Apartheid in Israel

[S. Kroeze]

Here are some 'nice' facts about Israel:

"The rabbinical courts rule on matters of family, marriage, divorce(14) and all issues covered by Jewish religious law. Parallel courts exist for Moslems, Christians and Druze. Rabbinical courts follow the policies of religious parties, which supervise expression of institutional Judaism in Israel.(15) These religious courts enjoy considerable independence from secular courts. Occasionally the Supreme Court will intervene, but generally it does not intrude on rabbinical rulings, e.g., concerning the validity of Jewish marriages outside the orthodox form or the prohibition of marriages of Jews to Moslems or Christians."

"Traditionally, the Histradut has been a huge owner of heavy industry, thousands of businesses and the dominant labor union -a combination that, while strange to the American ear, harks back to a pre-state "socialist" ideology about government control of production and community. The Histadrut has maintained a health service, a vast pension fund for workers and one of the two largest banks in Israel. Since 1967, however, the power and membership of the Histadrut has declined with the declining fortunes of the Labor Party and a heightened entrepreneurial culture in Israel. In Israel's more privatized economy, workers can obtain health insurance through other insurance funds. International competition coming from the European Union has also put pressure on the Histadrut, traditionally a protector of jobs from foreign competition and a patronage facility for party members.(20)

Historically, the Histadrut has discriminated against Arab-Israeli workers.(21) Not until 1959 did it fully open its doors to Arab-Israelis labor. Still, only ten percent of the total membership in 1978 was Arab-Israeli, while in 1998 it has risen to fourteen percent (below the expected proportional 20 percent)."

"Historically, the Jewish Agency has been compared with the Israeli government: run by a quasi-ministerial cabinet; functioning through the same party system; having a budget comparable to the development budget of the government; possessing a bureaucracy and patronage system that rival the government; and supporting immigration, rural settlement and coordination of a massive urban renewal program that the government might otherwise do. Because it is not part of the official government, the agency's discriminatory funneling of resources to Jewish citizens is less conspicuous. Nevertheless, the agency directs billions of dollars to the development of Jewish, but not Arab-Israeli villages. Virtually all Jewish villages in Israel are electrified; 40 percent of Arab-Israeli villages are not. Jewish villages have plentiful, inexpensive water, Arab villages do not.(22)"

Expropriation of Arab-owned land in Israel by all levels of govenrnment
"Zionists wanted a Jewish-run state for the Jewish people on Jewish-owned land. But less than 10 percent of the land of Israel was owned by Jews or Jewish organizations at the end of the 1948 war.(34) Consequently, Israel sought to make the Jewish state the owner of the land. This effort proved very successful. Virtually all Arab-owned land in Israel (about 91 percent of the country in 1948) was eventually and seemingly legally transfered to the Jewish state or to the Jewish National Fund by 1966. Nearly all new Jewish settlements between 1948 and early 1953 were built on Arab land dubbed "abandoned" despite that fact that most Arab refugees were kept at gunpoint(!) from returning.(35) This seizure was in violation of the UN Partition Resolution stipulation that "no expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish state shall be allowed except for public purposes... ..In all cases of expropriation, full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid prior to dispossession."(36)"

"(4) Nationalization of land. The land of Arab refugees and Arab-Israeli citizens was converted into Israeli state-owned "public" land through the Jewish National Fund. Superficially, the conversion had the appearance of satisfying a UN proscription against expropriation of Arab lands "except for public purposes." JNF administration made the land "public" by definition. Because JNF land was reserved for Jewish use only, the Arab citizen lost his land.

There was a hitch in this last nationalization scheme. Nationalization by the state required proof of state ownership -ordinarily proved by payment of compensation. After a five-year delay, the government passed a law to compensate Arabs for expropriated land (Validation of Acts and Compensation Law, 1953) -perhaps out of fear that the whole question of expropriation would someday flare up.(41) At first the government offered 1947 land prices, then 1950 prices. Prime Minister Moshe Sharett considered the latter compensation to be a "scandalous robbery" since the Israeli pound was worth one-fifth its former value due to hyperinflation.(42) A large number of Arab-Israeli citizens refused to sign away their land for unfair compensation. To Palestinian-Arab refugees outside Israel, compensation for land and property was never offered."

"A democratic state exists for all its citizens, not just for its ethnic majority. Alternatively, a Jewish state could be seen to be democratic were it to have Jewish citizens only. Israel attempted to arrange this last by denying citizenship to Moslems and Christians by means of a 1952 Nationality Law.(44) This complex law effectively precluded the citizenship of either Palestinian-Arab refugees or Palestinians living in Israel unless they could prove their former Palestinian citizenship -an intentionally difficult qualification for most Palestinians.(45) As a result, some 40,000 Palestinian Arabs living in Israel were disqualified from citizenship. This Nationality Law, a violation of the UN partition resolution and the Balfour Declaration, embittered the Arab population and after years of dispute, many Palestinian-Arabs finally obtained citizenship."

