· Read today's paper · Jobs
Comment is free

Brian Klug

Spare us the analogies

With its misplaced rhetoric about apartheid, the motion calling for an academic boycott of Israel is fatally flawed.

May 30, 2006 04:00 PM | Printable version

In the days when there was a white supremacist regime in South Africa, those of us who were opponents of apartheid came together in a concerted campaign to isolate the state from the rest of the international community. This included cutting ties with South African universities.

The policy was clear, the rationale unambiguous, and support was broadly based. Although there was some disagreement about strategy, on the whole it was a united front. A line in the sand was drawn, and you knew where you stood. On the one side were those who opposed apartheid, and consequently supported an academic boycott; on the other side was everyone else.

Nowadays, the spotlight is falling on Israel. The most recent instance is the resolution adopted on May 29 at the annual national conference of Natfhe, the largest academic staff union in Britain. Resolutions of this kind appear to be based on an analogy with the boycott campaign against South Africa, but the analogy is mistaken.

The Natfhe motion is fatally flawed in two ways. First, it is unclear what it calls for. Here is the punch line: "Conference invites members to consider their own responsibility for ensuring equity and non-discrimination in contacts with Israeli educational institutions or individuals, and to consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies."

Is this a call for action or is it an invitation to quietly think things over? Does "Israeli educational institutions or individuals" include all sectors - even schools - or just colleges and universities? Does "individuals" mean staff alone or does it include students (such as Israeli applicants to UK graduate programmes)? And if a political test is going to be applied, who will administer it, how, and with what criteria?

Second, the underlying rationale, given in the opening paragraph of the motion, is both vague and paradoxical: "Conference notes continuing Israeli apartheid policies, including construction of the exclusion wall, and discriminatory educational practices. It recalls its motion of solidarity last year for the AUT resolution to exercise moral and professional responsibility."

Presumably, the second sentence refers to the AUT decision in April 2005 to boycott Bar-Ilan and Haifa universities. But this decision was overwhelmingly overturned a month later. Natfhe thus finds itself in the odd position of affirming its solidarity with a position that the AUT has emphatically rejected.

Which leaves the first sentence to carry the burden of explaining the reasoning behind the motion. But other than the "exclusion wall", it is unclear what exactly the motion is aimed against. Is the rationale opposition to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank per se? Or is it merely opposition to the way the territory is administered? Or is it opposition to institutionalised inequalities within Israel proper? Possibly (given the rhetoric of the word "apartheid") there is a subtext: opposition to the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. And without knowing which of these policies and practices are meant, how is it possible to judge whether an institution or individual should dissociate from them?

In short, the intention of the Natfhe motion - what it seeks and why - is obscure. But even if the policy and rationale were clear and unambiguous, there is a deeper problem with motions of this sort that prevents them from attracting a broad base of support: they rely on the false (or limited) analogy implied by the word "apartheid". This is not to say that there are no points of comparison, for there are - just as there are in a host of other countries where minority ethnic and national groups are oppressed. Nor is it even to say that the suffering experienced by Palestinians is less than that endured by "non-whites" in South Africa: it may or may not be (although I am not sure how to do the sums). But as I have argued elsewhere: "The validity of the analogy does not depend on a catalogue of atrocities, however appalling".

In terms of history and motivation, the differences between the two situations are greater than the similarities. And in the end, any political action that is aimed at ameliorating the conditions of the Palestinians must be based on an analysis - not an analogy.

We need a line in the sand. But the analogy with South Africa leads people of goodwill to draw the line in the wrong place, dividing people who share the same goals and turning them against each other.

Moreover, the ubiquitous boycott debate tends to divert attention away from other alternatives. Various groups, such as the Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace - UK, are proposing initiatives that give practical support to those Palestinians and Israelis on the ground - in and out of academia - who are on the frontline.

Perhaps the new University and College Union, which comes into existence later this week (with the merger of Natfhe and AUT), will take a new look and draw a line that separates the sheep from the goats.



Digg this | Add it to Del.icio.us | Conversations about this post |



This entry was tagged with the following keywords:

Comments

Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs.
You can register here.


I agree it's more like genocide than apartheid.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Cambridge/gbr

### Albert Einstein once said : "It would be my greatest sadness to see Jews do to Palestinian Arabs much of what Nazis did to Jews"

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Richmond/usa

GREENT, where did you find this rubbish? Weblink please or the name of the source.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Colchester/gbr

This rubbish about Israel's "apartheid" policies gives the whole game away. If the Palestinians were as white as the Israelis are now, and the Israelis were as dark-skinned as the Palestinians are now, the Left would support Israel.

Israel-Palestine is about two peoples claiming the same territory, with a two-state solution the obvious answer. Apartheid South Africa was about one racial group ruling another in a single territory. No one was seriously suggesting a two-state solution in South Africa. The use of the term "apartheid" in the Israeli context is just an attempt to introduce a loaded term into the debate -- it's an exercise in propaganda, not analysis.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Bradford/gbr

If the Zionists object to being compared to the Apartheid South Africans then they have a simple solution to the problem. Stop behaving like them. As they say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

I have asked this question elsewhere but haven't received an answer yet. What other countries does the union boycott?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Bradford/gbr

We used to boycott South Africa, and the South Africans tried the same trick of saying 'what about Russia, China etc etc'.

Of course, Israel was Apartheid South Africa's biggest ally
see http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,,1704038,00.html

Israel was also pally with Idi Amin before they fell out. The zionist were very keen on selling arms to every fascist junta south of the Rio Grande.

http://www.arcuk.org/pages/arms_unto_the_nations.htm

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Calgary/can

Ok let's talk about apartheid.
Once the border lines are drawn, how many Jews will there be in Palestine? How many will be allowed to settle in the areas controlled by Palestine?- or for that matter in many Arab countries? Not a whisper of a boycott there.
I understand there are about 1.2 million Arabs living and thriving in Israel proper

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

All this talk about boycotts reminds me of a (true?) story I heard during the anti-apartheid campaign. A Guardian reader walks into a greengrocer to buy some bananas. When she asks where they are from, the grocer says "South Africa, madam". The woman says "Oh no, I don't think I could buy them." The grocer smiles sympathetically. "I know what you mean" she says, "just think how many darkies must have handled them"

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

The union doesn't boycott any other countries I gather. That is absurd! Israel's policies in the occupied territories are disgraceful but you could say the same about so many other countries. Why doesn't the union boycott other countries with human rights violations? Furthermore, I fail how a boycott can be at all helpful. Surely academics are last people you want to boycott.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Tokyo/jpn

coventrian
The biggest arm dealers in the world are the US, UK, France, Russia and China. Those countries are also the members of the Security Council in the UN. Creating and maintaining conflicts in the world is their business and they make a lot of money from it so stop your anti-Israeli pathetic rhetoric and start adopting some perspective about how things realy work. But than, if you do that, than hating and boycotting Israelis will wont be fun anymore, who will you hate than?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Cambridge/gbr

Einstein against Zionism :

#The 1948 Letter of some Eminent Jews to New York Times. Albert Einstein, one of the signatories:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/einstein/nyt_letter.html

#A Myth Exposed: Albert Einstein Was Not a Zionist
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/Petersen_Einstein.htm

"It would be my greatest sadness to see Zionists do to Palestinian Arabs much of what Nazis did to Jews." --Albert Einstein http://www.zionismexplained.org/

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Dundee/gbr

I agree it is a rubbish analogy. The problem is that people want to have their cake and eat it. The West Bank is not part of Israel and everyone agrees on this (even Israel!). This means that it must be a separate entity under occupation. However in this case the regime in the WEst Bank cannot be apartheid as West Bankers are not part of Israel. Likewise the wall cannot be an "apartheid" wall as it does not split apart different Israeli races but Israelis from Palestinians.
Some people then try to claim that they are "really" talking about Israeli Arabs. There is discrimination there but it is diminishing and there are many systems which are worse (such as the Malaysian "Bumiputra" system).

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Tokyo/jpn

GREENT
Einstein was an ANTI-NATIONALIST! on this principle he would object a Palestinian state as well.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Richmond/usa

coventrian,

and the same goes to anti Semitic British academics, liberal and Islamo-fascists - As they say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

GREENT

I am glad you posted those websites, the website you found that garbage is http://www.zionismexplained.org/ I hope people read to know what you are using to make your point, if the next time you quote something from neo Nazi's website no-one will be amazed.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

GREENT "It would be my greatest sadness to see Zionists do to Palestinian Arabs much of what Nazis did to Jews." --Albert Einstein

So where are the Israeli gas chambers, GREENT?

Enough, already. All I can say is it's just as well Einstein didnt move to Israel, as he'd be facing a boycott now

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

Tzimisces "There is discrimination there but it is diminishing and there are many systems which are worse (such as the Malaysian "Bumiputra" system)."

Yeah but Malaysians are non-Europeans therefore anything bad they do is part of their "culture" and therefore you can't criticise them without being "imperialist".

As someone else said if only Israelis were black...

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Edinburgh/gbr

GreenT, I think you've successfully proved what a load of cobblers Einstein talked when he strayed off the subject of theoretical physics. If you've in need of further proof you might like to consult the pro-Stalinist apologetics he indulged in during his correspondence with Sydney Hook or his participation in the American Communist Party front, the Cultural and Scientific Conference for Peace in 1949. I don't know why you imagine he's an authority on any subject other than relativity.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Stevenage/gbr

er...i think you're all forgetting the fact that Einstein came very close to being the first President of Israel and backed his fellow scientist Chaim Weizman for the role when he politely refused.

And that Islaofascist Quisling GreenT is trying to make Einstein out to be an ur-Chomsky. Then again, Chomsky did say in a recent Ha'aretz interview he could retire in Israel...

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

Statement from the AUT on its website http://www.aut.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1684

At its recent annual conference NATFHE passed a motion inviting their members to consider boycotting Israeli academics under certain circumstances.

AUT does not endorse this policy and is strongly advising its members not to implement it. In May 2005 AUT council overwhelmingly rejected an earlier decision to boycott two Israeli universities and reasserted its belief that freedom of expression, open debate and unhampered dialogue are prerequisites of academic freedom.

In addition, the meeting went on to set up a commission to investigate the whole issue of international boycotts. The
report of the commission was agreed at May 2006 AUT council. It sets out a very careful, staged approach to boycotts which ensures that they are applied only in exceptional circumstances, are fully justified by the facts, and can be shown to be an effective way of furthering academic freedom and human rights.

The commission considered only the collective boycotting of
institutions by the union's membership. It did not consider the boycotting of individual academics by individual union members. This tactic is fraught with difficulties and dangers and should not be followed by AUT members.

