START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Israel Is Not An Apartheid State


World  (tags: Middle East, Israel, palestine, 'CIVILLIBERTIES!', 'HUMANRIGHTS!', freedoms, apartheid, South Africa )

Beatrice
- 1658 days ago - jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Today, within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. Under apartheid black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the over



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

. (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 4:36 am
True. Apartheid exists when the law creates various classes based on race, religion, etc. and legally keeps those groups separate, such as in white-dominated South Africa or Nazi Germany.

And all who chose Israeli citizenship have full rights in Israel, no matter their racial or religious affiliation. Unfortunately some chose not to take Israeli citizenship when it was offered. Their choice, of course.

Hopefully we will see a three-state solution implemented soon with a concurrent end to the strife in that region.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 4:57 am
I was delighted to find, when I visited Israel recently, that it is a fully integrated, multi-cultural society.

It would be one of my worst nightmares were I not allowed to invite my friends to come dine with me because they are from a different culture, race, religion, etc.

In Israel I would feel safe inviting my friends from different cultures, race, religion, etc without fearing for their safety or dignity.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 5:13 am
And, Alexandra, that is a scene you would not have experienced in a true apartheid state. Such as the one I grew up in - in the segregated South.

I remember from my childhood how black people could not live in white neighborhoods. How the newspapers had separate want ads: 'white' employment ads, 'colored' employment ads, 'white' rentals, 'colored' rentals, etc. How black women and girls might be allowed to buy clothing in a 'white' dress shop - but weren't allowed to try on the clothing before buying it. How we literally did have 'white' and 'colored' water fountains and, of course, restrooms. And segregated waiting rooms in doctor's offices and so many other places. And black people literally sitting at the back of the buses. And 'literacy tests' in an attempt to keep black voters off the rolls. And so many, many more things.

THAT is apartheid.
 

Cheryl Benson (390)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 6:48 am
IAW has grown in size and scope since it was first launched on campuses in
Toronto in 2005, and now includes dozens of events in over 50 cities worldwide,
including three cities in South Africa. IAW is marked by its inclusive and
diverse nature, its respect for discussion and debate, and its call for
peaceful solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict. IAW has been endorsed and
supported by dozens of organizations including student unions, trade unions,
faith groups, and Jewish solidarity organizations.

The term "apartheid" is not a hateful one, nor is it on the "margins" of
mainstream debate. South African anti-apartheid campaigners, including Nobel
Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu and President of the Congress of
South African Trade Unions (COSATU) Willie Madisha, regularly use the term
"apartheid" to describe the conditions in which Palestinians live, both inside
Israel and in the Occupied Territories. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter uses
the term in his best-selling book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. The term is
also used widely inside Israel itself: former Israeli Prime Minister and
current Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently used the term in a speech
about the consequences of stalled peace talks.

The word "apartheid" is an accurate description of Israel's treatment of the Indigenous people
of Palestine living under Israeli oppression. Israel's system is more oppressive than apartheid
South Africa's apartheid was democratic, too (for the privileged minority) - but it denied voting
rights and other human rights to the Indigenous majority, and this is what Israel does to the
Indigenous majority of Palestine. The description of Israel as "apartheid Israel" is extra appropriate,
because Israel and apartheid South Africa were allies for decades, with Israel supplying arms
to South Africa, to oppress South Africa's Indigenous people, and to invade and oppress the people
of neighbouring countries, such as "South West Africa" (now called Namibia) and Angola.

The conditions in which Palestinians live clearly meet the definition of
"apartheid" as described by the United Nations. The increasingly differential
system of roads, housing, laws, access to resources, basic rights, living
conditions, and quality of life between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians all
point to a system of apartheid. Palestinians have the right to describe these
conditions in the way they experience them
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 9:14 am
Why is it some people must write books and not just a comment?

I doubt the effort of offering Facts to fanatics - they have a cause and that is really all that counts.

Even now most people have no clue to the actual meaning or use of the word Apartheid which like socialism and communism is bandied about as though it were a new pony to show off.

For those who wish to be members of society Israel is a democratic government, for those who choose to be terrorists or used and duped by terrorists Israel is one tough enemy.
 

Beatrice B. (115)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 9:40 am
Looks like copy and paste to me.
 

ahuva k. (105)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 10:47 am
I'm not sure how Cheryl collected her "FACTS" - even for in order to copy-paste this ridiculous "information"!
Arabs citizens in Israel participate fully and freely during our elections. More than that, that, they were free to form political parties to suit them, and these parties have their delegates in out parliament (the Knesseth). More than that, there was even an Arab minister in the former government
Her post might have passed as a bad joke if the issue wasn't so serious.. I don'e think this post is even worthy of an educated response to each of her points, since I found out that people so badly informed choose what to believe according to their love/hate feelimgs.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 11:52 am
as someone who was born and brought up in South Africa and Namibia(south west africa), i can assure Cheryl that what is happening in Palestine and Israel is NOTHING like what 'apartheid' was like in Namibia or Rough Africa. Israel is a multi-cultural integrated society when i visited recently.

What Lindsey describe as apartheid is EXACTLY what i experienced in South Africa and Namibia and what i would term apartheid too.

Also, i lived with and knew many Jewish people in South Africa, none were in favour of apartheid. In fact, we all felt embarrassed toward our overseas African-American friends who were seen as 'black' and had to use different restaurants, rest rooms, doctor's queues, etc.

None of us were supplying firearms, funds or support to the racist extremists.

This misinformation you mention Cheryl, sounds to me like unfounded
Anti-Israeli biased propaganda.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 12:07 pm
And then, of course, there are those nations and groups which practice gender apartheid. Such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under the Taliban (and even in some cases after the Taliban), and other places where the restrictions on the female half of the population are so severe that it becomes true apartheid - a true separation of a portion of the citizens of that nation.

And Cheryl's post came from a letter to Andrea Horwath written by Andrew Lehrer, and posted here:

http://www.dialoguewithdiversity.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5203

You do realize, Cheryl, that when you use the words of others you are required to place them in quotation marks and properly attribute them to the author? Because without the attribution it's nothing more than a piece of plagarism.
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 2:01 pm
One of the best discussions I have heard addressing the still existing internal Aparheid in South Africa was by those most affected those who are called "colored" and not black. Unfortunately it takes much to much room and I know those who really want to understand can and will look it up, I am not in professor mode today. I am however, quite tired of the same old moldy stories and blogs not recognized by any media outlet as some sort of "proof" or fact when in fact they are nothing more then opinion.

Alexandra may want to address this with her personal experience which I lack, I have only the factual history which can be dry.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 8:13 pm
Why bother with facts, when you can sling slogans - they're so much catchier.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 10:10 pm
I want to encourage those interested to sign up for "http://honestreporting.com/" for more info on this topic.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 10:24 pm
Thanks, Iris. I'll check out your link.
 

