Calling Israel Apartheid is Pure Propaganda

[Lib]

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/op-eds/082404-1.htm

Op-Eds

Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause

Jerusalem Post
August 24, 2004
Gerald M. Steinberg

The 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism was the opening shot in the political war to dismember Israel through what Palestinian leaders refer to as "the South African strategy." The process has continued, most notably in the 2001 Durban conference against racism and in the propaganda campaign that attempts to label Israel's anti-terror barrier as an "apartheid wall."

On August 24, Haaretz reported that South African law professor John Dugard, "the special rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories," told the UN General Assembly that "there is 'an apartheid regime' in the territories 'worse than the one that existed in South Africa.'"

Although the comparison between Israel and the apartheid regime that ruled South Africa is entirely fictitious, the demonization efforts are propelled by repeating and reinforcing this analogy. The attempt to label Israel as an illegitimate "apartheid state" is the embodiment of the new anti-Semitism that seeks to deny the Jewish people the right of equality and self-determination among the nations.

The South African strategy is not simply based on rhetoric, academic boycott calls, and waving placards at Israel-bashing demonstrations so common in Europe and elsewhere. There is a vast network of powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, Christian Aid, and their Palestinian and Israel Arab allies, that are the main channels for spreading the big lies of "war crimes" and "apartheid." Similarly, the repetition of the rhetoric of demonization by Palestinian and Arab officials in the media helps to propel this strategy.

Their long-term goal is to use the UN to impose economic sanctions on Israel, widening the Arab boycott to encompass much of the world. Economic measures contributed to the downfall of the real apartheid regime in South Africa * thus the appeal of this approach. The recent exploitation of the UN to indict Israel for building a security barrier, followed by a pseudo-legal endorsement from the misnamed International Court of Justice, are important elements in this game plan. Next on the agenda will be the introduction of a UN resolution to impose sanctions, citing Israeli rejection of the ICJ advisory opinion.

In reality, the analogy and rhetoric are absurd, and they demean Black victims of the real apartheid regime in South Africa. Zionism and the revival of national sovereignty in the Jewish homeland are not manifestations of European colonialism, in contrast to the white settlers (Afrikans, English, and others) who created Johannesburg and Pretoria. And while Black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid, in contrast, Palestinians are dependent on Israeli employment due to their own internal corruption and economic failures. Israel does not benefit from cheap and unskilled Palestinian labor * rather, Palestinian dependency is a drain on both societies.

Similarly, while South African apartheid was based on denial of sovereignty for the Black population, Israelis accepted the "two-state solution" from the beginning, including the 1947 UN partition plan. Arab citizens of Israel have the same democratic rights as Israelis, including full parliamentary representation and free speech * in sharp contrast to the Blacks under apartheid, or minorities in most Arab countries.

The politicized claims of Israeli "apartheid" distort the historical record and denigrate the suffering of Black South African victims of the real thing.

Indeed, the racism and denial of legitimacy characteristic of apartheid are actually applicable to Arab and Islamic rejection of Jewish rights. In the Middle East and the rest of the world, Jews are a tiny and oppressed minority, struggling to maintain cultural identity and survive in a hostile and violent environment. But these basic facts are politically incorrect and inconsistent with the demonization of Israel.

The "Zionism is apartheid" propaganda is also used to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks and the efforts to deny Israelis the basic human right of self-defense against being ripped apart in bus and cafe bombings. In effect, the relentless barrage of the term "apartheid wall" by Palestinian propagandists, including Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, UN representative Nasser Al-Kidwa, and NGOs such as B'tselem, Mossawa, Adallah, the ISM, keep Israelis exposed to terror attacks.

By screaming "apartheid" at every opportunity, the leaders of this campaign have succeeded in burying data showing that this barrier has saved the lives of many Israelis. In today's immoral political doublespeak, protecting Israelis from terror has become "apartheid."

At the same time, while there are legitimate differences over the wisdom of Israeli settlement policy in the areas captured in 1967 in the wake of Arab aggression, these differences are also unrelated to the political rhetoric of "apartheid." Ethno-national disputes, occupation, and charges of discrimination against minorities are also part of the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kosovo and Bosnia, Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan, etc., but the demonization campaign is unique to Israel.

Clearly, the South African strategy designed to propel the political war against Israel has many weaknesses. For instance, faced with a campus divestment campaign, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger called the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa "grotesque and offensive."

It is necessary to expose the big lie at the center of the apartheid campaign. Beyond exposing the absurdity of the charges against Israel, it is time to put Arab and Islamic racism * as shown in Sudan and elsewhere * at the center of the international agenda. In political warfare just as on the military battlefield, the best defense is a good offense.

The writer directs the Program on Conflict Management at Bar-Ilan University and is the editor of the NGO Monitor.

[Jay_Esbe]

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/op-eds/082404-1.htm

Op-Eds

Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause

Jerusalem Post
August 24, 2004
Gerald M. Steinberg

The 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism was the opening shot in the political war to dismember Israel through what Palestinian leaders refer to as "the South African strategy." The process has continued, most notably in the 2001 Durban conference against racism and in the propaganda campaign that attempts to label Israel's anti-terror barrier as an "apartheid wall."

