE in Israel benefits from the security that the army provides, only ONE of those groups is called upon to make the necessary sacrifices.
One authority. Several different ethnic/religious/national groups. Different laws for each group, resulting in a drastically uneven level of sacrifice relative to the equal level of security enjoyed by all. This would appear to be a slam dunk of an example using the definition of apartheid you outlined in comments #13 and #15.
I did not realize that there were random exceptions to the criteria of Apartheid identification! See, this is why I specifically asked for a comprehensive definition... it seems like what is and what isn't considered apartheid is constantly changing; or maybe the rules surrounding identifying apartheid has a lot less to do with THE WHAT (as in, "What injustice is happening, and does it meet the criteria to qualify as apartheid?" , and almost everything to do with THE WHO (as in, "Who is being accused of apartheid and who is doing the accusing?"