ESHKENAZI: Why Israel is not an apartheid state
By Yona Eshkenazi
Published December 17, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.
Like Ida Audeh (Opinion Dec. 6th), I attended the Nov. 17th talk at CU Boulder where two guest lecturers, one of whom was a former legal adviser to the PLO, accused Israel of apartheid. The audience was justifiably disturbed by this false claim, but Audeh misrepresented their reaction. No one “embraced” colonialism or apartheid. The only religion “trashed” was Judaism, which one lecturer claimed provided the “theological basis of an Israeli ideology of superiority” — an old anti-Semitic canard.
Like many in the current campaign to vilify Israel as an apartheid state, Audeh can do so only by misrepresenting reality and citing unreliable sources. As South African Minister of Home Affairs Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi declared during a visit to Israel in 2003, “The Israeli regime is not apartheid. It is a unique case of democracy.” Apartheid was a legal system that enforced discrimination, segregation and oppression based on skin color. Israel is the opposite. Its legal system enforces equal civil and political rights for all citizens regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.
Israelis are a vibrant multiracial, multi-ethnic mix of people from all over the world, and the 20 percent non-Jewish minority enjoys the same freedoms and protections. Gays, Christians, Congolese and Sudanese fleeing from persecution have received refuge in Israel. It is the only Middle Eastern country where the Christian population is thriving. Israeli-Arabs have a higher standard of living, education, and civil and political liberties than average citizens living in any other Middle Eastern country. Even Jimmy Carter had to admit, “There is nothing in Israel resembling apartheid.” Israel is hardly perfect, but its legal principles and goals are precisely those articulated by the ANC when it fought apartheid.
Similarly, Audeh and the lecturers misrepresent Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. They are not Israeli citizens. They want their own state, not Israeli citizenship. Unfortunately, Palestinian leaders rejected Israel’s compromise offer at Camp David in 2000, refused to continue negotiating, and launched a terrorist war against Israel. Audeh belittles Israel’s security concerns, but all Israelis — Muslim, Christian, Jew and Druze — were horrified by the savagery of suicide bombings targeting children, women and men. Between 2000 and 2003, there were 20,000 terrorist acts. Nine hundred and sixty Israelis were killed; more than 5,000 wounded. Over 80 percent were civilians versus 36 percent civilian Palestinian casualties.
Israelis expected their government to protect them. The government finally began building the security barrier (what Audeh calls a “monstrous wall,” though it is 97 percent chain-link fence) as a passive means of self-defense. No natural or man-made barrier had separated Israelis from terrorists who simply walked the short distance from the West Bank into Israeli communities. Like the separation barriers of other countries, from Britain in Belfast to Spain around its cities in Morocco, to the U.S. on its Mexican border, this barrier is an inconvenience. But it does not separate people by color or ethnicity. It separates terrorists like Hamas, whose charter calls for the “obliteration” of Israel and the murder of Jews, from their targets — Israeli civilians. Since the barrier was built, Israeli casualties have dropped over 90 percent. The barrier would not have been built if there had not been constant terrorism. It can be moved or removed when peaceful relations resume.
In a follow-up comment, Audeh inadvertently reveals that some of the “facts” she cites are taken directly from a September 2008 Al-Jazeera article by another author. Specifically, she uses the words of a man affiliated with a propagandistic anti-Semitic website, the Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement. The gleaning of information from one whose beliefs loudly echo the Czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, detracts from Audeh’s credibility and suggests that her desire to impugn Israel may be greater than her interest in pursuing the truth.
The great tragedy is that these false claims against Israel do not help Palestinians get out from under extremist groups like Hamas. They do not bring Israeli-Palestinian peace any closer. And, ironically, while crusading against an apartheid system in Israel that exists only in their imaginations, they have ignored the gender, religious, gender-orientation, and racial apartheid that exist today in the Middle Eastern countries surrounding Israel, from Saudi Arabia to Iran. If these activists directed their fervor to fighting the apartheid that does exist, then we could all look forward to a future where humanitarian values did prevail.
