Israel: a racist apartheid state

[Resistance]

By Leila Farsakh, Hi Pakistan

Bishop Desmond Tutu, the South African Nobel Prize winner, described how he saw on his visit to Israel “much like what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about”. Comparisons between apartheid South Africa and Israel/Palestine have often been made, but not always clearly explained. Many factors have made the comparison attractive.

The first, perhaps most important, is the historical colonialist foundation of the two conflicts. White settlers in South Africa, like Zionist pioneers, colonised a land already inhabited. As in South Africa, the settlers in Palestine expelled the indigenous population, some two-thirds of the Palestinians in the land that became Israel in 1948, took possession of their properties and legally segregated those who remained.

(snipped alot)

Despite their initial differences, apartheid South Africa and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have become similar since 1993. Will these similarities prove lasting? The Palestinian bantustans are neither as clearly defined nor as large as those of South Africa. Israel has less need of the Palestinian labour force, replaced more than a decade ago by 250,000 workers from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.

If the current situation continues, the two-states solution is in peril. The disappearance of that option would condemn Israel to being an apartheid and binational state, unless it were to embark on a massive programme of population transfer. Palestinians and their supporters abroad would do well to take the South African resistance movement into account when rethinking their political vision and resistance strategy.

[HereSince1628]

1. Mr. Sharon...Take down THAT wall!

I'd vote for Lieberman if he'd say it during a debate.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. 3 anti-Israel candidates?

Who are they, and why do you say they're anti-Israel? From all I've read on the Democratic candidates, they all support Israel...

I've seen lots of criticism at DU of various candidates. Wouldn't that all be 'emulating freepers'? Wouldn't some of the posts at DU from people who supported the invasion of Iraq also be 'emulating freepers'? Wouldn't an attitude that Israel is not required to show any great deal of restraint when trying to eradicate attacks on civilians in Israel be 'emulating freepers'? Just curious...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

32. I guess it's about

Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun since they don't cave in...

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I've heard of Kucinich...

...who I really admire, but I haven't heard of the other two. I can't see that any Democratic candidate would take an anti-Israel stance, so I'm guessing that these guys are even-handed in their approach to the conflict?

Violet...

[bluesoul]

37. Exactly

And that's the problem that they even think of supporting the rights of Palestinians as well with some people...

[Resistance]

41. supporting the rights of Palestinians?

Well ... well that must be ... Anti-Semitic!! </sarcasm>

[bluesoul]

38. Ups

double post...

[Valarauko]

143. What's that?(nt)

nt

[Gimel]

153. Rather unlikely

close to impossible. The "wall" is mostly on Israeli land, so that can't mean that you think the wall is ok on Israel's side of the Green Line. The wall is safety to millions of Israelis. Those who want it down are only following orders from Arafat. Lieberman will never say that.

[corporatewhore]

2. I know that Desmond Tutu

called on us as americans to take responsibility for arming israel and that it is our duty to start divestment campaigns

[Gimel]

28. Divestment of oil

consumption might be a good start. Israel uses tanks (Israeli made) and guns(Isreli made) and armed itself before the US FA program allowed Israel to buy F16s. Disarming the world should be the consideration.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[corporatewhore]

4. How about Kansas State collegian

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/stories/092302/opi_isreal.shtml

[tinnypriv]

5. There is an interesting debate on this by some Israeli doves (and others)

Whether to call what is happening in the WB/Gaza "Apartheid", or the Hebrew word "Hafrada" instead.

I assume that debate will get on the radar much more in the future if Geneva is rejected and the absorption of the territories continues apace.

[Gimel]

7. Major differences

The blacks in SA were largely non-violent. Nelso Mandella led a non-violent movement. The same dannot be said for the Palestinians, backed by Saddam Hussein.

[Resistance]

8. The actual topic

is on differences between Israeli Apartheid and South-African Apartheid, not on the victims.

[Gimel]

27. The topic

cannot be said to be the "wall" either.

The victims are on both sides, in case you haven't noticed.

The article is well written and informative. It does contain some objectivity as well. The critique of Oslo (which Arafat accepted and Israeli RW rejected) is interesting in hind-sight.

The Oslo agreements focused on establishing an infrastructure of close cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian sides, rather than on separation. Joint Israeli-Palestinian committees were created in every field, especially in security, which remained under Israeli supreme control. This was the kind of security cooperation there had been in South African bantustans.

The comparison with SA seems to begin only since 1993:

Despite their initial differences, apartheid South Africa and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have become similar since 1993. Will these similarities prove lasting?


Her actual conclusion is a warning that Israel is in danger of becoming an apartheid state.

[brainshrub]

9. I suggest you go back and research what you just said.

The ANC was once listed as a terrorist organisation.

If you think that Saddam is the primary reason the Palestinians resist: :eyes:

[Gimel]

10. I have pre-researched

I've read Mandella's auto-biography. His movement was non-violent. Other leaders became violent, but his non-violent approach won out over the others.

I did not say that Saddam was the primary reason the Palestinians resist. Arafat is.

[newyorican]

13. Mandela was the President of the ANC

and the ANC was not a non-violent organization. The ANC used both non-violent and armed resistance to fight the Aparthied regime.

Also, to state SA blacks were "largely non-violent" begs the same question of the +3million Palestinians. Are they largely violent? You certainly insinuate as much.

[brainshrub]

16. The reason the Palestinains resist

is because they are an occupied people. Arafat has nothing to do with it, especially now that there no longer is a central authority in Palestine.

[drdon326]

17. That...

and the terrorists stated aim of wiping israel into
the mediterranian.

[Resistance]

19. brainshrub was talking about Palestinians

not terrorists

[Gimel]

112. There is indeed

a central authority called the PA. Arafat is the President and Abu Ala is the Prime Minister. There is also a Palesinian Legislature. Arafat, however, weilds a great deal of power. The militant groups act independently from the PA, and also from one another. They have no legitimate right to strike at Israeli citizens in Israeli cities.

[number6]

45. so , if Arafat just disapeared the Palestinians would

just quietly submit to oppression and land theft ?

[Gimel]

117. Arafat

could have acheived a Palestinain State with Oslo, or with Camp David. Unfortuantly, he did not. Without Arafat, the Palestinians would have been given self-rule, and their own state, if for no other reason than the demographic one. Peaceful protest would have impressed Israelis more than violence.

[bluesoul]

118. Yeah I am sure Sharon

would be very impressed with peaeceful protests. He would just give up the whole idea that he always had, aha...

