You should read what Amos Oz writes about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In brief, he writes that the conflict is a tragedy because both sides have legitimate rights and claims that are mutually exclusive of one another. It's not a conflict between a right side and a wrong side; it's a conflict between two right sides. That's what makes it tragic.
Just because I recognize the legitimacy of Israeli claims, doesn't mean I ignore the legitimacy of Palestinian claims.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
No, irrational Islamic Jew hatred is just a convenient fantasy that you've concocted to justify and excuse Israel's continuing construction of racist, illegal, Jewish-only settlements on land stolen from the Palestinians.
Just like the Holocaust, right? :roll:
you know as a rule i dont like to speak for other people but i feel confident in stating that byrnzie does not think the holocaust is 'just a convenient fantasy' as your quote of his post is suggesting. i would shudder tot hink anyone who contributes here on a regular, or even semi regular basis thinks that hitlers final solution wasnt a very real event. and i dont think those same people would think it was anything but an extremely heinous and deliberate act. it pisses me off no end that people who would scream bloody murder if they were forced from their land, separated from their livelihood, community and family and denied the rights that we all take for granted seem to be of the opinion that somehow the israeli govt has the right to enact these same injustices upon the palestinian people. and that they think the palestinians should just roll over like dogs.
What pisses me off are lazy comparisons. The occupation is really bad. But it is not equivalent to the holocaust, either in moral terms or in purely descriptive terms. Recognizing their dissimilarity and avoiding such comparisons doesn't detract from valid criticisms of the occupation, of which there are many. The same is true of Apartheid. The occupation is really bad, but it is demonstrably not the same thing as Apartheid. The analogy between the two is lazy and obscures the reality of the occupation.
A good friend of mine recently commented on such analogies. He said that when his children were very young he noticed that they would categorize things based on what they were first exposed to; so for one kid all four-legged animals were dogs and for another all four-legged animals were hippos. What he was getting at is that the occupation can be grouped with Apartheid as a "bad thing" (four-legged animal), but it has distinctive features, and should be understood as its own phenomenon, not through a lazy analogy to some other, different event.
taken as an individual situation the continued oppression of the palestinians is still exactly that... oppression. the coralling of the palestinian people is apartheid.. whether or not is is 'as bad' as south african apartheid is irrelevant... it is still the separation of two peoples based in this case, on religion and ethnicity...its segregating the 2 peoples and the policy is discriminatory. if thats not apartheid, what would you call it yosi? does the jewish homeland have room for the non jewish? and if so will the rights of the non jewish be equivalent? help me understand.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You should read what Amos Oz writes about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In brief, he writes that the conflict is a tragedy because both sides have legitimate rights and claims that are mutually exclusive of one another. It's not a conflict between a right side and a wrong side; it's a conflict between two right sides. That's what makes it tragic.
Just because I recognize the legitimacy of Israeli claims, doesn't mean I ignore the legitimacy of Palestinian claims.
Regarding Amos Oz, i'm familiar with his thoughts on the conflict. I disagree with his stance that the two-state solution remains achievable, and oppose his preferred preconditions for peace but i did come to appreciate him more after his honest assessment when he spoke out regarding the significant loss of Palestinian lives resulting from Operation Cast Lead.
"I'm not sure. Israelis were genuinely infuriated, as was I, about the harassment and bombardment and rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages for years and years by Hamas from Gaza. And the public mood was 'Let's teach them a lesson'. Trouble is, this so-called lesson" - which Oz supported - "went completely out of proportion. There is no comparison between the suffering and devastation and death that Gaza inflicted on Israel for eight years, and the suffering, devastation and death Israel inflicted on Gaza in 20 days. No proportion at all." He is appalled by the numbers - "300 dead children. Hundreds of innocent civilians. Thousands of homes demolished" - and while he would like to think that bombing UN structures was accidental, he is also appalled by reports that white phosphorus may have been used, and Dime bombs: "There is no justification. No way this could be justified. If this is true, it's a war crime and it should be treated as a war crime."
Cate, I'd call it what it is; the occupation. That doesn't diminish how terrible it is. It just recognizes that the situation between Israel and the Palestinians is not equivalent to that of Apartheid. For one thing, there is room in the Jewish homeland for non-Jews. 20% of Israel's citizens are Palestinian Arabs. While I don't claim that there is not discrimination against these citizens, they are certainly not living under a system of Apartheid. They can vote, and they regularly elect representatives to the Israeli parlaiment. Israeli Arabs serve on the Israeli Supreme Court, and in theory have equal rights (in practice this is not always the case, but again, imperfect democracy is far from Apartheid). The situation in the occupied territories is altogether different, but I think the salient point is that the conflict driving the occupation is between two competing nationalisms. It is not a conflict motivated by racism, as Apartheid was.
Criticism of the occupation is entirely fair, but it should be aimed at the reality of the situation. Equating the Occupation to Apartheid muddies the waters and distorts the reality of the situation. It creates the impression that the core of the conflict is about racism, when in fact the core of the conflict is about competing nationalisms and borders.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Cate, I'd call it what it is; the occupation. That doesn't diminish how terrible it is. It just recognizes that the situation between Israel and the Palestinians is not equivalent to that of Apartheid. For one thing, there is room in the Jewish homeland for non-Jews. 20% of Israel's citizens are Palestinian Arabs. While I don't claim that there is not discrimination against these citizens, they are certainly not living under a system of Apartheid. They can vote, and they regularly elect representatives to the Israeli parlaiment. Israeli Arabs serve on the Israeli Supreme Court, and in theory have equal rights (in practice this is not always the case, but again, imperfect democracy is far from Apartheid). The situation in the occupied territories is altogether different, but I think the salient point is that the conflict driving the occupation is between two competing nationalisms. It is not a conflict motivated by racism, as Apartheid was.
yes i know youre right. i know there are arab israelis and yes i know they can vote and yes i know they elect representatives to the knesset.
Criticism of the occupation is entirely fair, but it should be aimed at the reality of the situation. Equating the Occupation to Apartheid muddies the waters and distorts the reality of the situation. It creates the impression that the core of the conflict is about racism, when in fact the core of the conflict is about competing nationalisms and borders.
when the wall comes down and the occupied territories no longer exist then ill stop calling it apartheid.. by definition that is what im seeing. just because it doesnt look like sth african apartheid doesnt mean it isnt.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't understand that response. If you admit that the two are not the same then it seems as if the reason for attaching the label Apartheid is purely propagandistic (i.e. everyone recognizes that Apartheid is bad, so if we want to encourage criticism of Israel lets associate them with Apartheid). I have a real problem with this, not least because solutions derive from one's diagnosis of the problem. If you misdiagnose the issue then you're bound to come up with the wrong solutions.
In this case the analogy to Apartheid, I think, leads people toward the idea of a binational state. The thinking is that if it worked in South Africa then it should work in Israel as well. The problem is that the conflict is essentially a conflict of nationalisms. Both Israelis and Palestinians want national self-determination, and by definition therefore can't both achieve their aims within the same state. Trying to force them together, as I see it, is a recipe for continued conflict. The solution is two states for two peoples, but if you're enthralled with the false comparison to Apartheid you don't get there.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You should read what Amos Oz writes about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In brief, he writes that the conflict is a tragedy because both sides have legitimate rights and claims that are mutually exclusive of one another. It's not a conflict between a right side and a wrong side; it's a conflict between two right sides. That's what makes it tragic.
Just because I recognize the legitimacy of Israeli claims, doesn't mean I ignore the legitimacy of Palestinian claims.
What is tragic is that, our grandfathers, grandmothers, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, have to hand over their papers (all those holocaust/nazi movies ring throughout the mind with the ss shouting "papers," thank you hollywood) to the teenager from Ethiopia/Russia/Brooklyn/etc. they just handed an m16 to, just to move from one city to another on the land that they have lived on for generations or to just visit the land that they were born on and see the house that their family owned, sold times over to Polish/German/whatever immigrants who believed they had a right to take the history, lives, future, and identity of another people because they were born jewish. The old testament is not a real estate document. There should not be a Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, whatever homeland. It didn't work for hitler and its not working for israel. I have heard of Amos Oz and I don't buy into liberal zionism, in his books, Palestinians are compared to animals and are rapists, but he is a liberal zionist so that means he is willing to go so far as to give back 22 percent of the land to the "savages" of what is historical Palestine.
