Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[Shusha]

How is this not theft?
Israeli Land-grabs and Settlements: More Than Merely 'Counterproductive'
Palestinian villagers tilled their land so well, Israel is now confiscating it from them - Israel News
Why Israel Is No Better Than Russia

Here's what I found out. The area in question is between Jerusalem and Hebron (both ancient Jewish communities). It was a community founded by Yemeni immigrants and Ultra-Orthodox Jews in 1927. It was destroyed in the Arab riots of 1929 (along with the Jewish community of Hebron). It was rebuilt by its community members in 1932 and was abandoned in 1937 during more Arab riots. It was rebuilt again in 1943 and destroyed again in 1948 during the Arab invasion. Some of the community members were sent away and the entire remaining population was massacred. In 1967 one of the surviving family members petitioned to renew the community on that land. The territory is in Area C, under full Israeli civilian control. This is territory that is exceedingly unlikely to ever be under Palestinian sovereignty due to its proximity to Israel, its ancient and more recent Jewish history and the same "swiss cheese" effect that Palestinians are constantly complaining about. In fact, this is one of the communities which is part of the "land swaps" offered in the peace agreements, such as Olmert's in 2008. The land was also impeccably researched to ensure that none of it was privately owned. From what I can determine there were no buildings on this land, no permanent residents and no agricultural activity.

There is a small Arab village adjacent to the area in question. It has been inhabited continually since well, Jewish times, had a population of 176 in 1933, 210 in 1945 and 896 as of 2007. It consists of mainly two families. The village proper is considered to be part of Area B and is under Palestinian civilian control.

Both Arabs and Jews have been living in small communities on these lands for a long time. Between these small communities are large areas of land which have been uninhabited. The question, then, is who has control over these uninhabited lands and who should, eventually have sovereignty over these lands. In other words, who is stealing from whom? And how can we tell if there is no assignment of sovereignty and the land is disputed?

Personally, I think its a stretch to say that ALL the public land between this tiny Arab village and that tiny Arab village is "Palestinian land". Especially when it is in Area C.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Given that, you would think the argument - the consistent argument - would be both people qualify as indigenous, so therefore if one has greater rights than another (assuming they continue that claim) then it can't be because one is indigenous.

Yes, but you are making "long-term residence" equivalent to "indigenous". The pro-Israel posters do not make that equivalence. They define "indigenous" as the "culture originating in that place pre-invasion and pre-colonization by another culture". So the pro-Israel argument is consistent.

The anti-Israel posters claim that invasion and colonization of a culture maintains the condition of indigeneity and that the invading and colonizing culture becomes part of the indigenous group. But they apply that to Asseryian, Babylonian, Roman and Arab cultures and reject it with Jewish culture (despite the fact that the Jewish people are returning and not invading or colonizing). That is the double standard.

I think the answer is the object is not a neutralization but a spreading of terror and uncertainty in the enemy you are fighting ...

Which is the definition of terrorism, imo.

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And where did you get that from as terrorism is the forcing of one group to submit to another groups religion, politics, culture by use of violence. Which is what the Palestinians are doing

There is no definition of terrorism that goes like that.

Why Defining Terrorism Matters - The Monkey Cage

Academics have their own set of rules for defining terrorism. Despite intra-field debate, most North American scholars adopt the three-prong definition of terrorism: it is politically motivated, perpetrated by non-state actors like lone wolves or organizations, and targets civilians rather than the military. This means that when a government attacks civilians like in Assad’s Syria, when the perpetrators are motivated by pecuniary gain like on the streets of Detroit, or when they target military assets like the USS Cole, academic purists would distinguish such acts of violence from terrorism.


When it comes to defining terrorism, motives therefore matter. Mass shootings—like the one in Tucson by Jared Loughner, the one in the Aurora movie theater by James Holmes, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza, or the New Orleans Mother’s Day shooting—would be treated as something else. Some scholars provide no distinction between rampage violence and terrorist acts. But in reality, there is an important difference—rampage shooters are not politically motivated.


Another important criterion is target selection. Guerilla attacks on military targets are often distinguished from terrorist attacks, which are directed against civilian targets. Critics of the Obama administration have hammered him for his hesitancy to label Benghazi as a terrorist attack. In fact, Benghazi was not a terrorist attack. It was a guerilla attack against high-level U.S. diplomats, hardly a case of indiscriminate violence. When most academics think about a terrorist attacks, we recall 9/11 and the Boston marathon because ordinary citizens were targeted, rather than agents of the state.​

There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.[3]

During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[4]

As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective,

Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Meaning ALL Israelis are viable military targets and are "fair game" for the killing. What a vile belief system you have.