Yona Eshkenazi is director of the Denver chapter of StandWithUs. Roberta P. Seid, PhD, Director of Education/Research for StandWithUs, contributed to this article.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
December 17, 2008
6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Aaron writes:
Nice essay written, Mr. Eshkenazi, and I appreciate your attempt at a reasoned response to the venomous lies written by Audeh. Unfortunately, Audeh and her ilk are unmoved by reason and truth. She and her American leftist friends simply hate Israel and us Jews. Where there is such a deep level of hatred and resentment, there is no ability for reasoned discussion. I fear that your writing will fall on their deaf minds.
The following is from this morning's Jerusalem Post online edition:
"On Tuesday, close to 10 rockets and mortar shells pounded the western Negev as Defense Minister Ehud Barak continued to call for an extension of a cease-fire with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
"We are not deterred from an operation in Gaza but we are also not rushing into one," Barak said Tuesday on the sidelines of a military exercise in the Golan Heights. "Calm will be met by calm but if there is no choice we will act when and where we see fit." "
Our (Israel and Jews) biggest weakness is that we will continually sue for peaceful co-existence even as rockets and bullets are fired at us. This is our insanity and our weakness. The Arabs know it and exploit it to their twisted and savage advantage. How many rockets must be fired before Israel decides that the "calm" has been broken enough to justify military self-defense?
December 17, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
The Palestinian Arabs would much rather curse the darkness than light a candle. As a wise person once noted, there will be no peace between Muslims and non-Muslims (be they Jews, Christians, atheists, Zoarastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, etc) as long as Muslims hate the non-Muslims more than they (the Muslims) love their own children.
Although the land of Israel has been inhabited by Jews for millenia, the fact that is was under Muslim control at one point means that it must ALWAYS be under Muslim control, and no amount of negotiating will ever change that simple fact. This is why the Palestinian Arabs have rejected EVERY peace overture. And BTW, it's not just about Israel - the truly ardent and consistent Islamic zealots clamor for the re-conquest of "al-Andalus" - Spain itself, because it was under Islamic control - part of "dar al-Islam" until the Moors were driven out in 1492.
There are almost no problems in that region and others that the simple act of rejecting Islam wouldn't solve.
December 17, 2008
7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
The Muslim states in the region actively and openly campaign against Israel and the Jews. If the State of Mississippi openly promoted the death and destruction of all Blacks the American Left would be protesting and demanding action. Yet Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and others, all of whom openly promote the death and destruction of Jews and Israel, draw no criticism from the American Left. To the American Left, it is little Israel, surrounded and outnumbered, who is the playground bully.The American Left is morally corrupt.
December 17, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
I lived in Israel, building a factory just outside Tel Aviv.
The factory workers were a mixture of Jew and Muslim. The Muslims took Friday off. The Jews took Saturday off. They all got along fine. Many lived in the same neighborhoods.
We were very well treated by everyone. They were all gracious tour guides on the weekends, and enjoyed showing us their country.
I have stated it before, and still believe it: modern wars are not fought for religious reasons ... they are all based on politics and power. Religion is used as a recruiting tool, and as a cover for the political power-grab behind the conflict.
December 17, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
dl1011 writes:
Very insightful article and posts, all.
December 17, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
eyewitness writes:
I was not at all surprised by Yona Eshkenazi's tired claims in support of Israel and its marvelous democracy, claims that are refuted by Israelis, Palestinians, Westerners, UN sources, journalists, State Department human rights reports, and so on. She trots out the same stale claims, claims that make little sense when examined. (If the wall was for security, why was it not built on the green line? Why does it separate Palestinian towns from each other? Was it pure coincidence that the course of the wall gives Israel more land and water resources that it covets? How demented do you have to be to make people (Palestinians) apply for permits to live in their own homes, homes they've had for generations but which happen to fall between the green line and the course of the wall? Why should we believe that the wall was built for security when Israel's leaders are on record as describing it as the new borders?) Each of her claims is revealed to be equally nonsensical when examined closely.
