Gold stones, glass houses (Israel's Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa)

[grassfed]

(A timely reminder from Polakow-Suransky, the leading academic expert on Israeli/South African relations and author of "The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa")

The Israeli government has it in for Richard Goldstone. Ever since Goldstone, a Jewish South African judge, issued a report in September charging Israel (and Hamas) with war crimes during the January 2009 invasion of Gaza, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attacked him -- and his report -- as a grave threat to Israel's legitimacy.

On Thursday, leading Israeli government officials escalated their campaign against Goldstone, accusing him of sending 28 black South Africans to their deaths while serving as a judge during the apartheid years.

"The judge who sentenced black people to death … is a man of double standards," Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin proclaimed. "Such a person should not be allowed to lecture a democratic state defending itself against terrorists." Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon insisted, "This so-called respected judge is using this report in order to atone for his sins," likening Goldstone's statement that he was forced to uphold the laws of an unjust regime to "explanations we heard in Nazi Germany after World War II."

And the newspaper Yediot Ahronoth declared breathlessly -- with nods of approval from Jeffrey Goldberg and Jonathan Chait -- that "the man who authored the Goldstone report criticizing the IDF's actions during Operation Cast Lead took an active part in the racist policies of one of the cruelest regimes of the 20th century."

So did Israel's government.

Goldstone's apartheid-era judicial rulings are undoubtedly a blot on his record, but his critics never mention the crucial part he played in shepherding South Africa through its democratic transition and warding off violent threats to a peaceful transfer of power -- a role that led Nelson Mandela to embrace him and appoint him to the country's highest court.

More importantly, Ayalon's and Rivlin's moralism conveniently ignores Israel's history of arming the apartheid regime from the mid-1970s until the early 1990s. By serving as South Africa's primary and most reliable arms supplier during a period of violent internal repression and external aggression, Israel's government did far more to aid the apartheid regime than Goldstone ever did.

more

[grassfed]

1. The End Of The Goldstone/Apartheid - Brouhaha MJ Rosenberg

On Thursday, Yedioth Achronoth, the mass circulation Israeli daily, revealed that the foreign ministry was sending the word out to Israeli diplomats worldwide that the best way to "get" South African Justice Richard Goldstone for writing his Gaza war crimes report was to link him to the apartheid regime.

A Yediot "investigation" produced some half-baked evidence that Goldstone was implicated in the crimes of apartheid and. almost in passing, noted "that an Foreign Ministry official referred to the investigation as 'explosive PR material,' Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman plans to instruct his office to send the information published in the newspaper to all of Israel's representatives in the world to be used in their PR activities."

Within 24 hours, Jeff Goldberg, Alan Dershowitz, and Jon Chait jumped to it: repeating the Israeli charge.

But then, yesterday, Foreign Affairs magazine's senior editor, Sasha Polakow Suransky took the Israeli foreign ministry's meme and blew it sky high in Foreign Policy's blog. Polakow-Suransky, the leading academic expert on Israeli/South African relations (and author of "The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa") provided a timely reminder.

While Justice Goldstone's record on apartheid was outstanding enough for Nelson Mandela to put him in charge of investigating crimes of the apartheid regime, Israel had been (to the very end) the apartheid regime's closest ally and arms supplier.

It's all here.

The facts about Goldstone and apartheid begs the question. Can it be that Avigdor Lieberman, Jeff Goldberg, Alan Dershowitz and the rest of the neocons care more deeply about apartheid than Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and the African National Congress (ANC)? Who knew? (Of course, Lieberman favors apartheid...but perhaps only in the West Bank).

Bottom line: the crowd who assert that there were no war crimes in Gaza (but rather a few unavoidable accidents) stand exposed, yet again. But, give them credit, it ain't easy maintaining that of the 192 member states of the United Nations, only one has never done anything wrong and, obviously, never will.

more

[Tripmann]

2. Great post Grassfed, cheers

"On Thursday, Yedioth Achronoth, the mass circulation Israeli daily, revealed that the foreign ministry was sending the word out to Israeli diplomats worldwide that the best way to "get" South African Justice Richard Goldstone for writing his Gaza war crimes report was to link him to the apartheid regime."

I think at this point the world is just rolling its eyes while the rabid zionists wheel out more crap to throw at this guy. The fact that the largest supplier of arms to apartheid south africa should go down this road via their diplomats is like something from a bad rovian playbook.

Here lies the Nethenyahu administration, dragged under by the weight of its own irony while swimming in a sea of hypocracy.

[Jefferson23]

7. "the crowd who assert that there were no war crimes in Gaza,

(but rather a few unavoidable accidents) stand exposed, yet again."

Ha ha, well stated Rosenberg!!

:applause:

[LeftishBrit]

3. Not that other countries were doing much better at the time

Maggie 'n Ronnie LOVED some dirty deals, oops I mean constructive engagement, with the South African apartheid regime.

[Tripmann]

4. Yep, thatcher branded mandela a terrorist

Now his statue stands on parliament square in London.

[shira]

9. The USA still supports apartheid in S.Arabia, Jordan...

[FarrenH]

41. On Saudi Arabia, at least, we agree

[LeftishBrit]

43. Me too.

[shira]

44. Jews can't live in Jordan or buy land there.

In Lebanon...

Although there are more than 400,000 Palestinians living in Lebanon in twelve refugee camps -- which human rights organizations and Palestinians say have the worst living conditions of all the refugee camps in the Middle East -- as in most of the Arab countries, these Palestinians have been assigned the status of "foreigners," a fact which has deprived them of health care, social services, property ownership and education.

Even worse, Lebanese law bans Palestinians from working in many jobs. This means that Palestinians cannot work in the public services and institutions run by the government such as schools and hospitals. Unlike Israel, Lebanese public hospitals do not admit Palestinians for medical treatment or surgery.

http://www.hudsonny.org/2010/03/what-about-the-arab-apartheid.php

Those are examples of apartheid, not to mention the fact that the UN simply doesn't do anything to Syria, Lebanon, and other Arab countries which treat Palestinian refugees worse than in Israel. Holding Israel to a "higher" standard not expected from any other nations is apartheid. An example being Jordan's 1970 Black September. Not one UN resolution condemning the slaughter of thousands of Palestinians.

Recently, Sri Lanka was killing thousands at the same time OCL was going on in Gaza. The UN praised Sri Lanka for their efforts. THAT is apartheid. One standard for Jews (or blacks) and another standard for basically anyone else (whites).

[grassfed]

45. Jordan and the Jews: Another lie Dershowitz told you

There will always be a market for books that explain complicated things, be it astronomy or Middle East politics, to laypeople who don't have much time to read. Some of the authors of those books, like Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov, are serious writers. Some others, like Alan Dershowitz, are charlatans.

The problem is that because of Dershowitz's high profile, his bogus scholarship tends to go viral. Once he tells a lie, you can bet your monthly wage that web searches for that lie will yield a million hits in a matter of days.

Case in point, the Jordanian Citizenship Fable. As you have read time and again from a myriad commenters on the blogs and even from experienced journalists, "Jews are not allowed to be citizens of Jordan." The origin of this picturesque, but utterly wrong, notion can be traced back to Dershowitz's 2003 article The case against Jordan, a compendium of invectives against the Hashemite kingdom that sought (for a change) to apologize for Israel by comparison. In it, Dershowitz made the following astonishing claim:

Jordan has a law on its books explicitly prohibiting any Jew from becoming a citizen, or any Jordanian from selling land to a Jew.

Before we analyze the origin of this myth, let's hear the opinion of people just marginally more qualified than Alan Dershowitz to talk about human rights in Jordan (or elsewhere) -- the US's Department of State. In their 2006 International Religious Freedom Report, they had this to say:

The Government recognizes Judaism as a religion; however there are reportedly no Jordanian citizens who are Jewish. The Government does not impose restrictions on Jews, and they are permitted to own property and conduct business in the country.
So that the claim is a plain and simple lie.

However, and like most Dershowitz lies, this is one that is fabricated from an originally true fact, which was then twisted, distorted and magnified until it became a falsity. Jordan's Nationality Law includes the following clauses (Article 3):

The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:

(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;

(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;

(3)Any person whose father holds Jordanian nationality; (...)
As can be seen, there exists a restriction on SOME Jews (not on ANY Jew), namely the Jewish population that was involved in the Jewish-Arab conflict of 1948. These Jews (who, let's not forget, had a foreign nationality) were treated as members of an enemy belligerent faction and were thus denied citizenship by origin.

Unfair? Sure. Unique? By no means. Countries involved in conflicts usually go hysterical and tend to single out populations for discriminatory treatment. The US interned American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Perhaps more relevantly, Israel has laws that allow the foreign husband of an Israeli woman to become a resident of Israel except if he is a Palestinian from the occupied territories.

More to the point, however, the Jordanian law does not exclude Jews (even pre-1948 Palestinian citizens) from applying for naturalization. For instance, article 12 of the above-cited law says:

Any person other than a Jordanian who is not incapable by law may apply to the Council of Ministers for grant of a certificate of Jordanian naturalization if:

(1)He has been regularly resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for a period of four years preceding the date of his application;

(2)He intends to reside in the Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan.

