Goldstone debunks Israel Apartheid

[Guest Peeves]

One gets tired of charges against the one democratic state in the region by racists anti-Israel agitprop.

Jimmy Carter particularly pisses me off with his Israeli Apartheid rhetoric.

Goldstone (retired South African Judge)lived the apartheid of South Africa and lends credibility to the matter.

There is certainly a vast distinction between what went on in South Africa, and in Israel where Arabs serve in the Knesset and judiciary as citizens.

Isreali politics have never met the test of apartheid regardless the Jimmy Carter reach for publicity for his sad little life as the worst living POTUS of record in living memory.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149296#.TrahDXIbR8E

Goldstone: ‘Israel Apartheid’ Claims are Slander

Richard Goldstone, author of the UN report damning Israel for alleged war crimes, condemns “apartheid" charges against the Jewish state.

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

None other than retired South African Judge Richard Goldstone, author of the UN report damning Israel for alleged war crimes, condemns “apartheid" charges against the Jewish state.

"The apartheid charges are “an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations,” Goldstone wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times Monday morning.

="http://vinienco.com/2011/11/01/there-is-no-apartheid-in-israel-richard-goldstone/"

[Post To The Left]

One gets tired of charges against the one democratic state in the region by racists anti-Israel agitprop.

Jimmy Carter particularly pisses me off with his Israeli Apartheid rhetoric.

Israel views the occupied territories aka the West Bank as part of Israel. In the West Bank Arabs aren't allowed to vote, they don't have freedom of movement and leave in cantons very similar to the situation in Apartheid South Africa.

[Rue]

Israel views the occupied territories aka the West Bank as part of Israel. In the West Bank Arabs aren't allowed to vote, they don't have freedom of movement and leave in cantons very similar to the situation in Apartheid South Africa.

Absolutely false. Once again another expert on the Middle East shares their wisdom.

If Israel considered the West Bank part of Israel it would have annexed and deemed it part of the nation.

It will never do that as it does not want the Palestinians of the West Bank becoming Israeli citizens.

If nothing else if theyd id that, they would soon outnumber the number of Jewish Israelis and vote the Jewish nature of the state out of existence.

Hard as it is for your brain to figure it out maybe you should. Its painful to think on the life you are missing out on.

Psst here's a news flash. The IDF could not possibly occupy all of the West Bank nor would it want to.

It aint rocket science. Its called demographics.

Its pronounced, DEM (like in demi moore) OWE, like the first part of President Obama's name, then GUH then RAH then FIX.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Rue

[wyly]

Absolutely false. Once again another expert on the Middle East shares their wisdom.

If Israel considered the West Bank part of Israel it would have annexed and deemed it part of the nation.

It will never do that as it does not want the Palestinians of the West Bank becoming Israeli citizens.

If nothing else if theyd id that, they would soon outnumber the number of Jewish Israelis and vote the Jewish nature of the state out of existence.

Hard as it is for your brain to figure it out maybe you should. Its painful to think on the life you are missing out on.

Psst here's a news flash. The IDF could not possibly occupy all of the West Bank nor would it want to.

It aint rocket science. Its called demographics.

Its pronounced, DEM (like in demi moore) OWE, like the first part of President Obama's name, then GUH then RAH then FIX.

if you weren't so rude and arrogant you would've noticed you're both taking the same viewpoint..

[jacee]

Absolutely false. Once again another expert on the Middle East shares their wisdom.

If Israel considered the West Bank part of Israel it would have annexed and deemed it part of the nation.

It will never do that as it does not want the Palestinians of the West Bank becoming Israeli citizens.

If nothing else if theyd id that, they would soon outnumber the number of Jewish Israelis and vote the Jewish nature of the state out of existence.

Hard as it is for your brain to figure it out maybe you should. Its painful to think on the life you are missing out on.

Psst here's a news flash. The IDF could not possibly occupy all of the West Bank nor would it want to.

It aint rocket science. Its called demographics.

Its pronounced, DEM (like in demi moore) OWE, like the first part of President Obama's name, then GUH then RAH then FIX.

Absolutely false.

Israel refuses to accept Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) as an independent state.

It is the people of Palestine who have labelled their situation 'Israeli Apartheid' and conduct demonstrations.