South African anti-apartheid activists are on record as saying that Israeli apartheid is worse than anything they dealt with. Perhaps separate road systems for Jews and non-Jews in the West Bank makes sense to Yona, but it sickens the rest of us. So do house demolitions of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem, in theory because the homes were built without permits, but of course Palestinians are never given permits to build. And the law is never enforced against Jews. But then there is a conscious effort to keep Jerusalem 72% (or perhaps its 78%) Jewish, by whatever means. And thus are Jewish bean counters kept busy, creating inventive ways to decrease the number of non-Jews in the area.
But I was taken aback by Yona's (or was this Roberta's contribution?) attempt to link me, in an asinine, roundabout way to anti-Semitic Web sites and of course, to the Protocols of Elders of Zion, because such obvious sleaziness should have been beneath her. Alas, it is not. I don't know which comment she thinks is mine, but it doesn't matter; Yona has libeled me, and I expect an apology.
Ida Audeh
December 17, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Mike,
You wrote: If the State of Mississippi openly promoted the death and destruction of all Blacks the American Left would be protesting and demanding action.
But that's not really the problem. What if the State of Mississippi "took" the land from all the blacks and began building homes on seized land? Wouldn't the blacks have a right to protest? If Mississippi kept the land despite federal laws, what other recourse would the blacks have? I suspect they might do exactly what the Palestinians are doing - fighting back.
I firmly believe Israel has the right to exist. I also believe Israel has the right to protect itself. However, Israel has no right to seize land belonging to others and begin building "settlements" on that land. If Israel wants the support of the international community, they must follow the laws we all follow.
Isn't that fair?
December 17, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Acemon - ALL land within Israel's 1948 borders is claimed as "dar al-Islam" - the abode of Islam and is therefore to be "reclaimed." Quibbling by Gazans and other about 1967 lands is just a smoke screen (even if they might score some legitimate points) - Israel's right to exost AT ALL is not on their (Gazan and West Bank Muslims) list of things to acknowledge.
December 17, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hengist writes:
What Bunk! This atricle is as misleading as Joseph Goebbels saying "we do not persecute Jews". Eyewitness' account is more like the truth. Regardless, the Speakout writers' name is a dead give-away that this piece was written by an Israeli propagandist.
You have not persuaded me that Israel is anything BUT an apartheid state.
December 17, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
The people who have put GENOCIDE IN THEIR REASON TO EXIST ( read the charter of HAMAS, people! ) deserve a better government than the one a tired old gunrunner ( read your history; he provided BOTH sides with arms ) allowed to exist!
You rail against H*I*T*L*E*R, how about a government that espouses the same " final solution "? Or a RELIGION that has always felt the same way about NON-BELIEVERS...
Start by cleaning your own house FIRST. Then you can talk about working toward a REAL solution, not a FINAL one!
PS: The Israelis have shown restraint. They have enough power to bring about a FINAL SOLUTION...but haven't used it..
December 17, 2008
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Andy writes:
The author is correct: Israel is not engaging in anything resembling apartheid. There is only one class of Israeli citizen.
It is an odd case, though. If the U.S. were to implement an immigration policy similar to Israel's, it would be struck down as unconstitutional. Our constitution does not allow us to consider creed or race when setting quotas (only nationality). Israel uses creed as a primary means of qualification for citizenship (it does allow some non-Jewish immigration just not much of it). This is government based on race, and as such is inherently racist.
The question is whether it's wrong.
Since there are only roughly 13 million Jews in the world of which some five million are Israelis , and roughly 11 million Palestinians, an immigration policy along the lines of America's would rapidly result in the Jews becoming a minority in their own country, at which point, because of the laws outlined in the article, Israel would be Israel in name only. It would effectively cease to exist.
So, we're left with a conundrum. The Jews must have a homeland if they're to avoid the very real possibility of extinction (by dilution if nothing else). Americans overwhelmingly don't want to see that happen, so that requires America to support a political system based on race (or creed if you like) which is anathema to our way of thinking. I'm willing to acknowledge that inconsistency, but it doesn't weaken my support for Israel.
That said, the West Bank is not Israel, and eventually it must be returned. America returned Germany and Japan. Israel must do the same.
December 17, 2008
11:09 a.m.
TimeLord writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
December 17, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Andy writes:
The term "anti-Semitic" (or "anti-Semite") usually refers to Jews only. It was coined in 1873 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Jewry over Germandom".
