Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
probeson

Is Israel an apartheid state? Why Zionism = Apartheid

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Let me begin by defining my terms:

 

Apartheid-when any group imposes a status of legal inferiority or second class citizenship on another group because of religious, racial, ethnicity, or gender, which deprives them of social,legal, economic, cultural. or basic human rights

 

From the UN definition of Apartheid and international law:
http://www.law-ref.org/APARTHEID/index.html

--->c. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a  group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a  group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
d. Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial/ethnic lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof; <----

 

Zionism- Jewish Nationalism. The belief that Israel/Palestine should be the homeland of a "Jewish" state

 

So I ask you, how can one have a state for Jews(Zionism) that does not give preferential treatment to Jews over all other groups? If it does not give preferential treatment to Jews then it is not a Zionist state. But we have all heard it said from its elected leaders that Israel expects the Palestinians to accept it as a Jewish state, have we not? 

 

Such a state as Israel can not truly be considered a democratic state either. If Israel gives a Jew more privileges than the non-Jew then all are not equal before the law-hence undemocratic. Isn't a "Jewish state" by definition, exclusive of other ethnicities?

 

So is Israel deserving of the apartheid appellation? Let's see:

 

First:
"Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including ..the right to freedom of movement"

First Israeli Arabs are prevented from visiting family members that live in countries that Israel does not approve. This law does not apply equally to all citizens. Proof:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/997986.html

They have also set aside lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful , wide , and well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way. May I also add that humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either. Curfews also fall under restriction of freedom of movement. Based on a series of long curfews in the majority of Palestinian towns and villages and hundreds of CHECKPOINTS navigable only with Israeli-issued permits-movement between towns and villages is extremely restricted, and often impossible. DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP-YES OR NO?

I am aware that the checkpoints are in the Occupied WB but they( WB Palestinians) are still subject to Israeli law. The restriction of movement for the first example applies to Israeli Arabs.

proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804600.html

 

Next:

Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a  group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a  group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

 

 

Next:

 

"Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups.

 

Basic Law-1958
Passed in 1985, Section 7A(1) bars a list of candidates from participation in elections to the Knesset “if its aims or actions, expressly or by implication” deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.”

In 2002 both Section 7A(1) of the Basic Law: the Knesset and the Law of Political Parties were amended further to bar those whose goals or actions, directly or indirectly, “support armed struggle of an enemy state or of a terror organization, against the State of Israel.” These amendments were added expressly to curtail the political participation of Palestinian Arabs within Israel – such as Azmi Bishara – who have expressed solidarity with Palestinians resisting military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.


The Law of Political Parties (1992)Bars the Registrar of Political Parties from registering a political party if it denies “the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State.”

Next:
"Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by...the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups."

 

4. Judicial Practice: Equal Protection Cases

The Israeli courts – guided by the Supreme Court – have consistently decided that discrimination between Arabs and Jews is legitimate based on the founding principles of Israel as a state for the Jewish people; “nationality” is considered a legitimate basis for discrimination.

In the State of Israel vs. Ashgoyev (1988), an Israeli settler was convicted by the Tel Aviv District Court of shooting a Palestinian child. The judge sentenced him to a suspended jail term of six months and community service. When challenged by critics, the trial judge, Uri Shtruzman, said: “It is wrong to demand in the name of equality, equal bearing and equal sentences to two offenders who have different nationalities who break the laws of the State. The sentence that deters the one and his audience, does not deter the other and his community.”


The Citizenship and Entry Law-The law, passed July 31, 2003 prohibits Palestinian spouses from obtaining citizenship, permanent residency and temporary residency status in Israel by marriage to an Israeli citizen. Under the new law, thousands of Palestinians living in Israel must go back to the West Bank or Gaza, and they will be denied identity cards—their passports to get past police checkpoints. Keep in mind that any Jew from anywhere gets blanket citizenship simply for the asking. Any Jewish citizen can easily obtain citizenship for their spouses especially since there is a strong stigma against Jews who marry outside of their faith. So this law does not affect the Vast majority of Jews- only Israeli Arabs. Proof:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996697.html

The Nationality and Entry law forbids the marriage of Palestinians and Israelis and also forbids spouses of Arab citizens, who reside in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel? THESE LAWS PROHIBIT INTERMARRIAGE AND MEETS THE CONDITIONS ABOVE- DO YOU AGREE YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135963.html

