By Hook and By Crook: Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank
Some half a million Israelis are now living over the Green Line: more than 300,000 in 121 settlements and about one hundred outposts, which control 42 percent of the land area of the West Bank, and the rest in twelve neighborhoods that Israel established on land it annexed to the Jerusalem Municipality. The report analyzes the means employed by Israel to gain control of land for building the settlements. In preparing the report, B'Tselem relied on official state data and documents, among them Attorney Talia Sasson’s report on the outposts, the database produced by Brigadier General Baruch Spiegel, reports of the state comptroller, and maps of the Civil Administration.
The settlement enterprise has been characterized, since its inception, by an instrumental, cynical, and even criminal approach to international law, local legislation, Israeli military orders, and Israeli law, which has enabled the continuous pilfering of land from Palestinians in the West Bank.
The principal means Israel used for this purpose was declaration of “state land,” a mechanism that resulted in the seizure of more than 900,000 dunams of land (sixteen percent of the West Bank), with most of the declarations being made in 1979-1992. The interpretation that the State Attorney's Office gave to the concept “state land” in the Ottoman Land Law contradicted explicit statutory provisions and judgments of the Mandatory Supreme Court. Without this distorted interpretation, Israel would not have been able to allocate such extensive areas of land for the settlements.
In addition, the settlements seized control of private Palestinian land. By cross-checking data of the Civil Administration, the settlements’ jurisdictional area, and aerial photos of the settlements taken in 2009, B'Tselem found that 21 percent of the built-up area of the settlements is land that Israel recognizes as private property, owned by Palestinians.
To encourage Israelis to move to the settlements, Israel created a mechanism for providing benefits and incentives to settlements and settlers, regardless of their economic condition, which often was financially secure. Most of the settlements in the West Bank hold the status of National Priority Area A, which entitles them to a number of benefits: in housing, by enabling settlers to purchase quality, inexpensive apartments, with an automatic grant of a subsidized mortgage; wide-ranging benefits in education, such as free education from age three, extended school days, free transportation to schools, and higher teachers’ salaries; for industry and agriculture, by grants and subsidies, and indemnification for the taxes imposed on their produce by the European Union; in taxation, by imposing taxes significantly lower than in communities inside the Green Line, and by providing larger balancing grants to the settlements, to aid in covering deficits.
Establishment of the settlements violates international humanitarian law. Israel has ignored the relevant rules of law, adopting its own interpretation, which is not accepted by almost all leading jurists around the world and by the international community.
The settlement enterprise has caused continuing, cumulative infringement of the Palestinians’ human rights, as follows:
* the right of property, by seizing control of extensive stretches of West Bank land in favor of the settlements;
* the right to equality and due process, by establishing separate legal systems, in which the person’s rights are based on his national origin, the settlers being subject to Israel’s legal system, which is based on human rights and democratic values, while the Palestinians are subject to the military legal system, which systematically deprives them of their rights;
* the right to an adequate standard of living, since the settlements were intentionally established in a way that prevents urban development of Palestinian communities, and Israel’s control of the water sources prevents the development of Palestinian agriculture;
* the right to freedom of movement, by means of the checkpoints and other obstructions on Palestinian movement in the West Bank, which are intended to protect the settlements and the settler’s traffic arteries;
* the right to self-determination, by severing Palestinian territorial contiguity and creating dozens of enclaves that prevent the establishment of an independent and viable Palestinian state.
The cloak of legality that Israel has sought to give to the settlement enterprise is aimed at covering the ongoing theft of West Bank land, thereby removing the basic values of legality and justice from Israel’s system of law enforcement in the West Bank. The report exposes the system Israel has adopted as a tool to advance political objectives, enabling the systematic infringement of the Palestinians’ human rights.
The extensive geographic-spatial changes that Israel has made in the landscape of the West Bank undermine the negotiations that Israel has conducted for eighteen years with the Palestinians and breach its international obligations. The settlement enterprise, being based on discrimination against the Palestinians living in the West Bank, also weakens the pillars of the State of Israel as a democratic country and diminishes its status among the nations of the world.
Perhaps, but it's nationalism mixed with religious motivation/intent and because of that second facet, it can be exclusionary and bigoted because it effects others in a very negative manner through it's existence.
Also, Israel was formed as a Jewish state, but most of the people there are not very religious, correct? Also, there's also plenty of non-Jews in Israel, so to make such an overstated point deludes the reality of the situation. Israel was formed as a Jewish state because of what occurred in the holocaust as a refuge for all Jewish people, but perhaps it's time to recognize people aren't flocking there for this reason anymore, in fact one of the issues in this situation is a result of this - extremist jews who continually make new settlements.
Yes, but that is no different than saying that any nationalism, or for that matter any ideology, can be racist in its implementation. What is being said here is that Zionism is racist as a matter of principle, which I find to be grossly offensive. As for my assumption re. a bi-national state, I don't get your response. Israel is the Jewish state. That is the whole point. If there was a state called Israel that wasn't a Jewish state it wouldn't be Israel anymore. It isn't a slippery slope at all. It is an acknowledgement of demographic reality, namely that there are more Palestinians than Israelis, and that a bi-national state would therefore not be a Jewish state.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Actually Israel was not created because of the Holocaust. Zionism, as a concrete political movement started in the 19th century, though the Jewish desire for a return to the homeland goes back some 2000 years. The Holocaust may have been the reason why the world was amenable to the creation of Israel in the late '40s, but it was not what motivated Israel's founders.
I think that many of the people here are laboring under a misconception. Judaism is a group identity first, and a religious identity second. If someone is born a member of the Jewish people they do not stop being considered a member of the people if they convert to another religion. When I say that Israel is the Jewish state I am not arguing that the state should have a Jewish religious character (I'd actually very much like to see a separation of "church" and state in Israel). I'm arguing that Israel is and should remain the nation-state of the Jewish nation, an argument that is in essence no different than that of any other nationalism.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I am fully aware of it's history but was making the point that, that occurrence in history specifically led to the state coming into being. The political movement began previously but didn't get full recognition and clout til after the holocaust.
Also, I am very familiar with the religion and nationality conundrum of Judaism as I am one (non practicing). But what you seem to ignore is not what some consider themselves to be (which isn't a guarantee either - not all jews consider that their nationality and religion together), but how outsiders don't acknowledge it because in many respects it is a backwards mindset and practice. I don't think any other religion in the world bases it's historical origins and predicates nationality of it's followers who live elsewhere. Christians don't consider themselves Romans or from the Vatican or similar and same goes for Muslims, so in that respect, it's not that everyone else is odd in this thinking, it's the jewish practice is very, very weird.
Actually Israel was not created because of the Holocaust. Zionism, as a concrete political movement started in the 19th century, though the Jewish desire for a return to the homeland goes back some 2000 years. The Holocaust may have been the reason why the world was amenable to the creation of Israel in the late '40s, but it was not what motivated Israel's founders.
I think that many of the people here are laboring under a misconception. Judaism is a group identity first, and a religious identity second. If someone is born a member of the Jewish people they do not stop being considered a member of the people if they convert to another religion. When I say that Israel is the Jewish state I am not arguing that the state should have a Jewish religious character (I'd actually very much like to see a separation of "church" and state in Israel). I'm arguing that Israel is and should remain the nation-state of the Jewish nation, an argument that is in essence no different than that of any other nationalism.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I would also recommend that you go back and take another look at the history of the nation-state. France is the state of the French, just as Germany is the state of the Germans, Turkey of the Turks, Armenia of the Armenians, Greece of the Greeks, etc, etc. You claim that Jews are not a nation. Why is that? How is it that despite the fact that Jews have thought of themselves as a nation for thousands of years that we are not one?
These are not States but simple countries which have evolved and which are non-exclusive - anyone can buy 'state' land, anyone can marry one of it's citizens, all have the same rights,etc. which, as one well knows, is not the case in Israel. If you want to nitpick, the countries I mentioned as examples could be called plurinational state, should anyone want to use that term. With globalisation movement of people, this notion of 'nation state' is defunct. And I never said the Jews are not a nation. I said being Jewish was not a nationality. Not the same thing.
