Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumSettlers: It’s We Who Suffer From Apartheid - Not Palestinians!
he word apartheid is slowly seeping more and more into mainstream discourse on the occupation. Yet I recently came across two cases in which, how to say, the usage of the word was a bit surprising.
The first came in the official Yesha Council newsletter, which posted an item on the Palestinian-only buses recently inaugurated for Palestinian workers who enter Israel on a daily basis. You can read more about these bus lines here.
Besides pointing to Chaim Levinsons (Haaretz) piece claiming Palestinians are happy with the new arrangement, the Yesha Council who went with the headline Apartheid, nice to meet you goes even further:
And what about the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria? Those, thanks for asking, can only travel in 60% of the area. Furthermore, Israeli citizens with a blue ID card can enter the cities of Nablus and Jenin, for example, only if they are Arab. According to army regulations, entrance to those areas is forbidden to an Israeli of Jewish nationality, who may face punishment for doing so. Racial discrimination, anyone?
MORE...
http://972mag.com/settlers-its-we-who-suffer-from-apartheid-not-palestinians/67394/
shira
(30,109 posts)That's 100% true.
What do we call that?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Its anti-semitism, its judenrein, its ethnic cleansing. All the Arabs and the leftists are Hitler's little helpers just like Ariel Sharon when he withdrew the settlements from Gaza. We are betrayed! BETRAYED!! THEY ARE TRAITORS AND NAZIS ALL!!!
Something like that. Let your freak flag fly proudly.
shira
(30,109 posts)...of Israel. Why the double-standard?
Come on, you must be dying to let it all out...
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)I never get sick of seeing the contortions some will do to try to justify settlers being able to live wherever they want in territory that isn't part of Israel...
shira
(30,109 posts)What a convenient way to bar Jews from living there. Especially those who had lived there prior to 1948. You're justifying apartheid and that's pretty fucking ugly, Vi.
See, Israel could do the same thing you're trying here. They could claim they don't want any "terrorists" in Israel. So to fix that, they throw all the Arabs out.
Fair's fair, right? No terrorists in Israel and no settlers in Palestine.
Hence, it's not racist either way.
No amount of contortion and twisting will get you out of this muck, Vi.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)So if I dig in all that mess you posted just then, I gather that because yr beloved settlers aren't allowed to build in every part of territory that isn't part of Israel, it's apartheid. Even though you accuse people of being antisemitic if they dare say that Israel's policy in the West Bank with military rule for Palestinians and civil rule for Israelis is reminiscent of apartheid. Now, that's so blatantly a double standard that if it was coming from anyone else I'd be shocked.
Yr habit of switching from calling Israelis Israelis to calling them Jews is a nasty one that you've been picked up on before. Weren't you yelling at someone only a few threads back because you though they were equating Israelis and Jews? So why is it okay for you to do it?
See, Israel could do the same thing you're trying here. They could claim they don't want any "terrorists" in Israel. So to fix that, they throw all the Arabs out.
Fair's fair, right? No terrorists in Israel and no settlers in Palestine.
Um, excuse me. I thought everyone at DU knew this but clearly you don't. 'Palestinian' does not equal 'terrorist'. Settlers do equal settlers. Repeat those last two sentences until they sink in, because someone that equates Palestinians with terrorists is someone with a massive problem as far as I'm concerned...
No amount of contortion and twisting will get you out of this muck, Vi.
To get out of the muck, I finish reading yr posts full of contortion and twisting of terms like apartheid and go and read something else at DU that I actually learn something constructive from. Thankfully there's a bit of that around the place here
shira
(30,109 posts)...are settlers who in your opinion should not be allowed to live in a future Palestine?
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)Because yet again you appear to have totally ignored everything I said in the detailed response I gave you.
btw, yr 'question' is a remarkably ridiculous one. For one, the settlers are Israeli. Unlike you, I don't give a shit if they're Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist. They're Israeli settlers. Secondly, there were no Israeli settlements prior to 1948 as there was no Israel. Thirdly, even if a little old Israeli man who used to live in the West Bank prior to 1948 wanted to live in a future Palestine, then he'd have to apply for Palestinian citizenship just like everyone else.
shira
(30,109 posts)The Palestinian leadership consists of a bunch of bigoted racists and you're whitewashing that. Their maniacal hate for Jews can be seen everywhere throughout their state-run media. Denying it, as you do, is downright ugly.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)Flinging random and unrelated crap around just isn't giving a great impression there.