[Resistance]

125. I think Sharon likes peaceful protest best

cause they don't fight back when you mow 'em down

[number6]

155. Resistance, I agree with you most of the time, but this time

its total disagreement "I think Sharon likes peaceful protest best"
no I think Sharon hates peaceful protests, I think he secretly
likes the violence, he feeds on it, he does his "anti-terrorist"
thing,..cover for land theft and oppression ...

[Gimel]

126. Your opinion

is not necessarily the truth.

[Resistance]

137. That is usually

how an opinion works

[number6]

156. correction ....

"Peaceful protest would have impressed > (some)< Israelis more than violence."
not all (in my humble opinion)

and so , If I could go back in time and rub out Arafat
"the Palestinians would have been given self-rule, and their own state" wow :)
unbelievable

[tinnypriv]

11. Which is of course the point

There are major differences between Apartheid and "Hafrada", hence the reason why it might be a good idea to use a different word for the I/P situation specifically.

Apartheid is just Afrikkan for "separation" anyway.

As for "backed by Saddam Hussein", this is true, but if I were you I would have mentioned that Israel was backing White South Africa against the ANC instead.

[bemildred]

12. Heh.

:thumbsup:

[Gimel]

14. You might think so

but I don't. That was England's role, not Israel's.

[tinnypriv]

15. It was both

What do you expect?

Israel has backed much worse thugs: the neo-nazis in Argentina for example.

England you can hardly talk about seriously. We've backed folks like Saddam Hussein, Suharto in Indonesia, ethnically cleansed inhabitants of islands, contributed to the deaths of millions in famies in India, probably created the Kashmir problem etc. I see no need to continue.

Both of our countries were big fans of Apartheid. We loved it.

Now, there is an argument over whether we would have taken that position if it wasn't for the United States, but I don't see how that absolves our responsibility to the people we helped murder for a quick buck, pound and shekel.

Do you?

[the_boxer_]

55. Can you elaborate on Israel backing the neo-nazis in Argentina?

Thanks, in advance.

[tinnypriv]

89. Can't do that much here

I suggest picking up Towards A New Cold War, page 291 onwards if you're interested in the topic (and sources cited).

Contains plenty of details, for example, increased military aid, warm visits from the Israeli Foreign Minister (and other high ranking figures), requesting the Jewish community in Argentina "remain silent" about the massacres etc.

If you don't have it I'll dig out my copy for you.

[the_boxer_]

95. Please do...I'd like to read that...thanks.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. It's fact that Israel was backing Apartheid South Africa...

Gimel, go and look at the record of voting in UN resolutions that condemned Apartheid in South Africa. Israel consistantly voted against those condemnations, even when others that would pop us as obvious supporters of White South Africa (eg the US and the UK) weren't. I've read that at one point in the UN, Israel was the only 'friend' of Apartheid South Africa. If I have time later today or tomorrow I'll go find some stuff about it for you to read...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. South Africa

You amaze me with this breaking news.

Israel supported South Africa? Quick, where is AP? Reuters?

Of course Israel supported South Africa, as did the rest of the West -- including Australia. If you recall, there was this little thing called the Cold War that pitted two major powers against one another. Their allies also were similarly pitted. South Africa was on the Western side, so was Israel.

Even as the Cold War warmed up, both Israel and South Africa were virtually abandoned by much of the world, so Israel took its friends where it could find them.

[Resistance]

21. whatever

it's no justification for Israel's current racism, Apartheid, and often outright terrorist strikes on Palestinians

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. How did that respond to my post?

[Resistance]

57. I see your point

I was just trying to see how this connects to the current apartheid situation

[tinnypriv]

22. You don't consider black people part of South Africa?

Interesting.... :hurts:

[newyorican]

24. *chuckle*

You mean the vast majority of South Africans that were shut out of the political system and treated to some hideous, military-style, Jim Crowisms (who just happened to be black)? Damn those details!

Interesting indeed...:think:

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. So where did you make that up from?

[newyorican]

56. Actually, you made it up...

Right here: "Of course Israel supported South Africa, as did the rest of the West -- including Australia."

You do not state this absurdity as an opinion, you state it as fact. Your statement fails to differentiate between the Apartheid regime and over 20 million disenfranchised SA blacks that make up the majority of SA. It's also revisionist history in a clumsy attempt to slink away from the fact that the GOI supported the racist regime that ran SA somewhere between Jim Crow and chattel slavery. I don't call that support of SA in any form, shape or manner. What's interesting is (given how you define yourself)...you do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. It was a fact

SA was part of the Western alliance against the Soviets. For a long time everybody in the West supported them.

Then, over time, people wised up to apartheid.

You are trying to apply opinion to historical fact. The historical fact is, when threatened with the possibility of world domination, nations do what is in their best interests and not necessarily what is most moral.

As for Israel, faced with very few countries that would even trade with it, it made allies where it could find them. Again, it is easy to be moral when self preservation is not at stake.

[newyorican]

62. So is it "made up" or is it "fact"...

The SA regime was illegitimate and illegal. It wound up collapsing, thanks to internal and external pressures and the weight of it own inhumanity. There were approximately 7 million White S. Africans dominating 22 million blacks. That does not equal "everybody".

Then, over time, people wised up to apartheid.

False. Aparthied was fought from it's inception. Both internationally and internally. It's stunning that you don't know that.

You are trying to apply opinion to historical fact.

False. You are trying to avoid historical facts by applying your opinion.

The historical fact is, when threatened with the possibility of world domination, nations do what is in their best interests and not necessarily what is most moral.

*That* is opinion. The "historical fact" is that the GOI laid with some hideous, racist dogs after the rest of the world denounced them. It's appears they caught some fleas from that relationship.

As for Israel, faced with very few countries that would even trade with it, it made allies where it could find them. Again, it is easy to be moral when self preservation is not at stake.

Progress, slow and painful, but progress none-the-less. The immoral (glad you admit it was immoral) decision to assist in the continued oppression of over 22 million SA blacks, and decisions to assist the Apartheid regime export war to the Frontline states does not qualify as "support for SA", unless you define SA as only those 7 millions whites that held illegitimate rule. If that *is* your definition, you are quite alone in your musings and call into question several claims you have made about yourself.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. The SA regime was horrible, how do we define illegal?

I am very happy it is gone, what makes a regime illegal? Or legal for that matter? Please give examples of both.

Every system has been fought in the modern era, apartheid is no different. The state of South Africa still was part of the Western alliance for a goodly amount of time. I am surprised you don't know that.

