Worlds apart

[bemildred]

Said Rhateb was born in 1972, five years after Israeli soldiers fought their way through East Jerusalem and claimed his family's dry, rock-strewn plot as part of what the Jewish state proclaimed its "eternal and indivisible capital". The bureaucrats followed in the army's footsteps, registering and measuring Israel's largest annexation of territory since its victory over the Arab armies in the 1948 war of independence. They cast an eye over the Rhateb family's village of Beit Hanina and its lands, a short drive from the biblical city on the hill, and decided the outer limits of this new Jerusalem. The Israelis drew a line on a map - a new city boundary - between Beit Hanina's lands and most of its homes. The olive groves and orchards were to be part of Jerusalem; the village was to remain in the West Bank.

The population was not so neatly divided. Arabs in the area were registered as living in the village - even those, like Rhateb's parents, whose homes were inside what was now defined as Jerusalem. In time, the Israelis gave the Rhatebs identity cards that classified them as residents of the West Bank, under military occupation. When Said Rhateb was born, he too was listed as living outside the city's boundaries. His parents thought little of it as they moved freely across the invisible line drawn by the Israelis, shopping and praying inside the walls of Jerusalem's Old City.

Four decades later, the increasingly complex world of Israel's system of classification deems Said Rhateb to be a resident of the West Bank - somewhere he has never lived - and an illegal alien for living in the home in which he was born, inside the Jerusalem boundary. Jerusalem's council forces Rhateb to pay substantial property taxes on his house but that does not give him the right to live in it, and he is periodically arrested for doing so. Rhateb's children have been thrown out of their Jerusalem school, he cannot register a car in his name - or rather he can, but only one with Palestinian number plates, which means he cannot drive it to his home because only Israeli-registered cars are allowed within Jerusalem - and he needs a pass to visit the centre of the city. The army grants him about four a year.

There is more. If Rhateb is not legally resident in his own home, then he is defined as an "absentee" who has abandoned his property. Under Israeli law, it now belongs to the state or, more particularly, its Jewish citizens. "They sent papers that said we cannot sell the land or develop it because we do not own the land. It belongs to the state," he says. "Any time they want to confiscate it, they can, because they say we are absentees even though we are living in the house. That's what forced my older brother and three sisters to live in the US. They couldn't bear the harassment."

Guardian UK

[Tom Joad]

1. Classic Apartheid.

Sponsored by...
The United States of America. Supporters of imperialism worldwide. You can count on the USA.

Time to change this. We stopped the US from supporting South Africa, and it finally fell under its own weight. We can do the same here. Stop funding Israel's military machine.

[Wordie]

2. That law regarding "absentees" is little known and causes tremendous

suffering and loss among Palestinians. It really is apartheid that's going on, and it is illegal under international law to seize the property of the occupied, even through ostensibly legal processes such as this.

[mike_c]

3. it's the "homelands" policy all over again, and the pro-Israel cabal...

...simply doesn't want to face that. Any system with different and discriminatory laws for people of differing ethnicity is a flavor of apartheid, IMO. Israel is a classic apartheid state, and ought to be a world pariah until it abolishes its ethnic discrimination.

[sabbat hunter]

4. what do you mean by

what do you mean by pro israel cabal?

how is israel racist? israeli arabs have full rights as any other israeli?
so exactly how is it a racist apartheid state?

[mike_c]

5. oh please....

Apartheid is a system for maintaining racial or ethnic superiority. Israeli law is expressly designed to maintain demographic minority status for the arab population. Naturalization of people of Palestinian arab descent is prohibited-- and they are the only ethnic group singled out for such treatment. Palestinians were pushed into the West Bank and Gaza and denied the right to return to their homes-- despite the U.N. mandate that they be allowed to do so, just as black South Africans were relegated to "homelands" that most had no historical connection to. Palestinian land is unilaterally annexed whenever it suits Israel, including the arab lands in east Jerusalem described in the OP Guardian article. Palestinians traveling in Israel-- their own land, remember?-- do so only under special passes, if they are permitted to exit their "homelands" at all. And so on. How can you deny the parallels with apartheid?

[Behind the Aegis]

6. So...

For Israel NOT to be an apartheid state, she should be dissolved? One-state?

[mike_c]

8. yeah, that's essentially the objection the Afrikaners had, too....

And they were right in many ways. Ending aparthied destroyed much of their world. Justice has a way of doing that to institutions based on injustice.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. You didn't answer the question.

[mike_c]

10. alright....