Also, I don't think anyone is saying Israel should not exist. But why are you so hell-bent on it being a 'jewish' state? Israel can be a country like France, the UK, etc. - ie inclusive, without losing any of what you call self-determination.
Five, it is weird, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. I think it's just that our people (I hope you don't mind the inclusion) are something of a relic from an earlier time when religion and peoplehood were very much interconnected. I would actually argue that in many ways Christian/Muslim universalism is far "worse" than Jewish particularity in that Judaism makes no claims on anyone else. The idea of a crusade or jihad just doesn't exist for us. We just don't care what other people do in their religious lives. As for what the world acknowledges, I think this is viewing the issue the wrong way around. Identity is internal. So long as Jews continue to view themselves as a nation they will be a nation. Other people can claim that we are not, but I don't really see how that is relevant in any way other than the political (which is a different issue).
But yeah, we're crazy weird. That doesn't mean that we're wrong.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I would also recommend that you go back and take another look at the history of the nation-state. France is the state of the French, just as Germany is the state of the Germans, Turkey of the Turks, Armenia of the Armenians, Greece of the Greeks, etc, etc. You claim that Jews are not a nation. Why is that? How is it that despite the fact that Jews have thought of themselves as a nation for thousands of years that we are not one?
These are not States but simple countries which have evolved and which are non-exclusive - anyone can buy 'state' land, anyone can marry one of it's citizens, all have the same rights,etc. which, as one well knows, is not the case in Israel. If you want to nitpick, the countries I mentioned as examples could be called plurinational state, should anyone want to use that term. With globalisation movement of people, this notion of 'nation state' is defunct. And I never said the Jews are not a nation. I said being Jewish was not a nationality. Not the same thing.
Also, I don't think anyone is saying Israel should not exist. But why are you so hell-bent on it being a 'jewish' state? Israel can be a country like France, the UK, etc. - ie inclusive, without losing any of what you call self-determination.
Again, I don't care about the name "Israel," I care about Israel because it is a Jewish state. This matters to me for a lot of reasons, and having a refuge for endangered Jews is only one of these, and not the most important. As for the other states in the discussion no longer being "nation states," I just don't think this is true. Certainly that is the party line, so to speak, but I think that were this to really be put to the test we would see that the nations at the heart of these states really think differently. The fact that they are so willing to welcome people from other nations (and really, if you look hard at Europe, how welcoming are they really?) is dependent on the fact that at present they do not perceive that there is any chance of the demographic scales tipping (ie the "core" national group in each of these countries is large enough to ensure that immigration does not threaten their demographic superiority within the state). I don't think Israel is any different than these states at all, except that it is so small that issues of demographics and national identity cannot be easily ignored.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
.....is dependent on the fact that at present they do not perceive that there is any chance of the demographic scales tipping (ie the "core" national group in each of these countries is large enough to ensure that immigration does not threaten their demographic superiority within the state). ..
So one sees that Israel is afraid of having it's native people back on the land, ie those that have been victims of ethnic cleansing to make space for the immigrants after the war.
Should the Roma make a claim for a homeland? Where could it be? Which native inhabitants shall they remove from the land to be able to grab it. After all, these people need a refuge since they are also 'endangered'.
Also, did I mention 'welcome' when it comes to European countries? I'm not talking emotions, I'm talking rights.
Tradition and culture is great when it's kept to yourself, but when it effects others and in some instances in a very negative manner, it is not a good thing. And albeit, other religions mostly try to convert outsiders and judiasm does not in the same respect, it certainly doesn't make it all that much better because of it. And in terms of your commentary, it seems simply to the fact that because you personally believe or don't see the relevance or can't fathom why others don't see it in the same light, this somehow excuses the action and believe... and that's simply selfish, self-fulfilling. It also creates more problems in the long run through escalation compared to minimizing them. In sum, it's no different from saying a racist's actions against their victim should be tolerated because the racist doesn't believe he is one. Not a very decent way to be when you expect others to respect and coexist with you huh?
Five, it is weird, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. I think it's just that our people (I hope you don't mind the inclusion) are something of a relic from an earlier time when religion and peoplehood were very much interconnected. I would actually argue that in many ways Christian/Muslim universalism is far "worse" than Jewish particularity in that Judaism makes no claims on anyone else. The idea of a crusade or jihad just doesn't exist for us. We just don't care what other people do in their religious lives. As for what the world acknowledges, I think this is viewing the issue the wrong way around. Identity is internal. So long as Jews continue to view themselves as a nation they will be a nation. Other people can claim that we are not, but I don't really see how that is relevant in any way other than the political (which is a different issue).
But yeah, we're crazy weird. That doesn't mean that we're wrong.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The Difference Between Judaism and Zionism
G. Neuburger
'...To begin with, a few definitions: Who is a Jew? A Jew is anyone who has a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in conformity with Halacha, Jewish religious law. This definition alone excludes racism. Judaism does not seek converts, but those who do convert are accepted on a basis of equality. Let us see how far this goes. Some of the most eminent and respected rabbis were converts to Judaism. Jewish parents throughout the world bless their children every Sabbath and holiday eve, and they have done it in the same way for millennia. If the children are girls, the blessing is, "May G-d let you be like Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah." Not one of these matriarchs was born a Jewess; they were all converts to Judaism. If the children are boys, the blessing is, "May G-d let you be like Ephraim and Menashe." The mother of these two was an Egyptian woman who became Jewish and had married Joseph. Moses himself, the greatest Jew who ever lived, married a Midianite woman who became Jewish. Finally, the Tenach, the holy writings of the Jew, contains the book of Ruth. This woman was not only not Jewish by birth, but she came from the Moabites, traditional enemies of the Jewish people. This book describes Ruth's conversion to Judaism and is read annually on the holiday commemorating the giving of the Torah, the "Law," i.e. the Pentateuch. At its very end, the book of Ruth traces the ancestry of King David, the greatest king the Jews ever had, to Ruth, his great-grandmother...
Apart from the Zionists, the only ones who consistently considered the Jews a race were the Nazis. And they only served to prove the stupidity and irrationality of racism. There was no way to prove racially whether a Mrs. Muller or a Mr. Meyer were Jews or Aryans (the Nazi term for non-Jewish Germans. The only way to decide whether a person was Jewish was to trace the religious affiliation of the parents or grandparents. So much for the this racial nonsense.
In what way are the Jews a "chosen people"? Every Jewish man anywhere and at any time when called to the reading of the Torah says, "Who has chosen us from all the peoples and gave us His Torah." This is the way in which the Jews are chosen. The Jewish people are chosen not for domination over others, not for conquest or warfare, but to serve G-d and thus to serve mankind. "And the hands are the hands of Esau," has been traditionally interpreted to mean that while "the voice is Jacob's," the hands- - symbolizing violence - are Esau's. Thus physical violence is not a tradition or a value of the Jews. The task for which the Jewish people were chosen is not to set an example of military superiority or technical achievements, but to seek perfection in moral behavior and spiritual purity. Of all the crimes of political Zionism, the worst and most basic, and which explains all its other misdeeds, is that from its beginning Zionism has sought to separate the Jewish people from their G-d, to render the divine covenant null and void, and to substitute a "modern" statehood and fraudulent sovereignty for the lofty ideals of the Jewish people.
One means of misleading many Jews and all too many non-Jews is the Zionist misuse of names and symbols sacred in Judaism. They use the holy name Israel for their Zionist state. They have named their land acquisition fund with a term that traditionally implies the reward for piety, good deeds, and charitable work. They have adopted as a state symbol the menorah (candlebrum). What hypocrisy, what perversion it is to have the Israeli army fight under an emblem, the meaning of which is explained in the Tenach (on the occasion of a previous return to the Holy Land) as, "not with armed force and not with power, but in My spirit says the Lord of Hosts."