Next:
......the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof

Absentee Property Law (1950)
Classifies the personal property of Palestinians who fled during the Zionist terror campaign of 1947/48 as "absentee property" and places it within the power of the Custodian of Absentee Property. According to the law, even the property of Palestinians who are present within the newly created state of Israel, but are not physically present on their property ("internal refugees"), becomes "absentee property." This creates the category of "present absentees."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1129744.html

National Planning and Building Law (1965)
Creates a system of discriminatory zoning that freezes existing Arab villages while providing for the expansion of Jewish settlements. The law also re-classifies a large number of Arab villages as "non-residential" creating the "unrecognized villages." These villages do not receive basic municipal services such as water and electricity; all buildings are threatened with demolition orders.
DO THESE LAWS TARGET A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP WITH THE EFFECT OF SEIZING THEIR PROPERTY? YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1076058.html

 

Development Authority (Transfer of Property Law) (1950)Transfers confiscated Palestinian villages and private property to the Development Authority, which is empowered to dispose of it in the interests of the State, giving priorty to the Jewish National Fund – a Zionist organization aimed at settling Jewish immigrants to Israel. Both the JNF and the Jewish Agency – organizations that act exclusively in the interest of Jews – take on the status of quasi-governmental organizations within the framework of the Development Authority Law.

World Zionist Organization (Jewish Agency (Status) Law (1952)
Establishes the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency as organizations with governmental status in fulfilling Zionist objectives – the immigration and settlement of Jews in Palestine.

Next:
.... in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to leave and to return to their country.

Law of Return (1950)
Grants right of immigration to Jews born anywhere in the world. Amended in 1970 to extend this right to "a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew." A "Jew" is defined as "a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion." But a Palestinian born in Israel is not allowed to return to his home and property for fear of upsetting the Jewish majority.

Non-Jewish native-born Palestinians - most importantly those who fled during the Zionist massacres in 1947 and 1948 - are in most cases prevented from returning.

Nationality (/Citizenship) Law (1952)
Confers automatic citizenship upon all who immigrate under the Law of Return. Non-Jews - including native-born Palestinians - must prove residency and pass other tests; citizenship is granted at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior.

Under the new interim policy for "family unification" passed by the Israeli Cabinet in 2002, and made part of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law by the Knesset in 2003, a discriminatory system has been put in place preventing applications for residency or citizenship from Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens.
DO THESE LAWS PREVENT PALS FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF RETURN? YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEng.jhtml?itemNo=840119&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&title='Knesset%20extends%20law%20banning%20Israeli-Palestinian%20family%20unification%20'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5

Forgive the caps, they are for emphasis. Do these laws and their systematic uniformity illustrate what I mean?
I could go on and on but that should be enough for you to catch the drift. As a side note, this is not just my assessment. Israeli apartheid is openly discussed in the UN and it is being recognized by Human Rights Organizations.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that your using a term for state sponsered racial discrimination and trying to apply it to laws that define political enemies that want to overthrow the state, don't you?  The fact that the laws target political entities that want to destroy the State is one huge context to drop in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how providing a justification for racially discriminatory laws changes the essential nature of Apartheid. 

 

Is Israel an Apartheid state? YES OR NO??

 

Is Zionism an inherently discriminatory belief? YES OR NO?

 

If you answer to the affirmative, based on the evidence I have provided, then who really gives a crap why they are an apartheid country? I mean, who would defend institutional racism and discrimination?

 

Furthermore, the laws do not target those who want to destroy the state, it targets its own citizens. The vast majority of the laws posted target Israeli citizens of Arab descent. In addition...according to the definition I provided:

 

"when any group imposes a status of legal inferiority or second class citizenship on another group because of religious, racial, ethnicity, or gender, which deprives them of social,legal, economic, cultural. or basic human rights"

 

....Apartheid MUST take the form of law(i.e. force). You can't have apartheid without force.

Edited by probeson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Israel was a theocracy based on the race/blood of the Jewish people.  If this is true, I find your conclusion that Israel is an Apartheid state, to be consistent with my understanding and quite unsurprising.

 

Unlike communist states though I do not believe they keep people in ... i.e. if you aren't of the right race (had the right mother?) you are "free" to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how providing a justification for racially discriminatory laws changes the essential nature of Apartheid. 