Article 4, for its part, states:

Any Arab who has resided continuously in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for not less than 15 years may acquire Jordanian nationality (...).

Where an Arab is a citizen of an Arab country -- for instance, a Moroccan Jew. No restrictions based on religion are made in either article.

In other words, a restriction on certain Jews who had been involved in an Arab-Jewish conflict, which is very similar to other comparable restrictions put into effect by advanced countries, was extrapolated by Dershowitz's dialectical magic wand to become a hateful ban on all Jews, which, presumably, would justify, for example, the Israeli settlers' brutal clubbing of elderly Palestinians. And once the lie was let loose, Zionists cut-and-pasted it with abandon.

So that, for the record: Jews can be citizens of Jordan. And they can own property there. The Department of State sez. It's official.

[shira]

47. Thanks, Dersh was wrong. Only from '73-'95 did that law exist in the Jordanian books

However, it still appears that under Jordanian laws Palestinians who have had their citizenship revoked - for no other reason than being Palestinian - are being discriminated against in an apartheid-like manner by Jordan.

Still, there are ZERO Jews in Jordan, which is considered a moderate country in comparison to Syria - which at least has a few Jews there.

[grassfed]

82. yr new found decorum would be more convincing if we hadn't gone over this before - nt

[grassfed]

46. Jews can buy/live in Jordan but Jordanians can't buy in Israel

I would also point out that Dersh and others conflate Israelis and Jews when they insist that Jordan does not allow foreign Jews to own property there.

Some countries, such as Jordan, have “investor friendly” property laws. Foreign entities are allowed to own or lease property in Jordan for investment or personal use, provided that their home countries permit reciprocal rights to Jordanians.

http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/Section.2082.html

Guess what country does NOT allow Jordanians to own or lease property there? Yes, its Israel. The only foreigners who are allowed to purchase property in Israel are those who are eligible for immigration to Israel under the law of "return", i.e. Jews. Therefore, no Israelis are allowed to own or lease property in Jordan, because Israel confers no reciprocal rights on Jordanians.

But a Jew from the US or any other country that allows Jordanians to purchase property in that country is able to purchase property in Jordan.

[azurnoir]

5. Richard Goldstone: I have no regrets about the Gaza war report

The article in the Yedioth Ahronoth daily said Goldstone, who headed the UN committee that accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes during the Gaza war of 2008-2009, was responsible for sending at least 28 black South Africans to their deaths when they appeared before him in court.

"As far as I'm concerned, there's no connection to the appointment I had in South Africa to these accusations," said Goldstone, who calls himself pro-Zionist. "I took an appointment to the bench, as did a number of liberal judges, and we had to uphold the law of the country. It was a moral dilemma to do that, but the approach was that it was better to fight from inside than not at all. The moral dilemma came up when I had to apply the law."

Goldstone said he sentenced only two people to death directly, but upheld a majority of appeals in the Supreme Court, as one of three judges on a panel.

<snip>

Goldstone said no South Africans, including the country's much revered first black president Nelson Mandela, who appointed him a judge, had accused him of undermining his moral authority by sentencing defendants to death or dismissing their appeals.

"I never had accusations of this sort," he said. "The first time I have been accused of such things is now, by Yedioth."


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/richard-goldstone-i-have-no-regrets-about-the-gaza-war-report-1.288535


this article is also from last thursday and I was surprised that it was not posted on the original thread on this topic, but such is the I/P forum these days

[Eg-ptiangirl]

67. Not only South Africa Apartheid , Israel and Idi Amin

Surprises are every where when you search about Israel and Africa.

[grassfed]

86. Revealed: how Israel helped Amin to take power THE INDEPENDENT

When Radio Uganda announced at dawn on 25 January 1971 that Idi Amin was Uganda's new ruler, many people suspected that Britain had a hand in the coup. However, Foreign Office papers released last year point to a different conspirator: Israel.

When Radio Uganda announced at dawn on 25 January 1971 that Idi Amin was Uganda's new ruler, many people suspected that Britain had a hand in the coup. However, Foreign Office papers released last year point to a different conspirator: Israel.

The first telegrams to London from the British High Commissioner in Kampala, Richard Slater, show a man shocked and bewildered by the coup. But he quickly turned to the man who he thought might know what was going on; Colonel Bar-Lev, the Israeli defence attaché. He found the Israeli colonel with Amin. They had spent the morning of the coup together. Slater's next telegram says that according to Colonel Bar-Lev: "In the course of last night General Amin caused to be arrested all officers in the armed forces sympathetic to Obote ... Amin is now firmly in control of all elements of army which controls vital points in Uganda ... the Israeli defence attaché discounts any possibility of moves against Amin."

The Israelis moved quickly to consolidate the coup. In the following days Bar-Lev was in constant contact with Amin and giving him advice. Slater told London that Bar-Lev had explained "in considerable detail ... all potential foci of resistance, both up country and in Kampala, had been eliminated". Shortly afterwards Amin made his first foreign trip; a state visit to Israel.

MORE

[grassfed]

6. Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria South Africa

Chris McGreal investigates the clandestine alliance between Israel and the apartheid regime, cemented with the ultimate gift of friendship - A-bomb technology

Several years ago in Johannesburg I met a Jewish woman whose mother and sister were murdered in Auschwitz. After their deaths, she was forced into a gas chamber, but by some miracle that bout of killing was called off. Vera Reitzer survived the extermination camp, married soon after the war and moved to South Africa.

Reitzer joined the apartheid Nationalist party (NP) in the early 1950s, at about the time that the new prime minister, DF Malan, was introducing legislation reminiscent of Hitler's Nuremberg laws against Jews: the population registration act that classified South Africans according to race, legislation that forbade sex and marriage across the colour line and laws barring black people from many jobs.

Reitzer saw no contradiction in surviving the Holocaust only to sign up for a system that was disturbingly reminiscent in its underpinning philosophy, if not in the scale of its crimes, as the one she had outlived. She vigorously defended apartheid as a necessary bulwark against black domination and the communism that engulfed her native Yugoslavia. Reitzer let slip that she thought Africans inferior to other human beings and not entitled to be treated as equals. I asked if Hitler hadn't said the same thing about her as a Jew. She called a halt to the conversation.

more

[grassfed]

8. Richard J. Goldstone: Integrity Personified is on FACEBOOK

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=152832719154

[shira]

10. LAME.

1. The defenders of Goldstone's Report try to make it appear as though Goldstone's critics have nothing in their arsenal other than ad-hominem smears. The fact of the matter is there is THOROUGH documentation showing Goldstone's report is a complete joke, and Goldstone to this day denies substantive criticism of it exists...

http://www.goldstonereport.org/

2. Also, the main point is always missed by Goldstone's defenders. Namely, this is all part of a pattern by Goldstone. He has evolved from an apartheid judge against blacks into an apartheid judge against the Jewish state. Just as there was "special" justice against blacks, there is also special justice against Israel at the UN. The UNHRC knew exactly who they were getting to do their bidding. They didn't "gamble" with any impartial investigator. The UNHRC, headed by bastions of human rights like Libya, got the perfect apartheid judge they could trust to exact "special" justice against the only one state in the entire world they believe deserves their disproportionate attention.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21359334/Goldstone-V2

[Tripmann]

11. Classic

:rofl:

[shira]

17. Great substantive reply, as usual.

Cat still got your tongue WRT Goldstone actually implementing and perpetrating what David Duke can only write and talk about?

I'm pretty certain you don't pay much attention to Duke's rants against Israel, but why assume Goldstone is more credible than Duke WRT criticism against Israel?

[Tripmann]

27. Are you seriously asking somebody

with the capacity to work a computer why they should believe somebody with the career profile of jewish Judge Richard J Goldstone is more credible than David Duke?

The funny thing is, the unrelenting co-orinated character assasination of this guy is now counterproductive for you. People who never even heard of goldstone are now seeing the hypocracy and are talking about him from a sympathetic standpoint. So keep going shira, and zionists and israeli admin, because the surest way to make people realise that the full facts about OCL have never been investigated is to keep calling goldstone a liar.

Follow up question, have you asked yourself lately why nobody else, including the zionists around here, are echoing your continued rants against goldstone?

I swear to God, its like watching orly taitz in action. Long after her ilk has realised the absurdity of the argument, shes still on the air ranting to nobody, thinking shes actually HELPING the cause.

[shira]

28. And the denial continues... (nt)

[Tripmann]

29. What denial is this shira?

What are you accusing me of denying today?

Goldstones 'hypocracy'?

Travers 'racism'?

the Holocaust?

gravity?

Its not even 24 hours since you admitted falsely accusing me of something. Want to go again sweetheart?

[shira]

30. Do you...

...believe the Goldstone Report to be generally reliable, fair, and credible given all you know about its contents

http://www.goldstonereport.org/

...and the authors like Goldstone and Travers?

BTW, Goldstone still denies substantive criticism of his "facts" exists:
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/05/how_long_can_goldstone_keep_on.html

Yep, it's CAMERA but the hebrew version can be translated into english to show that as of THIS week 8 months after the release of the Report, Goldstone is lying his ass off.

What says you?

[Tripmann]

31. As I have told you before commenting on the report is a nonsense

as is commenting on goldstone himself.