The infamous founder of political Zionism, may his name be cursed, who only discovered his own Jewishness because of anti-Semitism displayed at the Dreyfus trial in France, proposed various solutions to what he called the "Jewish problem." At one point he proposed to resettle the Jews in Uganda. At another he proposed to convert them to Catholicism. He finally hit on the idea of a Judenstaat, an exclusive Jewish state. Thus from its very beginning Zionism was a result of Anti-Semitism and indeed is completely compatible with it, because Zionists and anti-Semites had (and have) a common goal: To bring all Jews from their places of domicile to the Zionist state, thus uprooting Jewish communities that had existed for hundreds and even thousands of years. Loyalty to the Zionist state was substituted for loyalty to G-d, and the state was made into the modern "golden calf". Belief in the Torah and fulfillment of religious obligations in Zionist eyes became a private matter and not a duty for every Jew or for the Jewish people. The Zionists made divine law subject to party or parliamentary votes, and they set their own standards of conduct and ethics.
Neither the founder of political Zionism nor any of the prime ministers of the Zionist state believed in the divine origin of the Torah nor even in the existence of G-d. All prime ministers were members of a party that opposed religion in principle and that considered the Bible a document of ancient folklore, devoid of any religious meaning. And yet these same Zionists base their claim to the Holy Land on this same Bible, the divine origin of which they deny. At the same time they conveniently forget the Jewish holiday prayer "and for our sins have we been exiled from our land," and ignore the fact that the present exile of the Jewish people is divinely decreed and that the Jewish people are neither commanded nor permitted to conquer or rule the Holy Land before the coming of the Messiah. The Jewish people do, of course, recognize special spiritual ties to that land they call it Eretz Yisrael. Every morning, afternoon, and evening, and night they mention it and Zion and Jerusalem in their prayers, and indeed a Jew does not sit down to a meal without doing likewise. To the Jew, the very soil of the Holy Land is different from that of any other spot on this globe, and wherever he is he turns his face toward Jerusalem during prayers. To live in the Holy Land or even to be buried there was always considered to be of high merit...'
The relatively new concept of Zionism began only about one hundred years ago and since that time Torah-true Jewry has steadfastly opposed the Zionist ideology. This struggle is rooted in two convictions:
1. Zionism, by advocating a political and military end to the Jewish exile, denies the very essence of our Diaspora existence. We are in exile by Divine Decree and may emerge from exile solely via Divine Redemption. All human efforts to alter a metaphysical reality are doomed to end in failure and bloodshed. History has clearly borne out this teaching.
2. Zionism has not only denied our fundamental belief in Heavenly Redemption it has also created a pseudo-Judaism which views the essence of our identity to be a secular nationalism. Accordingly, Zionism and the Israeli state have consistently endeavored, via persuasion and coercion, to replace a Divine and Torah centered understanding of our people hood with an armed materialism.
True Torah Jews is dedicated to informing the world and in particular the American public and politicians that all Jews do not support the ideology of the Zionist state called "Israel" which is diametrically opposite to the teachings of traditional Judaism.
We are concerned that the widespread misconception that all Jews support the zionist state and its actions endangers Jews worldwide.
We are NOT politically motivated. We are motivated by our concern for the peace and safety of all people throughout the world including those living in the Zionist state. We support and pray for peace for the people of the Zionist state but have no interest in and do not support the Zionist government.
We seek to disassociate Jews and traditional Judaism from the Zionist Ideology by:
* Providing historical and supporting documentation that Zionism is totally contrary to the teachings of traditional Judaism through the words of our Rabbis, Sages, and Holy Scriptures which oppose the creation of a state called Israel.
* Providing historical documentation on the ideaology and creation of Zionism, the supporters of Zionism and the negative impact of their actions on the Jewish people in the past hundred years, including their involvement in the holocaust up to the present day.
* Publicizing the efforts of traditional Jews to demonstrate that all Jews do not support Zionism, which is being ignored by the mainstream media.
* Convince the news media, politicians and the public to cease referring to the state of Israel as the "Jewish State" but to call it what it is: the "Zionist State".
It is our firm belief that when the state of "Israel" is recognized for what it is, a Zionist state which is not guided by the teachings of the traditional Jewish faith, Jews worldwide will be able to live in peace.
The fact that they are so willing to welcome people from other nations (and really, if you look hard at Europe, how welcoming are they really?) is dependent on the fact that at present they do not perceive that there is any chance of the demographic scales tipping (ie the "core" national group in each of these countries is large enough to ensure that immigration does not threaten their demographic superiority within the state).
'willing to welcome people'. like the welcome chomsky and finklestein to name just a couple, got? what about the people who don't want to immigrate but just want to visit? 'willing to welcome people. 'hahahahahaha. what a joke Yosi. tell that to the people that have been denied access via Israel to the west bank.
they would never allow a dissident voice entry and they don't. a country with such despicable human rights violations can't be expected to embrace free speech can they?
yosi, your comparisons of jewish nationalism to french nationalism, etc, are weak. you conveniently forget that Israel is an illegitimate state founded at the expense of its native population - its native population who continue to live in refugee camps in the harshest conditions and are barred from reentry back to their homes, to this very day. Israel is a colonialist state founded on ethnic cleansing. its population, the Israeli jews, is made up of immigrants who claim someone else's territory as their own. in other words, it's not your land. it's the Palestinians' land. now, some people say that it is wrong for one to suggest, as, for example, Helen Thomas did, that Israeli Jews should go back to where they came from (since the overwhelming majority did come from elsewhere), and that they don't belong in Palestine. that's perfectly reasonable. there are entire new generations in Israel right now, and it would be unjust for them to have to pay the price for the actions of their ancestors. however, it should be also unacceptable then to say that Palestinians don't belong in Palestine - their OWN land. THAT is what the Jewish state entails. You act as if the jewish state is open to acceptance and freedom and tolerance and all that good stuff - this is the same state waging a war on an entire people and stealing their land as we speak. your claims contrast the reality of the situation. palestinians should be allowed to return to their homes, and a democratic solution should then hold over so that every one in the country has a voice in how it is run.
to think that you find it justified to argue against peace, equality, justice, democracy, etc... but that is the price of being a zionist.
The fact that they are so willing to welcome people from other nations (and really, if you look hard at Europe, how welcoming are they really?) is dependent on the fact that at present they do not perceive that there is any chance of the demographic scales tipping (ie the "core" national group in each of these countries is large enough to ensure that immigration does not threaten their demographic superiority within the state).
'willing to welcome people'. like the welcome chomsky and finklestein to name just a couple, got? what about the people who don't want to immigrate but just want to visit? 'willing to welcome people. 'hahahahahaha. what a joke Yosi. tell that to the people that have been denied access via Israel to the west bank.
they would never allow a dissident voice entry and they don't. a country with such despicable human rights violations can't be expected to embrace free speech can they?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Yosi, the best advice I can give you is to avoid the Anti-Israel posts on this forum.
Peace to you.
i think that's really poor advice. the best advice would be that the Israeli apologists should put as much effort into speaking out on behalf of the Palestinians, and demand that the international community stop simply condemning Israel's brutal and illegal blockade of Gaza and the settlement expansion in the west bank, and start doing something to end it.
you probably don't realise it, but all you are doing by defending their disgusting acts, or staying silent, is helping them along with their self destruction. not that they need much help. their actions will ensure that eventuates anyway.
thank you. you know though, peace and freedom are such easy words to throw around. we have to do more than just say those words if we really want that to happen. do you know that hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza have lived under occupation and siege all of their lives? they deserve peace, freedom. life and hope. It's time for Palestinians and Israelis to share a just peace. it's time for freedom from occupation and it's time for equal rights.
every man dies. Not every man really lives. true that.
Yosi, the best advice I can give you is to avoid the Anti-Israel posts on this forum.