On August 24, Haaretz reported that South African law professor John Dugard, "the special rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories," told the UN General Assembly that "there is 'an apartheid regime' in the territories 'worse than the one that existed in South Africa.'"

Although the comparison between Israel and the apartheid regime that ruled South Africa is entirely fictitious, the demonization efforts are propelled by repeating and reinforcing this analogy. The attempt to label Israel as an illegitimate "apartheid state" is the embodiment of the new anti-Semitism that seeks to deny the Jewish people the right of equality and self-determination among the nations.

The South African strategy is not simply based on rhetoric, academic boycott calls, and waving placards at Israel-bashing demonstrations so common in Europe and elsewhere. There is a vast network of powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, Christian Aid, and their Palestinian and Israel Arab allies, that are the main channels for spreading the big lies of "war crimes" and "apartheid." Similarly, the repetition of the rhetoric of demonization by Palestinian and Arab officials in the media helps to propel this strategy.

Their long-term goal is to use the UN to impose economic sanctions on Israel, widening the Arab boycott to encompass much of the world. Economic measures contributed to the downfall of the real apartheid regime in South Africa * thus the appeal of this approach. The recent exploitation of the UN to indict Israel for building a security barrier, followed by a pseudo-legal endorsement from the misnamed International Court of Justice, are important elements in this game plan. Next on the agenda will be the introduction of a UN resolution to impose sanctions, citing Israeli rejection of the ICJ advisory opinion.

In reality, the analogy and rhetoric are absurd, and they demean Black victims of the real apartheid regime in South Africa. Zionism and the revival of national sovereignty in the Jewish homeland are not manifestations of European colonialism, in contrast to the white settlers (Afrikans, English, and others) who created Johannesburg and Pretoria. And while Black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid, in contrast, Palestinians are dependent on Israeli employment due to their own internal corruption and economic failures. Israel does not benefit from cheap and unskilled Palestinian labor * rather, Palestinian dependency is a drain on both societies.

Similarly, while South African apartheid was based on denial of sovereignty for the Black population, Israelis accepted the "two-state solution" from the beginning, including the 1947 UN partition plan. Arab citizens of Israel have the same democratic rights as Israelis, including full parliamentary representation and free speech * in sharp contrast to the Blacks under apartheid, or minorities in most Arab countries.

The politicized claims of Israeli "apartheid" distort the historical record and denigrate the suffering of Black South African victims of the real thing.

Indeed, the racism and denial of legitimacy characteristic of apartheid are actually applicable to Arab and Islamic rejection of Jewish rights. In the Middle East and the rest of the world, Jews are a tiny and oppressed minority, struggling to maintain cultural identity and survive in a hostile and violent environment. But these basic facts are politically incorrect and inconsistent with the demonization of Israel.

The "Zionism is apartheid" propaganda is also used to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks and the efforts to deny Israelis the basic human right of self-defense against being ripped apart in bus and cafe bombings. In effect, the relentless barrage of the term "apartheid wall" by Palestinian propagandists, including Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, UN representative Nasser Al-Kidwa, and NGOs such as B'tselem, Mossawa, Adallah, the ISM, keep Israelis exposed to terror attacks.

By screaming "apartheid" at every opportunity, the leaders of this campaign have succeeded in burying data showing that this barrier has saved the lives of many Israelis. In today's immoral political doublespeak, protecting Israelis from terror has become "apartheid."

At the same time, while there are legitimate differences over the wisdom of Israeli settlement policy in the areas captured in 1967 in the wake of Arab aggression, these differences are also unrelated to the political rhetoric of "apartheid." Ethno-national disputes, occupation, and charges of discrimination against minorities are also part of the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kosovo and Bosnia, Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan, etc., but the demonization campaign is unique to Israel.

Clearly, the South African strategy designed to propel the political war against Israel has many weaknesses. For instance, faced with a campus divestment campaign, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger called the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa "grotesque and offensive."

It is necessary to expose the big lie at the center of the apartheid campaign. Beyond exposing the absurdity of the charges against Israel, it is time to put Arab and Islamic racism * as shown in Sudan and elsewhere * at the center of the international agenda. In political warfare just as on the military battlefield, the best defense is a good offense.

The writer directs the Program on Conflict Management at Bar-Ilan University and is the editor of the NGO Monitor.


I see denials with NO SUPPORTING FACTS. I see accusations WITH NO SUPPORTING FACTS. WHERE ARE THE FACTS. It's just one big, lame, limp, IMPOTENT AD-HOMINEM RANT against the SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUE claim, based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

The DEFINITION of Apartheid AS A CRIME, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF IN IT'S CLEAR RECOGNITION OF THE VERY ACTS AND POLICIES OF THE ISRAELIS.

Deny deny deny but the truth is self-revealing. You can not refute the facts, and neither can the ass-hate you pasted in your lazy-assed attempt to defend youself against the indefensible. You might as well be claiming 2+2=3 at this point. IDIOT. LIAR. ZIONAZI MURDERING PIG-BOY!!!!!!!!!!!