You are very confused about the defition of facts. You think because a lot of people don't like a regime, it means it is everybody. That is not the case. Often, nation states lag the views of the people because nation states exist in a real world, not an ideal one. As such, they must deal with the other states as they are, not as they wish them to be.

Israel needed trade partners and South Africa was willing to trade. Ergo, it did so.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. It is to laugh

By some of the comments bandied about here, it seems obvious ANY regime could be considered illegal.

Hence my comment. Your avoidance makes my point for me.

[RPG-7]

74. They didn't "need" South Africa

They liked and sympathized with White South Africa for obvious reasons. They had a co-operative program to develop race-specific bioweapons for further obvious reasons.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. All nations need allies, even the U.S.

As for your other claim, care to share a link to that?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. Genetics

Since we are constantly reminded here that even Arabs are Semites, how do you suppose Israel could develop a weapon to kill Arabs and not Israeli Jews who represent pretty much every ethnic group on the earth?

Smear tactics are one thing, but they should at least be realistic.

[RPG-7]

79. you answered your own question

You craft your weapon around specific gene groups that are can be as specific as family. How loose or tight you make it raises the odds that you are going to take out some of your own but it's quite possible.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. No, actually, it's not

Israel is involved in an ongoing conflict about religion. Sorry, there is no genetic marker for that.

Beyond that, there are Israeli Jews of all types and nationalities.

[RPG-7]

81. British Medical Association says it is possible

internet message board person says it isn't. Case closed, I guess :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Possible to create a marker for religion?

Where does it say that?

[RPG-7]

85. yes

if that's the way you absolutely insist on dealing with the subject, fine. It's seems infantile to me and many, many agnostic and atheistic people born to Jewish parents are going to be suprised to hear this but if that is how you absolutely NEED to look at things I can coddle you.

A weapon can be crafted to kill members of one family are you following me? You will also find enough similarities to kill say a certain clan of Muslim Arabs. At this point you may run into killing Jewish natives of Palestine but there aren't that many of them and there aren't that many clans. Make a weapon that kills all of them and you will kill many Jews of Oriental extraction, these sorts of considerations wouldn't seem to be particularly important to people who want to develop such weapons

[newyorican]

86. Could be one of those "painful choices"

Arik is always squealing about...

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. So you are just building a fantasy where Israelis have to kill themselves?

Like I said, a fantasy.

[newyorican]

84. From #83

ISRAEL is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources. The weapon, targeting victims by ethnic origin, is seen as Israel's response to Iraq's threat of chemical and biological attacks.

A scientist there said the task was hugely complicated because both Arabs and Jews are of Semitic origin. But he added: "They have, however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people."

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Wrong...

The I/P conflict is NOT about religion...


Violet....

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. Yeah, 2,000 years of anti-Semitic actions must be misread

[Darranar]

97. What's the connection?

[Violet_Crumble]

100. Muddle, this conflict is NOT about religion...

What are you having trouble understanding about that?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. You don't think so?

It has a big thing to do with it.

There are many facets to the conflict but when almost all the folks on one side are Jewish and almost all the other side is Muslim, it's pretty silly to rule out religion and its impact.

[Violet_Crumble]

104. Then explain to me how it is about religion...

Because if there's one major thing to be said that it's about, it's about territory and not religion. To claim that the I/P conflict is about religion because the majority (btw, 20 something percent of the Israeli population does not turn Israel into 'almost all' Jewish, apart from the fact that being Jewish isn't a religious thing. People can be atheist or agnostic and still be Jewish) is one religion and almost all (again, I don't know what the percentage is of Christian Palestinians, but I thought it was a reasonable size) another is the same as trying to claim that the invasion of Iraq was about religion because 'almost all the folks on one side' are Muslim and 'almost all the other side' are Christian. I think we all know religion is not what the invasion of Iraq was about, though extremists on both sides like OBL and the Religious Right in the US would love nothing better than for it to turn into a rerun of the Crusades...

Violet...

[corporatewhore]

120. There is actually a large minority of Christians living there

and their houses are bulldozed too

[Gimel]

106. What is Jihad?

The form of Jihad that calls for violence isn't talking about violence to other Muslim. While Arafat continually calls for Jihad, and there is a group called the Islamic Jihad, there is certainly a strong religious element to this conflict.

It may also be around land, and the division of land, but that divison is between nations, one of which is predominantly Jewish the other Muslim.

Consider that the holy sites are definate symbols of religion and definately flash points in the conflict.

Now tell me this conflict isn't about religion, and justify it.

[Violet_Crumble]

107. And what's that got to do with anything?

There's been calls for Jihad against US troops in Iraq. Do you think that makes the invasion of Iraq about religion? Also, I have never said that religion doesn't rear it's head, but what I am saying is that if we are to point out one thing as being the thing that the I/P conflict is about, that's not it. Amd last thing I heard, Arafat was a secular leader, not a religious one...

'It may also be around land'??

Gimel, please explain to me why the Palestinians are unlike any other people and aren't greviously pissed off about their land being taken away from them. Am I also to believe that if the tables were turned and it was Israelis losing their land, that the reason for the conflict wouldn't be territorial, but one of religion?


Violet...

on edit: removed the word 'all' to pre-empt any unnecessary to-ing and fro-ing over the definition of the word 'all' ;)

[drdon326]

108. Unfortunately....

the land they want is called...israel.

( and please spare me those insipid letters of how
the pa/plo accepts israel right to exist. If they really
felt that way they wouldnt have to quietly send letters)

reality sucks.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. Since when has the West Bank and Gaza been part of Israel?

Because that's the land that's being stolen from them, and that's most definately NOT part of Israel...

Insipid letters? Are you talking about the Oslo Accords? Sometimes I get the feeling that even if the words 'We Accept Israel's Right To Exist' was written on a huge sign in Times Square for a year and the words were run as a ticker-tape on every channel on every tv-station in the world, there'd still be some folk who'd try to claim they (the PA) didn't accept Israel's right to exist. Also, can you point me to the Likud Party platform that acknowledges the right of the Palestinian people to an independent and sovereign state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza? I must have missed that one ;)

Violet...

[drdon326]

110. No need..

to worry yourself.

in 6 months the Peace Fence will be finished,separation
of the 2 peoples and then the pal. people will have
to deal with their own leadership and whatever future awaits
them.

I suspect the pa will wish they dismantled those thugs when
they had their chance.

Should be fun to watch.

I'll bring the popcorn.