The status of Arab-Israelis in the 1990s
"Arab-Israelis, twenty percent of Israel's population, hold seventeen of 1,300 senior government positions, ten of 5,000 university posts and on average garner about five percent of Knesset seats. They are segregated into low-status jobs and constitute well over half of all those below Israel's poverty line. Though Israeli law "explicitly forbids discrimination in employment on religious, ethnic or national grounds, there is no enforcement mechanism outside normal criminal procedures. Consequently, such discrimination is basically unchecked and prevails widely: in practice it is sanctioned by the norms of Jewish economic and social life."(46)

(source: B.Thomas, "How Israel Was Won",1999)

(14) "For all practical purposes, civil divorce now exitst in Israel, not through legislation, but by the creation of the Supreme Court." William Frankel, Israel Observed: An Anatomy of the State (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1980), 129
(15) Religious political parties control the religious education of immigration, state sponsorship of religious schools, exemption of Orthodox girls from military or national service, imposition of religious law on public behavior and patronage through party clout. H.Sachar, A History of Israel, Vol. I, 379-82.
(20) The deputy defense minister in 1979 called the Histadrut "a Mafia which gives back to parasites." For the Histadrut in 1980: Frankel, Observed, 194-5.
(21) Ian Lustick found in 1980 that "of the thousands of Histadrut firms and factories not one is located in an Arab village." Arabs, 96. Noam Chomsky noted in 1976 that "Histadrut programs are overwhelmingly organized for the benefit of Jews. There are still no Arab members of the eighteen-man Central Committee of the Histadrut and no Arabs among the more than six hundred managers and directors of Histadrut-controlled industry." Sabri Jiryis, The Arabs in Israel (London: Monthly Review Press, 1976), xii.
(22) Concerning land and water use, confiscation of Arab-owned land and use of water in Israel has meant that, per capita, Arab farmers produce only one-sixteenth as much as Jewish farmers. The Jewish Agency provides little support for agriculture, industry or commerce to Arab citizens compared with their Jewish counterparts. Income, infant mortality, school support, meaningful employment and housing are notably disadvantaged. See Howard Sachar, History: From the Aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, Vol. II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 34.
(34) In 1949, the Jews had possession of about 77 percent of Palestine (20.5 out of 26.4 million dunams) but owned only 8.4 percent in Palestine. In May 1948, Jews owned about 6.6 percent of Palestine (1.74 million dumans). Walter Lehn, "The Jewish National Fund", Journal of Palestine Studies 3, No. 4 (Summer 1974), 74 n 2. UN estimates of Jewish ownership in May 1948 range from 6 to 15 percent. Stephen Green, Taking Sides *Brattleboro Vt.: Amana Press, 1988), 100n
(35) Don peretz, Israel and the Palestine Arabs (Washington: Middle East Institute, 1958), 143. Thirty-five thousand were eventually allowed to return.
(36) Cited in Sachar, History, Vol. I, 386.
(41) Jiryis, Arabs in Israel, 126.
(42) Jiryis, Arabs in Israel, 127.
(44) Sachar, History, Vol. I, 383-4
(45) Sachar, History, Vol. I, 383-4
(46) Quote and preceding statistics from Dowty, The jewish State, 195, 200. "Army service is another basis for discrimination. The military [forbidden Arab-Israelis] is a source of important benefits in employment, housing and education (198)." Many Arabs vote for Jewish parties, tactically, since Arab candidate lists are not likely coalition partners and thus not an effective route to influence (195).

[Eli]

[Az]

come to Israel , man.

some clearcut lies:


4

(46) Quote and preceding statistics from Dowty, The jewish State, 195, 200. "Army service is another basis for discrimination. The military [forbidden Arab-Israelis] is a source of important benefits in employment, housing and education (198)."

"The rabbinical courts rule on matters of family, marriage, divorce(14) and all issues covered by Jewish religious law. Parallel courts exist for Moslems, Christians and Druze. Rabbinical courts follow the policies of religious parties, which supervise expression of institutional Judaism in Israel.(15) These religious courts enjoy considerable independence from secular courts. Occasionally the Supreme Court will intervene, but generally it does not intrude on rabbinical rulings, e.g., concerning the validity of Jewish marriages outside the orthodox form or the prohibition of marriages of Jews to Moslems or Christians."

the marriages wouldn't be considered marriage by the jewish rabbinical court. It has nothing to do with the ministry of the interior.

some things that are half-trues:

Historically, the Jewish Agency has been compared with the Israeli government

the jewish agency WAS the Israeli jewish government during British occupation. it was only later that it turned to be a non-significant organization.

Historically, the Histadrut has discriminated against Arab-Israeli workers.(21) Not until 1959 did it fully open its doors to Arab-Israelis labor. Still, only ten percent of the total membership in 1978 was Arab-Israeli, while in 1998 it has risen to fourteen percent (below the expected proportional 20 percent)."

and that, of course , has nothing to do with the fact that arab-Israelis never were much of Industry workers , i.e. never worked in big Industries, that have trade unions , before and after the creation of the "evil apartheid " state.

"Zionists wanted a Jewish-run state for the Jewish people on Jewish-owned land. But less than 10 percent of the land of Israel was owned by Jews or Jewish organizations at the end of the 1948 war.(34) Consequently, Israel sought to make the Jewish state the owner of the land. This effort proved very successful. Virtually all Arab-owned land in Israel (about 91 percent of the country in 1948) was eventually and seemingly legally transfered to the Jewish state or to the Jewish National Fund by 1966.

This guys takes a near truth and twists it into a lie. The percentage of the land owned by jews by 1948 on the land that will afterwards called the state of Israel was higher than that . we didn't owned the majority of the land , but it was higher than 9 percent. considering the fact that around 66 percent of the land owned by Israel before 67 is actually DESERT that cannot be owned by neither one, the claim that arabs owned the rest is hoping for a human error on the side of the innocent reader.

[Sirotnikov]

prohibition of marriages of Jews to Moslems or Christians."

Prohibition of a jewish religious marraige ritual of Jews to Moslems to Christians.
Obviously a jewish religious ritual isn't made for Moslems etc.

There's nothing actually preventing Jews from marrying Moslems. Infact there are plenty of such couples.

Is that clear?

