Parallels Between Israel and South Africa?

A-Forgotten-Voice · #1 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007, 12:26 AM

The Definition of Apartheid:

a·part·heid: A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

seg·re·gate: to require, often with force, the separation of (a specific racial, religious, or other group) from the general body of society.

Parallels to South Africa:

Many parallels can be drawn between South Africa and Israel…one such parallel is the requirement for all residents over the age of 16 in the Apartheid State of Israel to indicate whether holders are Jewish or not by adding the person’s Hebrew date of birth. Chris McGreal of the Guardian put it so well when he said that these cards are “in effect determining where they [”Israeli citizens”] are permitted to live, access to some government welfare programs, and how they are likely to be treated by civil servants and policemen.”

Many comparisons can also be made between Israel’s Population Registry Act, which calls for the gathering of “ethnic data”, to South Africa’s Apartheid-era Population Registration Act.

What South Africans think of Israel as an Apartheid State

Who better to ask than the victims of Apartheid themselves? Anglican Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu wrote that there were parallels between the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and the treatment of black people in South Africa. He has also openly called Israel an apartheid state. Tutu was one of the leading activists in fighting apartheid in South Africa.

In 1988, he was quoted as saying that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism”, on the grounds that it “excludes people on ethnic or other grounds over which they have no control…in Israel you exclude people and treat those that are excluded as lesser humans.”

–

In 2002, during a Israeli divestment campaign speech, Tutu said:

“My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?”

“People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.”

–

Other South African anti-apartheid activists have used apartheid comparisons to criticize Israel’s policies in the West Bank, and particularly the construction of the separation barrier.

-Farid Esack
-Ronnie Kasrils
-Winnie Madikizela-Mandela
-Arun Ghandhi
-Dennis Goldberg
-Breyten Breytenbach

-Ronnie Kasrils and Max Ozinsky headed a list of hundreds of Jewish leaders in South Africa who wrote a June 2001 open letter comparing the occupation of Palestinian lands to Apartheid.

–

Unique “Qualities”

Of course Israel also has it’s own unique “qualities.” Take the wall for instance…

Let your conscience decide whether or not this is apartheid…

Zhayne · #2 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007, 06:23 PM

If you get rid of the Zionism, then Israel wouldn't be such a bad place.

You have to remember just how bad things were for the Jews. They were hunted down by nazis and then by nearly everyone else right after the war. The United States had to intervene to help establish Israel so that Jews could live in peace from the British and other aggressors. The problem was that Palestine was largely muslim and those muslims didn't want to share their land with the Jews.

Mostly because having the Jews there and not taxed for being there violated the Koran. But there was also the fact that the Jews promoted industrialism and the Muslims perfer living in their tribal life style.

To be honest the Americans should have just made all the Jews U.S. citizens and then make a true promise land for them with the technology that would be available about half a century later.

A-Forgotten-Voice · #3 (**permalink**) 03-15-2007, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhayne";p=&quot

If you get rid of the Zionism, then Israel wouldn't be such a bad place.

You have to remember just how bad things were for the Jews. They were hunted down by nazis and then by nearly everyone else right after the war. The United States had to intervene to help establish Israel so that Jews could live in peace from the British and other aggressors. The problem was that Palestine was largely muslim and those muslims didn't want to share their land with the Jews.

Mostly because having the Jews there and not taxed for being there violated the Koran. But there was also the fact that the Jews promoted industrialism and the Muslims perfer living in their tribal life style.

To be honest the Americans should have just made all the Jews U.S. citizens and then make a true promise land for them with the technology that would be available about half a century later.

Ok so I agree and disagree with you

. I agree with you in the sense that yes the Jews were oppressed a great deal under the holocaust. However, my question is why is it that the Palestinian people had to pay the price for the crimes of Europeans. Wouldn't it have made sesne for Germany to have granted the Jewish people reparations?

You said:
"Mostly because having the Jews there and not taxed for being there violated the Koran. But there was also the fact that the Jews promoted industrialism and the Muslims perfer living in their tribal life style."

Actually this is a bit off. To clarify this was not the situation in Palestine at the point that it was partitioned into Israel as you are describing a trait of an Islamically run country which Palestine was not at the time.

