Pope takes on 'increasingly unacceptable' Middle East conflict

[Ulysses G.]

It is called apartheid.

Do you have any idea what apartheid actually means? The term apartheid refers to official government policy of racial segregation that was formerly practiced in South Africa.

Whites and non-whites lived in separate regions of the country;

Non-whites were prevented from running businesses or professional practices in white areas without permits;

Non-whites had separate areas and conveniences such as beaches, buses, schools, benches, drinking fountains, restrooms;

Non-whites received inferior education, medical care and other public services

and non-whites could not vote or become citizens.

20% of the population of Israel are Arab with full voting rights and representation in the government. It is illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race and Arab citizens of Israel are represented in all parts of Israeli life. Arabs have served in senior diplomatic and government positions and an Arab currently serves as a justice on the Supreme Court. Israeli Arabs have their own political parties and representation in the Knesset. Arabs are members of the major Israeli political parties. Israel is nothing even close to an "apartheid state". The comparison is ridiculous.

As to your assertion that there can be no two state solution because of settlements. that is false too. Israel has already dismantled lots of settlements when trading land for peace and moved many thousands of Israelis from the land.

If the Palestinian side wants an end to settlements, that should be an incentive to reach a peace agreement faster and therefore getting rid of all settlements on the territory of the new state of Palestine. If they are really being so hurt by the existence and growth of settlements, then make peace fast and get rid of them. If they don’t want to make peace quickly and get rid of them, then settlements aren’t the problem; Israel’s existence is.

Twenty-five years ago, Israel’s government openly aimed at building West Bank settlements that would block a Palestinian state. But that policy changed following the 1993 Oslo accords. Mr. Netanyahu’s government, like several before it, has limited building almost entirely to areas that both sides expect Israel to annex through territorial swaps in an eventual settlement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/israeli-settlement-proposals-prompt-rash-rhetoric/2013/01/01/2d6aea54-504f-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

Edited May 29, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jay Sata]

The word apartheid from the Oxford Dictionary...

a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.

The Separation Wall and the bias against Israeli Arabs returning is apartheid.

The Pope touching that wall was symbolic.

B'Selem , The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, is a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. It endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.

They have an excellent website.

If you want an unbiased assessment of daily life under the current systemI suggest you

check out this.

http://www.btselem.org/jerusalem/20140527_shufat_water_crisis

Here is a recent example of the absurd system.Police fails to protect the girls from settler violence but finds the resources to vigorously enforce the law on children for minor suspicions

On Tuesday afternoon, May 27, 2014, the Shai Police detained four Palestinian girls, ages 11 to 15, from the South Hebron Hills, after a settler from Ma'on complained that they had picked cherries from his grove. The girls were on their way home from school, escorted by the army. They were taken in a police car, without adult accompaniment, to the police station in Hebron and detained until the late afternoon. Two of them were interrogated. After being held for about four hours in the Israeli police station, they were handed over to the Palestinian police and released to their homes only in the evening.

http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20140528_police_detain_girls_for_eating_fruit

Edited May 29, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Ulysses G.]

The Separation Wall and the bias against Israeli Arabs returning is apartheid.

The Wall was built to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers and it has been very effective. They are responsible for that themselves and they are not citizens of Israel. If they were, they would be protected by Israeli law.

The bias against Israeli Arabs returning where? The former members of the Lebanese Christian militia can't return to Lebanon, because the Lebanese will murder them. That has nothing to do with "apartheid". Israel is not stopping them. Lebanon is.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

If you want an unbiased assessment of daily life under the current systemI suggest you

check out this.

Real "unbiased". Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman accused B'tselem of abetting terrorism and weakening Israel's defense forces.

A young Arab who worked as a volunteer with B'tselem, a far-left group which claims to be a "human rights" organization, participated in a violent riot and tried to use his B'tselem equipment to persuade soldiers that he was just a cameraman, a report on the website Mida reveals.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175453#.U4cXG-X0PfI

Edited May 29, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

The word apartheid from the Oxford Dictionary...

Here is what the Oxford dictionary actually says:

noun

• historical

1(In South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or

discrimination on grounds of race.

I've already pointed out that apartheid in South Africa has nothing to do with Israel and provided examples that prove it:

In South Africa, whites and non-whites lived in separate regions of the country;

Non-whites were prevented from running businesses or professional practices in white areas without permits;

Non-whites had separate areas and conveniences such as beaches, buses, schools, benches, drinking fountains, restrooms;

Non-whites received inferior education, medical care and other public services

and non-whites could not vote or become citizens.

20% of the population of Israel are Arab with full voting rights and representation in the government. It is illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race and Arab citizens of Israel are represented in all parts of Israeli life. Arabs have served in senior diplomatic and government positions and an Arab currently serves as a justice on the Supreme Court. Israeli Arabs have their own political parties and representation in the Knesset. Arabs are members of the major Israeli political parties.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jay Sata]

To get back on topic the Pope was making a symbolic gesture when he touched the wall.

85 % of it runs through the occupied territories of the West Bank and not Israeli property.

Let us not forget the ruling by the United Nations International Court of Justice who in 2004 stated the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law.

