Israeli Apartheid - Segregation, Control and the Creation of Bantustans in the OPT

sliverstain

Israeli Apartheid

Segregation, Control and the Creation of Bantustans in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).

By Owen Powell

08/29/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The question of Israel as an apartheid state has received increasing attention over the last years as Israel has continued colonial expansion in the West Bank while simultaneously attempting to diverge itself from the Palestinians. The purpose of this article is to highlight the growing systemization of apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) with particular reference to Israel's policy of unilateral disengagement. The need for this debate is highlighted by the effective outcomes of disengagement which has already resulted in the segregation of Palestinian communities and delineation of exclusive Jewish space by means of the segregation barrier. Furthermore the creation of Palestinian enclaves or ghettos in the OPT bears a striking resemblance to the South African policies during the apartheid era which sought the establishment Bantustans as a means to facilitate segregation and to secure privileges for an ethnic minority.

The term "Bantustan" refers to an apartheid regime policy which set about the creation of "independent" homelands for black South Africans. These homelands possessed no genuine sovereignty and consisted of fragmented pieces of land in which the white authorities attempted to force people to live. Boundaries of the Bantustans were typically drawn to exclude valuable resources and arable land. The Bantustan policy was policy designed to facilitate the control of natural resources, exploitation of black South Africans and the delineation of excusive "white" space.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14750.htm


So true.

The conditions in gaza, at this moment in time, are worse than Warsaw in 1940, pre-Nazi Liquidation. And there are 1.2 million Palestinians being starved and degraded.

Who's the fascists now?

OutOfBreath

Even if Israel aren't as bad as apartheid South Africa, there are too many similarities for comfort between Bantustans, and post-wall palestinian territories.

Peace
Dan

darkcrow

sliverstain wrote:

Who's the fascists now?

so often we become what we hate

sourdough

OutOfBreath wrote:

Even if Israel aren't as bad as apartheid South Africa, there are too many similarities for comfort between Bantustans, and post-wall palestinian territories.

Peace
Dan

True, it is not as bad as that of the black south Africans, but similar to the apartheid conditions of other minorities I think.

rebornFixer

sourdough wrote:

True, it is not as bad as that of the black south Africans, but similar to the apartheid conditions of other minorities I think.

Again, there are parallels, but the two should not be equated. The political circumstances are far different.

sourdough

reborncareerist wrote:

Again, there are parallels, but the two should not be equated. The political circumstances are far different.

But the experiences and outcomes are strikingly similar.

rebornFixer

sourdough wrote:

But the experiences and outcomes are strikingly similar.

In many cases ... However, the Palestinians WANT their own land, or bantustan, or whatever term you wish to use. They have no real desire to be integrated into Isreali society. You might understand the South Africa situation better than me, so I will defer to you here if needed ... But didn't black South Africans really just want to be treated fairly? Did they want their own state? Did they use terrorist tactics as a means of realizing their goals, to the same extent the Palestinians do?

sourdough

reborncareerist wrote:

In many cases ... However, the Palestinians WANT their own land, or bantustan, or whatever term you wish to use. They have no real desire to be integrated into Isreali society. You might understand the South Africa situation better than me, so I will defer to you here if needed ... But didn't black South Africans really just want to be treated fairly? Did they want their own state? Did they use terrorist tactics as a means of realizing their goals, to the same extent the Palestinians do?

Well initially, they did want their lands back and fought wars that were brief and destructive. The blacks were armed with traditional weapons (spears etc) and the Dutch had guns. Not good. It became apparent there was no way that they were going to be able to have a state of their own so I don't think that was an issue for long. They did not use terror tactics because they were not able to organize, nor did they have the knowledge, capability or suppliers. Blacks were congregated together in small settlements, but distributed through the country so there wasn't a lot of them together to plan, organize or arm. There were no allies with guns/missiles and weaponry was quite foreign to them for a long time. The middle east was much more technologically savvy than the Africans.

Byrnzie

sourdough wrote:

True, it is not as bad as that of the black south Africans, but similar to the apartheid conditions of other minorities I think.

Similar to what the American Indians had to endure on their reservations. People often forget what was done to the native Americans and of the ongoing injustices the traditional indians suffer at the hands of 'progressives' and the FBI.

rebornFixer

I brought up terrorism not to simply bash Palestinians, but to point out a different political reality. Palestinian oppression is amplified by the tactics the Palestinians themselves use ... Even if said tactics weren't the original cause of the oppression. I don't think the same can be said of South Africans. Or Native Americans, for that matter.

