This exchange tells you all you need to know about Byrnzie. The governments of the U.S, Netherlands, France, Gulf Cooperation Council, U.K., Australia, Canada, and the European Union all classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. I cannot wait for PJ to play in Israel, not because they give a shit about your insane notions and twisted reality, but because they care about the music and they care about the fans. I will be flying in for the show, will return to this thread, and post a nice smiling picture for you
Many governments of the World also classified the ANC as a terrorist organization, and the U.S stood alone in the World in supporting the Apartheid regime in South Africa right up to the end. So what does that tell you?
And as for 'insane notions and twisted reality'; care to point out what you're referring to exactly? Or are you just spouting off like a petulant little child who didn't get his own way?
Oh, and good luck with Pearl Jam playing in the racist Apartheid state of Israel. A word of advice to you: Don't hold your breath!
You have a knack for skipping right over the sickening actions of the terror loving society and groups you are supporting.
I don't skip over anything. I address every point made.
Though I notice that you chose to skip addressing this point that i made:
'How would you describe the deliberate targeting of unarmed civilians by Israel that I documented above? Shooting unarmed, white flag waving women? Shooting school chidren? Shelling densely populated residential areas? Bulldozing homes with the occupants still inside? Dropping white phosphorous on residential areas? Bombing schools, police barracks, hospitals, and U.N Safe Houses? Shooting at medical personnel, and ambulances? Saturating South Lebanon with up to 4.6 million cluster submunitions during the 2006 war. - a war crime that constituted a deliberate targeting of civilians?'
You've already admitted that you support the Illegal Israeli occupation, therefore you support ethnic cleansing. So I'd quit trying to take any sort of moral high-ground if I were you pal, because it's just making you look pretty fucking ridiculous.
I will stick with the US and Israel. You can ride the horses of Hammas, Hezzbolah, Iran, and Roger Waters.
Maybe you and the horse you rode in on would be willing to take a stab at an outcome to the occupation; something that no one in this thread has been willing to do despite my repeated challenges?
Do you support: A) A two state solution, with an end to the occupation and dismantling of settlements in the West Bank A single state solution with equal rights for Jews and Arabs C) Annexation: a single Jewish state with zero excuses remaining for apartheid policy D) Continuation of the status quo - indefinite occupation (basically a slower version of 'C')
Those are basically the only options on the table. If you support anything but A or B....you are not supporting Israel as a jewish state....Israel will continue to isolate herself from the international community until she stands alone...what will happen when the US public forces their government to withdraw their support of an apartheid state?
America Has a Plan. And, No, It Isn't One That Israel Would Like. New poll shows that if the two-state solution collapses, U.S. public favors democracy over Jewishness.
Middle East leaders are beating a path to the White House's door. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with President Barack Obama on March 3, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will arrive on March 17 to discuss the U.S. administration's diplomatic effort to reach a two-state solution. Although Secretary of State John Kerry has said that "failure is not an option" in these talks, the reality is that both Israelis and Palestinians assume that there is only a slim chance of finding a conflict-ending solution. The president himself put the odds at less than 50 percent. With the Obama administration's goal to reach a negotiated settlement set for the end of April, we could be witnessing the death of the two-state solution. A key, but often unasked, question is whether the American public even cares. A public opinion survey I commissioned, which was conducted by the polling firm GfK, found that U.S. popular support for a two-state solution is surprisingly tepid. What's more, if the option is taken off the table, Americans support the creation of a single democratic state -- in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories -- in which Jews and Arabs are granted equal rights. The GfK survey consisted of 1,000 interviews conducted through an Internet panel and was weighted to ensure that the results were consistent with several demographic variables, such as age, education, and income. The Obama administration's focus on mediating an end to the conflict has been predicated on two assumptions -- that a two-state solution is in the national security interest of the United States, and that the current diplomatic efforts may be the last chance to achieve it. Americans themselves, however, are more lukewarm on the possibility of Israeli and Palestinian states living side by side: fewer than four in 10 survey respondents preferred a two-state solution.
If the Obama administration is right that the window to reach a two-state solution is closing, the plurality of Americans who do support that option may start thinking about other ways to resolve the conflict. If efforts to negotiate creation of a separate Palestinian state fail, my poll shows that about two-thirds of those who had preferred the two-state solution would shift their support to a one-state solution, with equal citizenship for Jews and Arabs. Even among respondents who said they wanted American diplomacy to "lean toward Israel," 52 percent said they would support one state with equal citizenship -- which could, of course, mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state
For Israelis, a shift in U.S. public opinion toward a one-state solution -- which is not even an option on the negotiating table -- would be extremely problematic. That is to say, most Israelis prefer not to make the choice between Israel's Jewishness and its democracy but when forced to do so, they are divided: Roughly half of Israeli Jews say that they care about Jewishness and democracy equally, while a quarter favor one over the other. Palestinians may welcome support for equal citizenship in one state, but will not have the power to achieve it on their own without Israeli cooperation. While Israelis are divided over whether to prioritize their state's Jewishness or democracy, Americans' preferences are less ambiguous. When asked which of the two options they favor for Israel, two-thirds of respondents chose democracy over Jewishness. Unequal citizenship is simply antithetical to being an American -- whether one is pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, or neutral.
So what does it all mean? It means that if the two-state solution fails, the conversation among the American public might shift to that of a one-state solution as the next-best thing. If American officials feel pressured to respond to this, it will likely create tension in U.S.-Israeli relations. American public opinion, of course, is fluid. If Israeli-Palestinian negotiations fail, both sides will engage in a war of narratives in an attempt to convince the American public that the other side is to blame for the collapse of the talks. Israelis usually do far better than Arabs in these contests. Just look at what happened after the 2000 Camp David talks: Although President Bill Clinton promised the Palestinians they would not be blamed should negotiations fail, that was just what he did as soon as the summit ended. Regardless of what Obama or Kerry would do if these negotiations fail, many U.S. politicians can be counted on to quickly embrace the Israeli version of events. But as soon as the dust settles, the end of the two-state solution will exert a powerful transformation on American attitudes. For U.S. officials, the effect would be paralyzing -- American leaders simply wouldn't know what to advocate if two states were not on the table. At the moment, it is not politically feasible to advocate for a one-state solution with equal citizenship, nor accept a permanent occupation or Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories without equal citizenship. This dilemma may partially be driving Washington's current diplomatic push. And if the Obama administration's efforts fail, it is unlikely that American leaders would do anything but pretend that the two-state solution was still on the table. No American politician wants to choose between Israel's democracy and its Jewishness -- even if the polls show that the choice is clear to the American people. Pretending neatly rationalizes paralysis, but it would not hide the naked truth for most people. If the peace talks fail, no number of assurances from the White House could stop the inevitable sense of resignation at home and abroad. The American people are clear about their views: Occupation and unequal citizenship are a losing cause.