With regards to why Jews would need to pay taxes under an Islamically run government, it is because under a Muslim run government, Muslims are already required to give a percentage of their income as charity on a yearly basis already and thus the Jews are taxed since they are exempt from this practice which is mandatory upon the Muslims.

I also disagree that Muslims prefer a tribal lifestyle as this is not the case. Under many Islamic governments in history many scientific and mathematical contributions have been made by the Muslims including Algebra or even a large part of Chemistry! So by industrialism if you mean modernization then I dont necessarily agree.

What I find most perplexing was how a large number of the oppressed people such as the Jews in Europe ended up becoming the oppressor themselves...

Zhayne · #4 (**permalink**) 03-15-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A-Forgotten-Voice";p=&quot

Well the Palestinian overlords, the Ottomans, lost during WWI and as a result they were owned as a mandate of the British. And to put it bluntly, if the Jews hadn't settled in then the Palestinians would have to suffer British dominion, which is even worse. Look at what happened to the aborginal people of Australia. The British wanted to take over that area and make it a christrian domain like it was during the middle-ages. Who do you think is more cruel to muslims, Jews or Christians throughout the entire existance of Islam?

At least with the Isreali the palestinians are not being forced out of the entire country. They are just being relocated, which has happened a lot in every civilization and therefore cannot be taken into an account. There were ways that the Israelis could have avoided this confrontation, but they were new to the whole process of establishing their own domain and were attacked very frequently. If they weren't attacked so much, then they probably would have leaned more towards what the Palestinians had wanted.

They could have just bought off the land or have the United States done that to secure Israel's dominion. It would have pissed off a lot less palestinians of they had sold their land to jews rather than evicted by jews. Because then they could use that money to settle in a new community without starting off from scratch.

Quote:

You said:
"Mostly because having the Jews there and not taxed for being there violated the Koran. But there was also the fact that the Jews promoted industrialism and the Muslims perfer living in their tribal life style."

Actually this is a bit off. To clarify this was not the situation in Palestine at the point that it was partitioned into Israel as you are describing a trait of an Islamically run country which Palestine was not at the time.

I was describing it as an agricultural community without a leading government to center the entire domain. At that time Palestine was a British Mandate and was influenced to be pro-zionist by the British.

Quote:

British interest in Zionism dates to the rise in importance of the British Empire's South Asian enterprises in the early 19th century, concurrent with the Great Game and planning for the Suez Canal. Eminent British figures such as Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, Lloyd George, Lord Palmerston and Arthur Balfour were among the enthusiastic proponents of Zionism.

Blame the British and not the jews.

However the British did a lot of good.

Quote:

The British military administration ended starvation with the aid of food supplies from Egypt, successfully fought typhus and cholera epidemics and significantly improved the water supply to Jerusalem. They reduced corruption by paying the Arab and Jewish judges higher salaries. Communications were improved by new railway and telegraph lines.

Quote:

The United Kingdom was granted control of Palestine by the Sanremo conference. Herbert Samuel, a former Postmaster General in the British cabinet, who was instrumental in drafting the Balfour Declaration, was appointed the first High Commissioner in Palestine. During World War I the British had made two promises regarding territory in the Middle East. Britain had promised the local Arabs, through Lawrence of Arabia, independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East, in exchange for their supporting the British; and Britain had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home as laid out in the Balfour Declaration, 1917.

Interesting that they keep harming and yet helping the Palestinians?

Quote:

The British had, in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, previously promised the Hashemite family lordship over most land in the region in return for their support in the Great Arab Revolt during World War I. In 1920 at the Sanremo conference, Italy, a mandate for Palestine was offered to Britain, but the borders of the territory were not defined. The majority of the approximately 750,000 people in this multi-ethnic region were Arabic-speaking Muslims, including a Bedouin population (estimated at 103,331 at the time of the 1922 census [2] and concentrated in the Beersheba area and the region south and east of it), as well as Jews (who comprised some 11% of the total) and smaller groups of Druze, Syrians, Sudanese, Circassians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hejazi Arabs.

In June 1922 the League of Nations approved the Palestine Mandate with effect from September 1923. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including "secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home", and "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine".

The document defining Britain's obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.