 

Is Israel an Apartheid state? YES OR NO??

 

Is Zionism an inherently discriminatory belief? YES OR NO?

 

If you answer to the affirmative, based on the evidence I have provided, then who really gives a crap why they are an apartheid country? I mean, who would defend institutional racism and discrimination?

 

Furthermore, the laws do not target those who want to destroy the state, it targets its own citizens. The vast majority of the laws posted target Israeli citizens of Arab descent. In addition...according to the definition I provided:

 

"when any group imposes a status of legal inferiority or second class citizenship on another group because of religious, racial, ethnicity, or gender, which deprives them of social,legal, economic, cultural. or basic human rights"

 

....Apartheid MUST take the form of law(i.e. force). You can't have apartheid without force.

 

Since you ignored what I said and blurted the same thing - We'll try this one more time but more blunt: There is a big difference between laws that discriminate based on race an those that discriminate based on criminal or treasonous actions.  The laws you listed, as far as I can tell, discriminate based on actions, not skin color or zip code of birth. 

 

"... bars a list of candidates from participation in elections to the Knesset “if its aims or actions, expressly or by implication” deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.”

That is not racially motivated - That is telling someone you will not allow them to participate if they deny your existence, which is quite resonable.  I'd show someone the door of they denied my right to exist. 

 

"... bar those whose goals or actions, directly or indirectly, “support armed struggle of an enemy state or of a terror organization, against the State of Israel.”

 

Again, the actual law you listed is not racially motivated but claims that criminals that wage war against a country cannot participate in the political process.  That is resonable and even commendable. 

 

I would need to see examples of  laws that deny rights by race,deny rights based on the fact one entity is trying to destroy the other.  I am no expert on Israel by any stretch of the imagination and simply pointig out the laws you actually listed (not the assertions) and how they look to me.  I have no dog in that fight and am more than open to being wrong if you stop the rhetoric and provide some info. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Israel was a theocracy based on the race/blood of the Jewish people. 

I thought a magicman with a white beard brought me presents down a chimney. And I was living in an apartment at the time. 

 

But I was three years old. Since then, I learned what "thinking" really is.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Israel one of the Supreme court judges is an Arab, 4 Arab political parties represented in the parliament and Arab is a vice prime minister. Israeli Arabs have exactly the same rights as Jews, including right to vote, and less obligations. For example they don't have to do military service. Apartheid is a word in Afrikaans, originated from South Africa and means separation, or what they used to call a separate development. Israeli Arab citizens are not separated from the Jewish population in any way. The only law which gives to the Jews a preferential treatment is the law of return. But this law which grants to any non-Israeli Jew an instant citizenship discriminates not only Arabs, but any non-Jew. Since Israel had been created as a shelter to the persecuted Jewish nation, such a law makes a lot of sense. That doesn't mean that non-Jew cannot get an Israeli citizenship. He simply has to go through the process of naturalization as in any other country. Israel is a secular state, in spite that religion plays a major role in Israeli society, exactly like Christianity in America. But religious laws as a rule are not enforced by the state ( few such a laws like prohibition of TV broadcast and public transportation on Saturday existed in the past). In short, if Israel is an apartheid state, then USA is apartheid state as well. To call Israel an apartheid state is an insult to all black and white South Africans who fought against apartheid. For example Reverend Dr. Kenneth Meshoe, an outspoken member of the South Africa Parliament, wrote in "San Francisco Examiner" : "As a black South African who lived under apartheid, ...in my view, Israel cannot be compared to apartheid in South Africa.Those who make the accusation expose their ignorance of what apartheid really is...in my numerous visits to Israel, I did not see any of the above...Black, brown and white Jews and the Arab minority mingle freely in all public places, universities, restaurants, voting stations and public transportation. All people have the right to vote. The Arab minority has political parties, serves in the Israeli parliament (Knesset) and holds positions in government ministries, the police force and the security services. In hospitals, Palestinian patients lie in beds next to Israeli Jews, and doctors and nurses are as likely to be Israeli Arabs as Jews. ...None of the above was legally permissible in apartheid South Africa!" The description of Israel as apartheid state in his opinion is "slanderous and deceptive" to make such accusations against Israel as doing so "trivializes the word apartheid, minimizing and belittling the magnitude of the racism and suffering endured by South Africans of color."