*sigh* let's try this again. You switch between Israelis and Jews when it suits you and you want to portray anyone who dares criticise Israel as being antisemitic, yet only a few days ago I spotted you yelling at a pro-Palestinian DUer for supposedly doing exactly what yr doing now and have done repeatedly in the past. Here's a big fact for you that yr not going to like. There's a lot of Israelis who aren't Jewish. In fact, it's around 25% of the population. Calling Israelis Jews instead of Israelis is just as ugly and bigoted as calling Palestinians Muslims instead of Palestinians because 'they're Palestinian and just happen to be Muslim'..
So, instead of flailing round making stupid accusations because I don't agree with frothing at the mouth rants and folk who equate Palestinians with terrorists (talk about maniacal hate!), maybe you could try to explain in a coherent way what it was about my response to yr bizarre 'question' that appears to have upset you so much...
shira
(30,109 posts)Here's the thing. The Palestinian leadership doesn't distinguish b/w Zionists, Israelis, and Jews. They're all synonymous terms. In fact, they very often say "Jews". This is common knowledge. To pretend otherwise is bullshit. Abbas originally claimed no Jews in a future Palestine. Everyone who knows anything and is honest knows what that means. He can claim it's just Israelis or just settlers to the English Press, but that's a very old game.
Don't pretend otherwise.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)There is no 'thing'. It's hypocritical and really stupid to so blatantly accuse others of doing exactly what you not only do yrself, but then turn around and justify doing. You constantly interchange the terms Israeli and Jew to suit yr agenda when you want to try to make out that people who dare criticise Israel are antisemitic.
Game playing is trying to divert attention away from what was said, just like you just did.
Don't pretend otherwise.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)You just blatantly ignore that VC schooled you on the overuse of your duck and weave.
Do you even read what people say when they reply to you?
Because yet again you appear to have totally ignored everything I said in the detailed response I gave you.
shira
(30,109 posts)Are you my new pet poodle, following me around and yipping away?
As to Violet's response....
...it wasn't really worth responding to. If it makes you feel better saying I was "schooled", I'm happy for you.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)How original, Shira.
Run, old hare, if I was an old hare I'd run too.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The only two Jewish populations in the West Bank during the first half of the twentieth century were in Hebron and Kfar Etzion.
The maximum Jewish population of the West Bank at any given time during that period would have been less than five hundred.
shira
(30,109 posts)...can live beyond the green line according to the PLO.
The point being you and your comrades here are trying to whitewash the PLO's plan to make a future Palestine Jew free. I thought that was a progressive no-no, being the anti-racists you guys claim to be.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)In the case of the pre-1948 Jewish community in Hebron, given that they had lived there since the fifteenth century, they would be considered Palestinians and therefore eligible to reside in the Palestinian territories.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)wants to truck another 500k in?
Now if that isn't a prelude to ethnic cleansing of the West bank then what is?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)when he made the Gaza Strip judenrein? You think that that was ethnic cleansing?
shira
(30,109 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)You would therefore have no objection to the politicians and soldiers who participated in that ethnic cleansing being charged with crimes against humanity?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I wonder why that is.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)when that terminology is being used by your pro-Israel colleagues. At least you never object to it.
Like here for instance:-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=365599&mesg_id=365616
or:-
Sickening.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=12366
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I have never used such terminology with respect to this conflict.
You, however, have. As have others. I object to it all.
I'll try to call out more posters more frequently if you promise to stop using those terms.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)In this very thread, we have not one but two posters who apparently believe that the Gaza withdrawal was anti-semitic ethnic cleansing.
And given that the majority of Israelis approved of that withdrawal, that means that Israelis by and large are supporters of anti-semitic ethnic cleansing.
Someone urgently needs to inform those poor Jews living in Israel that they are apparently living in an anti-semitic apartheid ethnic cleansing state. Clearly it is not safe for them to remain there.
And please don't be dense with me. You know very well that I am simply adopting the terminology used by pro-settler Kahanists on this forum and throwing it back at them, and that I do not myself consider the withdrawal of settlements to be an anti-semitic policy.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And in response was falsely accused of something by you.
