What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?

[mmctrab]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What "expanding" are you talking about exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

The folks recently pulled out of Gaza are being built apartments at government expense in the West Bank. The settler population in the West Bank has been going up every year since 1967. Ground is still being broken on new settlements.

B'Tselem, Israeli Information Center on Human Rights

The Oslo 90% was far less than meets the eye. It did not include the roads.

Sure, the radicals will not accept Israel. But why is that a reason to CONTINUE seizing land?

[ QUOTE ]

And you are not fuly resigned to the existence of Israel? You believe that the State of Israel could be undone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it can be undone, and it certainly should not be undone violently. But people who believe in freedom should not resign themselves to the existence of a state based on ethnic supremacism. It is an apartheid regime. Not even South Africa had white-only roads.



[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that when Palestine was partitioned that the Arabs got 90% of the land since Jordan makes up the majority of what Palestine was right? You do also realize that the Jews were there 2000 years before the Arabs were right? I'm sure you also understand that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian" since there's never been a country called Palestine and that they are Arabs most likely from the south of Syria. According to Syria, the "Palestinians" are Syrians.

So, the Jews are left with 10% of Palestine, the Arabs have 90% of Palestine and now we're supposed to be concerned that there are some settlements here and there that maybe aren't supposed to be there, even though that's debatable since the international law is not clear. Give me a break.

Who cares if the Gaza settlers got apartments? They were forced to leave their homes in Gaza so that Gaza could be turned into a giant staging ground for anti-Israeli terrorist attacks. Talk about adding insult to injury. You are forced to leave your home, and then the people who it was given to then use it to launch rockets into Israel to try and kill you.

As long as the Arabs keep blowing up pizzerias, buses, cafes etc. and murdering women and children, they'll be fenced off so that they can do the minimum amount of damage. Their fate is completely in their own hands. When an Arab leader finally stands up and says enough is enough, this must stop, an Arab leader who fights to stop the radicalization of his people in the schools, and in the mosques and in the official PA media, then the violence can stop, and the lives of the Arabs will be dramatically improved.

The PA used to have one of the fastest growing economies in the world, back before the first and second Intifada. They screwed themselves, and there's nothing for the rest of the world to feel sorry for. They did it all to themselves.

[in48092]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no racist, I'd sex a girl from the Middle East.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



good luck, just dont come to egypt.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can imagine Egyptian girls are a tough nut to crack.

At this risk of shameless self propotion...I've sexed two Arab girls while in Lebanon. One Shi'a and one Sunni Palestinian. To be fair, the Shi'a was only of the oral variety because we weren't married and she was holding onto the V-card. The Palestinian girl was freaking awesome though.

[in48092]

I don't want to hijack this thread and turn it into a senselss debate on the history of the geography of the Levant, so I won't go into detal/address your position point by point, but
Mr.Crab, your argument is a ridiculous concontion of Zionist propaganda talking points. Also, I'm Jewish and not opposed to an Israeli state, so don't take this as someone diametrically opposed to your beliefs attacking you. If you would like an explaination of why, feel free to PM me.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the "apartheid" nonesense, not sure what to say. Inside Israel proper, im sure you are well aware that arabs have full rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apartheid exists in Israel proper, not just the West Bank. There are endless examples, both in formal law, and in daily practice. For example, Jews and non-Jews are separate classes of citizenship. Uri Davis writes:

[ QUOTE ]
such citizens of the state of Israel as are classified in law as "non-Jews" (namely, "Arabs") are denied to date access to some 93 per cent of the territory of pre-1967 Israel administered by the Israel Lands Administration (ILA).

[/ QUOTE ]

Uri Davis on apartheid in Israel proper -- short article

[Goater]

Unfortunately, I cant open the link you provided, so sorry if i dont address the points the article made.

The lands administration is a hot topic at the moment and there may well be changes soon. However, it was originally founded (pre state) to administer land that was legally purchased by Jews for Jews. Im not sure what the quote means by "denied access" - any Israeli has access to any public land. It is an extremely complex matter and, again, I totally reject your use of the word "apartheid". The courts constantly uphold the rights of Israeli Arabs and do so regarding the land issue as well:

see this article

There are no separate classes of citizenship enshrined in law. The lands issue is a distinct issue - but not an issue regarding the legal status of Arabs in Israel, rather an issue of how the ILA/JNF administer private/state lands.

I would be interested in hearing more re the "endless examples, both in formal law, and in daily practice".

Its my opinion that the misuse of language - in this case the word "apartheid" - seriously hinders a reasonable discussion of real issues and problems that do need addressing. It helps neither Israelis or Arabs (or Israeli Arabs) to mislabel the situation and reveals an individuals' lack of objectivity.

As someone who supports the principle of an independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, it saddens me that real issues are obfuscated by such language. Again, its just my opinion, but anyone who genuinely wishes to see a resolution to the conflict (which will benefit the average Palestinian much more than the average Israeli) should avoid such deliberate or accidental propaganda that attempts to deligitimise one side unfairly.

