Israeli Apartheid Week: Here's Why

Because right-wing people are always on the side of the oppressor.

Caissa wrote:

I don't hate Babble and I don't have angst but thanks for the free advice Kropotkin1951. 

If I hated Babble I wouldn't be a financial supporter of Rabble.'

That does not necessarily go to follow, now does it!

If you weren't as ignorant, imbecillic, and bombasitic as that idiot Goldstein, you might have read some of the links above. In particular the one where Ehud Barack says, "The simple truth is, if there is one state" including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, "it will have to be either binational or undemocratic. . . . if this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

Of course, I always suspected Barack was  a Jew hater as surely you and your moronic, climate denialist, fucking dim witteed pal Goldstein would agree.

NP, caissa, as I noted elsewhere education does not always = intelligence, so I am glad to be of service.  ;)

Perhaps that is because they are too busy looking at ways they can keep the door closed behind them?

remind wrote:

NP, caissa, as I noted elsewhere education does not always = intelligence, so I am glad to be of service.  ;)

Is this the quote?

remind wrote:

Quote:

was teaching in a school a few years ago

 

Excellent example of education and no intelligence, I would say and yet it teaches. Reminds of my uncles, who most likely owe a great debt to the children of AB whom they taught nothing much to.

I don't have the time...

Please don't drag "the masses" into this.  You're shining your own light, and nobody else's, here.

Here's some letters to the editor from the Toronto Star about IAW.

I do want to congratulate Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star for actually attending an IAW event. Last year when I attended Toronto's Word on the Street festival, Haroon Siddiqui of The Star gave a presentation that a good columnist is still a good reporter. He/she is still directly gathering information--not just rehashes what others have written. Even if Mr. Walkom had written that IAW was an anti-Semitic event, I would have still respected him for attending.

Bernie goes off the deep end:

Quote:

Anything that promotes the destruction, demonization and delegitimization of Israel, the world's only Jewish state, is inherently anti-Semitic. To falsely accuse Israel, and by extension the vast majority of the world's Jews who support the Jewish state, of "apartheid," is a form of anti-Semitic bullying. Apartheid is unquestionably an evil and racist crime against humanity. Linking Jews and Israelis to the bogus charge of apartheid has become the poster child of 21st century anti-Semitism and getting support from a minuscule, fringe group like Independent Jewish Voices doesn't change that fact.

Bernie M. Farber, Chief Executive

Officer, Canadian Jewish Congress

Actually, he's fullfilling his role. As I've argued previously, all of the outrageous, over-the-top charges, and the corralling of political opinion is aimed at Jews, not none Jews. The purpose is to keep Jews from joining with the anti-apartheid movement because that, the transformation from a "fringe group" to a sizable opinion of the Jewish community represents the real and most deadly threat to the Zionist racism. To be clear, the purpose of apartheid lobbyists like Farber, and the media/political bansheeism of the past two weeks, is not to chill my voice as a Gentile, but to chill non-Zionist, critical, Jewish voices.

I can't wait to hear all of the same commenters under this subject to advocate for a more comprehensive "Middle-Eastern Anti-Apartheid Week", which of course I am sure is right around the corner.  Saudi Arabian Apartheid is quite brutal for women.  It's also quite brutal for any non-muslim citizens, who are executed.  I also can't wait to hear about the voting system of Beirut, and how that's not a defacto system of Apartheid.  How about the slow fanaticisation of Turkey?  Can't wait for a week of that.

I remind you that Palestinians living in the West bank and Gaza are largely under their own rule and are not Israeli citizens.  Can someone explain how a one-sided attack on Israel, concurrent with the complete neglect of all of the human rights abuses by Palestinians is going to achieve a reasonable peace?  Perhaps that's not the real goal.  Perhaps.

At the risk of feeding a troll...

viscioussidryan: As I mentioned in an early post on this thread, the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa released a study in May 2009 that states that Israel practices the "three pillars" of apartheid in the occupied territories:

• The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews".
• The second pillar is reflected in "Israel's 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel's extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians".
• The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group."

Please demonstrate how any of the examples from Saudi Arabia, Beirut, and Turkey that you listed conform to these three pillars. Apartheid doesn't simply mean "oppressive" or "exploitive" or "tyrannical": it has a much clearer definition, one that fits Isreal's actions in the Occupied Territories and that does not fit any other country in the region.

As for your assertion that Palestinians live under their own rule: that rule does not include control of their borders, control of natural resources such as water, control of their economy, or the means to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.  Let's say that I was heavily armed and I locked a group of people in a house with minimal food, controlled access to and exit from the house, regularly stormed the house to abuse its residents, and repeatedly damaged the plumbing, heating, and appliances in the house.  If, without disavowing any of these bullying strategies, I then said that the people in the house could govern their own affairs, what would it mean?  I suspect that it would mean precious little.  This is the "self-governance" that Palestinians have been granted.

