Excellent series on Israel in the Guardian.

Crossposted from Dameocrat Blog

Excellent two part article from the guardian about whether Israel's treatment of the Palestinians can be compared to Apartheid.


Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Worlds apart: "As far back as 1961, Hendrik Verwoerd, the South African prime minister and architect of the 'grand apartheid' vision of the bantustans, saw a parallel. 'The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state,' he said. It is a view that horrifies and infuriates many Israelis.

A prominent Israeli political scientist, Gerald Steinberg, responded to an invitation to appear on a panel at a Jerusalem cultural centre to debate 'Is Israel the new apartheid?' by denouncing the organiser, a South African-born Jew, for even posing the question.

'As you are undoubtedly aware, the pro-Palestinian and anti-semitic campaign to demonise Israel focuses on the entirely false and abusive analogy with South Africa. Using the term 'apartheid' to apply to Israel's legitimate responses to terror and the threat of annihilation both demeans the South African experience, and is the most immoral of charges against the right of the Jewish people to self-determination,' he replied.

Many Israelis recoil at the suggestion of a parallel because it stabs at the heart of how they see themselves and their country, founded after centuries of hatred, pogroms and ultimately genocide. If anything, many of Israel's Jews view themselves as having more in common with South Africa's black population than with its oppressors. Some staunch defenders of Israel's policies past and present say that even to discuss Israel in the context of apartheid is one step short of comparing the Jewish state to Nazi Germany, not least because of the Afrikaner leadership's fascist sympathies in the 1940s and the disturbing echoes of Hitler's Nuremberg laws in South Africa's racist legislation.

Yet the taboo is increasingly challenged. As Israel's justice minister, Tommy Lapid, said, Israel's defiance of international law in constructing the West Bank barrier could result in it being treated as a pariah like South Africa. Malaysia's prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, has called for a campaign against Israel of the kind used to pressure South Africa."

Second part of the two part series on Israel and Apartheid.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria: "srael's critics say that as the threats to the Jewish state receded it came more and more to resemble the apartheid model - particularly in its use of land and residency laws - until the similarities outweighed the differences. Liel says that was never the intent.

'The existential problems of Israel were real,' he says. 'Of the injustice we did, we're always ashamed. We always tried to behave democratically. Of course, on the private level there was a lot of discrimination - a lot, a lot. By the government also. But it was not a philosophy that was built on racism. A lot of it was security-oriented.'

Goldreich disagrees. 'It's a gross distortion. I'm surprised at Liel. In 1967, in the six day war, in this climate of euphoria - by intent, not by will of God or accident - the Israeli government occupied the territories of the West Bank and Gaza with a captive Palestinian population obviously in order to extend the area of Israel and to push the borders more distant from where they were,' he says.

'I and others like me, active after the six day war on public platforms, tried desperately to convince audiences throughout this country that peace agreements between Israel and Palestine [offer] greater security than occupation of territory and settlements. But the government wanted territory more than it wanted security."

Tags: Apartheid, arabs, Discrimination, Israel, settlements, settlers, South Africa, West Bank (all tags)

Comments

6 Comments

Re: Excellent series on Israel in the Guardian.

Gold Meir offered the Palestinians full autonomy in 1967. The Palestinians responded by launching a terror campaign to kill Jewish civilians. In 2000, Barak and Clinton offered the Palestinians full autonomy. Arafat responded by saying his people would kill him if he made peace with Israel and launched the second Intifada, which featured Palestinian children being conned into blowing themselves up to kill Jews (Seventy-two virgins, eh?). In 2005, Sharon withdrew completely from Gaza and offered to withdraw from most of the West Bank. The Palestinians responded by accelerating rocket attacks on Israel and electing a political party whose philosophy is indistinguishable from that of Adolf Eichmann.

Apartheid is the wrong analogy, madam. The historical parallel is the Holocaust, which the Palestinians and their propagandists like the Guardian are implacably determined to reprise. It was the Guardian that perpetrated the Jenin Massacre myth which accused Israel of slaughtering thousands of Palestinians. The actual total as verified by the Palestinian Authority was 33, 29 of whom were armed terrorists.