On 1 June AUT and NATFHE join to form the University and College Union (UCU). The NATFHE motion is not binding on the UCU. The AUT will argue for the UCU to adopt the report of its commission. It will not support or cooperate in any way with any attempts to implement the NATFHE motion in advance of the first UCU annual national congress in June 2007.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Albany/usa

" Once the border lines are drawn, how many Jews will there be in Palestine? How many will be allowed to settle in the areas controlled by Palestine?- or for that matter in many Arab countries? Not a whisper of a boycott there.
I understand there are about 1.2 million Arabs living and thriving in Israel proper"

What a load of horsecrap ! "Once the border lines are drawn"...you mean UNILATERAL border lines ? "How many jews will be allowed to settle in the areas 'controlled' by Palestine" ? Why would ANYONE want to settle in the strips of desert that the jews so graciously and UNILATERALLY "allowed" the palistinians to have ?

"1.2 million arabs 'thriving' in Israel proper" ? Are you refering to the slave labor WITHOUT say or voting rights the Jews allow to subsist on Israeli soil ? Kinda hard to ship that many slaves from other territories on a daily basis, don't you think ? No, I would say that the arabic slaves the jews allow to inhabit israeli soil are an exercise in self-interest....Much like the corporate interests here in the United States in a "guest worker" program.....a program to provide hispanic "slaves" at cut rate prices !

KEEP your line of happy horses**t !

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Stevenage/gbr

it seems kruane gets his facts from stormfront. Jesus, to think I used to regard myself as a leftie...


Every citizen of Israel has full voting rights including the 1.5 million Arabs. Arabs of the west Bank and Gaza do not because they are not by their own or Israel's definition Israeli.

The ones in Israel are known as Arab-Israelis by Zionist stooges like me, or 48-Arabs by Islamofascist-Quislings like you.

Sorry to be patronising but you demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about Israel and Palestine. Perhaps you should start getting angry about thinks that you know about or that concern you..

("oh but it does concern me because the world would be like a benetton advert without you palestinian-baby-blood-drinking zionazi werelizards", etc, etc)

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Albany/usa

" The ones in Israel are known as Arab-Israelis by Zionist stooges like me, or 48-Arabs by Islamofascist-Quislings like you. "

EXACTLY ! Words from a displaced jew. Why WOULD you be critical about your brethren ?

However......

" Meanwhile, successive governments have regarded the Arab community as a
hostile element in the context of the ongoing violence between Israel and the
Occupied Territories. Israel has been in an officially declared state of
emergency from 1948 to date, with the state’s Arab citizens subjected to
military rule from 1948 until 1966. Various pieces of emergency legislation
authorise the state to suspend the Arab citizens’ civil rights. Especially after
the events of October 2000, when 13 Arab citizens of Israel were killed by the
Israeli security forces, the situation of the Arab minority has worsened."

"subjected to "military rule" " ? That implies that ...ahem....in your words..."Arab-Israelis" enjoy the same rights and privileges enjoyed by other "israelis" ?

http://www.arabhra.org/about/palestinianminority.pdf

C'mon...who the HELL do you think you are conning ?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Albany/usa

" Perhaps you should start getting angry about thinks that you know about or that concern you.. "


Oh, and by the way....it DOES concern me, as my AMERICAN tax dollars are being used to perpetuate a system every bit as discriminatory and as racist as "Aparthied" ever was....Maybe if you BRITS were hemoraging money to this racist state with little return, perhaps YOU might have something to say !

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Stevenage/gbr

sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not Jewish. In fact I have no ulterior motives for wanting not to become a racist.

I daresay you don't object to Egypts stipend that amounts to two thirds of what Israel gets from the US taxpayer. Even though I would imagine Egyptian Americans are much much much more fewer in number than Israeli Jews resident in the US (estimated at between 0.5-1 million.

Notice I said Israeli Jews there by the way...

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Stevenage/gbr

BTW - you are getting your facts terribly muddled. Arab Israelis are not under military rule. Arabs in the West Bank are. There is quite an important difference.

I shall illustrate it with a simple point (it will have to be simple for you to grasp). Haifa is half Jewish, half Arab. Most of the Jews of Haifa came from arab countries and look quite like Arabs. How could the military police a place like that?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Stevenage/gbr

And another thing...

Seriously why don't read a book or two about the situation. Even ones written by extreme lefties. Sometimes they contain the odd fact. I am not asking or expecting you to change your opinion. But you would argue better if you knew what you were talking about and didn't just grab some factoid from a nazi/socialist/islamist site via google

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Albany/usa

"sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not Jewish. In fact I have no ulterior motives for wanting not to become a racist."

Now you imply that I am a "racist" because I am critical of my tax dollars used to support a system of goverment every bit as racist as Aparthied Suuth Africa ? I DO notice that you have given up disputing that...ahem....."arab-Israelis" are racially discriminated, and that you traipes along to some OTHER unrelated issue !

"I daresay you don't object to Egypts stipend that amounts to two thirds of what Israel gets from the US taxpayer. Even though I would imagine Egyptian Americans are much much much more fewer in number than Israeli Jews resident in the US (estimated at between 0.5-1 million. "

I DON'T object, no...Why ? Cuz I have yet to see one....ahem.....Israeli-Egyptian (to coin a term) being disriminated against on a daily basis.....If you have proof of even ONE instance....SHOW ME, don't BULLS*T me !

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Stevenage/gbr

You're right. The Jews were chased out of Egypt (sounds familiar) after '48. There aren't any to persecute.

The 10 million descendents of the original Egyptians (coptic Christians as they are known) are constantly hounded and oppressed in fashion similar to the arabs of the west bank (not israel, worse even than that). The key difference is that Copts are not a threat to Egypt. Islamists in the territories are a threat to Israel.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Albany/usa

" BTW - you are getting your facts terribly muddled. Arab Israelis are not under military rule. Arabs in the West Bank are. There is quite an important difference."

They're NOT ? Did you even bother to READ that article ?

The Palestinian Minority Citizens of Israel
A Short Introduction to Our Community
The Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel can be viewed as a national
(Palestinian), ethnic (Arab), religious (Muslim, Christian and Druze) and
linguistic (Arabic) minority in a state where about 80% of the population is
Jewish.

http://www.arabhra.org/about/palestinianminority.pdf

Notice the introduction said NOTHING about "occupied territories".....it WAS, however...titled "The palistinian minority CITIZENS OF ISREAL"

Do you not know how to read ?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Albany/usa

" You're right. The Jews were chased out of Egypt (sounds familiar) after '48. There aren't any to persecute. "

Ahhhhhhhhh....How CONVENIENT !

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Stevenage/gbr

indeed...for some...

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Stevenage/gbr

though as someone a bit more honest than yourself I have to admit that certain branches of the zionist agency were complicit with the final days of JJews in Cairo (google the cinema bombing). But the difference between people like me and you is that we are self-critical of our beliefs and who we support.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Albany/usa

" But the difference between people like me and you is that we are self-critical of our beliefs and who we support."

WHAT ? I'm supposed to be critical of my belief that when I see a dog being kicked, I should DO something about it ?

Give me a break, son !

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Stevenage/gbr

when people like you give the jews a break. Of course if I find your name on other websites similarly denouncing Sudan, the USA, Russia, Zimbabwe, the UK, Saudi, etc I take it all back...

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Albany/usa

" when people like you give the jews a break. Of course if I find your name on other websites similarly denouncing Sudan, the USA, Russia, Zimbabwe, the UK, Saudi, etc I take it all back... "

Are you KIDDING me ? I have nothing BUT absolute distain for the goverments of the USA & the UK, knowing the leadership as the Con-Artists they are ! As a good Irishman, I KNOW the feeling of an occupied territory ! (or my ancestors do ! )

As far as Sudan, Zimbabwe...not much I can do there, as MY TAX DOLLARS ARE NOT BEING USED TO FUND THIER ARTOCITIES !

Clear enough for you now ?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Boulogne-billancourt/fra

If I were American I'd want to invest my money in a friendly country that was making good use of it for scientific and military research that benefits the USA. Not wasting it on countries like Egypt or Jordan or even the Palestine Authority.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Stuttgart/deu

This is an example of how those silly Lefties construct realities that conform to their view of 'How the World Really Is' i.e. 'How the World Should Be'. I mean, lets be honest, every day our television screens are full of hateful Israeli professors suicide bombing innocent arabs in the marketplaces of Jerusalem. Not content with having trashed the universities of Europe during the last 40 years with their silly make believe, the Lefties now need someone else to hate. Punishing academics ... and you wonder why the Jews have such a great sense of humour?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

'silly Lefties '

Not that there aren't some Lefties with a rather silly attitude to this issue, but people unapologetically quoting Neo-Nazi web sites are something else again.

But maybe they just meant to type www.wikipedia.org. and accidentally slipped on the keyboard and ended up at www.stormfront.org. Easily confused, those two.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Richmond/usa

kruane,

my taxes go to support Israel and I am more then happy about it, more - I purchase Israeli bonds every time I can. I convinced my friends to do the same and many of them not Jewish. I am glad that our money support the only democracy in the Middle East. At the same time I will oppose any money to go to Palestinians as long as Islamo-fascists from hamas are in power.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Richmond/usa

kruane

"WHAT ? I'm supposed to be critical of my belief that when I see a dog being kicked, I should DO something about it ? Give me a break, son !" - so, Palestinians (I assume) are "dogs", you said it, father!

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

People who say that Israel was the main ally of apartheid South Africa are talking breathtaking nonsense. In the most violent period of apartheid - the 1980s - there is no doubt that the regime's most important allies were Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It was Reagan who saw Pretoria as a bulwark in an international crusade against communism, and who colluded with the apartheid rulers' attempt to define the struggle for southern Africa as a battle against the Soviet Union. It was Thatcher who, notoriously, called the ANC a "terrorist" organisation.

While there were indeed some despicable contacts between Israeli and apartheid leaders, these pale into insignificance beside the role of western companies and banks in propping up apartheid.

I note the repeated use of the term "apartheid wall" - this is offensive because it trivialises apartheid. The white supremacist regime did much more than build a wall between South Africa and its neighbours - it waged brutal wars of destabilisation against Angola and Mozambique, alongside the colonial occupation of Namibia. The UN estimate was that, up to 1989, apartheid aggression against Mozambique had cost 900,000 lives. By the end of the war (1992) the figure was probably over a million.

While I would not wish to make light of Israeli aggression(notably the invasion of Lebanon), the scale of the damage was much vaster in southern Africa.