-- Wikipedia
You, sir, are one.
'..disgusting little nation...', 'liars, thieves, murderers and drug dealers', 'den of psychopathic vipers'
Reminds me of Nazi propaganda.
I was wondering if you guys were still around. I was beginning to think you were extinct. Guess not. What a shame.
December 17, 2008
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Sheik,
What about the seized land? Regardless of who claims Jerusalem, do you think Israel has the right to keep land taken during battles and build upon it in violation of international treaties they signed?
December 17, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Acemon - Israel would like nothing better than to return to its 1967 borders in exchange for real peace. Unfortunately Islamists make this impossible.
Do you count the 1948 borders as "seized?"
If so, then I guess we're done...
December 17, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Andy writes:
I stand by my comments.
December 17, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
gs writes:
Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland and South Africa. Will we be unable to achieve peace in the Mideast because these are not Christian countries? That is a bait by the way. You supporters of both sides pointing the finger at each other need to set aside your differences, stop retaliating (because bad people will do bad things regardless so guarantees of no violence are worthless because a bad person will do something no matter what the leaders say), stop calling each other names and work for peace and justice. There is enough blame on both sides. Saying it all over again does NO good.
December 17, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
OneCreek;
That is the most awesome rebuke I have ever read!
It's nice to see someone with a clear understanding of history that is not clouded by scripture of one form or another.
The treatment of the Palestinians in Israel is abhorant and dispicable. I don't condone terrorism by the way, but when you are fighting a Trillion dollar army and nationalistic oppression limitlessly supported by a western nation, (USA) with sticks and stones(not litterally but you get my drift) you are left with few options other than to fight in the way you think is most effective. It's not just Palestinian Muslims that feel the pinch either. It includes Palestinian Christians as well. Don't kid yourself folks, the Israeli regime is a brutal, violent, meniacal force. Notice how I say Israeli, so not to be confused with the term Jew. There are distinct differences. Why do you think there is an organization of former Israeli military men and women who so vehemantly condem the actions of the Israeli government and military? They personally have committed horriffic atrocities and can't live with it in their souls any more.
Good Job OneCreek!!!!!!!!!!1
December 17, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
greatleo writes:
Andy writes:
"Since there are only roughly 13 million Jews in the world of which some five million are Israelis , and roughly 11 million Palestinians, an immigration policy along the lines of America's would rapidly result in the Jews becoming a minority in their own country, at which point, because of the laws outlined in the article, Israel would be Israel in name only. It would effectively cease to exist."
In 1948, even after decades of massive immigration, Jews were only 35% of the population. This fact is well-documented by the UN. The Arab population of Palestine fought against being made into a minority population by the Anglo-Saxons of Britain. Who wouldn't do the same thing?
During the 1948 war, Israeli attacks forced most of the civilian population to flee their homes. That fact is well documented by the Zionist historian Benny Morris (who thinks all of the Arabs should have been expelled) in his book "Righteous Victims".
Israel may be a democracy because it allows voting, but it also confiscated property from Arabs who were not expelled. These Arabs lived under military occupation until 1966, at which point they were finally made citizens. Those whose property was taken did not have it returned. The Israeli government refers to such Palestinians as "present absentees".
Would any of the Stand By Israel crowd care to refute this?
December 17, 2008
3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
When Israel was made a state all in that state all were equal citizens and were given the right to vote, have their own religion and representation in the government it was the Arabs that followed the Mufta that rejected this, Arabs that decided to become Israeli citizens were killed and drove out most fought.
The Israel Arabs that live and work and are citizens enjoy higher standard of living better education and are happy, If so called Islamic arabs really belived in what they said money would be flowing through out the middle east, If the PLO was such a great group they would not have been kicked out of Jordan and Egypt for attempting coups and would be welcome every where but no the other Arab countries know them for what they are and want to get rid of them as fast as they can.So they support the PLO line but keep them away from their own countries.
December 17, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
OneCreek: You seem obsessed with race.
December 17, 2008
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
greatleo writes:
JSeifert: "When Israel was made a state all in that state all were equal citizens and were given the right to vote".
