Andrew Kadi responds to the earlier post "Maybe we should rename apartheid ‘hafrada’?":
Aside from the various points being made in the comments section, it seems folks have overlooked a very serious reason that apartheid should be the term used with regard to Israel:
1) Apartheid is defined by the international community and Israel's policies/system fall within that definition.
2) Apartheid, is defined as a crime against humanity under international law, and is therefore prosecutable under international law.
Good point. Israel supporters' response to the Goldstone report shows that there is real fear of actual accountability. But does it have to be either/or? Both terms seem to help people best understand what's happening in Israel/Palestine.
No wonder they are so afraid of the term.
I agree with the closing statement — neither term needs to be used in exclusion. Myself, I think “apartheid” needs to be used for the reasons detailed above, among others.
As a matter of strategy, the term “Hafrada” lacks the following:
1. Not only does the average American and Jewish American need to digest all the new information being thrown at him/her regarding the specifics of the conflict, but now, with “Hafrada” you’d be inundating that listener, the audience, with non-English terminology which will require another layer of explanations. The message gets lost in the noise, so to speak. Who is the target audience; is it American Jews who might find the Hebrew word curious and interesting, or is it perhaps the American public in general?
2. Having the term “apartheid” acknowledged and defined by a precedent in international law, sets the groundwork for future legal prosecution or litigation. It will make it easier for Palestinians and/or Israelis to file lawsuits against individual corporations that support the occupation and the colonial settlement project. “Apartheid” is already defined by international law. A lawsuit need only refer to such definition for an explanation of the context, whereas “Hafrada” would require first establishing a commonly agreed upon definition and only later proceeding from that launching point. It becomes a legal tango, two steps back, one step forward.
In conclusion, the adoption of such new terminology will only serve to trip and cripple the momentum that the BDS movement has already gained.
I’m against it.
Apartheid parallels are easy to counter.
1. The demographics are different. 50-50 is a very different political relationship to 90-10.
2. The harshness of the wall and checkpoints is a desparate but direct result of the wave of hundreds of suicide bombings in the early 00′s, describable then as a potentially valid defense. The archives of orthodox collecting limbs at the scene of suicide bombings are equally available and compelling, and would inhibit even the most naive young idealist. Hamas continues to periodically threaten to return to suicide bombing and other armed resistance.
3. The original removal of Arabs was during the course of a war in which the local and foreign Arabs each operated under the slogan “we will drive them to the sea” (stated genocidal intent).
4. There is political democracy in Israel, and limited political democracy in Palestine (more than in most other Arab states).
5. The parallel remedies that were effective in South Africa are unlikely to be effective in Israel/Palestine because of the demographics.
6. The South Africa apartheid assertion of one person one vote in agreed upon jurisdictions, contrasts with the ambiguity as to what jurisdiction is described.
7. The religious nationalism of Hamas continues to advocate for Sharia, in which Islamic institutions prevail, not one-person one-vote democracy.
8. And yes, there is no Palestinian Mandela guaranteeing protection for Jews from a bloodbath.
A parallel with the anti-apartheid movement is the armed conflict between the two dominant Palestinian political leadership, creating a triangular orientation of enemies rather than a binary.
“Apartheid parallels are easy to counter.”
Yet you continue to fail miserably in your efforts.
1. Demographics have no relevance to apartheid.
2. The wall and checkpoints have nothign to do with suicide bombing. They are used to make life as painful for the Palestinians as possible. Suicide bombings began after the closure, not before.
3. The original removal of Arabs was planned as early as 1880, 60 years before ethe war. Without the ethnic cleansing, there would have been no state of Israel.
4. There is political democracy in Israel for Jews only.
5. The fundamental remedies that were effective in South Africa was conciliation, which you keep pretending top promote. You haven’t even tried to explain why demographics should be of any relevance.
6. Unintelligible garble.
7. The religious nationalism of Hamas continues to advocate is none of Israel’s business.
8. There is clearly no Israeli Mandela guaranteeing protection for Palestinians from a bloodbath.
Your argument aer worse than pathetic. They suggest that senility has set in early
For a term which is so easy to “counter”, it seems to be catching on awfully fast, and it looks like it’s here to stay. And you can’t do a goddam thing about it.
Of course, you could always start a hasbara campaign based on “Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?”
