Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Sorry, a straight cut and paste - but an interesting article by a former education minister of Israel admitting to Apartheid in Israel:

from http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html

January 8, 2007
This Road is for Jews Only
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel

By SHULAMIT ALONI

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish Establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order--this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"

Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved 'for Jews only', on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal".

Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.

Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.

Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don't the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel's character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?

In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?

Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.

We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".

Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow". There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. It's an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".

[Translated by Sol Salbe]

Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

Aloni is an outspoken atheist who has been a very controversial figure in Israeli politics. In a country where conflicts between secular and religious Jews has intensified in recent years she has been unabashedly on the side of secularism.

Shulamit Aloni (born November 29 1928) is an Israeli politician and left-wing activist. She is a prominent member of the Israeli peace camp, founded the Ratz party and was leader of the Meretz party.

"cut and paste" working again!


heaps of articles by her on a similar "vein".

Concord - thanks for the bio, I wasn't aware of her other articles.

Good to see that elected politicians in Israel can be atheists and are willing to call a spade a spade.

Having been in government I think she is in a good position to speak with authority on the situation (the facts are beyond question) and offer her opinion that it is in-fact apartheid.

The frightening (and sickening) thing for me is that the injustices against the Palestinians detailed in the article aren't denied by Israel and supporters her tactics, there is no sense of shame and for most part the criticisms are just ignored without even trying to offer an excuse for them.

Cheers,
Shafique

What astonishes me more is the kind of attacks Jimmy carter got in the US are way more than what he would get in Israel !!! is America becoming more Pro-Israel than Israel itself ?

shafique wrote:The frightening (and sickening) thing for me is that the injustices against the Palestinians detailed in the article aren't denied by Israel and supporters her tactics, there is no sense of shame and for most part the criticisms are just ignored without even trying to offer an excuse for them.

Cheers,
Shafique

It adds insult to injury when you get an excuse anyway.

a racialist .

I believe that the white race is better than the people who want to con

MaaaD wrote:What astonishes me more is the kind of attacks Jimmy carter got in the US are way more than what he would get in Israel !!! is America becoming more Pro-Israel than Israel itself ?

Maaad, don't forget that the USA population is 300 Milllion so that in sheer numbers - The number of Anti-Israel citizens is greater than the Israeli population (and so is the Pro-Israel crowd)...

shafique wrote:Having been in government I think she is in a good position to speak with authority on the situation

Not necessarly. Based on the bio she held the post less than a year. Not everyone in goverment is an "authority" - and having to do with education. By way of example, one of 435 congresspersons in the USA goverment, from rural baptist mississipi is in "Goverment" but certainly not an "authority" on everything he/she says. No more than a Doctor (Medical Doctor) is not an "authority" on everything related to medicine - same as engineers, lawyers, etc.

Concord wrote:

shafique wrote:Having been in government I think she is in a good position to speak with authority on the situation

Not necessarly. Based on the bio she held the post less than a year. Not everyone in goverment is an "authority" - and having to do with education.

There are people that are convinced the world is flat, man didn't land on the moon and all Palestinians are living a life of luxury.

Concord, I note how you appear to be concentrating on the author rather on what she is saying. Interesting.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Concord, I note how you appear to be concentrating on the author rather on what she is saying. Interesting.

I think the author's (any author's) political views, etc. are important as each will put his/her spin on things. I give more creadance to Jimmy Carter (although a politician he is at the "end of his career") and so he has to less to loose. In any event, the fact that she is Jewish and able to free exprees her views is a good thing. I also believe that she is not the only in Israel with those views...

I haven't read Carter's book (I am about 20 books behind on my reading list )

Concord - do you have any doubts that apartheid is being carried out in Palestine by Israel (that is what both the article and President Carter are saying)?

As I stated before, as far as I have read the supporters of Israel do not dispute the facts in the article above.

Interested in your take on it.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Concord - do you have any doubts that apartheid is being carried out in Palestine by Israel (that is what both the article and President Carter are saying)?

Did I say I did?

shafique wrote:As I stated before, as far as I have read the supporters of Israel do not dispute the facts in the article above.

As far as you read one article


One article couldn't be enought for anything. Unless the article just reinforces your view. I can find an article to support anything. My point is not that it is not "apartheid" is about the notion that one article dictates "fact"... I don't think so. Many articles, by many people, yes. One article: no.

Concord wrote:

shafique wrote:As I stated before, as far as I have read the supporters of Israel do not dispute the facts in the article above.

As far as you read one article


One article couldn't be enought for anything. Unless the article just reinforces your view. I can find an article to support anything. My point is not that it is not "apartheid" is about the notion that one article dictates "fact"... I don't think so. Many articles, by many people, yes. One article: no.

Ok - I see your point.

My views on Palestine actually come from knowing people who live in Palestine as well as the numerous news reports over the years on the situation there.

What was remarkable about this article was that an Israeli parliamentarian was stating what many, many people had said before.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that my views were based on this one article.

I renew my question - do you, or do you not, believe in the substance of the article that apartheid is occuring in Palestine?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
I renew my question - do you, or do you not, believe in the substance of the article that apartheid is occuring in Palestine?

"Apartheid" per se is perhaps too much. One could apply that term in many countries in certain situations, etc. (in those places it is called 'racism") The article expresses the opinion of one author and "hearsay" regarding what a policeman and "others" told her.

Nevertheless, I do believe, as do many others including a good percentage of the Israeli population, that the Palestinians are suffering. I also believe that it is better to "expose" what is happening that why it is happening. What is easy, Why: one could spend a lifetime arguing about it - and forgetting the 'what".

Concord wrote:

shafique wrote:
I renew my question - do you, or do you not, believe in the substance of the article that apartheid is occuring in Palestine?

"Apartheid" per se is perhaps too much. One could apply that term in many countries in certain situations, etc. (in those places it is called 'racism") The article expresses the opinion of one author and "hearsay" regarding what a policeman and "others" told her.

Nevertheless, I do believe, as do many others including a good percentage of the Israeli population, that the Palestinians are suffering. I also believe that it is better to "expose" what is happening that why it is happening. What is easy, Why: one could spend a lifetime arguing about it - and forgetting the 'what".

Ok, you agree the Palestinians are suffering.

In other countries the tactics employed are merely called 'racist' as opposed to 'apartheid'.

You believe 'apartheid' is too strong a word for the 'suffering' being imposed on the Palestinians by the Israelis.

It appears that we only differ on the point about calling the racism and suffering in Palestine 'apartheid' - for me the words are synonymous. What was apartheid if it was not institutionalised racism?

At least we agree that the Palestinians are suffering.

[P.S. I've posted on the 'what' and the 'why' many times before.]

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

Concord wrote:

shafique wrote:
I renew my question - do you, or do you not, believe in the substance of the article that apartheid is occuring in Palestine?

"Apartheid" per se is perhaps too much. One could apply that term in many countries in certain situations, etc. (in those places it is called 'racism") The article expresses the opinion of one author and "hearsay" regarding what a policeman and "others" told her.

Nevertheless, I do believe, as do many others including a good percentage of the Israeli population, that the Palestinians are suffering. I also believe that it is better to "expose" what is happening that why it is happening. What is easy, Why: one could spend a lifetime arguing about it - and forgetting the 'what".

Ok, you agree the Palestinians are suffering.

In other countries the tactics employed are merely called 'racist' as opposed to 'apartheid'.

You believe 'apartheid' is too strong a word for the 'suffering' being imposed on the Palestinians by the Israelis.

It appears that we only differ on the point about calling the racism and suffering in Palestine 'apartheid' - for me the words are synonymous. What was apartheid if it was not institutionalised racism?

At least we agree that the Palestinians are suffering.

[P.S. I've posted on the 'what' and the 'why' many times before.]

Cheers,
Shafique

No. I just have a way of getting at things apartheid = racism which separates people based on race (which is what I stated). Is what is happening in Israel / Palestine based on race? or is it religion? (easy answer = both).

its based on race yes not religion. Jews believe they are a race, on identity cards issued by Israel there is a place to put a persons race. it will state if you are Arab, Jew, Armenian etc .. Palestinians are Christians and Muslims and both are suffering .. the conflict has been portrayed as a religious one (although its just a fight over real estate) but the status quo is obviously an apartheid based on "race".