And on Apartheid, I will defer to Desmond Tutu who experienced the worst of South Africa's Apartheid, a country which during its worst crimes israel saw no objection in selling nuclear arms to:
"I experienced a déjà vu when I encountered a security checkpoint that Palestinians must negotiate every day and be demeaned, all their lives," Tutu said.
Tutu said that Palestinian homes are being bulldozed, and new, illegal homes for Israeli's built in their place.
"When I hear, 'that used to be my home,' it is painfully similar to the treatment in South Africa when coloureds had no rights," Tutu said.
The occupation is really bad, but it is demonstrably not the same thing as Apartheid. The analogy between the two is lazy and obscures the reality of the occupation.
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
Article II
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:
Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
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;
By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
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;
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;
Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
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.[20] 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."[21] Based on these findings, Richard Falk, the successor of John Dugard as UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine has detailed some of the indicators of apartheid in the occupied territories [22]:
preferential citizenship, visitation and residence laws and practices that prevent Palestinians who reside in the West Bank or Gaza from reclaiming their property or from acquiring Israeli citizenship, as contrasted to a Jewish right of return that entitles Jews anywhere in the world with no prior tie to Israel to visit, reside and become Israeli citizens;
differential laws in the West Bank and East Jerusalem favouring Jewish settlers who are subject to Israeli civilian law and constitutional protection, as opposed to Palestinian residents, who are governed by military administration;
dual and discriminatory arrangements for movement in the West Bank and to and from Jerusalem; discriminatory policies on land ownership, tenure and use; extensive burdening of Palestinian movement, including checkpoints applying differential limitations on Palestinians and on Israeli settlers, and onerous permit and identification requirements imposed only on Palestinians;
punitive house demolitions, expulsions and restrictions on entry and exit from all three parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Special Rapporteur concludes that this "general structure of apartheid that exists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories ... makes the allegation increasingly credible despite the differences between the specific characteristics of South African apartheid and that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories regime".
The occupation is really bad, but it is demonstrably not the same thing as Apartheid. The analogy between the two is lazy and obscures the reality of the occupation.
From 'Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the Palestinians' - By Illan Pappe & Noam Chomsky
P.147
"Is the situation in Palestine and Israel comparable to Apartheid South Africa?"
Chomsky: There are similarities and dissimilarities. Within Israel itself, there is serious discrimination, but it's very far from South African Apartheid. Within the occupied territories, it's a different story. In 1997, I gave the keynote address at Ben-Gurion University for a conference on the anniversary of the 1967 war. I read a paragraph from a standard history of South Africa. No comment was necessary.
Looking more closely, the situation in the OPT differs in many ways from Apartheid. In some respects, South African apartheid was more vicious than Israeli practices, and in some respects the opposite is true. To mention one example, White South Africa depended on Black labour. The large majority of the population could not be expelled. At one time Israel relied on cheap and easily exploited Palestinian labourers, but they have long ago been replaced by the miserable of the Earth from Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. Israeli's would mostly breathe a sigh of relief of Palestinians were to disappear. And it is no secret that the policies that have taken shape accord well with the recommendations of Moshe Dayan right after the 1967 war: Palestinians will "continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes, may leave". More extreme recommendations have been made by highly regarded left humanists in the United States. For example, Michael Walzer of the Institute For Advanced Studies in Princeton and editor of the democratic socialist journal 'Dissent', advised thirty-five years ago that since Palestinians are "marginal to the nation," they should be "helped" to leave. He was referring to Palestinian citizens of Israel itself, a position made familiar more recently by the ultra-right Avigdor Liberman, and now being picked up in the Israeli mainstream. I put aside the real fanatics, like Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who declares that Israel never kills civilians, only terrorists, so that the definition of "terrorist" is "killed by Israel"; and Israel should aim for a kill ration of 1,000 to 0, which means "exterminate the brutes" completely. It is of no small significance that advocates of these views are regarded with respect in enlightened circles in the United States, indeed the West. One can imagine the reaction if such comments were made about Jews. On the query, to repeat, there can be no clear answer as to whether the analogy is appropriate.
I don't understand that response. If you admit that the two are not the same then it seems as if the reason for attaching the label Apartheid is purely propagandistic (i.e. everyone recognizes that Apartheid is bad, so if we want to encourage criticism of Israel lets associate them with Apartheid). I have a real problem with this, not least because solutions derive from one's diagnosis of the problem. If you misdiagnose the issue then you're bound to come up with the wrong solutions.
In this case the analogy to Apartheid, I think, leads people toward the idea of a binational state. The thinking is that if it worked in South Africa then it should work in Israel as well. The problem is that the conflict is essentially a conflict of nationalisms. Both Israelis and Palestinians want national self-determination, and by definition therefore can't both achieve their aims within the same state. Trying to force them together, as I see it, is a recipe for continued conflict. The solution is two states for two peoples, but if you're enthralled with the false comparison to Apartheid you don't get there.
i didnt admit anything... what i said was ... just cause it doesnt look like STH AFRICAN apartheid, doesnt mean it isnt.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Cate, I don't know how to respond to that. The conflict isn't racially motivated, and Israeli Arabs have a panoply of political rights as citizens of Israel that were by definition denied to black South Africans. The situation looks different because it is different. The situation in the West Bank is heinous, but it's a conflict between competing national movements, which makes it inherently different from the situation of South Africa. I don't know what more I can say, so I'll just stop there.
Viva, I don't expect to convince you. Clearly you're response to the situation is deeply personal. I will say that I think your depiction of Amos Oz is uninformed and deeply unfair and quite frankly entirely off base. I'll also say, as an ardent Zionist, supporter of Israel, and believer in a two state solution that I think I've come a long way in recognizing the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and that doing so has helped me get past a view of the conflict that is driven by anger and self-righteousnous and to try to approach the conflict from a pragmatic perspective with a view for how to achieve the best outcome for both peoples given the realities on the ground. I simply hope that eventually you can try to give Israeli claims the same respect that you want for those of the Palestinians. The two peoples are going to have to live together, and learning to understand each other will be key. Holding onto acrimonious history isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Cate, I don't know how to respond to that. The conflict isn't racially motivated, and Israeli Arabs have a panoply of political rights as citizens of Israel that were by definition denied to black South Africans. The situation looks different because it is different. The situation in the West Bank is heinous, but it's a conflict between competing national movements, which makes it inherently different from the situation of South Africa. I don't know what more I can say, so I'll just stop there...
well this is what im not getting from your argument yosi... youre saying the difference is the israel/palestinian situation ISNT apartheid because the conflict is not racially based. i fail to see how race is THE single indicator of what is and is not apartheid. when was that rule decided upon??
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm not saying race is the only factor, but at a certain point if enough significant elements are different between two phenomena it just stops making sense to say that the two are the same.
Look, criticize the Occupation all you want. All I'm saying is criticize it based on what it actually is, not by standing up a totemic straw man from 30 years ago.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Cate, I don't know how to respond to that. The conflict isn't racially motivated, and Israeli Arabs have a panoply of political rights as citizens of Israel that were by definition denied to black South Africans. The situation looks different because it is different. The situation in the West Bank is heinous, but it's a conflict between competing national movements, which makes it inherently different from the situation of South Africa. I don't know what more I can say, so I'll just stop there.