Its the modern day equivalent of character assasination of the judge at the nuremberg trials. Its a nonsense and doesn't lessen the crimes committed by the nazis.

My position has always been that given the confilcting evidence and versions of events, a full, open and transparent investigation should take place where israel can present its case against the accusations, as can hamas.

[shira]

32. So the Report was a big waste of time that deserves zero attention....

Meaning the UN could have spent its time more wisely?

[Tripmann]

33. Shira, go put words in someone elses mouth

before I embarrass you again.

My position on the matter hasn't changed.

And despite rabid zionist attempts to turn any discussion about possible war crimes committed during OCL by israel into character assasination of goldstone the facts are the facts.

Goldstone did not undertake an operation in full knowledge that a large number of innocent women and children would be killed.

Goldstone did not use white phosphorous in a built up area.

Goldstone is not blockading the people of gaza

Goldstone is not preventing the people of gaza from rebuilding their infrastructure

Goldstone is not shooting at fishing boats in an attempt to deny further the sustenance of the people of gaza.

So, like I said, do an orly taitz all you want. Its like somebody attacking the judge at the nuremberg trials. No matter what kind of person you label him as, he didn't gas the jews, and it just makes you look like a nazi-sympathiser.

So, please, continue........

[shira]

34. You say you don't want to focus on the Report or Goldstone....

1. So what's the point of the report in the first place? It's fairly obvious you don't think much of either Goldstone or his report. You simply state that an investigation is needed by both sides.

2. The thing is that Israel has already conducted valid investigations which compare favorably to any other western nation...
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Gaza_Operation_Investigations_Update_Jan_2010.htm

3. Hamas is barely mentioned in Goldstone's Report, a fact that Hamas spokespeople were very happy about. Hamas can't investigate what Goldstone refuses to hold them responsible for. Example, using Palestinian children and women as human shields. Not that I believe you care all that much about Hamas' warcrimes.

4. Let's suppose Israel does some big investigation. Who's in charge? Does Goldstone have to approve? What if the findings by this commission aren't good enough by UNHRC and Goldstone standards. Then what?

5. Lastly, the things you mentioned that Israel is accountable for are mentioned in the report. But you don't wish to discuss the validity and credibility of the report. Since you don't wish to bring up the report, why bring up its findings - which you obviously believe not to be all that reliable?

[Tripmann]

38. I love that.

israel has investigated itself and found it did no wrong

case closed :rofl:

what wonderful comfort to the dead women and children of gaza.

[shira]

39. You evaded the relevant points of my post

Namely, the fact that Israel has carried out credible investigations that are as legitimate as any other western nation, and... even if they did an investigation, would Goldstone and the UNHRC approve of the person or committee in charge, or its findings.

[Tripmann]

40. The notion of ANY

nation investigating itself for war crimes comitted during an operation it has only just endorsed and carried out is ridiculous. Unless, of course you also except that the government of gazas own internal investigation is also satisfactory?

If goldstone is such a filthy liar, an international independent full investigator will expose him as such. I'm sure israel, who have carried out their own investigation allegedly to international standard, have nothing to hide. Whats the problem?

[grassfed]

37. Nelson Mandela appointed Richard Goldstone to SA's highest court

The Goldstone Commission's revelations outraged Nelson Mandela, leading him to conclude that F.W. de Klerk's government had organized covert death squads. (For more on this topic, read the dispatches of British journalist John Carlin, the author of the book that became the movie Invictus.) Goldstone's work earned him Mandela's respect and, in 1994, South Africa's first black president appointed Goldstone to the Constitutional Court--hardly the sort of honor the great moral icon of the 20th century would have bestowed on "a man without a moral compass," as Goldberg calls him.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/jeffrey-goldberg-vs-nelson-mandela.html

[shira]

53. Yep, just like Botha did - and Goldstone did what he was told and did not go after either one

[grassfed]

81. debbie schlussel tactics - nt

[shira]

83. Never read her before. But your appeal to authority (Mandela) is a logical fallacy.

[grassfed]

85. soldier on defending the indefensible

we all know why you're here but as long as it keeps the fight for justice in Palestine alive on DU it's all for the good.

[shaayecanaan]

13. So was there "special justice" against the Yugoslavians and the Rwandans?

You'd expect that, if after all there was some sort of "pattern".

If you don't want to be criticised for ad hominem smears, don't engage in them. Its very simple.

[shira]

14. Goldstone indicted a Serbian fictional character, as well as a dead man in the 90's

http://www.goldstonereport.org/procedural-flaws/incredulity/168-tional-criminal-tribunal-for-the-former-yugoslavia

As for the UN's special justice vs. Israel...

U.N. Bias Against Israel
Source: AIPAC, May 20, 2002.

U.N. institutional structures consistently are used to isolate and vilify Israel.

Israel is the only country in the world that is not eligible to sit on the Security Council, the principal policy making body of the U.N. This situation violates the principle of the "sovereign equality of all member states" of the U.N. under Article 2 of the U.N. Charter.

Seven of the 140 items submitted for a vote in the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) in 2002 were anti-Israel. Last year, the UNGA adopted 19 anti-Israel resolutions.

Israel is the object of more investigative committees, special representatives and rapporteurs than any other state in the U.N. system. For example, a special representative of the Director-General of UNESCO visited Israel 51 times during 27 years of activity. The Director-General of the International Labor Organization has sent a "Special Mission" to Israel and the territories every year for the past 17 years.

The "Special Committees" and "Palestinian Units" of the U.N. spend more than $3 million a year, essentially to spread anti-Israel propaganda. These bodies-the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Division on Palestinian Rights and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs-are the focus of the worst anti-Israel activity under the aegis of the U.N. They organize, inter alia, the annual "Palestine Day" events at the U.N., as well as symposia and other events.

The U.N. has repeatedly held "Emergency Special Sessions" focusing solely on Israel. Originally conceived in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War, Emergency Special Sessions over the past 15 years have only focused on Israel. No Emergency Special Sessions were convened to examine the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or other major world conflicts.

The U.N. routinely attempts to circumvent the founding principle of direct negotiations. The UNGA passes annual resolutions that undermine the principles of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, based on direct negotiations between the two parties. By proposing specific solutions to issues such as Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and settlements, the U.N. pre-judges the outcome of negotiations. Ironically, it was the U.N. Security Council that proposed bilateral negotiations through Resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

The U.N. has failed to investigate Palestinian actions supporting terrorism.

The U.N. has never initiated any inquiry into Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's role in aiding and abetting terrorists, or passed one resolution condemning any terrorist organization operating against Israel.

One glaring example of the U.N.'s biased policy against Israel is the concealment and vehement denial of the existence of videotape of Hezbollah's abduction of three Israeli soldiers made by U.N. peacekeeping forces in Lebanon. For 11 months, the U.N. lied to the world and denied the existence of any evidence related to the abduction. When the cover-up was exposed, revealing the existence of the videotape, the U.N. eventually showed Israel a heavily edited videotape with the faces of the terrorists blurred. When asked the reason behind this, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated it was due to the U.N.'s standing as a neutral organization.

The U.N. has tolerated and fostered anti-Semitism and anti-Israel propaganda.

The U.N. has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets - including xenophobia - but has consistently refused to condemn anti-Semitism. It only was on November 24, 1998, more than 50 years after the U.N.'s founding, that the word anti-Semitism was first mentioned in a U.N. resolution (GA Res. A/53/623).

"The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity." -Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 U.N. Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance. A similar remark was made by Farouk al-Chareh, the Syrian Ambassador to the U.N., at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos, a charge recently recycled in a Saudi government sponsored newspaper.

On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the U.N. Human Rights Commission falsely charged Israel with injecting 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus.
The U.N. Human Rights Commission promotes anti-Israel, anti-Semitic resolutions.

The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts totally disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. Of all condemnations of this agency, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria and Libya are never criticized.

Last summer's conference on Human Rights in Durban, South Africa, was devoted almost entirely to condemning Israel. The conference was boycotted by the United States and Britain.
The United States was kicked off the U.N. Commission for Human Rights in May 2001, despite being one of the most outspoken advocates for human rights and a founding member of the Commission. It was replaced by Sierra Leone and the Sudan, both of which have records of abuses of human rights, including slavery and the forced use of children as soldiers. The United States recently regained its seat after a yearlong absence.

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/AIPAC-2002-05-20.asp

If that's not UN sanctioned apartheid justice vs. Israel, of which Goldstone was a willing accomplice - then what is?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Is Yedioth Achronoth really a mass daily paper?

I thought they were minor league at best.

[shira]

18. They're the most popular in circulation

Haaretz is only big internationally, in english.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. You are right

I confused it with the Haredi(?) paper my neighbor used to get...its been a few years.

[grassfed]

35. goldstonereport.org is a propaganda site, the real site is goldstone-report.org

http://www.goldstonereport.org was created by Pro-Israel bloggers

The real site is http://www.goldstone-report.org

Every judge who prosecuted or passed judgment on the defendants at Nuremberg had previously enacted (or upheld) death sentences in other cases. By the logic of Israel's apologists, the defendants in those war crimes investigations and trials were innocent and the atrocities never happened because the judges and prosecutors had sent others to the gallows or the firing squad.