No one is saying that Israel is not entitled to secure its borders but in the case of the wall it is not legal where it does not follow the green line nor are the settlements legal.

The EU last week banned the import of all poultry products from the occupied territories as a means of economic boycott.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/israel-settler.w52

Edited May 29, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Ulysses G.]

85 % of it runs through the occupied territories of the West Bank and not Israeli property.

Actually it is 8.5% and it's no ones "property" until the Palestinians negotiate borders and sign a peace deal as specified in the Oslo Accords. Until the Palestinians honor the treaty that they signed that wall will remain in place as it stops illegal terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.

Israeli officers (including the head of the Shin Bet) quoted in the newspaper Maariv have said that in the areas where the barrier was complete, the number of hostile infiltrations has decreased to almost zero. Maariv also stated that Palestinian militants, including a senior member of Islamic Jihad, had confirmed that the barrier made it much harder to conduct attacks inside Israel. Since the completion of the fence in the area of Tulkarm and Qalqilyah in June 2003, there have been no successful attacks from those areas. All attacks were intercepted or the suicide bombers detonated prematurely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

Edited May 29, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Israel will not permit outside help hence no UN peacekeeping force.

In the case of South Africa is was financial sanctions ,an economic boycott and a realisation that things would have to change that resolved the problem.

There are many moderate people in Israel who do not support the right wing philosophy.

Well, I was referring to outside help in another meaning (as in Arab/Muslim countries perhaps granting rights to refugees),

which you chose to disregard and instead twist into yet another issue.

The effectiveness of UN peacekeeping force is rather pathetic. They are mainly observers, and are not normally keen on

intervening directly in stopping hostilities. A fine example of this is UNIFIL which supposedly keeps an eye on the border

between Lebanon and Israel. Judging the success of their efforts makes Israel reluctance to rely on the UN further, quite

understandable. There is actually quite a bit of other UN presence in West Bank and a security training program for the Palestinians is provided by the USA.

Israel is already placed under certain trade restrictions and bans from certain quarters, and was actually even more

economically isolated in its past. Sanctions may hurt, but may also harden its position. It seems that you are assuming

that the only solution appropriate is for Israel to completely accept all the Palestinian demands, rather than reaching

an agreed compromise between the sides.

There are indeed moderate voices within Israel (given that 20% of the electorate is Arab, that is not very surprising),

however they cannot be said to represent a majority, and a lot of the so-called moderates are not necessarily very

trusting when it comes to striking a deal with the Palestinians.

[Morch]

The word apartheid from the Oxford Dictionary...

a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.

The Separation Wall and the bias against Israeli Arabs returning is apartheid.

The Pope touching that wall was symbolic.

B'Selem , The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, is a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. It endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.

They have an excellent website.

If you want an unbiased assessment of daily life under the current systemI suggest you

check out this.

http://www.btselem.org/jerusalem/20140527_shufat_water_crisis

Here is a recent example of the absurd system.Police fails to protect the girls from settler violence but finds the resources to vigorously enforce the law on children for minor suspicions

On Tuesday afternoon, May 27, 2014, the Shai Police detained four Palestinian girls, ages 11 to 15, from the South Hebron Hills, after a settler from Ma'on complained that they had picked cherries from his grove. The girls were on their way home from school, escorted by the army. They were taken in a police car, without adult accompaniment, to the police station in Hebron and detained until the late afternoon. Two of them were interrogated. After being held for about four hours in the Israeli police station, they were handed over to the Palestinian police and released to their homes only in the evening.

http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20140528_police_detain_girls_for_eating_fruit

I still don't get why you see the barrier wall as something other than a barrier wall. The fact that it is quite formidable is more to do with security considerations , otherwise it would probably would have been a high tech fence, which is the cases of most other Israeli borders. Why is having a border fence/wall considered a marker of apartheid? It is quite standard between most ountries who do not enjoy the best of relationships.

While B'tselem is doing some excellent work, and is generally to be commended, it cannot be said to be "unbiased". That is not to say that a lot of their reports are not correct, simply that they heavily concentrate on transgressions commited by Israel, much less so when it comes to the Palestinian side. No complaints there, as this is pretty much what they say they do - just need to keep in mind that they present a certain point of view, rather than a comprehensive objective one.

And yes, there are many instances where the IDF, Israeli police, and mainly the settlers do wrong. There's no denying that. I just don't see how this is ever going to be resolved when each single incident, originating from whichever side, is turned into a blame game and denial of any wrong doing.

[Morch]

To get back on topic the Pope was making a symbolic gesture when he touched the wall.

85 % of it runs through the occupied territories of the West Bank and not Israeli property.

Let us not forget the ruling by the United Nations International Court of Justice who in 2004 stated the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law.

No one is saying that Israel is not entitled to secure its borders but in the case of the wall it is not legal where it does not follow the green line nor are the settlements legal.

The EU last week banned the import of all poultry products from the occupied territories as a means of economic boycott.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/israel-settler.w52

The Pope's gesture was a nice move, and I think you missed a decimal point there.

The construction of the barrier was deemed illegal, yes.