[Bill Haywood]

Apartheid in the West Bank is clear cut. I do not use the term in the rhetorical sense, but as a formal description. Goater has dodged this by saying, oh, it's all about the war so it does not count. But the land seizures are about land, not security. The settlements stretch like fingers further into the WB, where if the segregation were about security, they would be clean lines. The squiggly wall through the WB vastly increases the interface, rather than being a clean, efficient defensive line. Now the Israeli settlements are being linked by Jewish-only roads, made possible because Arabs are required to use distinctive license plates.

It is clearly apartheid on the WB, so the real dispute is over whether it is also true of pre-67 borders Israel.

To take one of many examples, there is the law of return, in which a kid from Long Island has more right to be in Israel than a family who has lived there for generations and has deeds to olive fields. Non-Jews are a separate category of citzenship

Goater states that the vast lands within Israel that are denied to non-Jews is "not an issue regarding the legal status of Arabs in Israel, rather an issue of how the ILA/JNF administer private/state lands."

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? So would you accept neo-apartheid as accurate? The same practices, just not legislated? Actually, it is law, as described below by Davis.

I'm not sure why the link did not work for you, but the Uri Davis article has been reprinted endlessly on the net. Here is a chunk of it, which goes into much better detail than I could. (I is a response to a letter in the London Guardian.) The crucial distinction Davis makes is this:
yes, Arab-Israelis are citizens, have full rights to vote, run for office, seek redress in the courts, etc. The huge BUT, however, is that they do not receive anywhere near equal access to national resources.

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Uri Davis

WHY ISRAEL OUGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA, July 24, 2002

Ian Buruma claims... that the comparison of Israel with South Africa is intellectually lazy, morally questionable, and possibly even mendacious, and that the call to boycott Israeli academic institutions tell us more about the boycotters than the subject of their rage.

I am afraid, however, that the facts of the case do not corroborate Ian Buruma's misguided argument. It is exactly the case that inside the State of Israel there IS apartheid.

I hope Ian Buruma can accept the distinction between racism and racial discrimination versus apartheid. I refer here to the term "racial discrimination" (or "racism") as defined in Article 1(1) of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1966 (any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.)

Apartheid, however, is not racism. Apartheid is an exceptional form of racial discrimination predicated upon the enforcement of racism in law through Acts of Parliament.

There is indeed no justification for singling out Israel as a state where racism is rife. Racism is rife in most or in all member states of the United Nations Organization, including the UK, let alone the US. There is, however, every reason to single out the Jewish state, not because it is a Jewish state, but because it is an apartheid state, namely a state that legislates racism through Acts of Parliament and enforces racialist behaviour upon its citizens by exercising the might of the law. In apartheid South Africa the apartheid divide was between people classified as 'whites' versus people classified as 'non-whites'. In apartheid Israel the apartheid divide is between people classified as 'Jews' versus people classified as 'non-Jews', first and foremost the indigenous people of the country of Palestine, the Palestinian Arab people.

The Israeli Supreme Court ruling of March 2000 in the case of Adil and Iman Qaadan versus the cooperative settlement of Qatzir notwithstanding, it remains the case to date that some 93 per cent of the entire territory of the State of Israel are earmarked IN LAW for cultivation, development and settlement for 'Jews only' and only some 7 per cent are accessible to 'non-Jews', first and foremost Palestinian Arab citizens of the State of Israel and the 1948 Palestine refugees. By comparison, in apartheid South Africa some 87 per cent of the territory of the Republic of apartheid South Africa was designated in law for 'whites' only and some 13 per cent was accessible to 'non-whites'. In other words, the terms of apartheid legislation with regard to land tenure in apartheid Israel are not only comparable to, but are WORSE in this regard than the terms of South African apartheid, now happily dismantle since 1994.

Ian Buruma refers to the indigenous Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, a national minority representing some 20 per cent of the total population of the State of Israel, and alleges that 'they enjoy full citizen's rights'.

I am afraid, however that this argument, like his argument above, is not borne by the facts of the case and is equally misguided.
.....

Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality and (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Unlike the US legislature, which recognizes, under a democratic Constitution, one universal citizenship for all US citizens without distinction of nationality, religion, language, tribe, sex, sexual orientation or any other social status - the State of Israel does not have one single universal citizenship for all of its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike. Rather, informed by the dominant ideology of political Zionism, the Israeli legislator (the Knesset) legislated a schedule of FOUR classes of citizenship based on racial discrimination and representing blatant inequality in law, in other words, representing a new form of Apartheid.

In the State of Israel the right of a citizen classified in law as a "non-Jew" (namely, an "Arab") to partake in the political process is formally equal to the right of a citizen classified in law as a "Jew". Likewise the standing of a citizen classified in law as a "non-Jew" before the courts of law is formally equal to the standing of citizen classified in law as a "Jew".

On the other hand the right of a citizen classified in law as a "non-Jew" to the social and welfare services and the material resources of the State are NOT equal to those of a citizen classified in law as a "Jew". The ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as High Court of Justice on the case of Adil and Iman Qaadan versus Qatzir in March 2000 notwithstanding, such citizens of the state of Israel as are classified in law as "non-Jews" (namely, "Arabs") are denied to date access to some 93 per cent of the territory of pre-1967 Israel administered by the Israel Lands Administration (ILA).