In their zeal to smear Richard Goldstone, Israel's flunkies are engaging in Holocaust revisionism.

[grassfed]

36. Pro-Israel Propagandists vs Nelson Mandela

Israel was the most significant arms supplier to the (South African Apartheid) regime throughout the 1980s and served as a lifeline for the apartheid government during a period when Pretoria faced growing international condemnation and heightened domestic unrest (i.e. protests by 80 percent of the population demanding their democratic rights).

Anyone who served in the Israeli army during the late 1980s, as Goldberg did, should be well aware of this history.

During these years, military intelligence officials from the two countries held annual intelligence-sharing conferences and South African military representatives came to the West Bank to view the anti-riot equipment the Israeli army was using against Palestinians. When foreign journalists in the West Bank encountered visiting South African military officials, the Israeli military censor was quickly ordered to hush it up. Back in South Africa, a large contingent of Israeli rocketry experts was holed up in the seaside town of Arniston helping the South African government put the finishing touches on ballistic missiles intended to carry its next generation of nuclear weapons. . .

Rather than examining the historical record, Goldberg and Chait relied exclusively on the Yediot article in passing judgment on Goldstone's early career. Their posts, and a more recent one by Ron Radosh, fail to acknowledge Goldstone's crucial role in facilitating South Africa's transition to democracy by chairing the investigative Commission on Public Violence and Intimidation from 1991-1994. Among other things, this commission exposed the apartheid government's links to a so-called Third Force--made up of government security and ex-security operatives seeking to derail peaceful democratic elections.

The Goldstone Commission's revelations outraged Nelson Mandela, leading him to conclude that F.W. de Klerk's government had organized covert death squads. (For more on this topic, read the dispatches of British journalist John Carlin, the author of the book that became the movie Invictus.) Goldstone's work earned him Mandela's respect and, in 1994, South Africa's first black president appointed Goldstone to the Constitutional Court--hardly the sort of honor the great moral icon of the 20th century would have bestowed on "a man without a moral compass," as Goldberg calls him.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/jeffrey-goldberg-vs-nelson-mandela.html

[shaayecanaan]

12. Israel also tried to lobby the US to allow it to keep selling arms to the apartheid government

from Foreign Policy.com:-

In the late 1980s, the pro-Israel lobby faced a similar dilemma that jeopardized U.S. military aid to the Jewish state: Israel's refusal to stop selling arms to South Africa's racist apartheid regime. Then, unlike now, AIPAC did not blindly defend the government in Jerusalem and attack the U.S. administration. Rather, it pressured the Israeli government to back down from a myopic and destructive policy that damaged Israel's image and threatened its warm ties with Washington.

In August 1986, as popular anti-apartheid legislation was making the rounds in the U.S. Senate, a paragraph with far-reaching consequences for Israel crept into the bill. It called for the president to document any arms sales to South Africa and "add the option of terminating U.S. military assistance to countries violating the embargo." In Israel, the national-unity government of Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir disregarded the bill, convinced that it would never pass.

In Washington, though, leading AIPAC officials believed that Israel's ties with Pretoria were tarnishing the country's image in Congress just as the push for anti-South African sanctions was gaining momentum on the Hill. And they began pressuring the Israeli government to act.

Some of AIPAC's biggest donors were outraged, given that arms sales to South Africa were a major economic windfall for Israel. But unlike the donors, AIPAC's Beltway insiders saw the bigger strategic picture. In their eyes, the ongoing and increasingly publicized military relationship with South Africa was alienating some of the Jewish state's staunchest supporters in Congress, who were also committed to the anti-apartheid cause. Pro-Israel lobbyists believed that attempts by anti-Israel groups to paint the Jewish state as an ally of the racist South African regime would eventually sway the American public unless Israel ceased selling arms to South Africa.

Despite AIPAC's pleas, the Israelis still refused to take the threat seriously. In the upper echelons of the Israeli government, there was a widely held belief that AIPAC and other Jewish organizations, as well as friendly members of Congress, would protect Israel. They were convinced that this threat, like other bumps in the road, would soon pass. AIPAC's lobbyists saw plainly that Israel was shooting itself in the foot, but it would take a few months before this dawned on leaders in Jerusalem.

When President Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act on September 26, 1986, the Israelis felt vindicated. But Congress immediately overrode Reagan's veto with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act became law a week later--including the amendment threatening to cut off military aid to Israel. It was a rude awakening for Shamir, who left the foreign ministry to take over as Prime Minister on October 20. He was forced to apologize to the AIPAC lobbyists, telling them "Your president told me I didn't have to listen to you." But now, with the anti-apartheid law on the books, he did.

Embarrassed by his miscalculation, Prime Minister Shamir had no choice but to impose sanctions of his own. As two leading Israeli journalists argued in the Washington Post, "Without U.S. military aid, valued at $1.3 billion this year, Israel could soon be defenseless, destitute or both." Shamir's government now saw the threat clearly and passed a sanctions resolution on March 18, 1987, vowing to sign no new defense contracts with South Africa. Two weeks later came the dreaded U.S. report on South Africa's arms suppliers. It named several European countries as occasional violators of the arms embargo, but the focus was on Israel's arms sales. Damningly, the report's authors concluded, "We believe that the Israeli government was fully aware of most or all of the trade."

Suddenly, American Jewish organizations were forced to acknowledge an unsavory relationship they had downplayed and denied for years and defend Israel's more pressing interest: ongoing military aid from Washington. Pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC saw the prospect of losing U.S. aid as a much greater threat to the Jewish state than cutting ties with South Africa. As the self-appointed guardians of Israel's interests in Washington, they told Shamir to make sure Israel's measures against South Africa were just as strong as those taken in the United States and Western Europe--export revenues be damned.

[shira]

15. You don't appear all that concerned about Lebanon, Jordan, and S.Arabia being supported

...as apartheid regimes.

One thing to consider is that the ANC during the apartheid years was a friend to Israel's enemies like Arafat, Idi Amin, etc... and that could explain the arms sales.

[shaayecanaan]

19. Your list of apartheid regimes does keep expanding, doesnt it?

I see Lebanon has been added to your list. I can only presume within a few months or so just about every country in the world will be an apartheid country, except for Israel.

The Palestinians were indeed friends with the African National Congress, as they were with national liberation movements the world over, including Irish republicans, the Zapatistas, and the Sandinistas. Mostly this was because of the natural sympathy between liberation movements, who saw themselves as part of a common struggle against their respective oppressors.

Likewise, apartheid-era South Africa and Israel felt a great deal in common. South Africa was a small, isolated white enclave on the edge of a continent that they perceived to be overwhelmingly hostile. They felt themselves to be under diplomatic siege on the world stage, and tended to be dismissive, even masochistic, in dealing with foreign criticism.

As such, it was only natural that the apartheid South Africa and Israel would have such a close friendship, that extended to co-operation on nuclear arms programs, weapons, vaccines, desalination plants and a whole host of other projects.

Mandela himself said: "Israel worked very closely with the apartheid regime. I say: I've made peace with many men who slaughtered our people like animals. Israel cooperated with the apartheid regime, but it did not participate in any atrocities."

In the last week or so, pro-Israel figures have been highlighting the apartheid background of Richard Goldstone, and essentially comparing him to some kind of Nazi apologist. Of course, more intelligent bloggers saw the dangers inherent in this:-

“I don’t want to exaggerate, but these are the same explanations we heard in Nazi Germany after World War II,” Ayalon said. “That is not an explanation that justifies his actions."

I would like to exaggerate, but instead, let me spell this out:

* Plenty of people (Israel and others) have made the case that Goldstone's report on the Gaza war is, mostly, specious.

* Personal attacks are not going to make it more specious.

* Comparisons to the Nazis always, always bite back. Israel sold arms to, traded with, in some instances allied with Apartheid South Africa. At the time, when pressed on the matter, Israeli diplomats always boiled it down to "we take whatever friends we can get." (And I don't remember budding diplomat Danny Ayalon sticking his neck out to say any different.)

Think of what this does: If Goldstone was a "good German" what does that make Israel? Fascist Italy?

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2010/05/06/2394709/dont-mention-the-war

Of course, other, stupider people such as yourself tend not to see such dangers and instead plunged headlong into histrionic screeds making out Goldstone to be worse than Hitler.

The obvious question was going to come up: if Goldstone's minor role within the apartheid regime deserves such criticism, what of Israel's much more significant support of apartheid over many years?

[shira]

26. Those 3 countries practice real apartheid and are supported by the USA and UK

...but that doesn't appear to bother you in the least. And neither does it appear to bother you that the UN has a different set of expectations for Israel than it does for other countries (yet another form of apartheid and you fully support it AFAIK). Goldstone, unlike David Duke, actually carried out and enforced what Duke only writes and raves about. No one here AFAIK takes Duke's rants about Israel seriously but they certainly do WRT Goldstone. All I'm looking for is a little consistency from folks like yourself.

As for the ANC, they were BFF with Arafat back in the 70's when the PLO was only interested in fulfilling their destructive charter (hardly a peaceful liberation movement). They also had close ties to complete pieces of shit like Idi Amin at the height of his lunacy and especially after the IDF raid on Entebbe in 1976, which Mandela actually had the nerve to harshly criticize.