Here is my question for you: Why do you yourself choose to use Nazi terminology in describing Israel?
I would be interested to know why you make the conscious choice to do that.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Not that I can see.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)K&R
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They really should send you guys a thank-you gift.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)that Israeli colonists aren't able to freely move about on somebody else's land. In this day and age it is mind boggling that more outposts haven't been constructed to solve this problem of freedom of movement within a territory not belonging to Israel.
Where oh where is their Ghandi or Martin Luther King to guide these poor affected colonists to the purloined land?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)On the part of the Israeli Army?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Did you read the op?
Jews are restricted from entering area a, which is the land that's entirely under PA control. The PA restricts them. Not the IDF.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)The Palestinian Police Force -- a para-military force over 50,000 strong -- and armed with semi-automatic weapons (supplied by Israel). Al-Assifa, is the main armed wing of the Palestinian Authority but there is also the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Force 17.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but please do keep trying
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Al-Aqsa and Force 17 are the official military body of the PA
But, no problem, you can keep pretending the PA are pacifists just like Ghandiji. Very few people here will argue with you.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)they are not armies either albeit your attempt to legitimize them as such is commendable and if for some reason the settlers wish to enter a Palestinian area IDF will gladly provide security for them
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Send me a video the next time that happens, OK?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)BTW area a is 18% of the West Bank, hint 100-18 is not 60
and oh a police force and presidential guard is still not a military
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Israel's army is enforcing PA policy. It is not up to the IDF or Israel to decide who is allowed in to area A. It's the PA's policy to dictate.
Why would the IDF have a crazy policy like that otherwise?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)for the same reason they claim to do everything security that's why
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I'm sure the Palestinians would be happy to know that they're the ones wearing the pants after all.
Although I'm not sure it makes a difference. Whether Israel is carrying out anti-semitic policies on behalf of someone does not negate the fact that they are carrying out anti-semitic policies. At the very most, it means that Israel is the kapo, and the Palestinians are the Nazis.
Do you think that the policy of not allowing Jewish Israelis into Area A is anti-semitic?
Did you think that the 2005 withdrawal of the settlements from Gaza was anti-semitic?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)You can't really be making this argument seriously, can you?
No
No
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Jewish colonists. See the difference?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Was drawing the distinction of "us" versus "enemy" based on ethnicity, rather than citizenship. Therefore the issue was never "Israelis aren't allowed to wander freely" but rather that Jews aren't allowed to do so.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)and Israel is enforcing anti-semitism as a matter of policy.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Israel's merely enforcing the border rules set by the PA. It's not anti-Semitic on the part of the IDF. they have no say in the matter.
The fact of the matter is that this conflict is split down ethnic lines. Acknowledging that is hardly racist. If the PA wants to let in members of its own ethnicity so be it. Clearly they see the Jews as their enemy. Not all the Israelis.
So is the PA being anti semiotic here? Of course. But so what? Why would they be anything but? The meaning is different when the split between ethnicities defines sides in a war.
Why not ask if restricting jews from entering al aqsa is anti Semitic as well?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)They are of course Palestinians who were lucky enough to retain the right to live in present day Israel. But that makes them no less Palestinian.
As such, you would expect them to be able to access Area A as of right, would you not?
It is worth noting that Palestinian Jews (ie Samaritans)as well as Israeli Druze, who politically identify with Israel for the most part, are nevertheless considered Palestinian and may access Area A.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)It didn't say Palestinian. It said Arab.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)it said Jewish. And as I keep repeating, it is an Israeli sign promulgating Israeli Army regulations. Unless of course you consider that the Palestinians are outsourcing their signwriting as well as their anti-semitism to the Israeli Army.
But it certainly illustrates some interesting thought processes. On the one hand, you consider the PA to be racist for allowing Palestinians (including those with Israeli citizenship) to access Area A ahead of non-Palestinian Israelis, despite the fact that every country in the world allows privileged access to their own nationals.
On the other hand, the fact that any given Jewish person, irrespective of the degree of their historical connection to Israel/Palestine, can apply for citizenship ahead of Palestinians who have lived in the area for millenia, is not racism, in your view.