Quote:

During the 1920s, 100,000 Jewish immigrants entered Palestine, and 6,000 non-Jewish immigrants did so as well. Jewish immigration was controlled by the Histadrut, which selected between applicants on the grounds of their political creed. Land purchased by Jewish agencies was leased on the conditions that it be worked only by Jewish labour and that the lease should not be held by non-Jews.

Initially, Jewish immigration to Palestine met little opposition from the Palestinian Arabs. However, as antisemitism grew in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (mostly from Europe) to Palestine began to increase markedly, creating much Arab resentment.

There was violent incitement from the Palestine Muslim leadership that led to violent attacks against the Jewish population. In some cases, land purchases by the Jewish agencies from absentee landlords led to the eviction of the Palestinian Arab tenants, who were replaced by the Jews of the kibbutzim, an Israeli collective intentional community.

Blame Europe.

Quote:

The Arabic speakers before World War I had the status of peasants (felaheen), and did not own their land although they might own the trees that grew on that land. Because most of these Jews were familiar with the European tradition of land-ownership, they did not realize that they were purchasing only the land, not the trees that grew on that land. This was often a source of misunderstanding and conflict.

Blame Europe.

Quote:

The British government placed limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine. These quotas were controversial, particularly in the latter years of British rule, and both Arabs and Jews disliked the policy, each side for its own reasons. In response to numerous Arab attacks on Jewish communities, the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organization, was formed on June 15, 1920 to defend Jewish residents. Tensions led to widespread violent disturbances on several occasions.

Blame Britain

Quote:

Beginning in 1936, several Jewish groups such as Etzel (Irgun) and Lehi (Stern Gang) conducted their own campaigns of violence against British military and Arab targets. This prompted the British government to label them both as terrorist organizations.

What goes around comes around. The arabs had organized attacks against the jews and now the jews finally counter-attack. Well if you don't attack first then you are less likely to be attacked.

Quote:

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed a partition between Jewish and Arab areas that was rejected by both the Arabs and the Zionist Congress.

In 1936-1939 the mandate experienced an upsurge in militant Arab nationalism that became also known as "the Great Uprising." The revolt was triggered by increased Jewish immigration, primarily Jews that were ejected by the Nazi regime in Germany as well as rising anti-Semitism throughout Europe. The revolt was led or co-opted by the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husseini and his Husseini family. The Arabs felt they were being marginalized in their own country, but in addition to non-violent strikes, they resorted to violence, including numerous attacks on Jewish civilians. The Jewish organization Etzel replied with its own campaign, with marketplace bombings and other violent acts that also killed hundreds. Eventually, the uprising was put down by the British using severe measures. Haj Amin El Husseini fled first to Lebanon, then to Iraq, and finally to Germany in late 1941.

Well you know, it seems to be more of the Palestinians fault than the Israelians. Most of the blame however can be placed on the British.

Quote:

As in most of the Arab world, there was no unanimity amongst the Palestinian Arabs as to their position regarding the combatants in WWII. Many signed up for the British army, but others saw an Axis victory as a likely outcome and a way of wresting Palestine back from the Zionists and the British. Some of the leadership went further, especially the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini (who had by then escaped to Iraq), who on November 25, 1941, formally declared jihad against the Allied Powers.

Even though Arabs were only marginally higher than Jews in Nazi racial theory, the Nazis naturally encouraged Arab support as much as possible as a counter to British hegemony throughout the Arab world.

Yep, Palestinian Nazis. Who would ever guess?

Quote:

Arabs who opposed the persecution of the Jews at the hand of the Nazis included Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia and Egyptian intellectuals such as Tawfiq al-Hakim and Abbas Mahmoud al-Arkad.

The mandate recruited soldiers in Palestine. About 6,000 Palestinian Arabs joined the British forces and about 26,000 Jews.

And of course there were those that supported the Jews. Like the British there were those ups and downs between Jews and Muslims.

Quote:

Avraham Stern, the leader of the Jewish Lehi underground group, whose will to fight the British was so strong he offered to fight on the Nazi side, and other Zionists, tried to convince the Nazis to continue seeing emigration from Europe as the "solution" for their "Jewish problem", but the Nazis gradually abandoned this idea in favor of containment and physical extermination.
With regards to why Jews would need to pay taxes under an Islamically run government, it is because under a Muslim run government, Muslims are already required to give a percentage of their income as charity on a yearly basis already and thus the Jews are taxed since they are exempt from this practice which is mandatory upon the Muslims.