 

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23889/Default.aspx

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se5xTh8uwyo

 

Or consider the statement of Aatef Karinaoui, a 42-year-old Bedouin Muslim resident of the city of Rahat, who is running for the Knesset this year:

. I’m a proud Arab and a proud Israeli too. I’m not a Palestinian. Look at Syria, look at Egypt, look at Libya, look at Tunisia and look at Bahrain; the problem is not Israel, it’s the Arabs.” He continued, “I have no problem with the Star of David on the flag or with the national anthem –- no problem at all. Israel is a democracy, and I respect every country that is a democracy. 

 

http://unitedwithisrael.org/bedouin-supports-israel/

 

About 44% of Israeli Arabs are proud to be Israeli citizens, consider Israel as a democratic state and less then half agree that there is a discrimination against them. Majority trust in Isreali institutions and only 18% are bothered by Palestinian-Israeli conflict and 38% consider themselves as Israeli patriots.

 

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=26236#entry314105

 

If one wants to claim that there is still a lot of animosity and problems between Jews and Arabs in Israel, I'd agree. But if words have any meaning ,designate any concepts and aren't just parroted labels, Israel is NOT an apartheid state.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiral,

 

With the exception of the law that forbids material support to the enemy, most of the discriminatory laws clearly favor Jews or non-Jews. 

 

""... bars a list of candidates from participation in elections to the Knesset “if its aims or actions, expressly or by implication” deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.”

That is not racially motivated - That is telling someone you will not allow them to participate if they deny your existence, which is quite resonable.  I'd show someone the door of they denied my right to exist. "

 

Denying that ,"the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.” is getting compliance from those seeking office that they will accept their second class citizenship(if they are not Jewish) and will make no efforts to change it. It is an inherently "racist" law. Look more closely, the law is not about denying the existence of the state of Israel, it prohibits challenges to Jewish privilege. Remember that a 'Jewish state' means the state favors Jews and that all are not equal before the law. It is institutional racism at its finest because  it stifles dissent.

 

If you look at the laws I provided, with the exception of what you mentioned, the rest are discriminatory. A "Jewish state" is no different from a 'white state", or an 'Islamic state'. The bottom line is the same-that some are second class and do not enjoy a government which deals with each citizen according to non-racist criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonid,

 

In my opinion, Israeli Apartheid is more sinister than the Apartheid practiced in South Africa because it has the veneer of inclusion but without the substance. The very idea of a 'Jewish state" goes against the requirements of a democracy. It marginalizes every one who is not Jewish. If laws favor one group over another then must violate the rights of the inferior group. 

 

The fact that some people have an opinion that Israel does not practice apartheid does not change its essential nature. That would be social metaphysics. 

 

However, if it confers a status of legal inferiority by force against its own citizens because of race, creed, religion, or other criteria then it is by definition, an apartheid state. 

 

I completely disagree that Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews in Israel. How could they when the idea of a "Jewish State" makes them unequal before the law?

 

The National Planning Law, The Citizenship Law, The Jewish National Fund that expropriates land from non-Jew and gives to Jews...and this isn't even half of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thread is based on OPs willful evasion of the difference between Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, and Israeli nationals of Arab ethnicity.

 

Palestinians living in the occupied territories aren't second class Israeli citizens. They're not Israeli citizens at all. They're an enemy population, being indoctrinated into hating Israel and killing Jews from childhood until they die, by a government that is at war with Israel. Of course Israel discriminates against them. Every nation state discriminates against foreign nationals, as they should. The expectation that Israel, or the US, or any other state treat foreigners the same way it treats its own citizens, is unreasonable. Especially in the middle of a war. Calling that act of self defense apartheid is just childish name calling, by people who are at a loss of actual arguments.

 

Meanwhile, there is another group of Arabs, who are Israeli citizens. None of the laws and cases OP cites are discriminatory against Israelis of Arab ethnicity. Ethnic Arabs in Israel have the same exact rights Jews do, and, as Leonid said, one fewer obligations.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought a magicman with a white beard brought me presents down a chimney. And I was living in an apartment at the time. 

 

But I was three years old. Since then, I learned what "thinking" really is.

 

Ouch.

 

I had simply thought the country was established for and based on a homeland for Jewish people.  i.e. Jewish people not people in general were the core, and thought what defines a Jewish person qua Jewish: religion and/or blood/ancestry.