You are a RACIST, AND A FASCIST, and apart from the racial IDENTITY of the people being PERSECUTED, it is YOU who's views are "indistinguishable from the Nazis". You know it, I know it, and so does the honest half of this forum.

All of this .............from the Jerusalem Post no less!!!! it's a bloody MIRACLE! 'O.J. INNOCENT!....SAYS............O.J.!

WHAT A FUCKING JOKE YOU'VE BECOME HERE.

God really hates you. Sincerely.

[Lib]

http://www.safis.co.il/emb1.asp
Ambassador Gqiba

http://www.safis.co.il/images/Gqiba.jpg
Major General Fumanekile (Fumie) Gqiba, who presented his letters of accreditation to President Katzav as South Africa's Ambassador to Israel on 21st July 2004, is married and has 4 children. He is fluent in Xhosa, English, and Afrikaans.

Ambassador Gqiba was born on 16th May 1951 in Cape Town. He studied at the University of Cape Town in 1984, taking a degree in Political Studies, and afterwards at the London School of Economics, where he took an M.Sc. in Political Sociology.

Ambassador Gqiba attended University College London in 1991-92, where he specialized in Urban Development Planning. His fields of interest include self-help housing policies in developing countries.

From 1985-1990, Ambassador Gqiba was a founder-member of the ANC's Department of Religious Affairs; was Acting Head, and Director of the Interfaith Chaplaincy in Exile, Lusaka, Zambia; was founder and editor of the ANC religious magazine, "PHAKAMANI"; and was also involved in its international diplomatic work.

Ambassador Gqiba was appointed Chaplain General of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) in October 1998, and served in that position until June 2004.

"The accusations are unfounded, the term "apartheid" is uniquely South African and devalues the struggle of the black population against one of the worst forms of oppression known to man. Major General Fumanekile (Fumie) Gqiba: " ("Negotiation is the way", Sowetan, March 2005

[Jay_Esbe]

http://www.safis.co.il/emb1.asp
Ambassador Gqiba

http://www.safis.co.il/images/Gqiba.jpg
Major General Fumanekile (Fumie) Gqiba, who presented his letters of accreditation to President Katzav as South Africa's Ambassador to Israel on 21st July 2004, is married and has 4 children. He is fluent in Xhosa, English, and Afrikaans.

Ambassador Gqiba was born on 16th May 1951 in Cape Town. He studied at the University of Cape Town in 1984, taking a degree in Political Studies, and afterwards at the London School of Economics, where he took an M.Sc. in Political Sociology.

Ambassador Gqiba attended University College London in 1991-92, where he specialized in Urban Development Planning. His fields of interest include self-help housing policies in developing countries.

From 1985-1990, Ambassador Gqiba was a founder-member of the ANC's Department of Religious Affairs; was Acting Head, and Director of the Interfaith Chaplaincy in Exile, Lusaka, Zambia; was founder and editor of the ANC religious magazine, "PHAKAMANI"; and was also involved in its international diplomatic work.

Ambassador Gqiba was appointed Chaplain General of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) in October 1998, and served in that position until June 2004.

"The accusations are unfounded, the term "apartheid" is uniquely South African and devalues the struggle of the black population against one of the worst forms of oppression known to man. Major General Fumanekile (Fumie) Gqiba: " ("Negotiation is the way", Sowetan, March 2005


Yeah, says HE.

I can READ. I can SEE. And you are tragic.

[Gerry]

Quoting the Jerusalem Post in defense of Israeli Apartheid policies is hardly credible.

Quoting a South African Ambasador to Israel saying that Apartheid is uniquely South African makes that defense rubbish for two very good reasons. First of all he is the Ambassador (an official guest) to Israel. It is hardly fitting that an Ambasador should insult his guest country. It is further extremely curious as to WHY the question was put to the Ambassador in the first place,. which suggests that the Ambassador was used by the Israelis in order to defend the indefensable. Second, Apartheid happens to be a Dutch word, so I am well acquainted with its meaning. Apartheid has been practiced for centuries by numerous countries against different people for different reasons....religion....color, etc. and we still engage in it here in the U.S. against African Americans. So the politically correct statement by the Ambassador is meaningless except to those who drink the Israeli kool-aid.

[Lib]

http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id12.html
An open letter to South African Minister Ronnie Kasrils

Some facts about Israel and apartheid

May 21, 2006

Dear Minister Ronnie Kasrils

Your article “Israel should face sanctions” (The Guardian, May 19, 2006)

I heartily agree with your statement, “There is no excuse for not knowing the truth about what is now happening to the Palestinians” and I hope you will join me in examining some facts so that we can establish the unbiased truth.

Your empathy for the PLO as fellow freedom fighters is absolutely understandable in view of your praiseworthy role amongst the first anti-apartheid guerrillas. I hope, however that if I remind you of some concrete facts, you will agree that the parallels you draw between the ANC struggle against apartheid and the Palestinian struggle are not quite congruent

In presenting these facts, I draw on my experience when I lived in South Africa. As an early, low-key anti-apartheid activist and member of the Springbok Legion as well as the Federation of Progressive Students, of which the late Ruth First was a founder, I admired some great personalities who you certainly also knew very well. I speak for example of the late Jock Isacowitz and the late Wolfie Kodesh. As you know, the Springbok Legion was formed during WW2 by South African soldiers who objected to the discriminatory treatment meted out to their fellow Black soldiers. It was probably the first mass movement of whites promoting the liberation of Blacks.