Lastly, this is really all about credibility. If Goldstone's facts WRT Israel in Gaza were unassailable and all Israel could do is personally attack Goldstone you'd have a case. We all know, however, that Goldstone's Report is complete horseshit, mostly based on Hamas approved "eyewitness" testimony - of the type Goldstone accepted back in the 90's when he indicted a Serbian fictional character. Goldstone's past is highly relevant now and explains how this "respected" Judge put his stamp of approval on such a horrid report.

BTW, Goldstone is still lying about there being no substantive criticism of his report...
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/05/how_long_can_goldstone_keep_on.html

You can see the hebrew version if you use a google translation to verify for yourself. It's from THIS week. And don't forget what his bigoted military henchman, Colonel Travers, said here WRT "Jewish Lobbies"...
http://jta.org/news/article/2010/02/10/1010579/jcpa-goldstone-commission-member-biased-against-israel

Travers' military expertise in Gaza (regarding weapons in mosques) was called into question by one of his own fellow military men...
http://www.conflictzones.tv/

That you pretend Goldstone's report is credible given the bigoted nature of the UNHRC, Goldstone's dark background and his continued lies, as well as the thorough refutations of the report available here for example....
http://www.goldstonereport.org/

...speaks volumes about you more than anything else.

[shaayecanaan]

48. You're not a poster child for moderation or consistency...

as I have said before there are several posters here who strive to be moderate and consistent. LeftishBrit would be one example. As you have acknowledged before, you are not one of those posters.

One reason for your inconsistency is that you tend to make lurid claims without evidence and then back away from them once you face hard questioning. Your claim about Jordan being an apartheid country for instance, which you raised in an earlier thread:-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x311657#311817

"This policy has exacerbated ethnic tension within the kingdom, and the adoption of a policy of apartheid, clearly demonstrated by the withdrawal of the Jordanian citizenship of more than 2,700 Palestinian-Jordanian citizens."

I asked you (or anyone else) to clarify that this does in fact constitute apartheid. You then backed away from the claim by saying:-

"Laws against women or Jews is more apartheid-like than your example."

First of all, it wasnt my example, it was the example in the OP which you claimed constituted "REAL apartheid".

Secondly, you have acknowledged that your contention that Jordan has laws against Jews was in fact wrong, and that Jews are free to reside and own property in Jordan.

Thirdly, while Jordan discriminates against women on a number of levels (more social than legal), so does Israel. For example, there is the religious restriction on Jewish women being unable to unilaterally obtain a divorce. If discrimination against women constitutes apartheid, virtually all countries would be apartheid regimes.

Essentially, if you won't stand by your own contentions, how do you expect anyone else to take them seriously?

[shira]

49. Hilarious

1. I'm still noting your silence regarding your views on Israel's supposed "apartheid" when it doesn't seem to bother you in the least about the REAL apartheid actually perpetrated by Goldstone, Lebanon/Jordan/S.Arabia, and the UN. Those examples involve deliberate racism/bigotry against Blacks, Jews, and Palestinians, but only alleged "apartheid" by Israel seems to bother you. You realize that can be perceived as you practicing your own individual version of apartheid, ie, holding one entity responsible for something others aren't held accountable for? It's actually worse, b/c the "apartheid" label you try attaching to Israel is based on extremely weak and lame evidence, as opposed to real apartheid in the other examples above, so you're more interested in bogus demonization than the actual thing. You do know that's wrong on so many levels, right? Well...

2. Jordan revoking Palestinian citizenship is as much an apartheid policy as Lebanon's treatment of Palestinian refugees. What's so difficult about this?

3. WRT Jordan and its anti-Jew laws, I admitted I was wrong. You and yours here should admit the same WRT your views more often if you'd like to be taken more seriously.

4. To compare a religious divorce law in Israel to actual gender apartheid is ludicrous. Do you actually know what gender apartheid is, and can you give real examples of it?

[shaayecanaan]

50. Religious divorce law be damned...

There is no "secular divorce law" in Israel so "religious divorce law" is all that there is, and all that a woman may avail herself of.

"Jordan revoking Palestinian citizenship is as much an apartheid policy as Lebanon's treatment of Palestinian refugees."

And if Israel were to do the same thing, that would also constitute apartheid, right?

So if Israel were, for example, to revoke the permanent residency of Arab East Jerusalem residents, that would also constitute apartheid?

If Israel were to expel refugees, including long term refugees who had had children whilst in Israel, that would also constitute apartheid, would it not?

After all, you do claim to be "consistent"?

[shira]

52. The law is definitely problematic but it's not really what you think...

Wives can also refuse a husband's divorce so there goes your theory. Humor me. From which website did you dig up this claim?

Now what do you think Israel did like Jordan or Lebanon to its citizens?

[shaayecanaan]

54. Respond to the question

If Jordan is an apartheid regime for disenfranchising 2700 Palestinians, then surely, if Israel were to deprive Arab East Jerusalemites of permanent residence, that would also constitute apartheid, would it not?

If refusing to grant refugees citizenship is apartheid, then a country that routinely refuses and expels over 95% of asylum seekers would also be practising apartheid, would it not?

[shaayecanaan]

55. By the way, editing a post after it receives a response...

is generally considered extremely gutless.

Now answer the question.

[shira]

56. Okay, so why are you accusing me?

[shaayecanaan]

59. Apologies...

it seems your edit was made one minute before my response.

[shira]

57. Yes and No. Examples?

On edit:

Actually the 2 answers should be Depends and No. Motivation behind the action counts for something, don't you think?

[shaayecanaan]

58. Revocation of residency in East Jerusalem

http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/Revocation_of_Residency.asp

However, in recent years, the Ministry has once again begun to revoke permanent-residency status of East Jerusalem Palestinians, raising the concern that, covertly and without warning, Israel has returned to the “quiet transfer” policy. According to official figures, in 2005, the Ministry revoked the residency of 222 Palestinians. In 2006, that number jumped to 1,363, an increase of more than 600 percent.

[shira]

60. Here's an Haaretz article on this...

The ministry said the probe uncovered thousands of people listed as East Jerusalem residents but were no longer living in Israel, and were therefore stripped of their residency. Most of those who lost their residency for this reason did not just move from Jerusalem to the West Bank, but were actually living in other countries, the ministry's data shows.

Those deprived of their residency included 99 minors under the age of 18.

Attorney Yotam Ben-Hillel of Hamoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual said the 250,000 Arab residents of East Jerusalem have the same legal status as people who immigrated to Israel legally but are not entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return.

"They are treated as if they were immigrants to Israel, despite the fact that it is Israel that came to them in 1967," he said.

A resident, unlike a citizen, can be stripped of his status relatively easily. All he has to do is leave the country for seven years or obtain citizenship, permanent residency or some other form of legal status in another country, and he loses his Israeli residency automatically.

Once a Palestinian has lost his residency, even returning to Jerusalem for a family visit can be impossible, Ben-Hillel said. Moreover, he said, some of those whose residency Israel revoked may not have legal status in any other country, meaning they have been made stateless.

"The list may include students who went for a few years to study in another country, and can now no longer return to their homes," he said.

Officials at Hamoked, which obtained the ministry data via the Freedom of Information Act, said they were concerned that some of those who lost their residency rights may not even know it.

"The phenomenon of revoking people's residency has reached frightening dimensions," said Dalia Kerstein, Hamoked's executive director. "The Interior Ministry operation in 2008 is just part of a general policy whose goal is to restrict the size of the Palestinian population and maintain a Jewish majority in Jerusalem. The Palestinians are natives of this city, not Johnny-come-latelys."

Sheetrit, however, insisted that the operation was necessary. "What we discovered is just the tip of the iceberg," he said. "The State of Israel pays billions of shekels a year in stipends to people who don't even live here. We sent notices to every one of them about the intention to revoke their residency; we gave them time to appeal. Those who appealed weren't touched."

The ministry data shows that 89 Palestinians got their residency back after appealing. Sheetrit said the probe revealed very serious offenses - such as 32 people listed as living at a single address that did not even exist.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-stripped-thousands-of-jerusalem-arabs-of-residency-in-2008-1.3006

There's no reason to believe Sheetrit was lying.

Now compare this to the reason(s) given by Jordan for revocation of citizenship.

Try again, Chief.

[shaayecanaan]

61. Complete rubbish...

There's no reason to believe Sheetrit was lying.

Why not? He's a politician isn't he?

The same as the politicians that told you that Israel had its own list of casualties from Operation Cast Lead. You accepted their word once before to your detriment. Have you ever heard of the saying "Fool me once..."?

Now compare this to the reason(s) given by Jordan for revocation of citizenship.

Well, let me explain them to you.

In 1988, Jordan recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and renounced any territorial right that it may have had to the West Bank.

Normally, when a country recognises the independence of another, the citizens of the latter country cease to have citizenship in the former. There is nothing particularly sinister about this. When Britain joined the EEC in 1972, Australians and Canadians ceased to be British subjects and to have eligibility for British citizenship. Likewise for many other former dependencies of Britain - St Lucia, for example.

