Israeli Apartheid
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
Interesting article this. If the World now puts the same kind of pressure on Israel as they put on Apartheid South Africa, then we may see some actual changes take place.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... -apartheid
Palestinians draw parallels with Mandela's anti-apartheid struggle
Mahmoud Abbas says Mandela was 'symbol of liberation from colonialism and occupation for all peoples'
Harriet Sherwood in Ramallah
theguardian.com, Thursday 12 December 2013
The death of Nelson Mandela has given fresh impetus to Palestinian efforts to portray the Israeli occupation as a form of apartheid that should be confronted with a similar international campaign that took on South Africa's white regime.
Mandela's message of solidarity from a 1997 speech in which he said "our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians", has been repeatedly invoked across Palestine in the past week.
Demonstrators carried posters of Mandela who also strongly criticised Israel's close ties to the apartheid government, at regular weekly protests against Jewish settlements and the vast concrete and steel separation barrier in the West Bank on Friday. Israeli troops fired teargas, rubber-coated bullets and water cannon to disperse protesters, injuring dozens.
Congregations lit candles to honour Mandela's life at packed services and masses at churches across the West Bank on Sunday. At the Holy Family Church in Ramallah, Father Raed Abusahlia's sermon included many references to biblical figures, with unmistakeable parallels to the man who led the struggle for justice in South Africa.
The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas said Mandela's death was "a great loss to Palestine". He was, he added, "a symbol of liberation from colonialism and occupation for all peoples".
Khaled Meshaal, the political leader of Hamas, said Mandela was an inspiration "for nations suffering injustice and resisting occupiers".
Marwan Barghouti, a Palestinian leader serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail who is sometimes described as a potential "Palestinian Mandela", wrote an open letter to the late South African leader: "From within my prison cell, I tell you that our freedom seems possible because you reached yours. Apartheid did not prevail in South Africa, and apartheid shall not prevail in Palestine.... The ties between our struggles are everlasting."
On Wednesday, 12 Palestinian human rights groups published a statement commemorating Mandela, saying "the success of the South African struggle against apartheid... provides us with faith that we, the Palestinian people, will also succeed in our struggle against the Israeli occupation and its practices of apartheid and colonialism."
Israel is struggling to counter a widening global campaign likening its treatment of the Palestinians to apartheid – an assertion that for many years was regarded as a marginal view but which has gained currency because of the failure to establish a Palestinian state. Comparisons between the former regime in South Africa and the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories have become relatively commonplace – not just by Palestinians and their supporters, but also among Israelis and the international community.
When Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid appeared in 2006, the former US president was accused of anti-semitism for saying Israel operated a "system of apartheid" in the Palestinian territories. The same year, a Guardian article which made a detailed comparison between contemporary Israel with apartheid-era South Africa was greeted with outrage in some quarters.
But, since then, warnings of an Israeli form of apartheid have been made by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, former intelligence chiefs Ami Ayalon and Yuval Diskin, as well as other public figures in Israel, academics, analysts, UN investigators and human rights groups.
In a 2007 report, John Dugard, then a UN special rapporteur and a former South African professor of international law, said: "Israel's laws and practices certainly resemble aspects of apartheid."
"The 'A-word' used to be taboo, but this has changed as the situation has changed," said Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa. "The situation that has developed in the West Bank over four and a half decades is a kind of apartheid. If you compare the suffering of black people in South Africa under 40 years of apartheid, and the suffering of the Palestinians under 46 years of occupation, I don't know who suffered more."
He said the apartheid comparison was only valid in the West Bank, where Palestinians and Israeli settlers are subject to separate legal systems and have different access to land, water, natural resources and freedom of movement.
But Shawan Jabarin, director of the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq, said Palestinians on both sides of the pre-1967 Green Line were living under a regime of apartheid, defined as "a systematic, institutionalised policy of discrimination against ethnic groups for the benefit of other ethnic groups".
He cited current efforts by the Israeli government to forcibly move thousands of Bedouin Arabs off their ancestral land in the Negev desert into state-designated towns as an example of apartheid policy. "What we have is occupation, apartheid and colonialism at the same time. It's not a copy of South African apartheid, it's more complex – and it's worse."
