Apartheid in the West Bank

[Jeff Lebowski]

SU and I exchanged a couple of insults in that other thread but didn't really analyze the topic in detail. So I thought I would start another thread where we can explore the question in a little more depth and maybe come up with some more creative insults.

SU objected to Carter's comparison of the current situation in the occupied territories of Palestine to apartheid as practiced in South Africa, saying that Carter should STFU. Knowing that SU won't read the book, I will attempt to make a quick summary of the similarities in the two situations so that we can debate the facts and not broad generalities.

First of all, SU claims the following:

1) Islam sucks
2) Palestinians are part of an evil race, worthy of our contempt
3) Israel is a democracy

Accordingly, he is apparently willing to overlook or justify any and all human rights abuses in the occupied territories. Or simply deny the possibility of human rights abuses. I find such a stance to be morally bankrupt.

The standard justification for the Israeli occupation is twofold:

(1) It is a security issue. They must continue the occupation to fight terrorism and provide security for Israel.
(2) God promised this land to the Jews, and the unfortunate Palestinians are simply modern-day Cannanites, fated to be swept away as God brings about the glorious return of his chosen people. Any messiness that occurs in the process is unfortunate, but inevitable.

Interestingly, similar arguments were made by the white South Africans. Security was one of the primary justifications of apartheid. "Look at how much crime they commit and how barbaric they are. Clearly we must hold them back or they will murder us or sweep us into the sea." They also claimed a God-given right to the land a divine sanction for their treatment of the natives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/575204.stm).

Now let's look some more similarities in detail. Keep in mind that I am focusing exclusively on the occupied territories, and the West Bank in particular. This has nothing to do with Israel's right to exist (something that Carter strongly supports).

(a) Democracy?

Both South Africa and Israeal claimed/claim to be democracies. But this is only true for a certain class of people. Palestinians who have lived their entire lives under occupation are not allowed to vote. But they are required to pay taxes. There is no end in sight for this status quo.

(b) Confiscation of resources

As was the case in South Africa, the natural resources of the West Bank have been confiscated for near exclusive use by Israelis. This includes water, the best farmland, and the best locations for communities. The Israelis have systematically destroyed much of the manufacturing and agriculture run by Palestinians. The extra produce eked out by Palestinians is often not allowed to leave the country as exports to Jordan, Syria, etc. They claim it would harm the market for Israeli products. The Palestinian economy has been reduced to subsistance farming and day labor. With the new wall the day labor opportunities are rare, leading to more poverty. The "security wall" snakes through the West Bank well within the 1967 borders, gobbling up water sources and prime farmland. Palestinians who lived for generations on their family farms and who find themselves on the Israeli side of the fence are now classified as illegal aliens in Israel and must apply for permits to work their farms (400,000 Palestinians by some estimates). They are not offered citizenship.

(c) Separate communities and infrastructure

The most striking similarity between the occupation and apartheid (and the one used by Carter to make the comparison) is the settlements in the West Bank. Palestinians have been forcefully removed from their homes and farms to make way for Israeli settlers. The settlers take the prime land and the majority of the water. The Israelis have also constructed a new network of highways to connect the settlements. Each highway is well-maintained and includes a 300 m buffer on each side (resulting in more evictions). The Palestinians highways are not only un-maintained, but are purposely kept in a state of disrepair and are full of Israeli checkpoints limiting travel.

Thus we have two classes of people in same land, one class with all of the power, riches, and right to govern. This is not a temporary situation. These are permanent settlements and infrastructure. Putting Israelis settlers inside occupied territories has absolutely nothing to do with security. It is a naked grab of resources, pure and simple. Incidently, moving settlers into territory occupied through military conflict is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.

At this point, there is almost nothing left of a Palestinian economy. Without water, land, infrastructure, and the ability to move goods and services, they have no future whatsoever.

The standard excuse you hear for the continuation of these abuses is "If they would only denounce and cease terrorism forever, we will negotiate." But the Israelis always make this a zero tolerance condition. A condition that they know full well is impossible to meet even if a vast majority of the Palestinians satisfy it. Over the last 2-3 years there have been very few terrorist attacks or bombings in Israel. But the settlements have simply accelerated.

So there you go, SU. I stipulate up front that no analogy is perfect so don't bother nitpicking over minor details. Carter didn't reveal anything new in his book. He simply showed the courage to call the situation what it really is. Sadly, this is rarely discussed or acknowledged in the US.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

SU and I exchanged a couple of insults in that other thread but didn't really analyze the topic in detail. So I thought I would start another thread where we can explore the question in a little more depth and maybe come up with some more creative insults.

SU objected to Carter's comparison of the current situation in the occupied territories of Palestine to apartheid as practiced in South Africa, saying that Carter should STFU. Knowing that SU won't read the book, I will attempt to make a quick summary of the similarities in the two situations so that we can debate the facts and not broad generalities.

