34 thoughts on “Israel: the New Political Apartheid – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. @Richard – “claim that Herzog suggested the Palestinian parties would be “outside” because it is their own choice. That is false” – You are WRONG again.
    Here is a recording of a recent interview with members of the new Arab party. At ~4:20 Tibi says they will NOT join a coalition but will maybe serve as ‘Blocking Block’. Later Hanin says it might be an option if the opinion of the coalition will be drastically changed (so basically – no).
    On TV interview a few weeks ago (which I couldn’t find) one of them said they can’t be part of a government that will go into an operation in Gaza, Syria or anywhere else. And since in the current reality it is more a question of ‘when’ than ‘if’, they are NOT going to join a coalition to begin with.

    1. @ Ariel: Do you have proof that any Jewish ruling party has ever offered Palestinian parties membership in a ruling coalition? If you don’t none of the rest of this means crap. You & I both know no Jewish party would or could include a Palestinian party. That’s why there have been none ever in the history of the nation. Prove me wrong.

      As for your own statement above…contrary to what you wrote above, any politician who says, “I might do this if circumstances change” is essentially asking for someone to make those cirucmstances change. You don’t know crap about politics or politicians if you can claim her statement means “basically, no.” It means quite the opposite. It means “I know no Jew will ever invite me to join, but if the day ever comes when they change their minds, then call me.” Tell me how long that will take?

      1. @RS – This in another case where we are not going to agree. We are talking about the same coin, just looking at different sides of it.
        The Arabs parties Balad and Ta’al are anti-zionist while for Hadash it can be a longer conversation but it isn’t far from that.
        So the coin is the unbridgable gap between the zionist (almost entirely Jewish) parties and anti/non-zionist ones. You prefer to say – Israelis are racist but I look at the TRUTH and say – the issue is so important and fundamental that no midway can be found. You asked “how long that will take?” well, probably eternity unless the messiah or aliens (if they aren’t the same) get here first.
        Meanwhile, Arab MK are participating in the democratic ‘game’ and are doing great job stopping some of the laws that the radical right is trying to pass as well as other important parliamentary work.

      1. @Ariel: Ahmed Tibi as ‘House Palestinian.’ You want him as window dressing to prove your state is democratic. That’s why I detest this sham that suggests 3rd class citizenship is something more than it really is.

        1. @RS – “Ahmed Tibi as ‘House Palestinian.’” so you claim this is a type of “arabwashing”? Who stands behind this ‘conspiracy’? Tibi’s voters?

  2. Very well said Richard. I see things deteriorating for Israel as, more and more, it comes to resemble the Hitler regime in Germany. A terrible thing to say, but it’s the inevitable end for a government that encourages the outright persecution of its minorities, and the non-Jewish population of the Occupied Territories, East Jerusalem and the Bedouin in the Negev. In my experience working with people, abusive people and abusive systems eventually destroy themselves. PM Netanyahu and his crew are leading the country right over the cliff into disaster.

    1. @George

      The Israeli government is trying to settle their Bedouin population the same the British did during the Mandate and the same way most other governments have tried to settle their pastoral peoples.
      Most Bedouin HAVE settled, according to the State’s design, although the results, admittedly, haven’t been great. Those Bedouin who are still holdouts have already had their day in court, and lost their case.

      1. @ krausen: Nonsense. The British did not expel Bedouin from their Negev ancestral lands during the Mandate. There is no reason to “settle” nomadic peoples. Their way of life as existed for centuries, even millenia. In fact, longer than the settled life of so-called “civilized peoples.”

        No Israeli Jewish court has the right to disrupt the traditions of the Bedouin. Any court that ratifies such racist policies is violating international law and common decency.

        1. @RS

          I didn’t use the word ‘expel’, you did. That said, you’r still wrong. The Mandate did try to settle the Bedouin.