Yep. That is why Zionism will become the death of us all.

Quote:

Following the war, 250,000 Jewish refugees were stranded in displaced persons (DP) camps in Europe. Despite the pressure of world opinion, in particular the repeated requests of US President Harry S. Truman and the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the British refused to lift the ban on immigration and admit 100,000 displaced persons to Palestine. The Jewish underground forces then united and carried out several attacks against the British. In 1946, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British administration, killing 92 people.

Told you about the United States stressing Britain to establish Israel.

Quote:

The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, attempted to solve the dispute between the Palestinian Jews and Arabs. The UN created the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), composed of representatives from several states. In order to make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.

UNSCOP considered two main proposals. The first called for the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states in Palestine, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. The second called for the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. A majority of UNSCOP favoured the first option, although several members supported the second option instead and one member (Australia) said it was unable to decide between them. As a result, the first option was adopted and the UN General Assembly largely accepted UNSCOP's proposals, though they made some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal.

The partition plan was rejected out of hand by the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs and by most of the Arab population. Most of the Jews accepted the proposal, in particular the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation. Numerous records indicate the joy of Palestine's Jewish inhabitants as they attended the U.N. session voting for the division proposal. Up to this day, Israeli history books mention 29 November, the date of this session, as the most important date leading to the creation of the Israeli state.

Several Jews, however, declined the proposal. Menachem Begin, Irgun's leader, announced: "The partition of the homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. The Land of Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever". His views were publicly rejected by the majority of the nascent Jewish state.

Both people should have just went along with this federalistic idea. It would have made things a lot better between the two factions. And the main factor that killed it was that no arabs wanted it to happen. But it would have kept them from being dislocated and gave them the opportunity to establish their own government. Most jews agreed with it, except for those that wanted the entire state for themselves.

Quote:

I also disagree that Muslims prefer a tribal lifestyle as this is not the case. Under many Islamic governments in history many scientific and mathematical contributions have been made by the Muslims including Algebra or even a large part of Chemistry! So by industrialism if you mean modernization then I dont necessarily agree.

No I mean industraliazation as in making factories. And sorry but the muslims have known of algebra well before industrialization became a reality. Therefore it isn't a part of it. The Aztecs probably also knew of such higher forms of mathematics, but where they ever a part of the industrial age? That's what I was talking about. Industrialization strictly refers to the industrial age.

Quote:

What I find most perplexing was how a large number of the oppressed people such as the Jews in Europe ended up becoming the oppressor themselves...

They were co-oppressors. If you ever been to their land, you would see as much oppression from jews as you would see targeted towards jews. To be honest its just the same people with different cultures. The Jews and the Muslims in that Canaan area are practically and entirely the same right now except they follow two different religions and speak two different languages.

That is why I keep telling the Palestinians and Israeli that their enemy is not each other but the tension of factions within each of their own domain that keep them apart.

A-Forgotten-Voice · #5 (**permalink**) 03-15-2007, 10:22 PM

Ok so I dont think were 100 percent on the same page:

Quote:

At least with the Isreali the palestinians are not being forced out of the entire country.

Yes they are lol. That is what many palestinians are even fighting for today. The Right of Return to their home. They are not being relocated but rather have been dislocated

Quote:

Blame Europe

With regards to blaming Britain or Europe, I do blame them for the act but it was the Israelis that made this mandate into oppression. So I blame zionism first. The British were wrong in partitioning palestine.

Quote:

Well you know, it seems to be more of the Palestinians fault than the Israelians. Most of the blame however can be placed on the British.

When a homeland of a people is suddenly turned into another homeland of course there will be resistance. You blame the Palestinians for fighting for their right to continue living in their homes. (btw its Israelis

)

Quote:

They were co-oppressors. If you ever been to their land, you would see as much oppression from jews as you would see targeted towards jews. To be honest its just the same people with different cultures. The Jews and the Muslims in that Canaan area are practically and entirely the same right now except they follow two different religions and speak two different languages.