Thing is ask him to justify his clams and he will ignore you, or deflect away from the request because he cant

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

ICRC service

 

[Shusha]

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Meaning ALL Israelis are viable military targets and are "fair game" for the killing. What a vile belief system you have.

Thing is ask him to justify his clams and he will ignore you, or deflect away from the request because he cant

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

ICRC service

Don't give me all this legal crap. Tell me -- do you think it is morally acceptable or justifiable to kill Israeli people because they are Israeli and not "protected persons"? Including children? Yes or no?

If you think it is, I stand by my assessment that you have a vile ideology.

If you think it is not, then what purpose does it serve to post a comment like "Israelis are not considered "civilians"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Inequalities in Israel

Social and cultural attitudes:

Racism in Israel on the rise

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel's (ACRI) report on civil rights in Israel paints a bleak picture: Increasing racism, restriction of personal freedoms and discrimination even within the Knesset walls – and that's just scratching the surface.

Published Saturday, the report reveled that Israeli youths are bombarded with stereotypic, racist imagery, and their opinions have developed accordingly: Over two-thirds Israeli teen believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together.

The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March of 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes.

Fifty percent of those polled also said they believed Israel should encourage its Arab citizens to emigrate.
Racism in Israel is on the rise, said the report: in 2006 there was a 26% increase in racist incidents towards Arabs and the general sense of hatred towards them has doubled. ​

From the same article - inequalities in the allocation of resources:

Furthermore, in the Second Lebanon War, some 40% of the citizens killed were Israeli-Arabs, mostly due to a severe lack of shelters, but still – the rehabilitation and fortification of Arab towns remains, according to the report, ridiculously low.​

And

The report devotes a special section to the recently approves JNF bill, which allows Jewish National Fund land – which make up 13% of all State owned land – to be allocated to Jews only.

Laws which allow communities to deny Arab Israeli's residence and denying the Arab Israeli's the ability to commemerate their history: Israel Knesset: New Israel laws discriminate against Israeli Arabs, critics say
One law legalizes the practice of using "admissions committees" in small towns in the Negev and Galilee to reject would-be residents based on their social "suitability," a vague term opponents fear could be used to bar gays, black Israelis, single women, Christians, Muslims and secular families as well as Arabs.

The second law is aimed at imposing fines on Arab towns, local authorities and state-funded organizations that commemorate Nakba Day, which falls near Israel's Independence Day. Some Arab Israelis refer to the day Israel gained statehood as a nakba, or catastrophe, because it resulted in the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians.​

Discrimination: Arab citizens of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and none are examples of apartheid, but of overt racism and a means of suppressing violence. Just as America bans certain groups from holding similar festivals.

Again - I have not said Israel IS apartheid, which implies a specific legal and governmental structure in place. What I have said is it has apartheid-like attributes and one of the most distinctive is that Arabs can be legally forbidden from living in certain areas and prevented from purchasing land that is only allocated to Jews. The other troubling aspect is Israel's weird system of citizenship that enforces a concept of seperateness among it's citizens - rather than all embracing an Israeli identity they are divided into Jews, Arab-Israeli's, and I believe there is a move to create a new category further dividing them by seperating the Arabs into Christian and Muslim.

It seems to me this divisive form of citizenship (which are not all equal) is destabilizing. Rather than all embracing an Israeli identity, they are embracing sub identities that legislated.

Let me see if I have this right

Not quite. It's not what I want - it's what you asked for - examples of enequalities that are similar to apartheid.

You want only Israel to pass laws making it illegal to bar people from living in an area so that it creates intolerance and violence. When you see the results first hand you will be the first to demand the arab muslims be segregated to protect the rest of society. You turn a blind eye to this being done in your own nation and arab muslim nations and single out the Jews once again.

This has what to do with the topic? We're not talking about other arab nations, so stop deflecting. Your argument could just as easily be used to support the seperation of black and white people (ie apartheid). Is this a good thing? Or an unjust thing?

What about the US way that segregates its citizens according to ethnicity, culture and nation of origin, Why not compare that to what is happening in Israel, and see why they are no different.

The US has it's problems (as does the UK) - and you keep bringing this up to deflect from the actual topic. One main difference is that it is ILLEGAL in the US - it still occurs, under the table but it is ILLEGAL. Do you understand the difference?

It is your Jew hatred that makes you see Israel as a racist and intolerant nation when in fact it is one of the most tolerant and least racist ones. It accepts all ethnicities and cultures as equals, but you pick up on the small number of Jews that are intolerant as if they are the norm.

