Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique wrote:What is the Afrikaans word for separation then?

skei.

shafique wrote: (And, what is the English translation of 'apartheid'?)

You gave quoted a definition for apartheid, I'll go with that. Apartheid is something different than seperation.

shafique wrote:Yep - old, tired tactic of smearing those who oppose Israel. No surprise there.

Just showing that the SA governement are no saints, like their support for Mugabe.

shafique wrote:By the same yardstick, though - shouldn't we rightly condemn Israel for giving support to the Apartheid Regime when it was in power? Shouldn't we also condemn the US for doing what you accuse the South Africans of?

Yes, we should. But we should mainly condemn the Muslim countries for keeping the apartheid regime alive for so long because of their oil sales.
But I see you are ok with the apartheid demonstrated in KSA with the Muslims only roads...no surprise there, double standards and hypocricy.

shafique wrote:Because one is illegal under international law and designed to deprive the lawful inhabitants of this occupying foreign land (not part of Israel) of the use of their land - and give the land to Israeli (i.e. occupying power) citizens. Something that is against international law - unambiguously so.

What land is deprived of the Arabs in Gilo? I actually think the jewish houses is gilo are lawfull...

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote: (And, what is the English translation of 'apartheid'?)

You gave quoted a definition for apartheid, I'll go with that. Apartheid is something different than seperation.

Sorry, are you avoiding the question?

Hmm - let me have a quick look to see if I can help you out with the English translation of the Afrikaans word 'apartheid' :

The Afrikaans word meaning ‘separation’

http://africanhistory.about.com/od/apar ... rtheid.htm

Hmm - I can see why you didn't translate the word apartheid into English.

(But you're quite right, in law 'apartheid' is a specifically defined crime - as I linked to above)

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:By the same yardstick, though - shouldn't we rightly condemn Israel for giving support to the Apartheid Regime when it was in power? Shouldn't we also condemn the US for doing what you accuse the South Africans of?

Yes, we should. But we should mainly condemn the Muslim countries for keeping the apartheid regime alive for so long because of their oil sales.

Yep - glad we agree then. All who commit injustices should be condemned and shouldn't pretend they are above the law. Where Muslim countries break the law, they should indeed be highlighted and be condemned. If eh-oh took more care he may uncover some of these instances and bring them to our attention - rather than copying and pasting from his I-spy book of Orientalist Islam!

Flying Dutchman wrote:But I see you are ok with the apartheid demonstrated in KSA with the Muslims only roads...no surprise there, double standards and hypocricy.

I see that you are still trying to deflect attention. I've been quite clear - where the Saudis etc are carrying out the crimes of apartheid, like Israel they should be named and shamed.

If Saudis were to annex part of another country and offer Saudi nationality to the inhabitants, then subsequently discriminate against those who refuse to take up this generous offer - then they too would be condemned by the South Africans and myself. But hold on, this thread is about Israel's crimes - so why the comparison with other supposed crimes of other countries?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Because one is illegal under international law and designed to deprive the lawful inhabitants of this occupying foreign land (not part of Israel) of the use of their land - and give the land to Israeli (i.e. occupying power) citizens. Something that is against international law - unambiguously so.

What land is deprived of the Arabs in Gilo? I actually think the jewish houses is gilo are lawfull...

[/quote]

Well, according to resolution 465 of the UN, Gilo is considered part of East Jerusalem and therefore not part of Israel proper. Where Arabs are given their legal rights - then that is all good and well (do you want us to congratulate the occupying power for obeying the law?). It is where the occupying power violates international law that there is an issue.

I really wonder at your logic sometimes - Israel breaks international law and the excuses are 1. Arabs are also racist and 2. look we've allowed the Arabs to build some houses in the part of Jersusalem we've annexed illegally!

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:where the Saudis etc are carrying out the crimes of apartheid

Good, so you codemn KSA for the Muslim only roads then? Or is that question too uncomfortable for you to answer?

so you codemn KSA for the Muslim only roads then?

what roads are they? Are they the ones leading you Kaaba?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:where the Saudis etc are carrying out the crimes of apartheid

Good, so you codemn KSA for the Muslim only roads then? Or is that question too uncomfortable for you to answer?

If these were classified as crimes of 'apartheid' - then yes I would condemn any country carrying out apartheid.

I would not excuse Israel's crimes by pointing the fingers at other countries.

Perhaps you can dig out another person/organisation/country that has accused KSA of the crime of apartheid? Shouldn't be too hard - everyone knows that the KSA has Muslim-only areas, and has had so for a millienium and a half.

