what I was referring to was much more the attitude that there was little point in demonstrating against one lot because nothing can come of it, whereas perhaps demonstrating against the other lot would yield 'a' result. I would personally prefer that there were clear demonstrations against the extremes of both sides. But that is, I understand, fast-becoming idealist thinking.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. However, I do rather think that you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was actually responding to an earlier poster who was angrily querying why there have been so many 'protests' (by which I assumed he was referring to the recent marches) in respect of Israel's action in Gaza, but none against other recent atrocities, specifically mentioning those which have been committed by ISIS. My response on this specific point was that ISIS is already wholly condemned by most, if not all governments, including the British Government. Unlike its relationship with Israel therefore, the British Government does not support or legitimise ISIS in any way. Indeed, according to today's news, it's doing the exact opposite and is following suit on the USA by sending military aid to the Kurds and Yazidis in Iraq. Marching on the British Government in regards to ISIS would therefore, effectively amount to preaching to the choir. I hope this clarifies my intended meaning.
I feel you have chosen to take that specific reference far too much to personal heart - it was a general comment designed to encapsulate a growing feeling I'm seeing that one side is the cause of everything thus, by default, leaving a 'good' lot.
Again, thanks for clarifying.
Whilst I can put myself in your shoes to see your perspective, I do feel it lacks both detail and context which quickly remove the accuracy of using the word 'apartheid'…I think 'oppressive' is a far better term if you're looking for one. You have to acknowledge that there is an approximately 20% Arab population in Israel which is fully integrated and has the same rights as any Israeli. There is obviously much more to say on all sides of the coin, but forgive me if I stop there for now…
I understand that this concept in particular can appear somewhat unpalatable, even for some who are otherwise critical of Israel. However my own view remains that, in view of the two-tiered system of privilege and favouritism towards Jews, including in the main state of Israel (which I'll address in a bit more detail below) the term very much fits.
Dealing firstly with those who live under Israel's military occupation; you have the denial of basic rights and/or intolerable living conditions which closely resemble those which existed in South Africa. I am conscious of the need to avoid repetition in regards to the discriminatory measures that Israel has imposed on this particular part of the populous (i.e the occupied Palestinians), so I will just add to what I have said previously by pointing out that this group also does not have the right to vote for the Israeli government, even though it effectively controls their lives.
As to the segment of the general Israeli population which is comprised of Israeli-Palestinians (or Arabs), whilst it would be true to say that they generally enjoy a better standard of living than their brethren in Gaza and the West Bank, I would have to respectfully take issue with your assertion that they are "fully integrated". Israel describes itself as the 'Jewish State'. This self-identification goes beyond a mere label. According to the Israeli Human Rights organisation, Adalah (
http://adalah.org/eng/), there are around 50 state laws which directly discriminate against the minority Palestinian population, or indirectly so (by giving special privileges to the Jewish majority).
For example;
- Israel's 'Law of Return' expressly applies to Jews only (and therefore by definition, excludes the Arab minority);
- Palestinians are unable by law to marry any Jewish citizen and are also expressly prohibited from bringing spouses who reside in the Occupied Territories into the main state of Israel whilst Jewish citizens are free to move between the main state of Israel and the Occupied Territories at they please;
- Around 90 percent of the towns and settlements within Israel are classified as 'Jewish communities', the majority of which, the Arab minority are legally barred from living within (and conversely the Government has not authorised the construction of a single new Arab town since 1948).
As well as the slanted legal system, there is also discrimination in the general treatment the Palestinian minority in matters such as education and employment opportunities.
I'll finish this post by pasting a quote from a report relating to a study undertaken by human rights experts which was commissioned by the South African Government in 2008, the stated aim of which was to examine if Israel was practicing apartheid under the standards of international law (the particular focus of the study was the treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories). The report concluded:
“Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.”
I'm going to leave it there for now, but if you are interested, I'd be happy to elaborate when I have more time.