[Guest Peeves]

Absolutely false.

Israel refuses to accept Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) as an independent state.

It is the people of Palestine who have labelled their situation 'Israeli Apartheid' and conduct demonstrations.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/luxury-palestinian-mall-signals-transformation-of-terror-capital-1.278478

[Post To The Left]

Absolutely false. Once again another expert on the Middle East shares their wisdom.

If Israel considered the West Bank part of Israel it would have annexed and deemed it part of the nation.

How has it not annexed it? If Israel doesn't control it then who does? Palestinians have no control over their land, their water, their sea access, their air space, they aren't recognized as a nation, etc, etc

If the West Bank isn't part of Israel then where is a part of?

Obviously it's viewed as a territory of Israel. As such as a part of Israel its inhabitants can't vote, can't leave the country, can't move around the interior of the country, all the things that define a canton in the South African example.

[Guest Peeves]

How has it not annexed it? If Israel doesn't control it then who does? Palestinians have no control over their land, their water, their sea access, their air space, they aren't recognized as a nation, etc, etc

If the West Bank isn't part of Israel then where is a part of?

Obviously it's viewed as a territory of Israel. As such as a part of Israel its inhabitants can't vote, can't leave the country, can't move around the interior of the country, all the things that define a canton in the South African example.

It's not Israel nor is it a part of Israel.

It's an occupied Arab territory resulting from a war. They vote for their West Bank leaders (Fatah) as does Gaza for theirs, (Hamas)

Why would they be recognised as a nation, they are not a nation. hell they won't recognize Israel as a nation nor disavow violent attacks on Israel.

Can't leave the country?? Of course they can and do. Other Arab countries don't want them. Egypt had a wall up to stop them entering from Gaza. Syria has thousands as does Jordan ( Google Jordan and 'the Palestinians')

Syria treats them worse than Israel ever has.

There is no comparison to an apartheid state.

Their are plazas and malls being built in the West Bank as we speak by Arabs for Arabs with the help of Israel.

You can spin, you can fabricate, but you can't make a case for your claim.

[Rue]

Post to the Left I will answer your questions. Also to assure you when I write, I write tonhue in cheek. The other putz who wrote I was being arrogant projects his own personal biases onto what I write. I debate you. I write in a particular prose. But I am tongue in cheek. I very much respect your right to completely disagree with me. In fact my tone of voice is not directed at you nor is my tongue in cheek prose style. It is aimed precisely at the putz who responded to me. Lol. Now to answer directly your questions I have quoted:

"How has it not annexed it? If Israel doesn't control it then who does?"

Annexation is a legal term. It means a state takes a territory and assimilates it into its own state. Physically controlling a land mass does not mean its annexed. There is a huge difference. If Israel had in fact annexed the West Bank, it would have done what for example Jordan had done when it at one point annexed the West Bank. When Jordan annexed the West Bank, it deemed all Palestinians on the West Bank Jordanian citizens and demanded taxes from them.

Under the Olso Accords Israel signed a treaty giving the PA control over many of the land areas of the West Bank and the right to govern themselves and collect taxes. The Israeli Armed Forces are on the ground and most Palestinians refer to them as an occupation force but they have never claimed that the West Bank is part of the state of Israel nor do they want control of certain parts of it and signed a treaty that says they would recognize a Palestinian state.

It is the PA who has broken the Oslo accords by refusing to negotiate with Israel and by refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. It was Arafat not Israel that ripped up the Oslo accords unilaterally. Read the Oslo accords. Israel recognized Palestinian's right to a state. To this date the PA will not do the same in reverse and Arafat ripped up the accord saying it was a joke and Israel should have known he would never settle for anything other then a Muslim state where Israel and Jordan are.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying the IDF is not on the ground on the West Bank. What I am saying is they have not annexed it. They have what is called de facto control. If they didn't Hamas and Fatah would be using it to wipe out Israel. Fatah Hawks and Hamas and hundreds of other terror cells remain with charters dedicated to wiping out Israel so let's not pretend they do not exist and would not use the West Bank as a platform to launch their invasions.They did from 1947 to 1967 until Israel then physically moved into the West Bank to curtail this and to this day say they will take it back as part of their war to end Israel. Arafat said so himself when he tore up the Oslo accords. There is this make believe denial that Arafat never said this or that terrorists do not exist. Werll they did and do.

Its crucial to understand the legal differences in this debate because using the wrong words fuels further wrong conclusions. For example the IDF is regularly referred to as an occupation force and Israel is regularly referred to as having occuped the West Bank. That is also a misuse of the word. In the legal sense to occupy a nation, it first must be a nation. The West Bank was never part of its own nation. It has always been a disputed area of land. Jordan at one point sent troops in to control it, then annexed it, then gave it up. Israel has sent troops in but it does not legally occupy it. I know for you and most others if someone controls the land you think its annexed and occuped but not necessarily either in legal terms.

You can't in law occupy a territory never part of a nation. You can however physically take possession of it disputing who owns it. There is a huge difference.

The UN has passed resolutions referring to Israel as occupying the West Bank but they mean nothing in international law because the decision to determine who has sovereignty over the West Bank was never decided in the first place. The PA and Arab World would like everyone to simply assume it belongs to a Palestinian state but that does not make it so legally and that is why they use majority votes in the UN to pass resolutions or use the UN to make partisan policies in their favour-its an attempt to get an influence or foot up when the legal arguements come in as to who has legal rights to that land. They are part of a public relations campaign to try influence the legal determination of sovereign rights and ironically Israel is not even disputing them. What Israel disputes is the right of Palestinians to use a created state as a launch base to wipe Israel out. What Israel disputes is the right to safe borders. What it disputes is who should control Jerusalem. What Israel does not dispute but the Palestinians and Muslim world does, is that 80% of the land rights in Jerusalem belong to Christian churches. Israel pays Christian churches taxes because it built its Knesset and other government buildings on their land. The Muslim council in Jerusalem and the PA ignores any Christian land rights in Jerusalem. No its not black and white. Jerusalem is a complex zone with conflicting state, municipal and religious/canon laws all in conflict within Israel, within the PA, and between Israel and the PA.

You stated:

"Palestinians have no control over their land, their water, their sea access, their air space, they aren't recognized as a nation, etc, etc"

Not so fast. They are recognized by Israel and the rest of the world as a distinct entity with a right to become a nation by all of them. Israel recognizes their right to collect taxes and run their own government. However I would agree with you Palestinians do not have control over all of the West Bank, their water, sea access and their air space, and spiritually feel imprisoned. I do not debate that. However from a legal perspective we have to use the right terms. They do have limited control and the fact is there are many areas of the West Bank controlled by Fatah Hawks a violent terror group that is dedicated to wiping out Israel as well as pockets of other terror cells.

It contains innocent Palestinians who feel they are trapped in enclaves because they are forced to travel in between those enclaves on roads controlled by IDF security patrols. That is true. But the ISraelis on the West Bank also are trapped in enclaves and subject to the same security patrols and physical invasion of privacy by the IDF. All people of the West Bank suffer because of a blanket cloak of security placed on everyone because of terrorism. The original Israeli settlers were moved in to serve as an early warning zone and front line to prevent incoming terrorists. Now they serve as a legal arguement of defacto possession to be used in a court of law to establish legal right to ownership of land to counter Palestinian efforts in the UN to pass all kinds of resolutions in their favour. Its tit for tat in a dispute over some land, not all of it.

That said I concede water, electricity, natural resources, all are at a crisis point. The West Bank is a fragile ecosphere and its natural habitat, wildlife, plants, all have been seriously if not permanently destroyed by

out of control growth of settlements and the displacement of human garbage and waste. Water is a huge problem for all.

There is great financial disparity between the financial status and lives of Israelis compared to Palestinians of course. How much of that is as a result of Israeli government policies, and how much of that is as a result of corupt Palestinian practices, is hard to know but it is not as black and white as some paint it. The PA has always been a corupt organization ripping off its own people. It is not an innocent freedom group by any means.

You asked; "If the West Bank isn't part of Israel then where is a part of?"