Your statement is incorrect. The Arabs in Israel lived under martial law until 1966. From the Wikipedia article:
"This required that they apply for permission from the military governor to travel more than a given distance from their registered residence. It also included the use of curfew, administrative detentions, expulsions, and other activities. Martial law was lifted from the Arab population living in predominantly-Jewish cities some years later, but remained in place in Arab areas until 1966."
...
"In 1965, the first attempt was made to stand an independent Arab list for Knesset elections, with the radical group al-Ard forming the United Arab List. The list was, however, banned by the Israeli Central Elections Committee."
December 17, 2008
4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
gs writes:
Why refute a moot point greatleo? As my dad put it "the jews stole the land fair and square". Time to move on. Tell us how we achieve peace.
December 17, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
greatleo writes:
gs: "Why refute a moot point?" For one, because people like Seifert believe Israel is perfect, and wouldn't harm a hair on any Arab who didn't deserve it.
"Time to move on." Indeed. To this day, Germany is paying reparations for what it did from 1936 to 1945. Why should Israel get off scott free? Why is one form of killing civilians preferable to another?
"Tell us how we achieve peace." Peace will be hard to come by without justice, and without an apology. Israel insists on being seen as a society filled with heroic figures, each one endowed with an unimpeachable sense of morality. Its supporters are constantly whining "they hate us because we are Jews". No, the Palestinians hate you because you stole their orchards and houses and businesses and killed anyone who resisted.
Today, Dec. 17th, 2008, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are eating grass to survive, cut off from food by this heroic society.
December 17, 2008
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
fnvgis writes:
I think most Americans would act like the Palestinians if their homes were bulldozed, their land confiscated and precious resources taken without just compensation.
Israel has two choices in regards to the Palestinians: either destroy them completely or help them to flourish and prosper.
If the Palestinians were prosperous and had avenues for real justice, they would have no need for terrorist tactics. That very small minority who would still resort to violence when it was no longer necessary could be handled like the criminals they are without suppressing the majority of people who are just trying to get on with their lives.
I believe it is possible for Israel to rise above the hatred and lead the way to a better future for all people in that part of the world.
December 17, 2008
7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
fubar writes:
It's amazing to me that Ida Audeh is outraged about being linked with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Her incessant hate speech, distortion of facts and selective attention to the arab-israeli issues would surely make the authors of the 'Protocols' proud and she would find great support in them. It's time to call a racist a racist.....and a racist by any other name, whether it's "Ida Audeh", RMPJC, "Forthofer" or otherwise, is still a racist.
December 17, 2008
8:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
StirFriedRice writes:
No wonder most people are so confused by this conflict. There are so many issues thrown around that it would make a person's head spin. Apartheid, terrorism, the security barrier - it all comes down to one thing - land.
Israel continues to hold land that doesn't belong to her. International law and every country on earth (including the US) is very clear about Israel returning that land to Palestinians. Unfortunately, Israel is too busy jamming as many settlers as possible into illegal West Bank settements.
Unfortunately, Israel is more interested in land than peace.
Eric
December 17, 2008
10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Andy writes:
"Would any of the Stand By Israel crowd care to refute this?"
Nope, not me. Those are the facts.
It was, however, a civil war, not an invasion. The British were initially against them as well, and the Jews fought them off, too. The British were hobbled after WWII to be sure, but it's still, militarily speaking, an impressive feat.
The fact that they felt (in my opinion accurately) that they were fighting for their survival on the brink of extinction explains a lot of what happened then, and what's happening now.
The Jews are not paranoid, mind you. Their history is filled with attempts at their annihilation. This simply can't be ignored. They're not given to trusting other peoples. Can you blame them?
December 18, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Sheik
You wrote "Israel would like nothing better than to return to its 1967 borders in exchange for real peace. Unfortunately Islamists make this impossible."
Perhaps you meant Israeli hardliners who refuse to give back any land. Proof of the government's intentions is the continued construction of "settlements" on land seized in the 1967 war. The return of the land most-likely defuse a great deal of the tensions.
Certainly, some Islamic zealots will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel, just as some Jews would prefer the Palestinians pushed even further away. The battles in that region have gone on for thousands of years and neither side is willing budge. How can we think the problem can be solved with a few envoys and some meetings?