Yes, my PERSONAL belief is that the only just way to resolve the Israel/Palestine issue is to abolish the apartheid laws and allow ALL the people who live there to determine their national identity democratically. The South Africans understood that-- partitioning the homelands to maintain an ethnic white Afrikans enclave was immoral and unjust-- and any such "solution" in Palestine is equally unjust. The U.N. recognized this by calling for the right of return for Palestinians, even in the zionist partition. If Israel is so interested in democracy and justice, why not allow Palestinians to return to their land and homes, restore their full citizenship, and allow democracy to operate? Israel fears that because only through aparthied can it maintain the social injustice that segregates Palestinians.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. So, basically...the destruction of Israel.

[mike_c]

12. again, that's precisely what the Afrikaners said....

If you wish to interpret "abolition of apartheid" as "the destruction of Israel" then at least realize that the later is your choice of words, not mine. It's also a straw man. You've never responded to any of the charges I've made about the injustice done to the Palestinians, choosing instead to erect straw arguments to distract from those charges. If Israel cannot persist in a just manner, then what does that tell you? In any event, I return to my original statement, which you've never actually refuted: Israel is an apartheid state.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. You are calling for one nation.

Do you seriously think that Israel would continue to exist? You can call it anything you want, but it would be nothing more than the destruction of Israel.

Why can't two nations exist side-by-side? Why can't Israel withdraw from the occupied territories and allow the nation of Palestine come into being? Why do you and others like who want the entire area to be Palestine?

[mike_c]

14. I seriously think that's what democracy and justice are all about....

Why does Israel fear them so? It's a rhetorical question, of course-- we both know why.

A two state solution honors terror and apartheid-- it's unacceptable to me personnally for the same reason that I could not accept the homeland policies in South Africa. The zionists took Palestinian land by terrorism and violence-- by colonialism for the most part-- and they've maintained their state by denying the rights of the people they displaced by force, rights recognized under international law but refused by Israel. The continued denial of those rights is an ongoing atrocity, a crime against humanity, and you ask why I can't accept it? Do you believe that the Palestinians have any right to a say in the outcome of this matter? Do you believe they have a right to an EQUAL say?

What would happen to Israel if it allowed Palestinians to return to their land, homes, and citizenship depends a great deal upon how the Israelis conduct themselves in a unified society, doesn't it? The South African model might be of some assistance there as well-- South Africa managed to come through the post-apartheid transition quite well, although not without some pain and most especially not as an Afrikans dominated state. But that's what justice is about, isn't it-- the restoration of social balance. Just as there is no shame in being a white South African in a post-apartheid South Africa, why must you assume there is any shame in being a non-arab Palestinian in a united Palestine?

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Oversimplification of history.

If you really think that a unified "Palestine" is the answer, then you don't understand what is really happening in the region or the history there. A single nation would accomplish what 5 Arab armies couldn't do in 1948, the destruction of Israel.

You honestly think that a secular, democratic government would emerge where Jews would be treated equally by a Palestinian-dominated society, especially now that the ruling body still has the destruction of Israel as part of its manifesto?

[mike_c]

16. I *honestly* think that would be up to them....

Of course I don't believe that a secular, democratic government would be likely in a unified Palestine, at least not as we would recognize it. But that's the messy thing about a belief in self-determination-- it includes acceptance that the outcome might not be institutions that you or I prefer. But again, you use a strawman. Is it your contention that apartheid is what's best for the Palestinians because if permitted democratic self-determination-- in short, citizenship-- they'll choose social institutions that western, non-muslims don't like? That's called the "white man's burden," and it's one of the most odious remnants of colonialism.

[cali]

18. Ah, yes. The Candide approach.

The best of all possible worlds. Your suggestion that Palestine/Israel become a united state is firmly rooted in a dangerous fantasy. Back in the real world, the struggle is to establish a viable Palestinian state, not broken into cantons, hopefully with pre 1967 borders, with the exception of Jerusalem, which in my fantasy, has shared governance. And your suggestion that the success of merging the West Bank and Israel into one nation is dependent, solely, upon the Isaelis is one sided to the point of absurdity. Israel and apartheid South Africa has parallels but it's not absolutely analagous.

[ZapaPaine]

7. The hunter is taking a cruise down Denial...

Must be hunting crocs because he/she sure ain't hunting reality. People like this live in a bubble and will not listen to or read anything against Israel. I know it's fun to argue with them because it is so damn funny but in reality it is just a waste of our time on the planet.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. That's a really great article. Thanks for posting it...

:)

[bemildred]

19. Much better than the usual twaddle, yes. nt