The international community should impose sanctions on Israel to put pressure on the state to change course, Jabarin added. Supporters of the Palestinian cause say the campaign for boycott, sanctions and divestment against Israel is gaining traction.
Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, said the claim that Israel was operating an apartheid-type regime was "a libel that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny". He added: "This is the Palestinians' marketing strategy to the international community. They are trying to artificially shroud themselves in Mandela's aura. It's a way of avoiding making necessary concessions."
Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation's executive committee, who knew Mandela well, said he had "internalised the Palestinian issue, it was his issue, it wasn't just a question of solidarity. It is a question of self-determination, freedom, human dignity, human rights, persistence. These are the things the two struggles have in common."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... -apartheid
Palestinians draw parallels with Mandela's anti-apartheid struggle
Mahmoud Abbas says Mandela was 'symbol of liberation from colonialism and occupation for all peoples'
Harriet Sherwood in Ramallah
theguardian.com, Thursday 12 December 2013
The death of Nelson Mandela has given fresh impetus to Palestinian efforts to portray the Israeli occupation as a form of apartheid that should be confronted with a similar international campaign that took on South Africa's white regime.
Mandela's message of solidarity from a 1997 speech in which he said "our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians", has been repeatedly invoked across Palestine in the past week.
Demonstrators carried posters of Mandela who also strongly criticised Israel's close ties to the apartheid government, at regular weekly protests against Jewish settlements and the vast concrete and steel separation barrier in the West Bank on Friday. Israeli troops fired teargas, rubber-coated bullets and water cannon to disperse protesters, injuring dozens.
Congregations lit candles to honour Mandela's life at packed services and masses at churches across the West Bank on Sunday. At the Holy Family Church in Ramallah, Father Raed Abusahlia's sermon included many references to biblical figures, with unmistakeable parallels to the man who led the struggle for justice in South Africa.
The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas said Mandela's death was "a great loss to Palestine". He was, he added, "a symbol of liberation from colonialism and occupation for all peoples".
Khaled Meshaal, the political leader of Hamas, said Mandela was an inspiration "for nations suffering injustice and resisting occupiers".
Marwan Barghouti, a Palestinian leader serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail who is sometimes described as a potential "Palestinian Mandela", wrote an open letter to the late South African leader: "From within my prison cell, I tell you that our freedom seems possible because you reached yours. Apartheid did not prevail in South Africa, and apartheid shall not prevail in Palestine.... The ties between our struggles are everlasting."
On Wednesday, 12 Palestinian human rights groups published a statement commemorating Mandela, saying "the success of the South African struggle against apartheid... provides us with faith that we, the Palestinian people, will also succeed in our struggle against the Israeli occupation and its practices of apartheid and colonialism."
Israel is struggling to counter a widening global campaign likening its treatment of the Palestinians to apartheid – an assertion that for many years was regarded as a marginal view but which has gained currency because of the failure to establish a Palestinian state. Comparisons between the former regime in South Africa and the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories have become relatively commonplace – not just by Palestinians and their supporters, but also among Israelis and the international community.
When Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid appeared in 2006, the former US president was accused of anti-semitism for saying Israel operated a "system of apartheid" in the Palestinian territories. The same year, a Guardian article which made a detailed comparison between contemporary Israel with apartheid-era South Africa was greeted with outrage in some quarters.
But, since then, warnings of an Israeli form of apartheid have been made by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, former intelligence chiefs Ami Ayalon and Yuval Diskin, as well as other public figures in Israel, academics, analysts, UN investigators and human rights groups.
In a 2007 report, John Dugard, then a UN special rapporteur and a former South African professor of international law, said: "Israel's laws and practices certainly resemble aspects of apartheid."
"The 'A-word' used to be taboo, but this has changed as the situation has changed," said Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa. "The situation that has developed in the West Bank over four and a half decades is a kind of apartheid. If you compare the suffering of black people in South Africa under 40 years of apartheid, and the suffering of the Palestinians under 46 years of occupation, I don't know who suffered more."
He said the apartheid comparison was only valid in the West Bank, where Palestinians and Israeli settlers are subject to separate legal systems and have different access to land, water, natural resources and freedom of movement.