Traditionally, the Histradut has been a huge owner of heavy industry, thousands of businesses and the dominant labor union -a combination that, while strange to the American ear, harks back to a pre-state "socialist" ideology about government control of production and community.

I have no idea what is your problem with the Histadrut.

It's a simple worker's union. It is not under government control. Infact, it causes the government many troubles when it goes on strike.

I fail to see how the Histadrut has discriminated against Israeli Arabs in the 50s, when they were under Martial Law until 1966.

Ever since, they are slowly integrating into the Histadrut.

Chomsky's criticism is infact criticising Israel for not having an Affirmative Action policy. Affirmative Action is the same discrimination only turned around.

As far as Luski's comment about Histadrut firms and factories, has he looked at those arab villages? Has he checked what would be the profitability of such factories and firms? Has he checked how receptive are the arab citizens to the idea of working for the Histadrut?

Is he aware that until the late 70s the traditional arab profession was agriculture? Is he aware that only during the 80s Arabs began slowly changing and moving towards free professions? There were no conditions to set up such factories.

I'll have more to say later.

[Ming]

I see the troll is getting it's desired results.
I just don't understand why you guys don't just ignore this moronic crap. Instead, you keep posting and just keep it on the first page...

[Sprayber]

Yeah this is the most orginal thread at apolyton. Guys let this thread drop to the back pages where it belongs.


edit: See even the might ming agrees with me.

[Sirotnikov]

"Historically, the Jewish Agency has been compared with the Israeli government:

As dalgetti said.

run by a quasi-ministerial cabinet: functioning through the same party system; having a budget comparable to the development budget of the government; possessing a bureaucracy and patronage system that rival the government; and supporting immigration, rural settlement and coordination of a massive urban renewal program that the government might otherwise do.

This might have been partially true during the 50s, but hardly so ever since.

While it does still provide support for immigration, settlement and such, it is hardly close to a government status now.

Infact, it's all but forgotten, by jews at least.

. Virtually all Jewish villages in Israel are electrified; 40 percent of Arab-Israeli villages are not.

That is because 40% of Arab-Israeli villages are illegal - ie unrecognized - meaning - a group of people gathered and started building a village without any permits or contacts with the authorities.

Israel has tried to encourage Arab citizens to urbanize and infact set up several cities in areas close to arab villages with the goal of urbanizing the Arabs.

Why? Because the arab villages are built randomly and spontaneously, not asking anyone.

Why aren't the supplied electricity? Because Israel tries to promote either urbanization or legal settlement, otherwise it has to provide electricity to each new spontaneous village.

Jewish villages have plentiful, inexpensive water, Arab villages do not.(22)"

Wha? Who? This is completely not supported by the source.

In anycase, there is inexpensive water only for villages which are declared agricultural, and that policy was set to be cancelled in stages by 2006.

Concerning land and water use, confiscation of Arab-owned land and use of water in Israel has meant that, per capita, Arab farmers produce only one-sixteenth as much as Jewish farmers.

Of course

It has nothing to do with the fact that Jewish farmers use new technology while Arab farmers mostly used the same simple methods from yeasr ago...

The Jewish Agency provides little support for agriculture, industry or commerce to Arab citizens compared with their Jewish counterparts.

Seems believable enough but Source?

Income, infant mortality, school support, meaningful employment and housing are notably disadvantaged.

And how is that the responsability or fault of the Jewish Agency?

Because it is not part of the official government, the agency's discriminatory funneling of resources to Jewish citizens is less conspicuous.

It's ZOG!!!

Nevertheless, the agency directs billions of dollars to the development of Jewish, but not Arab-Israeli villages.

I would doubt that it's budget is bigger than a billion dollars.

And yes, I assume it is developing Jewish things, given that it's called the Jewish agency.

Why haven't the Arabs set up an "Arab Agency"?

--

In any case, these texts were written by someone who is a champion at twisting facts for his gain.

[Sirotnikov]

I see the troll is getting it's desired results.
I just don't understand why you guys don't just ignore this moronic crap. Instead, you keep posting and just keep it on the first page...

I disagree.

S.Kroeze is hardly a troll.

he actually believes this, based on several misconceptions created by interest groups, like the palestinians and anti-zionist orthodox jews.

I'm willing to do my best to relieve this text of factual discrepancies.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I'm willing to do my best to relieve this text of factual
discrepancies.

That shouldn't be too tough

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I'm willing to do my best to relieve this text of factual discrepancies.

Why? You aren't going to change his mind or anybody elses if they choose to believe this. Those of us who are more openminded also know propoganda when they see it. Whether for Israel or against.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ming
I see the troll is getting it's desired results.
I just don't understand why you guys don't just ignore this moronic crap. Instead, you keep posting and just keep it on the first page...

Dear Ming,

Thank you for your kind words and valuable contribution to the discussion!
Since I am just a simple historian -accustomed to give chapter and verse- and only able to form an opinion AFTER I have read a book, I am most grateful to you for sharing your insight with me about a professional study you will never read. I rather envy you for this ability.
And I want to thank you for honouring the freedom of opinion!