As for boycotts, in the South African case this call came from the liberation movement. The call to boycott South Africa at all levels - from Outspan oranges to cricket and rugby tours to arms sales - came from the ANC, and had impeccable moral credentials. Unfortunately, in Palestine's fractured politics there is no equivalent to the ANC or to Nelson Mandela.

Furthermore, left and liberal opinion was remarkably united in opposition to apartheid. There is no such consensus in opposition to Israel, which makes a move such as the NATFHE resolution a tactical blunder, unlikely to advance Palestinian rights by one iota.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

This comment contradicts itself in its own posting Israel was a positive supporter of apartheid and the fact that Shell was also does not exculpate them.

As for the scale. Aparthied in SA became more extreme with time. We should not mistake how the regime transformed for how it started. Israel is building apartheid. The time to stop it is now not when it starts stripping the rights of its non-jewish citizens and subjects still further.

It is fine for Mr Klug and others to say how will this help the Palestinians? Boycotting SA rugby did not stop the Soweto massacre.

But you have to start somewhere. And what alternative is suggested? Nothing, except some pious hope that the measures that have failed so singly so far will some how work magically.

The NATFHE boycott will not achieve a great deal but you have to start somewhere.

And the Palestinians are asking for it. Is it not about time their wishes were considered?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

"And the Palestinians are asking for it. Is it not about time their wishes were considered?"

No. They must remove their suicide belts first.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Cambridge/gbr

What a bunch of nit-picking and moronic argument from the organised pro-Israeli redneck lobby and morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest, and irrational academics who should know better. They're right of course, any boycott will do more harm than good - it'll just give the execrable regime more excuse to oppress and murder innocent Palestinian women, children and old-folk.

Here'a a more positive idea. We've a great mass of troops and weapons nearby in Iraq continuing to make an appalling situation worse, lets send them now to Israel to sort the situation out. The Israelis have shown themselves unfit to run a nation state - it's a failed experiment and it's time to bring it to an end. Note that I do NOT argue for the destruction of Israel, but that external supervision is required to restore civilised standards.

Won't go down well in the USA of course - they know all about the benefits of exterminating indigenous polulations and stealing their land.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Oxford/gbr

Responding to the very first comment by Joezhange "I agree it's more like genocide than apartheid."

hmmm...1939--9 million Jews in europe (or so)
1945--3 million Jews in europe (or so)

1948--750,000 Palestinians
2006--5 million (or so)

maybe the Israelis are just really really bad at genocide

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Cambridge/gbr

The hatred for Jews on this comment board is palpable. It is beyond reason. Why should it be the case that a state that is not theocratic (this is hard for non-jews to comprehend) but is democratic, should be vilified to such a degree that it shoots the vilifier in the foot? Those who oppose Israel and seek its destruction seek also the destruction of you in the liberal democratic tradition you so enjoy. You will, no doubt, be avoiding your computer in the boycott of academic Israel, as well as all the other Jewish benefits you are currently employing - do us all a favour and turn off the Zionist computer - Intel .......... all the way from Tel Aviv...... ayyyyyyy!

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Cambridge/gbr

The only reason I have posted is because I belong to the NATFHE union and they do not speak for me. I feel completely betrayed.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Australia, like Israel, is a democratic State, inhabited , like Israel , by mainly tolerant people.
Australia was founded on the dispossesion and in some case genocide of the indigenous people. I am a beneficiary of that dispossesion and genocide. There is nothing I can do about it now. Has that disposession created a worthwile modern State, the answer is yes, was it right, definately not, can it be excused, no. For a lot of the 105 years that Australia has been an independant nation, it has had a discriminatory immigration policy as well as dicrimatory laws. Was it still a tolerant democratic country , yes, was it right , definately not, it was racist.
I think Israel should never have been created in the form that it is in. Can we do anything about that, no. While Israel is in the main , a tolerant democracy , in the midst of a somewhat intollerant area, the fact that they have a discriminatory immigration policy and various laws that favour one so called group of people over all others, is racist, and should not be tolerated
The idea that a group of people that has members as disparate as say a New York stock broker, and an Ethiopean sustenance farmer, should be called a group, outside of the Judaic religion, is ridiculous. The idea that this disparate group should have a country , just for them , is also ridiculous and intolerable, Its like having a state just for people who call them selves Anglo Saxons.
The worry of Israelis,is that , having a non discrimatory immigration policy and allowing the return of the dispossessed Palestinians, would alter the demographic mix. This is a justifiable worry if you want to keep a State for one particular group, but it is not morally justified.
Ther is a worry about Islamic Fundementalism , but in the total population of Israel-Palestine , There will always be a majority of secular jews , arabs, christian arabs and religeous jews, to counter this. There is already a vibrant democracy and honest politi, and if the needs and aspirations of all the people are met, the lure of fundementalism, jewish and islamic, will decrease.
Another reason that Israelis and many jews, say that a jewish Israel is needed , is for a bastion and refuge for future pograms.Given jewish history, this is absolutely understandable.
The best protection against future pograms, of any type, is to have a strong United Nations, committed to fight genocide, wherever it occurs.
Yoavherman, Tula et al, will be screaming antisemite at me,nothing could be further fronm the truth. the idea that anybody is better than anybody else, for reasons of race religeon or colour etc.is anathema to every part of my being

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

Thanks to Dr Klug for this very clear statement.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Chiyoda/jpn

peaceinourtime-
"The best protection against future pograms, of any type, is to have a strong United Nations, committed to fight genocide, wherever it occurs."

Two days ago Hizaballah and Islamic Jihad, two terrorist organizations operating from the south of Lebanon bombed the north cities of Israel. Lots of the missiles launched from Lebanon were sent from UN bases in the Lebanese area. Needless to say, non of the UN pathetic, cowered "soldiers" did anything to stop it. Hizaballah also sent children as a human shield to the Israeli/Lebanese border to stop the Israeli army from responding.

The UN is a biased, miserable and pathetic organization which cannot make order in the few lousy buildings it occupies in N.Y and Vienna not mentioning making order in world crisis. You could have asked the one million victims of the Rwanda war that were killed in a period of few months while the UN members were watching it on TV and jerking off with another urgent meeting in their air-conditioned offices in the West.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

I said we need a strong United Nations , I did not say we have one yet

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Chiyoda/jpn

In that case, until the degenerate members of the the pathetic organization called the UN will decide to come out from their limousines and air-conditioned offices and do something for the world, Israel will defend its own citizens whether all of you "peace activists" like it or not.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Chiyoda/jpn

peaceinourtime
I dont mean to be rude, and I have to say that I agree with a lot of what you said in your previous comment. The thing which I find ridicules is when Westerners who never set foot in conflicted areas in the world, who knows NOTHING about the reality of the Middle East or any other problematic zones, think they can lecture us about morality and justice. They are a bunch of hypocrites and nothing else.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Warsaw/usa

Justice in the Middle East

To achieve justice in the Middle East we need to base a settlement on indisputable facts. Let's look at some of them:

(1) Both Jews and Arabs have been living in the Middle East for a long time, and both have a perfect right to live there and have their fair share of the land and resources.

Jews (and their Israelite and Canaanite ancestors) have had big populations all over, especially in Israel, Iraq
(one third of the population of Baghdad was Jewish in 1914), Morocco, etc. Arabs (and their Arabian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman ancestors) have also had big populations all over.

At the present time the 300 million Arabs have sovereignty over about 6 million square miles, so on the average each Arab has about one-fiftieth of a square mile. The Arabs also have all the big rivers, most of the water and all the oil.

The 5 million Jews have sovereignty over about 8 thousand square miles, so on the average each Jew has one six-hundredth of a square mile.

Each Arab has one fiftieth of a square mile, each Jew has one six-hundredth of a square mile.

Each Arab has twelve times as much land as each Jew.

So, clearly, justice does not demand that Arabs get an even bigger share of the Middle East land. An agreement that gave the Arabs the 40% of the West Bank that they actually live in would be more than generous. (And let us not forget that the West Bank Jews are Jews in Judea, not white Britons in Zimbabwe.)

(2) The lower part of the ancient Jewish temple is still standing and is known as the "Temple Mount". It is 35 acres in area and about 100 feet high. It is built of massive stones and a great deal of Jewish sweat over a
period of 1000 years. The great ceremonial steps leading up to the temple from the south still stand, as do the 5 Hulda gates. It probably contains many irreplaceable archeological treasures. A just settlement requires that this Jewish-built structure remain under Jewish
sovereignty.

(3) the area surrounding the temple, now called the Jewish quarter, the old city, the neighborhood of Silwan and the Mount of Olives must also remain under Jewish sovereignty. These contain the original city of King David, the tombs of the kings of Judah, the water tunnel built by
King Hezekiah to thwart Assyrian invasion about 700 BC, ancient Jewish cemeteries and many other archeological treasures.

One can argue about the details of a peace agreement, but justice demands at least this:
(1) enough land to the Jews so as to at least not worsen the already grossly too big a proportion of land in Arab hands
(2) Jewish sovereignty over the Jewish-built Temple Mount and its surroundings, which contain the historical and archeological heart of the Jewish people.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Israel is a sovereign state and of course has to defend its citizens, the same as any other country would, but despite the obvious differences between there, and most other countries ( provacationwise)It has to stay within civilised norms.I was not talking about a country defending its citizens, but future defence against genocide.
Morality is dependant on your beliefs , secular or religious . they do not change in different parts of the world

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

JIME
The structures etc. you talk about , are magnificent examples of human endeavor , and of course should be under Israeli severeignity, just as the antiquities of Egypt should be under that country's control and Stone Henge should be British, whether or not the people there now , are lineal descendants of the builders.
In Australia we have certain sites , sacred to the indigenous australians, these are often put under the custodianship of certain tribes.
The same could be done in a multi ethnic Istael, Jews looking after their sacred sites and Muslims, theirs, as is the case with various christian sects there now.
I am sorry but the argument about how much land each ethnic group has, is just to stupid to enter into

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Milton/can

Spare us the flawed arguments. If Brian Klug's arguments are the best and clearest from academics and philosophers on the 'anti-boycott' side of the issue, you guys have a dubious case. I'll start with these comments.

Brian Klug: "The Natfhe motion is fatally flawed in two ways. First, it is unclear what it calls for. Here is the punch line: "Conference invites members to consider their own responsibility for ensuring equity and non-discrimination in contacts with Israeli educational institutions or individuals, and to consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies." . . . Does "Israeli educational institutions or individuals" include all sectors - even schools - or just colleges and universities? Does "individuals" mean staff alone or does it include students (such as Israeli applicants to UK graduate programmes)?"