Obama warns Israel about delegitimization, and Oren suggests annexation
As President Obama meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu in the White House today, here are two points to chew on.
Last Thursday Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg that if Israel doesn’t make a deal now it will face international “fallout,” i.e., delegitimization, and the U.S. will have limited ability to protect Israel from that process. We’ve already lost Europe, Obama says darkly.
And if Netanyahu thinks he has the “right” alternative to the two-state solution, he should tell us, Obama says almost challengingly.
But then you have Michael Oren, Netanyahu’s former ambassador, speaking to the Times of Israel last week in the most sanguine manner about the likely failure of the two-state solution and saying, The Palestinians have a fallback plan– a binational state– and We also have a fallback plan, annexation.
Taken together, these assertions suggest a collision course (and to cite the polling that Joy Reid just mentioned on MSNBC, Americans would support one democratic state over continued occupation).
First, here’s the president talking to Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg last week about a future without the two-state paradigm:
What we also know is that Israel has become more isolated internationally. We had to stand up in the Security Council in ways that 20 years ago would have involved far more European support, far more support from other parts of the world when it comes to Israel’s position. And that’s a reflection of a genuine sense on the part of a lot of countries out there that this issue continues to fester, is not getting resolved, and that nobody is willing to take the leap to bring it to closure.
In that kind of environment, where you’ve got a partner on the other side who is prepared to negotiate seriously, who does not engage in some of the wild rhetoric that so often you see in the Arab world when it comes to Israel, who has shown himself committed to maintaining order within the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority and to cooperate with Israelis around their security concerns — for us to not seize this moment I think would be a great mistake. I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors and… with permanent borders. …
[As to what Obama has told Netanyahu:]
What I’ve said to him privately is the same thing that I say publicly, which is the situation will not improve or resolve itself. This is not a situation where you wait and the problem goes away. There are going to be more Palestinians, not fewer Palestinians, as time goes on. There are going to be more Arab-Israelis, not fewer Arab-Israelis, as time goes on.
And for Bibi to seize the moment in a way that perhaps only he can, precisely because of the political tradition that he comes out of and the credibility he has with the right inside of Israel, for him to seize this moment is perhaps the greatest gift he could give to future generations of Israelis….
I have not yet heard, however, a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. Nobody has presented me a credible scenario….
It’s maintenance of a chronic situation. And my assessment, which is shared by a number of Israeli observers, I think, is there comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices. Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? …
I am being honest that nobody has provided me with a clear picture of how this works in the absence of a peace deal. …
I believe that Bibi is strong enough that if he decided this was the right thing to do for Israel, that he could do it. If he does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible….
[W]hat I do believe is that if you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time — if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.
[GOLDBERG: Willingness, or ability?]
Not necessarily willingness, but ability to manage international fallout is going to be limited. And that has consequences.
Look, sometimes people are dismissive of multilateral institutions and the United Nations and the EU [European Union] and the high commissioner of such and such. And sometimes there’s good reason to be dismissive. There’s a lot of hot air and rhetoric and posturing that may not always mean much. But in today’s world, where power is much more diffuse, where the threats that any state or peoples face can come from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats, and where international cooperation is needed in order to deal with those threats, the absence of international goodwill makes you less safe. The condemnation of the international community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. It means reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that are of interest to Israel. It’s survivable, but it is not preferable.
Now here’s Oren glibly discussing Israel’s response to a two-state collapse:
“However, the Palestinians have intimated that if they can’t reach a negotiated solution with us they then have a Plan B, and their Plan B is a binational state. And I think it’s important that we also have a Plan B…
“[G]oing to international institutions is only the beginning of their Plan B, we have to understand that…. Their Plan B includes international sanctions, targeting our economy, completely delegitimizing us in the world.”
Therefore, Israelis would be ill advised to sit around and wait for the Palestinians to corner them. “If we declare our borders, that creates a de-facto situation of two nation states recognized by the UN — we may not recognize one another, but they’re already recognized by the UN — that have a border dispute. And we would be one of dozens of pairs of countries in the world that have a border dispute.”
Oren won’t say what the borders look like, but “the principle is maximum number of Israelis [Jews] within the State of Israel and maximum protection of Israel’s security.” Devouring the West Bank obviously:
“[W]hat are [Israel's] defensible borders, what are the borders that encompass the maximum number of Israeli settlers? What would enable us to reduce, to the greatest possible extent, our control over the Palestinians? In any such move, Israel would of course maintain its military presence in crucial areas. And it would also ensure the continued unity of Jerusalem.”
I also just saw reports of Scarlett Johanson's image being used at the annual AIPAC convention, to cheers from the crowd... To reiterate: this is why we say that Pearl Jam playing Israel is tacit support; Israel's supporters use anything and anyone who allows their name to be associated with the country, to support their politics.
I will stick with the US and Israel. You can ride the horses of Hammas, Hezzbolah, Iran, and Roger Waters.
Maybe you and the horse you rode in on would be willing to take a stab at an outcome to the occupation; something that no one in this thread has been willing to do despite my repeated challenges?
Do you support: A) A two state solution, with an end to the occupation and dismantling of settlements in the West Bank A single state solution with equal rights for Jews and Arabs C) Annexation: a single Jewish state with zero excuses remaining for apartheid policy D) Continuation of the status quo - indefinite occupation (basically a slower version of 'C')
The question here is really which one the Palestinians support. Is the two state solution on the Palestinian agenda? Just look at article 2 of the PLO charter: "Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate, is a indivisible territorial unit." The PLO charter continues to not recognize Israel as a nation and calls for its destruction.
Israel has sat down to the negotiating table and made concessions time and time again, but received absolutely nothing in return.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu has repeated his commitment to a two-state solution, and made goodwill gestures to the Palestinians in hopes of achieving peace. In particular, after saying he would not do so, Netanyahu defied members of his own government and instituted a quiet freeze of settlement construction in the West Bank. Netanyahu has done even more to help individual Palestinians and their families - in September 2013, he agreed to grant 5,000 permits, in addition to the 35,000 previously approved, to allow Palestinian laborers to work inside Israel.