[Violet_Crumble]

111. How can there be separation?

A large number of Palestinians are being left on the western side of the Piece Fence (credit given to Bemildred) so how exactly does that achieve separation? Or is there some expectation that they'll be removed from those areas due to them being classed as 'long-term residents' and needing ongoing permission from the IDF to keep on living where they've lived their entire lives?


Violet...

[drdon326]

114. They'll be able ....

to come and go. I have no doubt.

[Violet_Crumble]

116. How can you have no doubts?

It'd seem to me that people coming and going freely would defeat the supposed purpose of the fence....

Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a fence that leaves a large number of Palestinians on the western side is achieving separation of two peoples...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

119. They still must go through security checks

So that means they will not be carrying weapons in with them.

It is not a perfect separation but such a thing is not easy to do in a moral way, so Israel won't do it.

I imagine two cultures could entirely decide to separate, but other than that, this is the next best thing. The Peace Fence will keep the majority of the two populations away from one another and that is good for all concerned.

[Violet_Crumble]

121. It's not separation at all...

No 'not a perfect separation' about it at all. As I pointed out, a large number of Palestinians are now on the western side of the Piece Fence, and now being classified as 'long-term residents' with their continuing living there at the mercy of the IDF. That's good for them? How??

Who said anything about two cultures? I certainly didn't, because there isn't two cultures involved in this supposed separation as Israelis aren't one separate culture...

Violet...

[Gimel]

113. Actually

I'm tired of hearing that the "land being taken" from the Palestinians. The logical division was a result of conflict, and that conflict was engaged upon by the Arabs in Palestine. They are as much of the cause of the conflict as anyone.

[Violet_Crumble]

115. Being tired of hearing it doesn't make it any less a fact...

And it's a fact that land is being taken from the Palestinian people. If people are getting tired of hearing it, then they should speak out against the land being stolen as far as I'm concerned. "They" as in the Palestinians suffering because of this construction are NOT to blame for the cause of the conflict, though if we're going to get into the habit of laying blame on civilian populations, then using yr logic, blame should also be shovelled onto Israeli civilians, and you'd have no problems at all if their land was to be stolen from them...

There's no 'logical division' at all when it comes to the route the fence is taking, apart from being an obvious land-grab. If there is, feel free to explain it, because no-one has yet...

Also, you didn't attempt to explain how two peoples are actually separated if a large number of one are finding themselves on the other side of the fence....

Violet...

[Gimel]

127. You can't

explain away a fallacy. The claim has already been sent to a world court, so I don't see how your pre-judgment has any relevance at all.

[Violet_Crumble]

128. There's no fallacy involved, Gimel...

Israel IS taking land away from the Palestinian people. If the boot was on the other foot and it was Israel that was having a fence built by the Palestinians deep in it's territory, you wouldn't think that was taking land away from Israel?? Why not?

The claim that's gone to the ICJ is for it to rule on the legality of the fence. Maybe I've misunderstood things and the case that's going before the court is one about whether or not Israel is taking land. As Israel's been taking land for a long while without the fence, I think I'm pretty safe in guessing I haven't misunderstood what the court case is about...

Violet...

[Gimel]

131. The impossibility

of a "perfect divison" makes the least intrusive division the only reasonable route for the peace fence. If you want a more perfect description, you'll just have to wait for the data to be released.

As the fence is not a permanant boarder it is not a "land grab" as the Palestinian propagandists have drilled into your head.

[Violet_Crumble]

135. What's impossible about building the fence along the Green Line?

There is nothing reasonable about the route it's taking, not to people who give a toss about the Palestinians it's affecting. If there actually is a rational explanation for why it couldn't go along the Green Line, then given you think it's reasonable to take land from the Palestinians, wouldn't it be also reasonable to you that the fence be built inside Israel even if it meant Israel losing land?

Excuse me, but I'm not in the habit of having propaganda drilled into my head, and I don't appreciate you telling me why I think what I do about the route the fence is taking. I think the way I do because I've read a lot about the path the fence is taking from both sides and until someone can explain how the fence provides Israel with the security that building it along the Green Line couldn't, and given Sharon's plans for a unilateral solution, as well as Israel's economic situation and the astronomical cost of the fence slapping everyone in the face with the fact that there's nothing meant to be temporary about this fence, I'll continue to believe that Sharon is creating more 'facts on the ground' and grabbing as much land as he can before any solution to the conflict happens and a Palestinian state comes into being...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

138. Not all Jews live within the Green Line

It provides security for those who do not as well. Until there is a peace treaty defining borders, ALL of the territory is under Israel's control. In addition, some of the ways that the fence leaves the Green Line is based on topography, not politics.

More specifically, some of the old borders will not happen. Jerusalem will remain Israeli in all cases.

[bluesoul]

139. That's what you think

Hopefully justice will be done and the Palestinians get what belongs to them. They have already lost too much because of post WW2 decisions. Now it's time for compensating...

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. Compensation is fine

The Arab world is hugely responsible for the current plight of the Palestinians because it wouldn't accept UN partition. Perhaps the Arabs could put some of that oil money to good use.

[Violet_Crumble]

146. So you oppose Israel paying any compensation?

That makes absolutely no sense. The people who fled or were driven from their homes should have been allowed to go back to them at the end of the war. Their homes were in Israel, and it's Israel that has steadfastly refused to allow them to return or to give them any compensation. Who started the war or who did or didn't accept Partition has zero to do with that...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

148. Israel has already paid compensation many times over

Israel has paid in blood for the wars caused by its neighbors and for the terror that continues to plague it to this day.

I oppose paying one red cent. To paraphrase, "Billions for defense, not one penny for tribute."

The people who fled the Arab attack were, as a result of the Arab war, a major security risk for a new state. They should seek compensation from the Arab states that violated the partition and tried to wipe out Israel.

[Darranar]

149. One has little to do with the other...

Reperations are necesary for those refugees, and Israel should pay a large portion of them. Which refugees were displaced by the IDF (and yes, there were many) and which left of their own accord is impossible to find out, but Israel has been committing a crime by suppressing their legitimate right to return. Nothing the Arabs have done changes this. Denying this would be the equivalent of denying the Israelis their right to self-determination because they are smothering that right within the West Bank and Gaza.

I do not support the right of return being forced in any peace agreement. In the end, any concern for human rights and justice must be buried in pragmatism; the Israelis will never accept the right of return, and they may well go to war to stop it. There is no reason to dismiss peace because Israel will not allow the right of return. Whether or not they have legitimate reasons not to allow it is besides the point.

[Muddleoftheroad]

150. They have a lot to do

However you want to do the math. The Arab nations are the big problem here. Not only did they start the war that ended partition and caused the Palestinians to lose their homes, but they also kicked out hundreds of thousands of Jews, so they owe THEM reparations.