Yvonne Mendes Siblini (218)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 10:37 pm
Cheryl is not well and has a broad view on issues that has been a hot topic around for some decades now. Now I checked out the link and voila, its says...
Israel Apartheid Week Comes to Town

As the Jerusalem Post states:

Problem is, if left unchallenged, proponents of the apartheid analogy are liable to stifle free speech and trample open debate on campuses by using intimidation and bullying tactics. They recently prevented Ambassador Michael Oren from finishing a speech at UC Irvine, and on the same day in Cambridge they interrupted Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, allegedly shouting in Arabic, "Slaughter the Jews." Meanwhile, Cambridge University’s Israel Society bowed to pressure from Muslim students to cancel a speech by historian Benny Morris.


http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Israel_Apartheid_Week_Comes_to_Town.asp
 

Cheryl Benson (390)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 10:38 pm
I don't track comments I also don't note zionist propoganda which this site is known for and no the letter isn't copied from Andrew, lol, it is copied from my email, I sent my own, to about 25 so called leaders in oh canada, not just Andrea. I also don't waste energy I do not having aguring with those blinded by zionist propoganda. Lets hear from some Palestininan;s and those in Gaza, the West Bank, and those who homes are being bulldozed, the farmers being shot at, the fisherman being shot at, the kids trying to go to school. Ihear from them all thetime, in real time, I have manyfriends who are palestinians, and some Israeli's who fight for the Palestinians, they tell a differnent story and are the ones to be commended so are the journalists who come back to tell the true story not that of Israeli propoganda.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 10:48 pm
Unfortunately, Cheryl - your post was indeed 'lifted' from the letter whose link I posted:

From the letter written by Andrew Lehrer:

"IAW has grown in size and scope since it was first launched on campuses in Toronto in 2005, and now includes dozens of events in over 50 cities worldwide including 3 cities in South Africa."

From your comments:

"IAW has grown in size and scope since it was first launched on campuses in
Toronto in 2005, and now includes dozens of events in over 50 cities worldwide, including three cities in South Africa."

From the letter:

"IAW is marked by its inclusive and diverse nature, its respect for discussion and debate, and its call for peaceful solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict. IAW has been endorsed and supported by dozens of organizations including student unions, trade unions, faith groups, and Jewish solidarity organizations."

From your comment:

"IAW is marked by its inclusive and diverse nature, its respect for discussion and debate, and its call for peaceful solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict. IAW has been endorsed and supported by dozens of organizations including student unions, trade unions, faith groups, and Jewish solidarity organizations."

From the letter:

"The term "apartheid" is not a hateful one, nor is it on the "margins" of mainstream debate."

From your comment:

"The term "apartheid" is not a hateful one, nor is it on the "margins" of
mainstream debate."

I believe I could go on - but the point has been amply made. Word for word.

So please don't try and convince us that the words were your own - the evidence says otherwise.

 

Cheryl Benson (390)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 10:59 pm
no Lindsay it wasn't. neither were millions of others who sent the same letter,mine has some differences in it the others do not. I don't need to convince you of any thing, frankly it's not worth it, the cause is.
 

Linda M. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 12:45 am
great article. thanks.
 

Pam F. (227)
Friday March 5, 2010, 3:02 am
Good article.
Thanks, Beatrice - and those posting sensible, reasoned comments.
 

Terry B. (649)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:06 am
It is refreshing to see a correction to the antisemetic tirades of the rabid islamofascists too often polluting the Care2 website, especially since all but one or two have had the good sense (for once) to refrain from the discussion.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:24 am
Israel is an apartheid state. Ex-president of the USA said so. Anti-apartheid leader Desmond Tutu said so.

And the evidence is clear:

IDs to distinguish Israelis from Palestinians. Number-plates that are colour-coded based on ethnicity. Jew-only roads. An apartheid wall, which walls in ghettos of impoverished Indigenous Palestinians. Israeli soldiers controlling checkpoints on Palestinian land, to control who is allowed leave their ghettos, and who is not allowed to pass, on Palesgtinian people's OWN LAND. The forced exile of 4 million Indigenous Palestinians, while Jewish people are allowed to immigrate in.

Etc., etc..
 

Alexa R. (333)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:33 am
You seem to indeed have your facts right Kit, regards the still existing internal Aparheid in South Africa.
It is indeed the 'coloured' and not 'black' South Africans who are most affected and STILL affected by Apartheid as they are discriminated against by both 'white' and 'black' racist extremists. Both rejecting the ‘coloureds’, not wishing to include them in their 'white' or 'black' culture. As the 'coloureds' had both a 'white' and 'black' parent as well as being a minority in numbers, they were overlooked as a minority group during 'affirmative action' when Apartheid was given the red card.
While at school, and ONLY because it was a private school, I had a friend who was mixed race (well several, but this one comes to mind at present). When we went out, she would pretend she was ‘white’ so that she could join us in all we do. She was lucky as though she had afro hair, it was blond and she had blue eyes. Mostly she would hide her hair under a hat as some people would frown on hair being so authentically afro.
Luckily for her, by the time we went to university and just before Apartheid got the boot, afro hairstyles became the ‘in’ thing! So she could join us ‘undisguised’ – no hat. Unfortunately our other mixed-race friends and those mixed-raced friends visiting from America, etc were not so fortunate to pass off as ‘white’. We knew that passing them off as ‘black’ rather than mixed race or ‘coloured’ would be in their best interest. So though they had to use separate facilities, queues, etc. They would at least be safe from hate crimes and hostility from both ‘white’ and ‘black’ racist extremists.
Then there are Asians that are counted as 'coloured' by extremists from many 'black' tribes and therefore 'fair game' as regards taking (stealing) anything from them they want for themselves. Stealing or taking what you want from others who are not of your tribe, provided you need the item more than them, is not wrong in many African tribal traditions. The ‘white’ racist extremists having their own set of ridiculous notions of ‘white’ skin being at the top of the evolutionary ladder and therefore treating ‘coloureds’ condescendingly and with hostility. I remember my Chinese friend being asked quite rudely ‘so what is a China-man like you doing walking around with a white lady here in Africa’ even when we were a group of friends together, not just me and him alone.
I had the privilege recently meeting a famous international cricket player, Henry Olonga who was granted asylum here in the UK after he protested the crime and corruption so prevalent in Zimbabwe, which is not too dissimilar to many other African countries, including South Africa. He shared how ANY person in Zimbabwe who is not a publically declared supporter and ‘friend’ of Mugabe is not only discriminated against, but often paying with their lives. This is tribal extremitism.


It is also not only in South Africa, but in the neighbouring countries as well. I am however, quite tired of the same old moldy stories and blogs not recognized by any media outlet as some sort of "proof" or fact when in fact they are nothing more then opinion.

Alexandra may want to address this with her personal experience which I lack, I have only the factual history which can be dry.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:38 am
Oops, I forgotten to put Kit's comment in quotes - the last two paragraphs of my comment . . . Soz, Kit. Just like you I am tired too of the "same old moldy stories and blogs not recognized by any media outlet as some sort of 'proof' or fact when in fact they are nothing more than opinion" !!
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:39 am
Simon, Israeli citizens who are Arab/Muslim do not, to my knowledge, have any distinguishing marks on them (from what I have read, car tags are based upon locale, not religion). Please show us proof of that and we'll be happy to accept the proof. And show us where there are roads that Israeli citizens who are Arab/Muslem/Christian cannot drive on ("Jew only roads").
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 6:00 am
Simon, all Israeli citizen have yellow car plates, no matter what the ethnic background or religion are. This makes them different from car plates of people living in Gaza and the West Bank who are not Israeli citizen. But Israel doesn't issue car plate for those people in the first place. Don't see any apartheid here.