I would say LIMBO is an apt term. It is in limbo. It is not considered by Israelis, at least the average one, as Israel. Its considered a territory full of people who hate Israelis. Time and time again in surveys Israelis have indicated if it would guarantee peace and zero terrorism, they would give it up tomorrow. For most Israelis occupation of the West Bank is seen as a necessary security counter measure to Israel being invaded by those who want Israel ended. Yes for some Israelis including a very militant strain of Zionist settlers, the West Bank is considered part of Judea and Somaria something they consider their land dating back to Biblical days, but the majority of Israelis are not fundamentalists, they are what I like to call reluctant, pragmatic existentialists and they do not see it as part of their day to day lives adn find it a pain in the ass.

Israelis are no different then Palestinians or anyone else. In one sense they hate everyone equally, i.e., they just as much do not trust their own government as they do the PA or Arab regimes. Their reality is-what do they need to do to survive. When you live inches away from the West Bank in a tiny nation,

occupying the West Bank is not an ideological or religious thing-its a practical thing-it means by controlling a zone, you don't have a gun or missile shoved up your nostril from the same zone full of hostile people-not much more then that.

The people who get all angry and fanatic about the religious significance of the land often are the ultra-orthodox Jews who don't believe Israel should exist until the messiah returns and fanatic Muslim religious types who most often use children or others to do their fighting.

The average Israeli or Palestinian is just an ordinary shmuck trying to mind their own business fed up with corupt politicians, taxes, unemployment and red tape.

They both fear the same basic problem-lack of fresh water and work.

You stated:

"Obviously it's viewed as a territory of Israel."

No if you took the time to speak to Israelis you would know they look at it as a security zone. Big difference. They see it as a buffer from terrorists-that is a very practical vision. Its not one where they feel anything other than

pragmatic. I think you would be shocked to understand how pragmatic ISraelis are.

I of course generalize and generalizations I concede are subject to exceptions and I make no claim to being the only one with opinions. But that is how I answer your questions.

I am trying to challenge you not to make sweeping conclusions that define the conflict as black and white.

Its far more complicated.

If you could guarantee today that you could disarm all terrorists who want Israel wiped out and if the PA, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, the Arab League all declared that they recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and they will not attack it and engage in terror, do you really think Israel would be on the West Bank or involved in what it is with Gaza?

To understand it you have to go there. You have to see how small the borders and land are that we are talking about and how close the terrorists are to the civilians.

You have to listen not just to the words, but the context in which they are used. Hebrew and Arabic are not literal languages. One word can have many meanings depending on what context you use it in. We in the West do not think as they do because our language structures our arguements and thought processes differently.

In the Arabic and Hebrew languages you have words that can mean the exact opposite meanings at the same time-we don't do that in English. This is part of the cross cultural differences you will not pick up reading the sound bites on the internet from people who do not speak Arabic or Hebrew and have not lived there and have fixed political agendas only to defend one side of the arguement.

I contend as I always have that there is no right or wrong side. Palestinians I argue have a right to a state no different than Jews. I believe they were mistreated and exploited by the Arab League and today's Palestinians are mostly people descended from Arabs who moved to Palestine and actually displaced Palestinian Arabs just as much as any Jews did from Europe.

I believe however it makes no difference and from a practical perspective Palestinians need a state and it can't come about as long as terrorists dedicated to destroying Israel dominate their political expression and hold their citizens under house arrest which they do. Don't tell me they don't. I have lived there. I know how they recruit. I know how they watch and control their people. I know how fast and easy it is to disappear if you dare question violence and terror. I know what Palestinian mothers have told me about fearing their children will be recruited.

Finally myself, I think Goldstone is a complete and utter a-hole and has zero credibility. I could care less what he has to say. For me as a lawyer he violated every fundamental aspect of the doctrines of good faith and natural justice when he wrote his original report and was exposed as someone who allowed his political biases to circumvent proper legal methodology when analyzing the legal disputes on the ground in the Gaza.

As such his after the fact continued political editorializations mean nothing to me.

The fact he now says something favourable to Israel does not make me jump and agree anymore then I first disagreed with him. I disagree with him not because he is pro or anti Israel but because his methodology is a crock. He engages in subjective assumptions.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Rue

[Guest Peeves]

Post to the Left I will answer your questions.

Truncated for brevity.

by Peeves

Finally myself, I think Goldstone is a complete and utter a-hole and has zero credibility. I could care less what he has to say. For me as a lawyer he violated every fundamental aspect of the doctrines of good faith and natural justice when he wrote his original report and was exposed as someone who allowed his political biases to circumvent proper legal methodology when analyzing the legal disputes on the ground in the Gaza.