In August 2013, Netanyahu authorized the first phase in a four-stage release of more than 100 Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails to satisfy a Palestinians demands to begin negotiations. Two months later, despite strong opposition from members of his ruling coalition, Netanyahu approved the release of 26 prisoners in the second phase. All of those released were convicted for murder, or attempted murder. Families who lost loved ones murdered by those released are understandably upset, nevertheless, Netanyahu said he must “honor government decisions, even if it is difficult and unpleasant” - hardly the stance of a hardline leader trying to obstruct the peace process.
What has Israel received in return for these confidence-building measures?
Nothing. Not peace, not direct talks with Palestinian leaders, not a cessation of violence and not any reciprocal concessions. In fact, incitement continues to grow within the PA, there has been a dramatic upsurge in terror incidents emanating from the West Bank and rocket attacks have renewed from Gaza.The only statements coming from the Palestinian side are the well-worn belligerent expressions of intransigence, such as the message PA President Mahmoud Abbas gave during the ceremony welcoming back the released prisoners on October 29. "There will never be a deal with Israel if even just one prisoner remains behind bars," said Abbas. "We are obligated to continue using any measure to free all prisoners until they return home."
And again, to answer Byrnzie's ridiculous "Apartheid" slur, please tell me, what happened to the Jews in East Jerusalem during the 19 years that Jordan occupied the land prior to the Six Day War? Let me refresh your memory: they drove all Jews out of this part of the city, destroyed all synagogues and Jewish holy places, and used the headstones of Israeli cemeteries as paving stones to build latrines. You see, for the Palestinians, Jordanians, and their Arab brethren, it's OK to make the land Judenrein. No cries of "apartheid" there, right Byrnzie? But when Jews, Christians, Arabs, and many others live in Israel under an elected democracy, now THAT's apartheid!
I also just saw reports of Scarlett Johanson's image being used at the annual AIPAC convention, to cheers from the crowd... To reiterate: this is why we say that Pearl Jam playing Israel is tacit support; Israel's supporters use anything and anyone who allows their name to be associated with the country, to support their politics.
The reason they are cheering for her is not because she supports Israeli policies. It's because she had the courage to stand up again the BDS nonsense. Sodastream does more for peace than any politician on EITHER side of the conflict has done. It employs 500+ Palestinians and pays them at the exact full wage that their Israeli coworkers are paid. Yet the BDS movement would rather see them shutdown, and thrown out of work. This factory is a beautiful model of what could be, of what REAL peace looks like. But for the BDS, it's not about peace. THAT's why they are cheering for her!
Enjoy a balanced interview by the BBC pitting an Oxfam rep against the CEO of Sodastream and decide for yourself: youtube.com/watch?v=cd9ioQrTqoY
My point is that performing in Israel is not making a statement on politics. It's a statement for sanity. I doubt Soundgarden is going to be put on the big board at AIPAC just because they performed in Israel. Nobody thinks that performing there is a statement that is pro-Israeli government policies. Only the BDS loonies see it to spin it that way. Hell, Eddie could get up there and rant away against the politicians on both sides who all deserve the tongue lashing. And the crowd would eat it up.
Without reading all off what was written above, johnnie is exactly right on Scarlett point.
As far as solution, A or B. 2 state solution is preferred but is very misleading. It's really a 3 state solution (Israel, gaza, and West Bank) plus a split of Jerusalem. Hard liners are dug into both sides... Until someone can unify the Palestinians, the pressure on Israel is useless. The US cannot broker peace without a partner to dance with. Hammas will never recognize the state of Israel... And so it goes...
I also just saw reports of Scarlett Johanson's image being used at the annual AIPAC convention, to cheers from the crowd... To reiterate: this is why we say that Pearl Jam playing Israel is tacit support; Israel's supporters use anything and anyone who allows their name to be associated with the country, to support their politics.
The reason they are cheering for her is not because she supports Israeli policies. It's because she had the courage to stand up again the BDS nonsense. Sodastream does more for peace than any politician on EITHER side of the conflict has done. It employs 500+ Palestinians and pays them at the exact full wage that their Israeli coworkers are paid. Yet the BDS movement would rather see them shutdown, and thrown out of work. This factory is a beautiful model of what could be, of what REAL peace looks like. But for the BDS, it's not about peace. THAT's why they are cheering for her!
Enjoy a balanced interview by the BBC pitting an Oxfam rep against the CEO of Sodastream and decide for yourself: youtube.com/watch?v=cd9ioQrTqoY
My point is that performing in Israel is not making a statement on politics. It's a statement for sanity. I doubt Soundgarden is going to be put on the big board at AIPAC just because they performed in Israel. Nobody thinks that performing there is a statement that is pro-Israeli government policies. Only the BDS loonies see it to spin it that way. Hell, Eddie could get up there and rant away against the politicians on both sides who all deserve the tongue lashing. And the crowd would eat it up.
The question here is really which one the Palestinians support. Is the two state solution on the Palestinian agenda? Just look at article 2 of the PLO charter: "Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate, is a indivisible territorial unit." The PLO charter continues to not recognize Israel as a nation and calls for its destruction.
The Palestinians, including Hamas, have made it perfectly clear on numerous occasions that they support U.N 242, which calls for a settlement on the June 1967 borders.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu has repeated his commitment to a two-state solution, and made goodwill gestures to the Palestinians in hopes of achieving peace. In particular, after saying he would not do so, Netanyahu defied members of his own government and instituted a quiet freeze of settlement construction in the West Bank. Netanyahu has done even more to help individual Palestinians and their families - in September 2013, he agreed to grant 5,000 permits, in addition to the 35,000 previously approved, to allow Palestinian laborers to work inside Israel.
In August 2013, Netanyahu authorized the first phase in a four-stage release of more than 100 Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails to satisfy a Palestinians demands to begin negotiations. Two months later, despite strong opposition from members of his ruling coalition, Netanyahu approved the release of 26 prisoners in the second phase. All of those released were convicted for murder, or attempted murder. Families who lost loved ones murdered by those released are understandably upset, nevertheless, Netanyahu said he must “honor government decisions, even if it is difficult and unpleasant” - hardly the stance of a hardline leader trying to obstruct the peace process.
What has Israel received in return for these confidence-building measures?