As for Cheryl's statement, IAW loses popularity everywhere, with Canada getting tired of this racist show and Ontario government officially declaring it disgusting.

What makes it even more disgusting, that it is conducted on public money, taken from unsuspecting students without their knowledge and consent. A number of student groups demanded money back from OPIRG simply to stop spreading this hate on campuses.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 6:16 am
Lindsey, before Israel brought Arafat from Tunis and the orchestrated by him intifada started, all roads in Israel were shared. Israelis would go to West Bank or Gaza to do business with locals, and vice versa.

When the terror started, Arabs started shooting Israeli cars on shared roads in remote places, some roads were made open to Palestinian traffic and some roads to Israeli traffic. At some point, they would not shoot at the car if a Palestinian kufiyeh was displayed in a window, but later it would not help either. Terrorists killed Israeli drivers delivering water and gas to Palestinian villages. After that, the traffic on roads near settlements and Arab villages were separated.

From time to time, Israel let's the road be shared again - till the next victim falls.

 

Terry B. (649)
Friday March 5, 2010, 6:29 am
Simon quotes ex-presidents of the United States as if they were an authority on anything.

Dopey W could not porniunce "nuclear" and Ronald Bonzo Reagan declared ketchup a vegetable.
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 6:30 am
Vladimir, I do not dispute that there may be roads which are forbidden to the Palestinians use. I dispute, and ask for proof of, Simon's contention that there are "Jew-only" roads. Meaning roads that only Jewish people may use. Because, of course, some Israelis are not Jewish - and, to the best of my understanding, Arab Israelis have the same rights to take roads as any Israeli Jew.

That is my point. And if anyone has any evidence that non-Jewish people, whether Israeli or not, are forbidden to take those roads, I'd be interested to see such evidence.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Friday March 5, 2010, 6:56 am
Lindsey, while having been in Israel recently, I saw no signs that said 'Jews Only' alongside the roads like the signs we used to have during Apartheid in Southern Africa that said 'Whites Only' next to rest rooms, alongside beaches, etc.

So there are no restrictions that I am aware of that would make it illegal for any Israeli person to take those roads.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 7:19 am
Israel Apartheid Week Comes to Town

The insidious analogy returns to college campuses as part of the campaign to delegitimize Israel.

The false analogy between apartheid South Africa and Israel - particularly since the UN's racist 2001 Durban Conference - has played a key role in the campaign to delegitimize Israel and threaten its existence. The strategy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) is based on convincing the public that Israel is no more legitimate than the apartheid regime in South Africa, and can be removed with enough public pressure.

Now, this insidious delegitimization campaign has returned to university campuses around the world, including the US, UK and Canada, as part of Israel Apartheid Week.

As the Jerusalem Post states:

Problem is, if left unchallenged, proponents of the apartheid analogy are liable to stifle free speech and trample open debate on campuses by using intimidation and bullying tactics. They recently prevented Ambassador Michael Oren from finishing a speech at UC Irvine, and on the same day in Cambridge they interrupted Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, allegedly shouting in Arabic, "Slaughter the Jews." Meanwhile, Cambridge University’s Israel Society bowed to pressure from Muslim students to cancel a speech by historian Benny Morris.

We commend those media outlets and commentators that have recognized IAW for what it really is - what Canada's National Post calls a "festival of bigotry":

In its very conception, IAW is offensive for two related reasons. First, it directs participants to vilify a single country, an inherently bigoted exercise. Unlike, say, "anti-racism week" or "diversity awareness week," IAW does not champion a concept -- rather, it targets a particular group of people defined by religion and citizenship. Second, it does so with a false and poisonous analogy between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa. Taken together, the combined message is more or less the same one communicated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas -- that Israel is a uniquely evil and fundamentally illegitimate nation. While IAW speakers generally are careful not to call for Israel's destruction explicitly, they don't need to: That message follows naturally from the claim that the nation is fundamentally illegitimate.

Staying in Canada, Lawrence Hart, writes in the Hamilton Spectator:

In addressing the fallacious association between apartheid and Israel, Gideon Shimoni, professor emeritus of the Hebrew University's Institute of Contemporary Jewry in Jerusalem, emphasizes that the historical context of the Jewish-Arab conflict in the Middle East is fundamentally different from that between the Afrikaner ideology of apartheid as it pertained to the Black population in South Africa. He stresses that the charge that Israel is an apartheid state is an insidious tool in the hands of those who deny the entitlement of Jews to a viable national home.

It is his contention that "those who use the apartheid accusation employ the old anti-Zionist arguments ... applying identifiable double standards of judgment to Israel, traceable to the characteristic anti-Semitic premise that all things Jews do are inherently evil, including their nationalism."

Thus, by relating "apartheid" constructs to Israeli policies and practices, Israel's enemies have found the ultimate vehicle by which to delegitimize and demonize the Jewish state and its supporters around the world.

Meanwhile, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen recognizes:

The Israel of today and the South Africa of yesterday have almost nothing in common. In South Africa, the minority white population harshly ruled the majority black population. Nonwhites were denied civil rights, and in 1958, they were even deprived of citizenship. In contrast, Israeli Arabs, about one-fifth of the country, have the same civil and political rights as do Israeli Jews. Arabs sit in the Knesset and serve in the military, although most are exempt from the draft. Whatever this is -- and it looks suspiciously like a liberal democracy -- it cannot be apartheid....

Yet Israel's critics continue to hurl the apartheid epithet at the state when they have to know, or they ought to know, that it is a calumny. Interestingly, they do not use it for Saudi Arabia, which maintains as perfect a system of gender apartheid as can be imagined -- women can't even drive, never mind vote -- or elsewhere in the Arab world, where Palestinians sometimes have fewer rights than they do in Israel.

While this latest battle is taking place on college campuses, the false apartheid charge regularly appears in the mainstream media as well as other places such as Jimmy Carter's infamous book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".

Further Resources

The Israel apartheid charge has been addressed in the past by HonestReporting:

*
Guardian Promotes Apartheid Slur

In addition other organizations are specifically addressing Israel Apartheid Week:

*
The AJC's Z-Word blog provides more resources.
*
CAMERA has created a site specifically addressing Israel Apartheid Week.
*
StandWithUs has produced a downloadable PDF booklet debunking the apartheid analogy.
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 7:50 am
Very true, Terry. And Carter is, in my opinion, a traitor to the United States.

There are, of course, U.S. Presidents actually worth quoting. Most of those worthwhile ones, however, have been dead for well over a century (it's rather odd that two of the greatest died on the same day exactly 50 years to the day after the 'official' signing date of the Declaration of Independence, the document they were both instrumental in having written).
 