          Bedouin Control Ordinance of 1942 were intended to provide “the administration with special powers of control of nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes with the object of persuading them towards a more settled way of life.” 1

          The sweeping powers of the Ordinance allowed the District Commissioner to direct those deemed nomadic “to go to, or not go to, or to remain in any specified area.”2

          The primary reasons for the ordinance were security, prevention of Bedouin raiding, control of “illicit grazing”, and eviction of Bedouin from lands they did not own. 3

          1 Falah, Role, p. 38; Galilee District Commissioner to Jerusalem District Commissioner, 17 August, 1945.
          2 Bedouin Control Ordinance, 1942, No. 18 of 1942, Government of Palestine
          3 Chief Secretary, 7 February, 1947, ISA RG2/ Y58/42.

          1. @krausen: C’mon. You and I both know that when nomadic peoples are forcibly “settled” as you advocate, they are expelled from their ancestral lands. Happened to Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, etc. In 1942, colonizers like the British believed their “civilization” and colonial efforts would “improve” the indigenous peoples’ way of life. Today, except in places like Israel & China, such notions are universally condemned. So if you advocate colonial noblesse oblige we can add it to all the other violations of international law Israeli is racking up.

          2. “You and I both know that when nomadic peoples are forcibly “settled” as you advocate, they are expelled from their ancestral lands. ”

            Richard, lets not go round in circles again and name call. Let’s stick to the facts, and see what the Bedouin’s ‘rights’ are. You read Hebrew. Just tell us what was wrong with the State’s case in Al Aqbi. Begin with motion practice and expert testimony, and than parse out Judge Dovrat’s written decision. Let’s stick to the facts of the case.

          3. Read the comment rules & respect them. Commenters must remain ON-TOPIC. Comments must be directly related to the topic of the post. If you do not respect the rules you will be moderated.

            So here’s the rule in a nutshell: if I wanted to “parse” Judge Dovrat I would’ve done so. But I didn’t. If you want to write a blog in which you do this, be my guest. But as long as you’re the guest here you follow the rules of the house. Understood?

    1. No, Arie. You are tiresome because you deal in opinion, not facts, so I’ll indulge you this once.

      de Klerk say’s, ‘Israel not an apartheid State’

      Black South African MP says Israel not an apartheid state.

      Now I defy you to explain to us what factually wrong in the Thomas Mitchell article that I linked.

      1. @ krausen: This is off-topic. The comment threads are not meant to dissect external sources. That’s a red herring.

        You offer us anecdotal evidence from a few individuals. Arie has offered far more sources which confirm my claim. These are “sources” with quotations from real Israelis. That is “fact,” not opinion as you claim.

        But what’s most important is that those who suffer under Israeli apartheid, the Palestinians themselves, and even many Israeli Jews, have made this historical analogy.

        I found this Wikipedia article useful in arguing the pros and cons of the analogy.

      2. It is amusing how these Israeli religious fanatics try to convince us – their international audience – with “facts” that Israel is not an apartheid state because a couple of South African politicians have said that Israel is not an apartheid state. Well with that Israeli “intellectual” analysis tactics anything can be presented as a fact because also influential people say often stupid things and make propaganda. If Alan Morton Dershowitz said that “Israel is no apartheid state and it is a real democracy” does it make that claim a fact because a US legal expert said that or is it a simple propagandist opinion without any convincing reasoning made by a US Jewish fanatic? Does it make a fact that Palestinians did not exist because an Israeli prime minister, Gold Meir, said so?

        Kransen if Israel is an example state of equality, democracy and religious tolerance let us westerns begin to treat “our” Jewish citizens with the same standards and methods Israel treats Palestinians.

        1. @Simo

          If you had bothered to read my link to it’s conclusion, than maybe you might understand that Israel is not by historical definition, an apartheid state, and, assuming arguendo, that it fit the legal definition of apartheid, than dozens of other States must be apartheid states as well.

          My link even leaves you anti-Zionists with a fig leaf to hide behind. The link’s author provides two more accurate definitions for Israel: “settler colonialism” and a “pro-settler military occupation.”

          Try to wrap your head around these two definitions, or, just continue to misuse the inappropriate term of derision, ‘apartheid’.

          1. Krausen do you limit Nazism as an ideology and movement only to Germany in the 30’s and 40’s and fascism to Italy? Is playing with words and terms the only thing you poor propagandists can do?

            Krausen what means apartheid? The word contains the essential information “the state of being apart” – dividing the population in groups with different rights and possibilities using state legislation is the essence that policy. The South African system was legalized racial discrimination. In Israel it is both religious and racial discrimination created and made possible on the state’s legislation level.

            As said Krausen is it OK for us westerns in USA and Europe to demand that our societies will have laws which make it possible to treat our Jewish citizens like you there in Israel treat Palestinians and other people with wrong religion and/or skin color? If you say it is NOT OK, then you must admit problem of the legal inequality, exploitation and racism in Israel. If you say OK then you approve in essence laws like the Nürnberg race laws which give different groups different rights. Do you seriously believe that you as a Jew can in Israel enjoy the benefits of your Ûbermensch status and the next day when coming back to Europe and USA demand equality and religious “protection”?

            PS Krausen you did not yourself read what you linked. In the end of the article reads: de Klerk reiterated later from his opinion that Israel was not an apartheid state. So it was not a “fact” after all. 🙂

  3. Strictly speaking, Israel is not an apartheid state: in SA the whites wanted both the land and the indigenous population to act as cheap labour. The Zionists, on the other hand, want the land without the Arabs: they would love to see them “transferred”.
    One of the Israeli “new historians” Benny Morris ended up criticizing Ben Gurion for not “finishing the job” in 1948/49 by keeping Arabs within the Jewish state.
    The Arabs in Israel today are “suffered” and not “welcome”.
    As to democracy … well.

  4. De Klerk was mainly talking about the situation of Israeli Arabs, Ronny Karlis about that of Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza. Obviously, within Israel proper, the telltale signs of apartheid (separate entrances, beaches, benches) are lacking. And it is unlikely that De Klerk knew enough of Israel’s domestic situation to notice the political apartheid.

  5. @Simo

    “Krausen do you limit Nazism as an ideology and movement only to Germany in the 30’s and 40’s and fascism to Italy?

    As a matter of fact, I do limit Nazism as an ideology. I’ve never called anyone a fascist or a nazi in my life.
    I define apartheid as a failed political ideology practiced for a short time in South Africa, South African-occupied Namibia, and Rhodesia.

    Pressed to say what religious of political system most closely resembles apartheid, I’d point to the age old Hindu caste system.


    Am I wrong, Simo?

    1. Well Krausen if Hindu caste system, which is a thousand years old shameful “religious” tradition and social order, closely resembles the SA’s apartheid system (which it actually does not), does that erase in anyway the Israeli modern caste system? India has in its modern legislation tried to erase the sad effects of that very old tradition, which was based on some kind of an old tradition of dividing works and responsibilities (close to our old guild system, which luckily did not develop so far as in India). Israel on the other hand has continued to create new laws and procedures to divide the population more and more clearly in religious/ethnic groups with different rights and possibilities.

      South Africa’s and Israel’s apartheid systems were/are modern creations of a state order, not based on some very old “tradition”, Israeli Jews and whites in SA gave themselves their superior rights with laws and changing the society’s order to that racist reality which followed.

      Do you Krausen really present the best what modern Israel has to offer on the field of making your nationalistic religious propaganda?

    2. @ krausen: Apartheid practiced in South Africa “for a short time?” If you call 40 yrs a short time you’re either God or one of his angels. By human standards (which you ARE subject to) it’s quite a long time & shows your ignorance.

      Apartheid is certainly much different than the Hindu caste system since apartheid is a system that rules entire countries rather than segments of countries as the caste system does (Muslims do not practice it). Also, apartheid has a political motivation, not religious.

          1. I didn’t say that India practices apartheid. I said that India’s caste system most closely resembles the failed apartheid systems that once existed in South Africa, Rhodesia and occupied Namibia.

            Racism and discrimination run deep in Israel, as well as in India, but neither practices apartheid.

          2. @ krausen: and once again, comments rebutting your claims have pointed out the flaws in yr argument. India is a deeply flawed country filled with prejudice. But there is nowhere near the level of de facto & official racial apartheid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *