Sara Besbes, a Tunisian champion fencer, boycotted a competition in Italy rather than fence Israeli Noam Mills.
Besbes, who comes from a family of great fame in fencing, reached the final round where she had to play against an Israeli player. However, she stood still on the platform, pointing her sword toward the ground and refusing to move as a sign she was boycotting the Israeli athlete but without officially announcing it to avoid punitive measures by the judges.
Tunis Radio reports Noam Mills "collapsed in tears" as she was declared the winner.
A Google translation of this article from the Italian press indicates Besbes's action required Mills to win the competition by inflicting the final blows against Besbes as she "remained completely passive to the point of suffering from the five thrusts that have losing the match"
An abnormal behavior that has not escaped the referees, who could not take action because it was not a rejection but, apparently, of a defeat. The Besbes, 22, belongs to a family of fencers: the mother was one of the most famous specialists in Tunisia, three sisters and a brother are part of the National Assembly and the father is on the board of the Federation. She, Sarah, was African champion and points to a place for the London Olympics. In short, not a champion, but even the newcomer, and there is more than reasonable suspicion that hers was a conscious decision and inspired by the leaders of her Federation. Even the rival, winning, reacted to the success with tears. The 5-0 defeat cost the Tunisian also the final knockout in the next round got the Chinese Li Na, who has eliminated easily. The Mills has instead continued the journey by eliminating the Mexican Teran and entered the main draw which Thursday released the new world champion. Sara and Tunisian leaders have preferred to avoid the comment.
.......
This was the second such incident this week. Iranian Sayyad Ghanbari Hamad refused to fight against Israeli Tomer Or.
Refusing to participate in a sports competition for political reasons is reprehensible and un-sportsmanlike. The international fencing authorities should take steps against the Tunisian and Iranian associations if it turns out that they forced the individual fencers not to compete. If it was a personal decision , those fencers should be disqualified from international competitions.
No it isn’t. Athletes are people with political opinions too and they are using their platform to show solidarity or to demonstrate their opposition to a racist, apartheid State like Israel.
Israel is a colonial-settler State that attempts to normalize it’s image throughout the world.
This act by the fencer is reminded people that Israel is not normal and should be isolated until it ends the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
You don’t care anyway, it’s only because your State is being boycotted that you make these broad statements. lol
so sports are more important than the politics of occupation and oppression. ignorance like that must be cultivated.
Excellent point, jon s. It reminds me of those cruel people who banned apartheid South Africa from the Olympics. Apartheid was a purely internal South African issue, and to use competitive sports as a weapon to fight it was, as you say, “reprehensible and un-sportsmanlike.” Israel is only in the 45th year of occupation, and surely the international community should wait until 100 or 200 years go by before making any statement in the sacred areas of sports and entertainment. And don’t forget the slippery slope aspect. Today, it’s fencing, but tomorrow, maybe the world community will deprive ordinary Israelis of imports of food like lentils and pasta, clean water, cooking fuel, children’s toys and clothing, and shoot and kill meddlesome do-gooders who try to break such a cruel embargo by delivering basic necessities. You never know.
It occurs to me I should post a sarcasm alert on this comment.
I don’t know why I react as I do, but if the default (Israeli) winner was in tears, then the gesture was felt strongly by her, even as it pushed her forward in competition. She was denied HER chance to compete, but (here) only with one competitor. And (see below), politically, SHE WAS DEFEATED.
How I wish that SHE had spoken out against the occupation, or the settlements, assuming the competition rules did not forbid HER from speaking out. Or that SHE has refused to touch Sara Besbes 5 times and BOTH had defaulted this particular competition, again assuming the rules would permit. (I wish both competitors well and hope that, in another time, they may be friends — and competitors.)
pabelmont – that would have required an act of real courage…………
(sarcasm) in brackets works well. but I got it.
Doesn’t matter, the Israeli girl will never be respected by her peers ever again, if she ever was…..she is permanently marked and shamed.
As she should be. She should have refused to touch Sara.
Correction
Israel is in the 64rd year of occupation and suppression!! It started during 1947 when the Haganah, the Irgun and the Stern Gang, among other less known jewish terrorist organisations, started their campagne to clear large areas of Palestine of the original arab inhabitants, bombing settlements, cafes and buses. The father of the present Chigago mayer Emanuel Rahm was the inventor of the bombing of crowded buses.
Even during the 1948 war Israel further occupied arab territories that was not given to it by the UN resolution.
Here one must ask: has the UN the authority and power to give large areas to colonists for purpose of establishing a new state, on a land that belonged for thousands of years to another group of people?
thanks shmuel, it slipped my mind it was the boycotting of sports that turned SA public more than any other aspect of the boycott.
Shmuel,
I just don’t see how this is relevant to Israel. We were banned from Asian tournaments and games before 1967. You think Israelis really care about this? That is why we play in Europe. You can say it is about apartheid till you are blue in the face but since this whole charade started before 1967 (Indonesia did not let Israel participate in the 1962 Asian games) we know the real reason.
You guys seem to think that this is something new, but the fact of the matter, this has been happening since Israel was founded and has had very little effect on Israeli public opinion and policies.
eee
Israel is in Asia, like it or not!!
What is it doing in the european football leage?
Just another jewish privilege, my grandmother once lived in France or Germany, so we have the right of return? Or we have a german sheppard dog? ( I like the belgians better, smarter).
3e,
It was a response to jon, who seems to believe that sport is a world unto itself.
As for efficacy, we’ll see. It’s not 1962 any more.
“You can say it is about apartheid till you are blue in the face but since this whole charade started before 1967 (Indonesia did not let Israel participate in the 1962 Asian games) we know the real reason.”
LOL. As if Israeli apartheid started in 1967!!
“this has been happening since Israel was founded and has had very little effect on Israeli public opinion and policies.”
Then talk to jon s. He’s the one crying the boo-boo tears over it.
Theo,
Of course Israel is in Asia. You should tell that to the Asians though. Israel tried to play there and was rejected and the Europeans were nice enough to accept us. I don’t see anyone at fault here except the Asian sporting federations. By the way, Turkey plays in Europe also even though it is mostly in Asia and just a very small part of it is in Europe.
Shmuel,
“As for efficacy, we’ll see. It’s not 1962 any more.”
Of course it isn’t. Israel was much weaker then and had much less support from the US and Europe.
As for the argument you are pursuing, I think you do not realize how dangerous it is for your cause. What are you going to say when Jewish teams and athletes in Israel BDS Arab teams and athletes in Israel because the latter support BDS of Israel? They will just tell you it is ok to connect political views and sports and then what exactly would be your reply? That it is only ok to connect certain political views and sports? I thought we all agreed that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You think Israelis really care about this?
so what’s stopping you from shutting up?
I’m all for geese and gander (especially if the sauce is good).
Should there be a comparable boycott with which I disagree, I will criticise its goals rather than its methods. Those who have supported boycotts and sanctions against Germany, SA, the USSR, Iraq, Iran, etc., but oppose BDS against Israel, should say that they oppose boycotting Israel, rather than going on about the sanctity of cultural exchange and international sporting events.
“What are you going to say when Jewish teams and athletes in Israel BDS Arab teams and athletes in Israel because the latter support BDS of Israel?”
LOL.. OH, no.. “Don’t boycott our shitty little state or we might prevent you from playing in our shitty little state.” I’m sure after they get done laughing at you, they’ll be fine with it.
Shmuel,
Yes, everybody likes duck a l’orange or geese a l’orange.
But think about this a little more deeply. There is a difference between saying nuclear weapons should never be used and saying that nuclear weapons should be used for certain goals. Goals and interests are ephemeral things that are hard to pin down and hard to argue about. In some cases it is just best to be against certain methods, whatever the goals they support.
Now, BDS is not nuclear weapons, but if you introduce it into the battlefield, you can hardly complain when the other side uses it also. Are you sure that using BDS will not in the end harm the Palestinians even more than it harms Israel? I am sure it will.
Woody “Steve Jobs lacks humanity” Tanaka,
You are clueless. Why don’t you go ask some real Arab Israelis how they would like to be BDS’ed by Israel’s Jewish community and what the effect on them would be? The Arab Israeli community would be devastated.
you can hardly complain when the other side uses it also. Are you sure that using BDS will not in the end harm the Palestinians even more than it harms Israel? I am sure it will.
I can assure you, as someone who has participated in many boycotts, that I will not criticise the method itself, but rather its abuse or misapplication.
As for harming the Palestinians, they’re big boys and girls. It’s their call, their initiative and their leadership. I do what I can to help.
Israel is already harming Israel.
Your parallel is idiotic.
Apartheid isreal is allowed to participate in european sporting (and eurovision song) competitions because everyone knows most israelis are european :-)
“Woody ‘Steve Jobs lacks humanity’” Tanaka,”
Oh, man, you actually think you’re making a point here. It would so precious if it wasn’t so laughable.
“Why don’t you go ask some real Arab Israelis how they would like to be BDS’ed by Israel’s Jewish community and what the effect on them would be?”
Oh, I see, you are including Palestinian Israelis in your nonsense. Since you didn’t specify the Palestinians in “Israel,” and we were taking about international competition, I presumed that, you know, you had the ability to stay on topic (I guess not) and were referring to Jews BDS’ing Arabs other than Palestinian Israelis.
“The Arab Israeli community would be devastated.”
I have no doubts that the Palestinians who live in pre-1967-occupied-Palestine would be devastated if the Jews living in Palestine were to inflict upon them the same level of racism with they inflict on the Palestinians living in post-1967-occupied-Palestine, rather than the lowered level of racism which they now experience. What is your point?
Talk about Freudian slip! Both cases, true.
You gotta love how eee demonstrates how little he cares by posting half a dozen comments trying to convince us how little he cares.
>> BDS is not nuclear weapons, but if you introduce it into the battlefield, you can hardly complain when the other side uses it also. Are you sure that using BDS will not in the end harm the Palestinians even more than it harms Israel?
What you seem to be projecting here is a world where Israel plays in tournaments with all its friends. You can count these friends by looking at the average support it gets in the general assembly. Soccer against Micronesia? Volleyball against Guatamala? Basketball against the US?
Israel is a country that can’t get a prom date. -N49.
eee, just go back to Asia. Isn’t that where your family is from?
Everybody is wrong. Most Israelis are not European. What an insult to the majority of Israelis who are Arab, Asian and African in recent ancestry.
Noam Mills sounds pretty British to me.
“Everybody is wrong”. Well what can I say but LOL!
70% of Israelis are just that, Israeli.
eee…
Who in the hell do you think Israel can boycott that would give a damn about being boycotted by Israel? There is isn’t anyone who cares.
American,
The Palestinians care, they care very much. They are dependent economically on Israel. Therefore BDS is a very strange tactic for them as if it is even slightly successful, it will surely backfire terribly.
And you eee, and Israel, are dependent lock stock and barrel on the US.
What are you going to do when Americans disgust with you becomes so overwhelming that even AIPAC politicans can’t protect or support you any more?
Get China or Russia to adopt you? LOL
If only we could get people like DBG to identify as American instead.
Did you lend Witty your login for the day eee? That is one of the most confused bit of nonsense about “ephemeral goals and interests” I’ve ever read.
3xe
Turkey is on two continents, so is Russia and Egypt, so they can participate, or should be able to, in games on both sides.
Israel is only in Asia and I wonder who invited you to play in european sport events and how much money and pressure did it cost.
Based on this, Marocco, Algeria, Tunisia and even Libya are much closer to the european continent, so they should have the right to play there before Israel is allowed to join.
I am sure the indinesians had a very good reason why they did not want you to come to their land, I hope many will follow until you free the palestinians and go back behind the 1948 borders!!
Yes, not the 1967, but the 1948, because you cannot annect land by war, said by the international laws.
BDS is a very strange tactic for them as if it is even slightly successful, it will surely backfire terribly.
This from the country that uses the nuclear “Samson Option” to threaten other nations whose military attacks might threaten the State of Israel’s existence, but not necessarily the survival of its Jewish population.