Peace to you.
i think that's really poor advice. the best advice would be that the Israeli apologists should put as much effort into speaking out on behalf of the Palestinians, and demand that the international community stop simply condemning Israel's brutal and illegal blockade of Gaza and the settlement expansion in the west bank, and start doing something to end it.
you probably don't realise it, but all you are doing by defending their disgusting acts, or staying silent, is helping them along with their self destruction. not that they need much help. their actions will ensure that eventuates anyway.
thank you. you know though, peace and freedom are such easy words to throw around. we have to do more than just say those words if we really want that to happen. do you know that hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza have lived under occupation and siege all of their lives? they deserve peace, freedom. life and hope. It's time for Palestinians and Israelis to share a just peace. it's time for freedom from occupation and it's time for equal rights.
every man dies. Not every man really lives. true that.
You say you want a democratic solution, but what you are suggesting isn't really democratic at all. Israel is a democracy, and Israelis clearly want their state to remain a Jewish state. What you are suggesting is that first we rig the democratic outcome by upending the demographic makeup of the state, and then "democratically" settle the conflict by vote. Except it isn't democratic at all because you've already stacked the deck.
Regardless, Israel is a fact. It isn't going anywhere, and the refugees aren't going to get to go back (hopefully they'll have a state of their own soon to which they can return). You can bitch and moan as much as you like, but I think it would be a better use of your time to just deal with the reality and move on. You aren't going to be able to undo 70 years of history.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You say you want a democratic solution, but what you are suggesting isn't really democratic at all. Israel is a democracy, and Israelis clearly want their state to remain a Jewish state. What you are suggesting is that first we rig the democratic outcome by upending the demographic makeup of the state, and then "democratically" settle the conflict by vote. Except it isn't democratic at all because you've already stacked the deck.
Regardless, Israel is a fact. It isn't going anywhere, and the refugees aren't going to get to go back (hopefully they'll have a state of their own soon to which they can return). You can bitch and moan as much as you like, but I think it would be a better use of your time to just deal with the reality and move on. You aren't going to be able to undo 70 years of history.
wow. where to even start with that Yosi. we've been over this so many times. as for your suggestion that i deal with reality, here's reality for you..
Israel isn't a democracy, it's an apartheid state. the segregation wall and jew only roads are proof of that. Israel will not last forever as a jewish state or otherwise if it continues to follow it's current policies.
Israel will self destruct, it is inevitable. it's just a matter of time.
You say you want a democratic solution, but what you are suggesting isn't really democratic at all. Israel is a democracy, and Israelis clearly want their state to remain a Jewish state. What you are suggesting is that first we rig the democratic outcome by upending the demographic makeup of the state, and then "democratically" settle the conflict by vote. Except it isn't democratic at all because you've already stacked the deck.
Regardless, Israel is a fact. It isn't going anywhere, and the refugees aren't going to get to go back (hopefully they'll have a state of their own soon to which they can return). You can bitch and moan as much as you like, but I think it would be a better use of your time to just deal with the reality and move on. You aren't going to be able to undo 70 years of history.
wow. where to even start with that Yosi. we've been over this so many times. as for your suggestion that i deal with reality, here's reality for you..
Israel isn't a democracy, it's an apartheid state. the segregation wall and jew only roads are proof of that. Israel will not last forever as a jewish state or otherwise if it continues to follow it's current policies.
Israel will self destruct, it is inevitable. it's just a matter of time.
This was written by John Strawson (a long-time activist on behalf of the Palestinians) in 2005:
"The African National Congress called for a comprehensive boycott of apartheid in 1959, a call which was responded to by India, which led the campaign in the United Nations. Part of the cultural boycott was aimed at universities. The whole argument about South Africa in the apartheid years was that it was quite exceptional. The Racial Classification Board declared your race at birth, which would decide where you would live, what school you would attend, what job you could have, what wages you would earn, whether you could vote and what papers you carried. This does not happen in Israel, where Palestinians do have the vote, do participate in elections in all parties and while schooling is run on faith-based lines (as in many other countries) higher education is quite integrated. There are discriminatory laws, there is social discrimination and there is equivocation for equal rights on the designation of the state as ‘Jewish’. However, this is not apartheid South Africa where any organization opposed to the regime was banned and criminalized. The boycott campaign against apartheid was highly organized in this exceptional case. It received UN backing through the special committee on apartheid. The ANC played an active role in working out the policies and implementing them. This wide measure of international, and in particular UN involvement, ensured that this was a not a personalized vendetta and never aimed at South Africans. As an activist in the Anti-Apartheid Movement I well remember stressing that the boycott was against apartheid not against South Africa. It was not a matter of individuals arrogantly deciding what was a good for a national liberation movement – or selecting which academics they liked and which they did not according to a subjective political test. Placing Israel in the same category as apartheid South Africa is as crude as it is inaccurate."
I'd also point out that the wall wasn't built because Israel wanted to enforce some sort of racial segregation. There are over a million Arab citizens of Israel, and thousands of Palestinians enter Israel every day to work. The wall was built to prevent suicide bombers from simply walking the few miles from their villages in the West Bank into the middle of Israeli cities. As for "Jewish only" roads, I agree with you, they're wrong. But they exist only in the occupied territories, not in Israel. So to point to them as evidence of apartheid in Israel is wrong.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
This was written by John Strawson (a long-time activist on behalf of the Palestinians) in 2005:
"The African National Congress called for a comprehensive boycott of apartheid in 1959, a call which was responded to by India, which led the campaign in the United Nations. Part of the cultural boycott was aimed at universities. The whole argument about South Africa in the apartheid years was that it was quite exceptional. The Racial Classification Board declared your race at birth, which would decide where you would live, what school you would attend, what job you could have, what wages you would earn, whether you could vote and what papers you carried. This does not happen in Israel, where Palestinians do have the vote, do participate in elections in all parties and while schooling is run on faith-based lines (as in many other countries) higher education is quite integrated. There are discriminatory laws, there is social discrimination and there is equivocation for equal rights on the designation of the state as ‘Jewish’. However, this is not apartheid South Africa where any organization opposed to the regime was banned and criminalized. The boycott campaign against apartheid was highly organized in this exceptional case. It received UN backing through the special committee on apartheid. The ANC played an active role in working out the policies and implementing them. This wide measure of international, and in particular UN involvement, ensured that this was a not a personalized vendetta and never aimed at South Africans. As an activist in the Anti-Apartheid Movement I well remember stressing that the boycott was against apartheid not against South Africa. It was not a matter of individuals arrogantly deciding what was a good for a national liberation movement – or selecting which academics they liked and which they did not according to a subjective political test. Placing Israel in the same category as apartheid South Africa is as crude as it is inaccurate."
No, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian territories isn't Apatheid South Africa, it's worse than that.
Apartheid comparison by Israelis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and ... id_analogy 'Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset argued that an apartheid system has already taken shape in that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are separated into "cantons" and Palestinians are required to carry permits to travel between them.[201] Azmi Bishara, a former Knesset member, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid."[202]
Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing, "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories", in an essay published in Haaretz.[203]
Ehud Olmert, then Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, commented in April 2004 that; "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."[204] Olmert made a similar remark in November 2007 as Prime Minister: "If the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then the State of Israel is finished."[205][206]
Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak used the analogy when speaking in a national security conference in Israel. According to Barak, unless Israel makes peace with the Palestinians it will be faced with either a state with no Jewish majority or an "apartheid" regime. "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic," Barak said. "If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state." [127]
According to former Italian Prime Minister Massimo d'Alema, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had described to him "at length" that he felt the "bantustan model" was the most appropriate solution to the conflict in the West Bank.[207] The term “Bantustan” historically refers to the separate territorial areas designated as homelands under the South African apartheid State.
Some Israelis have compared the separation plan to apartheid, such as political scientist, Meron Benvenisti,[140] and journalist, Amira Hass.[208] Ami Ayalon, a former admiral, claiming it "ha[d] some apartheid characteristics."[209] Shulamit Aloni, former education minister and leader of Meretz, said that the state of Israel is "practicing its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population."[210]
A major 2002 study of Israeli settlement practices by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem concluded: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B'Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa."