The resolution is flexible yet clear enough to address the situation: any NATFHE member (with some common sense like anything in life requires) will be able to make more intelligent decision -- given each unique situation -- about boycotting educational institutions and individuals that do not publicly dissociate themselves from Israel's apartheid policies. Given the dynamic and complex nature of Israel's apartheid policies (changing, varied, diverse, obvious, subtle), it is inappropriate to put a straightjacket on members evaluating whether such situations merits a boycott. (Similarly, an evaluation of a boycott against Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa would also require flexibility, given the gordian nature of such regimes. Otherwise, loopholes will be inevitable and not dealt with, all because Brian Klug wants ultra-clarity.
The Matrix Of Control
Http://www.Icahd.Org/Eng/Articles.Asp?Menu=6&Submenu=3

And this is what I mean. There are situations where a student or a non-university institution may need to be boycotted. For one example, see the section below titled How An Israeli University Is Involved In Israel's Brutal Apartheid Occupation And Ethnic Cleansing Of Palestinians. Israel's Hebrew University is apparently developing a program specifically for staff of Shin Bet (Shabak or GSS). Human rights organizations s(e.g., Israel's B'Tselem and Amnesty International) still regularly accuse Shin Bet (GSS or Shabak) of using physical methods that are torture according to international conventions.
http://www.btselem.org/english/torture/background.asp
http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/151.shtml

A more specific, 'clearer' boycott policy might have left out these cases. Now professor Klug may be willing to accept such Hebrew University graduates into his philosophy program, but how many of those who voted for the resolution would want to teach these possible torturers? What if the Shin Bet students had applied from a Shin Bet educational instition, not from a university?

Granted, the NATFHE resolution is not as perfect as a James Joyce contruction. Like anything, even Klug's commentary, it could be refined further. But the resolution is usable and actionable as is and is effective for the situation, given the nature of Israel's apartheid policies against the Palestinians.

I'll post more critique later. Instead of the anti-boycott jibber-jabber of Klug and Hirsh, Steven Rose keeps it simple in A STAND FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/steven_rose/2006/05/boycott_victory_at_natfhe.html
____________________________________________________________

EXAMPLE: HOW ISRAELI UNIVERSITY IS INVOLVED IN ISRAEL'S BRUTAL APARTHEID OCCUPATION AND ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS
There were some remarkable admissions in a piece by the distinguished Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling in the immediate wake of the British teaching union NATFHE's vote yesterday to offer members moral backing if they boycott Israeli universities. . . .Today, and quite incidentally, Kimmerling wrote in the daily Ha'aretz newspaper of a decision taken by his own institution, Hebrew University in Jerusalem, to offer a special fast-track degree programme to members of the (Israels Shabak) General Security Service, or the Shin Bet, which has used its fearsome intelligence gathering abilties to maintain the occupation of the Palestinians for nearly four decades. The Shin Bet is possibly best known for its interrogation methods when extracting confessions from detainees. Although torture was banned by the country's Supreme Court in 1999, the Shin Bet has continued with its notorious practices during the second intifada, according to the Israeli human rights group the Public Committee against Torture. According to Kimmerling, Shin Bet staff will not only be encouraged to further their education with government grants (maybe no bad thing), but the Shin Bet itself will be able to devise the study course. As Kimmerling notes, the most likely result will be a "professional studies" programme relating to the Shin Bet's work. . . Such arrangements are nothing new in Israeli academia, Kimmerling points out. There are strong ties between the universities and the defence industry because "some university staff join academia after [military] service and careers in the defense establishment, and not all of them manage to 'go civilian'.". . .In fact, Kimmerling understates the problem. Anyone who has spent time in an Israeli university will know that its academic staff and the country's huge defence industry are intimately entwined. The geography department of Haifa University, for example, was until very recently headed by Prof Arnon Sofer, who is best known in Israel for advocating ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, both occupied Palestinian non-citizens from the West Bank and the minority of Palestinian citizens from Israel. Sofer, who has also taught at the National Defence College and the Police Training College for many decades, once boasted to me that he had imparted his values to almost every senior security official in Israel. Stickers on the doors of nearly every lecturer in his department declare membership of the National Security Studies Center, Sofer's own government-funded "research" body that disseminates his obscene ideas. . . (Read article)
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook05302006.html
____________________________________________________________

PALESTINIANS WELCOME UK VOTE FOR ISRAEL ACADEMIC BOYCOTT
Today, British academics proved once again that they are up to the challenge of meeting injustice with the powerful message of civil resistance that boycott represents. NATFHE voted for an academic boycott of Israel in response to its "apartheid policies."

This is a significant accomplishment considering the campaign of intimidation and bullying waged against proponents of the NATFHE academic boycott initiative by Israeli networks and powerful Zionist lobbies in the United Kingdom and the United States. At this stage of the international boycott movement, Palestinian boycott advocates, including PACBI, aim first and foremost to keep alive an open and principled debate on the need for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until it fully complies with international law and universal human rights.

The other side primarily works on achieving the exact opposite result by suppressing all opportunities for debate and education on this issue in order to maintain the distorted and deceptive image of the conflict constructed through systematic misinformation and biased reporting in a largely compliant western media.

The NATFHE vote proves once again that despite all the obstacles, boycotting Israeli academic institutions due to their complicity in maintaining Israel's special form of apartheid against the Palestinians remains prominent on the agenda of western progressives and human rights activists.

The persistence of academic boycott efforts proves that many academics in the UK and beyond do not buy the disingenuous claim that boycott of Israeli academic institutions conflicts with "academic freedom" or inadvertently promotes anti-Semitism in any way.

The first claim is at best hypocritical as it is based on the premise that only Israeli academic freedom counts. The fact that Israeli academic institutions themselves collude in various ways in their government's grave violations of Palestinian human and political rights, which include the right to education, is lost on those making this claim.

As to the ubiquitous anti-Semitism charge, it is now clearer than ever that it is mendaciously being used merely to stifle opposition to Israel's illegal occupation and horrific human rights record and to abort attempts at effectively resisting this decades-old injustice. The Palestinian Call for Boycott is categorically not directed at Jews or even Israelis as Jews; rather, it targets Israel's oppression and racism with no consideration to ethnicity or religion.

The Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement is supported by a growing current of social movements, unions, academics, intellectuals and human rights activists across the world. For instance, it is endorsed by the South African Council of Churches (SACC), the Coalition of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and by hundreds of South African political and academic figures, including Ronnie Kasrils, Dennis Brutus, John Pampallis and Steven Friedman.

All obfuscation notwithstanding, the truth about Israel's denial of Palestinian refugee rights, its illegal military occupation and its system of racial discrimination remains the fundamental motive behind the expanding BDS initiatives around the world. Israel's colonial Wall, its ever expanding settlements, its indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians, its house demolitions, its relentless land and water theft and its abuse of Palestinian human rights are all too real to be ignored by the international community.

Just as in the South African case, a comprehensive regime of sanctions and boycotts remains not only the most politically effective but also the most morally sound strategy in bringing about Israel's compliance with international law and universal principles of human rights. Only through such effective pressures will there be hope for a just peace in our region, based on equality and dignity for all.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4743.shtml
____________________________________________________________

THE PALESTINIAN CALL FOR BOYCOTT
http://www.pacbi.org/campaign_statement.htm
http://www.pacbi.org/

COALITION AGAINST ISRAELI APARTHEID
http://www.endisraeliapartheid.net/

BOYCOTTS AND DIVESTMENT NEWS
http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/174.shtml
____________________________________________________________

CANADIAN UNION VOTES TO SUPPORT BOYCOTT CAMPAIGN
There is a global campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario recently passed a resolution in support of the global campaign against Israeli Apartheid. The resolution passed with overwhelming support at the largest provincial convention in the union's history. Over 900 delegates from CUPE locals across Ontario attended the convention. CUPE represents about 200,000 public sector workers in Ontario and is the largest public sector union in the province. The resolution expresses CUPE Ontario�s support for the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligations to recognize the Palestinian people�s inalieable right to self-determination and fully complies with international law including resolution 194 calling for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. The resolution commits CUPE Ontario to educate its members on the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and Canada's support for these racist practices. CUPE Ontario will also call on the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) to join the campaign against Israeli apartheid, in particular the campaign to dismantle the Apartheid Wall.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4745.shtml

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

Most of the recent arrivals in Israel are Jews who have been expelled and had their property expropriated from Middle Eastern countries and other Arab states while exercising their racist policies against Jews. Funny how the far left who are currently infatuated and besotted with Islam refuses to acknowledge this fact.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Sydney/aus

The bottom line is: what apartheid? Has even one of the lecturers who voted for this motion, or any of the anti-Israel posters here, actually been to Israel? There are no benches marked 'Jews only'; there are no restrictions on where Arab Israelis live, work, gather or travel; they have the same access to education, healthcare, civil rights (one of the few places where 'honour killings' of Arab women are actually punished), and the same freedoms of speech, religion and thought as Jewish Israelis. The one area of difference is in regard to military service, which they are not obligated to do (but often do anyway). As for the 'exclusion wall', this is known as a 'border': the only people 'excluded' are non-Israelis judged to be security risks - the same as in any country. This is an aggressively biased action by 100-odd academics who should be and I trust one day will be embarrased at having exposed their lack of commitment to reason in this way.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Amersham/gbr

Gaiseric- Israelies are black arent they ??? Sorry if Im wrong but black is part of a racial group whereas Israel is a country. Are you people saying you can't be black and live in Israel ?? I am very confused.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Edinburgh/gbr

Whereistehlove

"Bottom line is - total aparthied! Worse than SA and bordering on 30's Germany"

Bottom line is you're a total idiot. You're version of the middle east is so skewed that you clearly spend your spare time reading nazi/islamofascist websites.

As I have said to you in the past, BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS. If you state something as fact, BACK IT UP.

My guess is that you don't back up your points for two reasons:

1) You are poorly informed. You are unable or unwilling to see the complexities so you reduce everything to good and bad.

2) Your points are based on very shaky foundations. If you were to try and justify them, the whole house of cards would come tumbling down and you would be exposed for the fraud you are.

"why don't you all f**K off back there and leave decent human beings to debate honestly & openly and live together in peace."

Not a fan of freedom of speech are we? Careful, your mask is slipping a little.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Sydney/aus

Danhi
You'll get no argument from me that Irael and Israelis are basicly decent , tolerant people, and the society they live in is certainly a beacon in a sea of intolerance. But can't you see that the fact that you and many other Australians, can emigrate to Israel, but the cousins of those Israeli Arabs you talk about, if they are not Israelis, cannot, is racist.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Neuss/deu

peaceinourtime

"But can't you see that the fact that you and many other Australians, can emigrate to Israel, but the cousins of those Israeli Arabs you talk about, if they are not Israelis, cannot, is racist."