“You gotta love how eee demonstrates how little he cares by posting half a dozen comments trying to convince us how little he cares.”
What would you do if you were tied up in a Manhattan basement with Phil and Adam standing over brandishing knouts?
“Of course Israel is in Asia. You should tell that to the Asians though.”
‘In the interview with Tamir, which appeared in Haaretz on Friday, he said Israel should utilize its strong links with Australia to enhance its position with Asian countries. He described Israel and Australia as “sisters” in Asia and added: “We are in Asia without the characteristics of Asians. We don’t have yellow skin and slanted eyes. Asia is basically the yellow race. Australia and Israel are not – we are basically the white race.” ‘
link to haaretz.com
Jon s,
What a load of crap. The Israeli Olympic Committee Boycotted the Games of the XXII Olympiad, for political reasons. They have no place to complain when others boycott them.
Besides, if the Israeli state and the Israeli people don’t want their athletes to be considered so unworthly that their competitors would rather lose than grace them with competition, it can easily solve that problem by freeing the Palestinians, disgorging the generations-old land theft and resolving the refugee crises, either through return or through full compensation.
They would rather not, so people treat them like trash. It’s a shame, and I feel bad for any athlete who gets this treatment*, but the Israeli people who permit their state’s policies have only themselves to blame.
*(That is, I feel bad for any athlete who is a vocal advocate for the full justice for the Palestinians, the withdraw of the Zionists to the 1967 lines and who is pressing for the right of return or full compesnation. Those Israeli athletes who believe in the usual standard, Zionist line can suck it. They get what they deserve. Actually, they should consider themselves lucky that their apartheid state is even allowed to compete.)
Ha! Basically, you want to punish anyone who doesn’t bow down to Israel. You want to take the personal decision of what people do OUT OF THEIR hands and put into YOUR hands. This is exactly why Israel is sliding toward fascism — because it’s what Israelis want.
Just say it. You want Palestinians banned from sports, just like they’re being banned from art shows and the media.
Refusing to participate in a sports competition for political reasons is reprehensible and un-sportsmanlike.
jon s, what do you think of Israel’s boycott of the 1980 Olympics for political reasons? Was it reprehensible?
If the athletes complied with the boycott as a personal decision, should they have been disqualified from international competitions?
What do you think?
Refusing to participate in a sports competition for political reasons is reprehensible and un-sportsmanlike.
didn’t you read the article? she did not refuse to participate. she stood there which required the apartheid winner to stab her unchallenged in order to win her apartheid title. that is participation, it is just not normalization.
I bet you didn’t say that when The U.S boycotted the Olympics in Russia. Everyone has the duty to stand up for what is right. Not everyone has the same platform, this was hers, and she used it.
Good on this girl.
I bet you didn’t say that when The U.S boycotted the Olympics in Russia.
Frankly I wish the Russians would return the favor and demand that NATO withdraw from Afghanistan too.
jon s, your comment doesn’t look like you know a lot about “sportsmanship”. It looks more like you are trying to say to a sportswoman what to do. Which is, well, not sportsmanlike. Any good sporter would say right in your face to shut up. Which is, quite, sportsmanship.
In Chile 1973, after the 9/11 coup by Pinochet/Kissinger, prisoners were kept in the national football stadium. A few weeks later, good old USSR refused to play there for a World Cup qualifier. So they lost their ticket.
Representing Israel is what’s reprehensible.
Sarah Besbes is courageous and honorable.
Refusing to participate is reprehensible, but murdering 1,400 Pslestinians in Gaza, 9 Turks in international waters and maintaining an illegal and inhumane blockade is just “politics”.
What is reprehensible is Jon S’ saddisric myopia.
There is a history of mixing sports and politics. Probably Muhammad Ali is the best example of this. There was a black American sprinter who made a statement against the Nazis at the Olympics in the 1930′s.
Besbes sets an example for people everywhere to make a personal sacrifice for justice. The real crime is Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.
“There was a black American sprinter who made a statement against the Nazis at the Olympics in the 1930′s.”
I thought that Jessie Owens story re: the 1936 Olympics was an urban myth (the statement part, not the great run.) I would interested in hearing if this is what you were referring to.
Don’t forget Tommie Smith’s and John Carlos’s awesome Black Power Salute in the 1968 Games (supported by Peter Norman).
Woody,
Yes, I had in mind Owens and you are correct that he never made a statement. According to Wikipedia, just the fact that a black person defeated several German athletes at an event in Berlin had political significance. I think what this illustrates is that there can be a political message without an actual verbal statement.
An Israeli hitting an unarmed Arab? I can almost taste the irony of the situation.
Maximum respect for Sara, and all the other people ready do make sacrifices for justice.
Bravo.
Respect to Sara !
Bravo, Sara!
bravissima, sara.
The ever tightening noose against apartheid Israel draws closer. This is a brave act, not a small one.
Yes another wonderful and hollow victory for Apartheid israel.
So well-deserved lol.
Braveheart! And what a poetic gesture just to point the sword to the ground. That gave Noam Mills the final blow.
I want to retract my comment. It seems that Besbes was not doing it voluntarily, but on demand of the Tunis fence federation.
Nice, so she was not given any choice. The idiots in the Tunisian fencing federation wanted to cover their behinds and harmed this woman’s career.
Nope. They, and she, both realized that there are things more important than sport. And if showing up your evil, shitty state harms her career, I’m sure she believes its a good exchange.
None of the athletes who’s countries boycotted the 1980 Olympics (the US and Israel among them) were given any choice in the matter.
It seems that Besbes was not doing it voluntarily, but on demand of the Tunis fence federation?
what is your evidence this was also not her personal choice? propaganda?
I don’t know if it is propaganda. I googled for “Besbes Mills” found some italian articles, translated them with google trans and read that the Tunis Federation made her do this which sounds credible, because it was reported (probably not my Tunis radio) that not only Mills was crying but also Besbes. It seems to me that she was more into fencing than boycotting.
well, neither Besbes or her federation gave any statements, so it is merely a hypothesis she was forced to do it is it not? i read those articles too. i also read an article of pure conjecture from a professor at the University of Turin claiming the culture is rooted in ‘hatred’ and that she was ‘not able to rebel at the behest of an Arab society’ but interestingly he got her name completely wrong and there’s no indication he interviewed her and there is no article claiming the federation made her do it, only speculation.
so frankly i am not seeing the upside of believing she had no choice. and i would imagine it would be somewhat humiliating and difficult and brave to stand their as your ideological opponent were to score points against you, against your own body..and this could cause someone to cry. but i would suggest you scroll up and take a look at that face, the face as she was tipping her sword down, the face before the stood there before her opponent and tell me if that face is a face of defiance or regret. she’s got her mask balanced on her shoulder so it obviously not taken as she is about to compete. so what is she doing?
She’s using her middle finger to bring down her sword.
she looks very intent to me
Suppose it was. How many top athletes even care about their coaches, not to mention the federation? If she wanted to spar, she would have done so. This is personal conviction at its best, not coercion, in my opinion. She comes from a well known fencing family, with real performances. It’s very probable she cares about this sport, and about winning, because you don’t take part in sporting events of this size without wanting to win. She most probably wanted to beat the Israeli fencer with all her heart, but instead she chose to lose. Five times in a row….
In one of the italian articles I read that according to the people close to her she felt bad for what happened.
Besbes and Mills fought last year.
Mills’ actions were a fine metaphor for what Israel does – taking from the defenceless
Final comment of the article.
steals an apple and call you a thief …
steals a kingdom and the king will call you …
egbert, i noticed that when copying the text, it didn’t make the final cut. i searched online for the proverb because i had not heard it before and i could find nothing in english. then i googled it in italian and it is a proverb there although the google translation switched the words to change the meaning. i think it from shakespeare. it sounds like a variation of:
“Steals a piece of wood and call you a thief, steals a kingdom and will call you Duke. ”
perhaps someone more familiar w/italian can be of assistance.
“Mills’ actions were a fine metaphor for what Israel does – taking from the defenceless”
Exactly. If I was faced by an Israeli woman with a piece of sharp metal, I’d run like hell.
But, why isn’t that Israeli girl home addressing the Palestinian demographic time bomb? Instead she’s brandishing rapiers? That’s a man’s job.
Mills’ actions were a fine metaphor for what Israel does . . .
It compliments the Israeli national pastime of shooting and crying.
I hope video surfaces. If I’m understanding the description correctly, Besbes stood still as Mills struck her five times so she could win. Then Mills collapsed in tears! This could be quite a powerful image.
absolutely bangpound, i expressed my wish to see the video downthread myself.
I am not known as a lover of the zionist cause, however one should keep politics and sports apart. Sport events serve the purpose of young people getting eachother known, whose lands are in a clinch with eachother.
Just as I was against the USA boycotting the Olympics in Moscow, in return the soviets boycotted LA, I find those athletes should concentrate on their sport, leaving politics and hate to their respective betonhead politicians at home.
I am sorry for Mills, she is not responsible for the evils done by Niniyahoo, Livni and other israeli war criminals.
Unfortunately sports are not free of politics. The athletes competing may be above politics, but too often spectators and politicians use sports to their ends. Sort of like religion.
You are correct, however should we accept it as a natural happening or should we try to clean the sport of such evil influance?
In addition to politics, criminality also has a large influance on most sports, however people are put into jails for such deeds.
Should we not do the same with political influance, punish those who pervert it?
“You are correct, however should we accept it as a natural happening or should we try to clean the sport of such evil influance?”
Of what evil influence?…..of Nobility, of Conscience, of Individual Sacrifice, of Higher Cause? .. those evil influences?
You want to debase sports which are about fair competition and individual effort…exactly the kind of fairness and honor Israelis don’t have —and the Israeli girl showed that when she hit Sara five times. An honorable person would have also pointed her sword down and called it a draw. But what she did pointed out even more for the world to see the baseness of the Israeli mentality..to win unfairly, to win at all cost, to win undeservedly.
I love the bigoted generalizations about Israelis. Your true colors are showing.
And we love your Zionist biggotry, but then again, we’ve always known your colors.
eee: I love the bigoted generalizations about Israelis.
As a Zionist, you should.
Yes, Sarah Besbes had more class, however sport and class usually do not pair up.
I feel sorry for both, they trained hard and went there with a hope to win and they were robbed of that pleasure by pity political pressure.
Mills cannot be satisfied with her victory, not if she is a real sportler.
“Sport events serve the purpose of young people getting eachother known, whose lands are in a clinch with eachother.”
When Palestinian athletes have to train in substandard conditions because of the Israelis and have to worry about being killed by IDF scumbags, they make their own bed.
“I am sorry for Mills, she is not responsible for the evils done by Niniyahoo, Livni and other israeli war criminals.”
Did she vote for them? If so, then she is responsible. At least to some extent.
First of all, we do not know of Mills´political believes and if she voted or not for anyone.
On the other hand many of us voted for Obama, are we responsible for his criminal deeds in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
I was on the front line during the 40 years cold war against the soviets, however never hated the russian or ukranian people, they were surpressed and duped as we are in the USA!!
Or did Reagan, papa Bush, Clinton, baby Bush or Obama do exactly what the people want??!! Did any of them keep their election rhetorics?
First of all, we do not know of Mills´political believes and if she voted or not for anyone.
i don’t think bds works within the framework of deciphering individual political beliefs. mills is representing the state of israel in this competition is she not? it is the state she represents being boycotted, not mills. i’m not understanding how your reference to not hating russians or ukrainians applies. are you implying besbes hates mills? that’s crazy. i would not be surprised if she fenced with her in a private session were she not representing israel. bsd is not against individuals, it is against the state.
Annie
If you don´t know the difference than please consult a priest, rabbi, minister, whoever is responsible for your direction of belief. Or if you are a non-believer, as I am, than consult your own concience.
We have shad just too much blood during the past 70 years and spread hate against whole religions and nations.
Go after the guilty ones, even cut off all supplies to Israel, however leave innocent individuals out of this game.