So let me get this right, Netanyahu has apparently 'repeated his commitment to a two-state solution'? Really? On what basis? On the basis of international law and U.N 242? Or on the basis of a number of South African Apartheid-style bantustans dotted in amongst all of the present day illegal settlements? Is that what you call a concession? Secondly, you say that he 'instituted a quiet freeze of settlement construction in the West Bank'. And how log did that last? Settlement building continues a-pace as we speak. Anyway, how does freezing land-theft constitute a concession? The only concession worthy of the word would be an evacuation of the settlements. The you go on to mention the prisoner releases. What was the price of releasing those prisoners? Further land-theft and illegal settlement construction.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu has repeated his commitment to a two-state solution, and made goodwill gestures to the Palestinians in hopes of achieving peace. In particular, after saying he would not do so, Netanyahu defied members of his own government and instituted a quiet freeze of settlement construction in the West Bank.
Figures released mere hours before Netanyahu was due to meet with Obama in Washington. By Chaim Levinson | Mar. 3, 2014 |
The number of housing starts in West Bank settlements more than doubled in 2013, according to data released Monday by the Central Bureau of Statistics.
The figures were released only hours before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was due to meet with President Barack Obama in Washington. The two have serious differences over Israel's settlement policies.
In its annual roundup of the Israeli housing market, the bureau said work began on 2,534 new housing units in the settlements in 2013, compared to 1,133 in 2012. The period covered coincides roughly with the tenure of Uri Ariel (Habayit Hayehudi) as Housing Minister.
The number of West Bank housing starts in 2013 is a 10-year high. The highest annual number ever was the 5,000 units built in 2000 under the Barak government.
Of the 2013 housing starts, 1,710 were in apartment buildings typical of the larger settlements, like Maale Adumim, Beitar Ilit and Modiin Ilit, while 824 were single units in the smaller settlements.
Sixty-four percent of the starts – 1,161 units – were public housing, a figure that is significantly higher than what is common within the Green Line. It indicates the huge efforts being made by the government to build in the territories. In the north of the country, for example, public housing accounts for only 20 percent of construction, while in the south it accounts for 30 percent.
The bureau's figures refer to approved construction that is undertaken with permits. The significant amount of illegal building in West Bank outposts is not counted.
Accelerated construction is the trend within the Green Line as well. The bureau reported 44,340 housing starts throughout the country in 2013.
The Yesha Council of settlements said the enormous jump in percentage terms stemmed from a government freeze on tenders the previous year. In absolute terms, it said, the West Bank had fewer housing starts than any other region of the country.
Moreover, said council Deputy Director General Yigal Dilmoni, the quantity is still insufficient to meet the needs of the settlements’ population, which is growing “at two and a half times the rate” of the rest of the country.
He urged the government to unfreeze additional tenders, saying this would create more housing near the center of the country, and thereby both ease the housing shortage and lower housing prices.
And again, to answer Byrnzie's ridiculous "Apartheid" slur, please tell me, what happened to the Jews in East Jerusalem during the 19 years that Jordan occupied the land prior to the Six Day War? Let me refresh your memory: they drove all Jews out of this part of the city, destroyed all synagogues and Jewish holy places, and used the headstones of Israeli cemeteries as paving stones to build latrines. You see, for the Palestinians, Jordanians, and their Arab brethren, it's OK to make the land Judenrein. No cries of "apartheid" there, right Byrnzie? But when Jews, Christians, Arabs, and many others live in Israel under an elected democracy, now THAT's apartheid!
And the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians after 1948 and prior to the Six Day War never happened, right?
As for Apartheid, there's nothing ridiculous about the analogy at all. In fact, it's not an analogy, it's a fact, as any two year old with the ability to read the definition of the term Apartheid could understand.
Meanwhile. I suppose that in your one-eyed, self-serving view of things, all of these Israeli's are ridiculous?
According to former Italian Prime Minister Massimo d'Alema, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had described to him "at length" that he felt the "bantustan model" was the most appropriate solution to the conflict in the West Bank.[212] The term “Bantustan” historically refers to the separate territorial areas designated as homelands under the South African apartheid State. Adam and Moodley argue that Israeli officials such as Sharon and Ehud Barak had used the analogy "self-servingly in their exhortations and rationalizations" and yet that, while they repeatedly deplored the occupation and seeming 'South Africanization', yet "have done everything to entrench it".
Shulamit Aloni, who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin, discussed Israeli practices in the West Bank in an article published in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. Aloni wrote that "Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population. The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies."
Yossi Sarid, who served as environment minister under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, writing in Haaretz stated that "the white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened — a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid."
Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset argued that an apartheid system has already taken shape in that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are separated into "cantons" and Palestinians are required to carry permits to travel between them.[214] Azmi Bishara, a former Knesset member, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid."
Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories" in an essay published in Haaretz.
Some Israelis have compared the separation plan to apartheid, such as political scientist, Meron Benvenisti,[143] and journalist, Amira Hass.[217] Ami Ayalon, a former admiral, claiming it "ha[d] some apartheid characteristics."
A major 2002 study of Israeli settlement practices by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem concluded: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B'Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa."
Daphna Golan-Agnon, co-founder of B'Tselem and founding director of Bat Shalom writes in her 2002 book Next Year in Jerusalem, "I'm not sure if the use of the term apartheid helps us to understand the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel or the oppression against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. I'm not sure the discussion about how we are like or unlike South Africa helps move us forward to a solution. But the comparison reminds us that hundreds of laws do not make discrimination just and that the international community, the same international community we want to belong to, did not permit the perpetuation of apartheid. And it doesn't matter how we explain it and how many articles are written by Israeli scholars and lawyers—there are two groups living in this small piece of land, and one enjoys rights and liberty while the other does not."
In October 2000, a group of Israeli Jews living in London signed a statement, initiated by Moshé Machover, describing Israel's policies in the occupied territories as apartheid. In a later essay, Machover, co-founder of Matzpen, the Israeli Socialist Organization and professor of philosophy in London, warned against "an unthinking use of this misleading analogy between Israeli policy and that of the defunct apartheid regime in South Africa." Accepting that "the two have many features in common", Machover concluded that Zionism, which aimed to "eliminate, exterminate or expel" Palestinians, rather than to exploit them, "is far worse than apartheid. Apartheid can be reversed. Ethnic cleansing is immeasurably harder to reverse; at least not in the short or medium term."
Retired Israeli judge and legal commentator for the daily Yedioth Ahronoth Boaz Okon wrote in June 2010 that events in Israel, when taken together, constituted apartheid and fascism. Okon used as examples segregated schools and streets, a "minute" proportion of Israeli Arabs employed in the civil service, censorship, limits on foreign workers having children in Israel and the monitoring of cell phones, email and Internet usage.
In an article in Haaretz in October 2010, Israeli journalist and academic Zvi Bar'el wrote that "Israel's apartheid movement is coming out of the woodwork and is taking on a formal, legal shape. It is moving from voluntary apartheid, which hides its ugliness through justifications of "cultural differences" and "historic neglect" which only requires a little funding and a couple of more sewage pipes to make everything right — to a purposeful, open, obligatory apartheid, which no longer requires any justification."