That is why I keep telling the Palestinians and Israeli that their enemy is not each other but the tension of factions within each of their own domain that keep them apart.

Im sorry but i feel you are missing the big picture. Palestine was under British mandate, but then again so were many mideast countries. And today there is no british mandate in these countries (unfortunately we have corrupt arab leaders that dont care about their people instead). British mandate or not, Palestine was home to so many palestinian people...and then all of a sudden it was not. You cannot call the Israelis of today oppressed people as they are the occupiers and the palestinians are the occupied. Resistance to oppression is a right of any people and this resistance is only labeled as oppression or terrorism or whatever else to deter it. So basically the palestinians have a right to struggle for their right to return to their homes and that is why the palestinians and the israelis are not alike (note that i didnt say muslims and jews). And because of all these parallels to south africa, israel truly is an apartheid state...and things must change!

Johnderondon · #6 (**permalink**) 03-16-2007, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhayne";p=&quot

That is why I keep telling the Palestinians and Israeli that their enemy is not each other but the tension of factions within each of their own domain that keep them apart.

I like that.

Zhayne · #7 (**permalink**) 03-16-2007, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A-Forgotten-Voice";p=&quot

Ok so I dont think were 100 percent on the same page:

Quote:

At least with the Isreali the palestinians are not being forced out of the entire country.

Yes they are lol. That is what many palestinians are even fighting for today. The Right of Return to their home. They are not being relocated but rather have been dislocated

I am talking about country and not land. Relocated and dislocated are synonyms. Why argue when they both mean move and can both mean disorganized?

Quote:

Blame Europe

With regards to blaming Britain or Europe, I do blame them for the act but it was the Israelis that made this mandate into oppression. So I blame zionism first. The British were wrong in partitioning palestine.

I disagree. The Israelis were not the original oppressors. They were attacked first and it was Britain that was chiefly responsible for what they were doing. In a subordinate situation who is responsible, a soldier or his superior that allowed him to carry out such actions? If the soldier was allowed to do what he did because his superior allowed it and even ordered it then is it his fault or is it his superior's. Trust me, it is Britain's fault. Mostly just the British Zionists. You were aware that Zionism was highly attributed by British support? They have messed up the whole world in more ways than one. That was because before the United States, they were the super power and they controlled practically everything.

Plus it was a British Mandate and not an Israeli mandate. The Israeli like the Palestinians were just subjects to British domination. Just like how the Sunni and Shi'a in Iraq are currently subjected to American domination.

Quote:

Well you know, it seems to be more of the Palestinians fault than the Israelians. Most of the blame however can be placed on the British.

When a homeland of a people is suddenly turned into another homeland of course there will be resistance. You blame the Palestinians for fighting for their right to continue living in their homes.
[/quote]

Homeland? There are many Israeli children born in that land thus making it their land as well. You are going into the past with people that are well over sixty years old. If those people should die from old age, then how could it remain their land if none of their people were born in that land, except for those that are no longer alive. Are you just going to make the entire country a cementary?

Quote:

(btw its Israelis

)

Are you anti-semetic? You should never blame the jews so incredibly unless you have some sort of grudge against them. Do you? And if you do, then why?

Quote:

They were co-oppressors. If you ever been to their land, you would see as much oppression from jews as you would see targeted towards jews. To be honest its just the same people with different cultures. The Jews and the Muslims in that Canaan area are practically and entirely the same right now except they follow two different religions and speak two different languages.

That is why I keep telling the Palestinians and Israeli that their enemy is not each other but the tension of factions within each of their own domain that keep them apart.

Im sorry but i feel you are missing the big picture.

You feel that I am missing the big picture, because I don't dislike Israelis? Sure I dislike their government, I think it is to autocratic and oppressive. But I don't think most their people are generally as oppressive as their government.

Quote:

Palestine was under British mandate, but then again so were many mideast countries. And today there is no british mandate in these countries (unfortunately we have corrupt arab leaders that dont care about their people instead). British mandate or not, Palestine was home to so many palestinian people...and then all of a sudden it was not.

Same thing with the United States at first being less Mexican until all the illegal immigrant came pouring in. If you want to attack illegal immigration, then I sure hope you don't ignore the one in the United States with over 14,000,000 illegal Mexicans.