But Shawan Jabarin, director of the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq, said Palestinians on both sides of the pre-1967 Green Line were living under a regime of apartheid, defined as "a systematic, institutionalised policy of discrimination against ethnic groups for the benefit of other ethnic groups".
He cited current efforts by the Israeli government to forcibly move thousands of Bedouin Arabs off their ancestral land in the Negev desert into state-designated towns as an example of apartheid policy. "What we have is occupation, apartheid and colonialism at the same time. It's not a copy of South African apartheid, it's more complex – and it's worse."
The international community should impose sanctions on Israel to put pressure on the state to change course, Jabarin added. Supporters of the Palestinian cause say the campaign for boycott, sanctions and divestment against Israel is gaining traction.
Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, said the claim that Israel was operating an apartheid-type regime was "a libel that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny". He added: "This is the Palestinians' marketing strategy to the international community. They are trying to artificially shroud themselves in Mandela's aura. It's a way of avoiding making necessary concessions."
Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation's executive committee, who knew Mandela well, said he had "internalised the Palestinian issue, it was his issue, it wasn't just a question of solidarity. It is a question of self-determination, freedom, human dignity, human rights, persistence. These are the things the two struggles have in common."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
now is the time for the israeli government to be called out for its treatment of the palestinians. now is the time for the americans to condemn israel instead of propping it up at the un.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/f ... ica.israel
Chris McGreal
The Guardian, Monday 6 February 2006
Israelis have always been horrified at the idea of parallels between their country, a democracy risen from the ashes of genocide, and the racist system that ruled the old South Africa. Yet even within Israel itself, accusations persist that the web of controls affecting every aspect of Palestinian life bears a disturbing resemblance to apartheid. After four years reporting from Jerusalem and more than a decade from Johannesburg before that, the Guardian's award-winning Middle East correspondent Chris McGreal is exceptionally well placed to assess this explosive comparison. Here we publish the first part of his two-day special report...
A really poor effort here.
I don't like racists. Are you racist? Do you support the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?
And not all Jews support Israel's illegal occupation. In fact many are actively opposed to it. So you know where you can stick your lame accusation.
Ever been to Palestine? Byrnzie is NO ANTI-SEMITE or Jew hater.
By the way, here's a simple solution for ya: If you don't like what I post, then don't read it. Feel free to put me on ignore. Nobody forced you to click on this thread and read it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Israel Apartheid Week was pretty much ignored locally this year -- until Shaarey Zedek synagogue rebuked University of Manitoba president David Barnard for not banning the event from campus.
The synagogue took the unprecedented step of revoking its invitation to have Barnard speak at a solemn interfaith Holocaust remembrance service last Sunday.
But the synagogue welcomed a senior administrator from the University of Winnipeg to speak Sunday, even though Israel Apartheid Week events took place at the U of W this winter just as they have for many years.
Barnard said he will not grant interviews until he has met with the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg, but issued a statement Wednesday in which he said his personal views about IAW notwithstanding, the university had legal advice that banning the events could violate human rights legislation.
Cancelling Barnard's invitation was a private action that was not supposed to be made public, Shaarey Zedek executive director Ian Staniloff said Wednesday.
Staniloff said the U of M Students Union rejected allowing the annual event to be held on space it controls, but Barnard made a decision to allow IAW events to go ahead elsewhere on campus.
"We felt it would be inappropriate for him to be one of our readers at such a solemn event," Staniloff said. "We're really standing up for something we strongly believe in."
Shaarey Zedek subsequently invited UMSU president Al Turnbull to replace Barnard as a reader last Sunday, Staniloff said.
Among the speakers who did appear at the Holocaust remembrance service was Jennifer Rattray, the U of W's associate vice-president for indigenous, government and community affairs.
Staniloff said the U of W had banned IAW events from its campus, but university officials confirmed Wednesday not only is there no ban at the U of W, but Students Against Israeli Apartheid has held at least one event on campus this year.
In a statement, Barnard said Wednesday the U of M had no choice but to allow IAW events to take place on his campus.
The Canada-Palestine Support Network held the events at the U of M.