Academic and political activist Uri Davis, an Israeli citizen who describes himself as an "anti-Zionist Palestinian Jew",[212] has written several books on the subject, including Israel: An Apartheid State in 1987.[4]
Daphna Golan-Agnon, co-founder of B'Tselem and founding director of Bat Shalom writes in her 2002 book Next Year in Jerusalem, "I'm not sure if the use of the term apartheid helps us to understand the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel or the oppression against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. I'm not sure the discussion about how we are like or unlike South Africa helps move us forward to a solution. But the comparison reminds us that hundreds of laws do not make discrimination just and that the international community, the same international community we want to belong to, did not permit the perpetuation of apartheid. And it doesn't matter how we explain it and how many articles are written by Israeli scholars and lawyers—there are two groups living in this small piece of land, and one enjoys rights and liberty while the other does not."[213]
In his article "Is it Apartheid?" Israeli anti-Zionist activist Professor Moshé Machover states "... talk of Israeli 'apartheid' serves to divert attention from much greater dangers. For, as far as most Palestinians are concerned, the Zionist policy is far worse than apartheid. Apartheid can be reversed. Ethnic cleansing is immeasurably harder to reverse; at least not in the short or medium term."[214]
Retired Israeli judge and legal commentator for the daily Yedioth Ahronoth Boaz Okon wrote in June 2010 that events in Israel, when taken together, constituted apartheid and fascism. Okon used as examples segregated schools and streets, a "minute" proportion of Israeli Arabs employed in the civil service, censorship, limits on foreign workers having children in Israel and the monitoring of cell phones, email and Internet usage.'
I'd also point out that the wall wasn't built because Israel wanted to enforce some sort of racial segregation. There are over a million Arab citizens of Israel, and thousands of Palestinians enter Israel every day to work. The wall was built to prevent suicide bombers from simply walking the few miles from their villages in the West Bank into the middle of Israeli cities. As for "Jewish only" roads, I agree with you, they're wrong. But they exist only in the occupied territories, not in Israel. So to point to them as evidence of apartheid in Israel is wrong.
The wall was deemed illegal by the World Court on the grounds that it violates the Palestinians basic human rights and that it also illegally annexes more of the West Bank. And if the wall was built to prevent suicide bombers from entering Israel then maybe you can explain why large sections of the wall enclose Palestinian communities within the Israeli side of the wall? Surely if the wall was designed to prevent Palestinians getting into Israel then it would be keeping them out rather than keeping them in?
This was written by John Strawson (a long-time activist on behalf of the Palestinians) in 2005:
"The African National Congress called for a comprehensive boycott of apartheid in 1959, a call which was responded to by India, which led the campaign in the United Nations. Part of the cultural boycott was aimed at universities. The whole argument about South Africa in the apartheid years was that it was quite exceptional. The Racial Classification Board declared your race at birth, which would decide where you would live, what school you would attend, what job you could have, what wages you would earn, whether you could vote and what papers you carried. This does not happen in Israel, where Palestinians do have the vote, do participate in elections in all parties and while schooling is run on faith-based lines (as in many other countries) higher education is quite integrated. There are discriminatory laws, there is social discrimination and there is equivocation for equal rights on the designation of the state as ‘Jewish’. However, this is not apartheid South Africa where any organization opposed to the regime was banned and criminalized. The boycott campaign against apartheid was highly organized in this exceptional case. It received UN backing through the special committee on apartheid. The ANC played an active role in working out the policies and implementing them. This wide measure of international, and in particular UN involvement, ensured that this was a not a personalized vendetta and never aimed at South Africans. As an activist in the Anti-Apartheid Movement I well remember stressing that the boycott was against apartheid not against South Africa. It was not a matter of individuals arrogantly deciding what was a good for a national liberation movement – or selecting which academics they liked and which they did not according to a subjective political test. Placing Israel in the same category as apartheid South Africa is as crude as it is inaccurate."
Let's see what the South Africans themselves think of this shall we?:
'Apartheid Israel' worse than apartheid SA
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA Jul 10 2006
The "apartheid Israel state" is worse than the apartheid that was conducted in South Africa, Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) president Willie Madisha said on Monday.
He said Palestinians were being attacked with heavy machinery and tanks used in war, which had never happened in South Africa.
Cosatu and other organisations supporting Palestine have called on government to end diplomatic relations with Israel and establish boycotts and sanctions such as those against apartheid South Africa.
Israel has launched several attacks on Gaza, bombing its main university and firing missiles that have killed Palestinian bystanders.
This follows the capture of an Israeli soldier by Palestinians.
"We see no justification for this attack," said Palestinian ambassador to South Africa Ali Hamileh.
He said while the whole world was talking about one Israeli soldier, more than 10,000 Palestinians were being kept in Israeli jails.
"My leadership made it clear ... the soldier can be released immediately if Israel responds to mediation. The demand for exchange of prisoners is justified by international law. We are not demanding something unacceptable," he said.
Professor of political science Virginia Tilley said South Africa was one of the only places where a vision had been brought forward to address collective punishment of perceived inferiority.
"I can't imagine a better beacon in that struggle than this country and it has stood back. If there is any moral authority in South Africa, it must come into play now," she said.
Madisha said Israel should be seen as an apartheid state and the same sanctions must be applied that were established against South Africa.
Article II of the ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as follows:
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
Article II[1]
For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
1. Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
1. By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
2. By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
3. By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
2. Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
3. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
4. Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
5. Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
6. Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
Israel
In a 2007 report, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine John Dugard stated that "elements of the Israeli occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law" and suggested that the "legal consequences of a prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid" be put to the International Court of Justice.[16] South Africa's statutory research agency the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) stated in a 2009 report that "the State of Israel exercises control in the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid."[17] Activists for Palestinian rights have also accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid.[18] For example, in 2006, at the UN-sponsored International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People, Phyllis Bennis, co-chair of the International Coordinating Network on Palestine alleged that "Once again, the crime of apartheid [is] being committed by a United Nations Member State [Israel]."[19] Zahir Kolliah has written that "In South Africa and in Palestine the indigenous populations live under apartheid regimes 'settler colonies' as described by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid".[20] Hazeem Jamjoum states in a 2009 article that "In terms of law, describing Israel as an apartheid state does not revolve around levels of difference and similarity with the policies and practices of the South African Apartheid regime" because apartheid is a universal crime under international law.'
You say you want a democratic solution, but what you are suggesting isn't really democratic at all. Israel is a democracy, and Israelis clearly want their state to remain a Jewish state. What you are suggesting is that first we rig the democratic outcome by upending the demographic makeup of the state, and then "democratically" settle the conflict by vote. Except it isn't democratic at all because you've already stacked the deck.
you contradict yourself in the same breath. first you claim that it wouldn't be democratic to change the demographics, then you say that Israel is a democracy - let us keep in mind that Israel did the SAME EXACT THING you are speaking out against. That is, they changed the demographics by illegal ethnic cleansing, where they drove 800,000 Palestinians from their homes when the Palestinians made up the majority of the population in 1948. Israel again ethnically cleansed Palestinians in 1967 when they drove I think nearly 450,000 Palestinians, many of whom the same refugees from 1948 again from their homes.
you're a living contradiction, which is what I've been saying all along because you cannot advocate democracy and Zionism at the same time, they are at opposite sides of the spectrum.
Regardless, Israel is a fact. It isn't going anywhere, and the refugees aren't going to get to go back (hopefully they'll have a state of their own soon to which they can return). You can bitch and moan as much as you like, but I think it would be a better use of your time to just deal with the reality and move on. You aren't going to be able to undo 70 years of history.
israel can try to preserve its legitimacy through as many wars as it likes, but it's failing, and fast. i think you've already seen john mearsheimer's piece about it, though you probably didn't bother reading the whole thing cause it wasn't suited to your pathetic ideals
Comments
July 2010, Comprehensive report
By Hook and By Crook: Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank
Some half a million Israelis are now living over the Green Line: more than 300,000 in 121 settlements and about one hundred outposts, which control 42 percent of the land area of the West Bank, and the rest in twelve neighborhoods that Israel established on land it annexed to the Jerusalem Municipality. The report analyzes the means employed by Israel to gain control of land for building the settlements. In preparing the report, B'Tselem relied on official state data and documents, among them Attorney Talia Sasson’s report on the outposts, the database produced by Brigadier General Baruch Spiegel, reports of the state comptroller, and maps of the Civil Administration.