Unfortunately your words have made me recognize that the intellectual integrity of the Western world is in danger. Only a day ago I would have trusted the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica', which states that in Israel
"The most significant economic divisions among Israeli Jews are between Sefardim and Ashkenazim, the former tending to be poorer and less educated than the latter, as well as underrepresented in higher office. Arabs are generally in the lower socioeconomic categories." (1998 edition)

So even the Britannica is contaminated with anti-Semitic, Muslim propaganda!
This same 1998 edition recommends the following studies about Israel/Palestine:

"Economic studies include Nadav Halevi and Ruth Klinov-Malul, The Economic Development of Israel (1968); and, for more recent events,
Yair Aharoni, The Israeli Economy (1991).
Administrative and political aspects are explored by Don Peretz, The Government and Politics of Israel, 2nd ed., updated (1983);
Edward Luttwak and Dan Horowitz, The Israeli Army, 1948-1973 (1983)
William Frankel, Israel observed (1980); and
Gregory S. Mahler, Israel: Government and Politics in a Maturing State (1990).
Dov Friedlander and Calvin Goldscheider, The Population of Israel (1979), is a highly useful work on population policy.
Raanan Weitz and Avshalom Rokach, Agriculture and Rural Development in Israel: Projection and Planning, trans. from Hebrew (1963),
and Agricultural Development: Planning and Implementation (1968), examine economic aspects.
Joseph S. Bentwich, Education in Israel (1965), is informative and comprehensive.
Two sociological studies summarize the great changes in Israeli life since independence:
Amir Ben-Porat, Divided We Stand: Class Structure in Israel from 1948 to the 1980s (1989); and
Eliezer Ben-Rafael and Stephen Sharot, Ethnicity, Religion, and Class in Israeli Society (1991).
Israeli culture is critically analyzed by Ella Shohat, Israeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of Representation (1989).

Works describing the Zionist movement and the establishment and subsequent history of Israel include Nahum Sokolow, History of Zionism 1600-1918, 2 vol. (1919, reprinted 2 vol. in 1, 1969);
Leonard Stein, Zionism (1925);
Norman Bentwich, Palestine (1934, reissued 1946);
Albert M.Hyamson, Palestine Under the Mandate, 1920-1948 (1950, reprinted 1976);
and Barnet Litvinoff, To the house of Their Fathers: A History of Zionism (1965).
Valuable new interpretations are contained in Peter Y. Medding, The Founding of Israeli Democracy, 1948-1967 (1990); and
Laurence J. Silberstein, New Perspectives on Israeli History: The Early Years of the State (1991).

The material available on the Palestine question, Israel, and Arab-Israeli relations is vast, hardly any of it objective. Some of the few works that are objective include
Ian J. Bickerton and Carla L. Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1991);
Fred J. Khouri, The Arab-Israeli Dilemma, 3rd ed. (1985)
Conor Cruise O'Brien, The Siege: The Saga of Israel and Zionism (1986);
Don Peretz, Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising (1990);
Bernard Reich and Gershon R. Kieval, Israel: Land of Tradition and Conflict, 2nd ed. (1993);
Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel, 2 vol. (1979-87); and Charles D. Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2nd ed. (1992)."

Doubtless it will not escape your notice that several studies recommended by the Britannica were used -sometimes even quoted- as a source by Baylis Thomas.
I also discovered that this same 'moronic crap' is recommended as a compulsory introduction to courses on the Arab-Israeli conflict at some American universities -with the study by Charles D. Smith(1992). (see this link)
So even the American 'Old South', of old a bulwark of liberty, equality and fraternity, is nowadays infiltrated by Palestinian and anti-Semitic propaganda! A most heinous spectre!

he actually believes this, based on several misconceptions created by interest groups, like the palestinians and anti-zionist orthodox jews.
I'm willing to do my best to relieve this text of factual discrepancies.

That shouldn't be too tough

Please do!
I also hope -since the established academic world can no longer be trusted- you are willing to recommend at least one reliable, recent study about the position of minorities in Israel. I am NOT lazy, so I promise to read it.
I understand that you can live with 'revealed knowledge', but my commonplace intellectual capacities will remain dependent on independent scholarly research.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[HisMajestyBOB]

Because Arabs are in lower economic circles means they are discriminated against? What about minorities in every other country? Blacks and Hispanics are usually lower class in the US. But Asians are often successful. Selective rascism?

[Sirotnikov]

Dear S. Kroeze

The claims of Appartheid are made by extreme left-wingers or interest groups that do not like Israel. You have mentioned dozens of books about Israel, none of them, I'm sure, even mentions the word "appartheid".

Your views are so deluded that they are even far from the majority of anti-israeli views, that see the Appartheid in the Israeli-Palestinian seporation. While I disagree with that, I admit that I can understand to an extent, how it can be seen as an appartheid by some.

You, sadly, are living in a deluded world, which is in no way Israel. You mentioned dozens of books, but I doubt you read any of them. A big half of them, no longer applies, since they refer to the pre-1966 era, when Israel was a state with Martial Law being applied to the Arabs.

Obviously, in every democracy with minorities and conflicts you would find evidence of discrimination and socio-economical differences, mostly relics from it's less-democratic past.

While you rely on all kinds of books to prove that there is a social and economical lapse between Ashkenazi, Sefard and Arab Israelis, which is real, though less evident than it used to be, you use those facts to somehow justify the claim of Appartheid.

I am very surprised that the academic world these days agrees that differences between different classes and minorities is to be labeled Appartheid.

From now on, I'll know to refer to every capitalist country as an Appartheid, since it is obvious that in a capitalist country there are socio-economical differences between people, based on classes, social groups, cultures and so on.

Again, I'm not an encyclopedia editor, therefore I see no need to bring quotes and sources. I've read enough to forget, and most importantly - I live in Israel and am aware of what is happening around me.

I wish to stress again, that you have made up an opinion, and use every piece of information, even taken out of context, to prove your opinion.

The first paragraph in your initial thread is a clear example of how you go a long way, trying to prove that there is racial / religious seporation in Israel, and you are basing it on a law that you do not understand.