"I am deeply saddened by the insinuations made about me personally and more importantly about the institution I lead," Barnard said in his statement.
"The decisions made in regard to the IAW activities were independent of any personal views concerning CPSN and its stance. The University of Manitoba enjoys a meaningful and respectful friendship with the Jewish community. This relationship has been built over many years and informs the fabric of our institution."
Barnard emphasized that at no point did the U of M overturn an UMSU decision, nor did it invite the CPSN onto campus. That group asked to rent space, and because it complied with both the law and with university policies, the U of M had no choice.
"In response to concerns raised, the University of Manitoba sought and received legal advice to the effect that not allowing the group to rent space on campus could be a violation of the Manitoba Human Rights Code, therefore putting the university at risk of violating that code," Barnard's statement said.
"The University of Manitoba ensured there were security measures in place and all IAW activities were monitored by the Office of Fair Practice and Legal Affairs and the Office of Risk Management. There were no reported incidents."
The Jewish Federation of Winnipeg issued a statement late Wednesday in which it said the U of M's actions were unfortunate and the federation advised against them. Nevertheless, there is a long and mutually beneficial relationship with both the U of M and with Barnard, and they will meet soon to discuss issues that "could further expand ties between the university and Jewish institutions."
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no shit sherlock. glad you finally said SOMETHING that resembles the truth.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
(first time I'm hearing about this)
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Capitol Hill, predictably, lost their collective shit, and he backpedalled. It's still symbolically historic.....For the uninformed and those who still trust government officials, it brings some legitimacy to the claim....it is a blow to apartheid deniers - stirs debate, which is not a good thing for Israel. Their lobby is actually shooting them in the foot with their outrage, drawing more attention to it. Cat's out of the bag; the term apartheid will stick.
The framing of your question would suggest that the claim of apartheid in the OPT is a legit one.
Kinda reminds me of Naftali Bennett's proposal of annexation of parts of the West Bank, and giving Palestinians Israeli citizenship, to “take the wind out of the sails of those who accuse us (Israelis) of being an Apartheid state.”....so...care to elaborate on this 'wind in their sales', Bennett?...read between the lines: it's an admission that the lack of citizen's rights for Palestinians legitimises claims of Israeli apartheid. As does excluding the OPT from comparisons to SA.
The way I understand it, there are many many Israeli laws that either directly, or thru interpretation, discriminate against arab israeli citizens. If there are different laws for different people, then yes, it is an apartheid system. Trying to point out the differences between Israeli apartheid and SA apartheid is inconsequential when SA does not hold a monopoly on the concept. SA is an example, not the definition. Apartheid = 'apart-ness'....Call it segregation if you'd prefer.
Is Israel an Apartheid State?
Apr 29, 2014 11:54 AM EDT
By Jeffrey Goldberg
So, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a mistake by thinking that a meeting of the Trilateral Commission was off-the-record. Is there anything holy in this world? What next? Will the Illuminati be giving TED talks? Are the Elders of Zion going to take questions on C-Span?
In a fit of candor, Kerry told the commissioners (if that’s what you call them) that a one-state solution (so-called) for the Israel-Palestine conundrum either leads to “an apartheid state with second-class citizens -- or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.” (A full report on Kerry’s remarks can be found at the Daily Beast, whose reporter apparently taped the remarks.)
Carefully coordinated, entirely spontaneous bursts of outrage ensued, not only from Republicans and Israelis, but also from Democrats. “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and any linkage between Israel and apartheid is nonsensical and ridiculous,” tweeted Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California.
I will dissent from Boxer’s critique, both because I believe that Kerry is a pro-Israel secretary of state who worries about the Jewish state’s future, and because I myself have used the word “apartheid” not only to describe a possible terrible future for Israel, but also as a way of depicting some current and most unfortunate facts on the ground.
In a 2004 New Yorker article I described how the settlement movement was slowly destroying the idea of a Jewish democratic state of Israel:
[Ariel] Sharon seems to have recognized -- belatedly -- Israel’s stark demographic future: the number of Jews and Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea will be roughly equal by the end of the decade. By 2020, the Israeli demographer Sergio Della Pergola has predicted, Jews will make up less than forty-seven per cent of the population. If a self-sustaining Palestinian state -- one that is territorially contiguous within the West Bank -- does not emerge, the Jews of Israel will be faced with two choices: a binational state with an Arab majority, which would be the end of the idea of Zionism, or an apartheid state, in which the Arab majority would be ruled by a Jewish minority.