Viva, I don't expect to convince you. Clearly you're response to the situation is deeply personal. I will say that I think your depiction of Amos Oz is uninformed and deeply unfair and quite frankly entirely off base. I'll also say, as an ardent Zionist, supporter of Israel, and believer in a two state solution that I think I've come a long way in recognizing the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and that doing so has helped me get past a view of the conflict that is driven by anger and self-righteousnous and to try to approach the conflict from a pragmatic perspective with a view for how to achieve the best outcome for both peoples given the realities on the ground. I simply hope that eventually you can try to give Israeli claims the same respect that you want for those of the Palestinians. The two peoples are going to have to live together, and learning to understand each other will be key. Holding onto acrimonious history isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
I am off base on Oz...I can give you page numbers and titles of where he refers to Palestinians in the most despicable way. A zionist and supporter of a war mongering apartheid state, you should be so proud and how did you come to that belief? Nothing personal? Or is it just a simple belief in Jewish supremacy? A denial of the right that is afforded to every human being on the planet, to return to their homeland? (To paraphrase Makdisi:) So there is the right wing zionist, like Russian immigrant Avigodor Lieberman who wants the indigenous population totally removed, heil Avi (that's mine). But in your magnanimous thought (Palestinians have a right to be there, but you and other zionists get to decide on exactly where that is, no self righteousness in that, is there?) you have steered away from the right into left wing zionism, where the belief is in a two state solution, which Tzipi Livni summed up as: "Once a Palestinian state is established, I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them "you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere." Hanging onto acrimonious history ? Is that a joke? Well I will just leave that to the jews. Because jews must never forget, while the Palestinians must not be allowed to remember.
Viva, is civility too much to ask? Disagree with me all you want, but I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not a racist or a nazi, and I'd thank you not to imply as much.
Oz is a novelist. I'd love to see the actual citations that you believe support your perception of him, but if they come from his novels I'd be very skeptical. You can't take fiction as a reliable barometer of a writer's true feelings. From my own reading of Oz's non-fiction writing on the conflict I don't think your depiction of him is fair.
I don't believe that Jews are superior to anyone. I do believe that Jews should have the same rights as every other national group. The same is true of the Palestinians. I see the conflict as being between two nations each of which have legitimate claims which in significant respects are mutually exclusive. That being the case neither side will get all of what they want. That is simply the reality.
I don't think Israel has a right to tell the Palestinians where to establish their state. I do think that Israelis have the right not to subordinate their own collective rights and interests to those of the Palestinians. I recognize that in practice this means that Palestinians will not be able to realize all of their individual and national goals (including those that may derive from legitimate rights), but that is the nature of a conflict between right and right. Both can't win.
I know the history. Israel's Arab neighbors (including the Palestinians) do not exactly have clean hands, and there is plenty for Israel to feel acrimonious about as well. Harping on that history, and allowing it to cloud one's thinking may satisfy an emotional need (I've been there), but it's not constructive when it comes to actually trying to build bridges and find equitable solutions.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Viva, is civility too much to ask? Disagree with me all you want, but I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not a racist or a nazi, and I'd thank you not to imply as much.
Oz is a novelist. I'd love to see the actual citations that you believe support your perception of him, but if they come from his novels I'd be very skeptical. You can't take fiction as a reliable barometer of a writer's true feelings. From my own reading of Oz's non-fiction writing on the conflict I don't think your depiction of him is fair.
I don't believe that Jews are superior to anyone. I do believe that Jews should have the same rights as every other national group. The same is true of the Palestinians. I see the conflict as being between two nations each of which have legitimate claims which in significant respects are mutually exclusive. That being the case neither side will get all of what they want. That is simply the reality.
I don't think Israel has a right to tell the Palestinians where to establish their state. I do think that Israelis have the right not to subordinate their own collective rights and interests to those of the Palestinians. I recognize that in practice this means that Palestinians will not be able to realize all of their individual and national goals (including those that may derive from legitimate rights), but that is the nature of a conflict between right and right. Both can't win.
I know the history. Israel's Arab neighbors (including the Palestinians) do not exactly have clean hands, and there is plenty for Israel to feel acrimonious about as well. Harping on that history, and allowing it to cloud one's thinking may satisfy an emotional need (I've been there), but it's not constructive when it comes to actually trying to build bridges and find equitable solutions.
Excuse me, do not go there with me. I have in no way been uncivil. The only thing that would be uncivil is NOT to challenge the belief system that has started and perpetuated an ongoing war on a nation of people. That Zionism is racism and has lifted from nazi playbooks is not something new that has been invented by me to insult you or any other supporter of Israel. On population transfer, Jabotisnky, Zionist leader loved by Netanyahu, stated “The world has been accustomed to mass migrations and has almost become fond of them. Hitler-as odious as he is to us-has given this idea a good name in the world.” Transfer was and is at the heart of the Zionist movement. Demographic engineering was a concept utilized by the Nazis and is used by Israel today. One example, if a Palestinian citizen of Israel marries someone in the West Bank, they are both not allowed to live there (However this law is not applied to jewish citizens of israel, another example of Apartheid) You have admitted yourself in a belief in a Jewish homeland, the indigenous population has not been fully forced out, but through transfer and laws like the marriage law, which secure and favor one type of people over another, the jewish homeland can be achieved. But that is injust, racist and very reminiscent of hitler’s germany, what was he trying to do but create a homeland for one race/religion over the other? I didn’t make the rules or redefine racism, it is right there to see for those who want to see it.
If there is room in Israel for a million russian/german/american/etc. jewish immigrants, then there is room for those Palestinians who have a legitimate right to return.
And your last paragraph must be a continuation of the joke. As the mother of Norman Finkelstein, a concentration camp survivor said “what did the Palestinians do but be born in Palestine?” Netanyahu at the aipac conference pulled out two documents from world war II. But he is jewish, so his documents count, his history matters. The Palestinians, who on a daily basis are being imprisoned, killed, their land confiscated, homes demolished, still being persecuted (all “emotional needs” I am sure) their documents don’t count, their history should be forgotten. I would like to stand up in front of the same group with my documents, what the reaction would be?
I'm not saying race is the only factor, but at a certain point if enough significant elements are different between two phenomena it just stops making sense to say that the two are the same.
Look, criticize the Occupation all you want. All I'm saying is criticize it based on what it actually is, not by standing up a totemic straw man from 30 years ago.
This is pretty well off topic, but the other day I was trying to think of a book I read about 20 years ago about a Jewish fella in Prague during the Nazi era. The book's called 'Life With a Star' by Jiří Weil. You read it?
Viva, forgive me, but I will go there. Unless you can show me evidence of industrial genocide any comparison to the nazis is not only wrong but, given that they were the butchers of my people, morally reprehensible. Don't try to tell me that you're being civil by calling me a nazi. That is absurd and insulting. Transfer is simply not an idea that is taken seriously by the Zionist mainstream, in significant part because it is widely recognized as immoral. To pretend otherwise is either disingenuous or uninformed.
Quite frankly I find your comparisons of Israel and Jews to Nazis disgusting and morally disturbing. Its the equivalent of telling a black man that his is the equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. I don't care if you disagree with my positions, but I'd thank you not to express yourself in a manner that is so utterly vulger and hateful.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Viva, forgive me, but I will go there. Unless you can show me evidence of industrial genocide any comparison to the nazis is not only wrong but, given that they were the butchers of my people, morally reprehensible.
Why should she have to show you evidence of industrial genocide for you to acknowledge that there are parallels between Nazism and Zionism?
...If there is room in Israel for a million russian/german/american/etc. jewish immigrants, then there is room for those Palestinians who have a legitimate right to return. ...
bingo!
i never understood the right of someone to return to a land theyve never known simply because they are of a particular religious persuasion. just seems like more religious bullshit to me. and an excuse to deny the rights of others with more legitimate claims to living there.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Viva, forgive me, but I will go there. Unless you can show me evidence of industrial genocide any comparison to the nazis is not only wrong but, given that they were the butchers of my people, morally reprehensible.
Why should she have to show you evidence of industrial genocide for you to acknowledge that there are parallels between Nazism and Zionism?
how about we look at the hussein regime to an extent and al majids ordering of rural kurds out of the homes they occupied for centuries, into collective centres where the state would be able to better monitor them and the general attitude towards the kurds both from within and without iraq as perhaps a more apt analogy, rather than the actions of nazi germany.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Viva, forgive me, but I will go there. Unless you can show me evidence of industrial genocide any comparison to the nazis is not only wrong but, given that they were the butchers of my people, morally reprehensible. Don't try to tell me that you're being civil by calling me a nazi. That is absurd and insulting. Transfer is simply not an idea that is taken seriously by the Zionist mainstream, in significant part because it is widely recognized as immoral. To pretend otherwise is either disingenuous or uninformed.