 

I have, on your harsh advice, looked at some information and it seems it is not a theocracy... but neither is it a completely "Jewish persons independent/agnostic" democracy.  As a matter of fact I find it all quite confusing... as to whether the state has some allegiance to a special group of people, or a specific belief system, or not.

 

I do see now that it is complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

The Citizenship Law, the National Planning Law, the Basic Law, etc...are for Israeli citizens. 

 

Take the...:

 Development Authority (Transfer of Property Law) (1950)

Transfers confiscated Palestinian villages and private property to the Development Authority, which is empowered to dispose of it in the interests of the State, giving priority to the Jewish National Fund - a Zionist organization aimed at settling Jewish immigrants to Israel. Both the JNF and the Jewish Agency - organizations that act exclusively in the interest of Jews - take on the status of quasi-governmental organizations within the framework of the Development Authority Law.

 

Cmon man, Anyone can see the law privileges Jews over non-Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch.

 

I had simply thought the country was established for and based on a homeland for Jewish people.  i.e. Jewish people not people in general were the core, and thought what defines a Jewish person qua Jewish: religion and/or blood/ancestry.

 

I have, on your harsh advice, looked at some information and it seems it is not a theocracy... but neither is it a completely "Jewish persons independent/agnostic" democracy.  As a matter of fact I find it all quite confusing... as to whether the state has some allegiance to a special group of people, or a specific belief system, or not.

 

I do see now that it is complicated.

Israel is at least as secular as most western countries. There is a religious influence over the government, but it's not any stronger than in the US for instance. If anything, it's weaker. They are definitely far less socially conservative than the US.

 

http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/dispatch-gay-tel-aviv/?_r=1

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

The Citizenship Law, the National Planning Law, the Basic Law, etc...are for Israeli citizens. 

 

Take the...:

 Development Authority (Transfer of Property Law) (1950)

Transfers confiscated Palestinian villages and private property to the Development Authority, which is empowered to dispose of it in the interests of the State, giving priority to the Jewish National Fund - a Zionist organization aimed at settling Jewish immigrants to Israel. Both the JNF and the Jewish Agency - organizations that act exclusively in the interest of Jews - take on the status of quasi-governmental organizations within the framework of the Development Authority Law.

 

Cmon man, Anyone can see the law privileges Jews over non-Jews.

Your point was already addressed by Leonid. Helping Jews settle into Israel does not create a second class citizenry out of anyone. Israeli Arabs are not denied their rights by the practice in any way. 

 

Also, I'm going to stop responding to un-sourced quotes from you. You have given me every reason to distrust the veracity of your claims. If you want to cite Israeli law, cite it directly, and link your sources.

 

As for the "confiscation" of Palestinian property, during the Arab-Jewish war sparked by Israel's declaration of independence, there was a mass exodus of both Arabs from Israel, and of Jews from Arab states. In total, 850.000 Jews were forced to escape Arab lands (often in secret). That is the entire Jewish population of Arab states. They were all driven out, without exception. And, just like the Arab refugees, these Jews were also living in tent camps, in abject poverty.

 

The law you are referring to was actually aimed at settling these refugees into Israel. At the same time, the Arab states failed to do the same for Arab refugees. To now turn around and blame Israel for that failure and the faith of those refugees (who are now called Palestinians), despite the fact that the war was started by the Arab states, is the height of evasion of responsibility. And, like I said, throwing in the word "apartheid" to describe a state of affairs in which Israel was defending itself against belligerent Arab states is just childish name-calling, because you don't have actual arguments.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probeson """... bars a list of candidates from participation in elections to the Knesset “if its aims or actions, expressly or by implication” deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.”

 

Israeli law also prohibits participation in election of any party which propagate racial, ethnic or religious hatred. For example  a Jewish party "Kah" of rabbi Meir Kahane had been prohibited to participate in elections in 1988.