Debbie W. (115)
Friday March 5, 2010, 8:40 am
Leave Israel alone.
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday March 5, 2010, 10:21 am
Well I do believe that Thomas Jefferson was the most important mind of his time, I am not so sure I am that at all that high on John Adams, Lindsey.

Cheryl - most of us when caught making an obvious mistake just apologize and move along. The letter is copied as are many things posted - big deal the protest is silly.


 

Kit B. (276)
Friday March 5, 2010, 10:23 am
Well I do believe that Thomas Jefferson was the most important mind of his time, I am not so sure I am that at all that high on John Adams, Lindsey.

Cheryl - most of us when caught making an obvious mistake just apologize and move along. The letter is copied as are many things posted - big deal the protest is silly.


 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 10:24 am
I'm rather fond of Mr. Adams, Kit. Of course, he was never a great intellect along the lines of Jefferson or Franklin (who was certainly the greatest President we never had) - but I believe he was a major and able force in the shaping of this nation.
 

Dave C. (867)
Friday March 5, 2010, 10:28 am
Oh yeah, and I'm Father Christmas! Absolutely priceless - I couldn't have made this up. Looks like a desperate PR week here on Care2 for the world's No1 pariah state, but this one's title is the funniest one yet - satire of course and hilarious.
Thank you Beatrice for a brilliant 'news item'. I haven't laughed so much in a long time - nothing like ending the week in uproarious guffaws!!
 

Terry B. (649)
Friday March 5, 2010, 11:11 am
The Americans had some goog guys in the distant past, but since WW-II the only two presidents with integrity were Harry S Truman and a guy who was never even elected president at all, Gerald Ford.

(Jeeferson -- great architect, but slave holder and ... well, we don't have to go there.)
 

Yvonne Mendes Siblini (218)
Friday March 5, 2010, 11:39 am
The 6th International Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) will take place across the globe in March 2010.

Since it was first launched in 2005, IAW has grown to become one of the most important global events in the Palestine solidarity calendar. Last year, more than 40 cities around the world participated in the week’s activities, which took place in the wake of Israel’s brutal assault against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. IAW continues to grow and new cities join each year as a response to the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).
http://beirut.apartheidweek.org/
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 11:44 am
Oh boy, so now we went from Jews vs. other religions, to racist slave holders? Do you know anything about Thomas Jefferson? How do you know that he wasn't a person who bought slaves, but treated them well and gave them a good life? What if he tried to get as many slaves under his name as he could so that he could save them from being treated unfairly?

I have a hard time thinking that Israel has done anything right, do to the things I have seen them do that were horrible.
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 11:53 am
Nope, John. Jefferson was worse than the average slaveholder. Although he was, by all accounts, hardly a brutal master, he was fully aware of the wrong that he did his slaves since he was quasi-honest enough to speak out against the practice that he himself engaged in. So, unlike those who could conveniently hide their heads in the sand about the issue of slavery, Jefferson was under no illusions about the injustice he was part of. But, as we all are, he was a product of his time and, in most ways, significantly better than his contemporaries. I have a great admiration for Jefferson; however, I also have no illusions about his ability to own slaves while concurrently knowing the wrongness of that situation.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Friday March 5, 2010, 12:56 pm
i agree with you totally Lindsey, it is only halfway there being outspoken about the wrong we see and know about, only half of our responsibility towards humanity and future generations. Integrity is when someone also practises what he/she preaches/speaks out about.

Sometimes it only takes a single pebble(with integrity obviously) to start an avalance for good, like William Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade here in the UK.
 

Yvonne Mendes Siblini (218)
Friday March 5, 2010, 1:15 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Dave because you have done so within the last week.
 

Brigitte T. (69)
Friday March 5, 2010, 1:33 pm
In the West Bank's Stony Hills, Palestine is Slowly Dying

By Robert Fisk

In the richest of the Occupied lands, Israeli bureaucracy is driving Palestinians out of their homes.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24542.htm
 

Brigitte T. (69)
Friday March 5, 2010, 1:34 pm
Israeli Confessions:

If one wants to know why and how the conflict started in Palestine more than 60 years ago, the "confessions" of Israeli and Zionist leaders should make it very clear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6edg7OjLyw
 

Brigitte T. (69)
Friday March 5, 2010, 1:37 pm
You can deny the apartheid all you want, but FACTS ARE FACTS.

============>

For Israel, a Reckoning

By John Pilger

In the United States and Europe, trade unions, academic associations and mainstream churches have brought back the strategies and tactics that were used against apartheid South Africa.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24400.htm
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 1:40 pm
It would be interesting to know just how many times Brigitte has pasted those particular links into various threads over time. I don't believe a new Care2 record has been set in that regard, but I believe the total would be quite impressive.

Unfortunately, Alexandra, it took longer here in the U.S. for that noxious trade to be extinguished. And a war which cost more in American lives than all the lives lost in all the other wars put together. But that aspect of the War Between the States was a highly justifiable cause for war and ending slavery a serious achievement. Would that it could be completely eradicated from the world - maybe eventually it will be.
 

Brigitte T. (69)
Friday March 5, 2010, 1:45 pm
And a video for those who have trouble understanding articles!


One Minute - The Truth about Palestine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taX1NbShsW4
 

Brigitte T. (69)
Friday March 5, 2010, 1:47 pm

And here's a longer one for those who are a bit slow :)

60 Minutes - The Truth About Palestine

http://vodpod.com/watch/1428481-60-minutes-the-truth-in-palestine-part-1
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 1:56 pm
"....Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.

Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be."

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population...."

http://hnn.us/articles/32916.html

And the word 'redneck' decidedly does NOT merely refer to one's tanning habits.
 

Rosemary Rannes (634)
Friday March 5, 2010, 2:07 pm
Beatrice thank you for posting this news story.
 

eileen k. (1)
Friday March 5, 2010, 2:56 pm
Right on, John and Brigitte! These other posters - Lindsey, Terry, etc. - are too steeped in Zionist propaganda to see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in its TRUE light. Compared to the Berlin Wall, which was barely 16 feet high and topped with barbed wire and was erected to keep East Germans from escaping to the West, the current Apartheid Wall is nearly twice the height; covers much more territory; and has walls over twice as thick as the former Berlin Wall, as well as being topped by razor wire. The Berlin Wall - as atrocious as it was - only separated the once two Germanys; whereas the Apartheid Wall cuts right through Palestinian land; and, in a great deal of cases, prevents farmers from tending their fields and orchards, children from attending school, and workers from going to amd from work. Even trips to the hospital for much needed care is very difficult; and, many patients die en route (because IDF guards deny them entry).

Gaza is cut off from vital humanitarian aid most of the time; thus, the residents - especially young children - are suffering from severe malnutrition. Is this the behaviour of a democracy that governs by Rule of Law? Certainlly not.

Apartheid South Africa was sanctioned for its policies and eventually gave way to what it is today; but, on the other hand, Israel has abused Palestinians for over 40 years (and still does, even worse than ever). Unlike South Africa, Israel has committed its abuses with impunity. The only nation supporting South Africa, both financially and militarily, was, of course, Israel.

Also, the Israeli Government does NOT tolerate even its own citizens participating in peacefull demonstrations with Palestinians against the Apartheid Wall. Those Israelis who did demonstrate were treated as badly as International and Palestinian participants. In addition, Israel tolerates the violent behaviour of extremist settlers who, more often than not, terrorize and brutalize Palestinian farmers trying to tend their orchards and fields, while the IDF stands by and does nothing.
 

Cheryl Benson (390)
Friday March 5, 2010, 2:59 pm
ah no, I copied that from my email, I also posted the action alert on c2nn, from a website I posted it on, that sent it out to thousands of people, and also across youtube. Obviously you missed, because it made front page
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 3:18 pm
There's more than one route into Gaza, but the pro-Palestinians have also alienated the Egyptians because of their lack of respect for Egyptian law.

Perhaps the root of the problem isn't Israel, since the Palestinians can't seem to get along with the Muslim Egyptians, either.
 

Ge M. (217)
Friday March 5, 2010, 3:44 pm
It appears that apartheid has a different meaning in Israel to South Africa. In SA it meant that blacks were second class citizens without rights. My rabbi visited there about 5 years ago and met with the Jewish community. The women held classes for the black children, fed them, clothed them and gave them a future. Some of them were murdered for doing this but the community continued to do this. Many Jewish doctors gave their time free to treat the blacks as otherwise there was no medical care.

Now, the mouthy people on this board, what did you do to help these people? Would yu have been willing to risk your lives to help these people? No?

To the racists on the board, apartheid in Israel means equality to all people including the over 1 million Palestinians who live there. I was in Israel 30 years ago and 33 years ago. I sat in cafes with Israelis who were of many origins including Arab and Jew. We had a good time together and there was no ill feeling for any reason.

These same people are now being harrassed by their own people and all that they want, and Israel wants, is to get on together but they are not allowed to by Hamas and Hezbollah.
 

Ge M. (217)
Friday March 5, 2010, 3:52 pm
A renowned anti-apartheid activist has defended Israel against comparisons with racially segregated South Africa.

South African-born Benjamin Pogrund, former deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail in Johannesburg, visited Britain this week as pro-Palestinian groups marked the sixth annual Israeli Apartheid Week.

Mr Pogrund said: "People who claim Israel is an apartheid state are doing it with a very clear purpose. They are trying to have Israel declared as illegitimate and a pariah state, as much as South Africa was. What the activists are really about is destroying Israel."
 

pam w. (191)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:12 pm
KIT "Even now most people have no clue to the actual meaning or use of the word Apartheid which like socialism and communism is bandied about as though it were a new pony to show off."

I can't send you another star....but I would if I could!

Here's the truth--NOBODY in the middle east is blameless in this constant, contentious, hateful PISSING MATCH! The Israelis, however, are never, EVER given credit for the efforts they make toward peace. I fully expect someone to pop in here and deny what I"m saying, but the fact is that the anti-Israeli faction is blind to efforts for peace. Their only solution to the problem is that Israel should disappear.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:25 pm
The Gaza War in Review

A look back at some of the worst cases of anti-Israel media bias.

Israel's Operation Cast Lead dominated the newspapers, airwaves and internet for its duration, with the aftermath still generating headlines and opinion. It is extremely important to expose those cases where the story became agenda-driven or when the media simply got it wrong. This has been graphically illustrated by an about-turn by the UN.

One of the most serious and damaging episodes for Israel during the Gaza conflict centered around charges, amplified by UN spokespeople, that Israel had deliberately targeted a UN school compound, killing 43 civilians sheltering there.

HonestReporting highlighted the Canadian Globe and Mail's investigation that concluded that the school itself was not shelled.

Following the publicity generated by the Globe and Mail report, the UN has been forced to admit that its initial claims were false. According to Ha'aretz:

It seems that the UN has been under pressure to put the record straight after doubts arose that the school had actually been targeted. Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem, said Monday that the IDF mortar shells fell in the street near the compound, and not on the compound itself.

Gaylord said that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school."

As commentator Andrew Bolt writes in response:

But it seems the real story is that 43 people, including at least two Hamas militants, were killed when Israel returned fire from Hamas mortars launched from among a crowd in the street.

You might still not like what occurred. But it is very, very different to what was so widely alleged, and far more forgivable.

And after the earlier evidence of the media repeating pro-Hamas propaganda and gross exaggerations of the death toll in Gaza, especially among civilians, we need to ask again: how much can we trust the coverage of journalists and welfare groups reporting from territory run by terrorists?

We are sure that the truth behind many disputed stories is yet to emerge from Gaza. In the meantime the campaign to set the record straight in the media continues. HonestReporting takes a look back at some of the worst cases of anti-Israel media bias that came to light during the Gaza crisis.

MADS GILBERT: PROPAGANDA DOCTOR

Portrayed as the epitome of courage under fire, Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert appeared on television screens around the world and in the pages of many newspapers, including the BBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, AFP, Independent, Sky News, and New York Times.

Working at Gaza's Shifa Hospital, Gilbert tells news organizations of the "horrors" inflicted by Israel, including unproven accusations that "Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons."

But was Gilbert a neutral and objective observer? What the media didn't tell you was his involvement in solidarity work with Palestinians since the 1970s and his membership of the hard-left Norwegian communist party Rød Valgallianse, which disbanded in 2007. He has criticized international aid organization Doctors Without Borders for refusing to take sides in conflicts. Dr Gilbert is employed by NORWAC, whose partner organisations include Hezbollah's Martyr Foundation.

Asked by the Norwegian daily, Dagbladet, if he supported the 9/11 attacks, he said: "Terror is a bad weapon but the answer is yes."
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:27 pm


MORE UNRELIABLE SOURCES

Gilbert wasn't the only less than objective source being used by the media. As Melanie Phillips wrote:

the [Daily] Telegraph carried this story on its foreign news pages by Ewa Jasiewicz, reporting from Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza. It was exclusively about the suffering of civilians and children under bombardment by Israeli air strikes. It made no reference to any Hamas terrorists in the camp. Readers were given no indication that Ewa Jasiewicz was anything other than an objective reporter.

Yet the very next day, she appeared again in the Telegraph's foreign news pages -- but this time being interviewed by Tim Butcher as an 'activist originally from Kingston, Surrey' and the principal source of his story about two children being killed by a bomb from an Israeli warplane, an event which she claimed to have witnessed.

Indeed, Ms Jasiewicz is not a regular reporter at all. She is a highly partisan, deeply committed, experienced anti-Israeli International Solidarity Movement activist. She is an active player on the side of the Palestinians who are committing acts of terror against the Israelis -- which she would describe as legitimate and justified 'resistance'. Nor was this something she had hidden. Indeed, the web is heaving with examples of her hatred of Israel. Here she is in the Guardian spraying around claims that Israel was racist, that its democracy was a myth and that it deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians and activists for slaughter. Here is the statement she made after she was detained at Ben Gurion airport on 31 August 2004 by the Israeli authorities and told that she could not speak to the media, in which she justified Palestinian terrorism as

a liberation struggle – and a struggle of an occupied people that is thus justified under international law.