While the law actually says that jewish rabinical courts do not perform inter religious marraiges, you chose to interpert it as if the law outlaws such marriages. Instead of accepting my explanation, based on the fact that I learn about most such laws in school, just as every citizen of Israel does, you argue that your knowledge is "academic". If this is your academic level, then I'm baffled at how you made it through high-school.

Furthermore, I could bring names of couples who are married who follow different religions or are members of different ethnicities. I have such people in my class, school, city and country. But you will probably demand to see their birth certificates and marriage certificates or something.

I appologize for thinking you were in any way serious about your intentions to understand the laws and life in Israel. I will not bother you with your "academic" research.

[Ming]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Since I am just a simple historian...

Well... at least you got the simple part right. On the historian part... not even close

You are just a worthless troll who has no clue except to cut and paste stuff that somebody else put together for you... and the sad part is, the people that put it together don't really have a clue either.

Enjoy

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Dear S. Kroeze

The claims of Appartheid are made by extreme left-wingers or interest groups that do not like Israel. You have mentioned dozens of books about Israel, none of them, I'm sure, even mentions the word "appartheid".

Your views are so deluded that they are even far from the majority of anti-israeli views, that see the Appartheid in the Israeli-Palestinian seporation. While I disagree with that, I admit that I can understand to an extent, how it can be seen as an appartheid by some.

You, sadly, are living in a deluded world, which is in no way Israel. You mentioned dozens of books, but I doubt you read any of them. A big half of them, no longer applies, since they refer to the pre-1966 era, when Israel was a state with Martial Law being applied to the Arabs.

Obviously, in every democracy with minorities and conflicts you would find evidence of discrimination and socio-economical differences, mostly relics from it's less-democratic past.

While you rely on all kinds of books to prove that there is a social and economical lapse between Ashkenazi, Sefard and Arab Israelis, which is real, though less evident than it used to be, you use those facts to somehow justify the claim of Appartheid.

I am very surprised that the academic world these days agrees that differences between different classes and minorities is to be labeled Appartheid.

From now on, I'll know to refer to every capitalist country as an Appartheid, since it is obvious that in a capitalist country there are socio-economical differences between people, based on classes, social groups, cultures and so on.

Again, I'm not an encyclopedia editor, therefore I see no need to bring quotes and sources. I've read enough to forget, and most importantly - I live in Israel and am aware of what is happening around me.

I wish to stress again, that you have made up an opinion, and use every piece of information, even taken out of context, to prove your opinion.

The first paragraph in your initial thread is a clear example of how you go a long way, trying to prove that there is racial / religious seporation in Israel, and you are basing it on a law that you do not understand.

While the law actually says that jewish rabinical courts do not perform inter religious marraiges, you chose to interpert it as if the law outlaws such marriages. Instead of accepting my explanation, based on the fact that I learn about most such laws in school, just as every citizen of Israel does, you argue that your knowledge is "academic". If this is your academic level, then I'm baffled at how you made it through high-school.

Furthermore, I could bring names of couples who are married who follow different religions or are members of different ethnicities. I have such people in my class, school, city and country. But you will probably demand to see their birth certificates and marriage certificates or something.

I appologize for thinking you were in any way serious about your intentions to understand the laws and life in Israel. I will not bother you with your "academic" research.

Dear Sirotnikov,

Thanks for trying to have a debate!
Yet as usual you are not reading carefully and fantasizing about what is my opinion on some issue.
And though you are the only one who at least tries to refute arguments, you never base them on sources. Another recent, scholarly study would qualify.
Nor do I think it is relevant, which political movement do support some view. It is the evidence that decides.

Let's use the issue about the 'mixed' marriages.
In my opinion the sentence of Thomas is rather muddled:
"Occasionally the Supreme Court will intervene, but generally it does not intrude on rabbinical rulings, e.g., concerning the validity of Jewish marriages outside the orthodox form or the prohibition of marriages of Jews to Moslems or Christians."

I understand this sentence as follows: The rabbinical courts didn't want to allow marriages between Jews and Christians/Muslims, BUT because the Supreme Court intervened it was finally allowed. So in the end we seem to agree that 'mixed' marriages are allowed (since when?). Yet is still surprises me that the legislator(parliament) did NOT decree by law. In a democratic constitutional state that would have been the only possible procedure. This incident -the way I understand it (and please correct me by some source when I am wrong)- shows that the possibility of 'mixed' marriages was not matter-of-course.
And this NOT being matter-of-course is suspect in my view!

I am also pleased that you are at least willing to consider the possibility that some rulings and proceedings of the government could be interpreted as 'apartheid'. This shows you are willing to discuss things.

I have never claimed to have read those list of books, though I visited the library today, trying to get hold of some of them.
I only showed that the Britannica recommends several studies used by B.Thomas, a study I have read indeed.
And this study by B.Thomas was immediately dismissed as propaganda, because the Zionists do not like his conclusions.
When you can show me -giving chapter and verse as I have consistently done- that his text I copied verbatim (obviously I made a selection, but I did not cut within his paragraps, because that is 'bad practice') contains factual errors, please do! When it concerns 'hard facts' (like amount of university posts) this is quite easy, especially when you live in the country.

I agree that socio-economic differences alone do not justify the label 'apartheid'.
Yet when it would be true:

• that there is not one single Arab Israeli among the more than six hundred managers and directors of Histadrut-controlled industry,
• when it would be true that some 40,000 Palestinian Arabs living in Israel were disqualified from citizenship,
• when it would be true that 40 percent of Arab-Israeli villages are without electricity,
• when it would be true that almost all Arab property was confiscated, while most Arab refugees were kept at gunpoint(!) from returning,
• when it would be true that of the thousands of Histadrut firms and factories not one is located in an Arab village (I could add that according to my sources unemployment has substantially been higher among Arabs, so this lack of industrial employment was truly harmful to them,

I would conclude that this label of 'apartheid' is justified.