Quite frankly I find your comparisons of Israel and Jews to Nazis disgusting and morally disturbing. Its the equivalent of telling a black man that his is the equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. I don't care if you disagree with my positions, but I'd thank you not to express yourself in a manner that is so utterly vulger and hateful.
Transfer has been part of the zionist vision from the beginning, Jabotinsky refers to Hitler, "as odious as he is to us..." he was using Hitler as a precedent for transfer. Zionism in any form means the establishment of Jewish state on the land of Palestine, a jewish majority only happened through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine...the Palestinians were forced out and not allowed to return to their homes. A Jewish majority can only remain through a transfer, ie, two state solution or Apartheid. Finkelstein p. 23. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict... "To repress Palestinian resistance, a senior Israeli officer in early 2002 urged the army to 'analyze and internalize the lessons of... how the German Army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.'" Finkelstein continues on...."the targeting of Palestinian ambulances, and medical personnel, the targeting of journalists, the killing of Palestinian children for sport (Chirs Hedges, NY Times), the rounding up, handcuffing, and blindfolding of Palestinian males between ages of 15 and 50, and affixing numbers on their wrists, the indscriminate torture of Palestinian detainees....he goes on and on. But you know this, all zionists know what is being done in their name on an daily basis, UN OCHA puts out a weekly report on the OPT. Industrial genocide? You are clever with your adjectives aren't you. A genocide that is slow and methodical is just as tragic as one that is "industrial." You can feign being insulted all you want...Norman Finkelstein on crocodile tears.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7tupJRSi7M
Viva, I am not feigning insult. I am deeply insulted, and frankly repulsed and disgusted by your utter lack of empathy and callous disregard for the sensitivities of others. The nazis murdered members of my family, and slaughtered my people in the millions. They didn't simply "transfer" Jews from one location to another; they tortured them, robbed them of all human dignity, and gassed them to death. When you make a comparison to the nazis that is the imagery you are conjuring. To pretend that your comparison is limited to rounding up individuals and assigning them numbers (which is also how every prison on earth operates) is disingenuous, and I think you know that.
I happened to have been in Israel in 2002. That quote you use is presented entirely out of context, but in point of fact the most famous instance of the IDF entering a Palestinian city from that year (Jenin) is evidence of how Israel avoided using the type of tactics employed by the nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto. Despite concerted attempts to portray what happened in Jenin as a massacre, investigations have conclusively shown that 54 Palestinians were killed there, almost all of them armed militants, against 23 Israeli soldiers. That many Israelis were killed because the IDF, in an effort to limit civilian casualties, sent in the infantry to go house to house in search of militants rather than using aircraft and artillary to simply flatten the place entirely (which is what the nazis did in Warsaw).
Targeting Palestinian ambulances and medical: I'm not sure how often ambulances are stopped, but ambulances have repeatedly been used by Palestinian groups to transport explosive suicide belts and other weapons. You can't expect ambulances to be regarded as neutral and left alone if they are being used to materially aid in killing Israelis.
Targeting journalists/children for sport: I have never seen anything approaching conclusive evidence that the IDF as a policy does or condones either of these things. I'm not denying (because I simply don't know for sure) that such things have happened in isolated instances, but it's disingenuous to present such actions as if they are the norm, especially in the context of a comparison to the nazis. You give the entirely false impression that the IDF is running around slaughtering journalists and children on a regular basis.
Indiscriminate torture: the Israeli supreme court has, since the mid-'90s, barred the Israeli security services from using torture against detainees (the case involved stress positions and shaking of prisoners).
I don't think I'm being clever at all with my adjectives. I'm being precise. "Industrial genocide" acurately describes the salient feature of nazi policy that your comparison seeks to evoke. It does not acurately describe Israel's actions, which is why your comparison is substantively wrong. Perhaps there are particular actions that are similar between nazi actions and Israeli actions (both employed armies, both arrest people, both engaged in occupation), but this doesn't make a comparison to the nazis apt, since it is perfectly clear that these sorts of actions are not what immediately jumps to mind when one hears the term "nazi."
Furthermore, Israel is not conducting a slow genocide against the Palestinians either. There is no Israeli policy to systematically murder Palestinians, and, in fact, the Palestinian population (including those living under Israeli rule) is consistently growing, which is hardly evidence of genocide at any pace.
As for "transfer," a quarter of Israel's population is Palestinians, and yet there has never been an effort to forcibly expell them. Furthermore, research into how the Yishuv (pre-state Israeli leadership) was planning for the founding of Israel before the outbreak of the '48 war shows that they expected to assimilate the Palestinians living in Israeli territory, not that they planned to forcibly expell these people (these were internal planning documents, not material for mass consumption). I'm not going to deny that in the actual course of the war that people were forced to leave, but this was not a consistent Israeli policy (as evidenced by the many instances in which this did not happen). In fact it was more likely the result of decisions made by commanders in the field, not by the central government. Moreover, a great number of the refugees (the majority, if I'm not mistaken) were not forced out by Israeli soldiers at all, but left of their own accord, either out of fear or at the behest of the invading Arab armies (a fact conveniently forgotten in Palestinian retellings).
Do you even understand how vile it is to compare Jews to Nazis? I'd ask for an apology, but somehow I don't think I'd get one.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Viva, I am not feigning insult. I am deeply insulted, and frankly repulsed and disgusted by your utter lack of empathy and callous disregard for the sensitivities of others. The nazis murdered members of my family, and slaughtered my people in the millions. They didn't simply "transfer" Jews from one location to another; they tortured them, robbed them of all human dignity, and gassed them to death. When you make a comparison to the nazis that is the imagery you are conjuring. To pretend that your comparison is limited to rounding up individuals and assigning them numbers (which is also how every prison on earth operates) is disingenuous, and I think you know that.
You are not unlike the girl in the video, you want to be insulted, as someone who has had family members suffer the Holocaust, then you should be just as repulsed by what the Israeli government is doing right now, what it does everyday in the OPT. Is that is all that happens in the OPT, "is rounding up individuals and assigning them numbers," (and every prison on earth operates by affixing numbers to the wrists? And if they did, does that give the sons and gransdson of Holocaust survivors allowance to do the same thing?) Palestinians ARE being tortured and killed...being stripped to your underwear or being made to wait in amubance at a checkpoint and being told to rerouted and having your relative or loved one die right before you, having settlers throw garbage and crap at you, harass you and call you a whore and a slut as you walk along a street in your city, and the many other brutalizations is NOT being robbed of all human diginity? The jews don't have a monoply on suffering, the tragedy is that they are causing the same suffering that has been imposed on them.
I happened to have been in Israel in 2002. That quote you use is presented entirely out of context, but in point of fact the most famous instance of the IDF entering a Palestinian city from that year (Jenin) is evidence of how Israel avoided using the type of tactics employed by the nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto. Despite concerted attempts to portray what happened in Jenin as a massacre, investigations have conclusively shown that 54 Palestinians were killed there, almost all of them armed militants, against 23 Israeli soldiers. That many Israelis were killed because the IDF, in an effort to limit civilian casualties, sent in the infantry to go house to house in search of militants rather than using aircraft and artillary to simply flatten the place entirely (which is what the nazis did in Warsaw).
No, the quote was taken as exactly as it is from Finkelstein. What context do you have, who are you citing? You were there in Jenin during when the city was closed off and the army rolled in? Did you go inside yourself and count the "militants?" What is your citation? That the idf wasn't as brutal, but killed "only 54" and that they didn't flatten out the city, like they did with Gaza, should be brought to our attention? The commission appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2002 to investigate the indiscriminate destruction of civilian areas in the Israeli assault on Jenin refugee camp that spring (the actions of which a separate investigation, by Amnesty International, found amounted “to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and are war crimes”); and which Human Rights Watch reported that Palestinians were used as human shields (not being robbed of any human diginity there, are they?) Awww shucks those idf, human shileds and killing of Palestinians ONLY in the double digits, such pacifists. Ilan Pappe, israeli historian, son of German Jewish Immigrants, who wrote The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine stated: "I remember the sergeant major telling us that we should kill Arabs young or they'll grow up to kill us," he says. "And that attitude is widespread. That's why tank drivers, F16 pilots or artillery commanders will kill civilians without hesitation. They've been taught to dehumanise them [Palestinians] all their lives."
