Hafrada is worse than Apartheid

[FireGarden]

Hafrada is Hebrew for seperation -- eg: Geder Ha'hafrada "Seperation Fence".

Wiki's description of Hafrada:
In Israel, the term is used to refer to the concept of separation, and to the general policy of separation the Israeli government has adopted and implemented over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

To remove ambiguity, the Hafrada fence seperates Palestinians from Israelis.

This thread is in response to Wildcat:

I know, you do that a lot. This proves one of 2 things - that you don't have a clue as to what apartheid entailed in S. Africa, or you don't have a clue as to what goes on in Israel. But not to exclude the middle, I'll concede that maybe you don't have a clue about either.

So I'll quote the opinion of someone who lived under Apartheid and has spoken out:

An article by Gideon Levy, Haaretz:

This week, 21 human rights activists from South Africa visited Israel. Among them were members of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress; at least one of them took part in the armed struggle and at least two were jailed. There were two South African Supreme Court judges, a former deputy minister, members of Parliament, attorneys, writers and journalists. Blacks and whites, about half of them Jews who today are in conflict with attitudes of the conservative Jewish community in their country.

[...] They spent most of their time in the occupied areas, where hardly any official guests go.

[...] Madlala-Routledge speaks. “It is hard for me to describe what I am feeling. What I see here is worse than what we experienced. But I am encouraged to find that there are courageous people here. We want to support you in your struggle, by every possible means. There are quite a few Jews in our delegation, and we are very proud that they are the ones who brought us here. They are demonstrating their commitment to support you. In our country we were able to unite all the forces behind one struggle, and there were courageous whites, including Jews, who joined the struggle. I hope we will see more Israeli Jews joining your struggle.”

She was deputy defense minister from 1999 to 2004; in 1987 she served time in prison. Later, I asked her in what ways the situation here is worse than apartheid. “The absolute control of people’s lives, the lack of freedom of movement, the army presence everywhere, the total separation and the extensive destruction we saw.”

[...] Equally harsh are the remarks of the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times of South Africa, Mondli Makhanya, 38. “When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. In a certain sense, it is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.

"The apartheid regime viewed the blacks as inferior; I do not think the Israelis see the Palestinians as human beings at all. How can a human brain engineer this total separation, the separate roads, the checkpoints? What we went through was terrible, terrible, terrible - and yet there is no comparison. Here it is more terrible.

Comparisons to apartheid are exactly what Israel dreads. Olmert had this to say:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday, the day the Annapolis conference ended in an agreement to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement by the end of 2008.

"The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," Olmert said, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."

And this is why Jimmy Carter, who brokered peace between Israel and Egypt, is dismissed as anti-Semitic for describing the situation as apartheid.


There are many parallels between Apartheid and Hafrada.

South AFrica tried to have its policy and eat it by creating Bantustans and even declaring some of them to be sovereign states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan

Some of the bantustans received 'independence'. In South Africa, Transkei, Venda, Bophuthatswana, and Ciskei (the so-called TBVC states) were declared independent, while others (like KwaZulu, Lebowa, and QwaQwa), received partial autonomy, but were never granted independence. In South-West Africa, Ovamboland, Kavangoland, and East Caprivi were granted self-determination. The condition of sovereign independent states was not recognised outside of South Africa.

It was demanded that Nelson Mandela renounce violence: NYTimes

Even after he was released, he still did not renounce violence.
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mandela/1990/release.html

Our economy lies in ruins and our people are embroiled in political strife. Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement will be created soon so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.

The most diappointing parallel is the slow growth of disapproval. But, eventually, the disapproval was great enough to destroy Apartheid.

And the disapproval of Israel's conduct is growing slowing. Olmert is right. The clock is ticking. Eventually, everyone will give up on a 2-state solution which is always on the horizon. And everyone will call Hafrada what it is: Apartheid.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And the disapproval of Israel's conduct is growing slowing. Olmert is right. The clock is ticking. Eventually, everyone will give up on a 2-state solution which is always on the horizon. And everyone will call Hafrada what it is: Apartheid.

Let's not.

Apartheid was based on a biological factor: melanin content in skin.

What Israel is doing is based on a sociological factor: political and cultural differences.

If you'd like to call it bigotry, it's hard to argue against that. It is obvious discrimination. If you try to import an emotionally charged term from somewhere else, due to an inherent dishonesty, it won't work as well. While both policies were and are political, their basis is not. Apartheid is a subset of general discrimination. Not all discrimination is apartheid.


Let's call it what it really is, FireGarden: Semite on semite bigotry, which in that part of the world is a well established habit for millenia.

DR

 

[FireGarden]

Apartheid is a subset of general discrimination. Not all discrimination is apartheid.

Darth,
Hafrada and Apartheid both mean seperation.


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning "separation" or "being apart".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafrada
Hafrada (Hebrew: הפרדה‎) is the English transliteration of the Hebrew word for separation.

In Israel, the term is used to refer to the concept of separation, and to the general policy of separation the Israeli government has adopted and implemented over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.



What is the difference between Hafrada and Apartheid? Hafrada is worse. Not just my opinion. See above.

 

[WildCat]

This thread is in response to Wildcat:

And I see you have created this thread to prove my point.

You are comparing S. Africa's policies of vastly different legal status for its citizens based on skin color, to Israel's treating people different based on whether or not they're citizens of Israel.

If your bizarre comparison were legitimate, every country in the world is an apartheid regime. But, of course, the comparison falls flat on its face.

But no doubt you will continue with your histrionics, facts be damned.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth,
Hafrada and Apartheid both mean seperation.

You really are a surface skimmer, aren't you? In that case, all dogs are cats, since they are all four legged mammals.

Come on, man, call a dog a dog, and a cat a cat.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
[/i] Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning "separation" or "being apart". [/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafrada
Hafrada (Hebrew: הפרדה‎) is the English transliteration of the Hebrew word for separation.

You read. You choose not to comprehend. That is fine. Dictionary definitions only take you so far. That is as far as you want to take it. We are speaking to one another in English, but you insist on an Afrikaans term. I use an English term, discriminiation, which correctly describes the policy, and is infact far more detailed than 'separation' as a descriptive, but no, not good enough for you.

Why is that? You want to import some baggage from South Africa, that is what you want to do. I want to use a neutral term. That way, I have no agenda to defend, nor do I broadcast one.

Read my post, again, and examine the basis. It's genetic. Importing apartheid due to it's discriminatory character is lazy on your part. This is a deliberate choice, to import emotional baggage from the other case.

Your cookie cutter is not impressive. It is also shallow.

That this discriminatory policy already has a unique name, given it by the Israelis, who aren't using Afrikaans, might be a clue to you: call it Hafrada. It has its own peculiar, and unpleasant, characteristics. (FWIW: I am not a fan of The Wall Israel has chosen to build. I think it's a mistake. )

I will advise you again: apartheid is discrimination, no all discrimination is apartheid. Hafrada as a policy is discrimination, not all discrimination is Hafrada.

DR

 

[FireGarden]

Israel controls the lives of Palestinians in the Gaza and the West Bank. It can collect taxes from Palestinians and withhold it from the Palestinian "government".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4729000.stm

Israel will withhold an estimated $50m (£28m) in monthly customs revenues due to the PA, as well as impose travel restrictions on Hamas members.

This happens between other nations?
No taxation without representation.




And differences between two things do not make comparisons stupid. Otherwise there would be no need for the concept "compare". We would only have the concept of things being identical or different.

 

[WildCat]

Israel controls the lives of Palestinians in the Gaza and the West Bank. It can collect taxes from Palestinians and withhold it from the Palestinian "government".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4729000.stm



This happens between other nations?
No taxation without representation.




And differences between two things do not make comparisons stupid. Otherwise there would be no need for the concept "compare". We would only have the concept of things being identical or different.

More fact-free histrionics.

The people in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens, and never were. The West Bank and Gaza were not carved out of Israel.

 

[FireGarden]

Your cookie cutter is not impressive. It is also shallow. That it already has a unique name, given it by the Israelis, who aren't using Afrikaans, might be a clue to you: Call it Hafrada. It has its own peculiar, and unpleasant, characteristics.

I do call it Hafrada. I am not claiming they are the same. Read the title: Hafrada is worse than Apartheid. How, from that title, do you get the impression that I think they are the same? I am comparing. I am saying one is worse than the other. By saying they are not equal, I admit they are not the same.

(FWIW: I am not a fan of The Wall Israel has chosen to build. I think it's a mistake. )

DR

Glad we agree on something!

 

[Darth Rotor]

I do call it Hafrada. I am not claiming they are the same. Read the title: Hafrada is worse than Apartheid. How, from that title, do you get the impression that I think they are the same? I am comparing. I am saying one is worse than the other. By saying they are not equal, I admit they are not the same.

Then we agree that they are not the same. What we don't agree on is the point in comparing them, which is importation of baggage. I don't think all discriminatory policies are equal. Some are more burdensome than others.

See, for example, the difference between some US laws in early 1800's that basically dictated runaway black slaves be returned to their master, slave state or no, and a policy in the Caliphate at the same time that held the Dhimi -- Christians, Jew's etc -- to be second class citizens as compared to Arabs. Extra taxes, lesser social standing.

Both discriminatory, but of a different sort. One racial, one social/cultural.

Worse or better?

When you set aside the baggage, it might be an interesting question to ponder.

Consider this: it is possible for example that a Palestinian who is Muslim or Christian could convert to Judaism, and be a Jew in Israel. (Not all that likely, and certainly distasteful to many, but a possible option.)

A black had no chance to convert to white in South Africa.

Are you comparing apples to apples?

ETA: It is also possible for a Palestinian Christian or Muslim to be a citizen in Israel, but I don't wish to derail into those areas of Israel law and custom: it would be a disservice to your thread.

DR

 

[Sefarst]

Israel controls the lives of Palestinians in the Gaza and the West Bank. It can collect taxes from Palestinians and withhold it from the Palestinian "government".

This happens between other nations?
No taxation without representation.

The Palestinian Authority also collects taxes for Israel (though a much smaller amount). This is the agreement both sides reached in earlier negotiations.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136484/

 

[FireGarden]

Then we agree that they are not the same. What we don't agree on is the point in comparing them, which is importation of baggage. I don't think all discriminatory policies are equal. Some are more burdensome than others.

[...] Are you comparing apples to apples?

If I were to compare apples to apples, it would go like this: Apples are like apples because apples are apples.

If I were to compare apples to oranges, it would go like this: Oranges are harder to eat without peeling first.

See how the second comparison implies there are differences between apples and oranges?

I have no problem at all discussing which of two bad things is worse. I have quoted testimony which I think is relevant from someone who has experienced Apartheid. She didn't mind making the comparison. I am not embarrassed to have listened to her, believed her and to have quoted her.

ETA: It is also possible for a Palestinian Christian or Muslim to be a citizen in Israel, but I don't wish to derail into those areas of Israel law and custom: it would be a disservice to your thread.

DR

That is a different topic. Thanks for mentioning it so that I can clarify that I am not talking about discrimination in Israel -- which does exist, and Israel legislates against.

 

[ddt]

Apartheid was based on a biological factor: melanin content in skin.

What Israel is doing is based on a sociological factor: political and cultural differences.

I'd say both are based on ethnicity. Let's note that human races don't exist - that melanin content is a very superficial difference. Moreover, South African segregation went further than distinguishing between "black" and "white": Indians were treated as second-class citizens too (something that Gandhi acted against while he lived in Durban), and we'd call those "white" too?

So, I think the basis for both is the same, and I think comparing them is fully justified.

If you'd like to call it bigotry, it's hard to argue against that. It is obvious discrimination. If you try to import an emotionally charged term from somewhere else, due to an inherent dishonesty, it won't work as well. While both policies were and are political, their basis is not. Apartheid is a subset of general discrimination. Not all discrimination is apartheid.

What set Apartheid out from other racial/ethnic/etc. discrimination is the attempt to fully segregate "races" in an entire country. Not so much the basis on which it was done.

You are comparing S. Africa's policies of vastly different legal status for its citizens based on skin color, to Israel's treating people different based on whether or not they're citizens of Israel.

If your bizarre comparison were legitimate, every country in the world is an apartheid regime. But, of course, the comparison falls flat on its face.

1) Name another state in the world that has occupied another territory for over 40 years and not allowed its residents the right of citizenship?

2) Israel willfully has settled its own citizens in big numbers in an occupied territory, the West Bank. As such, it opens the door to comparing how it treats Israeli citizens living in the West Bank and its original residents.

3) South Africa tried the trick of doing the reverse: creating the Bantustans and declaring that the black South African citizens were no longer SA citizen but citizen of one of those Bantustans. The net result is the same.

So, nothing bizarre about the comparison.

 

[WildCat]

1) Name another state in the world that has occupied another territory for over 40 years and not allowed its residents the right of citizenship?

The USSR.

eta: do you consider the colonization of various parts of the globe by European powers an occupation?

2) Israel willfully has settled its own citizens in big numbers in an occupied territory, the West Bank. As such, it opens the door to comparing how it treats Israeli citizens living in the West Bank and its original residents.

I don't support the settlements, but the settlers are still Israeli citizens and the Palestinians in said territories are not.

3) South Africa tried the trick of doing the reverse: creating the Bantustans and declaring that the black South African citizens were no longer SA citizen but citizen of one of those Bantustans. The net result is the same.

The West Bank and Gaza were never part of Israel. The residents of those places were never Israeli citizens.

So, nothing bizarre about the comparison.

Not if you ignore the fact that they're completely different.

 

[Skeptic]

The USSR.

Why go that far?

Egypt, Jordan (partially), Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc., etc. etc. all deliberately kept the Palestinian refugees as refugees, denying them citizenship and keeping them in camps for three generations (so far), merely to use them as pawns in the "let's destroy Israel demographically" game.

Then again, Libyan, Lebanese, Egyptian, Syrian, etc. "citizenship" isn't much more than doing what the dictator-in-chief commands, so perhaps it's not much of a loss.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'd say both are based on ethnicity. Let's note that human races don't exist -

Sorry, you have chosen a deliberate construct that does not apply to what we are talking about. Apartheid, the policy, was most certainly based on the basis that race not only existed, but was, for example, easily discerned by things such as cheekbones, eyes, and in that case melanin count.

That you have taken on a view a few levels down from the aggregate of person, into genetic comparisons of a different sort does not change the basis for that policy. The ethnicity term is very vague: it is used sometimes to describe race, other times culture, sometimes language, and other times a mixture. It's a stew.

You are being deliberately imprecise. Why?

That melanin count differs isn't in question. That's a genetic reality. That decisions were made on that genetic basis does matter in reference to apartheid. That many good people take the position that these external manifestations of genetic difference ought not to be used as they were for so many years is laudatory, but it does not change that race is and has been used for policy making, and in this case, was the foundation of it.

Your appeal to "there is no such thing as race" meme isn't very useful, (and it is also relatively recent) since it is not a universal agreement, save perhaps on this board. It is still used, in the US, in government policy documents. It is still used in census. It is occasionally given the fig leaf of "ethnicity" so that it encompasses social stratification like "hispanic" which is language and somewhat geographical based, and other group clusters that began as the old racial categories: see the Amerinds for an example.

Luke T pointed this out before: JREF forums are Whoville.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

If I were to compare apples to apples, it would go like this: Apples are like apples because apples are apples.

No. You would compare the flavor of a Granny Smith apple to a Red Delicious apple.

If I were to compare apples to oranges, it would go like this: Oranges are harder to eat without peeling first.

No, the point I am making is attempting to compare the flavor of a Granny Smith apple to a Mandarin Orange. Well, they are both fruit, but they are different fruits. What is the point of comparison? What is being attempted is a Mandarin Orange to Granny Smith flavor on the basis that they are both apples.

I have no problem at all discussing which of two bad things is worse. I have quoted testimony which I think is relevant from someone who has experienced Apartheid. She didn't mind making the comparison. I am not embarrassed to have listened to her, believed her and to have quoted her.

The core linkage being is the emotional baggage apartheid brings with it as an associative. That you admit to the emotional bias is fine, no problems with full disclosure. We are all human. But as to my question, based on the who can move up within the system, and Wildcat's question about one being a policy on citizens and the other a bit more complex in terms of administering a territory, why do you feel "worse" a well made judgment? Are they that comparable when you bother to look at the details?

Why juxtapose, deliberatey, apartheid with this other policy?

By the way, which do you think is worse: pissing blood or having badly brewed coffee? I mean, you don't mind comparing different worse things, do you?

That is a different topic. Thanks for mentioning it so that I can clarify that I am not talking about discrimination in Israel -- which does exist, and Israel legislates against.

Aye, not gonna derail.

ETA:

FireGarden, I'll grant you the following. If I were a Pal living in the West Bank, and I looked at apartheid rversus Hafrada and I'd probably say Hafrada is worse than apartheid -- since it is happening to me, and apartheid happened to someone else.

 

[dudalb]

Notice how a lot of people who pile on Israel are quiet when it comes to Palestianian attacks on Israeli Citizens?
Israel can't win with these people. If Israel was to grant Citizenship to the Palestinians, they would condemn that also.

 

[ddt]

The USSR.

Huh?

eta: do you consider the colonization of various parts of the globe by European powers an occupation?

Yes, you're right with that example. And we stopped it and are ashamed about it, aren't we?

I don't support the settlements, but the settlers are still Israeli citizens and the Palestinians in said territories are not.

Which makes the Israeli citizens the aliens.

The West Bank and Gaza were never part of Israel. The residents of those places were never Israeli citizens.

Look what I wrote: "The net result is the same". South Africa designated some (infertile) patches of land as "Bantu states", and said that henceforth all South African blacks were citizen not of South Africa but of such a Bantustan. Israel has occupied the WB, and designated which areas the Palestinians may live and move in (IIRC, 55% of the WB), and the rest is for Israeli settlers (and the IDF). De facto, the other 45% of the WB is annexed by Israel. Per the article, the movement of the Palestinians in and out of their patches of land is even more restricted than the movement of the blacks in South Africa ever was.

 

[Pardalis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HafradaIt was demanded that Nelson Mandela renounce violence:

Who is the Palestinian Mandela in your opinion?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Why go that far?

Egypt, Jordan (partially), Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc., etc. etc. all deliberately kept the Palestinian refugees as refugees, denying them citizenship and keeping them in camps for three generations (so far), merely to use them as pawns in the "let's destroy Israel demographically" game.

Israel sets itself up on land it had no right to be on because other people were living there (and not only that it displaces those people and persecutes them for 60 years) and you are surprised that the people of the region don't want it there?

Israel reaps what it sows.