In my country there are also socio-economic differences, yet I could prove that the Dutch government consistently tries to reduce them.

You may also notice that I do not make personal insults, though I understand that for you the idea of 'apartheid' in Israel is offending. Based on the information presented by B.Thomas I think that living conditions of the Arab Israelis are gradually improving -yet far too slowly.
I do not think that someone living in a country will be more objective about its domestic affairs.
I would also like to remark that the general public is hardly interested in history, so lack of indignation doesn't prove anything! Before the Gulf War Iraq did hardly get any attention in the media.
For me the complete history of Israel is relevant, even the days before 1948. I hadn't even mentioned this 'Martial Law', which doubtless also was most disagreeable!
Afterwards we could discuss when conditions were worst for the Arabs.

And of course it is easy to consider 'academic' research as superfluous, but this argument will not convince me!
Again a small example: you seem to concede that indeed 40 percent of the Arab villages lack electricity, but you immediately add it is their own fault, because they refuse to live in the city.
I could remark that in a 'free' country people can make a choice whether they want to live in the countryside or in the city. The fact that they seem to prefer their illegal buildings without electricity, makes me suspicious about the alternatives offered to them. I guess they have some good reason for their preference.
I will try to learn more about it.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze, living in a "deluded" world

PS: Would you consider the "Old South" (before the 60s 'apartheid'? I would.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ming
Well... at least you got the simple part right. On the historian part... not even close

You are just a worthless troll who has no clue except to cut and paste stuff that somebody else put together for you... and the sad part is, the people that put it together don't really have a clue either.
Enjoy

What a pity you are unwilling to share the fount of your 'revealed knowledge'....
I presume you dislike debate?

[Ned]

It looks like Kroeze is setting up a complaint under the new ICC, which goes into effect this July. There, the crime of apartheid is defined as follows:

"(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

The acts in paragraph 1 are

"(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."

Which have the following definitions:

"For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(b) "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

(c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

(d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

(f) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

(g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

(i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time."

[Ming]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze

What a pity you are unwilling to share the fount of your 'revealed knowledge'....
I presume you dislike debate?

No... I do like an honest debate... but I prefer to debate with somebody who actually knows what they are talking about vs a copy and paste artist who is just sprouting an agenda that they don't really understand.

Around here, we call that troll.
Have a nice day

[ZoboZeWarrior]

There's legal or gouvernment seggregation in Israel, for sure.

Through there's "illegal" seggregation. I mean that the Israeli gouvernment didn't promote it but this is certainly less easier for a arab-israeli to find a good job or a good flat, to loan money to a bank, ... because he's arab-israeli.

Of course, this situation is not typical from Israel. In France too at a lesser scale, if you look like an "Arab", you'll have more difficulties to increase your social situation. But acts of seggregation is punishable and is punished (it depend of our gouvernment ...).

But the situation is worsen by racism, fear and anger.

Seggregation could be fight only if a gouvernment has the will to fight it (eg : USA sending army or federal agants to protect black kids going to school on some south states). A democratic or republican should impose its values to its citizens out of their privacy !

I don't think that the actual Israeli gouvernment have the will to fight the seggregation.

[Urban Ranger]

Ming,

When did you become a defender of the Israeli state?

[Grrr]

We have already had this thread 3 months ago

[laurentius]

I think S.Kroeze is trying to have an honest discussion here. He has some intresting points and it would be nice if the moderators woudn't try to shut him off.
And also,I rhink in the long run the left-wingers love israel the most.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Dear Sirotnikov,

Thanks for trying to have a debate!

Thanks for not responding to any of my posts which actually contain content.

Yet as usual you are not reading carefully and fantasizing about what is my opinion on some issue.
And though you are the only one who at least tries to refute arguments, you never base them on sources. Another recent, scholarly study would qualify.
Nor do I think it is relevant, which political movement do support some view. It is the evidence that decides.

1. Then you better explain your opinions instead of cutting and pasting wierd paragraphs which show lack of understanding.

2. I don't need sources since I'm a source. After all, books rely on books which rely on books, which eventually come down to a human source which wittnessed an event.

3. If you would like me to quote the actual paragraphs of the Israeli law, I could try. Meanwhile I'm basing my views upon my personal knowledge and "Being Citizens in Israel: A Jewish and Democratic State", Hanna Adan & Varda Ashkenazi and Bilha Elpherson, Teaching Programs, Maalot Publishing, 2000.

Let's use the issue about the 'mixed' marriages.
In my opinion the sentence of Thomas is rather muddled:
"Occasionally the Supreme Court will intervene, but generally it does not intrude on rabbinical rulings, e.g., concerning the validity of Jewish marriages outside the orthodox form or the prohibition of marriages of Jews to Moslems or Christians."

I understand this sentence as follows: The rabbinical courts didn't want to allow marriages between Jews and Christians/Muslims, BUT because the Supreme Court intervened it was finally allowed. So in the end we seem to agree that 'mixed' marriages are allowed (since when?). Yet is still surprises me that the legislator(parliament) did NOT decree by law. In a democratic constitutional state that would have been the only possible procedure. This incident -the way I understand it (and please correct me by some source when I am wrong)- shows that the possibility of 'mixed' marriages was not matter-of-course.
And this NOT being matter-of-course is suspect in my view!

I can disprove you by simply mentioning that I know mixed couples which married even during the Marshall Law (before 66). This is based on a program describing the life of one such family, and the life of their children, who serve in the IDF.

And you do completely misunderstand the text.

Let me again explain it to you:

The Supreme court does not interevene unless there is an anti-democratic decision. The religious marraiges are not it's responsibility. It can, however, and does, intervene in cases of custody and such, especially when one of the sides is not religious, and does not accept the rabbinical court's authority.

Never has it been disallowed for marraiges between anyone to occur. I am clueless as to how you have gotten that from the text.

I am also pleased that you are at least willing to consider the possibility that some rulings and proceedings of the government could be interpreted as 'apartheid'. This shows you are willing to discuss things.

I think that the fact I answer every single paragrph as honestly and accurately as I can, should show that.

That does not mean I agree with that interpertation.

And in any case, your interpertations, are by far the more loonie and ungripped in reality.

I'm used to people seeing the almost-autonomous PA as part of an Israeli appartheid against the PA.

I've never seen people deduce that mixed marraiges are not allowed, simply because they are not in the jurisdiction of rabinnical courts.

I have never claimed to have read those list of books, though I visited the library today, trying to get hold of some of them.
I only showed that the Britannica recommends several studies used by B.Thomas, a study I have read indeed.

And apparently misunderstood

And this study by B.Thomas was immediately dismissed as propaganda, because the Zionists do not like his conclusions.
When you can show me -giving chapter and verse as I have consistently done- that his text I copied verbatim (obviously I made a selection, but I did not cut within his paragraps, because that is 'bad practice') contains factual errors, please do! When it concerns 'hard facts' (like amount of university posts) this is quite easy, especially when you live in the country.

1. Sadly I do not know any texts meant specifically to answer your misneterpertations. I can only tell you hard facts which you can believe or not believe. If you don't believe me, there's no reason to bring sources, since you won't see them reliable as well.

2. A difference between ethnicities in statistics, does nto automatically suggest 'appartheid'. Please pick your favourite minority in your country, and check whether it has proportionate unviersity posts. Does it?

I do not believe in Affirmative Action, and neither do most institutions in Israel. It's just another, opposite discrimination.

I agree that socio-economic differences alone do not justify the label 'apartheid'.

good.

[*]that there is not one single Arab Israeli among the more than six hundred managers and directors of Histadrut-controlled industry,

Arabs are not represented in the Histadrut since they hardly participate in the parts of the industry controlled by the Histadrut.

Arabs were traditionally farmers, and later became workers in "black works", and now have moved on to either indepenent bussinesses or academic proffessions.

There are ever growing numbers of Arab B.A.s and M.A.s and PhDs in every scene, from Law, to Medicine, to Philosophy.

Look at the Arab Knesset Members - Mr. Tibby is a Doctor. Mr. Barake is a Philosopher.

I was treated by Arab doctors. I shared rooms with Arab patients.

I failed to see "appartheid".

Infact, just recently there was a CNN show, detailing, how wounded and captured Palestinian terrorists were treated in the same hospitals as their Israeli victims, often bed to bed, treated by the same Israeli, Jewish and Arab doctors.

That does not seem "appartheid" to me.

[*]when it would be true that some 40,000 Palestinian Arabs living in Israel were disqualified from citizenship,

When? Over which period of time? Due to what circumstances? According to which law?

Did they have citizenship before, or did they never had it?

I wish to bring to your attention that there is a big group of arabs who refused to accept Israeli citizenship, claiming we are not the legal rulers.

when it would be true that 40 percent of Arab-Israeli villages are without electricity,

I would have to check this number, as I would imagine it to be less, considering it is mainly beduins, who aren't 40%.

I already explained the reasons before - those are mostly nomadic tribes, which suddenly decide to settle 20 homes in the middle of nowhere, and call it a village.

Israel tries to promote urbanizing and making large settle points to solve this problem.

when it would be true that almost all Arab property was confiscated, while most Arab refugees were kept at gunpoint(!) from returning,

This is a very mixed sentance.

Which arabs are you referring to? Those who fled? Those who stayed?

Those who fled were at times even encouraged to return. But admittedly it were short times.

Mostly, we didn't want them to return, since they most obviously had ties with our enemies and infact, many of the refugees fled / were deported exactly for that reason.

There was no peace agreement signed between us and the arabs. Letting in possible rogue agents wasn't the smartest of things to do.

when it would be true that of the thousands of Histadrut firms and factories not one is located in an Arab village (I could add that according to my sources unemployment has substantially been higher among Arabs, so this lack of industrial employment was truly harmful to them,

As I said, most arabs tend to have different professions and didn't involve themselves in industry.

A factory has to earn money to exist. It has to have workers. To build a factory in a small village, of several hundred people, none of whom are industry workers, seems absurd to me.

I would conclude that this label of 'apartheid' is justified.

Sure. That's why I share an appartment building with both muslim and christian arabs. That's why I purchase most groceries in arab run stores next to my house.

That's why i had arab teachers. That's why i had arab doctors.


I think you better learn what apprtheid means, before you jump to conclusions.

In my country there are also socio-economic differences, yet I could prove that the Dutch government consistently tries to reduce them.

And I can prove that the socio economic differences are getting smaller by the year.

In 1951 49% of the arabs were uneducated and almost none went to academic institutions.
In 1996 8.3% are uneducated and more than 7% went to academic institutions.

In 1998, a third of the poor families in Israel were arab families. A big part of the problem is that on avarage, arab families have more than twice as many children.

Percentage of Arab Students studying for
1974
BA - 3.5
MA - 1.3
PhD - 0.3
1995
BA - 7.0
MA - 3.0
PhD - 3.5

Percentage of Students which get pass graduation exams:
1991
Jews - 67.3 Arabs 45.5
1996
Jews 67.4 Arabs 49.4

You may also notice that I do not make personal insults, though I understand that for you the idea of 'apartheid' in Israel is offending. Based on the information presented by B.Thomas I think that living conditions of the Arab Israelis are gradually improving -yet far too slowly.

"far too slowly" by whose count?

I'm sure you are not aware of all the conditions making this far more difficult.

For a long time, until the late seventies, the arab society was far too traditional, and it was very hard to "pull it out". You have to understand that prior to 1948, the life of arab farmers here, was just like in the middle ages europe.

Admittedly - there are discriminating policies, which suck. but they are now more due to political power, than anything else.

In any case, those policies are changing, and have been changing for years now.

One of my goals in my future, is to, hopefully, fully integrate Israeli Arabs into Israel, assuming they are willing to.

I do not think that someone living in a country will be more objective about its domestic affairs.

I think that someone living in a country will have a clue.

I would also like to remark that the general public is hardly interested in history, so lack of indignation doesn't prove anything! Before the Gulf War Iraq did hardly get any attention in the media.

How does that relate?

I study history and politics and israeli history and law in school. I also study it personally more, since i'm interested in the subject.

For me the complete history of Israel is relevant, even the days before 1948. I hadn't even mentioned this 'Martial Law', which doubtless also was most disagreeable!

I mentioned martial law myself.

I admit also that that phenomena was anti-democratic, though based on reality. The arabs in Israel, were, mostly, not very different in mind from those who attacked it on 1948.

And of course it is easy to consider 'academic' research as superfluous, but this argument will not convince me!

Your research is hardly academic.

Again a small example: you seem to concede that indeed 40 percent of the Arab villages lack electricity, but you immediately add it is their own fault, because they refuse to live in the city.
I could remark that in a 'free' country people can make a choice whether they want to live in the countryside or in the city. The fact that they seem to prefer their illegal buildings without electricity, makes me suspicious about the alternatives offered to them. I guess they have some good reason for their preference.
I will try to learn more about it.

They have a reason for their preference - tradition.

This is another hole in your academic research. You have no idea how tied are the local arabs to tradition and beduins are to nomadity.

I remind you again, that this was a middle ages society here, prior to the brittish mandate.

PS: Would you consider the "Old South" (before the 60s 'apartheid'? I would.

Why apply it only to the south, and not whole of america?

I think that america in general was racist in several senses, but appartheid only existed in the south.

And accepting that definition, I can tell you that Israel is in no way an appartheid state.

Nowhere did I say that there aren't discriminating policies. There are. Mostly to do with political power than 'ethnicity'. The governments in Israel are blackmailed by the orthodox parties to allocate huge funds to thier institutions. Since arabs have had the smallest representation, they couldn't get funds. That is changing now.

But it's not 'appartheid'.

[Ned]

S. Kroeze, Even if everything you said was true, I still doubt it makes out a case for Israel being guilty of "apartheid." The very first element requires that there be two "races." As many posters have often reminded us here, both Arab and Jew are the same race.

[Adam Smith]

Just to pick up on a point that HisMajestyBob touched on, how many of the conditions cited in Israel would also apply to other countries in the region or the world, and possibly to a much greater degree?

Off the top of my head possible suspects include:
Lebanon (christians vs. moslems)
Syria (campaign by Assad the Elder against minorities in the country)
Iraq (Kurds)
Turkey (Kurds)
Iran (much more theocratic government than Israel)
Ditto Afghanistan under the Taliban
India (moslems)
Sub-Saharan Africa (any number of countries with tribal issues)

By raising the issue specifically with respect to Israel, does this wind up supporting the Isreali argument that whatever standards are applied selectively to them when there are many other and possibly much worse cases to be considered?

On another issue, it is my impression that even in the late 1970's, most leftists in the US and around the world strongly backed Israel for many years, in large part because of the collective nature of society, as exemplified by the kibutz. Is this the case? If so, was there any specific event that brought a change of heart? Or did people just wake up one morning and be "shocked" to find that the Isrealis were "racists"?

[Az]

No. the first left wingers were following the decisions of their respective parties , with the communist parties of many countries being under the control of the USSR. before the 56' war, Israel was non-alligned. but after 56' with the Soviets backing Nasser, Israel joined Britain and France against the Egyptians. ( ).

[ZoboZeWarrior]

It's a was military victory until USSR bashed us on diplomatic soil ("Our words are backed with nuclear weapons").

[Az]

well, WE sure as hell didn't have to join you guys. ( and btw, you've failed miserably, together with the brits, in your landings in Port Said. We sweeped across the Suez like a Katana through butter. Check latest history books. really.)

[Eli]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
It's a was military victory until USSR bashed us on diplomatic soil ("Our words are backed with nuclear weapons").

You mean, operation "Kadesh" was a military victory and operation "Musketeer" was a huge defeat. You entered the war days after you were supposed to, did nothing important during the two days you actually fought and were the first to surrender to US-USSR pressure. French cowards.

[Maid Marion]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


Dear Ming,

Thank you for your kind words and valuable contribution to the discussion!
Since I am just a simple historian -accustomed to give chapter and verse- and only able to form an opinion AFTER I have read a book, I am most grateful to you for sharing your insight with me about a professional study you will never read. I rather envy you for this ability.

Well done, you stand up to him. There is nothing worse then an ignoramus except perhaps one with some power and a little willy

They don`t call him Minger for nothing you know!