Targeting Palestinian ambulances and medical: I'm not sure how often ambulances are stopped, but ambulances have repeatedly been used by Palestinian groups to transport explosive suicide belts and other weapons. You can't expect ambulances to be regarded as neutral and left alone if they are being used to materially aid in killing Israelis.
I want to know the citations of when and where ambulances were found to have suicide belts and other weapons. Again, when and where did this occur? Human Rights watch reported that the idf fired at ambulances and that a 27 year old UNIFORMED nurse was shot and killed as she went to go assist someone who was injured.
Btselem, an israeli organization on the targeting of ambulances:
Over the past two weeks (28 February - 13 March), the intentional attacks on medical teams and the prevention of medical teams from treating the sick and wounded have been almost unprecedented. IDF soldiers have fired at ambulances, killing five Palestinian medical personnel who were on duty, wounded several members of ambulance medical teams, and damaging the ambulances. In addition, the IDF prevented medical treatment to the sick and wounded, even leaving people to bleed to death. Hospitals have been unable to function because of the damage to the electricity, water, and telephone infrastructure, and the blocking of access to some of them. As a result, the hospitals are unable to receive the wounded and sick, or obtain food and medicine.
B'Tselem's new report includes testimonies on these incidents, as well as on the delays in providing medical treatment and evacuating the wounded.
These violations are an integral part of Israeli policy and are accompanied by other grave practices. The matters described in this report are another indication of the IDF's total loss of restraint.
IDF officials have repeatedly claimed that Palestinians are exploiting ambulances to smuggle weapons and armed Palestinians. They have never offered any proof to substantiate these allegations, despite the repeated requests of human rights organizations and others. Given the widespread nature of these claims, it is not surprising that soldiers treat ambulances as a legitimate target and ignore the immunity from attack that they deserve.
Targeting journalists/children for sport: I have never seen anything approaching conclusive evidence that the IDF as a policy does or condones either of these things. I'm not denying (because I simply don't know for sure) that such things have happened in isolated instances, but it's disingenuous to present such actions as if they are the norm, especially in the context of a comparison to the nazis. You give the entirely false impression that the IDF is running around slaughtering journalists and children on a regular basis.
The idf are committing these acts and they are not being punished, so it is being condoned, and it is not isolated. Children are being arrested and tortured by the idf, if it is not policy then how are they being processed through the prison system? Human Rights Watch, has reports on just that. And here is an interesting pic from a jewish web site: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/383-pales ... alone.html
And in UNOCHA's latest weekly report:
5 Palestinian civilians, including a journalist, were wounded.
Dozens of civilians suffered from tear gas inhalation.
IOF conducted 52 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and 3 limited ones into the Gaza Strip.
IOF arrested 32 Palestinians, including 6 children, in the West Bank.
Finkelstein was citing Chris Hedges who wrote in Harper's:
“The boys — most no more than ten or eleven years old — dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. … A percussion grenade explodes. The boys … scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children’s slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos. “Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight …, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve…. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered — death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo — but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”
Indiscriminate torture: the Israeli supreme court has, since the mid-'90s, barred the Israeli security services from using torture against detainees (the case involved stress positions and shaking of prisoners).
I don't think I'm being clever at all with my adjectives. I'm being precise. "Industrial genocide" acurately describes the salient feature of nazi policy that your comparison seeks to evoke. It does not acurately describe Israel's actions, which is why your comparison is substantively wrong. Perhaps there are particular actions that are similar between nazi actions and Israeli actions (both employed armies, both arrest people, both engaged in occupation), but this doesn't make a comparison to the nazis apt, since it is perfectly clear that these sorts of actions are not what immediately jumps to mind when one hears the term "nazi."
Furthermore, Israel is not conducting a slow genocide against the Palestinians either. There is no Israeli policy to systematically murder Palestinians, and, in fact, the Palestinian population (including those living under Israeli rule) is consistently growing, which is hardly evidence of genocide at any pace.
As for "transfer," a quarter of Israel's population is Palestinians, and yet there has never been an effort to forcibly expell them. Furthermore, research into how the Yishuv (pre-state Israeli leadership) was planning for the founding of Israel before the outbreak of the '48 war shows that they expected to assimilate the Palestinians living in Israeli territory, not that they planned to forcibly expell these people (these were internal planning documents, not material for mass consumption). I'm not going to deny that in the actual course of the war that people were forced to leave, but this was not a consistent Israeli policy (as evidenced by the many instances in which this did not happen). In fact it was more likely the result of decisions made by commanders in the field, not by the central government. Moreover, a great number of the refugees (the majority, if I'm not mistaken) were not forced out by Israeli soldiers at all, but left of their own accord, either out of fear or at the behest of the invading Arab armies (a fact conveniently forgotten in Palestinian retellings).
Do you even understand how vile it is to compare Jews to Nazis? I'd ask for an apology, but somehow I don't think I'd get one.
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. That fits the Holocaust, and that fits exactly the crimes that the israeli government are committing/have committed against the Palestinian people. Saree Makdisi, in Palestine Inside Out:
As early as 11 January 1948, Joseph Weitz, the Jewish National Fund executive and tireless advocate of transfer, asked, "is not now the time to be rid of them? Why continue to keep in our midst these thorns at a time when they pose a danger to us?" The next month, he said, " It is possible that now is the time to implement our original plan: to transfer them."
Clearing the way the Palestinian population was one of the central objectives of Plan Dalet, or Plan D, initiated in March 1948...Plan D was executed in April and May, but the final details for it were worked out on the afternoon of 10 March 1948, when, as the historian Ilan Pappe explains, a group of 11 veteran zionist leaders, together with young Jewish military cadres, met in the so-called Red House of Tel Aviv--more than two months before israel's declaration of independence and the halfhearted intervention of the surrounding arab states. "That same evening, military orders were dispatched to the units on the ground to prepare for the systematic expulsion from vast areas of the country," writes Pappe. "The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be employed to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."
Separating a population that largely depended on the land for their very livelihood is tantamount to a death sentence. And the creation of the wall continues that destruction of the people, see again Makdisi, Palestine Inside Out.
The fact that the population is still growing despite the unrelenting oppression and dispossession of it, does not mean that there is not a slow and methodical genocide of it. Were ALL the jews killed in the Holocaust, did they stop having babies and did their families cease to grow? If israel could get away with it, they would in no doubt speed up the process, as they did in 2009 in Gaza. But the international outcry was and could be a bit too loud for the israeli propaganda machine to handle, so their genocidal method is what Edward Said called a drop by drop method, slow enough to go unnoticed by most, but unfortunately for israel, not all. Israel's actions since the first colonists arrived is not for a thriving and living Palestine, it is just the opposite. Your scholarship is blatantly false and/or lazy.
As for the apology, Finkelstein, who also had relatives suffer and die in the Holocaust, stated to the girl in the video, and my response to you: "I refuse any longer to be intimidated or browbeaten by the tears, if you had any heart in you, you would be crying for the Palestinians."
Comments
Just because I recognize the legitimacy of Israeli claims, doesn't mean I ignore the legitimacy of Palestinian claims.
Don't feed the trolls.
taken as an individual situation the continued oppression of the palestinians is still exactly that... oppression. the coralling of the palestinian people is apartheid.. whether or not is is 'as bad' as south african apartheid is irrelevant... it is still the separation of two peoples based in this case, on religion and ethnicity...its segregating the 2 peoples and the policy is discriminatory. if thats not apartheid, what would you call it yosi? does the jewish homeland have room for the non jewish? and if so will the rights of the non jewish be equivalent? help me understand.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
ooops.. i was drinking last night.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Regarding Amos Oz, i'm familiar with his thoughts on the conflict. I disagree with his stance that the two-state solution remains achievable, and oppose his preferred preconditions for peace but i did come to appreciate him more after his honest assessment when he spoke out regarding the significant loss of Palestinian lives resulting from Operation Cast Lead.