In my opinion, if the tunisian fencing federation did not want to compete against Israel, (I find this this decision correct), then they should have said it before Sara Besbes went on the podium. This way they let that young woman take the full pressure and were hiding behind her back. A cowardly gesture.
To add to the above:
Would you like if islamists, or any other group who despises the USA, and there are a whole slew of them, would start kidnapping or even killing american tourists, because they voted for Bush or Obama or because they represent a hated nation?
Where do we draw the line?
theo, you are beginning to sound like a lunatic. first you used some bizarre analogy about being on the front lines in the cold war while never hating russians. i ask you if you were implying besbes hates mills and now you tell me to consult a priest or my own conscience and something about kidnapping or even killing american tourists? seriously i do not know what you are talking about.
We have shad just too much blood during the past 70 years and spread hate against whole religions and nations.
this is a boycott, get over it.
they let that young woman take the full pressure and were hiding behind her back.
let me know when either the federation or besbes makes a statement, otherwise your entire scenario is strictly conjuncture. i have no idea why you or anyone is insisting besbes was not participating, along with her federation as an agent of her own will.
there is a big difference between boycotting a state and kidnapping or killing it’s citizens so if you ask me where one draws the line i would advise you to read this.
Tell that to Muhammad Ali.
Snap Dexy!
“one should keep politics and sports apart.”
Perhaps, but the reality is that sports teams are organised as national teams. National flags are flown, national anthems played, and medals assigned to countries.
Look at the FIFA and IRB matches. Sport becomes a substitute for warfare, but by less humane means.
Wonderful symbolism, a poetic and powerful way to disarm the facade that Israel offers to the world. What dignity Sara displays, winning a moral victory over her opponent by allowing her an empty, sham victory. Another fake and hollow defeat of an opponent by Israel – where the opponent demonstrates more compassion, courage and integrity than the ‘victor’ even understands. I hope some photographs of Sara with her sword pointing towards the ground becomes an icon of resistance to zionist supremacism, and the ability to retain and strengthen your humanity in the face of appalling inhumanity.
Absolutely Justice…and if anyone finds a picture of Sara with her sword pointed down please let us here know.
That’s a picture I would to have made into a large poster.
munro just linked to one in this thread american , here. i imagine this is the position in which the apartheid opponent took her winning thrusts.
here is the text from someone who was there:
thanks annie.
Wonderful, thank you, Sara Besbes!
the last link in the post from the italian press ends like this
ruba una mela e ti chiameranno ladro…
ruba un regno e ti chiameranno re…
hmmm
The phrase “ruba una mela e ti chiameranno ladro… ruba un regno e ti chiameranno re…” is just the signature of the user which copied this article into a forum. The original source is
link to www3.lastampa.it
And the phrase sounds like a variation of a phrase of Saint Augustine’s “De Civitate Dei” (City of God”.
Chapter 4.— How Like Kingdoms Without Justice are to Robberies.
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.”
thank you talkback
The banning of South Africa from major sports events played a significant role in dismantling apartheid. England stopped playing cricket with them when SA refused to accept a black Englishman on a tour to South Africa. Eventually all countries stopped playing cricket with them and considering how integral a part sport was in SA society it hurt them badly. In fact, while negotiations were going on with Nelson Mandela for the removal of white rule although apartheid laws were still in force, Mandela requested the world community to resume sporting links as sport was so close to the South African’s heart. This did happen as did the end of apartheid. Therefore any suggestion that sport should not be brought into the picture as far as the I/P conflict goes is absolutely ridiculous.
i love this amazing photograph of her. the article says “she stood still on the platform, pointing her sword toward the ground ” but i wonder what lead up to that. if she lowered it dramatically. i would love to see a video of this.
I applaud her incredibly noble gesture and hope to see more of the same from others (the suggestion that the Israeli fencer join in was a good one).
smart move on her part. Thank you to the next generations
of people like her. I am sure there will be many more in the decades to come.
And all the oppressors have to do is make peace with the Palestinians.
They’ve been cheated for decades. Enough with the security threat BS.
It ain’t a workin’ no more…
Bravo Sara, a true champion.
If anyone finds video of this, please post!
I’m afraid it was to early in the competition to be broadcasted.
To reply:
- I opposed the boycott of the Moscow Olympics.
- I support the establishment of a Palestinian state, in the context of a 2 state solution. Naturally, I support Palestinian participation, under the Palestinian flag , in any and all international sports events. I’d love to see Israel vs. Palestine in the soccer stadium , not on the battlefield.
- The incident described here once more underlines the double-standard applied by the boycotters. The Tunisian fencer had no problem competing in Italy, even though Italy participates in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in which far more innocent civilians were hurt than by Israel. She wouldn’t dream of boycotting Italy, or ,for that matter, the US or the UK, or Russia or China for their abuse of human rights.
-The analogy with South Africa is false. In apartheid-era SA racism was practised in sports, like in Nazi Germany where Jewish athletes couldn’t play with or compete against “Aryans”, or like in the US before Jackie Robinson. That’s not the situation in Israel, where Jews and Palestinians are not segregated, play on the same teams and in the same leagues.
- Do you want to establish a criterion of ideological purity for athletes? That’s what totalitarian regimes have done from the Nazis to the Stalinists to North Korea. “Denounce the occupation and then you can play” – is that what you would like to see?
There is no double standard. She is a human being and I think like many people, this issue takes precedence due to emotional and biographical variables.
It’s disgusting that you’d compare this to Nazism. But typical.
how do you know she wouldn’t dream of it? where are the citizens ruled by the italian government who have called for a boycott of that government? why don’t you organize a boycott and see what would happen.
what are you talking about. israel rules more than those they grace with citizenship and you know that. there’s no way they treat all the people they rule over equally. i didn’t realize there were palestinian israeli fencers on the israeli team anyway. who are they?
Annie, There’s no boycott of Italy , the US, the UK, or anyone else. If that fencer had to compete against a Syrian I’m sure there would be no problem, despite the ongoing bloody brutality of the Syrian regime.
Of course I know that Israel rules over Palestinians who are not citizens. Nor should they be. They should be citizens of a Palestinian state.
I didn’t say that there are Palestinian – Israeli fencers on the team. I must admit that I have no idea as to the ethnic makeup of the team, fencing not being a sport that I follow regularly. The most popular sport in Israel and the world, is soccer, and what I pointed out about the absence of apartheid, holds true.
Annie, There’s no boycott of Italy , the US, the UK, or anyone else.
exactly, which is why it is absurd of you to assert “She wouldn’t dream of boycotting” if there was one. it appears you fail to grasp the reality the occupation of palestine is the longest running occupation on the planet. it has been going on for decades and palestinian civil society has called for a boycott and people the world over are responding to that call, it is growing and growing and will continue to grow. israel is in a unique position due to this ongoing filthy immoral apartheid occupation and the only thing that will change that is a change in policy. there is no comparison to a one person personal boycott of syria. the idea is absurd. now if the vast majority of syrian civil society advocated for a boycott the situation would be quite different, but they are not! so making any comparison is futile and ridiculous.
taking the example of one israeli soccer team to make a point apartheid doesn’t exist is rather amusing. also if you google israeli fencers they have their own wiki page.
Jon, if you want to boycott the US or Italy or any country, then start a movement.
BDS is a Palestinian initiative. Do you expect Palestinians under the occupation to boycott Italy rather than their oppressors, Israel (you)?
Stop being so pathetically ideological. This is not about double-standards (you have no standards).
If the occupiers ceased their decades long oppression and continued land theft (in the name of security), we wouldn’t have to see athletes take a moral stance in a competitive sport. You are aware the occupation and settlements are illegal, but the State continues its path of greed, while crushing the aspirations of the original inhabitants of this land, the Palestinian people.
Yet here you are telling the crowd it’s different from SA or Nazis.
This is nuance at this point, Jon. No ones buying it.
Chu, Of course I respect a “moral stance”, though I’m not sure that’s what happend here.
I happen to support the aspirations of the Palestinian people, as long as those aspirations don’t include annihilating me , my family and my people. And who are the “original inhabitants”? There were people who self-identified as Jews in this country way before there were people who self-identified as Palestinians.
There were people who self-identified as Jews in this country way before there were people who self-identified as Palestinians.
huh? what is this supposed to mean? what country are you talking about?
Annie, I was replying to Chu, who referred to the Palestinians as the “original inhabitants”. Just to be clear: I don’t think it should matter “who was here first”, or which nation is “older”. There’s no rule according to which an “older” people has more rights than a “younger” one. It shouldn’t matter if a people has been around for 3000 years, 200 years, or was born last Thursday, all should have equal rights.
I agree, so let’s have one democratic State for all of the peoples of that land.
They were always a minority. Besides, there were self identifying Palestinians long before there were self identifying Israelis
I get the distinct impression you don’t see Palestinians as human beings when you claim you fear them annihilating you, your family, and your people. Do you think they are rabid dogs?
Redruin, I’ve been active for many years in trying to promote Israeli- Palestinian understanding so it’s absurd to accuse me of not seeing them as human beings.
I wasn’t referring to all Palestinians , only to the extremists, the ones who don’t see us as human beings.
So only Palestinians are extremists or are you saying that you are confortable with Israeli extremists?
I happen to support the aspirations of the Palestinian people, as long as those aspirations don’t include annihilating me , my family and my people
is contradictory to what you say here
I wasn’t referring to all Palestinians , only to the extremists, the ones who don’t see us as human beings.
If you use the term “Palestinian people” you are in essence referring to all of them.
I’ve been active for many years in trying to promote Israeli- Palestinian understanding so it’s absurd to accuse me of not seeing them as human beings.
Have you done anything to help the Palestinains in their struggle against the occupation you say you oppose? Do you go to their demonstrations, do you help to rebuild their houses, and farm their land, or harvest their crops? Do you belong to Taayush, or AATW, or ICAHD or like organiations? Or do you just support “talk” and “understanding” while doing nothing to stop the continual decades long persecution of the Palestinians while proclaiming here how much you oppose it? If you truly support understanding, why after all these “many years” is it so difficult for you to realize that apartheid is the proper term to use? Your years of “promoting understanding” seem particularly lost on you.
You mean you support the right of return of Palestinian refugees?
It’s a slippery slope when you qualify your statement with “extremist.” I’m also somewhat skeptical you can successfully promote Israeli-Palestinian understanding if within your world-view you believe extremists are going to annihilate you. That’s inline with what the hardliners running the Israeli government think. And definately not a worldview conducive to bringing two peoples together. There will never be peace if the hardliners do not soften their positions
Tree, I’ve been in various organizations and activities, I do what I can, let’s leave it at that.
the palestinians see you as humans. just because they want off their land and out of their country neither of which you have a damn right to doesn’t mean they don’t think your human.
Tree, I’ve been in various organizations and activities, I do what I can, let’s leave it at that.
Why the hesitancy to name the organizations and activities you’ve participated in? Aftervall, you, like most of us, are anonymous here. Are you ashamed of the organizations you belong to, or the activities you have engaged in? Or do you think that we will understand that your search for “understanding” will look paltry here if you mention them? I can’t imagine believing in an organization enough to become a member, and then refusing to anonymously acknowledge my membership in such a group. I can say from your responses here you seem woefully ill-informed for someone who is involved with organizations that oppose the occupation. You seem to lap up Israeli propaganda and don’t seem particularly open to reading anything that disagrees with it. That doesn’t help to promote the understanding you say you are working for. Maybe you should consider joining some of the organizations I mentioned and increasing your understanding of the means and methods of Israel’s occupation. It would be an important step.
Tree,
I’m just not comfortable with becoming, personally, the subject of the discussion here.
As to being “ill-informed”, I think I’m as knowledgeable as any other poster, including personal experience.
Jon S, your excuses and false equivalences, and absurd statements like the last one do not diminish one iota the dignity and defiance of Sara, standing up for everybody in the region who oppose the appalling and vile Israeli treatment of Palestinians. It’s simple, powerful and eloquent. no amount of mealy-mouthed excuses will diminish it.