1. Ditto what Shingo said, demographics have no bearing
2. The checkpoints were in place long before the “wave of suicide bombings of the 00′s. So were mass murders by Zionists, and a brutal and oppressive military regime. Maybe the armed resistance would stop if the state-sponsored murders by Zionists and confiscation of Palestinian land for Jewish-only use would stop.
3. Ditto Shingo
4. There is political democracy in Israel for Jews only, and none in the occupied territories. Democracy means rule by the people, and the people in the occupied territories are ruled by foreign military of a religious group bent on their expulsion, a form of government less democratic than most dictatorships including any in the Arab world which at least pay attention to “the street”.
5. Another way of saying you don’t believe in equal rights regardless of creed or ethnicity?
6. Ditto, incoherent
7. The religious nationalism of orthodox Zionism continues to maintain religious law in Israel and a government under which Jewish institutions prevail. For example, destroying the Mamila cemetery for a holocaust museum as well as many Palestinian homes to make way for parks glorifying mythological bible and supposedly Jewish figures who, if they existed were probably not anything like what’s written in the bible. Or just destroying Palestinian villages in order to give the land for Jewish use.
8. So now you claim Jews need “protection” – because of all the bloodbaths they’ve inflicted on Palestinians and other Arabs, I’m sure, who now have cause to demand retribution. Perhaps you should get Israel to stop inflicting bloodbaths on the Palestinians and other Arabs, and make some honest and fair effort towards a just solution. But it appears that you just want to keep the stolen property and for there to be no impunity for mass murder and genocidal intent by the Zionists.
. And yes, there is no Palestinian Mandela guaranteeing protection for Jews from a bloodbath.
Witty
————————–
Where is the Israeli Mandela guaranteeing protection for the Palestinians from a bloodbath? WHERE IS HE, YOU SCUM?
Are pogroms defined by the international community as crimes against humanity under international law? The way territory is acquired and Palestinians evicted for ‘settlements’ resembles the vicious pogroms of the Russians more than the enslavement of a native population by the Dutch and English.
thanks for clearing that up Kadi :) Apartheid is a clearly defined crime against humanity which Israel violates daily, not only in the Occupied Territories, but with it’s denial of refugee rights and 2nd class citizenship for “non-jews”. South Africa was the precedent, but not the exclusive domain. If Israel doesn’t like the term, then STOP PRACTICING IT!!
I prefer the term “apartheid” to chip away at the language of exceptionalism that pervades Zionism. When I was a Zionist, I was always convinced by arguments along the lines of “no other country…” Just as when one says “Zionism” one thinks Herzl, Weizmann, even Ben Gurion and perhaps Paul Neumann- men and ideologies abstracted from the realities of policy in a way that one does not get when they hear “ethno-religious nationalism,” which would make you think of something more along the lines of the Balkans. Israel can always explain and justify its policies in its own terms of exceptionalism, by using more universalistic terms it deprives Israel of dominance over the debate through exceptionalism. Until one views Zionism through a prism of belief in universal human rights, one can not understand its problems.
RE: “Until one views Zionism through a prism of belief in universal human rights, one can not understand its problems.”
Amen
I doubt it’s going to be claims of apartheid or hafrada that does for the occupation, it will be the crass stupidity of the occupiers themselves that will do for the occupation.
Hopefully, it’s goodbye AIPAC and farewell to that bunch of cretins at WINEP!
Can’t someone in the US report Witty, yonira, eee, Julian, etc as agents of a foreign principal so we don’t have to read their tedious disingenuous blatherings any more.
The idea that one would change such a basic framework that is true to the facts, true to the ethics of the struggle, and one of the pillars of the legal and rhetorical strategies of the movement to get (perhaps) the approval of one (or two or three or four) US academic who doesn’t even identify with the movement and cares about his career more than anything else is a neophyte’s failure of nerve. Get a grip! An academic turned down your invitation. Worse things happen to people involved in this liberation struggle every day.
We need movement intellectuals. The rest are welcome if they come, and if they do not they can take a hike.
How about we call it shwarma?
World poll: Only 19% see Israel in positive light
Well, that can’t be right. I thought Europe was a hotbed of rampant anti-Semitism! Ostensibly because it’s slowly turning into “Eurabia!” You mean the hasbara isn’t actually truthful? Heh.