"I'm not sure. Israelis were genuinely infuriated, as was I, about the harassment and bombardment and rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages for years and years by Hamas from Gaza. And the public mood was 'Let's teach them a lesson'. Trouble is, this so-called lesson" - which Oz supported - "went completely out of proportion. There is no comparison between the suffering and devastation and death that Gaza inflicted on Israel for eight years, and the suffering, devastation and death Israel inflicted on Gaza in 20 days. No proportion at all." He is appalled by the numbers - "300 dead children. Hundreds of innocent civilians. Thousands of homes demolished" - and while he would like to think that bombing UN structures was accidental, he is also appalled by reports that white phosphorus may have been used, and Dime bombs: "There is no justification. No way this could be justified. If this is true, it's a war crime and it should be treated as a war crime."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/ ... -interview
Cate, I'd call it what it is; the occupation. That doesn't diminish how terrible it is. It just recognizes that the situation between Israel and the Palestinians is not equivalent to that of Apartheid. For one thing, there is room in the Jewish homeland for non-Jews. 20% of Israel's citizens are Palestinian Arabs. While I don't claim that there is not discrimination against these citizens, they are certainly not living under a system of Apartheid. They can vote, and they regularly elect representatives to the Israeli parlaiment. Israeli Arabs serve on the Israeli Supreme Court, and in theory have equal rights (in practice this is not always the case, but again, imperfect democracy is far from Apartheid). The situation in the occupied territories is altogether different, but I think the salient point is that the conflict driving the occupation is between two competing nationalisms. It is not a conflict motivated by racism, as Apartheid was.
Criticism of the occupation is entirely fair, but it should be aimed at the reality of the situation. Equating the Occupation to Apartheid muddies the waters and distorts the reality of the situation. It creates the impression that the core of the conflict is about racism, when in fact the core of the conflict is about competing nationalisms and borders.
yes i know youre right. i know there are arab israelis and yes i know they can vote and yes i know they elect representatives to the knesset.
when the wall comes down and the occupied territories no longer exist then ill stop calling it apartheid.. by definition that is what im seeing. just because it doesnt look like sth african apartheid doesnt mean it isnt.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
In this case the analogy to Apartheid, I think, leads people toward the idea of a binational state. The thinking is that if it worked in South Africa then it should work in Israel as well. The problem is that the conflict is essentially a conflict of nationalisms. Both Israelis and Palestinians want national self-determination, and by definition therefore can't both achieve their aims within the same state. Trying to force them together, as I see it, is a recipe for continued conflict. The solution is two states for two peoples, but if you're enthralled with the false comparison to Apartheid you don't get there.
What is tragic is that, our grandfathers, grandmothers, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, have to hand over their papers (all those holocaust/nazi movies ring throughout the mind with the ss shouting "papers," thank you hollywood) to the teenager from Ethiopia/Russia/Brooklyn/etc. they just handed an m16 to, just to move from one city to another on the land that they have lived on for generations or to just visit the land that they were born on and see the house that their family owned, sold times over to Polish/German/whatever immigrants who believed they had a right to take the history, lives, future, and identity of another people because they were born jewish. The old testament is not a real estate document. There should not be a Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, whatever homeland. It didn't work for hitler and its not working for israel. I have heard of Amos Oz and I don't buy into liberal zionism, in his books, Palestinians are compared to animals and are rapists, but he is a liberal zionist so that means he is willing to go so far as to give back 22 percent of the land to the "savages" of what is historical Palestine.
And on Apartheid, I will defer to Desmond Tutu who experienced the worst of South Africa's Apartheid, a country which during its worst crimes israel saw no objection in selling nuclear arms to:
"I experienced a déjà vu when I encountered a security checkpoint that Palestinians must negotiate every day and be demeaned, all their lives," Tutu said.
Tutu said that Palestinian homes are being bulldozed, and new, illegal homes for Israeli's built in their place.
"When I hear, 'that used to be my home,' it is painfully similar to the treatment in South Africa when coloureds had no rights," Tutu said.
Here's the definition of Apartheid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
Article II
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:
Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
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;
By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
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;
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;
Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
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.[20] 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."[21] Based on these findings, Richard Falk, the successor of John Dugard as UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine has detailed some of the indicators of apartheid in the occupied territories [22]:
preferential citizenship, visitation and residence laws and practices that prevent Palestinians who reside in the West Bank or Gaza from reclaiming their property or from acquiring Israeli citizenship, as contrasted to a Jewish right of return that entitles Jews anywhere in the world with no prior tie to Israel to visit, reside and become Israeli citizens;
differential laws in the West Bank and East Jerusalem favouring Jewish settlers who are subject to Israeli civilian law and constitutional protection, as opposed to Palestinian residents, who are governed by military administration;
dual and discriminatory arrangements for movement in the West Bank and to and from Jerusalem; discriminatory policies on land ownership, tenure and use; extensive burdening of Palestinian movement, including checkpoints applying differential limitations on Palestinians and on Israeli settlers, and onerous permit and identification requirements imposed only on Palestinians;
punitive house demolitions, expulsions and restrictions on entry and exit from all three parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Special Rapporteur concludes that this "general structure of apartheid that exists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories ... makes the allegation increasingly credible despite the differences between the specific characteristics of South African apartheid and that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories regime".
From 'Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the Palestinians' - By Illan Pappe & Noam Chomsky
P.147
"Is the situation in Palestine and Israel comparable to Apartheid South Africa?"
Chomsky: There are similarities and dissimilarities. Within Israel itself, there is serious discrimination, but it's very far from South African Apartheid. Within the occupied territories, it's a different story. In 1997, I gave the keynote address at Ben-Gurion University for a conference on the anniversary of the 1967 war. I read a paragraph from a standard history of South Africa. No comment was necessary.
Looking more closely, the situation in the OPT differs in many ways from Apartheid. In some respects, South African apartheid was more vicious than Israeli practices, and in some respects the opposite is true. To mention one example, White South Africa depended on Black labour. The large majority of the population could not be expelled. At one time Israel relied on cheap and easily exploited Palestinian labourers, but they have long ago been replaced by the miserable of the Earth from Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. Israeli's would mostly breathe a sigh of relief of Palestinians were to disappear. And it is no secret that the policies that have taken shape accord well with the recommendations of Moshe Dayan right after the 1967 war: Palestinians will "continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes, may leave". More extreme recommendations have been made by highly regarded left humanists in the United States. For example, Michael Walzer of the Institute For Advanced Studies in Princeton and editor of the democratic socialist journal 'Dissent', advised thirty-five years ago that since Palestinians are "marginal to the nation," they should be "helped" to leave. He was referring to Palestinian citizens of Israel itself, a position made familiar more recently by the ultra-right Avigdor Liberman, and now being picked up in the Israeli mainstream. I put aside the real fanatics, like Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who declares that Israel never kills civilians, only terrorists, so that the definition of "terrorist" is "killed by Israel"; and Israel should aim for a kill ration of 1,000 to 0, which means "exterminate the brutes" completely. It is of no small significance that advocates of these views are regarded with respect in enlightened circles in the United States, indeed the West. One can imagine the reaction if such comments were made about Jews. On the query, to repeat, there can be no clear answer as to whether the analogy is appropriate.
i didnt admit anything... what i said was ... just cause it doesnt look like STH AFRICAN apartheid, doesnt mean it isnt.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Viva, I don't expect to convince you. Clearly you're response to the situation is deeply personal. I will say that I think your depiction of Amos Oz is uninformed and deeply unfair and quite frankly entirely off base. I'll also say, as an ardent Zionist, supporter of Israel, and believer in a two state solution that I think I've come a long way in recognizing the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and that doing so has helped me get past a view of the conflict that is driven by anger and self-righteousnous and to try to approach the conflict from a pragmatic perspective with a view for how to achieve the best outcome for both peoples given the realities on the ground. I simply hope that eventually you can try to give Israeli claims the same respect that you want for those of the Palestinians. The two peoples are going to have to live together, and learning to understand each other will be key. Holding onto acrimonious history isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
well this is what im not getting from your argument yosi... youre saying the difference is the israel/palestinian situation ISNT apartheid because the conflict is not racially based. i fail to see how race is THE single indicator of what is and is not apartheid. when was that rule decided upon??
