Hafrada is worse than Apartheid

[WildCat]

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.

Israel did grant citizenship to all those Palestinians who didn't flee Israel.

But Firegarden wants Israel to grant foreigners the same rights as Israeli citizens... the mind boggles.

 

[WildCat]

Huh?

So all those Warsaw Pact countries really weren't under the heel of Mother Russia all that time?

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

And Israel is looking for a way to withdraw. They've already withdrawn from Gaza.

Which makes the Israeli citizens the aliens.

Pretty much.

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.

De facto parts of the West Bank may well be annexed by Israel lacking any real and lasting Palestinian cooperation on settling the issue of borders. Hard to set something free when it just turns around and bites you when you let go.

 

[Skeptic]

If, say, the Eskimos or the Scandinavians refused to grand citizenship to Palestinian refugees in their territory on the grounds that it's not their problem, that would be sad, but it would hardly be a surprise. But the same Arab world which claims to love the Palestinians so much it engaged in numerous attempts to destroy Israel in order to "free Palestine", mysteriously doesn't love the Palestinians enough to actually grant them citizenship.

Which goes to show that the real reason for the wars of annihilation against Israel (and before that, on the Jewish community in the British Mandate of Palestine) had nothing to do with outrage at the lot of the Palestinian refugees -- indeed, those wars caused the refugee problem -- but with the desire for a Judenrein middle east, without caring much, if at all, what will happen to the Palestinians once the Jews are expelled and killed.

With all probability, if Israel were destroyed in 1948 or 1967, the sole result would have been Syria, Jordan, Egypt killing and expelling all the Jews and dividing the spoils among themselves -- not a Palestinian state. Not one square inch of the land "liberated" in favor of their "Palestinian brothers" in 1948 by their "Arab brothers" (e.g., the Gaza strip, the west bank) was ever considered to be given to the Palestinians, for example. The land was simply annexed by Egypt and Jordan, respectively.

Ironically, the only country in the middle east to ever offer the Palestinians land, citizenship, and (at least twice) a state was Israel.

 

[Pardalis]

Ironically, the only country in the middle east to ever offer the Palestinians land, citizenship, and (at least twice) a state was Israel.

What boggles my mind is that they've got a Palestinian state already... Jordan!

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

What boggles my mind is that they've got a Palestinian state already... Jordan!

Yeah that's the Zionist Agenda right there. Kick the Palestinians out of Palestine altogether so Israel can have the lot.

Is that what you want Pardalis? Do you want Israel to have the lot?

 

[Pardalis]

Yeah that's the Zionist Agenda right there. Kick the Palestinians out of Palestine altogether so Israel can have the lot.

Is that what you want Pardalis? Do you want Israel to have the lot?

No. As I've said in another thread, Jordan should annex the West Bank.

But this is a derail, we've had this conversation before.

 

[Skeptic]

Yeah that's the Zionist Agenda right there.

But it's true. Jordan is a country where a small non-Palestinian minority related to the Saudi Royal family (long story) rules over a large Palestinian population.

If that minority had been a Jewish one, related to, let's say, prominent American Jewish families, you'd be screaming your head off to end this evil foreign occupation and let the Palestinians have their country, Jordan, back, wouldn't you?

But of course, as things are, the rulers of Jordan are not Jews, so their relationship with the Palestinians is suddenly of no concern to you. No chance of blaming "the Zionists" there.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

But it's true. Jordan is a country where a small non-Palestinian minority related to the Saudi Royal family (long story) rules over a large Palestinian population.

If that minority had been a Jewish one related to, say, prominent American Jewish families, you'd be screaming your head off to end this evil occupation and letting the Palestinians have their country, Jordan, back, wouldn't you?

But of course, as things are, the rulers of Jordan are not Jews, so their relationship with the Palestinians is suddenly of no concern to you.

You're obsessed with Jews aren't you? Always making all this a 'Jewish' problem aren't you?

You can scream "Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews!" "Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! " until your throat hurts but all you are doing is becoming a laughing stock to more and more people.

I'm still laughing at your long post that childishly shouts Anti-Semitism on the basis of complete nonsense.

The situation in Jordan is nothing like the Palestine c. Israel issues anyway.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You're obsessed with Jews aren't you? Always making all this a 'Jewish' problem aren't you?

You can scream "Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews!" "Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! " until your throat hurts but all you are doing is becoming a laughing stock to more and more people.

I'm still laughing at your long post that childishly shouts Anti-Semitism on the basis of complete nonsense.

The situation in Jordan is nothing like the Palestine c. Israel issues anyway.

Yeah, the events of Black September that was the name for a group who attacked Israeli Olympic Athletes in the 1972 Munich Olympics had nothing to do with Jordan either.

Oh, wait, what was Black September a reference to?

September 1970 is known as the Black September is referred to as the "era of regrettable events." It was a month when Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan moved to quash the autonomy of Palestinian organizations and restore his monarchy's rule over the country. The violence resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian. Armed conflict lasted until July 1971 with the expulsion of the PLO and thousands of Palestinian fighters to Lebanon.

This crap isn't as simple as you wish it were. It's all mish mashed together.

DR

 

[ddt]

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.

If you look at the criteria of the SA Population Registration Act^WP, you see that to distinguish "whites" from "coloureds", the first four criteria are indeed physical features, but the last five are socio-economic.

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.

The meme "there is no such thing as race" may not be explicitly agreed on by everyone, but the example you cite - US classification as "hispanic" - and the South African classification as "coloured", i.e., of mixed race, implicitly concede the fact that you cannot divide the human population into three easy boxes "white", "black" and "yellow", or whatever you'd call them.