My idea is easy. No reparations to or from Israel. The Arabs pay what they owe Israel to the Palestinians and then they also pay the Palestinians for what they have done as well.

Either way, the right of return is a dead issue because it will destroy the state of Israel. Like Santa Claus, it is something parents tell their children to keep them in line. In this case, it is something Arafat and the Arab leaders dangle at the Palestinian people to keept them inline.

[Darranar]

151. That's an interesting arrangement...

One question, however: who will pay reperations to the Lebanese for the devestating invasion by Israel?

[Muddleoftheroad]

152. How about Syria

which conquered Lebanon, uses that nation to launch attacks against Israel and remains in control of Lebanon?

[Darranar]

154. Why should Syria pay for israel's actions?

[Muddleoftheroad]

157. Cause and effect

[newyorican]

83. This was *painfully* easy to find...

Biowar and the Apartheid Legacy

The 1999 BMA study was provoked in part by a 1998 story in the London Sunday Times alleging that Israel already had developed a genetically specific weapon. “Unnamed South African sources,” according to a report cited by the Times, “ Israeli scientists have used some of the South African research in trying to develop an ‘ethnic bullet’ against Arabs.” Reported links between Israel’s ethnic weapons and South Africa’s Project Coast are tentative; some would say tenuous. But the possibility of such links is terrifying, and justifies as much scrutiny as was focused on Iraq’s imaginary arsenal.

The Black Vault

Here is a forum specializing in military research with some speculating.

Signs Supplement - Ethnic Specific Weapons

ISRAEL is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources. The weapon, targeting victims by ethnic origin, is seen as Israel's response to Iraq's threat of chemical and biological attacks.

A scientist there said the task was hugely complicated because both Arabs and Jews are of Semitic origin. But he added: "They have, however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people."

----

What is interesting is that, though I received quite a few Emails from the Zionist community, none denied the accuracy of the story. Instead, they brashly admitted it was true, then added it was necessary because Israel needed to defend itself from its Arab neighbors. What is most telling is that many letters included references to Arabs that were derogatory and dehumanizing. That such a destructive philosophy is accepted by so many uncritically in Israel explains much of the vicious thuggery performed against the Palestinians over the last four months (not to mention the last 33 years).

----

Incidentally, the commission's concluding report noted that South Africa's chemical-biological weapons team received considerable assistance from their American counterparts during the apartheid era. And it's easy to see why: Ethno bombs are a dream weapon on a planet so preoccupied with ethnic conflicts. Of course, that's also why such weapons are so remarkably menacing.

<...> The article noted that the ethno-bomb claims were given further credibility by a report in "Foreign Report," a publication of the respected Jane's group, that Israeli scientists used some of "the South African research in trying to develop an 'ethnic bullet' . . ."

There is much more for those still intellectually stimulated by learning. It seems there is much speculation, but nobody is owning up, one way or the other. Pretty much the routine you get when asking about nukes.

[tinnypriv]

67. I didn't, and reading the thread, see further explanation as pointless

But my statement remains accurate nevertheless.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Glad yr amazed, Muddle...

No, I spoke specifically about UN resolutions where Israel stood alone with South Africa in voting against resolutions condemning Apartheid. Do you deny this happened?

Can you clarify something here? During the entirety of the Cold War you think it was okay for Apartheid to exist because South Africa was supposedly a 'friend' of the US? There was a very good reason why South Africa was nearly universally criticised for Apartheid, and that had to do with millions of Black South Africans being treated like shit. If that was the sort of 'friend' you think the US needed in the Cold War, I totally disagree with you...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Did you read ALL of my post?

"Even as the Cold War warmed up, both Israel and South Africa were virtually abandoned by much of the world, so Israel took its friends where it could find them."

That seems to cover your point quite nicely.

As for apartheid, I never once that it was OK. I discuss history as I find it.

In case you had forgotten, pretty much the whole world chose up sides in the Cold War. The allies of the West, fearing that what happened to Eastern Europe would happen to them, had cause to take friends as they could. So, even as screwed up as South Africa was, it was an ally.

Just as the Arab nations were on the side of the Soviet Union.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. Of course I did...

And all you seem to have done is try to justify why it's okay for some states to support others and help them defend themselves against condemnation of appalling human rights violations. Israel thought it needed more 'friends' so therefore voting with SA in the UN against resolutions that condemned Apartheid is understandable? No, it's not understandable nor jusifiable in any way....

If it was so essential for the West to retain SA as a Cold War ally, then yr going to have to explain why SA was so vital to Cold War interests, and why a continuation of Apartheid was essential to SA remaining a Cold War ally...

And no, the world wasn't split into two blocks. There was a sizeable but rather unorganised non-aligned bloc as well...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

99. Political reality

Is a lot more difficult when your nation isn't literally an island.

States that are fighting for their survival take their allies where they can find it. Has always been thus. That you can't grasp it amazes me.

As for the Cold War, much like the hot one right before that it was a world war. As such, bases, resources (lots of minerals mined in SA)and outright military allies were all essential to the West and the East.

Any overthrow of a government friendly to you often results in a government that is NOT friendly to you. (shocker!)

Actually, that sizeable "non-alligned" group wasn't that sizeable or that non-alligned. Most leaned one way or the other.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. One more try...

States that are fighting for their survival take their allies where they can find it. Has always been thus. That you can't grasp it amazes me.

Well seeing as how I've never left any hint that I don't grasp such a simple complex, you seem to be amazing yrself over nothing, Muddle. What I have been pointing out consistantly is that there's NO justification for a state voting against condemnation of another for gross human rights violations because they're allies of that state. Of course I know it happens on a regular basis and I haven't denied that anywhere. What I have been saying is that it's wrong. Is that clear enough?

Uh-huh. I see. So you think any South African government where the majority voted instead of the tiny White minority would have been hostile to the US? Why then would you have supported an end to Apartheid in South Africa?

The non-aligned bloc was quite sizeable despite what you say, and I did point out that they were unorganised and ineffective, so I'm not quite sure why yr telling me that most leant one way or the other. That's why they were unorganised and ineffective...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

103. The Real World (not the MTV production)

Of course there is a justification for "voting against condemnation of another for gross human rights violations because they're allies." It's called political reality.

In the non-political world, many of us have family or friends we will stand by under almost any circumstances because we know they will do that for us. In world politics it is much the same.

To deny that is naive.

Personally, I supported the end to apartheid because it was wrong, but also I was not running a nation. I had nothing else to cloud my decision making.