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Look, criticize the Occupation all you want. All I'm saying is criticize it based on what it actually is, not by standing up a totemic straw man from 30 years ago.
I am off base on Oz...I can give you page numbers and titles of where he refers to Palestinians in the most despicable way. A zionist and supporter of a war mongering apartheid state, you should be so proud and how did you come to that belief? Nothing personal? Or is it just a simple belief in Jewish supremacy? A denial of the right that is afforded to every human being on the planet, to return to their homeland? (To paraphrase Makdisi:) So there is the right wing zionist, like Russian immigrant Avigodor Lieberman who wants the indigenous population totally removed, heil Avi (that's mine). But in your magnanimous thought (Palestinians have a right to be there, but you and other zionists get to decide on exactly where that is, no self righteousness in that, is there?) you have steered away from the right into left wing zionism, where the belief is in a two state solution, which Tzipi Livni summed up as: "Once a Palestinian state is established, I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them "you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere." Hanging onto acrimonious history ? Is that a joke? Well I will just leave that to the jews. Because jews must never forget, while the Palestinians must not be allowed to remember.
Oz is a novelist. I'd love to see the actual citations that you believe support your perception of him, but if they come from his novels I'd be very skeptical. You can't take fiction as a reliable barometer of a writer's true feelings. From my own reading of Oz's non-fiction writing on the conflict I don't think your depiction of him is fair.
I don't believe that Jews are superior to anyone. I do believe that Jews should have the same rights as every other national group. The same is true of the Palestinians. I see the conflict as being between two nations each of which have legitimate claims which in significant respects are mutually exclusive. That being the case neither side will get all of what they want. That is simply the reality.
I don't think Israel has a right to tell the Palestinians where to establish their state. I do think that Israelis have the right not to subordinate their own collective rights and interests to those of the Palestinians. I recognize that in practice this means that Palestinians will not be able to realize all of their individual and national goals (including those that may derive from legitimate rights), but that is the nature of a conflict between right and right. Both can't win.
I know the history. Israel's Arab neighbors (including the Palestinians) do not exactly have clean hands, and there is plenty for Israel to feel acrimonious about as well. Harping on that history, and allowing it to cloud one's thinking may satisfy an emotional need (I've been there), but it's not constructive when it comes to actually trying to build bridges and find equitable solutions.
Excuse me, do not go there with me. I have in no way been uncivil. The only thing that would be uncivil is NOT to challenge the belief system that has started and perpetuated an ongoing war on a nation of people. That Zionism is racism and has lifted from nazi playbooks is not something new that has been invented by me to insult you or any other supporter of Israel. On population transfer, Jabotisnky, Zionist leader loved by Netanyahu, stated “The world has been accustomed to mass migrations and has almost become fond of them. Hitler-as odious as he is to us-has given this idea a good name in the world.” Transfer was and is at the heart of the Zionist movement. Demographic engineering was a concept utilized by the Nazis and is used by Israel today. One example, if a Palestinian citizen of Israel marries someone in the West Bank, they are both not allowed to live there (However this law is not applied to jewish citizens of israel, another example of Apartheid) You have admitted yourself in a belief in a Jewish homeland, the indigenous population has not been fully forced out, but through transfer and laws like the marriage law, which secure and favor one type of people over another, the jewish homeland can be achieved. But that is injust, racist and very reminiscent of hitler’s germany, what was he trying to do but create a homeland for one race/religion over the other? I didn’t make the rules or redefine racism, it is right there to see for those who want to see it.
If there is room in Israel for a million russian/german/american/etc. jewish immigrants, then there is room for those Palestinians who have a legitimate right to return.
And your last paragraph must be a continuation of the joke. As the mother of Norman Finkelstein, a concentration camp survivor said “what did the Palestinians do but be born in Palestine?” Netanyahu at the aipac conference pulled out two documents from world war II. But he is jewish, so his documents count, his history matters. The Palestinians, who on a daily basis are being imprisoned, killed, their land confiscated, homes demolished, still being persecuted (all “emotional needs” I am sure) their documents don’t count, their history should be forgotten. I would like to stand up in front of the same group with my documents, what the reaction would be?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 3769.story
This is pretty well off topic, but the other day I was trying to think of a book I read about 20 years ago about a Jewish fella in Prague during the Nazi era. The book's called 'Life With a Star' by Jiří Weil. You read it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Weil
Quite frankly I find your comparisons of Israel and Jews to Nazis disgusting and morally disturbing. Its the equivalent of telling a black man that his is the equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. I don't care if you disagree with my positions, but I'd thank you not to express yourself in a manner that is so utterly vulger and hateful.
Why should she have to show you evidence of industrial genocide for you to acknowledge that there are parallels between Nazism and Zionism?
bingo!
i never understood the right of someone to return to a land theyve never known simply because they are of a particular religious persuasion. just seems like more religious bullshit to me. and an excuse to deny the rights of others with more legitimate claims to living there.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
how about we look at the hussein regime to an extent and al majids ordering of rural kurds out of the homes they occupied for centuries, into collective centres where the state would be able to better monitor them and the general attitude towards the kurds both from within and without iraq as perhaps a more apt analogy, rather than the actions of nazi germany.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Transfer has been part of the zionist vision from the beginning, Jabotinsky refers to Hitler, "as odious as he is to us..." he was using Hitler as a precedent for transfer. Zionism in any form means the establishment of Jewish state on the land of Palestine, a jewish majority only happened through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine...the Palestinians were forced out and not allowed to return to their homes. A Jewish majority can only remain through a transfer, ie, two state solution or Apartheid. Finkelstein p. 23. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict... "To repress Palestinian resistance, a senior Israeli officer in early 2002 urged the army to 'analyze and internalize the lessons of... how the German Army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.'" Finkelstein continues on...."the targeting of Palestinian ambulances, and medical personnel, the targeting of journalists, the killing of Palestinian children for sport (Chirs Hedges, NY Times), the rounding up, handcuffing, and blindfolding of Palestinian males between ages of 15 and 50, and affixing numbers on their wrists, the indscriminate torture of Palestinian detainees....he goes on and on. But you know this, all zionists know what is being done in their name on an daily basis, UN OCHA puts out a weekly report on the OPT. Industrial genocide? You are clever with your adjectives aren't you. A genocide that is slow and methodical is just as tragic as one that is "industrial." You can feign being insulted all you want...Norman Finkelstein on crocodile tears.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7tupJRSi7M
I happened to have been in Israel in 2002. That quote you use is presented entirely out of context, but in point of fact the most famous instance of the IDF entering a Palestinian city from that year (Jenin) is evidence of how Israel avoided using the type of tactics employed by the nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto. Despite concerted attempts to portray what happened in Jenin as a massacre, investigations have conclusively shown that 54 Palestinians were killed there, almost all of them armed militants, against 23 Israeli soldiers. That many Israelis were killed because the IDF, in an effort to limit civilian casualties, sent in the infantry to go house to house in search of militants rather than using aircraft and artillary to simply flatten the place entirely (which is what the nazis did in Warsaw).
Targeting Palestinian ambulances and medical: I'm not sure how often ambulances are stopped, but ambulances have repeatedly been used by Palestinian groups to transport explosive suicide belts and other weapons. You can't expect ambulances to be regarded as neutral and left alone if they are being used to materially aid in killing Israelis.
Targeting journalists/children for sport: I have never seen anything approaching conclusive evidence that the IDF as a policy does or condones either of these things. I'm not denying (because I simply don't know for sure) that such things have happened in isolated instances, but it's disingenuous to present such actions as if they are the norm, especially in the context of a comparison to the nazis. You give the entirely false impression that the IDF is running around slaughtering journalists and children on a regular basis.
Indiscriminate torture: the Israeli supreme court has, since the mid-'90s, barred the Israeli security services from using torture against detainees (the case involved stress positions and shaking of prisoners).