NMyTree

"Information Clearing House" ??? LMAO!!:D:D

That's quite the news source, you have there! HAHAHAHA!!! :D

What, the National Enquirer didn't have a suitable story, for you? How about "The Globe"? :D

MrBrian

reborncareerist wrote:

I brought up terrorism not to simply bash Palestinians, but to point out a different political reality. Palestinian oppression is amplified by the tactics the Palestinians themselves use ... Even if said tactics weren't the original cause of the oppression. I don't think the same can be said of South Africans. Or Native Americans, for that matter.

did'nt dick cheny called madela a terrorist in the 80's

---

also The anc used "terrorist" tactics to fight the south african government, they blew up buildings, clubs, cars. also Israel had a nice supply of arms to the south african apartheid government, also even now israeli/south africans are some very wealthy people, due to diamonds and such, weird no?

just thought I'd add that.

rebornFixer

MrBrian wrote:

did'nt dick cheny called madela a terrorist in the 80's

---

also The anc used "terrorist" tactics to fight the south african government, they blew up buildings, clubs, cars. also Israel had a nice supply of arms to the south african apartheid government, also even now israeli/south africans are some very wealthy people, due to diamonds and such, weird no?

just thought I'd add that.

Dick Cheney is a fool, though, so no great shocker there.

As for the Israel/South Africa weapons link ... That developed because both countries were having such a hard time purchasing weapons. Basically the two teamed up because no one else wanted to get involved. South Africa because of apartheid-caused embargoes, and Israel because the entire Middle East, supported by the Soviets, was turning the screws and no one in the West except the U.S. was wanting to "destabilize" the region further. I find it kind of ironic that Britain and other European nations basically created Israel, and then left their creation high and dry, surrounded by hostile forces.

MrBrian

reborncareerist wrote:

Dick Cheney is a fool, though, so no great shocker there.

As for the Israel/South Africa weapons link ... That developed because both countries were having such a hard time purchasing weapons. Basically the two teamed up because no one else wanted to get involved. South Africa because of apartheid-caused embargoes, and Israel because the entire Middle East, supported by the Soviets, was turning the screws and no one in the West except the U.S. was wanting to "destabilize" the region further. I find it kind of ironic that Britain and other European nations basically created Israel, and then left their creation high and dry, surrounded by hostile forces.

Israel was backed by everything America had, the only reasom they (Israel)got involved with South Africa was for money, big big money. I'm sure you are not making an excuse for Israels hand in supporting apartheid South Africa are you? acting like they are these two innocent countries that just started getting bullied for now reason

America gives it to Israel, Israel gives it to south africa, south africa gives part control over gold and diamonds (which south africa had alot of)

Israel helped support apartheid south africa, since America was backing Israel, America in turn was behind it also, yet America would "stand up against racism in south africa" while supporting it. that's the reality.

I think Britain ran after the creation of israel when they saw that it was a mistake?

rebornFixer

MrBrian wrote:

Israel was backed by everything America had, the only reasom they (Israel)got involved with South Africa was for money, big big money. I'm sure you are not making an excuse for Israels hand in supporting apartheid South Africa are you? acting like they are these two innocent countries that just started getting bullied for now reason

America gives it to Israel, Israel gives it to south africa, south africa gives part control over gold and diamonds (which south africa had alot of)

Israel helped support apartheid south africa, since America was backing Israel, America in turn was behind it also, yet America would "stand up against racism in south africa" while supporting it. that's the reality.

I think Britain ran after the creation of israel when they saw that it was a mistake?

Actually, I think the arms embargoes on South Africa were totally justified.
South Africa wasn't bullied, they pretty much made their bed.
As for Britain ... Is running from ones' so-called mistakes a decent response when something goes wrong?

MrBrian

reborncareerist wrote:

Actually, I think the arms embargoes on South Africa were totally justified.
South Africa wasn't bullied, they pretty much made their bed.
As for Britain ... Is running from ones' so-called mistakes a decent response when something goes wrong?

well yeah, that's what i'm saying, if an arms embargo on South Africa was justified, why is one on apartheid Israel not? as I've noted the connections, israel created it's own problems.