First of all, SU claims the following:

1) Islam sucks
2) Palestinians are part of an evil race, worthy of our contempt
3) Israel is a democracy

Accordingly, he is apparently willing to overlook or justify any and all human rights abuses in the occupied territories. Or simply deny the possibility of human rights abuses. I find such a stance to be morally bankrupt.

The standard justification for the Israeli occupation is twofold:

(1) It is a security issue. They must continue the occupation to fight terrorism and provide security for Israel.
(2) God promised this land to the Jews, and the unfortunate Palestinians are simply modern-day Cannanites, fated to be swept away as God brings about the glorious return of his chosen people. Any messiness that occurs in the process is unfortunate, but inevitable.

Interestingly, similar arguments were made by the white South Africans. Security was one of the primary justifications of apartheid. "Look at how much crime they commit and how barbaric they are. Clearly we must hold them back or they will murder us or sweep us into the sea." They also claimed a God-given right to the land a divine sanction for their treatment of the natives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/575204.stm).

Now let's look some more similarities in detail. Keep in mind that I am focusing exclusively on the occupied territories, and the West Bank in particular. This has nothing to do with Israel's right to exist (something that Carter strongly supports).

(a) Democracy?

Both South Africa and Israeal claimed/claim to be democracies. But this is only true for a certain class of people. Palestinians who have lived their entire lives under occupation are not allowed to vote. But they are required to pay taxes. There is no end in sight for this status quo.

(b) Confiscation of resources

As was the case in South Africa, the natural resources of the West Bank have been confiscated for near exclusive use by Israelis. This includes water, the best farmland, and the best locations for communities. The Israelis have systematically destroyed much of the manufacturing and agriculture run by Palestinians. The extra produce eked out by Palestinians is often not allowed to leave the country as exports to Jordan, Syria, etc. They claim it would harm the market for Israeli products. The Palestinian economy has been reduced to subsistance farming and day labor. With the new wall the day labor opportunities are rare, leading to more poverty. The "security wall" snakes through the West Bank well within the 1967 borders, gobbling up water sources and prime farmland. Palestinians who lived for generations on their family farms and who find themselves on the Israeli side of the fence are now classified as illegal aliens in Israel and must apply for permits to work their farms (400,000 Palestinians by some estimates). They are not offered citizenship.

(c) Separate communities and infrastructure

The most striking similarity between the occupation and apartheid (and the one used by Carter to make the comparison) is the settlements in the West Bank. Palestinians have been forcefully removed from their homes and farms to make way for Israeli settlers. The settlers take the prime land and the majority of the water. The Israelis have also constructed a new network of highways to connect the settlements. Each highway is well-maintained and includes a 300 m buffer on each side (resulting in more evictions). The Palestinians highways are not only un-maintained, but are purposely kept in a state of disrepair and are full of Israeli checkpoints limiting travel.

Thus we have two classes of people in same land, one class with all of the power, riches, and right to govern. This is not a temporary situation. These are permanent settlements and infrastructure. Putting Israelis settlers inside occupied territories has absolutely nothing to do with security. It is a naked grab of resources, pure and simple. Incidently, moving settlers into territory occupied through military conflict is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.

At this point, there is almost nothing left of a Palestinian economy. Without water, land, infrastructure, and the ability to move goods and services, they have no future whatsoever.

The standard excuse you hear for the continuation of these abuses is "If they would only denounce and cease terrorism forever, we will negotiate." But the Israelis always make this a zero tolerance condition. A condition that they know full well is impossible to meet even if a vast majority of the Palestinians satisfy it. Over the last 2-3 years there have been very few terrorist attacks or bombings in Israel. But the settlements have simply accelerated.

So there you go, SU. I stipulate up front that no analogy is perfect so don't bother nitpicking over minor details. Carter didn't reveal anything new in his book. He simply showed the courage to call the situation what it really is. Sadly, this is rarely discussed or acknowledged in the US.

Sophistry.

[SeattleUte]

Jeff, I'll read this after I get some sleep and some time tomorrow and respond substantively.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Jeff, I'll read this after I get some sleep and some time tomorrow and respond substantively.

You may want to read this article while sipping your coffee in the morning.
The war's seventh day by Michael Ben Yair, Former Attorney General of the state of Israel (1993-1996).

The Six-Day War was forced upon us; however, the war's seventh day, which began on June 12, 1967 and has continued to this day, is the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.

[SeattleUte]

If Palestinians have records verifying that they once owned land in occupied territiories, and have evidence that that land was forcibly taken from them, they are worthy of consideration for some kind of reparation, under appropriate circumstances. Until those circumstances arise, "Palestinians" and Israel are at war with one another, and "Palestinians" are engaging in the most reprehesible form of military aggression--suicidal terrorism against civilians, including indiscriminately against children. Even Mindful's quotation notes that the Israelis were not the ones who started the war that led to Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

What was "Palestine," and who are the "Palestinians?" Before the Israelis conquered "Palestine" the the British were reigning colonialists, and the British defeated the Ottoman Turks. "Palestinians" has become more a war cry and term of propaganda than anything else. This is the primary reason they don't move on, assimilating and succeeding elsewhere, regardless of preceived injustices, as, for example, the European Jews displaced by Hitler's agreesion have.