But most of all I was influenced by Chief Albert Luthuli. Even after the massacre at Sharpeville in 1961 he was quoted as saying "How easy it would have been in South Africa for the natural feelings of resentment at white domination to have been turned into feelings of hatred and a desire for revenge against the white community. Here, where every day in every aspect of life, every non-white comes up against the ubiquitous sign, "Europeans Only," and the equally ubiquitous policeman to enforce it - here it could well be expected that a racialism equal to that of their oppressors would flourish to counter the white arrogance towards blacks. That it has not done so is no accident. It is because, deliberately and advisedly, African leadership for the past 50 years, with the inspiration of the African National Congress which I had the honour to lead for the last decade or so until it was banned, had set itself steadfastly against racial vain-gloriousness."

I have not heard any statements from the PLO or Hamas remotely resembling the Chief’s inspiring message. Have you?

The sad but factual difference between the ANC and the PLO or Hamas is that the latter two have been unfortunate in lacking leadership of the caliber of Chief Luthuli or Nelson Mandela. Who can doubt that, had Yasser Arafat possessed some of their qualities, he and Ehud Barak, would have achieved a satisfactory peace agreement?

You refer negatively to the efforts of Western leaders to get the Hamas government to recognize Israel and adhere to earlier agreements. It is extremely doubtful that in similar circumstances the ANC under Chief Luthuli or President Mandela would have acted as Hamas is doing, in adamantly refusing these obvious essentials before any move towards a peaceful solution can even be started.

The lofty aims of the ANC's Freedom Charter bears no similarity whatsoever, to the hate-filled PLO and Hamas covenants. In fact such comparisons are insulting to the ANC. While the ANC Charter states "South Africa shall strive to maintain world peace and the settlement of all international disputes by negotiation - not war" article 9 of the PLO Charter declares bluntly that the armed struggle is not merely tactical, it is the overall strategy. Article 19 rejects outright, the 1947 UN partition of Palestine, implying that liberating Palestine means destruction of the entire Jewish state. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are unashamedly deemed null and void in article 20.

The Hamas charter makes it even clearer that there is absolutely no room for peaceful negotiation. Article 13 unambiguously states, "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

The imaginative irrationality of the Hamas concept, so different from the sober tone of the ANC Charter, is illustrated by obsessive phobia about freemasons, rotary clubs, Lions and similar organizations, promising that the day Islam is in control, these organizations, will be obliterated. They are accused of everything from control of the world media, stirring the French Revolution, the Communist revolution, World War I and even of forming the League of Nations. They are alleged to have been behind World War II, and instigating replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council.

I believe you will confirm sir, that this type of irrational hate, had, and still has, no place in ANC thinking. Nor would the ANC tolerate the type of incitement to indiscriminate violence against uninvolved civilians, (women, children and invalids alike), which has been emanating for years from the mosques and PA controlled media and taught in schools from the earliest age.

Minister Kasrils, may I hope, that with your credentials as a former leader in the MK, you may be able to persuade the PA government to adopt some of the noble concepts, which led the ANC to achieve a bloodless revolution in South Africa, so as to open the way to a peaceful solution of the Arab-Israel conflict.

[Lib]

http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/2006/03/comparing_the_a.html
March 09, 2006

Comparing the ANC to Hamas

Criticism of Israel’s refusal to negotiate with Hamas is often centred around a comparison with the ANC. “Remember that the ANC was also once referred to as a terrorist group” we are told.

This seems to have become the established truth. Minds have simply snapped shut on the issue. But does this comparison stand up to closer scrutiny?

An article by Benjamin Pogrund on “The ANC example (http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=87)” from the Palestine-Israel journal of politics, economics and culture provides great insight into the alleged similarities between the ANC and Palestinian terrorists.

The comparison is easy to get away with. The ANC was the leader in the battle against apartheid and their armed struggle resulted in the apartheid government branding them a “terrorist organisation”.

The first point of departure between the ANC's armed struggle and Hamas lies in their beginnings. Hamas was born a violent group sworn to the complete destruction of the Jewish state. They have always been utterly opposed to the concept of compromise or negotiations.

The ANC was different. The ANC was created in 1912 and adhered to non-violence for almost 50 years. They attempted to achieve racial equality by pleading with the white minority for negotiations. The ANC’s armed struggle only started after the white government killed 68 blacks who had participated in peaceful demonstrations in Sharpeville.

Another significant departure is the principles on which the ANC’s armed struggle was based.

Violence Against Property, Not People
The armed struggle was founded on two fundamental principles: First, violence should not be directed against civilians but against property and military targets. This derived from the ANC’s history of non-violent protest, and its belief in the principle of non-violent political action to effect change as preached and practised by Mahatma Gandhi in fighting British rule in India. (Gandhi was an admired figure: He had lived in South Africa early in the century and led nonviolent protests against racial discrimination; his precepts were carried forward by an ANC ally, the South African Indian Congress).