The settlement enterprise has been characterized, since its inception, by an instrumental, cynical, and even criminal approach to international law, local legislation, Israeli military orders, and Israeli law, which has enabled the continuous pilfering of land from Palestinians in the West Bank.
The principal means Israel used for this purpose was declaration of “state land,” a mechanism that resulted in the seizure of more than 900,000 dunams of land (sixteen percent of the West Bank), with most of the declarations being made in 1979-1992. The interpretation that the State Attorney's Office gave to the concept “state land” in the Ottoman Land Law contradicted explicit statutory provisions and judgments of the Mandatory Supreme Court. Without this distorted interpretation, Israel would not have been able to allocate such extensive areas of land for the settlements.
In addition, the settlements seized control of private Palestinian land. By cross-checking data of the Civil Administration, the settlements’ jurisdictional area, and aerial photos of the settlements taken in 2009, B'Tselem found that 21 percent of the built-up area of the settlements is land that Israel recognizes as private property, owned by Palestinians.
To encourage Israelis to move to the settlements, Israel created a mechanism for providing benefits and incentives to settlements and settlers, regardless of their economic condition, which often was financially secure. Most of the settlements in the West Bank hold the status of National Priority Area A, which entitles them to a number of benefits: in housing, by enabling settlers to purchase quality, inexpensive apartments, with an automatic grant of a subsidized mortgage; wide-ranging benefits in education, such as free education from age three, extended school days, free transportation to schools, and higher teachers’ salaries; for industry and agriculture, by grants and subsidies, and indemnification for the taxes imposed on their produce by the European Union; in taxation, by imposing taxes significantly lower than in communities inside the Green Line, and by providing larger balancing grants to the settlements, to aid in covering deficits.
Establishment of the settlements violates international humanitarian law. Israel has ignored the relevant rules of law, adopting its own interpretation, which is not accepted by almost all leading jurists around the world and by the international community.
The settlement enterprise has caused continuing, cumulative infringement of the Palestinians’ human rights, as follows:
* the right of property, by seizing control of extensive stretches of West Bank land in favor of the settlements;
* the right to equality and due process, by establishing separate legal systems, in which the person’s rights are based on his national origin, the settlers being subject to Israel’s legal system, which is based on human rights and democratic values, while the Palestinians are subject to the military legal system, which systematically deprives them of their rights;
* the right to an adequate standard of living, since the settlements were intentionally established in a way that prevents urban development of Palestinian communities, and Israel’s control of the water sources prevents the development of Palestinian agriculture;
* the right to freedom of movement, by means of the checkpoints and other obstructions on Palestinian movement in the West Bank, which are intended to protect the settlements and the settler’s traffic arteries;
* the right to self-determination, by severing Palestinian territorial contiguity and creating dozens of enclaves that prevent the establishment of an independent and viable Palestinian state.
The cloak of legality that Israel has sought to give to the settlement enterprise is aimed at covering the ongoing theft of West Bank land, thereby removing the basic values of legality and justice from Israel’s system of law enforcement in the West Bank. The report exposes the system Israel has adopted as a tool to advance political objectives, enabling the systematic infringement of the Palestinians’ human rights.
The extensive geographic-spatial changes that Israel has made in the landscape of the West Bank undermine the negotiations that Israel has conducted for eighteen years with the Palestinians and breach its international obligations. The settlement enterprise, being based on discrimination against the Palestinians living in the West Bank, also weakens the pillars of the State of Israel as a democratic country and diminishes its status among the nations of the world.
Also, Israel was formed as a Jewish state, but most of the people there are not very religious, correct? Also, there's also plenty of non-Jews in Israel, so to make such an overstated point deludes the reality of the situation. Israel was formed as a Jewish state because of what occurred in the holocaust as a refuge for all Jewish people, but perhaps it's time to recognize people aren't flocking there for this reason anymore, in fact one of the issues in this situation is a result of this - extremist jews who continually make new settlements.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I think that many of the people here are laboring under a misconception. Judaism is a group identity first, and a religious identity second. If someone is born a member of the Jewish people they do not stop being considered a member of the people if they convert to another religion. When I say that Israel is the Jewish state I am not arguing that the state should have a Jewish religious character (I'd actually very much like to see a separation of "church" and state in Israel). I'm arguing that Israel is and should remain the nation-state of the Jewish nation, an argument that is in essence no different than that of any other nationalism.
Also, I am very familiar with the religion and nationality conundrum of Judaism as I am one (non practicing). But what you seem to ignore is not what some consider themselves to be (which isn't a guarantee either - not all jews consider that their nationality and religion together), but how outsiders don't acknowledge it because in many respects it is a backwards mindset and practice. I don't think any other religion in the world bases it's historical origins and predicates nationality of it's followers who live elsewhere. Christians don't consider themselves Romans or from the Vatican or similar and same goes for Muslims, so in that respect, it's not that everyone else is odd in this thinking, it's the jewish practice is very, very weird.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
These are not States but simple countries which have evolved and which are non-exclusive - anyone can buy 'state' land, anyone can marry one of it's citizens, all have the same rights,etc. which, as one well knows, is not the case in Israel. If you want to nitpick, the countries I mentioned as examples could be called plurinational state, should anyone want to use that term. With globalisation movement of people, this notion of 'nation state' is defunct. And I never said the Jews are not a nation. I said being Jewish was not a nationality. Not the same thing.
Also, I don't think anyone is saying Israel should not exist. But why are you so hell-bent on it being a 'jewish' state? Israel can be a country like France, the UK, etc. - ie inclusive, without losing any of what you call self-determination.
But yeah, we're crazy weird. That doesn't mean that we're wrong.
Again, I don't care about the name "Israel," I care about Israel because it is a Jewish state. This matters to me for a lot of reasons, and having a refuge for endangered Jews is only one of these, and not the most important. As for the other states in the discussion no longer being "nation states," I just don't think this is true. Certainly that is the party line, so to speak, but I think that were this to really be put to the test we would see that the nations at the heart of these states really think differently. The fact that they are so willing to welcome people from other nations (and really, if you look hard at Europe, how welcoming are they really?) is dependent on the fact that at present they do not perceive that there is any chance of the demographic scales tipping (ie the "core" national group in each of these countries is large enough to ensure that immigration does not threaten their demographic superiority within the state). I don't think Israel is any different than these states at all, except that it is so small that issues of demographics and national identity cannot be easily ignored.
So one sees that Israel is afraid of having it's native people back on the land, ie those that have been victims of ethnic cleansing to make space for the immigrants after the war.
Should the Roma make a claim for a homeland? Where could it be? Which native inhabitants shall they remove from the land to be able to grab it. After all, these people need a refuge since they are also 'endangered'.
Also, did I mention 'welcome' when it comes to European countries? I'm not talking emotions, I'm talking rights.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/differencejudzion.html
The Difference Between Judaism and Zionism
G. Neuburger
'...To begin with, a few definitions: Who is a Jew? A Jew is anyone who has a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in conformity with Halacha, Jewish religious law. This definition alone excludes racism. Judaism does not seek converts, but those who do convert are accepted on a basis of equality. Let us see how far this goes. Some of the most eminent and respected rabbis were converts to Judaism. Jewish parents throughout the world bless their children every Sabbath and holiday eve, and they have done it in the same way for millennia. If the children are girls, the blessing is, "May G-d let you be like Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah." Not one of these matriarchs was born a Jewess; they were all converts to Judaism. If the children are boys, the blessing is, "May G-d let you be like Ephraim and Menashe." The mother of these two was an Egyptian woman who became Jewish and had married Joseph. Moses himself, the greatest Jew who ever lived, married a Midianite woman who became Jewish. Finally, the Tenach, the holy writings of the Jew, contains the book of Ruth. This woman was not only not Jewish by birth, but she came from the Moabites, traditional enemies of the Jewish people. This book describes Ruth's conversion to Judaism and is read annually on the holiday commemorating the giving of the Torah, the "Law," i.e. the Pentateuch. At its very end, the book of Ruth traces the ancestry of King David, the greatest king the Jews ever had, to Ruth, his great-grandmother...
Apart from the Zionists, the only ones who consistently considered the Jews a race were the Nazis. And they only served to prove the stupidity and irrationality of racism. There was no way to prove racially whether a Mrs. Muller or a Mr. Meyer were Jews or Aryans (the Nazi term for non-Jewish Germans. The only way to decide whether a person was Jewish was to trace the religious affiliation of the parents or grandparents. So much for the this racial nonsense.
In what way are the Jews a "chosen people"? Every Jewish man anywhere and at any time when called to the reading of the Torah says, "Who has chosen us from all the peoples and gave us His Torah." This is the way in which the Jews are chosen. The Jewish people are chosen not for domination over others, not for conquest or warfare, but to serve G-d and thus to serve mankind. "And the hands are the hands of Esau," has been traditionally interpreted to mean that while "the voice is Jacob's," the hands- - symbolizing violence - are Esau's. Thus physical violence is not a tradition or a value of the Jews. The task for which the Jewish people were chosen is not to set an example of military superiority or technical achievements, but to seek perfection in moral behavior and spiritual purity. Of all the crimes of political Zionism, the worst and most basic, and which explains all its other misdeeds, is that from its beginning Zionism has sought to separate the Jewish people from their G-d, to render the divine covenant null and void, and to substitute a "modern" statehood and fraudulent sovereignty for the lofty ideals of the Jewish people.
One means of misleading many Jews and all too many non-Jews is the Zionist misuse of names and symbols sacred in Judaism. They use the holy name Israel for their Zionist state. They have named their land acquisition fund with a term that traditionally implies the reward for piety, good deeds, and charitable work. They have adopted as a state symbol the menorah (candlebrum). What hypocrisy, what perversion it is to have the Israeli army fight under an emblem, the meaning of which is explained in the Tenach (on the occasion of a previous return to the Holy Land) as, "not with armed force and not with power, but in My spirit says the Lord of Hosts."
The infamous founder of political Zionism, may his name be cursed, who only discovered his own Jewishness because of anti-Semitism displayed at the Dreyfus trial in France, proposed various solutions to what he called the "Jewish problem." At one point he proposed to resettle the Jews in Uganda. At another he proposed to convert them to Catholicism. He finally hit on the idea of a Judenstaat, an exclusive Jewish state. Thus from its very beginning Zionism was a result of Anti-Semitism and indeed is completely compatible with it, because Zionists and anti-Semites had (and have) a common goal: To bring all Jews from their places of domicile to the Zionist state, thus uprooting Jewish communities that had existed for hundreds and even thousands of years. Loyalty to the Zionist state was substituted for loyalty to G-d, and the state was made into the modern "golden calf". Belief in the Torah and fulfillment of religious obligations in Zionist eyes became a private matter and not a duty for every Jew or for the Jewish people. The Zionists made divine law subject to party or parliamentary votes, and they set their own standards of conduct and ethics.
Neither the founder of political Zionism nor any of the prime ministers of the Zionist state believed in the divine origin of the Torah nor even in the existence of G-d. All prime ministers were members of a party that opposed religion in principle and that considered the Bible a document of ancient folklore, devoid of any religious meaning. And yet these same Zionists base their claim to the Holy Land on this same Bible, the divine origin of which they deny. At the same time they conveniently forget the Jewish holiday prayer "and for our sins have we been exiled from our land," and ignore the fact that the present exile of the Jewish people is divinely decreed and that the Jewish people are neither commanded nor permitted to conquer or rule the Holy Land before the coming of the Messiah. The Jewish people do, of course, recognize special spiritual ties to that land they call it Eretz Yisrael. Every morning, afternoon, and evening, and night they mention it and Zion and Jerusalem in their prayers, and indeed a Jew does not sit down to a meal without doing likewise. To the Jew, the very soil of the Holy Land is different from that of any other spot on this globe, and wherever he is he turns his face toward Jerusalem during prayers. To live in the Holy Land or even to be buried there was always considered to be of high merit...'
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/about/mission.cfm
True Torah Jews Against Zionism - Our Mission
The relatively new concept of Zionism began only about one hundred years ago and since that time Torah-true Jewry has steadfastly opposed the Zionist ideology. This struggle is rooted in two convictions:
1. Zionism, by advocating a political and military end to the Jewish exile, denies the very essence of our Diaspora existence. We are in exile by Divine Decree and may emerge from exile solely via Divine Redemption. All human efforts to alter a metaphysical reality are doomed to end in failure and bloodshed. History has clearly borne out this teaching.
2. Zionism has not only denied our fundamental belief in Heavenly Redemption it has also created a pseudo-Judaism which views the essence of our identity to be a secular nationalism. Accordingly, Zionism and the Israeli state have consistently endeavored, via persuasion and coercion, to replace a Divine and Torah centered understanding of our people hood with an armed materialism.
True Torah Jews is dedicated to informing the world and in particular the American public and politicians that all Jews do not support the ideology of the Zionist state called "Israel" which is diametrically opposite to the teachings of traditional Judaism.
We are concerned that the widespread misconception that all Jews support the zionist state and its actions endangers Jews worldwide.
We are NOT politically motivated. We are motivated by our concern for the peace and safety of all people throughout the world including those living in the Zionist state. We support and pray for peace for the people of the Zionist state but have no interest in and do not support the Zionist government.
We seek to disassociate Jews and traditional Judaism from the Zionist Ideology by:
* Providing historical and supporting documentation that Zionism is totally contrary to the teachings of traditional Judaism through the words of our Rabbis, Sages, and Holy Scriptures which oppose the creation of a state called Israel.
* Providing historical documentation on the ideaology and creation of Zionism, the supporters of Zionism and the negative impact of their actions on the Jewish people in the past hundred years, including their involvement in the holocaust up to the present day.
* Publicizing the efforts of traditional Jews to demonstrate that all Jews do not support Zionism, which is being ignored by the mainstream media.
* Convince the news media, politicians and the public to cease referring to the state of Israel as the "Jewish State" but to call it what it is: the "Zionist State".
It is our firm belief that when the state of "Israel" is recognized for what it is, a Zionist state which is not guided by the teachings of the traditional Jewish faith, Jews worldwide will be able to live in peace.
they would never allow a dissident voice entry and they don't. a country with such despicable human rights violations can't be expected to embrace free speech can they?
to think that you find it justified to argue against peace, equality, justice, democracy, etc... but that is the price of being a zionist.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... a-1.297107
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9YT73MW3OM
Peace to you.
Actually, peace to all of you...though this situation is much more complex than MSNBC and the Communist News Network make it look.
you probably don't realise it, but all you are doing by defending their disgusting acts, or staying silent, is helping them along with their self destruction. not that they need much help. their actions will ensure that eventuates anyway.
thank you. you know though, peace and freedom are such easy words to throw around. we have to do more than just say those words if we really want that to happen. do you know that hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza have lived under occupation and siege all of their lives? they deserve peace, freedom. life and hope. It's time for Palestinians and Israelis to share a just peace. it's time for freedom from occupation and it's time for equal rights.
every man dies. Not every man really lives. true that.
^
this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaCN9qZJ ... re=related
Regardless, Israel is a fact. It isn't going anywhere, and the refugees aren't going to get to go back (hopefully they'll have a state of their own soon to which they can return). You can bitch and moan as much as you like, but I think it would be a better use of your time to just deal with the reality and move on. You aren't going to be able to undo 70 years of history.
Israel isn't a democracy, it's an apartheid state. the segregation wall and jew only roads are proof of that. Israel will not last forever as a jewish state or otherwise if it continues to follow it's current policies.
Israel will self destruct, it is inevitable. it's just a matter of time.
Thread not going your way again? Doing a runner? You can't face reality.