Jordan would have been quite entitled to do likewise, and to require any Palestinian to travel to Jordan on a Palestinian passport. However, they knew that Israel would not allow West Bank residents to return to the WB with a Palestinian passport. Jordan was also concerned that Israel could use Jordanian citizenship to deport a Palestinian from the West Bank. Indeed, you admitted as much in your own post:-

All he has to do is leave the country for seven years or obtain citizenship, permanent residency or some other form of legal status in another country

Jordan knew, however, that Palestinians were critically dependent on access to Jordan for facilities such as medical education, for example, which are very difficult to obtain in the West Bank.

The answer was the "yellow card" which is essentially a Jordanian passport which is of short duration, and which is dependent on the holder possessing an Israeli ID allowing him or her to re-enter the West Bank. In this way, Jordan can be reasonably assured that the holders of these passports will not be refused re-entry by Israel.

The thousands of yellow card holders which have been denied a further Jordanian passport have all suffered from the one problem: Israel refuses to renew their ID card, making them ineligible for a further yellow card. You can cry crocodile tears all you like, but the fact of their predicament is that their situation could be quite easily remedied if Israel wanted it to be so.

It is also worth noting that not a single Palestinian has been "expelled". Indeed there is nowhere to expel these Palestinians as, besides their Jordanian passport, they are stateless people and cannot be deported anywhere. The problem is confined to West Bank residents themselves, who are unable to obtain a West Bank ID from Israel.

Lastly - it is complete rubbish to infer that Jordan's policy was made for demographic reasons. Jordan absorbed well over 100,000 Palestinians after they were expelled from Kuwait. They absorbed roughly the same number of Chaldean and Arab refugees from the Iraq war. A couple thousand Palestinian refugees here and there would not matter in the slightest to them.

***

Contrast this with the treatment of East Jerusalem residents. At random, Israel may send them a letter requiring them to show residence in East Jerusalem for the last seven years. There is no requirement for this letter to be personally served. It needs only to be sent to the last known address and if the recipient doesnt get it (for example they have moved house, or they happen to be on holiday at the time) - too bad.

Of those people who did receive the letter and appealed, 100% of applicants were successful in their appeal. It is very rare that appeals against government decisions are uniformly successful, unless the basis for the decision was non-existent in the first place.

The reason given by the Minister, namely that these people are unlawfully drawing government stipends, is utterly spurious. If that was the motivation the government could simply terminate the stipends if they thought they were being paid incorrectly. Instead they are acting to expel these residents purely for demographic reasons. Indeed up to 2% of East Jerusalem Arabs have been expelled in this fashion.

It should be noted that many Israeli Jews have permanent residence in Israel, rather that citizenship. This is because their country of origin (for example, states in the former Soviet Union) forbid dual citizenship. If the policy was not borne of apartheid, you would expect at least a few Jews to receive these letters and to have their permanent residence cancelled, right?

Wrong. Not a single Jew has been thus expelled. The only Jews with permanent residence that are deported are those that have committed serious criminal offences.

This policy was meant only for Arabs, and it means to deport as many of them as possible. Only a racist or an utter putz would be prepared to believe otherwise, and you qualify for both categories.

[shaayecanaan]

63. Nothing? I thought so. What a bunch of wankers (nt)

[shira]

64. Do you have any reason not to believe Sheetrit's claim in Haaretz?

[shaayecanaan]

65. Do you have any reason to accept it uncritically?

and that is a piss weak response, I must say.

[shira]

66. No one has challenged it

You've given no reason to believe he's lying.

[shaayecanaan]

68. I rather thought I did...

1) If the decision to expel Arabs was taken because they were deemed to be illegally receiving stipends (which would be unlikely anyway, seeing as most stipends paid to Arabs are family allowances) why did the government revoke the residence of the said Arabs rather than simply cut off their stipends?

2) If the policy is non-discriminatory - why are Jews who have permanent residence in Israel not likewise subjected to periodic show-cause letters, with the threat of revocation or expulsion if they fail to receive or respond to the letters?

Remember - you said the policy of Jordan constituted apartheid, even though the inability of the 2700 Palestinians to obtain yellow cards was caused mostly by their inability to obtain ID cards from Israel. I said if you regard that policy as apartheid, as a matter of consistency you must do likewise to the Israeli policy of revoking residency of East Jerusalemites, which is blatantly racist.

I put the question to you again: do you consider that Jordan's denial of yellow cards to 2700 Palestinians constitutes apartheid?

[shira]

69. No you didn't

2) If the policy is non-discriminatory - why are Jews who have permanent residence in Israel not likewise subjected to periodic show-cause letters, with the threat of revocation or expulsion if they fail to receive or respond to the letters?

There are Jews in Israel with permanent residency status we can compare to their non-Jewish counterparts?

[shaayecanaan]

70. Did you think that there were none?

There are Jews in Israel with permanent residency status we can compare to their non-Jewish counterparts?

There certainly are. Most countries in the former Soviet Union do not recognise dual citizenship, so obtaining the citizenship of another country amounts to renouncing your original citizenship.

About 15% of Israel's population comes from Russia. Dual citizenship between Israel and Russia was not definitively allowed until a few years back. Before then, Russian migrants either forsook their Russian passport, or became permanent residents (called "toshav keva") in Israel and retained their Russian passport.

There is a third option, which is to hold both passports in secret. In practice though this is often very difficult when traveling (believe me, I know).

The situation is particularly pertinent for Jews from Ukraine as Ukraine does not allow dual citizenship. On the other hand, having a CIS passport means one can travel visa-free between the other CIS states so for many business people it would be a pity to lose that passport. So quite a lot of people in this situation elect to retain their original passports.

AFAIK, there is not a single instance of Israel revoking the PR status of a Jew for not residing in Israel for a period of seven years (which I believe is defined as living in Israel for at least six months of a year). At the very most, if a person travels frequently in and out of Israel they may face delicate pressure from border officials to take out an Israeli passport.

[shaayecanaan]

71. Link to the former policy

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Articles/1999/East%20Jerusalemites%20will%20not%20be%20stripped%20of%20Permane

Under the new policy, an "appropriate connection" for a resident living abroad is defined as having family in East Jerusalem whom he visits periodically. In short, Sharansky explained, this means that whoever is currently considered a resident of Jerusalem will remain so, and the Interior Ministry will no longer demand proof of uninterrupted residency, such as water and electric bills for the last ten years.

This hints at the difficulties faced by East Jerusalemites if they receive a show cause letter. Can't show your power bills going back to ten years? Too bad.

[whosinpower]

72. And the winner is.......

Shayecanaan!

[shira]

74. A former policy no longer in effect...

And what are you arguing here?

Jordan is revoking citizenship from Palestinians who actually reside there.

Israel is revoking permanent residency status (not citizenship) from people who do not actually reside there anymore, thus they're not permanent residents. AND when contacted, if they dispute the government's decision, they can retain their citizenship.

And you think this is comparable to Jordan's policy?

Are you serious?

Let me know when you find examples of Jews with permanent residency status in Israel - okay?

[shira]

73. Looks like you're confusing citizenship for residency status

Can you point to a single article or statement WRT Jews who have permanent residency in Israel but aren't citizens?

[shaayecanaan]

75. No, I'm fucking not...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is actually my line of work. I am more than fucking aware of the differences between permanent residency and citizenship, thank you very much.

Can you point to a single article or statement WRT Jews who have permanent residency in Israel but aren't citizens?

What, that they actually exist? You're actually doubting that there are Jews with Israeli PR? And that is the only thing stopping you from concluding that this policy does indeed discriminate against Arabs?

Okay. http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=11956&page=2 - there is a remark by someone there who says he/she holds Israeli PR. He/she is from Ukraine originally, which probably explains why. The person in question sounds like they have not resided in Israel for some time, which of course doesnt matter, because they are Jewish. And the policy of kicking people out if they can't prove residency going back seven years only ever applied to Arabs.

No Jew has ever been made to produce their electricity bills for the last ten years on pain and penalty of being kicked out of Israel. Only Arabs. I fucking kid you not.

Seriously, do you really think they kick out this many Arabs for shits and giggles? You yourself argue that the less Arabs in Israel the better, and if they ever get near 50% of the population then Israel is finished. Who would have thought that there are people in Israel who are as racist as you?

[shira]

76. You mentioned dual citizenship, not residency in that last post I responded to

I appreciate references to actual Jews with permanent residency status. Admittedly, I've never heard of such a thing b/c AFAIK under the LOR, Jews can opt for citizenship. I'm not certain why Jews would rather go the PR route than become citizens.

Of course, for that matter Arabs in E.Jerusalem with PR status - or who have been there all their lives - can also apply for citizenship - which won't be revoked like in Jordan - once again, a poor comparison b/c Jordan actually revokes citizenship from people who live there, not PR status from people no longer residing.

Also, how do you know the residency policy only applies to Arabs? If there are Jews who are PR's, how do you know this has never applied to any of them, or any of the many Asians, Africans, or Americans, or Europeans with PR status? Can you actually prove this policy has never been applied to non-Arabs?