This event isn't something that is new and the Palestinians were given a chance to federalize the nation so they would have a hear-say on politics. If you are talking about the present situation then I've just pointed out who to blame, but it really isn't the Palestinians I was talking about. The Israelis were just trying to flee from further persecution. What were they suppose to do go single file willingly into more gas chambers? The Jews have been persecuted by just about everyone (with the exception of Native Americans) around the entire world. Israel they felt was the only place that they could strive, because it was their former homeland and felt that it was still their homeland as it was said in their faith.

I know how you feel, because it is wrong to push out the current people of an area. But that's the British fault, because they started it and the Jews only follow what they like children saw. The Jews were like children at that time, they couldn't very well understand what they were doing. The only thing they knew was oppression, because that's the only thing that occured to them.

Plus they were always at war with someone, whether it be Egypt, Syria, Jordan, or Lebanon. If you were always at war, how would you treat people that could very well join those that you were at war with? Let's say you were the leader of a French-speaking Nation like Haiti at war with the Spanish and your country was full of hispanic people. What would be your reaction?

They are hispanic people with ancestory, cultural, and linguistic ties to the Spanish. Are you telling me you wouldn't oppress them even a little bit? The United States oppressed the Japanese, while it was at war with them. And they had oppressed Asians while we started our war with the Taliban and al-Queda.

My point is that you should try to forgive people for what they have done, rather than punish them and cause further aggression. Like what happened to Germany after WWI. They lost, punished, and came back with Hitler to nearly conquer the world.

Quote:

You cannot call the Israelis of today oppressed people as they are the occupiers

There isn't a rule saying I can't. If someone is being oppressed then they are being oppressed. There is no other word to call it.

Quote:

and the palestinians are the occupied.

Yes I agree they are being occupied, but they are oppressors nonetheless. People cannot blame solely one faction, no matter how much they dislike them. In your case, you blame the jews, because you don't see the Palestinians as being equally corrupt people. But they do have their own faults. And you are right, most them are not corrupt people. But it is because their terrorist organizations like al-Queda that they are seen as corrupt people by the Israelis. There are innocent Israelis that are killed every year by Palestinians and vice versa. Both factions need to take responsibility.

In reality, everyone is at fault. There can never be a simple victim and a simple victimizer. The victimizer is almost always a victim as well. Like how a bully can have his own bully as well. I've seen it. I'm not so sure about you. But I have seen it.

Quote:

Resistance to oppression is a right of any people and this resistance is only labeled as oppression or terrorism or whatever else to deter it.

Terrorism isn't resistance to oppression. It is the wrongful way to get a voice heard. The Palestinians were the first to use terrorism in that land while it was occupied by the British. And like wise the Jews even used terrorism on the British.

How can you not called the Jews unoppressed if they were too once called terrorist?

Quote:

So basically the palestinians have a right to struggle for their right to return to their homes and that is why the palestinians and the israelis are not alike.

What homes? If the Isreali own the country as you have just said, since you say they are the oppressors. Then don't the homes belong to the government since it is on the government's soil?

Saying it belongs to the palestinians would imply that the palestinians also own the land and therefore are not being oppressed as you definite oppression.

And what are you going to do for the Native Americans that were put out of their homes and moved to Oklahoma during the 19th century? Are you going to leave them hanging? And how are you going to support them and move over a fourth of a million people out of the world's super power? Or what about the Native people of Australia? What about them? The Palestinians are treated no differently right? Are you just going to support the Palestinians?

My point is to not make such a big deal about it, because you can't change the past. You can only move on hoping to insure peace and you cannot insure peace by moving out the Isrealis, because they'll use the same thing that the Palestinians had used.

Quote:

And because of all these parallels to south africa, israel truly is an apartheid state...and things must change!

Palestinians and Isrealis are both semetic. There is nothing racist between them. This isn't blacks being divided away from white communities. This is religionism and therefore it is completely different. South Africa is one nationalisty divided by ethnic groups. That Canaan region is two nationalities being divided by one country. But I do agree things must be changed for the better and to help both people co-exist. Hopefully you agree and not to just have the matter reversed as having the palestinians the oppressors and the Israelis the oppressed.