My point is that performing in Israel is not making a statement on politics. It's a statement for sanity. I doubt Soundgarden is going to be put on the big board at AIPAC just because they performed in Israel. Nobody thinks that performing there is a statement that is pro-Israeli government policies. Only the BDS loonies see it to spin it that way. Hell, Eddie could get up there and rant away against the politicians on both sides who all deserve the tongue lashing. And the crowd would eat it up.
It's not a statement for sanity, it's a statement of support for the current situation.
Boycotts and sanctions were the main forces used to overthrow South African Apartheid. They should be used with the same determination against Israel until that country falls in line with international law and the will of the whole World, excluding the U.S, and a couple of South Pacific atolls.
As far as solution, A or B. 2 state solution is preferred but is very misleading. It's really a 3 state solution (Israel, gaza, and West Bank) plus a split of Jerusalem. Hard liners are dug into both sides... Until someone can unify the Palestinians, the pressure on Israel is useless. The US cannot broker peace without a partner to dance with. Hammas will never recognize the state of Israel... And so it goes...
The U.S has never been interested in brokering peace, as the U.S has shown for the past 45 years that it will give Israel free-reign to do whatever it likes, and it will use it's power of automatic veto at the U.N to block any and all criticism of Israel's crimes. The best thing that could happen is if the U.S fucks off out of it, and allows an honest broker to take it's place. Either that, or the U.N revoke the U.S power of automatic veto so that international law, and the will of the whole of the international community, can be applied, in accordance with U.N 242, which the whole World has supported for the past 45 years, and which the U.S has blocked for the past 45 years.
Investigator Richard Falk says settlement expansion, consequent evicting of Palestinians 'intolerable'
Israel's expansion of Jewish "settlements" in east Jerusalem and eviction of Palestinians from their homes there is a form of ethnic cleansing, a United Nations investigator said on Monday.
US academic Richard Falk was speaking to the UN Human Rights Council as it prepared to pass resolutions condemning Israeli behaviour on territory it has occupied since 1967.
In response to Peace Now petition, State Prosecutor's Office tells High Court it will work to demolish illegal West Bank structures built on private land by end of the year
The "continued pattern of settlement expansion in East Jerusalem combined with the forcible eviction of long-residing Palestinians are creating an intolerable situation" in the part of the city previously controlled by Jordan, he said.
This situation "can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing," Falk declared.
Israel declines to deal with Falk or even allow him into the country, accusing him of bias against the Jewish state.
The reason they're discussing Israel, and not Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine, is because Iran, Saudi Arabia and Palestine are not engaged in a 45 year old illegal occupation, and land grab. Once again, Israel's apologists throw out the anti-Semitism tag because they have nothing else with which to try and justify their ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
I don't believe there to be an "illegal occupation" you can read all the articles and bring all the quotes you like but is that really a valid way to form an honest opinion? I ask you because you use the phrase propaganda quite a bit. Couldn't one argue that you are reading and being fooled by the same "propaganda" you accuse the other side of using? Is it possible the propaganda machine has worked on you? For years everyone thought the world was flat. Everyone was sure the world was flat. Written maps showed the world was flat. It was written down. If someone said the world was not flat it was easy to show them the error of their ways simply by presenting he written truth. Somewhere along the road we all learned the truth. We all learned the documents and maps were all wrong. We learned the truth because someone went to the edge and didn't fall off. Someone went there and found the truth. I ask if you have been to Israel because you have such strong feelings about the state. Almost like you know these things you quote or post to be absolute truths, like you lived it or experienced it. For that passion I commend you. However, if you have not set foot in the land or lived in its towns how can you really know the truth?
I don't believe there to be an "illegal occupation" you can read all the articles and bring all the quotes you like but is that really a valid way to form an honest opinion? I ask you because you use the phrase propaganda quite a bit. Couldn't one argue that you are reading and being fooled by the same "propaganda" you accuse the other side of using? Is it possible the propaganda machine has worked on you? For years everyone thought the world was flat. Everyone was sure the world was flat. Written maps showed the world was flat. It was written down. If someone said the world was not flat it was easy to show them the error of their ways simply by presenting he written truth. Somewhere along the road we all learned the truth. We all learned the documents and maps were all wrong. We learned the truth because someone went to the edge and didn't fall off. Someone went there and found the truth. I ask if you have been to Israel because you have such strong feelings about the state. Almost like you know these things you quote or post to be absolute truths, like you lived it or experienced it. For that passion I commend you. However, if you have not set foot in the land or lived in its towns how can you really know the truth?
I'm not interested in opinions. I'm interested in the facts. Though I understand that the tendency for many Americans is to disregard facts, and indulge in personal opinions and fantasies instead. But I don't give a fuck about that kind of anti-intellectualism. I'm not American. Where I come from, people aren't criticized for supporting what they say with evidence/source material. And I won't apologize for not being an MTV generation half-wit. We're not discussing religion here. We're discussing politics and history. Historical and political events are documented by written statements, documentary evidence, and by articles of law. They are also recorded by all of the various Human Rights organizations, such as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem. And one of the reasons these organizations were created was to shine a light on States abuse of power, and human rights abuses, and to document such abuses. And I'll continue supporting what I say with the documentary record, and I couldn't care less if you, or anybody else, doesn't like it.
As to your answer to my question, you say you don't believe there to be an illegal occupation? Well, what you believe is irrelevant. International law clearly states that the occupation is illegal. That's a fact, not an opinion, or a belief.
So I take it that you 'believe' the Israeli's have a God given right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians then? And what exactly do you base this right on?
I ask if you have been to Israel because you have such strong feelings about the state. Almost like you know these things you quote or post to be absolute truths, like you lived it or experienced it. For that passion I commend you. However, if you have not set foot in the land or lived in its towns how can you really know the truth?
I didn't live in Nazi Germany, or Apartheid South Africa, either. But that doesn't mean that I, or anybody else, is incapable of understanding and/or criticizing the political situation in either of those places. Your question is just a distraction, and completely irrelevant. There are people who have never been to China who know more about Chinese history and politics than me, though I've lived in China for six years. There are also people who can speak far better Chinese than me, though they may never have set foot here before. How can that possibly be, you ask? There's something called education, and books. You should check them out some time.
Comments
And as for 'insane notions and twisted reality'; care to point out what you're referring to exactly? Or are you just spouting off like a petulant little child who didn't get his own way?