Could you please tell us in which country do you live and what are emigration policies in it. Does it receive emigrants from all over the world without any restrictions?

As an Israeli I can not emigrate anywhere at all for example. So, following your logic all countries are racist because they don't allow me emigrate to them.

I have blood relatives who are Spaniards and live in Spain (not Jews) and this fact does not entitle to emigrate or even receive residence in Spain. On the other hand Spain did receive and continue to receive millions of Moroccans and gave them Spanish citizenship and these people in their turn can bring to Spain their families from Morocco. The same goes for Britain, France, etc. So, all these countries are actually racist, aren't they?


[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Edinburgh/gbr

peaceinourtime

Israel�s Law of Return grants automatic citizenship to Jews, but non-Jews are also eligible to become citizens under naturalization procedures similar to those in other countries.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Sydney/aus

hebrew.
I live in Australia, which (sadly in my view)does have imigration restrictions, but these are not based on race ( not that we haven't had racist imigration policies in the past). Does Spain , France or Britain have imigration policies that favour one group of people over all others, if they do, they are racist.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Edinburgh/gbr

Interestingly enough, Arab states define citizenship strictly by native parentage. It is almost impossible to become a naturalised citizen in many Arab states, especially Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Several Arab nations have laws that facilitate the naturalisation of foreign Arabs, with the specific exception of Palestinians.

Jordan, on the other hand, instituted its own "law of return" in 1954, according citizenship to all former residents of Palestine, except for Jews.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Cambridge/gbr

hello again hebrew and how are you?

israel's immigration laws are racist by all means:

I quote Le monde Diplomatique 1997:

'The Law is racism, say the Palestinians. They are not alone. Can it be legitimate to grant citizenship to Jews who have never set foot on the land, and refuse - or even withdraw - nationality to an Arab who was born there, but has temporarily lived abroad or happened to be absent at the time of the occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967? visit: http://mondediplo.com/1997/11/israel.

Why don't we admit rights and wrongs without prejudice, since you are an israeli left? Palestinians are denied residence there, while quarter jewish become full residents of israel.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

"Interestingly enough, Arab states define citizenship strictly by native parentage. It is almost impossible to become a naturalised citizen in many Arab states, especially Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Several Arab nations have laws that facilitate the naturalisation of foreign Arabs, with the specific exception of Palestinians."

And Saudi Arabia won't let Atheists into the country at all.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Whereistehlove - you clearly haven't the faintest idea what apartheid was if you think that prsent day Israel is worse than apartheid.

Take voting rights - under apartheid, no black South African could vote. In Israel, Arabs who hold Israeli citizenship have the vote and elect representative to parliament.

Take politics - one of the first moves of the apartheid regime was to outlaw the South African Communist Party, and eventually every other organisation it chose to define as "communist". The Israeli government has never outlawed marxist organisations.

Take sex - one of the most bizarre pieces of apartheid legislation was the Immorality Act, which outlawed sex between blacks and whites. Now there are repugnant limits on Israeli citizens marrying Palestinians - but no Israeli government ever tried to criminalise the simple act of sex itself.

There is a great deal wrong with Israel, and there is very real discrimination against Palestinians. I do not admire the Israeli government, and I regard Ariel Sharon as a war criminal. But to say the Israeli state is worse than apartheid is an absurd piece of hyberbole, which does no favours to the Palestinians.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Neuss/deu

peaceinourtime


"I live in Australia, which (sadly in my view)does have imigration restrictions, but these are not based on race ( not that we haven't had racist imigration policies in the past). Does Spain , France or Britain have imigration policies that favour one group of people over all others, if they do, they are racist."

Yes, imigration policies of Australia based on socio-economical principles - a person with high education and lucrative profession is wellcome and one who's "working class" is not. So Australia also favours one group of people over the others, it's just not based on race but on brains. Is it really much better?

As for your sadness for imigration restrictions anywhere, i think you're just very very naive.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Neuss/deu

GorgeousG

Hello to you too.

"israel's immigration laws are racist by all means"

No more than immigration laws in any other country. Each country favours one group of people over other and, yes, it includes race.


"Why don't we admit rights and wrongs without prejudice, since you are an israeli left?

Since i am left i do admit that the occupation of Gaza and West Bank is wrong. Palestinians from all over the world should definitelly be granted right to return to Palestinian state which will eventually be established in Gaza and West Bank.

"Palestinians are denied residence there, while quarter jewish become full residents of israel."

Since i am Israeli Jew, i don't see anything wrong or racist with Israel within 1967 borders being defined as homeland for Jews and not for Arabs as long as Arabs who are already citizents of Israel have the same civil rights as Jews has (which is not the case with Jews for example in Arab countires). If Palestinians are granted residence in Israel, Israel will authomatically seize being Jewish state and will become one more Arab state (in addition to 22 which are already there and 23rd (Palestinian) which will be established). I fail to see any justice or fairness in this settlement whatsoever.


[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Aol/gbr

Hebrew:

"So Australia also favours one group of people over the others, it's just not based on race but on brains. Is it really much better?"

Meritocratic discrimination surely is better than racist discrimination. To attack the basis of immigration controls in this indiscriminate way obfuscates israel's real (but frequently on these forums exaggerated) abuses.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Neuss/deu

MeEducated

Please refer to my last comment to GorgeousG.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

paulfauvet

"Now there are repugnant limits on Israeli citizens marrying Palestinians"

There are no limit on marriage because there is no civil marriage in Israel. However there is a new law which aim to protect Israel against the so called "right of return" by the back door. In other countries too, for example in England you do not not get automatic citizenship automatically when marrying a Brit - off course you are more likely to be allow citizenshyip as a European than another person. Another example is the US Green Card lottery where you can only apply if one of your grandparent is non-british. Every country try to limit their immigration based on country of origin or socio-economic factor, it is called protection. Israel immigration law is not based on race (see the Ethopian Jews) but on country of origin. An Arab-American can get citizenship after marrying an israeli like a non arab American.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

paulfauvet
"Whereistehlove - you clearly haven't the faintest idea what apartheid was if you think that prsent day Israel is worse than apartheid. Take voting rights - under apartheid, no black South African could vote. In Israel, Arabs who hold Israeli citizenship have the vote and elect representative to parliament. "

But Palestinian subjects of Israel's pocket empire in the West Bank and Gaza languish under Zionist rule and are NOT given the vote. Nor are Palestinian refugees (those not allowed to return to their homes because they aren't Jews) allowed to vote. Israel allows Arabs to vote so long as they can't outvote the Zionists, otherwise not.

Also, under the Israeli electoral law, parties opposed to Jewish ethnic supremacy in Israel can be banned from elections, so Arab parties are legally forbidden from forthrightly advocating equality for all residents of the state.

"There is a great deal wrong with Israel, and there is very real discrimination against Palestinians. [...] But to say the Israeli state is worse than apartheid is an absurd piece of hyberbole, which does no favours to the Palestinians."

But Paul consider this: the Bantustans in South Africa weren't huge jails surrounded by concrete walls like the Zionists are building to incarcarate the subjugated Arabs. Nor did South Africa drop missiles, shells and bombs on their Bantustans all the time. Nor did apartheid South Africa annex the territory of neighbouring states for racist settlement.

Each apartheid regime exceeds the other's crimes in some ways, as each regime has its own features and history. But the South African apartheid state and the Zionist apartheid state do share the same basic structural features:

* the institutionalisation of the supremacy of a master ethnic group over other peoples ruled by the state, i.e. an explicitly racist political system

* extreme militarism, with a military led by the master ethnicity and committed to its dominance

* a veneer of democratic practice vitiated by measures to prevent the ethnically oppressed majority from winning control of the state through elections

* removal or reduction of rights and freedoms for those not of the master ethnicity: e.g. rights to own land, to a fair trial, to vote, to travel, to build houses, to choose their place of residence, to equal health care and education, to access natural resources like water, etc, etc

* a state policy of forcible ethnic "separation" from the master ethnic group of the oppressed groups in conditions of extreme deprivation. ("Apartheid" is Afrikaans for "separation")

* backing from the most violent and reactionary circles of western imperialism.

Calling Israel an apartheid state is no analogy. It the literal truth.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Auckland/nzl

enoughsaid
"Israel's Law of Return grants automatic citizenship to Jews, but non-Jews are also eligible to become citizens under naturalization procedures similar to those in other countries."

Except that Palestinians are banned from naturalisation even if married to Israeli citizens. So in fact the law enacts a 3-level racist hierarchy: Jews at the top, Palestinian Arabs at the bottom, and everyone else in between.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Neuss/deu

DickCheezOnToast


* "But Palestinian subjects of Israel's pocket empire in the West Bank and Gaza languish under Zionist rule and are NOT given the vote."
They aren't Israeli citizents. So you can complain about occupation of their land, but it has nothing to do with apartheid.

* "Nor are Palestinian refugees allowed to vote.
Refer to my first point.

* "(those not allowed to return to their homes because they aren't Jews )"
And are Jews who left or were forced to leave Arab states alowed to return to their homes there?

* "Israel allows Arabs to vote so long as they can't outvote the Zionists, otherwise not."
This statement is based on some evidence or precident? If yes - please provide source.

* "Also, under the Israeli electoral law, parties opposed to Jewish ethnic supremacy in Israel can be banned from elections, so Arab parties are legally forbidden from forthrightly advocating equality for all residents of the state."
Provide please source. Also what do you mean by "Jewish ehnic supremacy" in this case: what exactly a party has to promote in order to be banned from elections?

* "Nor did apartheid South Africa annex the territory of neighbouring states for racist settlement."
Which "states" do you have in mind?

* "the institutionalisation of the supremacy of a master ethnic group over other peoples ruled by the state, i.e. an explicitly racist political system"
Examples/ sources please

* "extreme militarism, with a military led by the master ethnicity and committed to its dominance."
What do you define as extreem or not extreem militarism?
Do you actually suggest that Arab Israelis should be obliged to serve in Israeli army?

* "a veneer of democratic practice vitiated by measures to prevent the ethnically oppressed majority from winning control of the state through elections"
"Ethnically oppressed majority"??????????????
The ethnical majority in Israel are Jews. Arabs are minority. How any minority can possibly win through democratic elections? No "measures" are needed in order to prevent this - it just can't happen by definition.

* "removal or reduction of rights and freedoms for those not of the master ethnicity: e.g. rights to own land, to a fair trial, to vote, to travel, to build houses, to choose their place of residence, to equal health care and education, to access natural resources like water, etc, etc"
I think you should be ashamed of posting such horrible nonsense. What are you talking about? Israeli Arabs are prevented to travel? To be educated? To receive health care? Where did you get all this bulshitt?