December 18, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
greatleo writes:
Andy writes:
"It was, however, a civil war, not an invasion."
In 1948, two thirds of the Jewish population of 630,000 were recent immigrants.
"The British were initially against them as well, and the Jews fought them off, too."
If the British were against them, then what was the Balfour Declaration all about? If Winston Churchill was against them, what did he mean when he referred to the Palestinians as "dogs":
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. ... I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
If the British were against the Jews, why did eminent historian Arnold J. Toynbee (who had worked for the British Mandate government) write:
"All through those 30 years, Britain (admitted) into Palestine, year by year, a quota of Jewish immigrants that varied according to the strength of the respective pressures of the Arabs and Jews at the time. These immigrants could not have come in if they had not been shielded by a British chevaux-de-frise. ... The reason why the State of Israel exists today and why today 1,500,000 Palestinian Arabs are refugees is that, for 30 years, Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power until the immigrants were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently well-armed to be able to fend for themselves with tanks and planes of their own. The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the world’s peace."
December 18, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
The middle east has been in chaotic violence for thousands of years. It won't be easy to gain peace between Israel and Palestine considering the general attitude towards Israel at this point in time. A few countries in the region have peace with Israel, but others would wish it wiped off the earth. Violence is too prevalent in the middle east, and this is an example. Too many would rather kill, and teach their children to kill (or use them as a tool to kill) as opposed to teaching them respect, and love for another human being. To value life...... and the attitude of many in the middle east is based on false pride. Pride, and who gives a rat's a $ $! Many arabs would kill their own female family member if they were molested, and I could go on and on about how backwards this part of the world is.
Israel doesn't practice apartheid. They practice extreme security measures due to the violence they have to deal with. Until the leaders of arab countries against Israel work for peace with Israel, and until the leaders of anti-Israeli militant groups reign their people in, peace will be hard to achieve. Israel will continue to feel cornered in, like a wild animal, and like a wild animal Israel will fight if they have to.
December 18, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Alloptionsonthetable writes:
To all those continuing to hit us over the head with the nonsense that Israel's Arab neighbors want to destroy or annihilate it, please consider that Israel has Peace Treaties with Jordan and Egypt. The other neighbors are Lebanon and Syria, the former which Israel has attacked using illegal weapons on civilian targets (not to mention UN!) and the latter which Israel occupies the Golan Heights and refuses to talk to. The distortion is that Israel's neighbors are somehow to blame for the Palestinians suffering. 50% of the neighbors and Israel negotiated peace years ago and the other 50% Israel won't speak to. This is a Straw Man and proves that Israel, as the OCCUPYING force has the means to resolve issues in the neighborhood, but not the will. Those issues are separate from the suffering Israel causes to Palestinians in the land which Israel occupies. And stop kidding yourself that Palestinians are not a nation. They are a nation, but not a nation-state because Israel uses illegal means to implement its strategy to control all the land and resources! Israel is a nation too, and has been a nation-state for 60 years. Why don't we, the international community demand that it acts like one?! Most offensive to me is that as a Jewish democratic State (huh?), with every immoral act it implicates all Jews everywhere. To me, its' the same as terrorists claiming to be Muslims inventing religious justification for their acts, and in doing so implicate all Muslims who are as devout as any Christian or Jew or Hindu and just want to practice their faith and live their life. If I was a Jew I would be outraged and offended that the state of Israel implicates my faith in their immoral actions. (Sorry for cross posting on articles, but I missed the previous report of the event.)
December 18, 2008
2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
alloptions....... Israel has Egypt and Jordan as peaceful neighbors, but the others aren't. You only mention neighbors with direct borders while ignoring the big picture. From Lebanon, Israel has been attacked by terrorist organizations. It's a two way street.
Palestinians can't complain while they're firing rockets into Israeli neighborhoods close to the border. Syria is known to support terrorism, and terrorist acts against Israel. Is Israel supposed to let Syria have it's way without some action in return? Even if it means refusing to meet..... for every action, there's a reaction.