And I cannot see any basis  for your claim that Jewish state is inherently racists simply because it's Jewish. France is a French country because the majority of its population is French, they use French language and share French heritage and culture. Nobody claims that France is racists or antidemocratic, in spite that 10% of its population are Arabs. Israel is not an apartheid state as Rev. Meshoe observed, and this observation is not social metaphysics ( whatever it means) but based on his personal first hand experience with apartheid and Israeli reality, an experience which you obviously don't have. Israel doesn't discriminate against Arabs, but it's a mixed economy and such a state as Ayn Rand rightly observed, exists in the state of permanent gang civil war. There is no one ethnic and not only ethnic group in Israel which never claimed a state discrimination, by which they mean that state doesn't distribute funds equally. There are immigrants from Russia and Morocco, Ethiopia and Poland, there are young and old, religious and secular and many others who claim that state doesn't treat them equally. Arabs are not an exclusion. This is not an apartheid but a natural condition of welfare state. In USA, Europe and many other places the condition is exactly the same. The laws you cited are not directed against Arabs or any non-Jews but created in order to build Jewish national home, to help Jewish immigrants to settle in Israel. Jews used to help each other for thousands of years and nobody called them racists for that. If you really and sincerely look for the signs of apartheid, you should look to the Arab side. Recently  Mahmoud Abbas  the head of Palestinian autonomy said that no Jew will be allowed in the future Palestinian state. 

http://zoa.org/2013/07/10209533-zoa-condemns-dictator-abbas-reiterating-statement-no-jews-in-future-palestinianstate/

 

Such a statement would make the architect of Apartheid Hendrik Verwoerd and his teacher Adolf Hitler really proud. Or consider the words of PLO ambassador to the U.S., Maen Areikat: “I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated."

As I mentioned before the exact meaning of apartheid is separation. There are Palestinian leaders who promote the policy of apartheid, not Jewish state. 
 

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

Once upon a time, you could say it would be unfair  to call the military dictatorship of the WB and Gaza a form of apartheid. You could have even said it was a 'temporary measure' .But Israel has now maintained control over these territories for  nearly 50 years - that's almost as long as Israel has been a state. In addition Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and announced plans to permanently control up to nearly half of the West Bank and it still controls all of Gaza ..so much so that it can control how many calories Gazans consume:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-counted-calories-needed-for-gazans-in-blockade.html?_r=0

 

 

For all intents and purposes, Israel and the Palestinian territories it controls have functioned as one integrated economic and political unit. It is no longer possible to view an occupation of such long duration as a "temporary". We must include Gaza in the equation as it is still under occupation.

 

Also...the idea that helping Jews to migrate while excluding everyone else is inherently racist. If you are applying the law differently to groups of people then it is discriminatory..plain and simple. If it privileges one group over another and there are a system of laws to the same end - it is apartheid. How can it not be so when it is an avowed 'Jewish State'?

 

As for the sources...

 

Here is a report from Human Rights Watch. It is titled Separate and Unequal

 

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/12/19/separate-and-unequal

 

Here's a statement  from B'Tselem about the policies of this apartheid state:

 

"“The forbidden roads regime (for Palestinians) is based on the principle of separation based on discrimination, and assumes that every Palestinian constitutes a security threat. This assumption is racist, and cannot justify a policy that indiscriminately harms the entire Palestinian population. Therefore, the policy violates human rights and international law,” 

 

I see no need to cite Israeli law. We only need to know that a system of laws exist that privilege Jews over non-Jews to show Apartheid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonid,

 

"And I cannot see any basis  for your claim that Jewish state is inherently racists simply because it's Jewish. France is a French country because the majority of its population is French, they use French language and share French heritage and culture. Nobody claims that France is racists or antidemocratic, in spite that 10% of its population are Arabs. "

 

France and Israel are two different animals. Israel is a melting pot of Jews from all over the world. It is an avowed "Jewish State". It is not united around principles, like America or France for that matter, but around religion-or being Jewish. Based on the evidence I have provided, there are a system of laws that favor Jews over non-Jews. That is plain to see. If you have laws on your books that will allow any Jew to immigrate but not any Arab, then you have a tiered system of laws that places one group in an superior position. 

 

If a Jew wanted to immigrate to America, " a country for whites", but we took all comers except Jews then that would be racist would it not? What if America only took white people but everyone else was refused? What if we displaced non-whites to make way for whites...would that be racist? What if a white citizen of America wanted to marry a non-white citizen from another country -thereby giving him/her citizenship but was refused...but could marry a white person under the same circumstances and have citizenship granted him/her? Would that sound like a system of institutional discrimination?

