Can a term apartheid be used in the context of ME conflict?

Can a term apartheid be used in the context of ME conflict?

  • It is an anti-Semitism to use such a term

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rather yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rather no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • In any way no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3340657,00.html

Former President Jimmy Carter issued a letter to American Jews on Friday, explaining the use of the term "apartheid" in his new book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
...
Carter, author of 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid' wrote the letter following a meeting this week with a group of rabbis in Phoenix. The letter was released by the Carter Center, a human rights organization founded by the former president.
 
#3
eveyuk said:
I think it can be used though the powerful jewish lobby in the US won't be happy.
I understand your point. Your option is rather yes.

As I don't belong to [serious]noble British armed forces[/serious] then it would be unfair for me to vote. I think it is an anti-Semitism even to mention this term 'apartheid' toward Israel. It is absolutely unacceptable and I'm surprised that pres.Carter (experienced politician btw) used such an insulting term.
 
#4
I admit I'm less than impressed with the Israeli governments attitude and actions, I can't say I have anything against Jews.

I understand that Israel considers itself at war or under seige but their actions towards all members of their neighbors populations and their own arab population are not acceptable to me.
 
#5
eveyuk said:
I admit I'm less than impressed with the Israeli governments attitude and actions, I can't say I have anything against Jews.

I understand that Israel considers itself at war or under seige but their actions towards all members of their neighbors populations and their own arab population are not acceptable to me.
Absolutely agree with you, agree with each your word. It is exactly my position.
 
#6
You think the term Apartheid is bad? Wait until people realize the Israeli settlement policy is pretty much a duplicate of what Hitler called Lebensraum!
 
#7
Can Arab Israelis vote? Yes. Can Arab Israelis sit in Parliament? Yes. Do Arab Israelis have full civil rights? Yes. Therefore do Arab Israelis suffer apartheid in Israel? No.

What about Saudi Arabia? Do non Muslim Saudis have full civil rights? No. Do non Muslim Saudis have the same rights as Muslim Saudis? No. Are non Muslims in Saudi Arabia allowed to fully practice their religion? No. That is apartheid, not what happens in Israel.
 
#9
What has Saudi Arabia ( a growing ally of Israel) got to do with the way that the Israelis treat their own Arab minority and the Palestinians?
 
#10
It was an illustration of what true apartheid is, from somewhere else in the Middle East.

Israel does not treat its Arab minority badly at all, about the only thing they are not allowed to do in Israel is fly fighter jets. They sit in Parliament, they have their own political parties, they organise anti-Israel rallies on Israeli soil, and they serve in the army.

Since the Palestinians are not Israelis and have a habit of lobbing all manner of ordnance (including themselves) at Israelis, even during one-sided ceasefires, I don't see what they have got to do with a discussion of whether Israel practices apartheid on its Arab minority, which it clearly does not.
 
#11
castlereagh said:
...Saudi Arabia ( a growing ally of Israel)...
Eh? Can you qualify that? Out of curiosity last year, I looked at an atlas in the Jarir Bookstore, Riyadh, to see what it made of Israel. It didn't; a black blob had replaced it.
 
#12
stoatman said:
Can Arab Israelis vote? Yes. Can Arab Israelis sit in Parliament? Yes. Do Arab Israelis have full civil rights? Yes. Therefore do Arab Israelis suffer apartheid in Israel? No.
Of course no. But...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881913316&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Interior Minister Roni Bar-On is due in the coming days to present to the Knesset a bill extending by two years a temporary provision restricting family reunification for Palestinians married to Israelis after the cabinet approved the draft at Sunday's cabinet meeting.
...
According to the current law, no Palestinian woman under the age of 25 or Palestinian man under the age of 35 may apply for Israeli residency status on the grounds that she or he is married to an Israeli spouse.
So if Israeli citizen would like to marry an American then there would be no problem. But Palestinian wife or husband would be a problem.
 
#13
stoatman said:
It was an illustration of what true apartheid is, from somewhere else in the Middle East.

Israel does not treat its Arab minority badly at all, about the only thing they are not allowed to do in Israel is fly fighter jets. They sit in Parliament, they have their own political parties, they organise anti-Israel rallies on Israeli soil, and they serve in the army.

Since the Palestinians are not Israelis and have a habit of lobbing all manner of ordnance (including themselves) at Israelis, even during one-sided ceasefires, I don't see what they have got to do with a discussion of whether Israel practices apartheid on its Arab minority, which it clearly does not.
Again what does Saudi Arabia got to do with the way Israel treats its Arab minority and the Palestinians? Are the Saudis atypical of Arab regimes in the Middle East? Are the Syrians, Wahhabis? Are the Jordanians Wahhabis? Nope.

Secondly does Israel in regards to its Arab minority operate a system of enforced legal separation and legal discrimination, as in SA?
I would say no. There is no legal system of Apartheid operating in Israel.
However are Arab Israelis discriminated against in legal, economic, political and cultural sphere in Israel? Then I would have to say that there is evidence to show such discrimination exists.

In regards to the Palestinians - unless they are officially annexed, then the Israelis are walking very close to the legal definition of the 'crime of apartheid' as sanction in 2002. But since there is a military conflict going in the occupied territories then then the civilian context of the 'crime of apartheid' does not apply.
 
#14
Whiskybreath said:
castlereagh said:
...Saudi Arabia ( a growing ally of Israel)...
Eh? Can you qualify that? Out of curiosity last year, I looked at an atlas in the Jarir Bookstore, Riyadh, to see what it made of Israel. It didn't; a black blob had replaced it.
Why anyone would want to visit that ****hole for any reason is beyond me. But anyway the Israelis and the Sauds are actually becoming quite chummy on several fronts - Saudi and Israeli officials have actually been meeting regularly for the past decade or so. Hamas have been banned from Saudi Arabia. The Sauds and Jordanians along with Israelis and Yanks met in Jordan this Autumn to formulate their plan against the Shi'ite crescent. There is even talk of the Israelis resurrecting the Abdullah plan of 2001 in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Of course this all happens in private but of course its so private that everyone knows about it, except of course the ordinary Saudi that is.
 
#15
Of course it can.

However, it is intellectual laziness of the same order as describing something as a holocaust, a political party as nazi and so on...
 
#16
The results of the poll are quite unexpected for me. More than a half said 'YES'.
 
#17
If you want to get the Guardianistas to rally round a flag and stage a boycott you need to the old issues for the fat 50 year olds to relive their youth................

Iraq = Vietnam for these loons whereas it is more like Cambodia where the Us dismantled local forces and left them with nothing to face down the Khmer Rouge

Israel = South Africa whereas it is more like Prussia in 1761 somewhat surrounded and hoping for some significant change in those allied against it..................in fact it is probably more like 1762 when Empress Elizabeth died
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top