Nice try, though. I look forward to you posting a Guardian series on how Israel was behind the assassination of President McKinley. Of course, there will be no Guardian series on how gay Palestinians flee into Israel because their own bigoted people kill homosexuals:

http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offs ite.htm?site=http://www.americanthinker. com/comments.php%3Fcomments%5Fid=57

by georgewturd 2006-02-07 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent series on Israel in the Guardian.

How could Golda Meir have offered them any autonomy in 1967 if she wasn't even Prime Minister till 69.  I find no bases for you're claim.

Clinton doesn't even claim full autonomy was offered to the Palestinians in 2000, so there is no basis for you second claim either.

The guardian is a hell of a lot more credible than American Thinker, which is a right wing nut magazine.  The settlers aren't all that nice to homosexuals either.

I can see why you named yourself after W.

by Dameocrat 2006-02-08 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent series on Israel in the Guardian.

I appreciate that your paucity of supporting facts necessitates your abundance of pejorative sophistry.

In 1967 the ruling Mapai Party, of which Golda Meir was Secretary General and foreign policy strategist, sought to return the West Bank in exchange for peaceful co-existence:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:rD8 X9gL8DhsJ:research.haifa.ac.il/~eshkol/p eace.html+eshkol+give+back+west+bank& ;hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Your link regarding Clinton does not support your assertion and therefore requires no rebuttal.

Gay Palestinians are safe in Israel but not in Palestine. Israeli Arabs have greater civil liberties than do Palestinian Arabs, which is a conclusive refutation of the convoluted apartheid analogy.

Peace and independence awaits the Palestinians anytime they want to embrace peace and independence, which was not true for black South Africans.

Finally, the georgewturd user name is a slam at the pretender-in-chief, so you fail to understand that as well, thereby making it a clean sweep.

by georgewturd 2006-02-08 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent series on Israel in the Guardian.

Please read his link and you will see it says they offered autonomy in little golan and the sinia, which were both claimd by other countries and still are, and that is all that was offered.  It doesn't even mention Golda.  They offered someone control of little Hebron too.  Oh wow!  That is so generous.  

Furthermore it glossed over the fact that the reason it was really rejected was probably because they Palestinians would scared that would be construed as  a final deal and it probably would have been.  You still haven't backed up your assertion about Clinton, and if Clinton had said that it I believe it definately would have appeared somewhere on the wiki.

Gays get bashed in Israel all the time by the ultra orthodox types.  3 were stabbed at a gay pride parade in Israel just last year.  Not to mention the fact that it is nothing but changing subject.  The fact that Palestinians are more likely to be social conservatives doesn't justify stealing from them or discrimination against them.  The typical rich republican probably likes gays more than the poor blacks, but we still tend to side with poor blacks , and we think slavery and Jim Crow were wrong.

by Dameocrat 2006-02-08 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent series on Israel in the Guardian.

Palestinians are "social conservatives"? Under Palestinian law, women are inferior and it is open season on gays. The Palestinians are more "socially conservative" than the Klan. If you loved liberal principles more than you hate "Zionists" you would enthusiastically repudiate theocratic right wingers like the Palestinians.

No matter how many different liberal websites you grace with the "excellent" Guardian series that equates South African racism with Israeli self-defense, the fact remains the Palestinians rejected statehood in favor of continuing terrorizing civilians, and they have recently elected a party that advocates genocide. I understand that you will justify anything they do, so continued dialogue on this issue is pointless.

To close the loop, here is the Clinton offer of autonomy:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:yb1 JL_CwYxYJ:www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.ht m+map+barak+clinton+offer&hl=en& gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Maybe we can part by finding common ground: I like puppies. How about you?

by georgewturd 2006-02-09 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent series on Israel in the Guardian.

BTW, the article also mentioned annexing east jerusalem altogether which cuts the west bank in half.  Just yesterday, Omert said he was annexing the settlement blocks and East Jerusalem. That means the Palestinians will live in little prisons with no water, and you want them to be ok with this.  I don't advocate terror, but i do advocate south african style boycotts.  Israel has earned it.

by Dameocrat 2006-02-08 02:01PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads