"Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:42 am

Anyone read it?

If so, thoughts?

niss · Post by **niss** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:10 am

I havent, but I would like something clarified.

Why do people keep calling it apartheid? They are building a wall to keep another "country" out.

They are not forcing Israeli Arabs out or anything like that. It is a wall generally around the West Bank.

How does this fit the defenition of Apartheid?

Dash-Ate · Post by **Dash-Ate** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:37 am

Here are some of the bravest and most moral men alive today.
550 of them. http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp

Click on the articles beside some of their names to see why they gave up supporting the madness.

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:55 am

niss wrote:I havent, but I would like something clarified.

Why do people keep calling it apartheid? They are building a wall to keep another "country" out.

They are not forcing Israeli Arabs out or anything like that. It is a wall generally around the West Bank.

How does this fit the defenition of Apartheid?

Given that this book was writen by Carter, he is the only person that can answer your question. According to Carter, in this book, the Apartheid is to describe the israeli government's actions in the occupied Palestine, not in israeli land.

p.s. Many members here, which does not come as a surprise, keep on mentioning how arabs are anti-semites. Just to clarify, arabs are semites.

Springbok 3 · Post by **Springbok 3** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:11 pm

The ideology of a policy of Apartheid (Afrikaans or Anglo-Dutch word for Seperatism) always seems to be used negatively. Depending on the situation and the MANNER of its implementation, Seperatism can be made to work if all the ingredients are there.

In South Africa for example Apartheid was introduced by the nationalist government to seperate Black from White and this Apartheid was implemented with a racist policy which denied basic human rights to the black majority. Over the years this was relaxed to the extent that blacks were treated on par with whites after a referendum which approved their total political and social involvement in the SA way of life.

Now, push the Black/white issue aside and you still had 4 major ethnic groupings in continued low level conflict and this threatend to explode into a full on civil dispute on a national level. The Nationalsit goverment then asked the respective groups what they wanted. These groups said they wanted their own self governing homelands and independence from South Africa. So a policy of Seperatism (seperate development) and Apartheid was implemented. The Zulus had Kwa-Zulu, the Xhosas had the Transkei and Ciskei (there was a ethnic sub-dicision and so two states evolved), the Tswanas got Bophuthatswana, the Venda nation got the homeland of Venda. Millions of Rand were pumped in to support this policy but over the years it crumbled as a result of mismanagement, corruption, internal tribal conflict and distrust, numerous military coups (that`s right, each country within SA had their own military capability) and of course ultimately everything was disbanded in 1994 when the ANC came to power.

So, bottom line is that not all Apartheid is negative and I see how it can be made to work in Palestine.

So endeth the brief historical account.

Inverted2 · Post by **Inverted2** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:41 pm

niss wrote:I havent, but I would like something clarified.

Why do people keep calling it apartheid? They are building a wall to keep another "country" out.

They are not forcing Israeli Arabs out or anything like that. It is a wall generally around the West Bank.

How does this fit the defenition of Apartheid?

He's actually refering to the illegal occupation of the West Bank, not the wall at all. Saw the interview on the CBC last night.

niss · Post by **niss** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:50 pm

Fair enough, however I have seen the situation in Israel and the OTs refered to as apartheid on this board quite often and I can not see the comparison.

I totally believe that they territories should be given back (with the exception of East Jerusalem).

I however have my doubts that any good could really come from it. I read today that Hamas has vowed never to soften its stance on Israel.

Even when Palestine will be an actual country there will be those like Hamas, Iran, etc. that will deny Israels right to exist. Then what?

We will start all over again, the only differance drawing borders will make is that the rockets coming into Israel will not be coming from a people seeking indipendance.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:08 pm

They can't play nice together, might as well seperate them. Is pretending that there is another, more politically correct solution, a better plan?

The whole place is a mess. No one will ever do what is necessary for true peace, so the world has decided to live with the status quo and has, by virtue of inaction, sanctioned each side.

May the best killer win.