Oh, and good luck with Pearl Jam playing in the racist Apartheid state of Israel. A word of advice to you: Don't hold your breath!
Though I notice that you chose to skip addressing this point that i made:
'How would you describe the deliberate targeting of unarmed civilians by Israel that I documented above? Shooting unarmed, white flag waving women? Shooting school chidren? Shelling densely populated residential areas? Bulldozing homes with the occupants still inside? Dropping white phosphorous on residential areas? Bombing schools, police barracks, hospitals, and U.N Safe Houses? Shooting at medical personnel, and ambulances? Saturating South Lebanon with up to 4.6 million cluster submunitions during the 2006 war. - a war crime that constituted a deliberate targeting of civilians?'
You've already admitted that you support the Illegal Israeli occupation, therefore you support ethnic cleansing. So I'd quit trying to take any sort of moral high-ground if I were you pal, because it's just making you look pretty fucking ridiculous.
2013- Brooklyn2, Philly1, Philly2, NOLA
Do you support:
A) A two state solution, with an end to the occupation and dismantling of settlements in the West Bank
C) Annexation: a single Jewish state with zero excuses remaining for apartheid policy
D) Continuation of the status quo - indefinite occupation (basically a slower version of 'C')
Those are basically the only options on the table. If you support anything but A or B....you are not supporting Israel as a jewish state....Israel will continue to isolate herself from the international community until she stands alone...what will happen when the US public forces their government to withdraw their support of an apartheid state?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/02/america_plan_israel_two_state
America Has a Plan. And, No, It Isn't One That Israel Would Like.
New poll shows that if the two-state solution collapses, U.S. public favors democracy over Jewishness.
Middle East leaders are beating a path to the White House's door. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with President Barack Obama on March 3, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will arrive on March 17 to discuss the U.S. administration's diplomatic effort to reach a two-state solution.
Although Secretary of State John Kerry has said that "failure is not an option" in these talks, the reality is that both Israelis and Palestinians assume that there is only a slim chance of finding a conflict-ending solution. The president himself put the odds at less than 50 percent. With the Obama administration's goal to reach a negotiated settlement set for the end of April, we could be witnessing the death of the two-state solution. A key, but often unasked, question is whether the American public even cares.
A public opinion survey I commissioned, which was conducted by the polling firm GfK, found that U.S. popular support for a two-state solution is surprisingly tepid. What's more, if the option is taken off the table, Americans support the creation of a single democratic state -- in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories -- in which Jews and Arabs are granted equal rights. The GfK survey consisted of 1,000 interviews conducted through an Internet panel and was weighted to ensure that the results were consistent with several demographic variables, such as age, education, and income.
The Obama administration's focus on mediating an end to the conflict has been predicated on two assumptions -- that a two-state solution is in the national security interest of the United States, and that the current diplomatic efforts may be the last chance to achieve it. Americans themselves, however, are more lukewarm on the possibility of Israeli and Palestinian states living side by side: fewer than four in 10 survey respondents preferred a two-state solution.
If the Obama administration is right that the window to reach a two-state solution is closing, the plurality of Americans who do support that option may start thinking about other ways to resolve the conflict. If efforts to negotiate creation of a separate Palestinian state fail, my poll shows that about two-thirds of those who had preferred the two-state solution would shift their support to a one-state solution, with equal citizenship for Jews and Arabs.
Even among respondents who said they wanted American diplomacy to "lean toward Israel," 52 percent said they would support one state with equal citizenship -- which could, of course, mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state
For Israelis, a shift in U.S. public opinion toward a one-state solution -- which is not even an option on the negotiating table -- would be extremely problematic. That is to say, most Israelis prefer not to make the choice between Israel's Jewishness and its democracy but when forced to do so, they are divided: Roughly half of Israeli Jews say that they care about Jewishness and democracy equally, while a quarter favor one over the other. Palestinians may welcome support for equal citizenship in one state, but will not have the power to achieve it on their own without Israeli cooperation.
While Israelis are divided over whether to prioritize their state's Jewishness or democracy, Americans' preferences are less ambiguous. When asked which of the two options they favor for Israel, two-thirds of respondents chose democracy over Jewishness. Unequal citizenship is simply antithetical to being an American -- whether one is pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, or neutral.
So what does it all mean? It means that if the two-state solution fails, the conversation among the American public might shift to that of a one-state solution as the next-best thing. If American officials feel pressured to respond to this, it will likely create tension in U.S.-Israeli relations.
American public opinion, of course, is fluid. If Israeli-Palestinian negotiations fail, both sides will engage in a war of narratives in an attempt to convince the American public that the other side is to blame for the collapse of the talks.
Israelis usually do far better than Arabs in these contests. Just look at what happened after the 2000 Camp David talks: Although President Bill Clinton promised the Palestinians they would not be blamed should negotiations fail, that was just what he did as soon as the summit ended. Regardless of what Obama or Kerry would do if these negotiations fail, many U.S. politicians can be counted on to quickly embrace the Israeli version of events.
But as soon as the dust settles, the end of the two-state solution will exert a powerful transformation on American attitudes. For U.S. officials, the effect would be paralyzing -- American leaders simply wouldn't know what to advocate if two states were not on the table. At the moment, it is not politically feasible to advocate for a one-state solution with equal citizenship, nor accept a permanent occupation or Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories without equal citizenship.
This dilemma may partially be driving Washington's current diplomatic push. And if the Obama administration's efforts fail, it is unlikely that American leaders would do anything but pretend that the two-state solution was still on the table. No American politician wants to choose between Israel's democracy and its Jewishness -- even if the polls show that the choice is clear to the American people.
Pretending neatly rationalizes paralysis, but it would not hide the naked truth for most people. If the peace talks fail, no number of assurances from the White House could stop the inevitable sense of resignation at home and abroad. The American people are clear about their views: Occupation and unequal citizenship are a losing cause.
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/delegitimization-suggests-annexation.html
Obama warns Israel about delegitimization, and Oren suggests annexation
As President Obama meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu in the White House today, here are two points to chew on.
Last Thursday Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg that if Israel doesn’t make a deal now it will face international “fallout,” i.e., delegitimization, and the U.S. will have limited ability to protect Israel from that process. We’ve already lost Europe, Obama says darkly.
And if Netanyahu thinks he has the “right” alternative to the two-state solution, he should tell us, Obama says almost challengingly.