No, it's not "Jew hatred", which seems be your pathetic fallback position. It's actual practices and laws that legitimize discrimination. You seem to to have a pie-in-the-sky attitude that Israel is somehow an angelic haven. It's not. It's better than some, worse than some - like any other country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/opinion/not-all-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html
Israel's discrimination against its Arab citizens

The minorities are now embracing Israel and are clamouring to join the IDF so they can protect their nation from attack. And the Jews are very grateful and accept them as true Israeli citizens. Strange how the biggest draft dodgers happen to be the ultra orthodox who are against non Jews in the first place, yet are seen by team Palestine as the real Jews.

That's not totally true. There have been issues with the Ethiopian Jews and the Indian Jews. I think the biggest issue is that Israel divides it's citizenship. Instead of being an Isreali citizen, you are either a Jewish Israeli or Arab Israeli. It can't help but encourage discrimminatory and divisive attitudes. One should be Israeli, and all Israeli.

Great link, thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=1

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Meaning ALL Israelis are viable military targets and are "fair game" for the killing. What a vile belief system you have.

Thing is ask him to justify his clams and he will ignore you, or deflect away from the request because he cant

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

ICRC service

Don't give me all this legal crap. Tell me -- do you think it is morally acceptable or justifiable to kill Israeli people because they are Israeli and not "protected persons"? Including children? Yes or no?

If you think it is, I stand by my assessment that you have a vile ideology.

If you think it is not, then what purpose does it serve to post a comment like "Israelis are not considered "civilians"?

If you think it is not, then what purpose does it serve to post a comment like "Israelis are not considered "civilians"?​

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

 

[Shusha]

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

I don't understand what this means. And you didn't answer my question. Yes or no.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

I don't understand what this means. And you didn't answer my question. Yes or no.

Israel has a long standing terrorist propaganda campaign against Palestinians. It is a bunch of lies.

 

[Shusha]

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

I don't understand what this means. And you didn't answer my question. Yes or no.

Israel has a long standing terrorist propaganda campaign against Palestinians. It is a bunch of lies.

Palestinians aren't really shooting rockets at Israel and stabbing them in the streets?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

I don't understand what this means. And you didn't answer my question. Yes or no.

Israel has a long standing terrorist propaganda campaign against Palestinians. It is a bunch of lies.

Palestinians aren't really shooting rockets at Israel and stabbing them in the streets?

"At Israel" is an interesting term considering the is no border there.

 

[Shusha]

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

I don't understand what this means. And you didn't answer my question. Yes or no.

Israel has a long standing terrorist propaganda campaign against Palestinians. It is a bunch of lies.

Palestinians aren't really shooting rockets at Israel and stabbing them in the streets?

"At Israel" is an interesting term considering the is no border there.

At innocent Israeli citizens, then. Stop with the games. Its tiring. And I suspect its avoidance of answering questions which will reveal your vile ideology.

 

[Coyote]

How is this not theft?
Israeli Land-grabs and Settlements: More Than Merely 'Counterproductive'
Palestinian villagers tilled their land so well, Israel is now confiscating it from them - Israel News
Why Israel Is No Better Than Russia

Here's what I found out. The area in question is between Jerusalem and Hebron (both ancient Jewish communities). It was a community founded by Yemeni immigrants and Ultra-Orthodox Jews in 1927. It was destroyed in the Arab riots of 1929 (along with the Jewish community of Hebron). It was rebuilt by its community members in 1932 and was abandoned in 1937 during more Arab riots. It was rebuilt again in 1943 and destroyed again in 1948 during the Arab invasion. Some of the community members were sent away and the entire remaining population was massacred. In 1967 one of the surviving family members petitioned to renew the community on that land. The territory is in Area C, under full Israeli civilian control. This is territory that is exceedingly unlikely to ever be under Palestinian sovereignty due to its proximity to Israel, its ancient and more recent Jewish history and the same "swiss cheese" effect that Palestinians are constantly complaining about. In fact, this is one of the communities which is part of the "land swaps" offered in the peace agreements, such as Olmert's in 2008. The land was also impeccably researched to ensure that none of it was privately owned. From what I can determine there were no buildings on this land, no permanent residents and no agricultural activity.

There is a small Arab village adjacent to the area in question. It has been inhabited continually since well, Jewish times, had a population of 176 in 1933, 210 in 1945 and 896 as of 2007. It consists of mainly two families. The village proper is considered to be part of Area B and is under Palestinian civilian control.