* "a state policy of forcible ethnic "separation" from the master ethnic group of the oppressed groups in conditions of extreme deprivation. ("Apartheid" is Afrikaans for "separation")"
What is this policy? Examples please. How exactly Israeli Jews held Israeli Arabs separated from Jews and in "conditions of extreeme deprivation" and what exactly this "deprivation" is?


[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Neuss/deu

DickCheezOnToast

"Except that Palestinians are banned from naturalisation even if married to Israeli citizens. So in fact the law enacts a 3-level racist hierarchy: Jews at the top, Palestinian Arabs at the bottom, and everyone else in between."

Palestinians are in the state of armed conflict with Israel so it's quite natural that they can't aquire Israeli citizenship like people from places which are not at war with Israel.
It is racism only according to your inflamed imagination.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Edinburgh/gbr

DickCheezOnToast

(Nice name by the way)

It is hardly surprising that Israel has more stringent laws relating to Palestinian arabs when their stated aim (as enshrined in their government's charter) is the destruction of Israel. Many countries have had similar immigration policies in relation to hostile nations, including our very own Britain.

Once again, Israel is judged by a different moral yardstick than the rest of the world. No surprises there then.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Dickcheezontoast has arguments as absurd as his psudonym. Palestinians don't have the right to voite, he says. So who elected Mahmoud Abbas, and who elected the Palestinian parliament ?

The Palestinians don't vote in Israeli elections, just as the French don't vote in British ones. And as far as I'm aware, Israelis don't vote in Palestinian elections.

It seems that what cheezontoast wants to abolish is the Palestinian Authority. But most progressive opinion (and, according to opinion polls, most Palestinians) support a two state solution. That's fundamentally different from the situation in apartheid South Africa.

As for the bombs and missiles, yes it's true that South Africa didn't drop them on the bantustans. They dropped them on the neighbouring countries, such as Angola and Mozambique who supported the anti-apartheid struggle. South Africa organised surrogate armies (UNITA and RENAMO) against the Angolan and Mozambican goverment, who acted as extensions of the racist army. The devastation wreaked by apartheid against the southern African region was considerably worse han any military activities of the Israeli armed forces in Gaza and the West Bank (or of the invasion of Lebanon).


[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Auckland/nzl

I'm always impressed by the blindness of pro-Israeli opinion. The Zionist rule over the Palestinians is invisible to them.

Look, Israel rules over all of historic Palestine (plus the Syrian Golan). The Palestinian "Authority" is a misnomer; Israel exercises de-facto rule over the entire territory, even Gaza. There is no Palestinian state. (Hello?)

It is true that Israel's Arab citizens are allowed to vote. But the other Arabs ruled by Israel are not allowed to vote except in elections for the powerless Palestinian "Authority". They live in walled ghettoes in extreme poverty. Arab refugees born in what is now Israel (and their descendents) are not allowed to return to their homes and vote because they are not Jews.

Now, if you count the exiled Arabs who would return to their homes in what is now Israel plus Israel's Arab citizens plus Israel's Palestinian subjects in the West Bank and Gaza (non-citizens ruled over by the Zionist state), and compare their number to the Zionist settler population in Israel "proper" and the West Bank, you will see that "Greater Israel" - i.e. the territory presently ruled by the Zionist state - has an anti-Zionist majority.

Even without any return of refugees, anti-Zionist Jews in Israel (brave and admirable people) plus the Arabs definitely outnumber the Zionists.

Israel is not a democracy. If Arabs were allowed to return to their homes, if all Arabs ruled by the Israeli state were given the vote to decide the leaders of that state, in short if Arabs were treated as the equals of Jews then the Zionist policy would be voted out right now.

That is why Israel must now offer a "two-state solution" with a pseudo-independent and cantonised Palestinian "homeland" as a way of preserving Jewish predominance. Exactly the same considerations led the South African apartheid regime to their Bantustan policy. The Palestinian homeland offered by Israel in its "two state solution" is a Bantustan, nothing more and nothing less.

Let me make clear that I'm not making a moralistic claim that Israel "should" let Arabs into its army or whatever. I look at it the other way: Israel by virtue of being a racist apartheid state embodying Jewish supremacy over the other inhabitants of Palestine, COULD NOT allow Arabs to join the army on the basis of equality with Jews. Israel COULD NOT give its Arab subjects and (second class) citizens the same rights it gives to Jews.

By the way hebrew, Israel has the highest per capita military spending of any country in the world, even more than its patron the US empire. That's "extreme" militarism. Again, that's an inevitable feature of a racist settler-colonial state.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Neuss/deu

DickCheezOnToast

OK, now at least it's clear where you're standing: you're problem is not with Israel being an apartheid (which is of course bullsitt), but with Israel BEING AT ALL. In your twisted mind justice is 23 homelands for Arabs and non for Jews.

Since i have a rule not to participate any discussions with extremists and anti-Semits (oops, sorry, anti-Zionists) i have nothing more to say to you.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

hebrew for me justice would be for every country to be a homeland for all the people who live in it no matter what their ethnicity. You just can't get that can you?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Neuss/deu

DickCheezOnToast

I have a good book to recommend to you - Utopia.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Warsaw/usa

dickcheese on toast says:

"justice would be for every country to be a homeland for all the people who live in it no matter what their ethnicity. You just can't get that can you?"

Talk to the Arabs and other Muslims about this, why don't you? You may come across divisions and contradictions between Arab nationalists and anti-nationalist Islamics but the price of multi-ethnic cohabitation is submission to one religion, Islam (except for those of subservient, dhimmi status).

According to the charter of the government of Jordan: "The Arab homeland, in its historical, geographic, material and cultural aspects, is the natural home of the Arab nation."

The so-called Arab nation does not extend "homeland" comforts to non-Arabs -- as has been seen from Arab Sudanese treatment of black African Sudanese. The Arab nation is constituted totally with regard to ethnicity.

Of course there are Islamic opponents of Arab nationalism and some of them are key to terrorisim in the Middle East.

In Cairo in 1985 a Muslim scholar, Dr. Muhammad Yahya, said: "The Arab nationalist message seems simple and consistent. The Arabs from the Gulf to the Atlantic are one people united by the ties of blood, history, language, and interests. They ought to be united in one political entity which is socially and culturally modern and progressive. This programme can be achieved by the Arab nationalists in the face of various imperialist and 'reactionary' forces of whom the Islamic movement is the most prominent."

But, he went on, "The Arabic phrase 'ties of blood' comes in conveniently to cover the weakness of the nationalist views on this matter by its double reference to both race and kinship. The latter is usually the meaning which is immediately suggested by normal usage and saves the nationalists from getting involved in a losing ethnographic debate."

And, he added: "The invocation of geographic facts is not of much help in advancing the nationalist argument. The Gulf-Atlantic axis is a rather arbitrary projection which overlooks other areas to which the original Arabs ventured. Moreover, it is the 'imperialist' view of the Arab-land which the nationalists now come to adopt, rather uncritically in the light of their high-flown anti-imperialist slogans. The crucial fact in this regard is that it was Islam that created this 'grand Arab homeland', as it is called, and which impelled the original Arabs to conquer that area and much more besides it to spread its teachings."

Ultimately this is the basis of Islamic claims to any piece of "homeland": conquest (and re-conquest). Re-conquest is the aim of militarized and terrorist groups like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Al Quada. Arab-Islamic terrorist groups aim to control land and all populations thereon by means of war, terror, Shari'ah law, conversion to Islam or dhimmi status.

Jerusalem became the "3rd holiest place" in Islam through conquest in fantasy, that is through a legend. As one commentator says:
"the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third most holy sites. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem! With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem. So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam? Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled 'The Night Journey.' It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night 'from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs.' In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets -- myth, fantasy, wishful thinking."

This is not just wishful thinking it is legend in the service of Islamic dominion over land, regardless of who might claim it as their "homeland."

Religious dominion may be imposed or claimed *without regard to ethnicity* but that does not make it just.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Milton/can

Brian Klug: "Spare us the analogies. With its misplaced rhetoric about apartheid, the motion calling for an academic boycott of Israel is fatally flawed. . .In the days when there was a white supremacist regime in South Africa, those of us who were opponents of apartheid came together in a concerted campaign to isolate the state from the rest of the international community. This included cutting ties with South African universities. . ."Conference notes continuing Israeli apartheid policies, including construction of the exclusion wall, and discriminatory educational practices. . .Possibly (given the rhetoric of the word "apartheid") there is a subtext: opposition to the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. . . there is a deeper problem with motions of this sort that prevents them from attracting a broad base of support: they rely on the false (or limited) analogy implied by the word "apartheid". This is not to say that there are no points of comparison, for there are - just as there are in a host of other countries where minority ethnic and national groups are oppressed. Nor is it even to say that the suffering experienced by Palestinians is less than that endured by "non-whites" in South Africa: it may or may not be (although I am not sure how to do the sums). But as I have argued elsewhere: "The validity of the analogy does not depend on a catalogue of atrocities, however appalling". In terms of history and motivation, the differences between the two situations are greater than the similarities. And in the end, any political action that is aimed at ameliorating the conditions of the Palestinians must be based on an analysis - not an analogy. . .We need a line in the sand. But the analogy with South Africa leads people of goodwill to draw the line in the wrong place. "

Another flawed argument, which I will address in this and my next post.

First, read this former CIA analyst: Zionism As A Racist Ideology (se first link). If this is true, as numerous observers assert it is in practice, then Klug's reasoning is on shaking ground, at least. As well, former US president Jimmy Carter has described the Israeli colonization of Palestine, in his article Colonization of Palestine Precludes Peace. In another article, Carter notes: "Palestine: a place where human rights violations are sometimes overlooked but are extremely severe."
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison11082003.html
http://www.cartercenter.org/doc2320.htm
http://www.cartercenter.org/doc2348.htm
---------------

Second, think about this: Imagine you have a 6-year old sister. As well, a neighbouring family also has a girl of the same age. Recently, each of these girls suffered the misfortune of being murdered by two fundamentally different gangs.

- One gang, the Apartheiders, killed your neighbour's child. The Apartheiders have applied their racist ideology involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against your neighbours. This gang has already entered their house uninvited, is living in most of their house, and segregating the family in one room while continuing the discrimination. Fortunately for your neighbour, your town has recognized the injustice and is pressuring on the Apartheiders to stop their crimes.