I have myself established something that will give the Palestinians the right to go back to those probably already demolished houses, the right for the Isrealis (I normally call them Jews, because almost all Isrealis are Jews and almost all Jews are Israelis) to live in a land that does not concentrate into fear, the right for Palestinians to be involved in politics, the protection of both muslim and jewish faith, equal union between Israelis and Palestinians, a dominion over Jerusalem that is headed by neither extermist factions so that both Jews and Muslims can continue to practice their faith in that region, and the right for Israel to exist alongside Palestine.

(NOTE that I am not trolling)

Johnderondon · #8 (**permalink**) 03-16-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhayne";p=&quot

Palestinians and Isrealis are both semetic. There is nothing racist between them. This isn't blacks being divided away from white communities. This is religionism and therefore it is completely different.

Israel practices apatheid.

The term `apatheid` is not exclusive to race. It also applies to caste, creed or just about any group discrimination and segregation. In this case the determining factor is nationality. Religion plays an important part but Palestinians are not afforded the representation and protections that Israeli Arabs are.

The Palestinians suffer occupation and are oppressed by it. The Israelis are not under occupation and are not oppressed

Zhayne · #9 (**permalink**) 03-16-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnderondon";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhayne";p=&quot

Palestinians and Isrealis are both semetic. There is nothing racist between them. This isn't blacks being divided away from white communities. This is religionism and therefore it is completely different.

Israel practices apatheid.

The term `apatheid` is not exclusive to race. It also applies to caste, creed or just about any group discrimination and segregation. In this case the determining factor is nationality. Religion plays an important part but Palestinians are not afforded the representation and protections that Israeli Arabs are.

The Palestinians suffer occupation and are oppressed by it. The Israelis are not under occupation and are not oppressed

I disagree, because occupation does not necessarily mean oppressed. The Northern Irish are under British occupation, but they are not being oppressed by them. And in certain American communities there are blacks oppressing whites, while the white technically occupy the land by majority representation in the national government. So I disagree.

Stop attacking the Israelis and start attacking those Israelis that are responsible like their government.

Quote:

Apartheid was designed to form a legal framework for continued economic and political dominance by people of European descent.

Israel does have native non-European members. It isn't apartheidism. It follow a word root that of a definition similar to that word, like seperatism. You are trying to issue apartheidism as though it were a system that can be branched out like racism and religion, but it can't.

Johnderondon · #10 (**permalink**) 03-16-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhayne";p=&quot

I disagree, because occupation does not necessarily mean oppressed.

It does when it entails collective punishments, land theft, extra-judicial killings, misappropriation of water supplies, wanton destruction of property and draconian travel restrictions.

Quote:

The Northern Irish are under British occupation, but they are not being oppressed by them.

Northern Ireland is accepted by all and sundry (including Sinn Fein, the Provisional Irish Republican Army and The Republic of Ireland) to be part and parcel of the United Kingdom. So...no, it`s not under occupation. For the Catholic communities it was run as a `Police State` for a long time and the Catholics, rightly, claimed oppression. Although, even at the height of the troubles, nobody dreamed of using artillery on Londonderry or bombers in Armagh so it is dangerous to draw too many parralells between Northern Ireland and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Quote:

And in certain American communities there are blacks oppressing whites, while the white technically occupy the land by majority representation in the national government. So I disagree.

The fact that there are other forms of oppression does not lessen that suffered by the Palestinians.

Quote:

Stop attacking the Israelis and start attacking those Israelis that are responsible like their government.

The Israeli government is democratically elected. So, whilst I readily condemn attacks against civilians - Palestinian or Israeli - that part of the elctorate that opposes a just and equitable and legal solution bear a measure of culpability for the violence we see daily.

Quote:

Israel does have native non-European members. It isn't apartheidism. It follow a word root that of a definition similar to that word, like seperatism. You are trying to issue apartheidism as though it were a system that can be branched out like racism and religion, but it can't.

I don`t know where you got your quote from but I`m using a standard dictionary definition.

Quote:

a·part·heid (ə-pärt'hīt', -hāt') Pronunciation Key
n.
1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apartheid

I am aware Israel has non-european citizens (I mentioned the Israeli Arabs, remember?). The apatheid mentioned does not apply to within Israel itself but it`s rule over Palestine.