A de-facto apartheid already exists in the West Bank. Inside the borders of Israel proper, Arabs and Jews are judged by the same set of laws in the same courtrooms; across the Green Line, Jews live under Israeli civil law as well, but their Arab neighbors -- people who live, in some cases, just yards away -- fall under a different, and substantially undemocratic, set of laws, administered by the Israeli Army. The system is neither as elaborate nor as pervasive as South African apartheid, and it is, officially, temporary. It is nevertheless a form of apartheid, because two different ethnic groups living in the same territory are judged by two separate sets of laws.
I suppose this passage makes me an enemy of Israel, in the same way Kerry is an enemy of Israel, and in the same way that the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (who is also Israel’s most decorated soldier) is an enemy of Israel, because Barak has also warned about the dangers of the status quo: “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel,” he said in 2010, “it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
Few of the conditions I described in that 2004 article have changed, but I have decided, for a number of reasons, to try to avoid using the term apartheid to describe the situation in the West Bank. One, deployment of the word doesn't start conversations, it ends them. (Former Middle East negotiator George Mitchell taught me this lesson.) Real enemies of Israel -- Muslim supremacists of Hamas, anti-Semites in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and so on -- use the term “apartheid” not to encourage a two-state solution that would end official discrimination on the West Bank, but to argue for the annihilation of Israel.
Two, to describe the West Bank as an experiment in apartheid is insulting to the actual victims of South African apartheid, who lived under a uniquely baroque and grotesque set of race-based laws. (I owe a number of friends from South Africa for this insight.)
And three, to describe Israel as an apartheid state, or as a state on the road to apartheid, does not adequately capture the complexity and contradictions of Israel today. In most of Israel -- the pre-1967 Israel, not the occupied West Bank -- Arabs have more rights as citizens than they have in most any Arab country. There is still discrimination, and state resources are still distributed unfairly, but Arabs serve in the highest reaches of all branches of government. In fact, an Arab judge presided over the rape trial of a former president of Israel. As difficult as the facts of that case were to stomach, there was great happiness in Israel that an Arab citizen could send an Israeli president to jail without discernible complaint, even from the Israeli right.
The problem is not inside Israel; the problem is on the West Bank. The settlers who entangle Israel in the lives of Palestinians believe that they are the vanguard of Zionism. In fact, they are the vanguard of binationalism. Their myopia will lead to the end of Israel as a democracy and as a haven for the Jewish people. The regime they help impose on Palestinians is cruel, unfair and unnecessary. Rather than label this regime in an incendiary fashion, I now prefer simply to describe its disagreeable qualities.
But if Kerry, following Barak’s lead, wants to warn about a possible apartheid future for Israel, I’m not going to condemn him as anti-Israel. Israeli leaders must open their minds to the possibility that he has their long-term interests at heart.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
can't have it both ways, bibi.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Beyond that, I think that the distinction is important for anyone interested in actually resolving this conflict. Ignoring the distinction and labeling Israel as a whole, and not just the system in place on the West Bank, as an apartheid state is immediately and viscerally seen by Israelis as unfair, hostile, and out of touch with the reality on the ground. Their reaction is to become more insular and less caring of what the rest of the world has to say, since to them, the world isn't just criticizing a particular set of policies (the occupation) which I think most Israelis would accept as a legitimate criticism, but is labeling the entire Zionist enterprise as illegitimate. Since I think everyone would accept that any sort of acceptable resolution will require Israeli action, I don't see how it is at all helpful to alienate the moderate Israeli public with inflammatory and overly broad rhetoric rather than focusing intently on the actual problem, which is the occupation, not Israel as such.
All that said, I would agree that at some point in the future the distinction may become irrelevant. That is precisely what I'm afraid of, because at that point, unless Israel were to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank, it would either have to cease being a democratic state or abandon its Jewish identity. I would view either of these outcomes as catastrophic. However, I don't think that point has been reached.
http://imeu.net/news/article003473.shtml
Why do some people consider Israel to practice apartheid?
