The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #80337   Message #1467065
Posted By: GUEST,CarolC
21-Apr-05 - 12:03 PM
Thread Name: BS: The New Anti-semitism
Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
(1) Within the country of Israel there is no physical segregation according to language or ethnic origin I would know of. That's why I see nothing meriting the name Apartheid there.

Already addressed this one.

(2) A wall between countries can be called a lot of things (as I know from my own country) but I have never heard the term Apartheid used for that.

The wall is not going up between countries. It is snaking all through the inside of the West Bank, and is cutting off large chunks of the West Banks from the people who live there. That is the problem. If the wall was going up between the West Bank and Israel, I would be all for it.

(3) If the winner of a war takes territories not formerly being part of her country that can be called many names, in the case of Israel I'd call it stupid and some other names, but I have not yet heard that taking over of a part of a country being called Apartheid.

It is apartheid when that part has been divided between areas where Jews can go, but Palestinians cannot, and other areas where both Jews and Palestinians can go. This is the situation in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

South Africa was a country segregating within its own boundaries and planning to 'source out' some pieces of SA with a part (a particular part) of its own population. Israel is a country that after having won a war has (stupidly, I repeat) annected some parts of other countries, treats these parts as its own territory and builds a wall to prevent people from neighbouring countries/territories entering Israel without permission.

The government of Isreal has created segregation within the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

If one swallows the Hamas propaganda unthinkingly then the whole country is still 'Palestine' with some Jews living in there. From that point of view, they call it 'Apartheid', for they do not want to have an Israel in the whole of 'Palestine' at all.

Yes, this is true, but it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of Archbishop Tutu's quote which refers to the segregation that has been enforced by the government of Israel within the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem between the local Palestinian population and the "Jewish only" areas which divide the areas where the Palestinians are allowed to go into tiny bantustans, just like in South Africa.

My earlier comment still stands.