I don't think I'm being clever at all with my adjectives. I'm being precise. "Industrial genocide" acurately describes the salient feature of nazi policy that your comparison seeks to evoke. It does not acurately describe Israel's actions, which is why your comparison is substantively wrong. Perhaps there are particular actions that are similar between nazi actions and Israeli actions (both employed armies, both arrest people, both engaged in occupation), but this doesn't make a comparison to the nazis apt, since it is perfectly clear that these sorts of actions are not what immediately jumps to mind when one hears the term "nazi."
Furthermore, Israel is not conducting a slow genocide against the Palestinians either. There is no Israeli policy to systematically murder Palestinians, and, in fact, the Palestinian population (including those living under Israeli rule) is consistently growing, which is hardly evidence of genocide at any pace.
As for "transfer," a quarter of Israel's population is Palestinians, and yet there has never been an effort to forcibly expell them. Furthermore, research into how the Yishuv (pre-state Israeli leadership) was planning for the founding of Israel before the outbreak of the '48 war shows that they expected to assimilate the Palestinians living in Israeli territory, not that they planned to forcibly expell these people (these were internal planning documents, not material for mass consumption). I'm not going to deny that in the actual course of the war that people were forced to leave, but this was not a consistent Israeli policy (as evidenced by the many instances in which this did not happen). In fact it was more likely the result of decisions made by commanders in the field, not by the central government. Moreover, a great number of the refugees (the majority, if I'm not mistaken) were not forced out by Israeli soldiers at all, but left of their own accord, either out of fear or at the behest of the invading Arab armies (a fact conveniently forgotten in Palestinian retellings).
Do you even understand how vile it is to compare Jews to Nazis? I'd ask for an apology, but somehow I don't think I'd get one.
You are not unlike the girl in the video, you want to be insulted, as someone who has had family members suffer the Holocaust, then you should be just as repulsed by what the Israeli government is doing right now, what it does everyday in the OPT. Is that is all that happens in the OPT, "is rounding up individuals and assigning them numbers," (and every prison on earth operates by affixing numbers to the wrists? And if they did, does that give the sons and gransdson of Holocaust survivors allowance to do the same thing?) Palestinians ARE being tortured and killed...being stripped to your underwear or being made to wait in amubance at a checkpoint and being told to rerouted and having your relative or loved one die right before you, having settlers throw garbage and crap at you, harass you and call you a whore and a slut as you walk along a street in your city, and the many other brutalizations is NOT being robbed of all human diginity? The jews don't have a monoply on suffering, the tragedy is that they are causing the same suffering that has been imposed on them.
No, the quote was taken as exactly as it is from Finkelstein. What context do you have, who are you citing? You were there in Jenin during when the city was closed off and the army rolled in? Did you go inside yourself and count the "militants?" What is your citation? That the idf wasn't as brutal, but killed "only 54" and that they didn't flatten out the city, like they did with Gaza, should be brought to our attention? The commission appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2002 to investigate the indiscriminate destruction of civilian areas in the Israeli assault on Jenin refugee camp that spring (the actions of which a separate investigation, by Amnesty International, found amounted “to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and are war crimes”); and which Human Rights Watch reported that Palestinians were used as human shields (not being robbed of any human diginity there, are they?) Awww shucks those idf, human shileds and killing of Palestinians ONLY in the double digits, such pacifists. Ilan Pappe, israeli historian, son of German Jewish Immigrants, who wrote The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine stated: "I remember the sergeant major telling us that we should kill Arabs young or they'll grow up to kill us," he says. "And that attitude is widespread. That's why tank drivers, F16 pilots or artillery commanders will kill civilians without hesitation. They've been taught to dehumanise them [Palestinians] all their lives."
I want to know the citations of when and where ambulances were found to have suicide belts and other weapons. Again, when and where did this occur? Human Rights watch reported that the idf fired at ambulances and that a 27 year old UNIFORMED nurse was shot and killed as she went to go assist someone who was injured.
Btselem, an israeli organization on the targeting of ambulances:
Over the past two weeks (28 February - 13 March), the intentional attacks on medical teams and the prevention of medical teams from treating the sick and wounded have been almost unprecedented. IDF soldiers have fired at ambulances, killing five Palestinian medical personnel who were on duty, wounded several members of ambulance medical teams, and damaging the ambulances. In addition, the IDF prevented medical treatment to the sick and wounded, even leaving people to bleed to death. Hospitals have been unable to function because of the damage to the electricity, water, and telephone infrastructure, and the blocking of access to some of them. As a result, the hospitals are unable to receive the wounded and sick, or obtain food and medicine.
B'Tselem's new report includes testimonies on these incidents, as well as on the delays in providing medical treatment and evacuating the wounded.
These violations are an integral part of Israeli policy and are accompanied by other grave practices. The matters described in this report are another indication of the IDF's total loss of restraint.
IDF officials have repeatedly claimed that Palestinians are exploiting ambulances to smuggle weapons and armed Palestinians. They have never offered any proof to substantiate these allegations, despite the repeated requests of human rights organizations and others. Given the widespread nature of these claims, it is not surprising that soldiers treat ambulances as a legitimate target and ignore the immunity from attack that they deserve.
The idf are committing these acts and they are not being punished, so it is being condoned, and it is not isolated. Children are being arrested and tortured by the idf, if it is not policy then how are they being processed through the prison system? Human Rights Watch, has reports on just that. And here is an interesting pic from a jewish web site: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/383-pales ... alone.html
And in UNOCHA's latest weekly report:
5 Palestinian civilians, including a journalist, were wounded.
Dozens of civilians suffered from tear gas inhalation.
IOF conducted 52 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and 3 limited ones into the Gaza Strip.
IOF arrested 32 Palestinians, including 6 children, in the West Bank.
Finkelstein was citing Chris Hedges who wrote in Harper's:
“The boys — most no more than ten or eleven years old — dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. … A percussion grenade explodes. The boys … scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children’s slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos. “Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight …, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve…. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered — death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo — but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”
(cont'd)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... alestinian
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/01/ ... o-another/
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. That fits the Holocaust, and that fits exactly the crimes that the israeli government are committing/have committed against the Palestinian people. Saree Makdisi, in Palestine Inside Out:
As early as 11 January 1948, Joseph Weitz, the Jewish National Fund executive and tireless advocate of transfer, asked, "is not now the time to be rid of them? Why continue to keep in our midst these thorns at a time when they pose a danger to us?" The next month, he said, " It is possible that now is the time to implement our original plan: to transfer them."
Clearing the way the Palestinian population was one of the central objectives of Plan Dalet, or Plan D, initiated in March 1948...Plan D was executed in April and May, but the final details for it were worked out on the afternoon of 10 March 1948, when, as the historian Ilan Pappe explains, a group of 11 veteran zionist leaders, together with young Jewish military cadres, met in the so-called Red House of Tel Aviv--more than two months before israel's declaration of independence and the halfhearted intervention of the surrounding arab states. "That same evening, military orders were dispatched to the units on the ground to prepare for the systematic expulsion from vast areas of the country," writes Pappe. "The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be employed to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."
Separating a population that largely depended on the land for their very livelihood is tantamount to a death sentence. And the creation of the wall continues that destruction of the people, see again Makdisi, Palestine Inside Out.
The fact that the population is still growing despite the unrelenting oppression and dispossession of it, does not mean that there is not a slow and methodical genocide of it. Were ALL the jews killed in the Holocaust, did they stop having babies and did their families cease to grow? If israel could get away with it, they would in no doubt speed up the process, as they did in 2009 in Gaza. But the international outcry was and could be a bit too loud for the israeli propaganda machine to handle, so their genocidal method is what Edward Said called a drop by drop method, slow enough to go unnoticed by most, but unfortunately for israel, not all. Israel's actions since the first colonists arrived is not for a thriving and living Palestine, it is just the opposite. Your scholarship is blatantly false and/or lazy.
As for the apology, Finkelstein, who also had relatives suffer and die in the Holocaust, stated to the girl in the video, and my response to you: "I refuse any longer to be intimidated or browbeaten by the tears, if you had any heart in you, you would be crying for the Palestinians."
thanks for posting VP. you make some pretty compelling points with your posts.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."