[Goater]

Thanks for printing the article. The author, a self declared "anti zionist Palestinian Jew" represents a radical fringe that does not believe in the existence State of Israel whatsoever and overtly supports its (i assume non-violent) destruction. He confuses the motivations and historical reasons for such laws and incorrectly labels them "apartheid" It is not difficult for such an individual to reject such policies when he is not at all concerned with the existence of the State of Israel.

Firstly, whatever semantic acrobatics you use to try and make the evocative word "apartheid" fit, I still believe it does not. It was a word specific to the South African situation and to strip the word of its historical, societal and philosophical baggage removes its original significance in order to pimp it out in the service of anti zionism.

So many of the features of apartheid are not present in the Israeli/Palestinian case. The main tactic of those who use this term is to focus on the status of various groups regarding land and land law. This, of course, is a very specific issue and due to the history and geographical reality of the State of Israel it is in no way comparable to the South African situation. To divorce Israeli policy from the context of intense existential conflict and legitimate security needs is to make meaningless arguaments with the intention of delegitimising the existence of the State of Israel.

The Israeli/Palestinian issue is an arguament over which national collective's self-determination should have precedence in a particular disputed territory. This is not even close to the South African case.

Re the West Bank, yes, Israeli policy is obviously more severe towards Palestinians. It is simply impossible to explain why this is the case without a discussion of the historical reasons for the occupation - of which im sure we disagree. In any case Israel has shown serious commitment to relinquishing territory for peace and this is a huge majority position for the voting public in Israel and will not change for a long time. Again, the few extreme settlers you seem to believe are running Israeli policy re the West Bank are not a fundamental barrier to withdrawal. The fundamental barrier is the murderous hostility of the Palestinians and their refusal to accept a 2 state solution and the very existance of the State of Israel. I suppose in a roundabout way, what I am saying is that the policies you consider "apartheid" in the West Bank are mostly security necessities and also do include an understandable reluctance (not so much now) to clamp down on minor expansion (I personally oppose all expansion). Your example of Israeli only roads is a clear cut security measure not based on any "racist" principle but on the need for Israelis to travel without the very real threat of murder/kidnap. The general Israeli acceptance of withdrawal in the framework of peace shows that such issues could be totally removed by a Palestinian acceptance of a true 2 state solution.

Re Israel proper, the examples you cite relate to the fundamental basis of the conflict - an arguament over which national collective's self-determination should have precedence in a particular disputed territory. To maintain Israel as a Jewish State, Israel has a right to enact policies (according to majority democratic principles) such as the law of return and certain land laws.

"So if it's a generations old administrative practice, but not written into the constitution, or a formal law, you are going to say it's not really apartheid?"

Yes, I will say that it is not apartheid. It is not based on racism, but preservation of the State of Israel itself. As my link showed, the courts are questioning the status of the specific law you mention and it seems that changes will occur. Of course, if you believe that the State of Israel is fundamentally a racist enterprise, your view will not be changed. For those who accept the existence of the State of Israel as a homeland for Jews, in a tiny strip of land surrounded by hostile Arab states, such policies are simply self preservation and a rejection of national suicide. Once a 2 state solution is in place, there will be no significant conflict concerning 2 peoples right to self determination. Israelis have basically accepted this premise - Palestinians have not.

Sorry for the length of this post - maybe we should move this discussion elsewhere?