But then you have Michael Oren, Netanyahu’s former ambassador, speaking to the Times of Israel last week in the most sanguine manner about the likely failure of the two-state solution and saying, The Palestinians have a fallback plan– a binational state– and We also have a fallback plan, annexation.
Taken together, these assertions suggest a collision course (and to cite the polling that Joy Reid just mentioned on MSNBC, Americans would support one democratic state over continued occupation).
First, here’s the president talking to Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg last week about a future without the two-state paradigm: Now here’s Oren glibly discussing Israel’s response to a two-state collapse: Therefore, Israelis would be ill advised to sit around and wait for the Palestinians to corner them. “If we declare our borders, that creates a de-facto situation of two nation states recognized by the UN — we may not recognize one another, but they’re already recognized by the UN — that have a border dispute. And we would be one of dozens of pairs of countries in the world that have a border dispute.”
Oren won’t say what the borders look like, but “the principle is maximum number of Israelis [Jews] within the State of Israel and maximum protection of Israel’s security.” Devouring the West Bank obviously:
To reiterate: this is why we say that Pearl Jam playing Israel is tacit support; Israel's supporters use anything and anyone who allows their name to be associated with the country, to support their politics.
Israel has sat down to the negotiating table and made concessions time and time again, but received absolutely nothing in return.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu has repeated his commitment to a two-state solution, and made goodwill gestures to the Palestinians in hopes of achieving peace. In particular, after saying he would not do so, Netanyahu defied members of his own government and instituted a quiet freeze of settlement construction in the West Bank. Netanyahu has done even more to help individual Palestinians and their families - in September 2013, he agreed to grant 5,000 permits, in addition to the 35,000 previously approved, to allow Palestinian laborers to work inside Israel.
In August 2013, Netanyahu authorized the first phase in a four-stage release of more than 100 Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails to satisfy a Palestinians demands to begin negotiations. Two months later, despite strong opposition from members of his ruling coalition, Netanyahu approved the release of 26 prisoners in the second phase. All of those released were convicted for murder, or attempted murder. Families who lost loved ones murdered by those released are understandably upset, nevertheless, Netanyahu said he must “honor government decisions, even if it is difficult and unpleasant” - hardly the stance of a hardline leader trying to obstruct the peace process.
What has Israel received in return for these confidence-building measures?
Nothing. Not peace, not direct talks with Palestinian leaders, not a cessation of violence and not any reciprocal concessions. In fact, incitement continues to grow within the PA, there has been a dramatic upsurge in terror incidents emanating from the West Bank and rocket attacks have renewed from Gaza.The only statements coming from the Palestinian side are the well-worn belligerent expressions of intransigence, such as the message PA President Mahmoud Abbas gave during the ceremony welcoming back the released prisoners on October 29. "There will never be a deal with Israel if even just one prisoner remains behind bars," said Abbas. "We are obligated to continue using any measure to free all prisoners until they return home."
Enjoy a balanced interview by the BBC pitting an Oxfam rep against the CEO of Sodastream and decide for yourself:
youtube.com/watch?v=cd9ioQrTqoY
My point is that performing in Israel is not making a statement on politics. It's a statement for sanity. I doubt Soundgarden is going to be put on the big board at AIPAC just because they performed in Israel. Nobody thinks that performing there is a statement that is pro-Israeli government policies. Only the BDS loonies see it to spin it that way. Hell, Eddie could get up there and rant away against the politicians on both sides who all deserve the tongue lashing. And the crowd would eat it up.
As far as solution, A or B. 2 state solution is preferred but is very misleading. It's really a 3 state solution (Israel, gaza, and West Bank) plus a split of Jerusalem. Hard liners are dug into both sides... Until someone can unify the Palestinians, the pressure on Israel is useless. The US cannot broker peace without a partner to dance with. Hammas will never recognize the state of Israel... And so it goes...
2013- Brooklyn2, Philly1, Philly2, NOLA
Secondly, you say that he 'instituted a quiet freeze of settlement construction in the West Bank'. And how log did that last? Settlement building continues a-pace as we speak. Anyway, how does freezing land-theft constitute a concession? The only concession worthy of the word would be an evacuation of the settlements.
The you go on to mention the prisoner releases. What was the price of releasing those prisoners? Further land-theft and illegal settlement construction.
Settlement construction more than doubled in 2013
Figures released mere hours before Netanyahu was due to meet with Obama in Washington.
By Chaim Levinson | Mar. 3, 2014 |
The number of housing starts in West Bank settlements more than doubled in 2013, according to data released Monday by the Central Bureau of Statistics.
The figures were released only hours before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was due to meet with President Barack Obama in Washington. The two have serious differences over Israel's settlement policies.
In its annual roundup of the Israeli housing market, the bureau said work began on 2,534 new housing units in the settlements in 2013, compared to 1,133 in 2012. The period covered coincides roughly with the tenure of Uri Ariel (Habayit Hayehudi) as Housing Minister.
The number of West Bank housing starts in 2013 is a 10-year high. The highest annual number ever was the 5,000 units built in 2000 under the Barak government.
Of the 2013 housing starts, 1,710 were in apartment buildings typical of the larger settlements, like Maale Adumim, Beitar Ilit and Modiin Ilit, while 824 were single units in the smaller settlements.
Sixty-four percent of the starts – 1,161 units – were public housing, a figure that is significantly higher than what is common within the Green Line. It indicates the huge efforts being made by the government to build in the territories. In the north of the country, for example, public housing accounts for only 20 percent of construction, while in the south it accounts for 30 percent.
The bureau's figures refer to approved construction that is undertaken with permits. The significant amount of illegal building in West Bank outposts is not counted.
Accelerated construction is the trend within the Green Line as well. The bureau reported 44,340 housing starts throughout the country in 2013.
The Yesha Council of settlements said the enormous jump in percentage terms stemmed from a government freeze on tenders the previous year. In absolute terms, it said, the West Bank had fewer housing starts than any other region of the country.
Moreover, said council Deputy Director General Yigal Dilmoni, the quantity is still insufficient to meet the needs of the settlements’ population, which is growing “at two and a half times the rate” of the rest of the country.
He urged the government to unfreeze additional tenders, saying this would create more housing near the center of the country, and thereby both ease the housing shortage and lower housing prices.
As for Apartheid, there's nothing ridiculous about the analogy at all. In fact, it's not an analogy, it's a fact, as any two year old with the ability to read the definition of the term Apartheid could understand.