This was written by John Strawson (a long-time activist on behalf of the Palestinians) in 2005:
"The African National Congress called for a comprehensive boycott of apartheid in 1959, a call which was responded to by India, which led the campaign in the United Nations. Part of the cultural boycott was aimed at universities. The whole argument about South Africa in the apartheid years was that it was quite exceptional. The Racial Classification Board declared your race at birth, which would decide where you would live, what school you would attend, what job you could have, what wages you would earn, whether you could vote and what papers you carried. This does not happen in Israel, where Palestinians do have the vote, do participate in elections in all parties and while schooling is run on faith-based lines (as in many other countries) higher education is quite integrated. There are discriminatory laws, there is social discrimination and there is equivocation for equal rights on the designation of the state as ‘Jewish’. However, this is not apartheid South Africa where any organization opposed to the regime was banned and criminalized. The boycott campaign against apartheid was highly organized in this exceptional case. It received UN backing through the special committee on apartheid. The ANC played an active role in working out the policies and implementing them. This wide measure of international, and in particular UN involvement, ensured that this was a not a personalized vendetta and never aimed at South Africans. As an activist in the Anti-Apartheid Movement I well remember stressing that the boycott was against apartheid not against South Africa. It was not a matter of individuals arrogantly deciding what was a good for a national liberation movement – or selecting which academics they liked and which they did not according to a subjective political test. Placing Israel in the same category as apartheid South Africa is as crude as it is inaccurate."
I'd also point out that the wall wasn't built because Israel wanted to enforce some sort of racial segregation. There are over a million Arab citizens of Israel, and thousands of Palestinians enter Israel every day to work. The wall was built to prevent suicide bombers from simply walking the few miles from their villages in the West Bank into the middle of Israeli cities. As for "Jewish only" roads, I agree with you, they're wrong. But they exist only in the occupied territories, not in Israel. So to point to them as evidence of apartheid in Israel is wrong.
No, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian territories isn't Apatheid South Africa, it's worse than that.
Apartheid comparison by Israelis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and ... id_analogy
'Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset argued that an apartheid system has already taken shape in that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are separated into "cantons" and Palestinians are required to carry permits to travel between them.[201] Azmi Bishara, a former Knesset member, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid."[202]
Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing, "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories", in an essay published in Haaretz.[203]
Ehud Olmert, then Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, commented in April 2004 that; "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."[204] Olmert made a similar remark in November 2007 as Prime Minister: "If the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then the State of Israel is finished."[205][206]
Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak used the analogy when speaking in a national security conference in Israel. According to Barak, unless Israel makes peace with the Palestinians it will be faced with either a state with no Jewish majority or an "apartheid" regime. "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic," Barak said. "If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state." [127]
According to former Italian Prime Minister Massimo d'Alema, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had described to him "at length" that he felt the "bantustan model" was the most appropriate solution to the conflict in the West Bank.[207] The term “Bantustan” historically refers to the separate territorial areas designated as homelands under the South African apartheid State.
Some Israelis have compared the separation plan to apartheid, such as political scientist, Meron Benvenisti,[140] and journalist, Amira Hass.[208] Ami Ayalon, a former admiral, claiming it "ha[d] some apartheid characteristics."[209] Shulamit Aloni, former education minister and leader of Meretz, said that the state of Israel is "practicing its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population."[210]
A major 2002 study of Israeli settlement practices by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem concluded: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B'Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa."
Academic and political activist Uri Davis, an Israeli citizen who describes himself as an "anti-Zionist Palestinian Jew",[212] has written several books on the subject, including Israel: An Apartheid State in 1987.[4]
Daphna Golan-Agnon, co-founder of B'Tselem and founding director of Bat Shalom writes in her 2002 book Next Year in Jerusalem, "I'm not sure if the use of the term apartheid helps us to understand the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel or the oppression against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. I'm not sure the discussion about how we are like or unlike South Africa helps move us forward to a solution. But the comparison reminds us that hundreds of laws do not make discrimination just and that the international community, the same international community we want to belong to, did not permit the perpetuation of apartheid. And it doesn't matter how we explain it and how many articles are written by Israeli scholars and lawyers—there are two groups living in this small piece of land, and one enjoys rights and liberty while the other does not."[213]
In his article "Is it Apartheid?" Israeli anti-Zionist activist Professor Moshé Machover states "... talk of Israeli 'apartheid' serves to divert attention from much greater dangers. For, as far as most Palestinians are concerned, the Zionist policy is far worse than apartheid. Apartheid can be reversed. Ethnic cleansing is immeasurably harder to reverse; at least not in the short or medium term."[214]
Retired Israeli judge and legal commentator for the daily Yedioth Ahronoth Boaz Okon wrote in June 2010 that events in Israel, when taken together, constituted apartheid and fascism. Okon used as examples segregated schools and streets, a "minute" proportion of Israeli Arabs employed in the civil service, censorship, limits on foreign workers having children in Israel and the monitoring of cell phones, email and Internet usage.'
The wall was deemed illegal by the World Court on the grounds that it violates the Palestinians basic human rights and that it also illegally annexes more of the West Bank. And if the wall was built to prevent suicide bombers from entering Israel then maybe you can explain why large sections of the wall enclose Palestinian communities within the Israeli side of the wall? Surely if the wall was designed to prevent Palestinians getting into Israel then it would be keeping them out rather than keeping them in?
Let's see what the South Africans themselves think of this shall we?:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2006-07-10- ... se-than-sa
'Apartheid Israel' worse than apartheid SA
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA Jul 10 2006
The "apartheid Israel state" is worse than the apartheid that was conducted in South Africa, Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) president Willie Madisha said on Monday.
He said Palestinians were being attacked with heavy machinery and tanks used in war, which had never happened in South Africa.
Cosatu and other organisations supporting Palestine have called on government to end diplomatic relations with Israel and establish boycotts and sanctions such as those against apartheid South Africa.
Israel has launched several attacks on Gaza, bombing its main university and firing missiles that have killed Palestinian bystanders.
This follows the capture of an Israeli soldier by Palestinians.
"We see no justification for this attack," said Palestinian ambassador to South Africa Ali Hamileh.
He said while the whole world was talking about one Israeli soldier, more than 10,000 Palestinians were being kept in Israeli jails.
"My leadership made it clear ... the soldier can be released immediately if Israel responds to mediation. The demand for exchange of prisoners is justified by international law. We are not demanding something unacceptable," he said.
Professor of political science Virginia Tilley said South Africa was one of the only places where a vision had been brought forward to address collective punishment of perceived inferiority.
"I can't imagine a better beacon in that struggle than this country and it has stood back. If there is any moral authority in South Africa, it must come into play now," she said.
Madisha said Israel should be seen as an apartheid state and the same sanctions must be applied that were established against South Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid
Article II of the ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as follows:
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
Article II[1]
For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
1. Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
1. By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
2. By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
3. By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
2. Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
3. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
4. Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
5. Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
6. Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
Israel
In a 2007 report, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine John Dugard stated that "elements of the Israeli occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law" and suggested that the "legal consequences of a prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid" be put to the International Court of Justice.[16] South Africa's statutory research agency the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) stated in a 2009 report that "the State of Israel exercises control in the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid."[17] Activists for Palestinian rights have also accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid.[18] For example, in 2006, at the UN-sponsored International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People, Phyllis Bennis, co-chair of the International Coordinating Network on Palestine alleged that "Once again, the crime of apartheid [is] being committed by a United Nations Member State [Israel]."[19] Zahir Kolliah has written that "In South Africa and in Palestine the indigenous populations live under apartheid regimes 'settler colonies' as described by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid".[20] Hazeem Jamjoum states in a 2009 article that "In terms of law, describing Israel as an apartheid state does not revolve around levels of difference and similarity with the policies and practices of the South African Apartheid regime" because apartheid is a universal crime under international law.'
you're a living contradiction, which is what I've been saying all along because you cannot advocate democracy and Zionism at the same time, they are at opposite sides of the spectrum.
israel can try to preserve its legitimacy through as many wars as it likes, but it's failing, and fast. i think you've already seen john mearsheimer's piece about it, though you probably didn't bother reading the whole thing cause it wasn't suited to your pathetic ideals