Chaos
Check the graph here..It’s instant information on the figures..
link to angryarabscommentsection.blogspot.com
LOL I totally misread the quote. I thought they were referring to attitudes of Israel in those countries, not perceptions of those countries worldwide. :) My mistake.
Yes, it’s actually the standing of EACH country in the world perceived by the WHOLE world. Israel is viewed at the bottom with North Korea, Iran etc.
The parallels between Apartheid South Africa and Apartheid Israel are undeniable.
link to africasacountry.2com
I agree fully that hafrada should not replace apartheid. Perhaps hafrada could be used to cover the more particular and nasty Israeli activities that (to my knowledge) didn’t occur so obviously in South Africa:
- Family evictions from homes targetted for settlement
- House demolitions
- Water resource stealing (or even demolition of Palestinian water resources)
- Night raids and detention without trial
- Constant use of ‘rubber’ bullets, tear gas and live ammunition to suppress peaceful demonstrations
- IOF protection of Israeli settler attacks and vandalism of Palestinian property
- Physical siege of 1.5 million Gazans
- Blackmail of medical cases at Gaza border
These all seem to be particularly malevolent and specifically designed by Israelis to affect their occupied population.
ayatollah chowmeini I misread your comment:
Just as when one says “Zionism” one thinks Herzl, Weizmann, even Ben Gurion and perhaps Paul Newman.
It took me a long time to recover from the pernicious effects of ‘Exodus’.
worry not, you didn’t misread it- i mistyped it, and apologies for atrocious syntax. long day.
Seems like Hannah and Andrew are talking about two different things, at least from my understanding of their points.
The word “Hafrada” on a flier or a title of an event might intrigue. It also has the advantage of being the Israeli term for the policy, so someone backing out of a discussion because of the phrase “hafrada” would actually be a big win in a lot of ways–you’re offended by what Israeli calls its own policy?
The word “apartheid” is defined under international law. So there’s an argument that needs to be made continually that “hafrada” is, in fact, apartheid, as defined under international law.
Not sure if that made any sense, it just seems like Andrew’s reasoning is more about why supporters of international law and human rights need to be using the term apartheid, and Hannah is more talking about how to hook people in or start a conversation.
How is “apartheid” defined under international law?
Witty – haven’t you heard of Google? And the second entry after scholarly articles should be Wikipedia on the crime of apartheid.
If you are the best that the Hasbara Brigade can put up, then Israel is doomed.
We should use “apartheid” because people know what it means and know the emotional meaning of it. Apartheid is detestable. When you use the word approvingly, people know what you mean and how you feel. And they’ll likely agree, if informed sufficiently.
We do NOT need a new Hebrew word (or a new word at all) for “Apartheid.” Maybe “worse-than-apartheid” to cover (in feeling) all the list of horrors enumerated by Richard Parker:
- Family evictions from homes targetted for settlement
- House demolitions
- Water resource stealing (or even demolition of Palestinian water resources)
- Night raids and detention without trial
- Constant use of ‘rubber’ bullets, tear gas and live ammunition to suppress peaceful demonstrations
- IOF protection of Israeli settler attacks and vandalism of Palestinian property
- Physical siege of 1.5 million Gazans
- Blackmail of medical cases at Gaza border
to which might be added
- poisoning/salinization of water (Gaza)
- dumping of raw sewage into water (West Bank)
- arrest and imprisonment of children to coerce their parents
>> the list just gets longer and longer as I read the WEB. As if the inventors of horrors were hard at work, night and day, Santa’s little helpers, maybe tryuibng to make the accusations so dreadful that no-one would credit them. “Jews do that! Oh, No, surely Not. You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
As to people getting information, beware of SCUD: ” Secrecy, Cover Up, and/or Deception” as used by Israel and its agents, the US MSM and US Congress and ?? Whitehouse.
Adam: But does it have to be either/or? Both terms seem to help people best understand what’s happening in Israel/Palestine.
—
Please, why a second word for the same? What are your arguments? Which difference in speech do you want to introduce & allow? A Hebrew word introduces a we-Hebrew-speaking-only-topic circle. To me it is as accepting a conquerors language (i.e. the occupier’s/Aapartheider’s way of speak).
Pingback: Hafradah v apartheid, the story continues
Pingback: MONDOWEISS ONLINE NEWSLETTER « Shoah