In other words, the Israeli legal system is based fundamentally on the determination of at least two classes of citizenship: Class "A" citizenship for such citizens as are classified in law as "Jews", and, as such are allocated in law a privileged access to the material resources of the State as well as the welfare services of the State only because they are classified in law as "Jews" versus Class "B" citizenship for such citizens as are classified in law as "non-Jews", namely, as "Arabs", and, as such, are discriminated against in law with regard to their right to equal access to the material resources of the State as well as the social and welfare services of the State, first and foremost their right to equal access to land and water only because they are classified in law as "non-Jews".

But subject to Class "B" citizenship above, there exists in the State of Israel by force of the Absentees Property Law of 1950 also Class "C" citizenship for such Arab citizens of the State of Israel as are present inside the state, yet classified in law as "absent". These Arab citizens are indeed present inside Israel as taxpayers and voters who cast (or refrain from casting) their vote in the election ballot - but, being classified under the said obscene law as "absentees" - they have been denied all their rights to their properties (e.g., lands, houses, corporations, shares, bank accounts, bank safes, etc.) such as were valid until 1948. Some 20 per cent of the constituency of the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, approximately 200,000 persons, are classified in Israeli law as Class "C" citizens, namely, as "present-absentees".

Also, subject to the said Absentees Property law of 1950, the Israeli legislator (the Knesset) determined in law a Class "D" citizenship, namely, the denied citizenship of some 750,000 1948 Palestine refugees and their descendants currently numbering according to UNRWA figures approximately 4 million persons. Under the terms of UN Resolutions 181(ii) (Plan for Partition with Economic Union) of November 1947, the constitutive document of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine recommending the partition of the territory of British Mandate Palestine into a "Jewish State" and an "Arab State", with the City of Jerusalem as a CORPUS SEPARATUM under a special international regime to be administered by the United Nations - the currently approximately 4 million 1948 Palestine refugees are entitled to the citizenship of the "Jewish State". Yet, the Israeli legislator (the Knesset), by force of the said Absentees Property Law of 1950, and in violation of the norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the standards of international law, denationalized the mass of the 1948 Palestine refugees, denying their right to Israeli citizenship, thereby rendering them stateless.

....

Let all those committed to the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the consistent application of the standards of international law worldwide coordinate their efforts with the view to motivate the UN to insist that the State of Israel comply with the terms of all UN resolutions relevant to the question of Palestine, including UN Resolution 181 of November 1947, determining that the State of Israel establish itself as a "Jewish State" - NOT as a "Jewish State" in the political Zionist sense of the term, namely, an apartheid state; NOT as a "Jewish state" with war criminal Governments guilty of the mass "ethnic cleansing" of the 1948 Palestine refugees from their now mostly destroyed hundreds of villages and many towns - but a "Jewish State" that is essentially democratic (with some "Jewish" trappings), namely, a democratic state for all of its citizens and 1948 Palestine refugee.

.....

--------------------

Dr Uri Davis is a citizen of Israel and the UK and author, inter alia, of ISRAEL: AN APARTHEID STATE (Zed Books, London, 1987 & 1990, revised edition forthcoming 2003); Senior Research Fellow at Institute for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (IMEIS), University of Durham and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies (IAIS), University of Exeter; Observer-Member of the Palestine National Council (PNC); Chair of AL-BEIT: Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Israel and Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine (MAIAP).

[/ QUOTE ]

[Case Closed]

America and we just had the President of an important country over here and we basically called him Satan and sent him on his way. Yup, insulted a foreign dignitary in the absolute worst way possible and a lot of people felt great about it.

So, we're not doing so hot at the moment.

[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?

[Bill Haywood]

Goater,

I think our conversation would go fairly predictably from here on. We will keep interpreting things differently because of a fundamental disagreement over the source of Arab anger.

You attribute Israel expanding to Arab hostility.

I attribute Arab hostility to Israel expanding.

You see it as exploding in 1948 out of some senseless Arab refusal to accept Jews in the neighborhood. You believe Israel expands mainly as ad hoc security measures against annihilation. I see Arab hostility developing since 1890 because of constant loss of land to the Yishuv, with dramatic losses in 1948, and ever since 1967.

To me, it's a simple, ancient story of cowboys vs. Indians.

[Goater]

Well, I think you are probably right about the progress of our conversation Bill - although I tend to see things less black and white. Israel has absolutely made some huge mistakes over the years and I do certainly understand certain aspects of arab anger. I just believe that in the here and now, the reality is that the only way people on either side will ever live in peace is if the palestinians somehow come to genuinely accept a 2 state solution. I know the majority in Israel accepts this. Im not hopeful, but I really think that the obstacles on the Israeli side can be overcome, but those on the Palestinian side (regardless of how understandable they may be) currently can not.

Which ever side you are on, its a sad situation.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this - I've appreciated your comments.