Worthy to note that on two occasions the Israeli supreme court judged that the wall's route will be changed against the government's wishes, these precedents effected (and will effect) many similar law suits.

In addition, Israel's position is that the barrier is not a final border, but a temporary one, alterations to be made in accordance

with any permanent agreement (history of peace agreements and truces with neighbors lends some credibility to this stance).

[Robby nz]

Religion of whatever breed sure has a lot of death destruction and misery to answer for.

[Ulysses G.]

So do human beings in general.

[Jay Sata]

Israel is similar to Thailand in that the average person and a substantial part of the population are decent moderate people who just want to get on with their life.

Reading some of the posts above I take on board the valid points made.

Sadly politicians often reflect the minority viewpoint.

As someone who does not believe in religion I feel it is often the cause of conflict.

Netanyahu is a nasty right winger who will never achieve peace for Israel.

Let's face it if you can argue with the Pope what chance reconciliation with Palestine .

Edited May 29, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Ulysses G.]

Netanyahu is a nasty right winger who will never achieve peace for Israel.

Both Rabin and Sharon were thought of the same way, but both of them offered considerable concessions to the Palestinians and tried to make peace. Netanyahu might not achieve peace - he needs a sincere partner on the other side - but that does not mean that he will not try.

[Morch]

Israel is similar to Thailand in that the average person and a substantial part of the population are decent moderate people who just want to get on with their life.

Reading some of the posts above I take on board the valid points made.

Sadly politicians often reflect the minority viewpoint.

As someone who does not believe in religion I feel it is often the cause of conflict.

Netanyahu is a nasty right winger who will never achieve peace for Israel.

Let's face it if you can argue with the Pope what chance reconciliation with Palestine .

Israel does have a sizable pro-peace crowd, but it is nevertheless not the majority and it gets smaller in relation to the demands presented by the Palestinian side. The general political leaning is more right wing oriented, with religious influence much in evidence. As this drags on, the right wingers get more entrenched in their views, while the moderates slip into apathy and hopelessness.

On the Palestinian side, the range of opinions is somewhat narrower. One will be hard pressed to find many pro-peace figures willing to publicly advocate major concessions. The same trends in public opinion are at play, though.

Wouldn't say that the governments on both sides do not represent the people's wishes - the Israeli coalition government is mostly right wing, with moderate/pro-peace parties mainly in opposition or not very effective within government. The PA is in a process of patching things up with Hamas, a move that while very popular with the Palestinians, does not necessarily bode well for peace.

Netanyahu is overrated as a leader. He is more interested in his own political survival than anything else. He is not exactly independent in his decisions, with a shaky coalition and in-party opposition. That's without factoring personal domestic issues repeatedly coming up on media . Arguing with the Pope in front of cameras was silly, but not surprising.

[Ulysses G.]

Arguing with the Pope in front of cameras was silly, but not surprising.

Not so silly. The Pope was actually "arguing" with him and Netanyahu was accurate about Jesus speaking both languages. They were both right. However, it was hardly an "argument". The Pope corrected him and then he corrected the Pope in return - very politely.

Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic are fairly closely related. They all go back to one ancient "root" language some call "Common Semitic", which is why Arabs and Jews are both considered "Semitic" peoples. It is about language, not about race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HU5KMwVsOw

Edited May 30, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Netanyahu is a nasty right winger who will never achieve peace for Israel.

Both Rabin and Sharon were thought of the same way, but both of them offered considerable concessions to the Palestinians and tried to make peace. Netanyahu might not achieve peace - he needs a sincere partner on the other side - but that does not mean that he will not try.

Rabin was never seen as a "nasty right winger", certainly not on par with Sharon or Netanyahu. Did you mean Begin?

Netanyahu is not well known for taking hard decisions, and it is doubtful he has it in himself to go against most of his own

side. If by any chance there will be a deal while he is PM, you can be sure his will be a sullen, feet dragging sort of approach.

That is without getting into the obvious point that the Abbas isn't much different. They are both sort of middle-management

leadership, both lacking vision and guts to make a leap of faith, both constrained by their own electorate and bound by years

of distrust and hard rhetoric.

[Morch]

Arguing with the Pope in front of cameras was silly, but not surprising.

Not so silly. The Pope was actually "arguing" with him and Netanyahu was accurate about Jesus speaking both languages. They were both right. However, it was hardly an "argument". The Pope corrected him and then he corrected the Pope in return - very politely.

Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic are fairly closely related. They all go back to one ancient "root" language some call "Common Semitic", which is why Arabs and Jews are both considered "Semitic" peoples. It is about language, not about race.

Silly in the sense that he should know by now that every little thing got a chance to generate a negative headline, and as opposed to his image (at least in Israel) as media savvy, he goes there again and again. He could just as well have ignored it and go on with his speech. Off-hand, cannot think of an instance where any leader contradicted the pope in public, even when not agreeing with his opinions.

It's not a big deal at all, and it can be said that Netanyahu is the one shooting to score points, or that the publication of a this minor thing is an attempt at scoring points. Works both ways and amplifies the some of the petty aspects of the conflict.