Israel is hated only because the way in which they came to be and continue to live. we know this because jewish people were coming to palestine after ww2 (around that time?) in a fair amount of peace. How did the zionists think that they could just take something and not expect anger?

To the second part, it's not a decent response on the part of Britain, I was just pointing out the reason to why they may of just cut and run like they did. Also I supsect america may of had a hand in Britain leaving, perhaps saying "we'll take over", america needing a firm cock, I mean hand in the mid east.

sourdough

reborncareerist wrote:

I brought up terrorism not to simply bash Palestinians, but to point out a different political reality. Palestinian oppression is amplified by the tactics the Palestinians themselves use ... Even if said tactics weren't the original cause of the oppression. I don't think the same can be said of South Africans. Or Native Americans, for that matter.

Although the south africans did not use terror tactics nor did they cause so many problems, the white south africans also feared what would happen if they weren't able to contain the blacks with good reason. When apartheid ended, the country descended into violence as the pissed off black africans were suddenly free to move take back what they believed was theirs.

MrBrian

sourdough wrote:

Although the south africans did not use terror tactics nor did they cause so many problems, the white south africans also feared what would happen if they weren't able to contain the blacks with good reason. When apartheid ended, the country descended into violence as the pissed off black africans were suddenly free to move take back what they believed was theirs.

the ANC killed quite a few "civilians" and bombed targets as well, was it terrorism or freedom fighting? nevertheless after it ended south africa went into a sort of civil war.

sourdough

MrBrian wrote:

the ANC killed quite a few "civilians" and bombed targets as well, was it terrorism or freedom fighting? nevertheless after it ended south africa went into a sort of civil war.

I stand corrected. Still, the ANC was no where near as active militarily as Hamas and co. There were some groups who did think that the only way there would be freedom in SA would be if there were no more white people and therefore wanted a state free of non-africans however, these are only small movements and very small minority groups.

MrBrian

sourdough wrote:

I stand corrected. Still, the ANC was no where near as active militarily as Hamas and co. There were some groups who did think that the only way there would be freedom in SA would be if there were no more white people and therefore wanted a state free of non-africans however, these are only small movements and very small minority groups.

You know what one of the reasons why apartheid failed? The cost of it, building seperate schools, bathrooms and the likes. it's a very expensive thing.

---

Some palestinians i'm sure would love to have no more jews on that land like some africans wanted no more whites, but on both cases those groups were/are very small, for the most part the anger towards said governments were/are justified. end the oppression.

anyway like I was saying, south africa is a total mess, the current ANC government is very corrupt, crimes are constant, it's really bad.

But that's what happens after so many years of suffering.

shiraz

OutOfBreath wrote:

Even if Israel aren't as bad as apartheid South Africa, there are too many similarities for comfort between Bantustans, and post-wall palestinian territories.

Peace
Dan

Its not a wall, it's a 95% fence & 5% concrete. Yes, I know some of you might think "what's the difference"? Well, the difference is a wall is quite permanent, and arouse evil associations like the ones of the (ex) Berlin wall. A fance is something common between neighbors, it is transparent and easy to be moved. That's why using a "wall" which doesn't really exist as another excuse for terrorists to act against Israeli civilians deep into Israeli territory, is not valid.

In addition to that, I think too many people forget something crucial: The Palestinian area is an autonomy, an intermediate stage of what will become the state of Palestine. Hence, in many aspects the Palestinian area is considered to be a foreign country, which is why they have different ID's, car plates etc'. The same thing goes to entrance-approval (~daily / weekly/ monthly working visa). Once the Palestinians get in, they have some restrictions (for example, can't get on an Israeli bus, they have special organized transportation) and that's not because Palestinian is a foreign country, but because its a hostile one.

Bad as it sounds, Israel could have simply refuse for ANY Palestinian to get into its territory and solve "that problem". But Israel is allowing Palestinian entrance because it is still holds some responsibility for their lifes. Most of them are in fact good people who deserve to earn money & support their families, and if the Palestinian authority can't provide working places for them, we will.

As for the interior roadblocks and curfews: Though its number was reduced, those aspects are WRONG WRONG WRONG and should disappear ASAP. Hard as it is (and it is, trust me it is when it comes to a 12 years old boy with a bombing-belt across his waists, for example) in this case we must defend ourselfs within Israel- Palestine borders, not via controling civilian's lifes.