Read Melanie's full post here.

CNN'S STAGED VIDEO?

Mads Gilbert also appeared in a CNN report, whose authenticity a number of bloggers questioned. Was the CPR being performed on a child staged for the cameras? Little Green Footballs and other blogs thought so with one LGF reader commenting:

I'm no military expert, but I am a doctor, and this video is bullsh-t. The chest compressions that were being performed at the beginning of this video were absolutely, positively fake. The large man in the white coat was NOT performing CPR on that child. He was just sort of tapping on the child's sternum a little bit with his fingers. You can't make blood flow like that. Furthermore, there’s no point in doing chest compressions if you're not also ventilating the patient somehow. In this video, I can't tell for sure if the patient has an endotracheal tube in place, but you can see that there is nobody bag-ventilating him (a bag is actually hanging by the head of the bed), and there is no ventilator attached to the patient. In a hospital, during a code on a ventilated patient, somebody would probably be bagging the patient during the chest compressions. And they also would have moved the bed away from the wall, so that somebody could get back there to intubate the patient and/or bag him. In short, the "resuscitation scene" at the beginning is fake, and it's a pretty lame fake at that.

Such was the concern at CNN that the video was removed (although it currently exists on the archive).
 

pam w. (191)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:30 pm
Iris I can't send you another star this week...but my intention is there.

I don't have "a horse in this race," but I believe in fairness and it's so obvious that Israel, (like Barack Obama,) has constant detractors who literally tear every action apart! This is a disgusting human characteristic...people attempt to make themselves look good by making others look bad.

It never works unless the audience is stupid.
 

Dave C. (867)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:32 pm
This just gets funnier by the minute - "HonestReporting" said?!!
 

Dave C. (867)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:59 pm
If ya want a good laugh 'ere's a good 'en:

It’s a funny old world we live in,
But the world’s not entirely to blame,
Its the rich what gets the pleasure,
And the poor what gets the blame!

What? I thought this was a spoof news item - don't tell me you're serious?!! lol (oops!)
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 6:00 pm
@ Dave C, while I respect those that argue pro Palestine (whatever that is), your snitty remarks are juvenile at best. Ok, let me get down to your level, have you watched too much Paliwood lately?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys

Now that is really funny stuff!!!
 

pam w. (191)
Friday March 5, 2010, 6:19 pm

Gee, Iris...I was watching the Pallywood clip and found this right next door. Is there a connection? :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bbKK47cU6I&feature=related
 

Dianne D. (463)
Friday March 5, 2010, 6:20 pm
Thanks for the post. I'm sure we will be hearing a lot more about Israel now that the Jewish people have come home after 2000 years as the Bible predicted they would.
 

Cal Mendelsohn (992)
Friday March 5, 2010, 7:11 pm
Beatrice--Thanks for exposing the truth about the pernicious agitprop that Arab agitators and their 'progressive' lackeys try to foist upon ignorant people about Israel at every opportunity! They are so filled with hate and mischief that they spare no chance to blame the Jewish State for all of the world's wrongs and compare them ludicrously with killer regimes from the pst--factually nonsensical in every way!
 

Dale Husband (126)
Friday March 5, 2010, 8:18 pm
"I'm sure we will be hearing a lot more about Israel now that the Jewish people have come home after 2000 years as the Bible predicted they would."

So you beleive that Bible prophecy B S? That's been used since 1948 to justify every contemptible thing Israel has ever done to the Palestinians. If any other state pulled such stunts, you wouldn't be defending it. I used to, but no more.
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 8:24 pm
Dale, you may not believe in the Bible, but your statement,calling it BS, is offensive to religious people of many faiths and insults aren't welcome here.
 

Mary Donnelly (47)
Friday March 5, 2010, 8:31 pm
Wow what a discussion!
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 8:39 pm


The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs Palestinians.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Defense Forces [IDF]. There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.
The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River.

Our Palestinian Cousins started the '48 war, and in so doing released the warlike appetites of a nation of survivors, a Jewish people with no place to run, who had repressed their rage for millennia, and had now earned full title to it!

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian Jews" finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war.

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mentioned that in 1948, Arab armies launched a war against a one-day-old Israel. Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "war of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees but also ignores the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself!
1949 Armistice Lines Following 1st Arab-Israeli War The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine... called Jordan but in reality their ARAB "Palestinian state! But that was still not 100% and thus the conflict between Arab and Jew for "Palestine" would continue through four more wars and continuous Arab terrorist attacks upon the Israeli citizenry. It continues to this very day.
From 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Surely you do not expect Israel to now provide these same Arabs with their own country when their fellow Arabs failed to do so! And isn't it curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964) discovered their "ancient" identity and a need for "self-determination" and "human dignity" on this very same West Bank ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan's attempt attempt to destroy Israel! Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan by the Arabs living on the West Bank when he occupied it? Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967? This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel. And that is STILL their goal! A cosmetic name change from PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to PA (Palestinian Authority) does not change the stripes on THIS tiger!
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 8:40 pm
Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. The battle cry heard throughout the Arab world was then, as it continues to be... "Slaughter the Jews" and "Throw the Jews into the Sea!" But the Jews of Israel, remembering 2,000 years of being butchered, gassed, burned and skinned (eg. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the Arab rampages of early Palestine and particularly the Holocaust), planned and executed a perfect pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist... most of its planes destroyed while still on the runways! Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan, launched his attack from the his West Bank into Israel's belly while Syrian troops prepared to descend down the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel.

Now for some facts about "occupation." Firstly, the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians lost Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights (respectively) by participating in a failed attempt at genocide against the Children of Israel. Had Israel lost this 1967 defensive war, the Arab-Palestinians and their Arab allies would have raped, butchered or driven out every Israeli they could get their hands on and gobbled up all of Israel. Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war BROUGHT UPON THEM, the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they will stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel! (Talk about misplaced compassion!)

From 1948 to 1967, Egypt ruled Gaza, Syria ruled the Golan Heights, while Jordan ruled the West Bank. They could have set up independent Arab-Palestinian states in any or all of those territories, but they didn't even consider it. Instead, in 1967 they used the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West bank to launch a war that was unambiguously aimed at destroying Israel, which is how Israel came into possession of those territories in the first place.
Ceasefire Lines following '67 War After ONLY six days of air, sea and hand-to-hand ground warfare, Israel defeated all three Arab armies along three separate fronts, capturing the entire Sinai Desert from Egypt, the 37mile x 12mile Syrian Golan Heights and the so-called "West Bank" (including East Jerusalem and its Old City) from Jordan. The God of Israel was surely watching over His children! Most importantly was the return to Israel of its holy 3,000 year old capital city of Jerusalem along the western edge of the West Bank... the same Jerusalem from which all Jews had been denied access for the 19 years (1948-1967) following Jordan's seizure and control over it following the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.
Unfortunately, the world saw things differently and considered Israel an "occupier" (rather than a "capturer") of this disputed "West Bank" and the Gaza Strip along with the 850,000 Palestinian Arabs living there. These Arabs would refer to themselves as "refugees" and joined the masses of refugees from the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-9. Once again Israel was forced to fight a battle for survival and, sadly, once again Palestinian [in reality, largely Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian] Arabs becoming refugees by their own actions, the actions of their leaders and from the actions of fellow Arabs from neighboring states!