As such his after the fact continued political editorializations mean nothing to me.

The fact he now says something favourable to Israel does not make me jump and agree anymore then I first disagreed with him. I disagree with him not because he is pro or anti Israel but because his methodology is a crock. He engages in subjective assumptions.

Well put. I agree on Goldstone, but it made for a good subject.

Your post is well stated and I enjoyed reading it. Of course while factual, it will not likely change anyone's mind but it needed to be said.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Peeves

[jacee]

If there's to be a modern solution, the who-did-what-to-whom-and-when approach has to be abandoned ... put to rest ... deep sixed ... fini ... caput ... /end.

(I notice the Haaretz also refers to Gaza and the West Bank as "occupied territories".)

Also to be dumped in the trashbin is any judgement or comment about the religions of the Israeli state or Palestinian territories: Israel needn't acknowledge a 'Muslim' nature of the territories, and indeed I've seen no evidence that Palestine defines itself as such. Likewise, Palestine needn't acknowledge the Jewish nature of Israel. Both states have the right to define themselves by religion, if they so choose. However, one state need not, and indeed should not, be required to, nor engage in defining the nature of the other.

From here forward, with commitment to moving forward, there can be resolution and peaceful evolution into two states.

OR ... There can be continued slogging and slagging through the quicksand of the past ...

And no progress for either.

It's a choice.

[Post To The Left]

Under the Olso Accords Israel signed a treaty giving the PA control over many of the land areas of the West Bank and the right to govern themselves and collect taxes.

If by "many" you mean 17% of the West Bank (41% if you add Area B areas that only have civil control) then yes the PA controls "many of the land."

Here is a map of the cantons the PA controls:

Map showing governorates and areas of formal Palestinian control (Areas A and B in deep green)

It is the PA who has broken the Oslo accords by refusing to negotiate with Israel and by refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. It was Arafat not Israel that ripped up the Oslo accords unilaterally. Read the Oslo accords. Israel recognized Palestinian's right to a state. To this date the PA will not do the same in reverse and Arafat ripped up the accord saying it was a joke and Israel should have known he would never settle for anything other then a Muslim state where Israel and Jordan are.

Arafat never ripped up anything and Arafat has never said he wanted a Muslim state where Israel and Jordan are. At the most you could claim that Arafat wanted two separate states, Israel and Palestine, but Arafat wanted a higher number of people to return to Israel who owned land but were chased off their land in '48 in what is now Israel.

In the legal sense to occupy a nation, it first must be a nation. The West Bank was never part of its own nation. It has always been a disputed area of land. Jordan at one point sent troops in to control it, then annexed it, then gave it up. Israel has sent troops in but it does not legally occupy it. I know for you and most others if someone controls the land you think its annexed and occuped but not necessarily either in legal terms.

I agree the West Bank and Gaza strip have a murky status that can't be compared to other modern nations. I agree that the land that makes up the West Bank and Gaza have never been a nation (Of course if you don't count when it was part of the Ottoman Empire before WWI).

But this situation makes the comparison with South Africa's cantons what they called the Bantustans all the more true. White South Africans defeated the African Nations that were migrating into South Africa from the North the same time the White settlers were moving up from the south. The hostile defeated Black nations were driven from their lands and given "homelands" or Bantustans so that White Apartheid South Africans could still control - de facto control as you call it - all of South Africa but give some autonomy to the Blacks without giving them any real rights or what became known as apartheid.

This directly compares to Israel where Israeli forces drove people from their homes in '48, in this case actual homes with land deeds, as opposed to tribal areas controlled by say the Zulu. Then decades later they occupied a territory (West Bank, Gaza) that they didn't want to annex because that would entail giving its residents citizenship, same as the situation with White South Africans and not wanting to give the blacks citizenship instead putting them in the Bantustans)

Not so fast. They are recognized by Israel and the rest of the world as a distinct entity with a right to become a nation by all of them.

No, the present Prime Minister of Israel has already vowed NEVER to allow a Palestinian state "Israel's Likud Party has passed a resolution saying that it will never agree to an independent Palestinian State. "

Edited November 22, 2011 by Post To The Left