I haven't argued the less Arabs in Israel, the better. Unlike yourself, I'm not for splitting Jerusalem which would transfer Arab neighborhoods to the PA (against their will). Neither, like yourself, do I have the shitty attitude towards Palestinians you've demonstrated here WRT those living as refugees in Lebanon. In fact, as apartheid goes, you've never once demonstrated your disgust with the way Palestinians are treated in Lebanon or Jordan. Neither have you ever condemned the UN for their apartheid justice regarding Israel. So who the fuck are you with the nerve to accuse me of being racist?

[shaayecanaan]

77. You're asking me to prove the existence of a universal negative...

it doesn't work that way. If you think that there are any Jews who have had their PR revoked on the grounds of not having lived in Israel for seven years, by all means point to them. I can certainly point to plenty of Arabs who have suffered that treatment.

And yes, I mentioned dual citizenship - I'm not quite sure you understood the distinction. I will go through this again, very slowly this time.

1) A number of countries with significant numbers of Jewish emigres do not recognise dual citizenship - particularly countries in the former Soviet Union.

2) These countries, typically, will refuse to recognise foreign citizenship if it is granted onshore (ie within that country). If it is granted offshore that country will treat the obtaining of a second citizenship as a renunciation of the first.

3) Therefore, if a Jew was to migrate to Israel from the Ukraine, and obtain citizenship on arrival, their citizenship in the Ukraine would be treated as renounced were the Ukraine to find out about it, and they would be refused entry if they attempted to return to the Ukraine on their original passport.

4) There is no problem if they only obtain permanent residence in Israel. They remain citizens of the Ukraine only and their passport there is not subject to renunciation. They can also work, travel etc within the former CIS including Russia as holders of a CIS passport.

5) For that reason, many ex-CIS migrants to Israel became permanent residents only as a matter of convenience, particularly because there are no time limits on the travel facility of Israeli PR - although, anecdotally, very frequent travelers will experience informal pressure to obtain an Israeli passport.

Unlike yourself, I'm not for splitting Jerusalem which would transfer Arab neighborhoods to the PA (against their will).

As you've pointed out, 97% of East Jerusalemites have chosen to refuse an Israeli passport, evidencing their intention to remain Palestinians. They are overwhelmingly in favour of Arab East Jerusalem being part of a Palestinian state.

Neither, like yourself, do I have the shitty attitude towards Palestinians you've demonstrated here WRT those living as refugees in Lebanon.

Bullshit. Back that up with anything that I have said.

So who the fuck are you with the nerve to accuse me of being racist?

You are indeed. At least I have the balls to back up my statements with arguments, unlike the stupid David Duke references you put in every sentence you post.

[shira]

78. Okay, got it - that makes sense

Before we move on, can you admit revoking PR status from non-residents isn't comparable to Jordan's policy of revoking citizenship from residents?

Oh, and this will be fun, what makes you think I'm racist against Arabs? Be specific. Then we can discuss your hatred afterwards.

[shaayecanaan]

79. I'll refer you back to our opening statement, with which you initially agreed:-

If Jordan is an apartheid regime for disenfranchising 2700 Palestinians, then surely, if Israel were to deprive Arab East Jerusalemites of permanent residence, that would also constitute apartheid, would it not?

You agreed with that statement at the outset. Frankly, I'm not interested in your backtracking now.

In regards to the second point:-

1) You have shown a penchant for reading and quoting from far right wing websites, including those that put "Palestinians" in quotation marks and which oppose any iteration of a Palestinian state.

2) You treat sympathetically any allegation against Arabs or Muslims, no matter how absurd (the post from Arutz Sheva that alleged that the Iranian govt was punishing dissident prisoners with gay sex gangbangs was one prime example).

3) You seem preoccupied by the notion that because there are anti-Jewish racists, and that you are opposed to them, that you cannot be racist yourself.

4) You believe that the settlements are a lawful enterprise, which is a viewpoint generally associated with the hard right.

5) You consider that just about every country, institution, and NGO on the Earth is guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, racism and apartheid except Israel, which is not guilty and has never been guilty of any of those things.

6) You tend to accept uncritically right-wing Jewish viewpoints, treat skeptically left-wing Jewish viewpoints, and completely deny Arab viewpoints, unless they are supportive of Israel. For example your post above:- "there is no reason for Sheetrit to lie". Why not? Why should his word be considered any more credible than anyone else's? What if I wrote: There is no reason for Yasir Arafat to lie?

7) You automatically associate criticism of Israel with racism, and liberally salt your posts with references to David Duke to that effect, notwithstanding that no one aside from yourself ever mentions him.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shaayecanaan]

84. I'll try and respond to your last post...

regarding your "depends" statement. At first you agreed "yes" and then you went back and edited "depends", which was really the start of your backtracking - which as I said earlier, I am not really interested in.

I am quite happy to criticise Hamas. They are a military failure for starters. They possess not a shred of political or diplomatic nous, although to be fair to them, there is a fairly high turnover rate in the senior ranks of Hamas and accordingly not many survive long enough to possess any maturity. The suicide bombing campaign in the second intifada was catastrophic for the Palestinian cause. The Qassam shelling of targets inside Israel was another historic mistake.

I have criticised many Arab countries on this forum, indeed I have made the observation that Syria have killed more Palestinians than the Israelis. I have also made the statement numerous times before that the Israeli government is better than the Arab governments, though not as good as those in Western Europe, for example. I can't remember you ever criticising Israel.

Regarding your reference to the story of the US reaching out to moderate elements in Hezbollah:- I regard it as the sensible thing to do. Hezbollah isnt going anywhere. And as Ehud Barak has said, until Israel rolled a tank down a busy street during Ashura and killed 6 people with a tank shell, Lebanese Shia had no beef with Israel. The credit for the rise of Hezbollah is all Israel's.

Western governments have begun to step up to the mark as far as giving arms to the Lebanese army, the US has given $500m in the past four years, although of course it falls far short of what it would take to defend Lebanon against its most likely invader, which remains Israel. And until that time HA can continue to put itself forward as the only serious guarantor of Lebanese security.

[shira]

87. Responding to your main 3 points

1. Jordan is revoking citizenship from Palestinians who actually reside there. Israel is revoking permanent residency status (not citizenship) from people who do not actually reside there anymore, thus they're not permanent residents. AND when contacted, if they dispute the government's decision, they can retain their citizenship. And you think this is actually comparable to Jordan's policy? Are you serious?

2. Hamas is "a military failure for starters"? What does that mean? You wish they were more competent, efficient? How exactly was the suicide bombing campaign catastrophic for the Palestinian cause? Or how exactly were the Kassams an "historic mistake"? Is this to say you're against suicide bombings and kassams because they're morally repugnant forms of terror? Or that they provoked a deadly Israeli response? How about Hamas' exploitation of Palestinian human shields? Or inculcating Palestinian children to be intolerant Jew haters? Hamas persecutes christians, women, and homosexuals and they're raging antisemites whose charter calls for murdering Jews and never recognizing an independent Israel. Anything to criticize out of those examples?

3. As to closer Western ties with Hezbollah, what message do you think this sends to Lebanese Christians and Druze? Don't you think this is largely perceived as the US selling out the more secular and progressive elements of Lebanon and that they're now forced to comply and kiss ass with Hezbollah and their Syrian and Iranian backers? What message does this send to the religious fundies of Iran and Syria who control Hezbollah? They can do anything they want in Lebanon, right?

[shaayecanaan]

88. Alright, lets try this again...

"Israel is revoking permanent residency status (not citizenship) from people who do not actually reside there anymore, thus they're not permanent residents."

So if you were wrong and Israel were actually actively deporting people who were physically present within Israel at the time, you concede that this would be an unacceptable policy?

Answer this question and I will proceed onto your two further points.

[shira]

89. Trying to answer

"So if you were wrong and Israel were actually actively deporting people who were physically present within Israel at the time, you concede that this would be an unacceptable policy?"

Who exactly are they deporting? Just Arabs? Foreign workers? Ex USSR citizens who are stateless? Sudanese refugees? And what are the reasons for deportation? Is there an appeal process that is successful for those wrongly targeted for deportation?

Also, let's not look at Israel in isolation but also in relation to her Western peers. If the USA and UK is doing the same WRT foreigners, immigrants, etc... do you concede that Israel, even if totally wrong and deserving of criticism and condemnation, is no worse than her Western peers?

[shaayecanaan]

91. Lets not be evasive....

Israel may be deporting all sorts of people, but at the moment we are discussing their deportation of East Jerusalem Palestinians.

If Israel were deporting Arabs who were actually residing in East Jerusalem on the grounds that they were not, would you concede that this would invalidate your statement that Israel were only revoking residence from people who did not actually live there?

If the USA and UK is doing the same WRT foreigners, immigrants, etc... do you concede that Israel, even if totally wrong and deserving of criticism and condemnation, is no worse than her Western peers?

No. Absolutely not.

The distinction here is that the East Jerusalemites are not 'foreigners'. They are people who have been born in East Jerusalem and whose families go back in the area for thousands of years. Israel came to them, and not the other way around.

A true analogy would be the United States invading and annexing part of Mexico, and refusing re-entry to its residents on the grounds that they had gone and studied medicine in Canada. I think most of us would find that utterly outrageous.