First off, the fact that I disagree (strongly I may add) with the *only* viewpoint present in this forum (ex myself), does not make me a troll.  There are clearly at least two perspectives to this discussion, and there seems to be some hedonistic satisfaction here that only one gets discussed.  That's going to end.  And it's not going to be only this subject, nor is it only going to be myself.

Secondly, everyone is free to examine the neutrality of the authors of the HSRC document.  Knowing only the biographies of the authors is sufficient to know the conclusion of the report without reading it.  For those who are not familiar with the authors, you can start with Virginia Tilley who prior to the report called for a boycott of Israel and proposed an Islamic colonization strategy for Israel.  Additionally, there was no author chosen that would offer a moderating, mitigating or substantively analytical defence against the prescribed conclusion, which is normally what one includes for a professionally authored thesis.  Presumably, a single perspective is the sole necessity of a report whose conclusions are prescribed.

To address your "Pillars" of Apartheid, let's first assume that these are really pillars of Apartheid, which they are not.  They are simply concepts discussed as part of that particular report.  Apartheid is generally characterized by land tenure restriction, migrancy restriction, and political restriction.  The fact that you quote from the synopsis of the very same report to come up with this tailored view of Apartheid is of course not surprising, however.

Let's use Saudi Arabia as an example.  It is illegal to be a non-muslim citizen in Saudi Arabia.  Any attempt to convert from Islam is considered apostacy and is punishible only by death.  The only defense to apostacy is insanity.  This is a direct application of your first pillar of Apartheid.

The second pillar is difficult to match.  Of course, since Saudi Arabia has already ethnically cleansed its population, it is difficult to argue they practice separation of minorities.  However, they still try: http://www.wordsandwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mecca_road_sign.jpg

As you can see from that link, some infrastructure is segregated based on whether or not you are Muslim.  If you instead look at Saudi Arabia's multitude of Apartheid systems from a gender basis, then okay, women are not geographically separated from men, but they cannot be locally present in much of Saudi Arabia without a male chaparone, and in many cases with a chaparone, there are still many places they cannot go.

The third pillar that you outline has nothing to do with South African Apartheid, and you will be hard pressed to find it referenced as part of serious research work on SA Apartheid except by the HSRC in relation to Israel.  So in that case, it is a fictional.  But we can equate military security of Israel with sacremental security of Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia severely limits the legal rights of non-muslim residents, such as stationed foreign military or foreign migrant labour on the basis that interaction between believers and non-believers if too frequent may lead to apostacy and bring on other wrathful vengence from god.

I don't want to drone on ad infinitum here, but you can construct rather similar although less extreme arguments for Iran.  Non-muslims cannot hold high-political office in any branch of government.  The government systematically discriminates against Jews, Christians, Baha'is, Gnostics, Beduoins, etc.  The official imperal leaders have on numerous occassions made statements that non-muslims are subordinate to Muslims, are unclean, are like pigs and feces, etc.  There are plenty of neighbourhoods where non-muslims are unofficially cleansed.  Women have dress-codes, and of course in Iran, the "wrong" sexual orientation is punishable by death.  Valid defenses are insanity or in some cases getting a sex change.  Even though the latter is arguably rather progressive for Iran, homosexuality and transgenderedness are not the same, and I would consider the imposition of transgendering a cruel punishment for homosexuality.

Do you want me to go in depth about how real Apartheid (land ownership, migrancy and political restrictions) apply to Libya, the UAE, "moderate" Kuwait, and yes, even Turkey?  In fact, you could pick any Arab League state and at the very minimum construct an argument for gender Apartheid very easily.  You could go through every single Arab League state and you would be hard-pressed to find a country where your mother, sister or daughter would find it tolerable to reside.  Perhaps some reflection need be paid to these nations before we so readily criticize Israel, a country, your mother, sister or daughter would, with statistical significance, choose to reside in ahead of any Arab League nation.  What's the best AL state for gender equality, probably Jordan or (on paper) Iraq -- the former having made peace with Israel, and the latter currently receiving invitational assistance from the US.  Neither are icons for the anti-Israel movement.

Hi viscioussidryan.

I'd welcome you to babble but that seems somewhat superfluous.

First, your "cute" handle screams "troll". A troll is someone who signs up to babble not in good faith, but to be deliberately provocative.

An example would be this:

Quote:

 Can someone explain how a one-sided attack on Israel, concurrent with the complete neglect of all of the human rights abuses by Palestinians is going to achieve a reasonable peace?  Perhaps that's not the real goal.  Perhaps.

That's getting really close to the line. Back off.

Second, as a man in the West, you claim to speak on behalf of the poor oppressed women of Saudia Arabia? Really? I strongly suggest you take a step back from that very tenuous and problematic position.

Finally, this is an issue that will not be resolved, on babble or in the real world, any time soon. Oppressive power holders don't stop simply because of a more compelling argument from the side of the oppressed. I friggin wish. And comparisons to other oppressive countries doesn't take away any of the truths of what realities the Palestinians have lived with for the past number of decades.

I agree that the battle is being lost. I attended one IAW event with less that 20 people in attendance and heard some organizers bemoaning the lack of attendance at events last week.