The South African was highly subjective; see also about the Pencil Test:

Members of the same family who had different hair textures would find themselves in different race groups as a result of this test. This presented serious consequences for many families

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?

Because all such categorizations are imprecise. There are no objective criteria for dividing people living in the same country in various groups. Also for "ethnicity", the best criterion there is is to ask a person him/herself to which group s/he belongs.

But whatever the shabby criterion, the fact is that in both the South African case and the West Bank case, the population there is divided in two (or more) groups that are segregated, in where they may live, move and work, to the detriment of one of those groups, intermarriage is forbidden or practically made impossible, etc. And in the practical realization of that policy, there are eerie resemblances.

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

Sorry, I don't get this reference; would you care to explain?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Because all such categorizations are imprecise. There are no objective criteria for dividing people living in the same country in various groups. Also for "ethnicity", the best criterion there is is to ask a person him/herself to which group s/he belongs.

Which is fine, until

1 that person has to describe or explain why he or she belongs to what group

2 you start writing rules and laws about how one treats ...

Then you need criterion, measure, and off we go into what actually has been done.

We don't disagree, really, other than on trying to apply the idea "there is no such thing as race" to the actual and on record attempts of the past, oh, three hundred years, to use just such a categorization as the basis for making rules.

Yes, it's imperfect, and in many cases grossly unjust.

That isn't the point of t his discussion. My point was about how a method of discrimination, a policy, is different from another method of discrimination, another policy. Trying to overlay some ideal onto either after the fact doesn't take us anywhere.

DR

 

[BirdStrike]

Here's a history lesson from the official website of Jordan. Ignore it, read it, I don't really care at this point.

kinghussein.gov.jo

As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the “West Bank” territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.

If you wanna moan about "stateless refugees" the address for your complaint is the Arab League. That's straight from the horses mouth - www.kinghussein.gov.jo.

 

[lomiller]

Israel sets itself up on land it had no right to be on because other people were living there

The Israelis were immigrants to be sure, but the did not replace a Palestinian state because no such state existed. What is special about this region that no immigration should be allowed? Do you similarly feel that people of Middle eastern decent should not be allowed to immigrate to Europe or North America?

 

[ddt]

The Israelis were immigrants to be sure, but the did not replace a Palestinian state because no such state existed. What is special about this region that no immigration should be allowed? Do you similarly feel that people of Middle eastern decent should not be allowed to immigrate to Europe or North America?

Do you really want to go into that can of worms?

1) Look at the amount of those immigrants in European countries: 5-8% in each country.

2) Look up: Geert Wilders, Filip de Winter, Jean-Marie le Pen, Jörg Haider and a couple more of those names.

3) The point precisely is that the Palestinians themselves had no say in that immigration. The British ruled the place at that time.

 

[FireGarden]

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?

There are many types of descrimination. Hafrada and Apartheid are both based upon seperation -- not just physically, but emotionally... cutting all instincts of empathy.

Check out some of the articles by Amira Hass at Haaretz. She often uses the word "apartheid". (Or her translator does, but I think she speaks English). I've been reading her articles, on and off, for some time now. So that's kind of where I'm coming from.

 

[FireGarden]

Israel did grant citizenship to all those Palestinians who didn't flee Israel.

But Firegarden wants Israel to grant foreigners the same rights as Israeli citizens... the mind boggles.

When I demand that Israel grant British people the same rights as Israeli citizens, then you will have a point. Until that very, very distant moment in fantasy land, you do not.

That Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not granted rights by Israel is the very core of the matter. It is for Israel to grant them rights. Unless you feel that they need an armed struggle to win the rights for themselves.

So which is it? Who will grant the Palestinians rights?

 

[FireGarden]

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.

One difference is that when Egypt et al are criticised nobody leaps to their defence. And so the matter doesn't generate pages of debate and drops from memory.

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

Well even the South Africans aren't calling hafrada apartheid, they are saying it's worse than Apartheid.

I think the slow growth of disapproval will continue to be that....slow. Americans are never going to show the same outrage against hafrada that they did against apartheid in the 1980s. It may not be fair or reasonable but the religion of Islam has a real PR problem in the United States.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There are many types of descrimination.

We agree.

Hafrada and Apartheid are both based upon seperation -- not just physically, but emotionally... cutting all instincts of empathy.

What? Cutting all instincts of empathy? You lost me. We/they distinctions in that part of the world is millenia old. What Israel is doing is nothing new. Nothing novel.

Check out some of the articles by Amira Hass at Haaretz. She often uses the word "apartheid".

I am trying to discern why that makes any difference. I find the usage dishonest. I speak English.

Or her translator does, but I think she speaks English). I've been reading her articles, on and off, for some time now. So that's kind of where I'm coming from.

In an attempt to borrow horror ... something like the standard Hitler reference.

The we/they dynamic between Pals and Israelis is plenty bad in its own right. The Pals in this case get to play underdog. Israel is the larger dog. It does not make the policy apartheid. It makes the policy a part played in a land grab. As I understand what the Israelis are doing as a follow up to the push for West Bank settlements, they are trying to grab "X" land before they give up the remainder of the West Bank. Cynical. In the near term, the policy appears to be based on a fear of "the enemy within" that may or may not be rational.

DR

 

[FireGarden]

Well even the South Africans aren't calling hafrada apartheid, they are saying it's worse than Apartheid.

Ah yes!
I got caught up in my rhetoric.

There are more painful ways of being caught.