Second, not killing whites was a pragmatic strategy aimed at keeping the door open for them to change. The argument was that violent and indiscriminate attacks would so frighten whites about their future that their determination to resist change would be deepened. Giving this approach even greater depth was the fact that whites were members of the ANC, and some occupied high leadership positions, alongside black, colored and Asian South Africans.

Religion was an added dimension. Christianity was strongly rooted among many blacks. Oliver Tambo, the ANC’s president in exile, was a devout Christian and nonviolence was part of his creed. Dr. Tom Karis, the eminent American authority on South African political history, has described it thus1: “The ANC was fundamentally opposed to any form of terrorism because such action would subvert its popular appeal among all racial groups and its legitimacy in a future government. In particular, the ANC’s policy on racial cooperation placed a high priority on facilitating the growth of white groups within South Africa that would be prepared to cooperate with it. It was genuinely anxious not to exacerbate racial bitterness, thus jeopardizing the goal of a nonracial society.

Nelson Mandela explained this strategy at his trial

Mandela also explained that the ANC had adopted sabotage as a policy because it, “did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations.” Umkhonto members, he noted, were given, “strict instructions ... that on no account were they to injure or kill people.”

So deep did this outlook go that the ANC became the first liberation movement to sign the protocol of the Geneva Convention on the “humanitarian conduct of war.” Hamas on the other-hand dress in civilian clothing - in direct contravention with the Geneva Convention.

Whilst their adherence to the principles of not harming civilians was never perfect the harm caused to whites was limited.

During the succeeding years, Umkhonto carried out many acts of sabotage: Some were spectacular in attacking government plants and electricity installations but overall they did only limited damage to the economy. “Armed struggle” was really no more than “armed propaganda.”

Nonviolence did not extend to what the ANC viewed as legitimate targets - armed or uniformed combatants, police officers, perceived informers and collaborators, and white farmers in border areas who formed part of military structures. But even this was limited: According to police statistics of the time, from 1976 to 1986, in a population of 30 to 35 million, about 130 people were killed by “terrorists.” Of these, about 30 were members of government security forces and 100 were civilians, of whom, in turn, 40 were whites and 60 were blacks.

The Hamas charter (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP109206) makes it clear the armed struggle is the only way. “Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model to be followed, the Koran its constitution, Jihad its way, and death for the sake of Allah its loftiest desire.”

For the ANC, the armed struggle was always considered secondary.

Intense Internal Debate
Within the ANC, there was intense debate about the nature of the struggle: Should the priority be guerrilla warfare by soldiers trained in African and other countries (and by the PLO, too) and sent back into South Africa? Or should the focus be on political mass action inside South Africa?

The issue, noted Karis, was resolved in the late 1970s after a visit by Tambo and others to Vietnam to study its revolutionary experience. Henceforth, the “armed struggle” was considered “secondary” and the “main task” was “to concentrate on political mobilization and organization.” That, through the 1980s, was achieved through alliance with new organizations at home that worked in the open - the United Democratic Front and the Congress of South African Trade Unions.



Another departure is the regret often expressed by the ANC after their actions resulted in the loss of innocent civilian lives.

The worst bomb attack perpetrated by the ANC was outside a military headquarters in the capital, Pretoria, in 1983. The bomb exploded downtown during the afternoon rush hour, killing 21 people and injuring 217. The ANC explained that the bomb had gone off “prematurely.” When a bomb intended for a military convoy in the eastern coastal city of Durban caused civilian casualties, Oliver Tambo said the bombers had been “inexcusably careless.” At one stage, the ANC laid anti-tank mines in rural areas near the country’s northern and eastern borders. The mines were aimed at army patrols but also caused the death of civilians, including black laborers. The ANC abandoned the mining campaign.


Can you remember when last a Hamas leader (or any Palestinian terrorist leader) apologised for the loss of lives after a terrorist attack?

Comparisons between the ANC and Hamas are clearly nothing more than an expression of prejudice, ignorance, and gross distortions.

For a related item, see this comparison between the ANC's Freedom charter and the hateful PLO charter (http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/2006/01/no_palestinian_.html).

[Lib]

http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/apartheid/
COSATU: SA Apartheid a Sunday Picnic

COSATU president Willy Madisha attended the Palestine Solidarity Campaign's Trade Union conference in London on Saturday where he lifted off into a characteristic hate induced frenzy of serpentine Israel bashing.

...the COSATU president declared that South Africa’s apartheid policies had been ‘a Sunday picnic’ compared to the state of Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians.
‘Apartheid was characterised by killings, hangings, disappearances, arrests, exile, confiscations, inferior education, rapes and the creation of bantusans.

'All this was a Sunday picnic compared to what is happening to the Palestinians. I say with confidence that Israel is an apartheid state’ said Mr Madisha.