And viscioussidryan, your name brings you no respect here. I would if I were you change it, acknowledge your error in judgement and continue posting. 

Not that I care but Simon John Ritchie might be apt.

As, I said elsewhere, I believe the term is apt.

I still wonder though, from both a strategic and tactical point of view, whether its use helps or hurts the cause.

Prophit wrote:

I agree that the battle is being lost. I attended one IAW event with less that 20 people in attendance and heard some organizers bemoaning the lack of attendance at events last week.

And viscioussidryan, your name brings you no respect here. I would if I were you change it, acknowledge your error in judgement and continue posting. 

On the contrary Prophit there is ample evidence the IAW is picking up steam as an event (the fundraiser on Saturday night was sold out) and as a broader movement. Just witness the backlash to Cheri DiNovo's moronic comments and all the trouble she's in for taking such a right wing position. Not to mention Sid Ryan being elected head of the Labour movement in Ontario despite the vitriolic condemnation from the zionist zealots for his stand in favour of BDS. Must really drive them crazy, crazy enough to bang there heads against the wall of babble;)

antsunited wrote:

Prophit wrote:

I agree that the battle is being lost. I attended one IAW event with less that 20 people in attendance and heard some organizers bemoaning the lack of attendance at events last week.

And viscioussidryan, your name brings you no respect here. I would if I were you change it, acknowledge your error in judgement and continue posting. 

On the contrary Prophit there is ample evidence the IAW is picking up steam as an event (the fundraiser on Saturday night was sold out) and as a broader movement. Just witness the backlash to Cheri DiNovo's moronic comments and all the trouble she's in for taking such a right wing position. Not to mention Sid Ryan being elected head of the Labour movement in Ontario despite the vitriolic condemnation from the zionist zealots for his stand in favour of BDS. Must really drive them crazy, crazy enough to bang there heads against the wall of babble;)

On Sid Ryan, I haven't heard "boo" from him on anything much less the Middle East issue since god knows when.

I'm a bit dubious myself. If I intended to "abstain" in a parliamentary vote and had the opportunity to give a speech first I'd certainly say in my speech that I'm abstaining and explain why. There's none of that in her remarks, no indication whatsoever that she had any reservations about Shurman's motion. I'm being cynical but I think she gave a stream of consciousness speech, didn't really think about what she was saying, and now is trying to fix it after the fact without taking responsibility.

Can you give us the link to that Facebook page where DiNovo claimed to have abstained, Mycroft?

Here's my take on this tempest in a teapot. It's a Thursday, nobody wants to be in the legislature, many I'm sure had already returned to their ridings. This I'm sure accounts largely for the extremely low attendance. None of the other Dippers are articulate enough to speak, nor I'm sure were overly eager, to Shurman's motion, nor would any of them be particularly interested in hanging around the Leg any longer than they have to. So, two local NDP MPP's attend and DiNovo is charged with speaking to Shurman's motion. She speaks from her heart, reiterating federal NDP position (calling for a two state solution, condemning the occupation and the Wall) and calling for lasting peace with justice. In a voice vote, the speaker assumed unanimity, which technically is impossible to establish. It is quite possible that DiNovo and Marchese decided not to lend an aye to the motion and remained silent. You may criticize them for not being forceful enough in disagreeing but it does not follow that they be charged with accepting the motion willy nilly.

The rabid and intolerant Left respond with disproportionate vitriol and derangement at the thought of someone disagreeing with them. That's all this was; an ally disagreed with the ethicality, and even the pragmatism of using the term apartheid to advance lasting peace. Incidentally some of the most incendiary comments, those of Michael Colle, were passed over in complete silence.

Next Andrea is met with hysteria and derangement from the rabid Left and a handful of Islamists. Rather than standing up to this faux indignation and sticking up for her caucus colleague, she capitulates to these intolerant irrational and disingenuous voices and throws DiNovo under the bus. And thereby, in my view, blunders on two fronts, ethical and political.

Ethically, she not only does not have her sister's back, but also she further creates fissures and discontent in her own caucus.  Next, if the political move is to attract more votes or ensure re-election, then Horwath showed terrible judgment. First, who knows how DiNovo feels about running again. And does anyone think that Parkdale High Park won't revert to the Liberals if DiNovo doesn't run? Next, by appeasing a handful of extremists whose politics are too pure for the rest of us, she perhaps gained a handful of votes from Leftists who might either bother to vote or choose not to spoil their ballot next time. However, to the average swing voter, which would be where the NDP stands to gain the most votes, this will not play well. I believe average mainstream self-styled progressives neither like a leader throwing a fellow caucus member to the wolves, nor are they impressed by what they see as extremist politics. Now if Andrea's no longer interested in trolling the middle ground for more voters and wants to take the NDP hard to the Left, then I applaud her. Except that's completely inconsistent with her leadership bid and her love of all things Obamaesque.

I don't believe in "guilt by association", but if the above post, dripping with contempt for babblers and other persons of conscience, is an example of who is defending Cheri DiNovo and attacking Andrea Horwath, my respect for Horwath has just grown manifold.