ISRAEL SCREWS UP TOO!
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 8:41 pm
ISRAEL SCREWS UP TOO!

Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious one-eyed IDF General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. This singular act stunned no one more than the Arab enemy himself who could not believe such an incredible manifestation of Jewish madness! After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if they had won! Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza AND inside Israel Proper itself ... living amongst each other in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. Israel is now paying dearly for this typically naive "Leftist" gesture. That "bridge" led to two Intifadas and world-wide Arab-Palestinian terrorism. From a frightened and defeated enemy, these "Palestinian" Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction turned into a confident, hateful and dangerous enemy now on their way toward forming a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel!




 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 8:50 pm
Now there you go, Iris, resorting to facts, when the general trend on these pages is to put forth opinions, gleaned from blogs, as if it's truth.

One thing I have noticed, too, is that there are many, many people who are super-critical of religion but who hold onto political beliefs as if they are religion and are just as fanatical as any religious fundamentalists.
 

pam w. (191)
Friday March 5, 2010, 9:39 pm
Iris...I expect we'll hear RESOUNDING SILENCE from those who aren't comfortable with facts as you've written them!

Certainly the religious aspect is at the base of all this. However, Israelis have made the desert bloom and prosper...while their neighbors are herding goats. There's obviously a deep economic-based resentment about that which, combined with the freedoms Israeli women enjoy, serves as the proverbial RED FLAG to those who hate Jews.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Friday March 5, 2010, 10:02 pm
i am gobsmacked when witnessing stubborn blindness even when the facts are clearly presented.

Lindsey, Iris, Chana, for example have their facts totally accurate and clear.

I for example were with a group of Jewish people in South Africa going to townships every Sunday - i was a teacher on these Sundays. There were doctors, nurses, chefs, all sorts (not unlike the current voluntary Jewish efforts in Haiti).

There is 100% NO resemblance between racist South African sentiments and policy and What happens in Israel.

I have not EVER heard even a single Jew (myself included) saying they wish to eradicate all Palestinians, yet even publicly the leaders of many Middle Eastern countries have declared their wish to wipe out the Jewish nation. Sadly it seems these sentiments are reflected by some Westerners too.

All these outrageously false accusations against the Jewish/Israeli people/state reminds me of the time in European history when Jews were blamed (and massacred even burned alive) for the outbreak of the bubonic plague!

The word 'irrational' and 'hatred' comes to mind!












 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 10:08 pm
Pam, millions and millions of dollars went to the Palestinians in Gaza, the majority to be pocketed by corrupt leaders. Arafat died a millionaire. Hamas and Fatah members kill each other. The Arab brothers don't want their Palestinian Muslim brothers. This is the true tragedy of the Palestinian people living in Gaza.
And spear me the Western do-gooders that fight for the "Palestinian" cause.
Ah, it's too late, I'm tired, maybe we can continue this discussion some other time.
 

Dale Husband (126)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 12:37 am
Wow, what a nice set of Zionist propaganda, Iris. How much of it is true, I wonder?

Can you explain why Israel has had so many Jewish settlements established in the West Bank, in defiance of the original UN decree of 1947 that the entire West Bank was supposed to be part of a newly established Arab state? If Israel was merely fighting for its right to exist, it never would have allowed that!

Most of the Jews who formed Israel in 1948 were not even native to the land, but came from Europe over the past several decades and took more and more land from Arabs under the British Mandate of the early 20th Century. And they are still doing it to this day, backed by Israel's war machine. Of course, it was wrong to the Arabs to start the war against Israel so soon after the Holocaust in Europe, but do you really think Israel is any better? No, of course not!
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 12:44 am
Dale, please refute in detail what I have posted here instead of making a sweeping statement like "zionist propaganda." And please, support your opinions with some links.
Ah, "most of the Jews who formed Israel in 1984 were not even native to the land..." Really?! Oy veh!
 

. (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 1:57 am
Ladies, please don't try and censor what the Two D's have to say. Their comments are, after all, extraordinarily revealing. And if they wish to provide the rest of the world with such a remarkable indication of their respective characters, who are we to deny them that pleasure? :-)
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 2:13 am
Lindsey, forgive me but I am not trying to censor what the "two D's" have to say. In the contrary, I would like them to write more in support of their stance, however, they don't seem to be able to argue factually, at least not so far. Please, don't deny ME the pleasure to refute them and expose their comments as emotional diatribe.
In their defense I must say that they probably believe the Hamas propaganda and think that they are fighting a just cause.
 

Dale Husband (126)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 2:42 am
"Dale, please refute in detail what I have posted here instead of making a sweeping statement like "zionist propaganda."

Gladly.

Zionist claim: {{{Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine.}}}

This after wrongly defining "Palestine" as ALL the territory that includes present-day Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which is absurd.

Actual history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#British_Mandate_.281920.E2.80.931948.29

{{{Following the First World War and the occupation of the region by the British, the principal Allied and associated powers drafted the Mandate which was formally approved by the League of Nations in 1922. Great Britain administered Palestine on behalf of the League of Nations between 1920 and 1948, a period referred to as the "British Mandate." Two states were established within the boundaries of the Mandate territory, Palestine and Transjordan.[149][150] - The preamble of the mandate declared:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."[151] }}}

TWO states, not one. One for Jews (Palestine) and one for Arabs (Transjordan).

Zionist claim: {{{In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River").}}}

Utter bull$#it. You realize that the British would have had to move millions of Arabs off land they have lived in for centuries to give it all to the Jewish immigrants. Is that just or logical? No. But it's a convienent rationalization for the land grabbing Isrealis have been doing in the West Bank for decades.

Zionist claim: {{{The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River.}}}

Sadly, this was true. And this is the only thing about the Arabs that they were wrong about. The UN partition plan was fair to both sides and would have worked if not for the anti-Jewish bigotry of some Arab leaders.

Zionist claim: {{{Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!}}}

Actual history: {{{On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions, in favour of a plan to partition the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, under economic union, with the Greater Jerusalem area (encompassing Bethlehem) coming under international control. Zionist leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and all independent Muslim and Arab states voted against it.[177][178][179] Almost immediately, sectarian violence erupted and spread, killing over the ensuing months hundreds of Arabs, Jews and British.

The rapid evolution of events precipitated into a Civil War. Arab volunteers of the Arab Liberation Army entered Palestine to fight with the Palestinians, but the April-May offensive of Yishuv's forces crushed the Arabs and Palestinian society collapsed. Some 300,000 to 350,000 Palestinians caught up in the turmoil fled or were driven from their homes.}}}


Zionist claim: {{{In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine... called Jordan but in reality their ARAB "Palestinian state!}}}

Did it ever occur to anyone that the Arabs of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip always wanted their OWN state, not ruled by Egypt, Jordan, or Israel? Otherwise, Jordan and Egypt would be occupying and ruling those lands to this day. Instead, Israel does.