Both Arabs and Jews have been living in small communities on these lands for a long time. Between these small communities are large areas of land which have been uninhabited. The question, then, is who has control over these uninhabited lands and who should, eventually have sovereignty over these lands. In other words, who is stealing from whom? And how can we tell if there is no assignment of sovereignty and the land is disputed?

Personally, I think its a stretch to say that ALL the public land between this tiny Arab village and that tiny Arab village is "Palestinian land". Especially when it is in Area C.

Which link is that in reference to?

For example, on the first link I provided, I found an additional article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/w...0-acres-of-west-bank-land-near-bethlehem.html

JERUSALEM — Israel laid claim on Sunday to nearly 1,000 acres of West Bank land in a Jewish settlement bloc near Bethlehem — a step that could herald significant Israeli construction in the area — defying Palestinian demands for a halt in settlement expansion.

Peace Now, an Israeli group that opposes the construction of settlements in the West Bank, said that the action on Sunday might be the largest single appropriation of West Bank land in decades and that it could “dramatically change the reality” in the area.

Palestinians aspire to form a state in the lands that Israel conquered in 1967.

Israeli officials said the political directive to expedite a survey of the status of the land came after three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and killed in June while hitchhiking in that area. In July, the Israeli authorities arrested a Palestinian who was accused of being the prime mover in the kidnapping and killing of the teenagers. The timing of the land appropriation suggested that it was meant as a kind of compensation for the settlers and punishment for the Palestinians.

The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians, clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there.

But the mayor of the nearby Palestinian town of Surif, Ahmad Lafi, said the land belonged to Palestinian families. He told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli Army forces and personnel posted orders early Sunday announcing the seizure of land that was planted with olive and forest trees in Surif and the nearby villages of Al-Jaba’a and Wadi Fukin.​

 

[Coyote]

It is never ok to target children and civilians.

 

[Coyote]

I think in that case there was no option but not for the reason's you state. They were Israeli citizens and Israel would have been bound to protect them. They wouldn't be Palestinian citizens, ...

Why wouldn't they be Palestinian citizens? Are you saying that they wouldn't have been granted Palestinian citizenship if they had stayed? Why not?

And my entire point was that Israel is bound to protect them and they would have been in grave danger -- that's why they had to be removed. We agree.

Because there is no state of Palestine. Once there is - then they should have a choice of citizensthip.

 

[Shusha]

Which link is that in reference to?

The first link is paywalled, so I couldn't check it. But they all appear to be the same incident.

 

[Shusha]

The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians, clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there.

But the mayor of the nearby Palestinian town of Surif, Ahmad Lafi, said the land belonged to Palestinian families. He told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli Army forces and personnel posted orders early Sunday announcing the seizure of land that was planted with olive and forest trees in Surif and the nearby villages of Al-Jaba’a and Wadi Fukin.​

It was not privately owned land. It was public land. And it was in Area C -- land under Israeli civil and security control.

So what makes it "Palestinian land" (under Palestinian sovereignty -- more properly 'control' since there is no sovereign Palestine yet) and not "Israeli land" (under Israeli sovereignty)? Why should Palestinians be permitted to build on that land while Israel is not permitted to build on that land?

 

[Coyote]

Which link is that in reference to?

The first link is paywalled, so I couldn't check it. But they all appear to be the same incident.

They are different incidents I think .... ? One is this (this one must be the paywalled one) Al Walaja – Displacement past and future

 

[Coyote]

The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians, clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there.

But the mayor of the nearby Palestinian town of Surif, Ahmad Lafi, said the land belonged to Palestinian families. He told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli Army forces and personnel posted orders early Sunday announcing the seizure of land that was planted with olive and forest trees in Surif and the nearby villages of Al-Jaba’a and Wadi Fukin.​

It was not privately owned land. It was public land. And it was in Area C -- land under Israeli civil and security control.

So what makes it "Palestinian land" (under Palestinian sovereignty -- more properly 'control' since there is no sovereign Palestine yet) and not "Israeli land" (under Israeli sovereignty)? Why should Palestinians be permitted to build on that land while Israel is not permitted to build on that land?

What makes it Jewish land? Why aren't Paletsinians permitted to build there or even live there?

 

[Shusha]

What makes it Jewish land?

Oslo Accords. Signed treaty. I said that already.

 

[Coyote]

What makes it Jewish land?

Oslo Accords. Signed treaty. I said that already.

So Palestinians can be barred from building or living there? And here you were complaining about Jews not being allowed to live in certain areas....