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Political reality...

Political reality was what was happening when the US was friends with Saddam and looking the other way while he gassed the Kurds. Political reality in the form of residual pissiness over the outcome of the Vietnam War was what had the US siding with the Khmer Rouge over Vietnam and voting against expelling Cambodia from the UN despite being fully aware of the genocide carried out in Cambodia. They're only two of the ugly things that political reality can have states that some of us love to hold up as models of freedom, responsibility, and tolerance for other states to follow, supporting and protecting states that are committing gross human rights violations. The political reality is that human rights doesn't count for shit when compared to things like economic interests, and that's a reality none of us should stand for or support in any way. And how hypocritical would it be for Apartheid South Africa to have been protected and supported as an ally of the US, but if it wasn't, it'd be okay to condemn away? Why? Does being an ally of the US make gross human rights violations any less unacceptable? To me, it doesn't...

Sorry, Muddle, but I am going to strongly disagree that the relationship between states is much the same as that between individuals with their famililies and friends. The relationship between states are all about self-interest and power, whereas family and friends come down to things like love, trust, etc. And to be blunt, even if the dynamics were the same, I can assure you that if a friend of mine was in the habit of causing grave harm to another human being, I wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in protecting them and I would NOT stand by them under those circumstances. And as a parent, if my child were doing the same thing I would NOT try to protect her so she could continue committing the same harm. Being a good parent or friend doesn't mean standing by someone no matter what and protecting them and keeping them from justice when they harm someone else....


Violet...

[Gimel]

30. Support not for apartheid

MoftheR is quite right that the economic ties to SA were important to Israel, trying to survive with a similar blockade against trade. The anti-apartheid movement achieved one of human rights' greatest victories. A large Jewish community in SA, refugees from European anti-Semitism, was also a major concern for Israel. Obviously friendship has not been reciprocated.

SA Jews emigrated to Israel prior to statehood, and have been some of the most vocal supporters of Palestinian rights. One was the journalist Philip Gillon, who passed away a month ago at the age of 90. He wrote a column found in the Jerusalem Post until the mid-80's. At that time he resigned from the Post to write in a new left leaning English paper that did not survive.

for note from archeives
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/index.html?ts=1071656807

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Are you saying that Israel DID vote condemning apartheid?

They didn't, Gimel. And trying to justify it by claiming economic interests in South Africa wouldn't work as a convincing reason for voting against a condemnation of apartheid in the UN.

Yr link just leads to an empty search box. As it is, I can't access JPost and see no reason to waste more time trying to register, so if you have any information, maybe you could PM it in it's entirety to me or find it somewhere else than JPost? Besides, I don't remember ever claiming that individuals in Israel didn't oppose apartheid. Many would have, and like people in other countries, would have been appalled at the way their country votes on some issues in the UN. Believe me, when a country opposes or abstains when it comes to particular issues regarding human rights, they're in no way reflecting the views of individuals that live in their country....

Violet...

[Gimel]

34. Can you read what I posted?

I did not claim that Israel voted against SA blockade. I did not even support that vote.

Don't worry about the JPost reference, it's probably not of interest to you anyway.

P.S. apparently Gillon left the Post in 1990. I found this extract:

Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Jan 24, 1990. pg. 02

A farewell party was given at The Jerusalem Post yesterday for Philip (Figgy) Gillon, its sports editor, television reviewer and writer, on his...
_____________________

He would have been 77 at that time.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Yes, I can read it...

Which is why I asked you the question and pointed out that there's no justification for countries that vote against resolutions opposing human rights violations on the scale of that carried out by South Africa...

Gimel, I explained why I can't access JPost and invited you to PM me a copy'n'paste of whatever you think is relevant. How would you know what is or isn't of interest to me if you haven't sent it to me?

Violet...

[Resistance]

66. hey Violet

Can you read this? :)

[Violet_Crumble]

92. LOL...

Y'know, Resistance. I don't really get what's with this trend to go 'Did you read my post???' I've told them many times in the past that I read everything I reply to, and more besides, so it doesn't appear to be a particularly constructive question to ask...

Violet...

[Gimel]

39. Off topic

I never denied that, so why are you punishing me with your remedial efforts? I'd direct you to the anti-Israel resolutions because of economic ties to South Africa. Israel was isolated at that time.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unga42_23.html



<snip>


_____________________
FOREIGN Minister Shimon Peres met African National Congress President Nelson Mandela Monday evening in New York, marking Mandela's first meeting with an Israeli leader.

Peres invited Mandela to visit Israel. Mandela accepted, but did not set a date. He then thanked the many South African Jews that supported the ANC freedom movement, singling out in particular the Jewish lawyers in South Africa who represented ANC ...

PERES MEETS MANDELA IN NEW YORK FIRST MEETING BY THE ANC CHIEF WITH AN ISRAELI LEADER
SUE FISHKOFF, NEW YORK. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Sep 29, 1993. pg. 02
____________________________________

[Violet_Crumble]

93. Huh?

How is discussing the topic of the thread off-topic? Also, you view discussion on a message board where people are sticking to the issue as being 'punishment'?

Gimel, you did originally claim that it hadn't been Israel's role to support Apartheid South Africa. As the discussion hasn't been about resolutions against Israel for it's support of South Africa, nor does it justify why Israel would try to protect Apartheid South Africa, that's one tangent you can follow on yr own...

Violet...

[corporatewhore]

25. What desmond Tutu says

Divestment from apartheid South Africa was fought by ordinary people at the grassroots. Faith-based leaders informed their followers, union members pressured their companies' stockholders and consumers questioned their store owners. Students played an especially important role by compelling universities to change their portfolios.

Eventually, institutions pulled the financial plug, and the South African government thought twice about its policies.

Similar moral and financial pressures on Israel are being mustered one person at a time. Students on more than 40 U.S. campuses are demanding a review of university investments in Israeli companies, as well as in firms doing major business in Israel.

Ronnie Kasrils and Max Ozinsky, two Jewish heroes of the anti-apartheid struggle, recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies.

Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela also have pointed out the relevance of the South African experience. To criticize the occupation is not to overlook Israel's individual strengths, just as protesting the Vietnam War did not imply ignoring the distinct freedoms and humanitarian accomplishments of the United States.

In a region where repressive governments and unjust policies are the norm, Israel is certainly more democratic than its neighbors. This does not make dismantling the settlements any less a priority. Divestment from apartheid South Africa was certainly no less justified because there was repression elsewhere on the African continent. Territorial ambition is equally illegal whether it occurs in slow motion, as with the Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories, or in blitzkrieg fashion, as with the Iraqi tanks in Kuwait.