 

It's the same for Israel except they are a Jewish state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

Once upon a time, you could say it would be unfair  to call the military dictatorship of the WB and Gaza a form of apartheid. You could have even said it was a 'temporary measure' .But Israel has now maintained control over these territories for  nearly 50 years 

Yes, the war has been going on for 50 years. 65, actually. That still doesn't make the enemy population's plight Israel's responsibility.

 

If you really want to help the Palestinian refugees, stop creating propaganda to help them evade reality and start telling them the truth: the cause of their problems is the war they and Arab leaders in general are perpetuating through belligerence and terrorism. As soon as terrorism and anti-Israeli belligerence ends, the occupation ends, a permanent border is drawn somewhere, and at that point Israel will be entirely out of Palestinians' lives. 

 

Until then, the justified military occupation of a defensive buffer zone, and incursions into Palestinian territories in response to terrorism, will continue. That's not apartheid, that's Israel acting to defend its civilians from being murdered because they are Jewish. Until the belligerence against Israel ends, no inhabitant of a single Arab territory or state has a single legitimate gripe against Israel, no matter what military action Israel chooses to respond with, and who among them it is against. They should be thankful for not getting nuked off the face of the Earth.

 

If a Jew wanted to immigrate to America, " a country for whites", but we took all comers except Jews then that would be racist would it not? What if America only took white people but everyone else was refused? What if we displaced non-whites to make way for whites...would that be racist? What if a white citizen of America wanted to marry a non-white citizen from another country -thereby giving him/her citizenship but was refused...but could marry a white person under the same circumstances and have citizenship granted him/her? Would that sound like a system of institutional discrimination?

 

No one is claiming that Israel is a Laissez-Faire Capitalist country. I agree that Israel is wrongly creating unfair blocks against some non-Jewish immigrants (who aren't coming from enemy countries or territories). There are plenty of historical and present time reasons for Jews being weary of non-Jews, but they don't justify keeping some Eastern European out who is just looking to work and live in a better place.

 

But calling unfair immigration rules "apartheid" is still just cheap propaganda. 

 

The forbidden roads regime (for Palestinians) is based on the principle of separation based on discrimination, and assumes that every Palestinian constitutes a security threat. This assumption is racist,

 

Right. Treating people in enemy countries and territories as the enemy is racist. Everyone and everything is racist. Especially the facts of reality.

 

Nonetheless, Israel is 100% correct to treat every single person in the Palestinian territories, and for that matter everyone in Arab countries, as an enemy until proven otherwise. That is the only reason why life in Israel is still possible. If they didn't do exactly that, the Palestinian suicide bomber campaign would've made Israeli civilians' lives unbearable by now.

 

Like I said: all Arab states and Palestinian leaders need to do to escape all that racism is stop trying to murder Jews. Do that, and it all ends, everyone goes their separate ways and lives happily ever after.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the evidence I have provided, there are a system of laws that favor Jews over non-Jews. That is plain to see. If you have laws on your books that will allow any Jew to immigrate but not any Arab, then you have a tiered system of laws that places one group in an superior position. 

 

So Israel is an apartheid state because it treats Jews who live outside of Israel differently from non-Jews who live outside Israel? 

 

Like I said, that is indeed an unfair practice to some extent (though not when it comes to non-Jews who wish to come over from Arab territories: they should all be kept out until the war ends, or at least vetted very, very carefully). But you really need to look up what apartheid means, one of these days. It's the subjugation of a portion of one's own population, not the occupation of a belligerent enemy or discrimination against foreigners. Israeli Arabs aren't second class citizens, they have the same exact rights as Israeli Jews. You need to stop evading that basic fact by refusing to identify the difference between Israeli Arab citizens and Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the last 2,000 years, every country on earth has either discriminated, harassed, restricted, murdered, forced conversions, or completely separated Jews from its own society.  To state that the protection of the individual rights of these people by a government is somehow discriminatory, or apartheid, or theocracy, is evasion on a truly massive scale.  To claim that Jews discriminate against Arabs when Arabs have forcibly kicked out virtually every Jew from Arab countries is a demand that Jews annihilate themselves. To claim that Israel is basically a "Jewish state" when it is the only state that allows all three major religions in the region to freely practice their beliefs is to use words without any meaning.