But hold on, what about Israel's crimes?

Do we now concede that 'apartheid' is an Afrikaans word which means 'separation' when translated into English and therefore the academic was completely correct when she wrote:

Yet the Afrikaans term does have a Hebrew counterpart in the term hafrada, meaning separation from and putting distance between oneself and others, in this case, the Palestinians. In Hebrew, the wall is often referred to as the “hafrada barrier.”

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:If these were classified as crimes of 'apartheid' - then yes I would condemn any country carrying out apartheid.

Must be hard to try to hide your double standards.

shafique wrote:Do we now concede that 'apartheid' is an Afrikaans word which means 'separation' when translated into English and therefore the academic was completely correct when she wrote:

Not at all, apartheid and seperation are two different things. Apartheid means racism ingrained in law. Like in Saudi, or many other Arab states, not something you can find in Israel.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:If these were classified as crimes of 'apartheid' - then yes I would condemn any country carrying out apartheid.

Must be hard to try to hide your double standards.

Not as hard as your obvious pre-conceived ideas about anyone who is critical of Israel and a Muslim to boot!

I wonder what your comment would have been if I had said I would NOT condemn KSA for any crimes of apartheid?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Do we now concede that 'apartheid' is an Afrikaans word which means 'separation' when translated into English and therefore the academic was completely correct when she wrote:

Not at all, apartheid and seperation are two different things.

I see you are still in denial then.

The translation of 'apartheid' into English is 'separation' - a fact you are dancing around.

Flying Dutchman wrote: Apartheid means racism ingrained in law. Like in Saudi, or many other Arab states, not something you can find in Israel.

I concede this is your opinion - however, like the South African government - I disagree with you.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The translation of 'apartheid' into English is 'separation'

Seperation is one of the symptoms of apartheid, it doesn't mean that all seperations point to apartheid, not at all. Men and women are seperated in a mosque, would you call that apartheid? I wouldn't.

Apartheid is based on laws, like in the KSA with the Muslims only roads. Syrian apartheid laws against the Kurds...and so many other examples in the Arab world. Israeli Arabs enjoy equal rights and are even at liberty to scant "death to jews", because of FoS.

Thanks for the clarification FD, but you are just repeating what I said about there being a distinction between the word 'apartheid' which means 'separation' and the legal definition of the crime of Apartheid.

I also agree that the discrimination that Israel carries out that is labelled 'apartheid' as a shorthand, is sacrificing some accuracy for the sake of brevity -

Part of the appeal of the apartheid comparison is that apartheid is a recognized name for an ideology and practice of separation. There is no similar name for what Israel has done. Neither the pre-state Zionist movement nor the state of Israel has ever spelled out an official policy of discrimination against the Palestinians, and Israel did not institute discriminatory practices in one fell swoop. Instead, it has worked in a piecemeal fashion to constrain Palestinian rights and access to resources. In other words, separation in the Occupied Territories has been a process whose legal contours are harder to discern and whose name has yet to circulate abroad.

A corollary assumption underlying the comparison is that Israeli practices cannot be condemned as discriminatory in and of themselves. They cannot stand on their own, partly because they are difficult to understand unless they are seen up close. Most people understand that Zionism, as an ideology and a project, calls for Jewish communal security, and due to centuries of pogroms and the Holocaust, this project commands considerable sympathy. But many people do not understand that Zionism, as put into practice, calls for an exclusivist state that leads to policies characteristic of apartheid, as defined by the UN.
....

It may be time to develop a new language. “Apartheid” cannot thoroughly explain Zionist ideology or Israeli practices. It can simply offer broad points of comparison, a framing in an already powerful concept. Yet the Afrikaans term does have a Hebrew counterpart in the term hafrada, meaning separation from and putting distance between oneself and others, in this case, the Palestinians. In Hebrew, the wall is often referred to as the “hafrada barrier.”

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer253/peteet.html

shafique wrote: But many people do not understand that Zionism, as put into practice, calls for an exclusivist state that leads to policies characteristic of apartheid, as defined by the UN.

The UN doesn't characterise Zionism as apartheid or racism. Again, you use non-binding resolutions or resolutions that donot exist anymore to try to make your case. A very poor way of reasoning.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote: But many people do not understand that Zionism, as put into practice, calls for an exclusivist state that leads to policies characteristic of apartheid, as defined by the UN.

The UN doesn't characterise Zionism as apartheid or racism. Again, you use non-binding resolutions or resolutions that donot exist anymore to try to make your case. A very poor way of reasoning.

The professor is quite clear - Zionism leads to practices which are 'characteristic of apartheid'. Apartheid is defined by the UN, and the Israeli practices are comparable to what is described.

Hence, this is why the South Africans have +compared+ the illegal discrimination in East Jerusalem with apartheid (rather than say the Israelis are guilty of committing the crime of Apartheid - which requires the discrimination to be enshrined in law, rather than just in practiced).

Cheers,
Shafique

Right, so Israel doesn't constitute apartheid, contrary to many other Arab countries.

The prof. should explain as to why Arab citizens of Israel enjoy more civil rights and liberties than any other Middle Eastern country if Zionism leads to apartheid.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Right, so Israel doesn't constitute apartheid, contrary to many other Arab countries.

Israel's discrimination does not meet the strict legal definition of apartheid, just like Guantanamo does not meet the strict legal definition of violation of human rights (of holding people hostage without trial). However, Israel's discrimination is illegal - as we've discovered in the case of East Jerusalem, which is what the South Africans were commenting on in this thread.

Flying Dutchman wrote:The prof. should explain as to why Arab citizens of Israel enjoy more civil rights and liberties than any other Middle Eastern country if Zionism leads to apartheid.

I wasn't convinced by the argument that 'Mussolini made the trains run on time' - were you? I've told you I really don't get the argument that Israel uses that its crimes are ok because they think Arabs are worse!

The point remains, Israel discriminates and the South Africans et al all compare this with Apartheid South Africa - whilst you excuse the discrimination as 'normal'. We have come full circle - you buy the Israeli spin that they aren't criminally discriminating, but the South Africans et al disagree.

Cheers,
Shafique

This quote should really belong in this thread:

shafique wrote:I read today that Israel is planning a further 700 illegal colonial homes in East Jerusalem.

The EU statement is to the point:

The European Union said it was "dismayed" by the announcement.

"Settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law," it said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8432267.stm

Along with

shafique wrote:1. Is Israel breaking international law by treating East Jerusalem as part of Israel? Categorically, yes.
2. Is it a crime to discriminate by nationality in occupied territory (such as East Jerusalem) - categorically, yes.
3. Is Israel discriminating against non-Israeli citizens in East Jerusalem - FD says yes and that this is 'normal' - however, given 1 and 2, this 'normal' practice for FD is categorically illegal under international law.

EU et al all agree that Israel is breaking the law in East Jerusalem and the academics and South African Government who compare this with Apartheid South Africa have a point. However, Israel and her supporters prefer to divert attention away from the illegal activities and soften the language by insisting that either:
1. the discrimination isn't 'apartheid' because it isn't enshrined in law
2. other countries also criminally discriminate

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: I've told you I really don't get the argument that Israel uses that its crimes are ok because they think Arabs are worse!

No, Israel doesn't constitute apartheid, but neighboring Arab countries do. It is not for nothing that Israels court banishes racist political parties, like Kahane. In Palestinian society, the more racist you are, the more popular you get, look at Hamas. So I am not saying Israels crimes are ok because Arabs are worse. I am saying that if you are so interested in apartheid you should focus on KSA, the heartland of Islam.

shafique wrote: The point remains, Israel discriminates and the South Africans et al all compare this with Apartheid South Africa - whilst you excuse the discrimination as 'normal'.

No discrimination is not normal. I know you want to believe this, and in your vigour you resort to troll like behaviour. Although I disagree with the UN on many points, I am with the UN on this one, which states zionism is not racism and Israel is not an apartheid state. I am pretty sure that the South Africans who compare israel with apartheid have never visited Israel, although they might know what apartheid contains, they are not aware of the situation in israel. Actually they insult those who actually suffered from apartheid.

shafique wrote:3. Is Israel discriminating against non-Israeli citizens in East Jerusalem - FD says yes and that this is 'normal' - however, given 1 and 2, this 'normal' practice for FD is categorically illegal under international law.

Yes, I donot have aproblem that people outside the green line, cannot lease land inside the green line. Citizens, both Arabs and Jew, can buy/lease land. Obviously by your remarks you recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.

shafique wrote: However, Israel and her supporters prefer to divert attention away from the illegal activities and soften the language by insisting that either:
1. the discrimination isn't 'apartheid' because it isn't enshrined in law
2. other countries also criminally discriminate

Other neighboring countries donot only discriminate, moreover other countries do constitute an apartheid regime, contrary to Israel. Civil right of Arabs in Israel should be an example for other Arab countries. Outside the green line 80-90% of the Arab population in the Westbank is ruled by the PA, not Israel.