- The other gang, the Zionizers, killed your young sister. The Zionizers have already entered your house uninvited and have stolen most of your house. Two rooms remain, but this gang is living in one of remaining rooms (and stealing your piped water), while segregating your family in the last room and continuing the political, economic and legal discrimination against your family, among other things. In the near future, the Zionizers intend to steal the remaining room they are living in while leaving your family imprisoned in the final room. The gang's ideology has also been considered racist, but they have better public relations specialists and political lobbyists to refute any allegations against the Zionizers. The Zionizer lobbyists are chummy with the town mayor, who considers the gang to be peaceful.

In an epiphany, you say: "Shit! I am worse off than my neighbour but nobody cares. I am not only being discriminated against but am also being robbed of my property. At minimum, this is like what the Apartheiders have done to my neighbours."

But the smart lawyer for the Zionizers feels offended, saying: "That is fundamentally false. It is a fundamentally different case and situation. The analogy has no validity. The town must leave us alone to continue what we are doing to your family."

Do you agree or disagree with the Zionizer lawyer? Why?
----------------

Third, read the logic used by Brian Klug. He argues that Israel's conduct is not analogous with the apartheid state of South Africa, which was based on an ideology of white supremacy (see "I have argued elsewhere" in his article). Klug believes that Israel's conduct in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a fundamentally different situation which must be placed in the context of a territorial conflict between two peoples based on competing national aspirations. In Klug's world, the apartheid analogy between Israel and South Africa is "fundamentally false" because the "validity of the analogy" does not depend on a "catalogue of atrocities" but on the "structure and history of the situation," and so all such analogies must be assessed using these latter criteria on a case-by-case basis.

A dishonesty Klug argument is "if the analogy with South Africa were valid, there would be an analogous solution: that the state of Israel should cease to exist." This is the kind of argument criminals use to avoid prosecution. Just because we use an analogy relating to one issue (the crime), it does not follow that we will apply an analogy relating to another issue (the solution) and no one has said that he state of Israel should cease to exist. In any case, that is a ridiculous expectation, considering that Israel -- unlike South Africa -- is the world's fourth most powerful military and is estimated to have the world's fourth most powerful nuclear and thermonuclear weapons arsenal. It is an embarrassing tactic to keep adding imaginary analogies when they are not considered or are false analogies (using Klug's own standards), even to obfuscate the primary issue.

One has to ask: why did Klug not think of the obvious solution? All Israel has to do is end its occupation, crimes and violations (sustained under the guise of a territorial conflict) and simply withdraw from the occupied territories. The UN and the World Court has determined that Israel is occupying the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This is an illegal occupation. MIT Prof. Noam Chomsky summarized it well: "Occupying armies have responsibilities, not rights. Their primary responsibility is to withdraw as quickly and expeditiously as possible, in a manner determined by the occupied population." A fundamental principle of international law is that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible. In addition, the occupied population should receive reparations.
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20040506.htm
-------------------------

Klug's arguments do not pass the sniff test. But under the cover of jibber jabber like this, no wonder Israel has been able to continue its colonization, brutal apartheid occupation and dispossession of the Palestinian people for 58 years.

If you have 100 philosophers with competing interests locked in a room, you will probably have at least 100 competing arguments in a thick fog of BS, obfuscation and dishonesty.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Milton/can

Some people choose to live in denial by going to extraordinary lengths to deny that there are "victims of the victims of the Holocaust", because they happen to be Palestinians or Arabs. So it is not surprising that there are also 'Apartheid Deniers', just as there are Holocaust Deniers. Whether they reside in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, or in Israel, Palestinians are discriminated against in a variety of forms and denied equal individual rights on the grounds of their descent, national and ethnic origin. These policies and practices of segregation and domination bear striking similarities to those adopted in apartheid-era South Africa, and its illegal occupation of Namibia.

Birds of a feather flock together. Israel was one of the biggest allies of Apartheid South Africa during the darkest days of its apartheid as well as during their wars against neighbouring African countries (killing 1.5 million). Given what white-ruled South Africa and Israel was doing, in 1987 the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a major resolution condemning terrorism in all its forms. Only two countries voted against it -- Israel and the US (under Reagan). MIT Prof. Noam Chomsky observed: "And the two negative voters explained why. There was a paragraph in the resolution which said that "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice that right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right... particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor... the right of these people to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support." Both the United States and Israel had to vote against that."
____________________________________________________________

VIEWS ON ISRAELI APARTHEID POLICIES AGAINST PALESTINIANS

- Israeli Jessica Montell is the Executive Director of B'Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. In an interview, Jon Elmer asked her: "In B'Tselem's report Land Grab (2002), you conclude: "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." Is that not a textbook definition of apartheid?
Jessica Montell: Apartheid has symbolic value because of the South African context. You can draw plenty of similarities, and you can also see lots of differences between apartheid South Africa and Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I think the word apartheid is useful for mobilizing people because of its emotional power.
In some cases, the situation in the West Bank is worse than apartheid in South Africa. For example, the roads network in the West Bank, where Jews are allowed to travel on roads that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on, or the separation fence, which Palestinians call the Apartheid Wall.
I was recently at a conference with John Dugard, who is now the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights for the Occupations Palestinian Territories, and is originally from South Africa. He was (jokingly) offended that apartheid was being maligned [by its comparison with the Israeli occupation]. In South Africa you didn't have apartheid on the roads, you didn't have walls being constructed...
There are, however, clear similarities between apartheid South Africa and Israel's policies in the West Bank, and over the past three years they have become even clearer as the separation has intensified. Every area of life -- legal rights, benefits, privileges, allocation of resources, the justice system, criminal prosecution -- now has two separate tracks, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians."
http://dominionpaper.ca/features/2003/12/01/israelis_c.html
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=810
http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

- Tanya Reinhart (Israeli scholar) argued in an open letter to another Israeli academic that "even much before its present atrocities, Israel has followed faithfully the South African Apartheid model....What Israel is doing now exceeds the crimes of South Africa's white regime. It has started to take the form of systematic ethnic cleansing which South Africa never attempted. After 35 years of occupation it is completely clear that the only two choices the Israeli political system has generated for the Palestinians are Apartheid or ethnic cleansing ('transfer')."
http://www.mediamonitors.net/tanya13.html

- Nelson Mandela (former South African president): "the situation in Palestine or more specifically, the structure of political and cultural relationships between Palestinians and Israelis, as an apartheid system. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established "normally" and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa. As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called "Palestinian autonomous areas" are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system. Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children."
http://www.mediamonitors.net/arjan28.html

- "South African anti-apartheid stalwarts Bishop Desmond Tutu and author Breyten Breytenbach are drawing the parallel (comparing Israeli policies in the occupied territories to the old South African apartheid system). Members of the 80,000-strong Jewish community in South Africa have joined the debate as well. Not In My Name, a declaration written by two leading Jewish anti-apartheid activists, Ronnie Kasrils and Max Ozinksi, and signed by 220 Jews, acknowledges Israeli security concerns but, as reported in The Guardian newspaper, adds: "It becomes difficult, from a South African perspective, not to draw parallels with the oppression expressed by Palestinians under the hand of Israel and the oppression experienced in South Africa under apartheid rule." "
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0516-01.htm

- Desmond Tutu (South African Bishop) there is Apartheid in the Holy Land. Bishop Tutu explained: "I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. . . I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about. . . On one of my visits to the Holy Land. . .I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?. . .My heart aches. Why are our memories so short? Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?
"Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. . .The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal, and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if the Palestinians were not Semitic."
http://www.counterpunch.org/tutu0430.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/tutu1017.html

- Ronnie Kasrils (a Jew and South Africa's Minister of Intelligence Sevices): "Israel's occupation is worse; far worse than apartheid. South African apartheid was despicable. There were bombings and shootings. But never was a one tonne bomb dropped on a township. And there were no walls or fences in a Bantustan like in Israel/Palestine...Israel needs to be turned into the pariah state of the 21st century that apartheid South Africa was in the 20th century".
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4295.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,864049,00.html

- Israeli anthropologist Prof. Jeff Halper explains: Israelis " "For Israelis, there are not two sides. This is our country," and Arabs have no rights here. "You'll notice," he says, "that Israelis refer to the Palestinians as Arabs, not Palestinians. For Israelis, all Arabs are the same, they're undifferentiated. If you point out that Palestinians are distinct from other Arabs, they brush it off with a dismissive 'whatever.' They say this is our country, there's a bunch of Arabs here, they should go live with other Arabs.. . .We're just pissed off [at the Palestinians], the way whites were with blacks in the southern United States. They just don't know their place."
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison03292003.html

- Roman Bronfman, Chair of the Democratic Choice faction in the Yahad party, criticized what he termed "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories,� adding, �The policy of apartheid has also infiltrated sovereign Israel, and discriminates daily against Israeli Arabs and other minorities. The struggle against such a fascist viewpoint is the job of every humanist."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11762.htm

- Esther Levitan, the Jewish grandmother once condemned to indefinite solitary confinement without trial in apartheid South Africa for her activism in the ANC, admitted in an interview with Ha'aretz that she considered Israel appallingly racist, saying: "Israelis have this loathsome hatred of Arabs that makes me sick. [�] They will create a worse apartheid here."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11762.htm

- Former Israeli education minister, Shulamit Aloni, recently stated that Israel commits war crimes, "utilizes terror� and is �no different from racist South Africa.� When asked how she viewed Israel's future, Aloni responded: �I can show you Mussolini's books about fascism. If you read them you'll reach the unequivocal conclusion that ministers in the current Israeli government are walking on the same path."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11762.htm

- "(South African Breyten Breytenbach), considered the finest living poet of the Afrikaans language, was jailed under the Terrorism Act from 1975 to 1982. . .He has since written an open letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, entitled You Won't Break Them. Excerpts: "As was the case with the South African regime, the methods by which you hope to subjugate the enemy consist of force and bloodshed and humiliation. . .It is blatantly averred, again and again, that any criticism of Israel's policies is an expression of anti-Semitism. With that assertion the argument is supposed to be closed. Of course, I reject this attempt at censorship. . .There can be no way to peace through the annihilation of the other. . .I recently visited the occupied territories for the first time. And yes, I'm afraid they can reasonably be described as resembling Bantustans, reminiscent of the ghettoes and controlled camps of misery one knew in South Africa. . . The inanity of your occupation -- all those lit-up detour roads built for the exclusive use of settlers and Israeli citizens. The surly pettiness of your controls at checkpoints, having little to do with security and everything with the primitive urge to humiliate, harass and drive to insane rage an occupied population. . .The extreme youth of your soldiers. The ruthlessness with which you destroy the Palestinian economy. . .The ancient revenge: bulldozing houses, destroying olive groves. The Berlin walls around your settlements in Gaza. . .and then the rubble of destroyed Palestinian quarters looking like Ground Zero.""
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0516-01.htm

- Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski observed in 2003, during Ariel Sharon's regime: "Indeed as some Israelis have lately pointed out, and I emphasize some Israelis have lately pointed out, increasingly the only prospect if this continues is Israel becoming increasingly like apartheid South Africa -- the minority dominating the majority, locked in a conflict from which there is no extraction." In 1997, Brzezinski observed: "(Netanyahu's) concept of peace is essentially a very close equivalent of what the white supremacist apartheid government in South Africa was proposing at one point for the Africans--a series of isolated--lands--broken up, not contiguous territory, essentially living in backward villages, surrounded by white islands of prosperity."
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec97/albright_9-12.html

- Israelis learn their anti-Arab apartheid culture from young. Israeli schoolchildren even write: "Dear soldier, please kill a lot of Arabs." One Israeli soldier "was stunned when he started to read it. "I pray for you that you return home safely, and kill at least ten for me," wrote the pupil. "Screw the rules and spray them. By the way -- a good Arab is a dead Arab." Other letters were even more heated. "Let the Palestinians, may God blacken their name, burn in Hell. Punch holes in them with your M-16 and bomb them," wrote one of the teens. Another wrote, "I have a special request for you -- kill as many Arabs as you can." In another letter, a pupil wished the soldier success in his mission and added, "Say, isn't it fun to shoot an Arab? Here's a slogan: a good Arab is a dead Arab. A top notch Arab is a buried Arab." "
http://www.mideastjournal.com/israelitextbooks4.html

- Israeli anthropologist Prof. Jeff Halper explains: "Olmert's plan.. .does not mean, however, withdrawal of Israel back to its pre-1967 territory, but rather a 'convergence' of Israeli settlers scattered throughout the West Bank into Israel's major settlement blocs. Though the idea of leaving territories densely populated by Palestinians sounds good to Israeli Jews, it really means apartheid. And it will be imposed unilaterally because Israel has nothing to offer the Palestinians. True, they get 70-85% of the Occupied Territories, but only in truncated enclaves. Israel retains control of all the borders, Palestinian movement among the cantons, all the water and the richest agricultural land, the large settlement blocs including "greater" Jerusalem (which accounts for 40% of the Palestinian economy), the Palestinians' airspace and even their communications. Indeed, Israel retains all the developmental potential of the country, leaving the Palestinians with only barren and disconnected enclaves. Israel expands onto 85% of the entire country, leaving the Palestinians--the majority population or soon to be--with only about 15%, and that truncated, non-viable and only semi-sovereign. A Bantustan a la apartheid South Africa.
Http://www.Icahd.Org/Eng/Articles.Asp?Menu=6&Submenu=3
http://www.counterpunch.org/halper04222006.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/halper09192003.html

- Here are articles on Israel's Apartheid collected by the Electronic Intifada, an excellent pro-Palestinian website you sometimes see cited in the Guardian.
"Whether they reside in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, or in Israel, Palestinians are discriminated against in a variety of forms and denied equal individual rights on the grounds of their descent, national and ethnic origin. These policies and practices of segregation and domination bear striking similarities to those adopted in apartheid-era South Africa, and its illegal occupation of Namibia."
http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/149.shtml

- Professor of International Law Francis Boyle discusses Israel's "criminal apartheid regime" in his excellent book "Palestine, Palestinians and International Law", which describes these and other Israeli crimes. Simply check for 'apartheid' in the book index.
http://www.counterpunch.org/boylebiglie.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5936.htm
____________________________________________________________

ARTICLES

Israeli Apartheid - Time for the South African Treatment
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11762.htm

Collection of articles on Israel apartheid occupation
http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/149.shtml

Rejecting Israeli apartheid
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9903.htm

Excellent: World Court Decision on Israel's Apartheid Wall
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

Collection of Articles on Israel's Apartheid Wall
http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/apartheidwall.shtml
____________________________________________________________

ILLEGAL ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

What is Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory? Hear it from the Palestinians themselves as well as from Professor of International Law Francis Boyle (he discusses Israel's "criminal apartheid regime" in his excellent book "Palestine, Palestinians and International Law").
http://www.palestine-un.org/info/occ.html
http://www.palestine-un.org/info/index.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/boylebiglie.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5936.htm
http://www.Icahd.Org/Eng/Articles.Asp?Menu=6&Submenu=3
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_3_22/ai_66938021
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle1108.html
http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/humanrights.shtml
http://fromoccupiedpalestine.org/index.php?or=160

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Edinburgh/gbr

OriginalTony

You may make more sense and have more impact if you made your points concisely. Do you actually think that anyone actually trawls through your endless diatribe of longwinded arguments dotted with numerous cut and paste jobs?

Admittedly it is often more difficult to summarise points succinctly, but I recommend you try.

By the way, the links you provide betray your lack of impartiality. What this conflict does not need is another one sided perspective.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

London/gbr

Like, polytechnic tutors boycott Nobel winners? Dat's sooo funny!

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Milton/can

Enoughsaid, it is obvious that you are a rabid one-sided pro-Israel apartheider (see below for proof). But could you at least have the morality to not be a hypocrite? You demand one thing from one poster in this blog and then clumsily pirouette to me and demand the opposite.

See your above post May 31, 2006 11:03 to Whereistehlove.
Enoughsaid: "As I have said to you in the past, BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS. If you state something as fact, BACK IT UP.
My guess is that you don't back up your points for two reasons:
1) You are poorly informed. You are unable or unwilling to see the complexities so you reduce everything to good and bad.
2) Your points are based on very shaky foundations. If you were to try and justify them, the whole house of cards would come tumbling down and you would be exposed for the fraud you are."

You can't have it both ways.

Well, now we know who the fraud really is -- YOU, enoughsaid! You can't handle it when someone can actually back up his or her facts, which I have. My post focused on debunking a central argument ('invalidity' of the apatheid analogy between Israel and South Africa) in Brian Klug's post -- which Klug obfuscated with false impressions and jibber jabber, thus requiring a detailed treatment to unravel. But let's be honest: even if G-d wrote a perfect post, you would still abuse it, wouldn't you?

Regardless, from reading your pneumatically shaky and ignorant posts, I could debunk your false impressions into a book...if only the main articles, such as Klug's, did not take priority over time-wasting posts like yours.

It is obvious that enoughsaid is a one-sided pro-Israel supporter. In another blog (and he/she displayed similar behaviour in other blogs), enoughsaid abusively attacked other posters with comments such as:
- "Have you ever thought of applying for a PA job with the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?"
- "Your penchant for throwing around accusations about Israel with no evidence sprinkled with emotional personal insults suggest you are a little thick - maybe even retarded."
- "Take a pill to reduce your blood pressure - it might make your arguments more coherent as well."
- "You don't seem to be interested in the Palestinians. All your posts are filled with hate-mongering anti-Israel rhetoric."
- "As a retard you probably won't take any of my advice. You may however learn something if you do.
- "Bottom line is you're a total idiot. You're version of the middle east is so skewed that you clearly spend your spare time reading nazi/islamofascist websites."

So, enoughsaid, you should look in a mirror and repeat your abuse to yourself -- it applies perfectly, with slight modifications for context.

Nuff said. Now, unless you want to be spanked further, I suggest you take you pills and ask your handler for further instructions.
____________________________________________________________

Lesson learned: When pro-Israel posters have no facts or arguments to defend Israel's apartheid policies, they typically resort to abuse, character defamation and threats. Many of them sound so much alike that one wonders whether it is the same person with multiple access names.

Interstingly, even a US Congresswoman was recently abused by the Israel Lobby for not supporting a bill to cut off aid to and ties with the Palestinians for electing a governmnet they do not like (see her letter to the lobby group AIPAC below).
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19063
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9045

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Warsaw/usa

Justice in the Middle East

To achieve justice in the Middle East we need to base a settlement on indisputable facts. Let's look at some of them:

(1) Both Jews and Arabs have been living in the Middle East for a long time, and both have a perfect right to live there and have their fair share of the land and resources. Jews (and their Israelite and Canaanite ancestors) have had big populations all over, especially in Israel, Iraq (one third of the population of Baghdad was Jewish in 1914), Morocco, etc.

Arabs (and their Arabian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman ancestors) have also had big populations all over.

At the present time the 300 million Arabs have sovereignty over about 6 million square miles, so on the average each Arab has about one-fiftieth of a square mile. The Arabs also have all the big rivers, most of the water and all the oil.

The 5 million Jews have sovereignty over about 8 thousand square miles, so on the average each Jew has one six-hundredth of a square mile.

Each Arab has one fiftieth of a square mile, each Jew has one six-hundredth of a square mile.

Each Arab has twelve times as much land as each Jew.

So, clearly, justice does not demand that Arabs get an even bigger share of the Middle East land. An agreement that gave the Arabs the 40% of the West Bank that they actually live in would be more than generous.

(And let us not forget that the West Bank Jews are Jews in Judea, not white Britons in Zimbabwe.)

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs.
You can register here.

The latest from Guardian Unlimited

Terror plot accused 'happy' at 9/11

A man accused of buying fertiliser for an alleged bombing campaign tells the Old Bailey of his pleasure at the September 11 attacks....

College shooting gunman named

Police investigate why man killed one woman and wounded 19 others....

Insurance giant to cut 4,000 jobs

Business: Britain's biggest insurer, Aviva, is to cut 4,000 jobs at Norwich Union to save £250m a year from 2008....

Poland to send more troops to Afghanistan

Afghanistan: Poles pledge 900 more troops to bolster Nato force....

Short confirms resignation with attack on New Labour

UK: Clare Short condemns Blair as she confirms she will step down as an MP at the next election....

A month on, uneasy truce holds

Lebanon: Hizbullah fighters patrol hills while Israeli forces commit daily violations....

Most active

  1. Aimless and confused (145) comments
  2. Mecca is for men (131) comments
  3. Strength through unity? (94) comments
  4. The Path from 9/11 (93) comments
  5. A tragedy of his own making (81) comments

Best of the web

  1. The Times: Has Gordon spotted the elephant in the room? If not, he's in big trouble. - Can Brown sidestep Blair's grave?
  2. The Telegraph: The Tories and the White House. - Are Cameron's criticisms too much for the White House....
  3. Harvard International Review: The Lost continent - With the growth of Asia and eastern Europe, Africa is left way behind....
  4. Slate: Three awakenings and you're out. - What does the President have against America's religious rivals....
  5. The Independent: I'm standing down so i can speak the truth. - Harsh criticism of labour from one of its former pillars....

Advertiser links

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
Privacy Policy · Terms and Conditions