The propoganda you point out misses the big picture. You blame Israel for everything, but Jews and Israelis don't blow themselves up to kill their enemy, or for that matter send their wife or children to do it. Jews and Israelis aren't intent on wiping out Muslims or the Muslim community. Jews and Israelis don't commit terrorist attacks against countries that support Muslims. Draw a cartoon caricature insulting to Moses or King David and Jews and Israelis won't put a bounty out like what we've seen with the cartoons of Mohammad. I still haven't forgotten the U.S. Embassy bombing in Lebanon...... killed 131 soldiers. It wasn't at the hands of Jews or Israelis!
Until violent groups of arabs join the civilized world, it may not change.
December 18, 2008
10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
greatleo writes:
Israel is not an apartheid country. Except for this minor item (from the adalah.org web site http://www.adalah.org/eng/famunif.php):
The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law
On 31 July 2003, the Knesset enacted the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) - 2003. This law prohibits the granting of any residency or citizenship status to Palestinians from the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) who are married to Israeli citizens. The Law affects thousands of families comprised of tens of thousands of individuals. The Law, which was originally enacted for one year, was extended by the Knesset for a six month period on 21 July 2004, and for an additional four month period on 31 January 2005. On 27 July 2005, the Knesset voted to extend the law until 31 March 2006, with minor amendments which do not diminish the unconstitutionality or discriminatory nature of the Law, and in the case of some amendments, inflict further violations of constitutional rights. In Adalah's view, the Law constitutes one of the most extreme measures in a series of governmental actions aimed at undermining the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel, as well as Palestinians from the OPTs. The Law incorporated the main elements of Government Decision #1813 in effect since 12 May 2002, the constitutionality of which Adalah has been challenging since May 2002. On 14 May 2006, a majority of the Supreme Court, in a split of 6-5 Justices, issued a 263-page decision in which it dismissed the petition, effectively approving the most racist legislation in the State of Israel.
On 21 March 2007, the Knesset passed the new law which maintains the ban on family unification where one spouse is a Palestinian from the OPT and adds the more stringent denial of family unification where one spouse is a resident or citizen of Lebanon, Syria, Iran or Iraq – states all defined by Israeli law as “enemy states” – and/or is an individual defined by the Israeli security forces as residing in an area where activity is occurring that is liable to endanger Israeli security.
December 19, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
irvgrb1 writes:
In his (her) article in your paper December 17, Eshkenazi writes, "Audeh and the lecturers misrepresent Israel's relationship with the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza..."
This is something of an understatement. To give Eshkenazi some idea of this relationship, I offer some excerpts from a statement issued by Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories:
" GENEVA:"In recent days the desperate plight of the civilian population of Gaza has been acknowledged by such respected international figures as the Secretary General of the United Nations, the President of the General Assembly and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Last week, Karen AbyZayd, who heads the UN relief effort in Gaza, offered first hand confirmation of the desperate urgency and unacceptable conditions facing the civilian population of Gaza....And still Israel maintains its Gaza siege in its full fury, allowing only barely enough food and fuel to enter [Gaza] to stave off famine and disease. Such a policy of collective punishment....constitutes a continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention....a civilian population being collectively punished by policies that amount to a Crime Against Humanity ....it would seem mandatory for the International Criminal Court to investigate the situation, and determine whether Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders....should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law."
(Falk was denied entry into Israel a few days ago.)
Eshkenazi also writes: "The Israeli regime is a unique case of democracy. Its legal system enforces equal and civil political rights for all its citizens..." Israel's constitution may say this, but it has as much meaning for Israel's Arab citizens as our bill of rights had for slaves in the United States one hundred fifty years ago..The description: Jewish Democratic State is an oxymoron. A democratic state does not single out a particular religious group.
Eshkenazi understands suicide attacks. There are TV pictures on the news, ambulances, wreckage. It takes a little more effort to understand the casualties of women and children because of lack of food, water, medical attention, stunted children's growth, humiliation...etc., etc., etc.
Hamas is the legally, democratically elected Palestine Authority, not terrorists. Does Eshkenazi believe American Indians fighting for their lives, their culture, their homes were terrorists? Was the French Resistance during WW II a terrorist organization?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Irving Greenbaum