Did you get that? The killings, hangings, disappearances, arrests, exile, rape, etc etc of apartheid was like a Sunday picnic if you compare it to the only DEMOCRACY in the Middle East. A place where Arab citizens of Israel have full equality by law. A place where Arab's are enfranchised with the vote, where they can form political parties and become members of the Knesset. A place where their language, Arabic, is one of the national languages of the country. A place where Arabic schools receive equal funding to Jewish schools. A place where road signs are written in both Hebrew and Arabic. A place where there is an Arab member of the Israeli Supreme Court who often rules in disputes between Jews and Arabs. A place where all people share the same busses, the same toilets, and the same park benches. Aplace where all citizens receive equal healthcare in the same hospitals. A place where all people can pursue the same employment. A place with a vibrant and critical free press which often exposes any discriminatory practices.

Just what has the president of COSATU been smoking?

[Lib]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1704780,00.html
'Why depict Israel as a chamber of horrors like no other in the world?'

Wednesday February 8, 2006
The Guardian

Nearly three years ago I underwent an operation in a Jerusalem hospital. The surgeon was Jewish, the anaesthetist was Arab. The doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. I lay in bed for a month and watched as they gave the same skilled care to other patients - half of whom were Arabs and half of whom were Jewish - all sharing the same wards, operating theatres and bathrooms.

After that experience I have difficulty understanding anyone who equates Israel with apartheid South Africa. What I saw in the Hadassah Mt Scopus hospital was inconceivable in the South Africa where I spent most of my life, growing up and then working as a journalist who specialised in exposing apartheid. It didn't happen and it couldn't happen. Blacks and whites were strictly separated and blacks got the least and the worst. And this is only one slice of life. Buses, post offices, park benches, cinemas, everything, were segregated by law. No equation is possible.

That is what came to my mind as I read the Guardian's two-part report this week about Israel and apartheid. The writer, Chris McGreal, is an outstanding reporter. I admire his dispatches from Israel/Palestine. Day by day he honestly and correctly portrays the conflict. But these articles are disappointing. He has lost his way in thickets of information. He has been unable to untangle the confusion and complexities of group relations here. He is muddled in distinguishing between the situations of Israeli Arabs and West Bank Arabs and Jerusalem Arabs.

It is not that he is wholly wrong. Arabs suffer severe discrimination. Israel is in occupation of the West Bank and is responsible for oppressive and ugly actions. But he fails to explain the why and the wherefore. He had a choice in deciding how to decipher the situation. He could have adopted the approach of Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley, well-known Canadian academics specialising in South Africa and the Middle East. In their book, Seeking Mandela, published last year, they say: "Although Israel and apartheid South Africa are often equated as 'colonial settler societies', we argue that the differences outweigh the similarities." They warn that the "simplistic assumption that the South African model readily lends itself to export may actually retard necessary new solutions by clinging to visions or processes of negotiation that may not work in another context". That assessment is surely far more relevant than quoting the debased views about South Africa and Israel of the late Hendrik Verwoerd, a father of apartheid, as McGreal has strangely done.

McGreal had to decide whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. His approach could have been that here is a tiny country which came into being, in the shadow of the Holocaust, less than 58 years ago. It has been under continual attack since the start and is still beset by enemies sworn to its destruction, whether Islamic Jihad and Hamas through suicide bombings, the Arab states through their refusal to recognise its existence, the recent "wipe-out" call by Iran's president, or the actions and declarations of a mixed bag of malevolent forces, anti-semites and semi-Jews. That induces a siege mentality among Israel's Jews. They fight to live and do not always do it pleasantly. They make horrible mistakes and inflict suffering on others. It is not secret. I do not know why Chris McGreal says the Israeli public is unaware of what is happening: newspapers publish the details in profusion, provoking discussion and action.

Yes, racism does exist in Israel - directed against Arabs, and also among Jews. Amir Peretz, new leader of the Labour party, is said to be having problems with western-born Ashkenazi voters because he is Moroccan-born and Sephardic. An explanation offered for the police violence in clearing the Amona outpost last week was the antagonism between the protesting young people, who were mainly religious Ashkenazi, and the police, who were a mixture of Moroccan and Russian immigrant stock, Bedouin and Druze.

Is Israel so different from other countries that struggle to come to terms with their minority groups? Why depict this country as a chamber of horrors like no other in the world?

The glass is indeed half-full. In South Africa, change for the better was simply not possible: the apartheid system had to be eradicated. In contrast, change is possible in Israel. An accusation by a member of the Knesset, Ahmed Tibi, who is Arab, that the central Bank of Israel had a discriminatory employment policy with no Arabs among its 800 staffers, drew the assurance from the bank's then governor that tenders would be advertised in the Arab-language press. He added: "Bank of Israel hires according to criteria of merit, and ignores differences in religion, sex, race or nationality." Tibi also complained that the state monopoly Israel Electric did not employ Arabs; a start has since been made with the hiring of six Arabs. There is continual progress: the evidence is there if you want to see it. The first Arab was appointed to the high court of justice two years ago. Last year, for the first time, an Arab was appointed director-general of a government ministry.