I merely am agreeing with B'tselem and the International community in condemning Israel's illegal discrimination. I understand that you are arguing that it is ok for Israel to discriminate and that it is not apartheid - as I said, we have to choose which argument to advocate.

B'tselem is pretty clear (as I posted in the other thread) that Israel systematically discriminates in occupied East Jerusalem - do you disagree with this fact?
http://www.btselem.org/english/Jerusale ... Policy.asp


Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: I understand that you are arguing that it is ok for Israel to discriminate and that it is not apartheid

No, I donot agrue that discrimination is ok, keep on trolling...and yes I argue that Israel is not an apartheid state, that it is a libel. For you however the racist policies of the Muslim only roads in ksa are just fine, that makes you a racist. Not surprising though for somebody who thinks wife beating, pedophilia, ethnic cleaning and mass murder is fine.

shafique wrote:B'tselem is pretty clear (as I posted in the other thread) that Israel systematically discriminates in occupied East Jerusalem - do you disagree with this fact?

So the story is now that for Arabs it is more difficult to get building permits than Jews in East Jerusalem. If this is true, than yes Israel is wrong in doing that. I am not taking Btselems word for it though. East Jerusalem is known to be a magnic for Arabs. Arabs want to live their because of the access to the health care system en education system. If it was so bad, Arabs wouldn't be attrackted to Jeruslame so much.
If they choose, they can also participate in the political process. A far cry from the apartheid regime of South Africa.

The apartheid comparison was made by the South African government. As I stated in the opening post, they should know.

We understand you disagree with them.

You asked (in the other thread) for me to show where Israel was discriminating in East Jerusalem. B'tselem's summary is devastatingly clear - and talks of 'systematic discrimination'. It is this same discrimination in East Jerusalem that the South Africans were referring to.

I don't understand your argument that if there was discrimination in Jerusalem, Arabs would not be attracted to it. If I substitute 'Johannesburg' and 'Blacks' in your sentence, I would be transported back 30 years!

But you are right, we have to choose whether to 'take B'tselem's word' or the word of South Africa over that of the Israeli government.

Cheers,
Shafique

It's worth looking at what the South African Government actually said (and see whether it is libel or not) - I couldn't immediately find a full statement, but this extract from a news story will do for now:

"We condemn the fact that Israeli settlement expansion in East Jerusalem is coupled with Israel's campaign to evict and displace the original Palestinian residents from the City," the statement said. "South Africa is deeply concerned that these activities by Israel will only serve only to deepen the cycle of violence in the region," it added.

The statement said "South Africa is aware of the statements of the Palestinian leadership that this settlement expansion on the part of Israel will result in an increase in the Israeli settler population over the next two years that will exceed the previous two."

The government of South Africa took note of the statements by United States President Barack Obama who stated that: "I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security, it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbours. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous."

It also took cognisance of the statements of the European Union presidency which said that: "If there is to be genuine peace, a way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states."

South Africa said it "maintains that these attempts by Israel to create facts on the ground imperil attempts to achieve a negotiated solution to the conflict."

The statement added that the government "emphasises that the issue of Jerusalem is one of the final status issues that needs to be part of a negotiated solution to the conflict in the Middle East."

"The actions on the part of Israel are in opposition to the will of the international community as expressed in United Nations Security Council resolutions 242, 338, 1515 as well as the Arab Peace Initiative.



"South Africa stresses that these actions on the part of Israel jeopardise the prospects of resuming peace talks aimed at arriving at a final settlement to the conflict. South Africa is deeply concerned that these activities by Israel will only serve only to deepen the cycle of violence in the region. As an occupying power, Israel has specific and clear obligations under international law.

"We call upon the Israeli government to cease their activities that are reminiscent of apartheid forced removals and resume negotiations immediately," the statement concluded.

The forced removals of Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem is what is 'reminiscent of apartheid'. We've established that East Jerusalem is not part of Israel, and that these actions are indeed not in accordance with 'clear obligations under international law'.

Libel? Doesn't seem so to me.

Cheers,
Shafique

The SA government seems to be ignorant of the fact that Israel is more than willing to resume peace talks, but that the PA refuses.

I am sure the civil rights for the Arab citizens of Israel donot remind the government of apartheid. I am also sure that the SA government agrees that people who donot pay their rent or mortgage have the change to be removed. It seems the SA government doesn't really know what goes on.

Israel harbors the freest Arab press is the Middle East. Hello McFly? How can anybody possibly compare this with apartheid, except of course if you hate Israel so much you loose all common sense.