Israel and South Africa are different in many ways. There is ample evidence, however, that Israeli policies meet the broader definition of apartheid by separating and discriminating against Palestinian Arabs, through systems that are institutionalized by laws and decrees. Some of these policies bear resemblance to South Africa during its apartheid era.
Since its inception, Israel has striven to establish and maintain a strong Jewish majority within the state, treating the ratio of Jews to non-Jews as a national security issue. Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, considers the Palestinian citizens of Israel to be a great "demographic threat" facing Israel.
Over the years, Lieberman has advocated ridding Israel of its indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. He said in a November 5th 2006 interview with the Sunday Telegraph that Palestinian citizens of Israel, who comprise roughly 20 percent of Israel's population, were a "problem" that requires "separation" from the state. He added, "We established Israel as a Jewish country. I want to provide an Israel that is a Jewish, Zionist country. It's about what kind of country we want to see in the future. Either it will be an [ethnically mixed] country like any other, or it will continue as a Jewish country."
Many Israeli policies -- from the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinian Christians and Muslims in Israel's founding years and the denial of their internationally-recognized rights to return to their homes, to the route of Israel's current "security barrier" -- are designed to preserve Jewish demographic predominance.
This has led to discriminatory policies against all major categories of Palestinians either living under or affected by Israeli rule, including Palestinian refugees in exile.
How does Israel discriminate against non-Jewish citizens?
According to the U.S. State Department's annual Human Rights Report in 2010:
"Principal human rights problems [in Israel] were institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against Arab citizens...Arab and other minority residents of the country faced official and societal discrimination in a number of areas, including employment, education, land ownership, and naturalization."
For example:
Ninety-three per cent of the land in Israel is owned either by the state or by quasi-governmental agencies (such as the Jewish National Fund) that discriminate against non-Jews. Palestinian citizens of Israel face significant legal obstacles in gaining access to this land for agriculture, residence, or commercial development.
Most non-Jewish children attend schools that are "separate and unequal" in comparison to those attended by Jewish Israeli children. Government budgets allocate far more money for the Jewish schools.
Many towns in Israel with a majority Palestinian population lack basic services and receive significantly less government funding than do majority-Jewish towns. In fact, more than seventy Palestinian villages and communities in Israel, some of which pre-date the establishment of Israel, are unrecognized by the government, receive no services, and are not even listed on official maps.
The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law prevents Palestinians from the Occupied Territories who are married to Palestinian citizens of Israel from gaining residency or citizenship status. The law forces thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel to either leave Israel or live apart from their families. Israel's Supreme Court upheld the law when petitioned by Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, and other groups.
Many Jewish Israelis express racist attitudes toward Palestinians and other Arabs.
A January 2011 poll found that nearly half of Jewish Israelis don't want to live next door to Arabs. According to a September 2010 report, half of Jewish Israeli students don't want Arabs in their classrooms and 59% oppose equal rights for Arabs.
Israeli public school textbooks depict Palestinians and other Arabs in a derogatory fashion.
Israeli political figures openly denigrate Palestinians.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel and the spiritual leader of Shas, the third largest party in Israel's Knesset, said that "most people know the Arabs are snakes...and snakes should be dealt with like snakes." (Maariv, 7/12/2001).