I wonder if all "Palestinian refugees" vanished, died of natural causes and assimilated elsewhere, whether Hamas, Hezbolah and Al Qeda, the organizations who propagandize "Palestine" and employ the war cry, wouldn't still maintain a potempkin village for the likes of Jimmy Carter. The Middle East is certainly burgeoning with poor, displaced oppressed peoples they could be putting there.

I don't doubt there are wretched and miserable people calling themselves "Palestinians" who sincerely feel Israel has taken something from them, even some who have suffered the usual tragedies and hardships of civilians in a war zone. I do question whether they are any worse off than under the Ottoman Empire or the British.

In any event, let's sign a peace treaty. Israel has been ready to sign one acceptable to the U.S. in the past. Israel can go ahead and convey the occupied territories back to "Palstinians" for all I care. But I don't blame Israel for wanting a comprehensive peace and end to ceaseless efforts to destroy the state of Israel by those for whom Palestinians have been a front. It won't happen because why should Hezbolah and Hamas want that to happen? They are the true face of the Palestinians.

Yes, there are many good "Palestinians." But they are victims of their own leaders' mendacity. Is this unusual?

[SeattleUte]

How ironic that Lebowski attacks Israel's arguably less evolved form of democracy, while giving "Palestinians'" and their friends' islamofacism a free pass. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Palestinians and Israelis are at war until a peace treaty is signed. War sometimes leads to extreme measures. Still, Israel is indubitably a real, functioning democracy, unlike the Islamofacist states.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

How ironic that Lebowski attacks Israel's arguably less evolved form of democracy, while giving "Palestinians'" and their friends' islamofacism a free pass. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Palestinians and Israelis are at war until a peace treaty is signed. War sometimes leads to extreme measures. Still, Israel is indubitably a real, functioning democracy, unlike the Islamofacist states.

This is the same argument used to support the South African white government--"look at the communist ties of the black South Africans, look at what a despicable person Mandela is, look at how terrible his wife is. It's not a perfect system, apartheid, but the moral thing is to support it."

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is the same argument used to support the South African white government--"look at the communist ties of the black South Africans, look at what a despicable person Mandela is, look at how terrible his wife is. It's not a perfect system, apartheid, but the moral thing is to support it."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096...pf_rd_i=507846

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096...pf_rd_i=507846

When I looked at this, my first immediate thought was "No Ma'am That's Not History".

Nothing these people say can change the facts on the ground that the Israelis are engaged in a brutally oppressive occupation. That Jews are the arguably the most educated, intelligent, enlightened, and liberal group in the world only makes the irony more horrible.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If Palestinians have records verifying that they once owned land in occupied territiories, and have evidence that that land was forcibly taken from them, they are worthy of consideration for some kind of reparation, under appropriate circumstances.

"If"? You have to be kidding me. If you form this as an uncertainty, then I am not sure we even have the basis for discussion. Amazing.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Even Mindful's quotation notes that the Israelis were not the ones who started the war that led to Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

It started with the forcible expulsion of the non-Jews in 1947. Don't kid yourself.

The West Bank was part of Jordan in 1967 and Jordan was the least aggressive of the hostile neighbors. And Israel attacked first. Surely you know this. Either way, it does not justify imposing apartheid-like conditions.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What was "Palestine," and who are the "Palestinians?" Before the Israelis conquered "Palestine" the the British were reigning colonialists, and the British defeated the Ottoman Turks. "Palestinians" has become more a war cry and term of propaganda than anything else. This is the primary reason they don't move on, assimilating and succeeding elsewhere, regardless of preceived injustices, as, for example, the European Jews displaced by Hitler's agreesion have.

I wonder if all "Palestinian refugees" vanished, died of natural causes and assimilated elsewhere, whether Hamas, Hezbolah and Al Qeda, the organizations who propagandize "Palestine" and employ the war cry, wouldn't still maintain a potempkin village for the likes of Jimmy Carter. The Middle East is certainly burgeoning with poor, displaced oppressed peoples they could be putting there.

I don't doubt there are wretched and miserable people calling themselves "Palestinians" who sincerely feel Israel has taken something from them, even some who have suffered the usual tragedies and hardships of civilians in a war zone. I do question whether they are any worse off than under the Ottoman Empire or the British.

That's about as biased a summary as I can imagine on the situation. And did you seriously compare them to the Nazi aggressors while at the same time defending the aggressors? Wow.

You did not even begin to address my main point: the comparison of the settlements/occupation to apartheid. Nor have you attempted to explain how these human rights abuses have anything to do with security. To borrow a tactic from you, I will take your silence on the matter as an admission of defeat.