[shira]

92. Looks like you're conceding your argument WRT revoking PR status was lame

If Israel were deporting Arabs who were actually residing in East Jerusalem on the grounds that they were not, would you concede that this would invalidate your statement that Israel were only revoking residence from people who did not actually live there?

Of course!

[shaayecanaan]

93. I think your disingenuousness knows no bounds...

and I think when cornered you resort to throwing desperate, dishonest haymaker arguments.

Elias Khayyo studied in the US from 1998 to 2005. His ID card expired, but he was able to enter Israel in 2005 using tourist documents that he obtained on a US green card. Israel sought to revoke his permanent residence in 2006, even though by that time he had already re-entered the country.

He was living in Israel for five years without incident, until the current government of Israel sought to deport him. Exactly where is a mystery, since he has only ever lived in East Jerusalem and the United States, and obviously they can't deport him there.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-seeks-to-deport-east-jerusalem-man-for-spending-too-many-years-in-u-s-1.265827

What do you think is Israel's motivation for expelling people such as Khayyo?

Similar story in another vain: Israel is also denying re-entry to 5 Golani Druze who made a funeral visit to Syria.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-refuses-re-entry-to-5-druze-who-made-condolence-call-in-syria-1.290301

Again, what do you think the motivation is?

[shira]

94. That's an unacceptable policy and very unfortunate incident.

Someone born within what is considered Israel should not be treated the same as a foreign worker or immigrant. Assuming this article by Amira Hass is accurate, this is very wrong. At least his deportation has been postponed and I hope he wins his case. OTOH, all EJ permanent residents have the option of becoming citizens and avoiding any of these ridiculous issues.

Recall from above:

Sheetrit, however, insisted that the operation was necessary. "What we discovered is just the tip of the iceberg," he said. "The State of Israel pays billions of shekels a year in stipends to people who don't even live here. We sent notices to every one of them about the intention to revoke their residency; we gave them time to appeal. Those who appealed weren't touched."

The ministry data shows that 89 Palestinians got their residency back after appealing. Sheetrit said the probe revealed very serious offenses - such as 32 people listed as living at a single address that did not even exist.

None of these claims by Sheetrit were challenged by Haaretz, and in fact Haaretz reports 89 Palestinians got their residency back after appealing. Assuming Israel did, as Sheetrit claims, send this man or the family of this man a notice about the intention to revoke his residency and gave time for appeal, then Israel went through the process legally. We don't know, however. The only way to know whether this is discriminatory is to compare to foreign workers or immigrants - and being that they weren't born in EJ, that's not really a fair comparison.

Lastly, there's still no comparison here to Jordan revoking citizenship from Palestinians. Are there any cases you know of in which actual citizenship was revoked from any Israeli Arabs?

The real bigotry/racism here is disproportionate anger aimed against Israel vs. silence against Jordan or Lebanon WRT each country's treatment of their Palestinian citizens/residents. Right?

[shaayecanaan]

95. Couple of points...

I think that this is about as close as I will get to an admission from you that the East Jerusalem Arabs are being denied residency on the grounds that they are Arabs.

I don't support Jordan's policy in this regard. However:-

1) Contra Israel, no Palestinians are deported from Jordan. The loss of their Jordanian passport may mean the loss of access to medical benefits and other inconveniences, but they are nevertheless permitted to continue residing in Jordan.

2) Jordan has absorbed 350 000 refugees from the Iraq war. Some are Arabs, some are Chaldeans, some are Kurds. Some are Christian and some are Muslim. Notwithstanding this, and notwithstanding that the Iraqi refugees, like the Palestinian refugees, were borne of a problem not of Jordan's making, Jordan has absorbed them. In relation to refugees, Jordan stands head and shoulders above Israel, Europe and most other countries in that regard.

3) As I noted earlier, Jordan could have been forgiven for insisting that Palestinians visit Jordan on their own passports. They did not do so. It is not often that a country extends citizenship to other nations particularly when the circumstances of those people are largely beyond their control.

4) The reason for the policy is that Jordan is concerned that Israel might seek to annex the whole West Bank and throw the problem of the Palestinian refugees in its lap. I concede that something like the current policy of yellow/green cards was required, that Jordan needed to be sure that when they gave a passport to West Bankers that they would be able to return there during the currency of the passport. The problem lies in the application of the policy as much as anything.

[grassfed]

96. lebanon

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2010-01-21-beirut-bounces-back_N.htm

[FarrenH]

42. The parallels extend further than most realise

During the Anglo Boer war in the late 1800's, the Boers (Afrikaners who had fled British rule in the Cape, mainly because the Brits banned slavery) fought what is often credited with being the first modern war using guerilla tactics. Frustrated with the irregular hit and run tactics which incurred huge losses (by the end of the war the UK had sent more than a million men to SA), the British rounded up boer women and children, who they saw as supporting the guerrilas, and put them in concentration camps. Boer women and children were often subjected to terrible conditions. Stories of soldiers putting glass in porridge fed to prisoners abounded. And by the end of the war it was estimated that more than 100,000 civilians had died in the concentration camps.

Such tales were bread and butter for Afrikaner nationalists, who fostered a narrative of victimhood and due to superior numbers in the white community, gained political power a decade or two after South Africa became a semi-democratic republic (qualified voting for non-whites in some places was later removed by nationalists). When I was growing up this narrative was hammered into every Afrikaans child at a young age. Right-wing Afrikaners, devout Calvinists all, frequently compared themselves to the Hebrews of biblical times. Ironic considering the enormous amount of sympathy for the Nazi's within nationalist groups like the Ossewa Brandwag and later Broederbond during WWII, when SA was still governed by the pro-British Union party.

Victimhood and survival were central themes in the contruction of South African Apartheid. Afrikaners (the word means "African") saw themselves as disconnected from even their mainly Dutch European relatives and in a sense a "white tribe of Africa". Growing up even us English kids were subjected to the relentless narrative that we were surrounded on all sides by enemies and would be swamped by black communists if Apartheid was ever dismantled. And from the 1930s to the 1980s Afrikaner nationalists used their grievance at being victims of the British (both pre and post Anglo-Boer war) to justify massive affrimative action for Afrikaners in government, which used the post office, telecommunication and other parastatals as employment agencies. In effect even English-speaking whites were discriminated against (via discrimination in state employment), but our relative wealth and success in business meant that this was barely felt.

[shaayecanaan]

51. I remember seeing the picture of Lizzie van Zyl a lot

when I was there. Interesting post, thanks.

How are things gearing up for the World Cup?

[grassfed]

20. Israel's Secret Arms Pact with Apartheid South Africa - PBS Newshour

Because of sanctions against it in the 1970s, South Africa also began to collaborate secretly with Israel for the transfer of arms and technology. According to a 2000 article in the South African Weekly Mail and Guardian, Dieter Gerhardt, a senior commander in the South African Navy said that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa. And, David Albright reported in 1994 that in 1977 South Africa traded 50 metric tons of yellowcake uranium for 30 grams of Israeli tritium, a radioactive isotope used as a component in triggering thermonuclear weapons.

Tracking Nuclear Proliferation PBS

[grassfed]

21. Apartheid in the Holy Land - Desmond Tutu GUARDIAN

In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.
What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: "Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews."

more

[grassfed]

22. South African union joins boycott of Israel

In addition to the boycott of Israel declared by British academics and public workers in Canada last month, now a large workers’ union in South Africa is shunning the Jewish state in protest of its policies towards the Palestinians.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions, representing 1.2 million workers in the African country, published a letter expressing enthusiastic support for the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) boycott of Israel. In CUPE’s boycott declaration, the organization calls Israel’s separation fence an “apartheid wall” and condemns its continued construction as in violation of international law. They further called for divestment from Israel and demanded the imposition of sanctions.

In his letter, COSAFU president Willie Madisha hailed the Canadian group’s initiative: “With great pride, I congratulate CUPE Ontario for their historic resolution on May 27th in support of the Palestinian people - those living under occupation and those millions of Palestinian refugees living in the Diaspora. We fully support your resolution.

“As someone who lived in apartheid South Africa and who has visited Palestine I say with confidence that Israel is an apartheid state.

more

[grassfed]

23. Israel's apartheid is worse than South Africa's HAARETZ

The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless than that seen in South Africa, where the black were a labor force and could therefore also make a living. It is equipped with the lie of being "temporary." Occasionally, Israel's indifference comes up with allegations against the Palestinians.

more

[grassfed]

24. Israel’s dark past arming apartheid South Africa - War in Context

A new attack on Judge Richard Goldstone is the latest effort in a campaign to direct attention away from his allegations that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. In this instance though, questions about Goldstone’s record as a judge in apartheid South Africa are overshadowed by the Jewish state’s own role in helping support the racist policies of one of the cruelest regimes of the 20th century.

more

[shaayecanaan]

62. Interesting post, thanks...

It occurs to me that South Africa's legal system was not the only one that excelled at executing black people. At the very least the US is quite efficient at achieving that aim as well. Would a US judge that presides over criminal sentencing be guilty by association as well?

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. UPDATE: Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapo

Looks like the Guardian has the actual documents:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4394467


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons


Exclusive: Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons


Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East...