The United States has a distinct responsibility to intervene in atrocities committed by its client states, and since Israel is the single-largest recipient of U.S. arms and foreign aid, an end to the occupation of Palestinian territory should be a top concern of all Americans.

Almost instinctively, the Jewish people have always been on the side of the voiceless. In their history, there is painful memory of massive roundups, house demolitions and collective punishment. In their scripture, there is acute empathy for the disfranchised. The occupation represents a dangerous and selective amnesia of the persecution from which these traditions were born.

The growing Israeli refusenik movement evokes the small anti-conscription drive that helped turn the tide in apartheid South Africa. Several hundred decorated Israeli officers have refused to perform military service in the Occupied Territories. Those not already in prison have taken their message on the road to U.S. synagogues and campuses, rightly arguing that Israel needs security, but that it will never have it as an occupying power.

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/stories/092302/opi_isreal.shtml

[Gimel]

29. So...

To build a wall for security and withdraw from the OT is the right approach. the ideal of a two-state solution has been fought for since Israel's statehood in '48.

Ironicly, some of the Palestinians greatest Israeli supporters are former South African nationals.

[newyorican]

40. Logical fallacy

You cannot "withdraw from the OT" if the barrier is built in the OT.

On Edit: Sp

[Gimel]

46. Troops withdraw

A barrier obviously doesn't.

[Resistance]

47. and you've been trying to argue

that Israel isn't a racist Apartheid state?

:shrug:

[Gimel]

50. Israel

is a nation that has been shattered by terror strikes in the major cities as well as in dozens of smaller communities over the past three years. The threat of terror, high unemployment, accompanied by labor strikes and poverty due to a depleted economy, do not make for a very well adjusted social situation for anyone.

[Resistance]

70. The threat of terror by the IDF

is even worse for Palestinians.

Just so you're aware.

[GabysPoppy]

71. Your awareness is incorrect

[Resistance]

73. care to explain why?

Or are we supposed to just trust your authority on the matter

[TeeYiYi]

132. Gimel . . .

You say that building a fence and then withdrawing from the occupied territories is the right approach. Withdrawing from the OT is definitely the right idea but you can't just build a fence on your neighbor's land. If you want a fence, you have to build it on your own side of the property line. You can build it right down the middle if both sides approve of the fence and are willing to pay for its maintenance. What you cannot do is build it on your neighbor's side of the property line and then kill them if they complain. There's not a court in the universe that would uphold that decision.

TYY

[Gimel]

145. Private property

Your analogy to private ownership is interesting, but not necessarily applicable here.

[Jim Sagle]

48. Israel is not an apartheid state, and EVERYBODY GODDAMN WELL KNOWS IT!!!!!

[bluesoul]

49. Speak for yourself

not everybody agrees...

[RPG-7]

51. everyone but Black South Africans apparently

[bluesoul]

52. Hey what did Mandela and Tutu

have to say about it...

[corporatewhore]

53. Nelson Mandela

MEMO
March 28, 2001

To: Thomas L. Friedman (columnist New York Times)
From: Nelson Mandela (former President South Africa)

Dear Thomas,

I know that you and I long for peace in the Middle East, but before you continue to talk about necessary conditions from an Israeli perspective, you need to know what's on my mind. Where to begin? How about 1964. Let me quote my own words during my trial. They are true today as they were then:

"I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established "normally" and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa.

In the last few years, and especially during the reign of the Labour Party, Israel showed that it was not even willing to return what it occupied in 1967; that settlements remain, Jerusalem would be under exclusive Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would not have an independent state, but would be under Israeli economic domination with Israeli control of borders, land, air, water and sea.

Israel was not thinking of a "state" but of "separation". The valua of separation is measured in terms of the ability of Israel to keep the Jewish state Jewish, and not to have a Palestinian minority that could have the opportunity to become a majority at some time in the future. If this takes place, it would force Israel to either become a secular democratic or bi-national state, or to turn into a state of apartheid not only de facto, but also de jure.
As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called "Palestinian autonomous areas" are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system.

The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel. Israel's racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a "Jewish" state.

Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.

The responses made by South Africa to human rights abuses emanating from the removal policies and apartheid policies respectively, shed light on what Israeli society must necessarily go through before one can speak of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and an end to its apartheid policies.
Thomas, I'm not abandoning Mideast diplomacy. But I'm not going to indulge you the way your supporters do. If you want peace and democracy, I will support you. If you want formal apartheid, we will not support you. If you want to support racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing, we will oppose you. When you figure out what you're about, give me a call.
http://www.progressiveaustin.org/mandelap.htm

[bluesoul]

54. Thank you

Corporatewhore! ;)

[number6]

58. that is so true ...

"Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children. "

[Gimel]

59. When I came here in 1980

There was peace, now there's war. How did it happen? Arafat returned under the pretext of wanting co-existence and started a violent uprising. Then he made peace with Rabin, accepted a Nobel Prize, and then went on the path to war again.

Mandela's cause was promoted by Israeli peace activist Abbie Nathan. Mandela was in prison, not in Israel. He was released in 1990 afer 27 years in prison. He sees a static picture, not the historical process. He compares to his personal experience. The similarities are striking in some features, but he fails to understand the basic differences. Nelson Mandela is not an espert on Israel and the I/P conflict.

[newyorican]

61. In 1980 there was not peace...

there was occupation. The difference is since then the Palestinians have found a way to share the pain. War is hell.

[RPG-7]

75. There is the key to all this..

"Peace" means only Palestinians are dying or better yet not dying just being obedient to their masters. That's the "peace" Israel wants.

[Resistance]

87. that's pretty much correct

I happen to think Sharon actually does think it better that Palestinians are dying ... after all, he did mastermind the Sabra and Shatila massacres. But that's just my view.

[Gimel]

134. There was calm

They can always and will always claim occupation until they have Tel Aviv and Acco in their hands (G-d forbid).

[sushi]

63. Impressive!

Thanks for posting the link. I have printed Mandela's letter to keep.

[Resistance]

68. thanks corporatewhore

[dudeness]

69. nelson mandela

a true hero and man of peace..

[Saudade]

94. Of course

What other country on earth worries about "the demographic problem" and speaks seriously at the highest levels about preserving a racial/ethnic majority?

The irony is this:

It would not be a problem to preserve the ethnic purity of the state if the state were willing to forego the acquisition of more territory, but it isn't. This particular state, which is ethnically defined in a way that condemns it to racism, is compelled, like any other colonial regime, to seek more, by displacing the inferior natives.