McGreal notes that inside Israel, 93% of the land is reserved for Jews while South Africa's whites kept 87% of the land for themselves. Thus Israel and apartheid South Africa are the same. But the QED is not as straightforward as his citing of these figures would have us believe. In law, land in Israel is open to everyone but, yes, in practice, through legal stratagems, 93% of the land has been only for Jews. This, however, has been breached by the Arab Ka'adan family: in a 10-year legal struggle, they have established their right to buy land and build a home in the "Jewish" community settlement of Katzir in northern Israel. The high court of justice has given a precedent-setting decision that the state cannot discriminate on the basis of religion or nationality when allocating state land to Israeli citizens. The case has dragged on but final success is in sight. Other court actions are underway. Land exemplifies both the negative and positive aspects of the lives of Israel's Arabs: it conveys the discrimination - and the movement towards change; slow, slow, but underway.

On education, McGreal states that separate and unequal education systems were a central part of the apartheid regime's strategy to limit black children to manual and service jobs - something I observed firsthand and fought against in South Africa. But I have to question his reference to what he says is the current belief among Arab parents that their children's schools are deliberately starved of state resources so that Arabs will be doomed to lesser jobs. Every government school, whether Jewish or Arab, gets identical funding; differences, and hence resources, arise through what parents pay and what local authorities pay (most local authorities in Israel are in poor financial shape; Arab local authorities are even worse off with problems in collecting local property taxes). The Jewish schools are Jewish day schools. The Arab schools are Muslim and use Arabic, which is an official language in Israel. There is no bar to Arabs attending Jewish schools, and some do.

I am also puzzled by the health ministry figures that McGreal has chosen to use about state spending on development of health facilities in Arab areas (the clear implication being that Arabs are starved of health care). Contrary to the picture painted, health is a visible indicator of the differences between apartheid South Africa and Israel. In South Africa, the infant mortality rate (IMR) in 1985 was 78 per 1,000 live births. Among colour groups: whites 12, Asians 20, coloureds 60, blacks 94 to 150. In Israel, in the 1950s, the IMR among Muslims was 60.6 and among Jews 38.8. Major improvements occurred in health care during the 1990s and by 2001 the IMR among Arabs was 7.6 (Muslims 8.2, Christians 2.6, Druze 4.7). Among Jews, 4.1. According to the health ministry, the higher Muslim figure was due mainly to genetic defects as a result of marriages between close relatives; poverty is also a factor. Other countries in 2000: Switzerland, 8.2, and 12.3 for Turks living there; United States, whites 8.5, blacks 21.3.

He is also mistaken in saying that Arabs have been singled out for discrimination in getting reduced child allowances. They are the same as Jewish ultra-Orthodox families. These two groups have the largest number of children and have suffered equally from cutbacks in allowances, especially for the fifth child and beyond.

Here in Jerusalem on Monday, I watched the BBC's Auschwitz on television. The episode dealt with French collaboration in delivering Jews to the Nazis for destruction, and how British policemen on Guernsey handed over three Jewish women. It was a reminder, if any be needed, of why Israel exists: to fulfil the centuries-old dream of a homeland for Jews and as a sanctuary for Jews. It's not a perfect society. It struggles to find itself as a Jewish state (with no consensus about what that means), and it struggles to evolve as a democratic society with full rights for minorities. It deserves criticism for its flaws and mistakes. It also merits sympathy and support in facing unfounded attack.

· Benjamin Pogrund was born in South Africa and was deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail in Johannesburg. He is the author of books on Robert Sobukwe, Nelson Mandela and the press under apartheid. He has lived in Israel for more than eight years and is founder of Yakar's Centre for Social Concern in Jerusalem, which encourages dialogue across political and ethnic lines.

[Gerry]

The only thing you are proving is that you're good at cutting and pasting.

Your sources of evidence are not credible as they themselves are part of the problem. Do you expect them to say anything different.? Now if you could provide an unbiased outside source you might have a case. So far you don't. You only prove that the Israeli spin machine (PR) is working overtime and has been quite successful.

Would you ask the Fox to guard the henhouse.

[Lib]

Apartheid or Social Economic Gaps?

Picture it: Apartheid South Africa 1986 and PW Botha announces that a Black South African has been admitted to the Foreign Services department and will soon become the first Black South African diplomat.

Not possible right? That's because an apartheid state enforces outright racial discrimination and separation in every aspect of everyday life.

Ynet News: Arab woman accepted into Foreign Ministry cadet training course (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3225277,00.html).

Rania Jubran, a 26 year-old lawyer from Haifa, is about to make history and become the first Israeli-Arab ever to be accepted to the prestigious Foreign Ministry cadet training course.
Jubran successfully passed a rigorous series of tests and evaluations and is due to start the course this coming April. If she completes her training, she will be the first Arab diplomat to be admitted to the Foreign Service through the course, Israel's leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported Wednesday.

Should he go on and become an ambassador she will not be the first Arab to represent Israel abroad. In 1995 Ali Yahia was appointed Israel's ambassador to Finland. However he did not go through the Service's training course.

The Head Heeb points out that the small number of Arabs that represent Israel in these positions has much to do with the high socio-economic gaps in Israel. As in many first world countries the minority often struggles at the low end of the economy scale. And this is the case with the Arabs living in Israel. As in most countries "children of middle-class families start the race with a considerable lead."