Zionist claim: {{{Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war BROUGHT UPON THEM, the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they will stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel! (Talk about misplaced compassion!)}}}

Oh, how generous indeed! Much like the United States government allowing the various Native American tribes to live (barely) on concentration camps called "reservations". Of course, if you think that racist policy is OK....

Zionist claim: {{{Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious one-eyed IDF General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. This singular act stunned no one more than the Arab enemy himself who could not believe such an incredible manifestation of Jewish madness! After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if they had won! Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza AND inside Israel Proper itself ... living amongst each other in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. Israel is now paying dearly for this typically naive "Leftist" gesture. That "bridge" led to two Intifadas and world-wide Arab-Palestinian terrorism. From a frightened and defeated enemy, these "Palestinian" Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction turned into a confident, hateful and dangerous enemy now on their way toward forming a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel! }}}

Would you care to explain if the establishment of Jewish settlements on the West Bank was also part of Dayan's plan? If so, then it violated the original UN partition plan that led to the formation of Israel itself. If not, then that whole statement looks like an absurd lie!

And indeed it is!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan#Six_Day_War_.281967.29

{{{Although Dayan did not take part in most of the planning before the Six-Day War of June 1967, his appointment as defense minister contributed to the Israeli success.[citation needed] He personally oversaw the capture of East Jerusalem during the 5 June-7 June fighting. During the years following the war, Dayan enjoyed enormous popularity in Israel and was widely viewed as a potential Prime Minister. At this time, Dayan was the leader of the hawkish camp within the Labor government, opposing a return to anything like Israel's pre-1967 borders. He once said that he preferred Sharm-al-Sheikh (an Egyptian town on the southern edge of the Sinai Peninsula overlooking Israel's shipping lane to the Red Sea via the Gulf of Aqaba) without peace to peace without Sharm-al-Sheikh. He modified these views later in his career and played an important role in the eventual peace agreement between Israel and Egypt.

In 1997, years after Dayan died, an Israeli journalist, Rami Tal, published conversations he had with Dayan in 1976. In that conversation Dayan claimed that 80 percent of the cross-border clashes between Israel and Syria in the years before the war were a result of Israeli provocation (Dayan was not Defense minister at the time). He confessed[5][6]:

I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.

Also, later, he regretted it as:

I made a mistake in allowing the Israel conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time [fourth day of the war].}}}

That doesn't sound at all like a man who would have made generous offers to the Palestinian Arabs right after defeating them in a war.
 

. (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 2:55 am
I was merely being a touch sarcastic, Iris!
 

Beatrice B. (115)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 4:50 am
Please do not quote wikipedia as an authorative source, Dale. It is a blog site like any other, written by anyone who wants to make an entry.
 

. (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 9:27 am
Dale, your post is so full of misinformation that it boggles the mind. Just one point:
"Did it ever occur to anyone that the Arabs of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip always wanted their OWN state, not ruled by Egypt, Jordan, or Israel?"

So why weren't they fighting their Arab rulers to have autonomy over these areas before Israel was declared a state, then? Because they had no concept of being Palestinians until the establishment of the State of Israel.

Please don't try to pass off your misinformed opinions for fact. That's pathetic.
 

pam w. (191)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 9:42 am
DALE..."Of course, it was wrong to the Arabs to start the war against Israel so soon after the Holocaust in Europe, but do you really think Israel is any better? No, of course not!"

What does THAT mean? Of course, it WAS wrong of the Arabs to start a war against Israe,,,period! Do you imply that the Arabs had always intended a war but should have waited? Because the Israelis defended themselves, are you suggesting that they're at fault?

"Do I think that Israel is any better? Well, Dale, based on what I've seen of their many steps toward peace...yes. actually, I do!
 

Ge M. (217)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 12:38 pm
Dale conveniently ignores the true facts. Palestinians did NOT come into being until AFTER the 6 Day War. Prior to that the surrounding Arab nations believed that they could destroy a small impoverished country where people refused them arms and weapons.

Anyway, if you go back to 1948, you will note that the ARABS living there at the time refused to accept the land allocated to them (remember Jordan the country, well that was supposed to have been shared between the Arabs and Jews yet it was taken by the Jordanian family and they allowed a few Palestinians in and THEY ARE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS). Under International Law Israel became totally "Jewish" (this includes some 60 different ethnic origins including Palestinians and other Arabs) and this was confirmed by an International Court in, I think, 1974.

So Ds, please grow up, be polite and stop reading Wikipedia and quote genuine articles with the truth and not what you want to be the truth but is actually a lie.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 2:07 pm
Dale, using Wikipedia and again your own opinions to refute an argument is as weak as your "Utter bull$#it." If your only text source is Wikipedia I suspect that you are not well-read!
You allege that my comments are "Zionist propaganda." Is it fair then to deduce that you are an "Anti Zionist?"
Food for thought:
Anti-Zionism rejects the very notion that Jews are a nation — a collective bonded by a common history — and, accordingly, denies Jews the right to self-determination in their historical birthplace. It seeks the dismantling of the Jewish nation-state: Israel.

Anti-Zionism earns its discriminatory character by denying the Jewish people what it grants to other historically bonded collectives (e.g. French, Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to nationhood, self-determination and legitimate coexistence with other indigenous claimants.

Anti-Semitism rejects Jews as equal members of the human race; anti-Zionism rejects Israel as an equal member in the family of nations. …

Given this understanding of Jewish nationhood, anti-Zionism is in many ways more dangerous than anti-Semitism.

First, anti-Zionism targets the most vulnerable part of the Jewish people, namely, the Jewish population of Israel, whose physical safety and personal dignity depend crucially on maintaining Israel’s sovereignty. Put bluntly, the anti-Zionist plan to do away with Israel condemns 5 1/2 million human beings, mostly refugees or children of refugees, to eternal defenselessness in a region where genocidal designs are not uncommon.

Secondly, modern society has developed antibodies against anti-Semitism but not against anti-Zionism. Today, anti-Semitic stereotypes evoke revulsion in most people of conscience, while anti-Zionist rhetoric has become a mark of academic sophistication and social acceptance in certain extreme yet vocal circles of U.S. academia and media elite. Anti-Zionism disguises itself in the cloak of political debate, exempt from sensitivities and rules of civility that govern inter-religious discourse, to attack the most cherished symbol of Jewish identity.

Finally, anti-Zionist rhetoric is a stab in the back to the Israeli peace camp, which overwhelmingly stands for a two-state solution. It also gives credence to enemies of coexistence who claim that the eventual elimination of Israel is the hidden agenda of every Palestinian.

It is anti-Zionism, then, not anti-Semitism that poses a more dangerous threat to lives, historical justice and the prospects of peace in the Middle East.

Of course, being LAT, they had to “balance” it with an anti-Zionist piece (linked from there). I don’t approve of competitions in victimhood and even if we omit arguments concerning equality and the right of self-determination, consider this: had Jews have a safe haven a decade before the founding of the Jewish State, perhaps millions could be spared.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.