Meanwhile. I suppose that in your one-eyed, self-serving view of things, all of these Israeli's are ridiculous?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Support_for_Israeli_apartheid_analogy
According to former Italian Prime Minister Massimo d'Alema, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had described to him "at length" that he felt the "bantustan model" was the most appropriate solution to the conflict in the West Bank.[212] The term “Bantustan” historically refers to the separate territorial areas designated as homelands under the South African apartheid State. Adam and Moodley argue that Israeli officials such as Sharon and Ehud Barak had used the analogy "self-servingly in their exhortations and rationalizations" and yet that, while they repeatedly deplored the occupation and seeming 'South Africanization', yet "have done everything to entrench it".
Shulamit Aloni, who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin, discussed Israeli practices in the West Bank in an article published in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. Aloni wrote that "Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population. The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies."
Yossi Sarid, who served as environment minister under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, writing in Haaretz stated that "the white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened — a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid."
Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset argued that an apartheid system has already taken shape in that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are separated into "cantons" and Palestinians are required to carry permits to travel between them.[214] Azmi Bishara, a former Knesset member, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid."
Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories" in an essay published in Haaretz.
Some Israelis have compared the separation plan to apartheid, such as political scientist, Meron Benvenisti,[143] and journalist, Amira Hass.[217] Ami Ayalon, a former admiral, claiming it "ha[d] some apartheid characteristics."
A major 2002 study of Israeli settlement practices by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem concluded: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B'Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa."
Daphna Golan-Agnon, co-founder of B'Tselem and founding director of Bat Shalom writes in her 2002 book Next Year in Jerusalem, "I'm not sure if the use of the term apartheid helps us to understand the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel or the oppression against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. I'm not sure the discussion about how we are like or unlike South Africa helps move us forward to a solution. But the comparison reminds us that hundreds of laws do not make discrimination just and that the international community, the same international community we want to belong to, did not permit the perpetuation of apartheid. And it doesn't matter how we explain it and how many articles are written by Israeli scholars and lawyers—there are two groups living in this small piece of land, and one enjoys rights and liberty while the other does not."
In October 2000, a group of Israeli Jews living in London signed a statement, initiated by Moshé Machover, describing Israel's policies in the occupied territories as apartheid. In a later essay, Machover, co-founder of Matzpen, the Israeli Socialist Organization and professor of philosophy in London, warned against "an unthinking use of this misleading analogy between Israeli policy and that of the defunct apartheid regime in South Africa." Accepting that "the two have many features in common", Machover concluded that Zionism, which aimed to "eliminate, exterminate or expel" Palestinians, rather than to exploit them, "is far worse than apartheid. Apartheid can be reversed. Ethnic cleansing is immeasurably harder to reverse; at least not in the short or medium term."
Retired Israeli judge and legal commentator for the daily Yedioth Ahronoth Boaz Okon wrote in June 2010 that events in Israel, when taken together, constituted apartheid and fascism. Okon used as examples segregated schools and streets, a "minute" proportion of Israeli Arabs employed in the civil service, censorship, limits on foreign workers having children in Israel and the monitoring of cell phones, email and Internet usage.
In an article in Haaretz in October 2010, Israeli journalist and academic Zvi Bar'el wrote that "Israel's apartheid movement is coming out of the woodwork and is taking on a formal, legal shape. It is moving from voluntary apartheid, which hides its ugliness through justifications of "cultural differences" and "historic neglect" which only requires a little funding and a couple of more sewage pipes to make everything right — to a purposeful, open, obligatory apartheid, which no longer requires any justification."
Boycotts and sanctions were the main forces used to overthrow South African Apartheid. They should be used with the same determination against Israel until that country falls in line with international law and the will of the whole World, excluding the U.S, and a couple of South Pacific atolls.
The best thing that could happen is if the U.S fucks off out of it, and allows an honest broker to take it's place. Either that, or the U.N revoke the U.S power of automatic veto so that international law, and the will of the whole of the international community, can be applied, in accordance with U.N 242, which the whole World has supported for the past 45 years, and which the U.S has blocked for the past 45 years.
UN official: Israel engaging in ethnic cleansing
Investigator Richard Falk says settlement expansion, consequent evicting of Palestinians 'intolerable'
Israel's expansion of Jewish "settlements" in east Jerusalem and eviction of Palestinians from their homes there is a form of ethnic cleansing, a United Nations investigator said on Monday.
US academic Richard Falk was speaking to the UN Human Rights Council as it prepared to pass resolutions condemning Israeli behaviour on territory it has occupied since 1967.
In response to Peace Now petition, State Prosecutor's Office tells High Court it will work to demolish illegal West Bank structures built on private land by end of the year
The "continued pattern of settlement expansion in East Jerusalem combined with the forcible eviction of long-residing Palestinians are creating an intolerable situation" in the part of the city previously controlled by Jordan, he said.
This situation "can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing," Falk declared.
Israel declines to deal with Falk or even allow him into the country, accusing him of bias against the Jewish state.
....
you can read all the articles and bring all the quotes you like but is that really a valid way to form an honest opinion? I ask you because you use the phrase propaganda quite a bit. Couldn't one argue that you are reading and being fooled by the same "propaganda" you accuse the other side of using? Is it possible the propaganda machine has worked on you? For years everyone thought the world was flat. Everyone was sure the world was flat. Written maps showed the world was flat. It was written down. If someone said the world was not flat it was easy to show them the error of their ways simply by presenting he written truth. Somewhere along the road we all learned the truth. We all learned the documents and maps were all wrong. We learned the truth because someone went to the edge and didn't fall off. Someone went there and found the truth.
I ask if you have been to Israel because you have such strong feelings about the state. Almost like you know these things you quote or post to be absolute truths, like you lived it or experienced it. For that passion I commend you. However, if you have not set foot in the land or lived in its towns how can you really know the truth?
We're not discussing religion here. We're discussing politics and history. Historical and political events are documented by written statements, documentary evidence, and by articles of law. They are also recorded by all of the various Human Rights organizations, such as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem. And one of the reasons these organizations were created was to shine a light on States abuse of power, and human rights abuses, and to document such abuses.
And I'll continue supporting what I say with the documentary record, and I couldn't care less if you, or anybody else, doesn't like it.
As to your answer to my question, you say you don't believe there to be an illegal occupation? Well, what you believe is irrelevant. International law clearly states that the occupation is illegal. That's a fact, not an opinion, or a belief.
So I take it that you 'believe' the Israeli's have a God given right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians then? And what exactly do you base this right on?
There are people who have never been to China who know more about Chinese history and politics than me, though I've lived in China for six years. There are also people who can speak far better Chinese than me, though they may never have set foot here before. How can that possibly be, you ask? There's something called education, and books. You should check them out some time.