Thus, this state will destroy itself, without any help from the "terrorists" and the anti-semites (there is no future in victimhood) by constantly and relentlessly acquiring more land, from which it must always expel more "others", or admit them into the state, which will destroy the ethnic majority.

The choice for Israel is stark:

Either end the occupation and withdraw from the occupied territories; or

Become the "only democracy in the middle east" which it claims to be, in which case it will cease to define itself ethnically.

The choice belongs first to Israel, but in the long run, it belongs to the world, which will not tolerate this sort of anachronistic behavior forever.

[Resistance]

98. so far

the only choice Israel has ever really gone with is to continue a violent campaign of ethnic cleansing.

[drdon326]

122. kick

.

[bluesoul]

123. LOL

Don, why are you kickin up so many of Resistance's threads? :)

[Resistance]

124. well it is a pretty good article

maybe he wants to make sure others read it.

[dave46]

129. Israel

isn't performing ethnic cleansing. That's reality. If it was, it would have slaughtered quite a few Palestenians by now, like millions. It is not an arpatheid state, it is a seperate state from Palestine. Israel isn't the true threat, what can they do to literally millions of hostile people that outnumber them by so much? They're a different a religion surrounded by a billion Muslims. It's not surprising that they have such hard tactics and a huge military after being invaded TWICE by outside countries.

And of course Palestenians are the ones who want the ethnic cleansing of Israel, they don't want it to ever exist. Since Israel can't negotiate with its enemy, it does the best it can, and it has much more humane tactics than the Palestenians. If the roles were reversed, with Palestenians having the military might and the Israelis not, THEN you would see ethnic cleansing.

[Violet_Crumble]

130. Dave...

That's reality. If it was, it would have slaughtered quite a few Palestenians by now, like millions.

Yr confusing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing can and does happen without slaughtering people, though many times the two go hand in hand. I've been of the belief for a while now that there's a low-level and rather slow ethnic cleansing happening to the Palestinians..


It is not an arpatheid state, it is a seperate state from Palestine.

Uh, Palestine isn't a state. Some people believe that Israel encompasses the Occupied Territories. If you look at it their way, then, yes, Israel is practicing Apartheid...

Israel isn't the true threat, what can they do to literally millions of hostile people that outnumber them by so much?

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza don't outnumber Israelis. Also, the number of people anywhere doesn't equate to how much power or a threat towards other people. Israel's highly advanced and powerful military is obviously a huge threat to the Palestinians...

They're a different a religion surrounded by a billion Muslims.

What's religion got to do with anything? Besides, Israel is diverse when it comes to religion, there's not a billion Muslims in the Occupied Territories, and besides a number of those are Christians...

And of course Palestenians are the ones who want the ethnic cleansing of Israel, they don't want it to ever exist.

That's an incredibly sweeping generalisation of the Palestinian people, don't you think?

Violet...

[dave46]

133. violet

Yr confusing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing can and does happen without slaughtering people, though many times the two go hand in hand. I've been of the belief for a while now that there's a low-level and rather slow ethnic cleansing happening to the Palestinians..

Dave - Well they're doing a bad job then, as the Palestenian population is rising rapidly.

Uh, Palestine isn't a state. Some people believe that Israel encompasses the Occupied Territories. If you look at it their way, then, yes, Israel is practicing Apartheid...

Dave - It isn't one yet, but the "plan" is that it will eventually be one. To say the least, both sides think of Israel and Palestine as seperate entities.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza don't outnumber Israelis. Also, the number of people anywhere doesn't equate to how much power or a threat towards other people. Israel's highly advanced and powerful military is obviously a huge threat to the Palestinians...

Dave - The countries surrounding Israel have united twice before to attack Israel. Even with its high tech army, there is no way it could hold its own for long. This is why Israel has such a high-tech huge army, not for the subjecation of Palestine, but to defend itself from the hostile countries surrounding it, who are united by religion against it.

What's religion got to do with anything?

Dave - Religion has nearly everything to do with the conflict. Jews are there in the first place because its their relegious history and homeland, as are Palestenians. It's muslim vs. judaism, and is one of the reasons there are fanatics like Bin Laden.

That's an incredibly sweeping generalisation of the Palestinian people, don't you think?

Dave - Alright, the majority of Palestenians don't think Israel should exist. Just ask what their fanatical clerics are telling them!

[Resistance]

136. may as well

send 'em more Peace Bullets and Peace Bulldozers to go on more killing sprees with

[Gimel]

147. No progressive issues

here. You plainly see but one side of the conflict. Fences don't kill. Non-violence will win over.

[Yulsman]

141. Pretending to favor a two-state solution

In her message, Ms. Farsakh seems to bemoan the fact that the two-state solution is in peril because of what she says are Israel's apartheid policies. But her true agenda — and the agenda of many critics of Israel who profess to support a two-state solution — is revealed at the top, where she says Jews "colonized a land already inhabited." The implication here is that Jews have no right to live in Palestine, that they are, in fact, foreign usurpers. So if Ms. Farsakh truly believes Jews are colonizers, then how could she support a two-state solution?

I suspect that if she and like-minded people had their way, the Jews would be pushed into the sea.

So which is it, Ms. Farsakh? Do you truly support a two-state solution, in which a Palestinian and Jewish state would live in peace side by side? Or do you really believe that Jews in Palestine are illegal colonizers, no different from the whites who settled in southern Africa and therefore not entitled to a state? You and those who think like you cannot have it both ways.

History shows the fallacy of Ms. Farsakh's central argument. Jews have lived continuously in what now is Israel and the hoped-for Palestinian state for thousands of years. These Jews were not "colonizers." And what of the Jews who emigrated to Palestine beginning in the 1800s as part of the Zionist movement? The first emigrants came to an area ruled by a foreign power, the Turks. No state of Palestine had ever existed. And the Jewish arrivals purchased land legally. Besides, they were no more colonizers than the countless Arabs who emigrated to the area, attracted by new economic opportunities. The descendants of many of these Arab emigrants today call themselves Palestinians. They are not colonizers, and they have every right to their own state, just as the Jews have a right to live in peace in Israel.

True supporters of a two-state solution on either side of this tragic conflict do not question the legitimacy of the other side.

— Tom

[bluesoul]

142. But some DO question the legitimacy

of the Palestinians side here! And that's the big problem!

[Resistance]

144. bluesoul

true progressives see that both sides have legitimate grievances, no?