Knesset member and former Minister Efraim Eitam called the Palestinian citizens of Israel "a ticking time bomb" and said that they "resemble a cancerous growth - We shall have to consider the ability of the Israeli democracy to continue the Arabs' participation." (Haaretz, 3/22/2002)
Defining Apartheid: Israel’s Record
Uri Strauss
The Electronic Intifada
19 September 2002
“Inside Israel, the State of Israel has maintained a policy of continually establishing new settlements for Jews only that also serve to isolate and cut off Palestinian communities. In addition, there have been massive restrictions on Palestinian construction and minimal investment in Palestinian infrastructure.” (Right to freedom of movement and residence)
“Methods have been designed to obliterate the separate Palestinian identity and replace it with that of another group - a Jewish Israeli identity. These methods have also involved the displacement/forced exile and attempts to ‘clear out’ Palestinians, or remove them from their homeland.” (Right to a nationality; right to freedom of movement and residence)
“Since the illegal annexation by Israel in 1967, all Israeli successive governments have made great efforts to reduce significantly the number of Palestinians residing in East Jerusalem, to assure Israeli sovereignty, a Jewish majority. Those efforts include restrictions on Palestinian construction in the Eastern part of the city, restrictive planning and zoning restrictions (as part of a building restriction), a rigid policy on family unification, and minimal investment in infrastructure. Furthermore, a ‘centre of life’ policy has aimed at depriving Palestinians of residency rights. Palestinians are issued annual permits. If a person has been out of Jerusalem overseas for more than 7 years for whatever reason (including their forcible deportation) or moves from Jerusalem to another part of the West Bank for any reason they lose their residency rights and social benefits (and accordingly lose their right to live in Jerusalem forever). In addition the municipality tax system has led to the dispossession and loss of Palestinian houses and businesses for those who cannot pay, with Palestinians receiving only a small percentage of their tax money back in services. Unlike the rest of the Occupied Territories, Israeli laws apply to East Jerusalem” (Right to freedom of movement and residence)
“93% of the land within Israel was designated State land and through practical policies Palestinians are denied access to this land, which is for the exclusive access and use of Jewish Israelis. Access to the remaining 7% in private ownership is shared by both Palestinians and Jewish residents of Israel, so that Palestinians as 20% of the population in Israel have access to less than 7% of the land. The result of this is confining Palestinians into restricted, deliberately under-developed enclaves with reduced access to necessary resources, services and facilities. Israel has no laws to prevent discrimination in issues of land ownership, leasing, and residency issues. Israel’s use of quasi-governmental agencies and zoning or planning laws continue to confine Palestinians and particular areas and prevent natural growth. 34% of East Jerusalem is expropriated for ‘public use’ - and most of that is used for settlement construction. In occupied East Jerusalem (66%) is not accessible for Palestinians because of Israeli zoning, planning and building restrictions (for e.g. 40% is zoned ‘Green area’)” (Right to freedom of movement and residence)
....“Since 1995, with the Oslo Interim Agreement Palestinian areas within the West Bank and Gaza have been splintered further and made discontiguous. The demographic engineering has intensified with increasing numbers of checkpoints and strategically placed settlements controlling passage of residents internally inside the West Bank, and inside Gaza. Settlements and by-pass roads have been strategically placed to isolate, encircle and cut off communities - dividing the West Bank and Gaza into tiny areas and creating ‘cantons’.” (Right to freedom of movement and residence)
“Since 1996, those seeking to move to other parts of the West Bank from Jerusalem, including to be unified with their families have had their residency rights revoked. Palestinian women born in Jerusalem are not entitled to pass on their residency rights to their children.” (Right to freedom of movement and residence)
....“Palestinians political participation inside Israel is expressly conditional upon the acceptance of the Jewish Exclusivity of the State. These preconditions are expressed explicitly in the 1992 Law of Political Party, and in particular, the amendment of Section 7A(1) of the Basic law: the Knesset, which prevents candidates from participation if their platform suggests “”expressly or by implication,… (1) denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the State of the Jewish people” (Prevention of full participation in political life)
“A basic method used by Israel to racially discriminate against Palestinians inside Israel in the allocation of resources and governmental benefits is by making these rights conditional upon performing a military service. Under law, military service is compulsory for all its citizens and permanent residents. Muslim and Christian Palestinians are exempted automatically as a group according to the discretion given by law to the Minister of Defense. Druze men are called to serve because the exemption of Palestinians did not include the Druze. This is part of Israel’s policy to divide the Palestinians into religious minorities. Orthodox Jews have to apply for individual exemption, for which there are rules that guide this process, which are also under Minister’s discretion.” (Prevention of full participation in economic life)
“Palestinians inside Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories suffer from discrimination in every aspect of resource allocation, including in the allocation of the financial budget for Palestinians inside Israel, to resources (water, electricity, municipal funding for services; etc).” (Prevention of full participation in economic life)