Edited by A is A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Nicky and A is A, but you should watch out for treating individuals as homogenous components of collectives. The fact that old Spanish, Roman, Russian, Arab, etc governments mistreated Jews is not a valid justification for discrimination against immigrants today. I agree that immigrants from Arab countries should be strongly vetted, but there should not be a presumption of guilt if a Jordanian or Pakistani want to come to Israel. The actions of these immigrants' ex-government should not be blamed on every individual living under said governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probeson,

The French-Israel analogy is more apt than you are willing to admit. Judaism is not just a religion; one need only look to the history of Jerusalem to understand that Jews are bound by an ethnicity with roots planted in an ancient nation. The right of return is as much a national right as it is a religious right. Think of it this way - If France were defeated by Germany in WWII and a new French government were created in in southern Asia, the new nation may allow any descendant of a French citizen to become a citizen of the new nation. That situation would mirror the Israeli right of return. The right of return is certainly  not racial discrimination. Race would have to be a factor, and Jews of all races exist. I am more sympathetic to your objection that this is a form of religious discrimination, but again, the religion cannot be divorced from the kingdom of David. The worst criticism that can be leveled at this policy is that a proper government allows open immigration for everybody that isn't a threat... That criticism doesn't approach the charge of apartheid.

I've also got some questions that I hope you'll be kind enough to answer.

I don't think you've done enough to address the distinction between Israeli citizens and occupied Palestinians. Your only response to Nicky seems to be that you think 50 years is too long for a nation to occupy a territory. Why? What is your time limit, and how did you arrive at it?

 

Also, much of your grievance seems to be with laws that were put in place to manage post-war transitions. Do you believe Israel was defending itself in those wars, or rather that it was the aggressor?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term apartheid is a very specific concept. It may subsume an unlimited number of concretes but each will have similar characteristics but the measure of each may be omitted.

 

Now here is the definition I provided for the concept:

Apartheid- when any group imposes a status of legal inferiority or second class citizenship on another group because of religious, racial, ethnicity, or gender, which deprives them of social,legal, economic, cultural. or basic human rights

 

Now, from the legal definition:

 Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a  group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a  group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
d. Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial/ethnic lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof; 

 

We may break this down into the following categories:

  • measures calculated to prevent a  group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country 
  •  by denying to members of a  group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, 

​​These freedoms include :

  • right to work
  • right to form recognized trade unions
  • the right to education
  • the right to leave and to return to their country
  •  the right to freedom of movement and residence
  • the right to freedom of opinion and expression
  • right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association

​In addition:

 

  • Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial/ethnic lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups,
  •  the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups
  •  the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof

Now..the central question here is -Is Israel an Apartheid state? 

 

To show if this is true, one would have to demonstrate that Israel meets the above criteria.

 

Now lets take these separately as they would be easier to deal with.

 

First:

  •  the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups

Israel passed the Family Unification Law in 2003. The law only applies to Palestinians. Anyone living in another country not deemed an enemy state are welcome. All the enemy states are Arab countries. But if an Israeli Jew marries another Jew from one of the same enemy countries, he/she can obtain citizenship. 

 

Does this meet the criteria above? Is it discriminatory ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FeatherFall,

 

Under your analogy , the right of return is not discriminatory but it does become discriminatory when not applied evenly. For instance,the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their homes during the Nakba are not allowed to return...and they actually lived in Israel. Besides...this may have been considered necessary 60 years ago but to continue the policy 60 years later strains credulity. 

 

It is not that one(such as the law of return) particular law or measure is in itself racist, it is the totality that reveals the intent. I'm speaking here of a system of laws that consistently disenfranchises the non-Jew. Sure, we can ignore one or two...but fifteen?

 

I can't really give you a 'proper' time frame for an occupation. But I will say that Israel has maintained the longest occupation in modern history. It would be a different matter all together if Israel had borders. It doesn't! Where are the borders of this state? This is why the Pals do not recognize it. A state without borders is a contradiction of terms. If it has no borders then it is responsible for  all under its heel. It has ruled Palestine through a brutal and humiliating dictatorship for nearly fifty years...and its borders are growing. A state is a state when it has control over its territory...Israel was given 51% of Palestine but controls ALL of it. If no one knows where the borders are , only where they should be, then technically it's no longer an occupation-it is annexation but while the indigenous people living in poverty and squalor.

 

Secondly, Of course Israel was the aggressor. The biggest clue is that all of those wars were fought outside of its borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×