Now imagine the Palestinians create a society comparable to Israel's allowing many Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria to stay in the land after a Palestinian state is established. I long for the day when we see a Jewish ambassador of this Palestinian state.

[Lib]

http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/apartheid/
Being Arab in the Jewish State

I came across this interesting survey presented at the Herzliya Conference on the state of patriotism in the Jewish state. What I found particularly interesting was the response of Israeli’s Arab citizens.

Israel is so often demonized as an Apartheid state. A major plank in the Apartheid argument is the alleged second class status of Israel’s minority Arab population. I am sure that this subject will be a major topic for discussion in tonight’s ‘debate’ at Constitutional Hill. But what do Israeli Arabs feel about living under ‘apartheid’?

In response to the question is Israel better to live in than other countries, no less than 77 percent of Israeli Arabs answered in the affirmative (compared to 66 percent of Israeli Jews who think so). 59% of Israeli Arabs consider themselves patriotic to the Jewish state.

This is truly a remarkable statistic when one considers the negative stigma attached to being Israeli in the Arab and Muslim world. I wonder how many South Africans (even white South Africans) were proud to be associated with the Apartheid state. Certainly much less.

Our view of Israeli Arab attitudes toward the Jewish state is unfortunately formulated based on the remarks and actions of Israeli Arab leaders. One calls Israel a "little spider"; another gives a television interview against the backdrop of a picture of Sheikh Yassin; another celebrates with Hezbollah; another sends a congratulatory telegram to Saddam Hussein; another supports Assad, Jr.; another signs a telegram to Assad, Sr. with the words "Nazareth, Palestine."

This survey shows that these Israeli Arab ‘leaders’ clearly do not represent the Arab Israeli street. Thus it is not surprising that the majority of Israel’s Arab citizens are in fact expected to vote for Zionist parties in the upcoming election. And Israeli Arab parties are expected to be effectively wiped off the political map.

Hardly sounds like Apartheid South Africa to me, where black South African were not even allowed to vote. Even if they could have, can you imagine them voting for Nats. This Apartheid/Israel analogy is just a pathetic attempt to malign Israel and has no basis in reality.

[Gerry]

Read post #10

[Bubba2]

No discussion, just cut 'n paste..........

lib's turned into the radical zionist klucker/WMM.

[Lib]

Dennis Ross, former US envoy to the Middle East
Yasir Arafat loved to equate the Palestinian struggle for statehood with the struggle of South Africans against apartheid, but his was always a false analogy. In South Africa, less than 15 percent of the population controlled all the power and wealth and subjected the other 85 percent to a degrading, inhuman and segregated existence. For the oppressed majority, the answer was not one state for non-whites and one for whites; rather, the goal was justice and majority rule.
Compare that to the Palestinian movement for self-determination. Arabs today remain a minority in the area that encompasses Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. To be sure, given demographic trends, Jews will become a minority in that area within this decade, but even by 2050, Arabs would outnumber Jews by only 60 percent to 40 percent.

The international community supports a two-state solution because it recognizes that there are two national movements with populations in rough equality. That was never the case in South Africa. And while Palestinians have endured occupation and a denial of their rights, their commitment to violent struggle has sadly perpetuated this condition and stymied their national aspirations.

Why raise the South African comparison today? Because Palestinians respect the South African model but are not learning from it. For all of Arafat's comparisons to the African National Congress, it did not have an ideology of violence: although the congress attacked the military and economic underpinnings of apartheid, it forswore attacks on civilians and generally expelled those members who violated that policy.

[Gerry]

Read post #10

[Lib]

I don't post for Esbe, Gerry, Bubba, Klucker, donni, WMM or any of the rest of you. Your Jew- and Israel- hatred are common knwledge and self-documenting. As well ask George Bush see the facts before his eyes.

[Trent]

...is Pure PropagandaYou're the last person who should be complaining about propaganda with the way you shill for the Democratic party all of the time.

[Jay_Esbe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1704780,00.html
[INDENT]'Why depict Israel as a chamber of horrors like no other in the world?'

Wednesday February 8, 2006
The Guardian

[B]Nearly three years ago I underwent an operation in a Jerusalem hospital. The surgeon was Jewish..............


I post one page of FACTS, and "Lib" responds with dozens of copied and pasted EDITORIAL OPINIONS.

"Truth is self-evident".

[Gerry]

I post one page of FACTS, and "Lib" responds with dozens of copied and pasted EDITORIAL OPINIONS.

"Truth is self-evident".

That's commonly known as hysteria......It's far more prevalent in women than man.....Oh well

[Jay_Esbe]

That's commonly known as hysteria......It's far more prevalent in women than man.....Oh well

Apparently heresay in the form of editorial opinions qualify in Lib's book as admissable evidence.

If he wants to play that game using the opinions of Africans......

Watch this then (watch for new post).

[Gerry]

Apparently heresay in the form of editorial opinions qualify in Lib's book as admissable evidence.

If he wants to play that game using the opinions of Africans......

Watch this then (watch for new post).

Look, when you've got nothing else and the ship is sinking you hang on to anything you can find.
I think he sunk.