How many times to people have to tell you that it is about the fact that the Israelis have been occupying another people for generations? Take your foot off their necks, get your asses behind the green line, leave them compeletely alone to run their lives in any way they see fit, and no one will bother to boycott you. Until you do, you really have no basis to say, “Gosh, I don’t get why they hate us. We’re not EXACTLY like South Africa. Here’s minor irrelevant ways our racism is different than their racism…” etc. etc.
The term “apartheid” is constantly thrown around on this forum as a way to villify Israel. (Similarly: “ethnic cleansing”) .When I point out that the situations are fundamentally different, it’s “minor ” and “irrelevant”.
please copy us the legal description of the crime of apartheid and then point out the ‘fundamental differences’.
this is getting very tired and old and we have been thru this repeatedly. there is no difference and it applies exactly.
The situations aren’t different in any meaningful sense.
The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa published a report saying Israel is practicing apartheid. Colonialism too.
I’m sure you don’t think Israel is doing either. Or that there is even an occupation. Or that the Palestinian people exist. ETC ETC
The terms “ethnic cleansing” and “apartheid” are both directly applicable in the treatment by Israel of the vast majority of the Palestinians – who are denied political rights and equality under the law, simply because a minority of the Palestinians who live in “Israel” are given some rights to go along with the discrimination.
And that’s what you don’t seem to get. The terms are not primarily in reference to the treatment of those Palestinians in the “Israel” portion of Palestine, but of those Palestinians in the “West Bank” and “Gaza” portions of Palestine.
The term “apartheid” is constantly thrown around on this forum as a way to villify Israel. (Similarly: “ethnic cleansing”) .
I’ve pointed out before that the written statements of several of the interested state parties and Palestine in the ICJ Wall case devoted entire chapters to the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid committed by Israel in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. The Secretary-General’s dossier contained reports from two special rapporteurs, John Dugard and Jean Ziegler, who did the same thing. The Court cited those reports and repeated the constituent acts in its own findings of fact (paras 132-134).
During the recent debate between scholars in the Journal of Genocide Studies, both sides agreed that Israel was guilty of illegal population displacement and transfer which amounted to the serious crime of ethnic cleansing, but disagreed over whether or not that constituted the crime of genocide.
Holocaust vilified Nazism, and rightly so. Israel is an apartheid state that was not only founded on ethnic cleansing, but has practiced OT as official policy for 65 years.
You presented a failed argument. I know you don’t like the word apartheid, but Israel is what it is.
The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa published a report saying Israel is practicing apartheid.
A summary of the 300-page South African report can be found here:
link to icahdusa.org
Yowza!
POW!!! Right in the kisser!
Cliff, Maybe you should read my posts. You would know how much I oppose the occupation, and that I consider myself a true friend of the Palestinian people. However, I reject the notion that Zionism is a form of racism and colonialism.
jon,
Definitions of Zionism are far less important in this context than definitions of Israeli policies. It is not enough just to say they’re bad or that you feel for Palestinians. Whether they do indeed constitute such crimes as apartheid and ethnic cleansing is a matter of serious international, legal and diplomatic import.
Read the ICAHD booklet I linked to (summary of the South African Human Sciences Research Council report), and provide substantive arguments and evidence to the contrary, if you like.
I reject your rejection and I raise you the charge the Zionism is the essence of racism and colonialism.
Israel should feel vilified by the fact that it ethnically cleansed Palestinians. After, all, doing the actual ethnic cleansing is far worse than any of us pointing out the ethnic cleansing.
jon s,
“The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”"
Don’t you think that Israel keeps a part ofthe native population (Palestinians refugees) “segregated” (expelled) and denationalized to maintain the (demographic) domination of Jews and a zionist regime?
This is the definition of apartheid in the Oxford dictionary:
“(in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.”
The definition provided by Talkback is also useful.
In any case neither definitions accurately describe the situation here, starting from from the fact that neither Jews nor Palestinians are races.
In South Africa a white minority ruled over a disenfranchised black majority. In Israel Palestinian citizens can vote and can be elected.
In SA the races were segregated by law in housing, schools, hospitals, etc. Not so here.
Now there are areas of the West Bank, “settler country”, where the similarities to apartheid are significant – and scary- and we need to do whatever we can to end the occupation and the settlements there. Hebron, for example.
However the vast majority of Palestinians in the country live under the PA in the West Bank, or the Hamas in Gaza or in Israel proper, and not under any kind of apartheid.
You didn’t answer my question.
Which is precisely what is taking place in the OT. The argument that neither Jews nor Palestinians are races is a distinction without a difference. The assertion of one tribe’s superiority over another, whether based on religion, ethnicity or race is universally accepted to be racism.
In Palestine, a Jewish minority rules over a disenfranchised Palestinian majority.
Yes I’m afraid so. In Israel, Jews and Arabs are indeed segregated by law in housing, schools, hospitals, etc.
Which us entirely under the authority of Israel.
The vast majority of black Sourh Africans live under their respective leadership in the bantustans, but the South African government was ultimately in charge. The same situation exists in the WB.
So it’s identical to apartheid.
In South Africa, apartheid was not limited to race, either, as there were special “rules” for, for example, Indians.
And most Palestinians are not permtited to become “citizens” because they live in the portion of defacto Israel which the Jews have not made de jure Israel because of the ethnicity and religion of those same Palestinians.
So a person living in, say, Gaza, has the freedom to live in Tel Aviv, go to school in the Negev and visit Hebron at will????
Nonsense. Apartheid exists in the act of Jews setting out areas in Palestine where Palestinains cannot go, where they must be searched to travel, etc., and not giving the Palestinians any say in the matter, regardless of whether you label those areas of Palestine, “Gaza Strip” “West Bank” “Israel” Area “A” “B” or whatever.
If every person in that land, Jew and Arab alike, does not have equal rights and equal say in the goverment of that land, then apartheid exists.
This is the definition of apartheid in the Oxford dictionary:
jon, oxford or no oxford the only applicable definition worth noting is the “crime of apartheid” as it’s defined under international law. wiki:
“”inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”"
In any case neither definitions accurately describe the situation here, starting from from the fact that neither Jews nor Palestinians are races.
for your information, pertaining to the crime of apartheid it is subject to the legal definition of race and racism as it applies under international law.
so, as it applies to the legal definition of the crime of apartheid, all the applicable UN legal definitions apply.
The argument that neither Jews nor Palestinians are races is a distinction without a difference.
Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defined racial discrimination for the purposes of international law and Article 3 contained the first conventional prohibition of apartheid:
The legal definition of apartheid *is* important, especially in context of looking to prosecute Israeli leaders for perpetrating the crime of apartheid.
But without getting tangle up in legalese, I would like to ask jon s one simple question:
In the West Bank does the government of Israel apply one set of laws for jews and one [different] set of laws for non-jews?
If you can answer that *honestly*, then it is “case closed” on the apartheid question. The fact that the West Bank is occupied territory is a moot point. The majority of Palestinians in the OPTs have lived their entire lives under Israeli rule. It is, defacto a single apartheid state.
So jon…?
The fact that the West Bank is occupied territory is a moot point.
Yes it was a violation of the right of self-determination contained in the UN Charter and international law for South Africa to impose a policy of apartheid in the territory of Namibia that it had occupied. See Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) link to icj-cij.org
Oh please Jon….go pound dirt…we’ve moved on to a higher plane here and you don’t get it.
he understands american..he’s not stupid he just regurgitates silly talking pts (“the vast majority of Palestinians in the country live under the PA in the West Bank, or the Hamas in Gaza or in Israel proper, and not under any kind of apartheid.”) pretending we don’t know the pa(quisling/wiki leaks hello) and hamas (the blockade hello) are both heavily compromised. probably out of loyalty. but he knows, that’s why he’s not responding to the legal definition of the crime of apartheid and the legal definition of racism. busted.
Annie, I didn’t respond because I had gone to sleep… (Don’t forget the time-zone difference). Anyway, thanks for calling me “not stupid”, quite a compliment here.
Let’s go over this again, one-by-one:
In Israel itself there is nothing like apartheid. Palestinian citizens participate in the political process, vote and are elected . Disenfranchisement was one of the defining characteristics of apartheid. And contary to what Shingo claims there is no legal segregation .
In Gaza Palestinians live under Hamas rule and I don’t see how apartheid applies to their situation. Woody asks whether a Gazan can freely move to TelAviv – of course not. Any country can control it’s points-of-entry. The US seeks to prevent large numbers of Mexicans from freely entering the country. Does that mean that Mexicans live under apartheid?
In the West Bank -I admitted that in some situations, especially in proximity to the settlements, and ouside the control of the PA, there are separate laws and norms, and I would like nothing more than to change that reality and see the establishment of a Palestinian State, in the context of 2 states.
It’s still a far cry from the simplistic “Israel=Apartheid ” slogan.
Incidentally, it occured to me after reading the definitions that Lebanon, Syria and Jordan could be accused of applying apartheid towards the Palestinian refugees, whom they’ve kept in the camps , under a special regime, all these years.
From: link to icahdusa.org
The full HSRC report, “Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law” (Cape Town, May 2009), can be found here: link to electronicintifada.net
In Israel itself there is nothing like apartheid.
Israel itself controls all the territory from the river to the sea. The apartheid policies in the OT are Israeli policies, therefore Israel is an apapartheid state.
Disenfranchisement takes place both inside Israel proper and the OT.
Contrary to your claims, there are at least 20 such laws.
Gaza is occupied territory according to the UN. At the very least, Israel has turned it into an open air prison and controls it’s air space, land and sea access.
Sugar coat it all you want, Israel controls teh WB and EJ and applies aprtheid policies. That makes Israel an apartheid state.
One could have argued that there was no apartheid in apartheid South African if you excluded the bantustans.
It’s still a far cry from the simplistic “Israel=Apartheid ” slogan.
Nope. The man who invented apartheid stated as far back as 1961 (racist Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd) that “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel like South Africa, is an apartheid state”
(Rand Daily Mail, 23 Novemeber 1961)
But you expect us to believe that you have more expertise on apartheid that Verwoerd, mandella and Tutu.
You’re wrong about quite a number of things. The OPT area occupied and thus cannot be compared to Mexico/US. Israel governs both the West Bank and Gaza. It controls the population registry, the borders, movement of people and goods, collects taxes for the OPT, rules the OPT by military law (that supersedes PA rule), kidnaps, detains and imprisons Palestinians, steals land from Palestinians in the OPT that it sanctions under its own laws, erases the 1967 armistice line in textbooks and on websites (like the Dept of Tourism website) etc.
Palestine has been erased and continues to be erased by settlements. Open your eyes to what Israel is doing to Palestinians and what it is doing to itself in the process. Just how much does Israel have to do before you’ll protest Israeli govt actions?
Let’s go over this again, one-by-one:
In Israel itself there is nothing like apartheid….Disenfranchisement was one of the defining characteristics of apartheid. And contary to what Shingo claims there is no legal segregation .
please read the south african study shmuel linked to. there are 3 “pillars of apartheid” to maintain domination. here’s the first:
do you deny this exists in israel?
“Israel’s Practices: Apartheid Pillar 1 – A preferred identity; separate system privileging Jews
Israel’s domestic law codifies the Jewish identity as the preferred identity. It establishes that collective rights extend to Jews only. All other people lack the right to a national life anywhere in Israel proper or in occupied Palestinian territory.”
“Family Unification
– Jews have no restrictions preventing their living with or being unified with spouses and children who are not citizens of Israel. Palestinians of all categories are not afforded the same right to family unification.”
“Right to Housing and Natural Growth
– After occupying Palestinian territory in 1967, Israel froze the municipal boundaries of Palestinian towns and villages. Because Israel, in general, denies Palestinians the right to build outside municipal boundaries, this law has served as the basis for stemming Palestinian growth, denying Palestinians 90% of needed housing permits and destroying thousands of Palestinian homes.”
do you refute these specific allegations of pillar one?
I think you’re in denial about this jon s, and though i disagree with you about many thing I do recognise that you’re outlook is progressive. It’s disheartening that so few Israelis are able to recognise what is screamingly obvious to so many of us; that Israel is practising apartheid.
All of the West Bank is under IDF military occupation, not just Areas B (25.1%) and C (72.2%). The PA does not have absolute sovereignty, even over the piddly 2.7% of the West Bank comprising Area A.
In Israel itself there is nothing like apartheid.
Of course there is. You are currently removing Bedouin voters from their lands through a policy of Bantustanization and you don’t even permit them to run their own regional council. There is a two-tiered system of legislation in Israel which gives superior rights to persons of Jewish descendancy superior rights and privileges under the law. The Arab right to vote does not include or effect in any way the operation of Jewish parastatal organizations like the WZO or JNF which are instrumental in adopting national policy and in national planning.
The South African report looks like a case of shooting the arrow and then drawing the bull’s eye around it. The conclusions were pre-ordained.
Hostage, you’re ignoring a fundamental point: In Israel the Arab citizens are inside the political process, their elected representatives are in the Knesset and have a say in any legislation . I’ll take the examples you cited: the status of the WZO or JNF was determined by legislation passed by the Knesset . Someday that status could change – personally I hope it does- due to new legislation. The Arab representatives participate in the process. That’s totally different from the situation in apartheid SA, where non-whites couldn’t vote and were not represented in the parliament and government.
The Hamas is firmly in control of Gaza (unfortunately). Israel prevents unauthorized border crossings, for obvious reasons. The southern border is controlled by Egypt. And Gaza is certainly no bantustan. In any case, Israel’s norms , laws and system of government don’t apply there, so any talk of “Israeli apartheid” in Gaza is absurd.
You haven’t provided a substantiated counter-argument against the report.
That doesn’t mean you’re wrong but it does mean you make lazy and unconvincing rebuttals.
It’s not just SA that is saying Israel is practicing apartheid. SA activists who fought apartheid have said Israel’s apartheid is WORSE.
The Arab population of Israel are second class citizens. They are an entirely TOKEN population.
It means nothing that they have political representation. They will never wield meaningful power.
They are simply the Arabs Israel did not completely get rid of.
These people lived under martial law until 1966.
The South African report looks like a case of shooting the arrow and then drawing the bull’s eye around it. The conclusions were pre-ordained.
Anything substantive to say about the content of a 300-page report written by a group of experts on the subject of Apartheid?
So how does being inside the political process prevent Israel demolishing thir homes repeatedly and then chrging them for the effrot?
.
In what way? That’s like accusing arguing that Robert Byrd and ron Paul were involved in the process to go to war with iraq even though they voted against it?
No, becasue they don’t control air land and se access, nor do they even control a 100m no go zone. Israel raids, invades and bmobs Gaza with impunity. They set fire to crops without resistance.
Clearly, it is Israel who is firmly in control of Gaza (unfortunately).
Israel prevents unauthorized border crossings, for obvious reasons.
Yes, as theor own internal documents show, economic warfare.
link to mcclatchydc.com
Who in turn do as they are told by Washnigton/Israel, which is why it hasn’t been opened.
True. It is far worse than any bantustan. It’s an open air prison.
That would require him reading it.
Shmuel, i’d like to ask you a question, for a change: Do you really think that Israel is an apartheid state? I admit not having read the 300 page report, but I have made substantive comments on this thread. Any comments of your own? (Not quotes from an “objective” report…)
Just heard about serious rioting in Rome. Hope you’re OK. Take care.
Oh come on jon s! You’re not completing the circle:
you’re ignoring a fundamental point: In the West Bank the Arab citizens are outside the political process, they have no elected representatives in the Knesset and have no say in any legislation .
So does the fact that Palestinian Israelis have the vote erase the fact that West Bank and Gazan Palestinians have no say in the Government that rules their lives? It’s not like the occupation is a temporary or short-lived phenomenon. As I’ve said several times now, a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have lived their entire lives under occupation. Meanwhile just metres away, Israeli settlers in the WB live under Israeli law.
Please stop ignoring this uncomfortable fact.
I admit not having read the 300 page report, but I have made substantive comments on this thread.
Jon, you insisted that “The South African report looks like a case of shooting the arrow and then drawing the bull’s eye around it. The conclusions were pre-ordained.” And now you admit that you haven’t read the report. You are NOT making substantive comments by characterizing a report that you have refused to read. You are in heavy denial. Read the report. You seem quite ignorant (probably genuinely so) about the conditions and restrictions that Palestinians in the OPT (and within the green line) must live under. If you truly want to foster mutual understanding between Israelis and Palestinians you have to first be willing and able to truly understand what the Palestinians have been dealing with for multiple decades. Read the report, read the numerous reports of human rights NGO’s and others on the subject. Don’t get caught up in a personal unease at a word. Reach out. You want understanding? Then make the effort to understand first. Otherwise you aren’t fostering understanding, you are simply justifying the status quo which you claim to abhor.
Shmuel, i’d like to ask you a question, for a change: Do you really think that Israel is an apartheid state?
I’m sure that Shmuel will answer your question when he gets the chance, but if you are serious in asking the question all you have to do is search his comments here for the word “apartheid”.
link to mondoweiss.net
Here’s one example:
If only it were a matter of this law or that law. It is systemic and it is apartheid.
link to mondoweiss.net
Typical Zionist logic. Dismissed a report he hasn’t read on the basis that the conclusions were pre-ordained, by using his own assumptions that were pre-ordained.
Notice how he also uses the phrase “I reject..” rather than using facts to refute what he rejects?
he doesn’t even get as far as shooting the arrow and then drawing the bull’s eye around it.
He must be reading from the Witty book of Hasbra.
jon,
As tree points out, I have made quite a number of comments on the subject, that you can access by searching for “apartheid” on my profile page.
You have basically made three points on this thread:
1. Gaza is not under Israeli control and therefore does not count, even if definitions of apartheid might otherwise apply.
2. You do not approve of policies in the West Bank (I don’t know whether you include E. Jerusalem or not), but would not define them as apartheid.
3. Because Palestinians vote as citizens in Israeli elections, the situation cannot be defined as apartheid.
I do not accept your position on Gaza (as I have argued before), but let’s leave it out, for the sake of argument.
With regard to the WB and E. Jerusalem, have you read the ICAHD summary of the report (only 15 pages in large print)? Which parts of it do you disagree with? What is wrong with the HSRC understanding of international law in this case? Can you cite any sources to back up your critique?
With regard to Israel within the Green Line, the situation is certainly much better than in the OT (or apartheid SA), but why are you so certain that the definition of apartheid could not possibly apply? The mere fact of citizenship and the right to vote does not preclude the existence of a racist system that might be legally defined as apartheid (although not as severe as in the OT or in apartheid SA). The ongoing policies of “Judaization” – especially in the Galilee and Negev – would seem to point in that direction, especially when examined in the broader context of systemic discrimination and access to resources (land, in particular) in favour of Israel’s “charter” ethnic group.
Shmuel,
Thanks for your response, and nice to see that you “survived” the Rome riots.
I read the summary and it seems to me that they started with a definition of apartheid which was designed to fit Israel. Given the source, it would have been amazing had they reached any other conclusion.
I note that the title is “Is Israel an Apartheid State?” , yet the report relates to policies enacted in the OT, not in Israel proper. The title is misleading.
The report, and some of the posters here, confuse inequality and discrimination with apartheid. I never claimed that Palestinians in Israel aren’t subject to discrimination, in various aspects of life, and don’t suffer from inequality. Apartheid is something else. Under apartheid in SA (and under segregation in the American South) whites and non-whites were separated . According to the Britannica:
“… laws forbade most social contacts between the races, authorized segregated public facilities, established separate educational standards, restricted each race to certain types of jobs, curtailed nonwhite labour unions, and denied nonwhite participation (through white representatives) in the national government.”
These are the elements which made Apartheid particularly odious, and they are absent in Israel.
As to the West Bank – and I do include E.Jerusalem – I agreed that the situation there, especially in proximity to the settlements , contains elements which resemble apartheid . I think I used the phrase “scarily similar”.
Gaza is irrelevant to the discussion.
Hostage, you’re ignoring a fundamental point: In Israel the Arab citizens are inside the political process, their elected representatives are in the Knesset and have a say in any legislation.
Arabs don’t have an equal say in the government. Every Arab political party that has denied that Israel is the state of the Jewish people has been outlawed. As a result they can’t even participate in the elections.
The WZO and JNF are completely undemocratic state institutions. Arabs can’t vote on the Jewish officials of those particular organizations. Yet those unelected Jewish officials govern their daily lives through their seats in state institutions like the Israeli Land Administration. Jews living in separate foreign states have a greater say in setting national policy than the indigenous non-Jewish population.
Israeli propagandists like yourself insist that the definition of apartheid should remain specific to the South African derivative.
That’s beside the point. The policies enacted in the OT are still Israeli policies. Like I pointed out earlier, one could argue that ignoring the bantustans of apartheid South Africa, South Africa was not really an apartheid state.
No it’s not. Inequality and discrimination are essential component of Apartheid. In fact, the very reason whites and non-whites were separated was to impose
inequality and discrimination.
In any case, the palestinian in the occupied territories are most certainly segregated from Jews in Israel and in the settlements.
Within Israel itself.
1. There is no question that Palestinians are provided with sub standard education.
2. Abras regions are deprived of money and provided less acces to fresh water than those in Jewish neghborhoods. Gross neglect of infrastructure and services such a water, electricity, clinics and schools, especially in the Negev.
3. 93% of the land is held in trust by the Jewish National Fund for the use of Jews wherever they may be in the world. That means the Palestinians (20% of the population) are only entitled to use 3% of the land. No provision to accommodate natural growth.
4. ID papers are coded to differentiate Jews from Muslims
5. Prohibitions on Arab land purchases are imposed, resulting in overcrowding in Arab towns
6. Arab workers are excluded from wealth generating sectors of the economy
7. Arab workers who speak Arab rather than Hebrew are fired
8. Arab school curriculums are rewritten to remove Arab history and replace it with the Zionist history.
So even by your own limited definition, Israel propoer is also an apartheid state. So contrary to your cliams, those elements which made Apartheid particularly odious, are present in Israel.
They resemble apartheid and are “scarily similar” because it is apartheid.
Gaza goes beyind anything apartheid South Africa ever imposed on the blakc population. I can undestand why you would with it to be irrelevant, but it isn’t. Gaza represents what apartheid South Africa migh have been had the extremists had their way.
jon,
Thanks about the riots. I think I have pretty good protest “survival” skills, and they served me well yesterday.
I think you are missing a few points in your analysis of the applicability of the apartheid label.
First, the OT are not on the moon, or even in another country. They are a de facto part of Israel, in which Israel formulates and implements policy. To say that ‘Israel practises apartheid in some of the areas under its control’ in not fundamentally different from saying that ‘Israel is an apartheid state’. That it was only a partial study of Israel’s worst violations is duly noted both in the original report and in the summary.
Second, apartheid is not a matter of taste or degree (a little discrimination not nice, a lot of discrimination apartheid). There are legal definitions, which do not require precise equivalence to the situation in apartheid South Africa. The relevant question is does Israel – in any part of the territory under its control – fit those definitions? You have not seriously addressed the actual legal arguments contained in the report, or cited any counter sources. Do you have an opinion on “the pillars of apartheid”, or are you only prepared to dismiss them in general terms because you don’t like the politics of ICAHD (or the HSRC, or the experts it consulted)?
Start with the definition offered at the beginning of the report (based on the Rome Statute and ICERD convention):
* Emphases mine.
You have basically made three points on this thread:
1. Gaza is not under Israeli control and therefore does not count, even if definitions of apartheid might otherwise apply.
2. You do not approve of policies in the West Bank (I don’t know whether you include E. Jerusalem or not), but would not define them as apartheid.
That whole line of argument is bizarre. There are published interviews that are part of the US Congressional record in which Ariel Sharon outlined his plans for establishing inland strips of Jewish settlements to break-up the contiguity of Arab population centers. See the table of contents: link to loc.gov
The practice of creating Bantustans is, by definition, one of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid. See the Human Rights Commission, Study Concerning the Question of Apartheid from the Point of View of International Penal Law, E/CN.4/1075, 15 February 1972, pp. 51 – 52.
The blacks in South Africa were crowded into a handful of small Bantustans. They were established as “autonomous” nation states for South Africa’s black ethnic groups to prevent them from living in areas expropriated by whites. Four of them became nominally independent states: Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. The situation of the people living in refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank is completely analogous, with the caveat that the South Africans never erected security fences, walls, or remotely operated weapons systems in pillboxes surrounding their Bantustans.
Jon S has never addressed the situation faced by Bedouin citizens of Israel and the West Bank. They too are experiencing a policy of Bantustanization.
First, the OT are not on the moon, or even in another country.
It wouldn’t matter if it was another country. South Africa illegally imposed apartheid in neighboring Namibia too. The situation is exactly analogous to Israel and the OPT. Both were former mandated territories that the neighboring states wanted to annex or colonize.
The analogy with the bantustans is completely wrong. The SouthAfricans established friendly, collaborationist regimes there. The Hamas terrorists controlling Gaza are distinctly unfriendly, to put it mildly . As far as I know, the bantustans never fired rockets at SA.
I’m sure that the PA would also resent being thought of as bantustans.
The SouthAfricans established friendly, collaborationist regimes there. The Hamas terrorists controlling Gaza are distinctly unfriendly, to put it mildly.
Correction, the government of Israel began building the fence around Gaza shortly after it signed agreements to establish the PLO/Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority as the local government of Gaza. I’ve repeatedly pointed out a Wikileaks cable which revealed that Israel was only too glad to use the Hamas takeover as an excuse to treat Gaza as a hostile state. It had already been deporting other Palestinians to Gaza and isolating the enclave long before the Hamas victory in the 2006 elections.
Yuo’ve posted a dozen comments “rejecting” the analogies and been exposed as willfully ignorant. In fact, you are the personification of the sterotypical anti intellectual and ignorant Zionist.
Are you sure you actually live in Israel Jon? You seem to know very littel abou the place.
Which South Africans? White or black?
Isn’t the PA a riendly, collaborationist regime also?
So were the ANC.
As we have seen, what you know is a poor mesure of anything. Israel’s occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine preceede any rockets by nearly half a century.
Based on what? Your vast experience in the occupied territories? Here’s what the PA resent Jon – military ocupation, ethnic cleasing, land theft and not least fo all, Nakba deniers like you.
Shingo,
Instead of the personal attacks, why not just address the points I made?
In reply:
-I was referring to the white SA apartheid regime.
-No,I wouldn’t depict the PA as friendly and collaborationist. You yourself refer in your last paragraph to the PA’s resentment of occupation, ethnic cleansing,etc., thereby contradicting your earlier characterization of the PA .
-The ANC was, indeed, “unfriendly”, but we were talking about the bantustans.
-I do live in Israel . If you ever visit, you’re welcome to look me up.
-When and where did I ever deny the Nakba?
Jon,
I, as well as Hostage and Shmuelhave already addressed the points you made.
And I was rerffing to the the obvious comparison between the SA apartheid regime and the Israeli apartheid regime.
The PA was created largely by Israel, but that is no reason to suggest they do not reset occupation and ethnic cleansing more than any comparison of the OT to banstustans.
So was I. Both in the OT and in apartheid SA.
The Nakba was carried out by ethnic cleansing, which you insist is a term which undeservedly serves to sully Israel’s wonderful reputation.
I’m sure we’ll run into one another at the check point you’re manning. I certainly won’t be taking any tours of the City of David freakshow.
Hmm jon s, I’ve asked you several questions in this thread which you’re refused to address. How about you give that a go?
I don’t know why you’re having such a hard time admitting Israel is an apartheid state. Have you forgotten Sharon is known to have been a big fan of SA’s bantustans and saw them as the solution to the ‘Palestinian problem’:
A few years ago, Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema told Israeli friends that shortly before he was elected prime minister, Sharon told him that the bantustan plan was the most suitable solution to our conflict.
Richard Silverstein: SHARON’S DREAM: GAZA AS BANTUSTAN
Silverstein’s piece is based on an Akiva Elder article on Sharon’s plans for both the West Bank and Gaza, as Olmerts’s continuity of that. An excellent companion read by Lawrence of Cyberia, demonstrating that Sharon’s plan is not the exception but the rule, all Israeli plans for the West Bank since 1967 are essentially the same, and based on the Allon Plan:
Details Of The Olmert Peace Plan For The West Bank, Revealed Here And Nowhere Else On The Internet!
And then coming back to Israel as an apartheid state, the two Ehud’s have both used the word to describe a future Israel, without really describing what the tipping point would be. I think that’s because they both know the tipping point has been reached long ago.
jon s, you might also like to learn a little more about the PA and their role as Israel’s junior partner in occupation. Rashid Khalidi has new information [for you], in video format:
Rashid Khalidi – Palestine: 40 Years of Occupation, 60 Years of Dispossession
No,I wouldn’t depict the PA as friendly and collaborationist. You yourself refer in your last paragraph to the PA’s resentment of occupation, ethnic cleansing,etc.,
Relations between the Bantustans and the government of South Africa were extremely strained. For example, Transkei broke-off all diplomatic relations with South Africa as a result of a territorial dispute in April of 1978. Among other things it withdrew from the non-aggression pact between the two governments and ordered all South African Defense forces out of its territory.
The folks at MW tend to view the PA as collaborators and minimize the fact that Palestinians are living under constant threat and have zero negotiating leverage. People make platitudinous statements like “The PA should pursue Palestinian rights, not statehood”. But they don’t elaborate how anyone, much less the PA, can secure rights for the Palestinians. BDS is part of the solution, but it won’t keep the IDF from arresting the PA leadership or their families in the middle of the night.
The ICC complaint; the UN statehood bid; and stories like “PA Police Operate in Israeli Town: PA Arabs show up to harvest Jewish-grown olives in Samaria, with PA police standing watch” illustrate that the PA is resisting the occupation with the non-violent methods that are available to the people living under occupation.
I do live in Israel .
Really?
link to mondoweiss.net
Annie should know because she got banned from DK for outing volleyboy.
link to mondoweiss.net
From Volleyboy1′s profile page.
link to dailykos.com
Shmuel,
“Anything substantive to say about the content of a 300-page report written by a group of experts on the subject of Apartheid?”
The report is clearly biased. Where can I find the report titled:
Which countries in the world are apartheid countries?
Jon is absolutely right, the moment you focus on one country, that is like painting a target around that country. Basically, if you take the definitions uses by this group it turns out that Russia and China are also apartheid countries. Since no one considers these countries as apartheid countries, the definition of this group is wrong. Unless of course you bite the bullet and declare Russia and China apartheid countries.
Note that Volleyboy’s and Mets102′s stint of not being able to hit rec people lasted about one week and Simone Daud is still banned.
Where can I find the report titled: Which countries in the world are apartheid countries?
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination provides for an independent treaty monitoring body, the CERD, composed of a panel of experts elected by the signatory states. The members of the CERD panel serve in their own personal capacity and do not represent the UN or any member state.
The thematic reports, country reports, comments, recommendations, early-warning procedures, and follow-up procedures are readily available on the CERD website. The CERD has been pointing out Article 3 apartheid and illegal racial segregation concerns with regard to Israel since at least 1998. See for example
*CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998;
*The UN Anti-Racism Committee questions Israel’s policy of apartheid
link to electronicintifada.net
The CERD panel has took early warning and urgent action procedures when families and marriages were adversely affected by the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) of 31 July 2003. The CERD decided that it raised serious issues under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. e.g. See [here] and para 20 [here]. The latter contains several concerns in connection with article 3, which prohibited apartheid and similar policies of racial segregation.
That should have read The CERD panel
hastook action under its “early warning” and “urgent action” procedures when families and marriages were adversely affected by the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) of 31 July 2003.The CERD also has expressed concerns over the maintenance and reporting on separate Jewish and Arab sectors in the areas of housing and education by the government of Israel. The government pointed to the Supreme Court decision in the Ka’adan case as an example of progress. The CERD still had concerns, since there is no constitution guaranteeing equal rights. That concern was warranted, since the Knesset has subsequently adopted statutes that permit local housing councils to establish admissions committees. It has also considered legislation that would deny the Supreme Court jurisdiction or require it to give more weight to the Jewish nature of the state than to any democratic principles.
3e,
The question was whether the system in force in all or part of the territory under Israeli control is consistent with the definition of the crime of apartheid in international law. Jon did not argue, as you do, that what counts is which countries are “considered” (by whom?) to practise apartheid, rather than criteria established in international statues and conventions, but that Israeli policy (as deplorable as it may be) does not meet those criteria. It is thus reasonable to ask that he back up his opinion with cogent arguments and sources, especially since he has accused the HSRC report of bias.
Basically, if you take the definitions uses by this group it turns out that Russia and China are also apartheid countries. Since no one considers these countries as apartheid countries, the definition of this group is wrong.
Straw man alert. You didn’t provide a shred of evidence in support of a) the proposition that either Russia or China has committed a constituent act of apartheid; or b) that governments and NGOs alike haven’t formally complained about violations of the ICERD with regard to prohibited forms of racial segregation committed by the governments of Russia and China.
There is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. See for example:
*”Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation)” in the ICJ list of contentious cases link to icj-cij.org
*”Racial Discrimination in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas in the People’s Republic of China” at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
link to www2.ohchr.org
Shmuel,
No, Jon did argue that the report was Israel specific, “painting the target after shooting the arrow”.
We have been around the block with this in the case of targeted killings. You could have brought tens of reports and experts that would say this is some kind of crime and is immoral. But as a matter of fact, it is used extensively by western countries and is clearly considered moral and not criminal whatsoever.
You are trying to play the same trick on Jon. You can say till you are blue in the face that for example “eating meat is immoral”. It does not make it so even if you show me one hundred reports and experts that say otherwise.
Hostage,
Let me explain the argument to you. According to your definitions and the reports that you yourself quote it is clear that China and Russia are “apartheid” states. I put “apartheid” in quotes because they are only apartheid states based on the definitions you are trying to push down Jon’s throat. But the fact of the matter is that your definition is wrong because despite the reports and despite the definitions, very few people designate China and Russia as apartheid states because they are not apartheid states, and neither is Israel.
We have been around the block with this
Yes we have, and we also have no common ground for discussion. Jon, on the other hand, has not rejected the validity of international law (except as “a tool in the service of national interests”), but has merely questioned the interpretation offered by the HRSC experts. I have asked him to articulate his specific objections – preferably with some sources to back them up.
Shmuel,
Of course we have common ground for discussion. You are attempting to con Jon into thinking there is something morally important about international law when there absolutely isn’t. You can find a group of “experts” that will call Israel whatever you like. What does that prove?
thinking there is something morally important about international law when there absolutely isn’t.
Thanks for illustrating what I meant by no common ground.
Shmuel: I think 3e is using that new Torah, the one with contributions from the Prophet Nietzsche.
Shmuel,
You can repeat “no common ground” for as long as you like, that still does not show that international law is interpreted and applied in a moral way. In fact, it is easy to see that it isn’t. And if you start an argument with a wrong assumption, there is a good chance your argument is bad.
James North,
Oh really, how is Nietzsche even remotely connected to my argument? Care to clarify or will you run away to another thread?
“Shmuel: I think 3e is using that new Torah, the one with contributions from the Prophet Nietzsche.”
Ah yes, good old Rebbe Nietzsche!
“Care to clarify or will you run away to another thread?”
Aww, how touching! You can take the boy out of the settlement, but you can’t take the settlement out of the boy! Good old “eee” wherever he hangs his hasbara is home.
And to think he once threatened to leave Mondoweiss.
Mooser,
You are a liar. When did I threaten to leave Mondoweiss? I never did.
You are also quite slow on the uptake. Don’t you recognize the words James North routinely uses with Witty?
I put “apartheid” in quotes because they are only apartheid states based on the definitions you are trying to push down Jon’s throat.
Correction, 120 other nations adopted the definition of apartheid contained in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 119 countries have subsequently ratified that definition, i.e.: a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of these or similar acts committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime:
*a) Murder;
b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
*(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
*(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
*(f) Torture;
*(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
*(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
*(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
*k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
I marked the items above with an asterisk in cases where reliable published reports are available.
The travaux préparatoires for the Rome Statute and ICERD are available on line. The Israeli delegation has never mentioned any reservations regarding the definition of apartheid used by either the ICC or the legal experts of the CERD. See for example the Statement by Judge Eli Nathan Head of the Delegation of Israel to the Rome Conference of the ICC. link to amicc.org
We have been around the block with this in the case of targeted killings. You could have brought tens of reports and experts that would say this is some kind of crime and is immoral.
The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Each of those four treaties contains common articles 2 & 3 which especially prohibit extrajudicial killings:
3 . . .(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
link to icrc.org
Title 18, § 2441. War crimes makes it a capital offense:
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
…
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
…
D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
link to law.cornell.edu
You are attempting to con Jon into thinking there is something morally important about international law when there absolutely isn’t.
Israelis had no complaints about the moral basis of international criminal law when they used it to rationalize the prosecution of Eichmann for crimes committed in other countries against citizens of other states before the state of Israel had even come into existence. They only complain when it is applied to their immoral conduct.
It was also used and justified by Nazi Germany. One coudl argue that nothing Hitler did was actually illegal.
Targetted killings are not legal. It’s simply that the US refuses to be a signatory to international conventions on war crimes so as to avoid it’s own citizens and operatives facing charges.
richb, yes i noticed his banning was temporary. he completely broke the new policy in assaf’s recent excellent diary and was reinstated almost immediately. i have not visited the site in a few days but noticed he posted another friday open thread. his argument style and diversion tactics wrt apartheid are exactly the same. only jon has not thrown any little emotional hissy fits or tirades here. of course we don’t have the pt system either so his friends wouldn’t be able to haul him out of hiddens.
“You could have brought tens of reports and experts that would say this is some kind of crime and is immoral. But as a matter of fact, it is used extensively by western countries and is clearly considered moral and not criminal whatsoever.”
Considered moral by whom? Western governments may do it, but they do lots of things that are considered immoral.
And something may legal and not criminal, but still be immoral.
Speaking of bantustans, I was just listennig to a podcast with Max Blumental, who was reporting on the ethnic cleasing of the bedouins in Israel and the plans by the JNF to “concentrate” the be bedouins into isolated enclaves. So it turns out that the bantustans are not goin to be limited to the OT.
shingo, as far as i know there’s no ‘growth’ allowed or allocated for any of the palestinian-israeli villages within israel. whether they are recognized or unrecognized this is the case.
You’re albsolutely right Annie.
There is no growth and certainly no new arab villages are permitted. Israel is also destroying mosques and allowing the settlers even in Jaffa to do so.
Richb,
Seriously, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve never heard of volleyboy, never posted on dkos…
I live in Israel, in Be’er Sheva.
Correction: you live outside Israel, jon s.
Israel declared it’s borders on multiple occasions in 1948 and 1949, to be those of the UN partition plan, and has never legally annexed any land beyond those declared borders.
Beersheba is outside Israel’s declared borders; you are a settler.
Sumud, so it is still British land? 181 wasn’t binding and wasn’t accepted by the Arabs. final borders will be determined through negotiation. You can call Jon S. a settler, but the majority of the world and the UN consider Jon S. Israeli.
the majority of the world? says who?
But Sumud! Jon’s armored bulldozer says his nice new home is Israel! Never mind whose proverbial corpses are ground up in the dirt under his foundation.
says anyone who can read a map annie. do you honestly think the majority of the world knows Israel doesn’t have official borders? or have a clue what 181 is? did you know what 181 was before 2003?
it is kind of irrelevant whether they know these little factoids or not dbg, many many people consider all israelis settlers. lots of people think palestine was stolen. it is simply not your place here or anywhere to be speaking for ‘the majority of the world’.
181 wasn’t binding and wasn’t accepted by the Arabs.
On June 20, 1962 the UN General Assembly adopted a decision to accept a UN commission’s proposal to partition Ruanda-Urundi into two independent states, Rwanda and Burundi. I don’t believe that anyone has ever suggested that decision was non-binding or can be revisited.
FYI, the General Assembly acknowledged that both Israel and Palestine had made declarations in-line with their acceptance of resolution 181. See sections C and F of resolution 181 and resolutions 273/3; 43/177; and the discussion about the resolution 181(II) guarantees in Chapter “III The United Nations Charter and the treaties concluded after the war”, starting on page 22, in E/CN.4/367
The declarations and explanations regarding Israel’s acceptance were provided by the representative of Israel during the 48th and 51st meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on membership. They were noted in the text and footnote 5 of UN General Assembly resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf A/AC.24/SR.48 and page 7 of the .pdf A/AC.24/SR.51
The UN Charter does not mention resolutions or say that decisions on important questions or trusteeship, like those regarding the establishment of the Corpus Separatum, are non-binding after they have been adopted by a vote of 2/3rds of the General Assembly. In fact, the International Court of Justice ruled in the Namibia case that:
In any event, both the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of International Justice have ruled that parties remain bound by the terms of their own acceptance in the case of what otherwise might be considered non-binding resolutions. The representative of the Jewish Agency, Mr. Shertok who subsequently served as Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister of Israel, referred to the “binding force” of resolution 181 on April 27, 1948:
The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People reported to the Security Council that:
But if 181 is official borders then what is Israel doing in Jerusalem, the West Banka nd golan Heights? And if 181 is Israel’s official borders, why does Israel pretend that the 1967 borders are a non starter? for that matter, why do Israeli maps show Israel’s borders as including all of Palestine – Jordan Rover to the sea?
DBG, I love the way they bring up resolutions 181 and 194, which the Arab side rejected at the time. Sheer nonsense.
I love the way you Hasbrats bring up 181 and 194, which the Israeli side as supposed to have accepted but then rejected.
It goes to show that a treaty or agreement with Israel is not worth the paper it’s printed on.
DBG, I love the way they bring up resolutions 181 and 194, which the Arab side rejected at the time. Sheer nonsense.
Correction: The Arab side never rejected resolution 194. That resolution, together with resolution 181 are the basis of the Palestinian right of return and compensation for expropriated property. The very same day that the UN finally decided to recognize the legitimacy of the government of the State of Israel, all of the Arab states signed the Lausanne protocol and accepted the map annexed to the UN plan of partition as the basis of negotiations.
In any event, resolution 181 stipulated that the rights contained in section C, chapters 1 & 2 are under UN guarantee and cannot be modified without the consent of the General Assembly. I provided you with citations to United Nations organs that keep bringing-up resolution 181 and 194. Here are some more:
* UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/158D, 20 December 1993. para. 5(c) stipulated that the permanent status negotiations must guarantee “arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries.”
*UN General Assembly resolution ES-10/14, 12 December 2003 requested an advisory opinion and recalled “relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish”
*The ICJ noted that the responsibility of the United Nations in this matter had its origin in the “Partition Resolution concerning Palestine. This responsibility has been described by the General Assembly as “a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy” (General Assembly resolution 57/107 of 3 December 2002).
The only nonsense we’ve heard so far are discussions about unilateral expansion of Israel’s recognized borders. For years the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has claimed the “non‐prejudice clause” in the 1949 Israel‐Jordan Armistice Agreement froze the parties’ rights and claims to the territory of the West Bank. The MFA claims that as long as this remained in force, no unilateral act could alter the rights of either party.
A simple question, Hostage: did the Arab states vote for or against those resolutions?
DBG, I love the way they bring up resolutions 181 and 194, which the Arab side rejected at the time. Sheer nonsense.
jon s, rather than rejecting the fact outright – and who is “they”? – you need to actually absorb that fact that Israel *has* declared it’s borders, and you live outside them. You speak as though Israel accepted UN181, yet you live outside Israel’s own declared borders. Is that too complex to comprehend?
In the final analysis, I do not think UN181 matters, because Israel doesn’t have the will or ability to remove the settlers from the occupied Palestinian territories; short of a miracle a one-state outcome is inevitable, and that will involve a Palestinian majority in mandate Palestine, voting to enforce UN194 and pay reparations for the Nakba.
It will be tragic for zionists, but is a natural outcome of hubris, and a vast underestimation of Palestinian steadfastness. Israel took a massive gamble by launching war in 1967 – emboldened by their apparently successful theft of 50% of the Palestinian partition in 1948/9 – without understanding the stakes: all or nothing.
Very sad really. It never had to go this way. If Israel had just been content with 55% of mandate Palestine and not perpetrated Al Nakba everything would have been alright. Greed, and consequences.
Still British land? What on earth do you mean DBG? Palestine was never British land.
I don’t think these final negotiation will ever occur FYI. The two-state solution is dead as a door nail.
Richb,
Seriously, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve never heard of volleyboy, never posted on dkos…
I live in Israel, in Be’er Sheva.
It’s a pretty amazing coincidence. Both you and volleyboy are named Jon S and you also have a very similar “voice”. This can be easily resolved. Back when I was running a group blog we had a terrible sock puppet problem where I suspected a woman posting to an e-mail list I was on was posing as someone else on the blog. The blog logged numeric I.P. addresses of the comments. Using whois and nslookup you can get where the post is coming from. I matched the location to the same Orlando suburb from the I.P. address in the e-mail headers. In your case we don’t need to have that granularity. All the people who run the blog need to do is to see if you post from Israel or California. If it’s the latter then they can block the I.P. address you are posting from and all we would notice here is things were more pleasant.
On a larger scale if the blog owners suspect other sock puppets they can see if different users are posting from the same I.P. address and block those addresses.
You make an excellent point. I propose that any Israeli posting outside the UN-mandated boundaries should be “boycotted” and not allowed to post here. As I noted earlier this morning you can easily find this information from the numeric I.P. of the comment. Cities that would be banned from posting include: Jaffa, Acre, Beersheba, Nazareth, and Jerusalem. A more detailed boundary can be found in U.N. resolution 181 as quoted by the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library:
link to trumanlibrary.org
A simple question, Hostage: did the Arab states vote for or against those resolutions?
It doesn’t matter how states vote on resolutions, Article 2(5) of the UN Charter contains a treaty obligation that requires members to give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the Charter once they are adopted. Israel was not created by an act of the United Nations, but it accepted the terms of resolution 181 and 194, after the fact, as a condition of membership in the UN. The Arab States also accepted the terms, after the fact, on the very same day. Do you care to explain why Israel refuses to implement resolution 194?
The Security Council had refused to implement the plan of partition by force. It convened a second special session of the General Assembly and referred the question of Palestine back to that body. The Security Council called on the General Assembly to find another peaceful solution. For its part, the General Assembly suspended the implementation of the partition plan and appointed a UN Mediator to negotiate terms of reference acceptable to the parties involved. Israel refused to negotiate with the Palestinians directly and insisted that it would only negotiate with so-called sovereign states. Israel and all of the Arab states signed the Lausanne protocol and agreed to negotiate a just partition of the country. Ever since then, Israel has been dragging its feet and pursuing territorial aggrandizement and new settlements. The UN and Israel had to negotiate with Palestine after it declared its independence in 1988. Like the Israelis, the PLO also cited resolutions 181 and 194 as the basis of it own international legitimacy.
Annie, I’m not sure if this link will work, but did you see Tilda Swinton in Vogue modeling her own clothes? link to facebook.com
Talk about going mainstream!
I LOVE THIS! thank you for the link rania. as a side note i predicted a few years ago the new trend in fashion would be using political fabric. evening gowns and cocktail dresses which words like genocide apartheid palestine gaza are woven into the fabric in creative ways even creating patterns where the words themselves do not jump out but as you approach the person or the clothing it appears. not like a t shirt with one word on it but a repetitious pattern where one garment has literally hundreds or thousands of the same word creating a pattern like this for example.
it will happen.
Awesome. She recently won an Oscar too.
Loved her in Michael Clayton.
Me too. She is an amazing actress and human being. That picture made my day.
Go, Tilda. Her heart is in the right place, I love her even more.
I think I love Tilda Swinton more than you do justicewillprevail ;-)
I love that girl Sarah Besbes! I wanna kiss her at least a thousand times! Mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah….
Mmmmm that was gooooood!
Let’s hope we see a lot more examples of these boycotts.
Israel needs to be isolated and humiliated on every level interbationally.
Isn’t it revealing how Jon is offended by Sarah’s passive act of defiance, but is perfectly happy to see 1,400 Palesrinians and 9 Turks massacred.
The only person humiliated was Sara herself. She was coerced by the Tunisian fencing federation to act against her will.
Sara doesn’t look very coerced to me:
link to blog.panorama.it
J’aime la Sara courageuse.
Yes eee, Mills looks very triumphant. She can boast about how she defeated an opponent with her skills.
For someone who isn’t supposed to care about this subject, you seem to be posting a significant number of comments here eee.
Your problem eee is you have no acquaintance with honor or integrity, it’s not a value in your world, you can’t understand it and no one can explain the importance of it to you.
Besbes did the honorable thing, showed integrity to a higher value, the Israeli showed everyone she, as a Israeli, had none.
Your Israeli was humilated by a Arab, in the grandest way.
That will be some comfort and encouragement to the Palestine Arabs dishonorable Israelis humilate every day.
American, the momentum is just going to gather from here. There will be more and more of this.
Yes, nothing more honorable than putting your sword down and being defeated. How on earth is this honorable? you work your entire life to be the best @ your sport, then, in the championship game no less, you refuse to take on your opponent because of the country she was born in? there is nothing honorable about that.
you refuse to take on your opponent because of the country she was born in?
Not the country she was born in; the country she represents in an international competition.
If the opponent had been a neo Nazi, belonging to a group fo Holocuast deniers, you’d have no problem with it. The reason you can’t accept the honow in this incident is becasue your beloved fascist, apartheid state was on the receiving end.
Of course, as a supporter of that fascist, apartheid state, you wouldn’t know the first thing about honor anyway.
As I told eee DGB, you just don’t understand the concept of character. It’s not, for whatever reason, part of your culture or beliefs. To people who value nothing as much as themselves and their own personal gain, winning, having, getting, taking is everything ‘regardless’ of the means.
Granted we don’t see much integrity showcased in the world leadership today but people still recognize it and know when it’s there and when it isn’t.
It is missing in the zionist culture and why they are not respected by the world. They see people who have higher ideals than just their own existence and gain as naive suckers and dupes.
Israel hasn’t “risen by open and honorable means”…althought “how” something is achieved doesn’t matter to zionist it matters to most of the world. If there weren’t some people in the world who believed in these ideals the whole world would be living by the sword and in the same conditions as Palestine.
‘ WHO is the happy Warrior? Who is he
That every man in arms should wish to be?
Who, if he rise to station of command,
Rises by open means; and there will stand
On honourable terms, or else retire,
And in himself possess his own desire;
Who comprehends his trust, and to the same
Keeps faithful with a singleness of aim;
And therefore does not stoop, nor lie in wait
For wealth, or honours, or for worldly state;
This is the happy Warrior; this is He
That every Man in arms should wish to be’
I support BDS, but I cannot support this, because the Tunisian Federation was requesting it:
“Sconcerto per la richiesta della federazione tunisina ad una sua atleta di non gareggiare contro un’israeliana.”
(Googletrans: “Disconcert for the request of the Tunisian Federation for its athletes not to compete against an Israeli.”)
She felt very bad about this and cried, like her opponent did:
“La Besbes e’ rimasta molto male per quanto avvenuto, fanno sapere le persone a lei vicine, anche perche’ questa sconfitta ha condizionato il suo mondiale e al termine della sfida ed ha pianto, come anche la sua avversaria”
link to qn.quotidiano.net
If that’s true then I agree, I don’t support it also and it’s horrible that it was coerced.
i would agree if i had confidence it was true but i don’t because i read on other reports neither her or the federation made any statements. the translation says:
The federation has called on the Tunisian your athlete does not deal with the Israeli enemy
that is an intense statement. don’t you find it unusual there are no quotes around it? and somehow the statement of an anonymous friend who is ‘close to her’ making statements about her alleged sympathies doesn’t quite cut it for me. i saw that elder of zion and little green football also carried this one story but it directly contradicts other articles saying they made no statement.
also my google translate says this:
“Disconcert yesterday at the World Fencing Championship in Catania. During the group stage of the sword, women, rose to 11.30 in the Tunisian Sarra Besbes platform and the Israeli Noam Mills. The federation has called on the Tunisian your athlete does not deal with the Israeli enemy”
the part you copied is in the byline of the article but is not supported by any quote or statement from the federation in the text. furthermore who wrote it? the article i linked to by MARCO ANSALDO sounded like he attended the event and even sounded like the original your article based it’s story on. in fact, the both ‘climbed to the platform’ and ‘suffered 5 thrusts’.
the main difference of the articles being the one by ansaldo said: “there is more than reasonable suspicion that his was a conscious decision and inspired by the leaders of his Federation.”
so if there is in fact a statement by the federation someone should produce it and no one has as far as i know. and even if it was a decision by the federation thus far there is nothing to indicate she didn’t support the decision but an alleged quote by and alleged person ‘close to her’.
meanwhile:
your article:
‘An anomalous behavior of the Besbes that is not ‘escaped the judges were unable to take action, however, being made of a defeat.’
ansaldo:
“An abnormal behavior that has not escaped the referees, who could not take action because it was not a rejection but, apparently, of a defeat.”
so who is your article quoting? would it be the same person they quoted earlier in their article
n ‘climb to the platform and e’ stood still suffering the five thrusts
iow, i think they were not there, they copied ansaldo who was there but skipped the part about the federation giving no statement and rather than mention a suspicion wrt the federation they reported it as fact, couched with gossip from a person ‘close’.
“Fencing World Cup, Tunisia prohibits its athletes to compete against Israel” (Googletrans)
link to nuovasocieta.it
“… the athlete Besbes Tunisian Sarra has been forced from their federation not to fight against Israel’s Noam Mills …” (Googletrans)
link to wakeupnews.eu
“The meeting ends in a few seconds with the two athletes who do not greet each other, but they cry, each in his corner.
Behind the attitude of the decision of his Besbes that the Federation has ordered not to fight against Israel. Boycott. A gesture that comes 24 hours after the same made by another athlete Iranian Sayyad Ghanbari Hamad, who had retired rather than face his opponent, Tomer Or, Israel. ” (Googletrans)
link to blog.panorama.it
It seems that Tunesia wanted to catch up with Iran.
talk back, you are aware are you not your first link ““Fencing World Cup, Tunisia prohibits its athletes to compete against Israel” is virtually an identical article of the first you published that was a tweaked rip off from MARCO ANSALDO only this time they revved it up a little more claiming sara ‘wept bitter tears’. please, if this was an original report or the person was actually there..it’s the same friggin article or didn’t you notice?
and your next one it is clear the writer wasn’t there from the beginning when they said “Puzzling episode in the World Cup fencing, currently being held in Catania”
…..
“the athlete Besbes Tunisian Sarra has been forced from their federation not to fight against Israel’s Noam Mills and forced to climb to the platform only cash in the five thrusts which have made the defeat.”
forced? what evidence is there of this force? are there any statements from…anyone? besides the anonymous ‘close’ person?
did you forget this:
why don’t they just claim her daddy made her do it? that she is an apartheid loving zionist, not a muslim unlike everyone else in the federation except all her family members who all just kowtow to the muslims!
i mean really! those other articles made a point she wasn’t a muslim AS IF it supported their ‘theory’ this was not her choice….because she wasn’t muslim. wtf. don’t you find it just a little odd they grabbed only what they wanted out of the other, original story (because believe it or not i did scour the internet myself while i was writing this yesterday so i know what was available online at that time), and then just augmented it the way they wanted. also, the original texts only mentioned mills crying. the other part about her breaking down in tears weren’t in the original articles. and now she’s weeping bitter tears. please.
It seems that Tunesia wanted to catch up with Iran.
ok talkback, now i’m starting to hear your voice better. it’s coming in real clear.
Annie, we’re all happy for what Sara did, but although she lives in France and competes for Tunisia, it could be her last competion in the name of Tunisia as this sport, conduct and dress is surely on its way out in Tunisia after the coming elections on October 23rd.
There are over 80 separate political parties (65 new ones since the revolution) competing for Tunisia’s 7 million voters, a third of which are not literate and current indications are showing the Islamic ENNAHDA party about to take the most seats as it’s the only one thoroughly organized to win and running candidates for every seat. The ENNAHDA people have already declared their intention of converting the country into a mild form of Shari’a law, but a Shari’a law nonetheless using Turkey as a model. And this means a radical change which would probably prevent Sara from competing for Tunisia. The Islamic parties have already given the signal to the people to stop buying from Jewish shops on Djerba and last week saw riots when the authorities tried to enforce the no-hijab law. So much for the first of the Arab Springs. We’ll be seeing a repeat performance in the other 2 Arab Springs of Egypt and Libya with the Islamic parties poised to win parliaments in both countries.
Walid did you listen to Azmi Bishara on the question of Islamist movements’ participation in governments? Or more accurately, the future of political Islam? He doesn’t seem to see all the negatives you’re mentioning here. A must watch. Too many valid points. (In Arabic, of course, and a rather long lecture)
link to youtube.com
TGIA,
If you have the time and the inclination, do you think you could summarise Bishara’s main points? It would be most appreciated, but no pressure whatsoever. Thanks either way.
Hi TGIA, Bishara is a paid commentator at Jazeera and as you know, this network is longer unbiased but working diligently in the American camp. It no sooner finished mopping up its campaign in Libya giving credence to the French flake’s lies about Gaddafi bombing the civilians at Benghazi, it turned its full attention in doing the same on Syria. In a nutshell, Bishara’s credibility is almost as good as Jazeera’s these days.
Keep in mind that Qatar and Jazeera have been home to the exiled Egyptian Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi that issues fatwas against Gadafi or Assad or anyone else on order. This man who is the spiritual head of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has a weekly audience of 40 million on Jazzera listening to his fire and brimstone sermons. Anyway, after the Libya campaign, Jazeera was rewarded with a license to operate out of NYC. Maybe after Syria, it will get one for Chicago or LA.
Hi again, TGIA, I didn’t have time to view the first 3 of 12 youtubes covering Bishara’s lecture. After watching them and part of a co-panelist’s intervention, I’m still convinced he’s propagandizing for the religious parties with which I’m not comfortable and therefore perhaps not open to explore the new concepts he’s bringing. I stand by initial opinion of him being a paid commentator for Jazeera and I therefore have to wonder what’s behind his message that there is nothing to fear from politicized Islam. In so many words, he’s saying these people are harmless and not any more radical in their essence than Europe’s Christian democrats or the religion-driven main American parties. His plug for Turkey’s success in marrying the Islamic parties to the secular ones convinced me even more that something’s afoot in the whole region with Turkey at the center of it. Add to it the recent request of the US to have the Muslim Brotherhood join the ruling regime in Egypt, and NATO and the US having paved the road to victory for the Brotherhood in Libya is just making it that much more obvious.
BTW, those wondering what those videos are about, until the sun rises in TGIA land and he gets back with the answer, I’ll just say that it’s the closing session of the colliquium sponsored by al-Jazeera on the future of political-Islam and how to deal with it. One could almost say that Dr. Bishara was blessing the Islamic fundamentalists and asking everyone to open their hearts to them or in plain English, those guys don’t bite so stop worrying about them and look how nicely they are behaving in Turkey.
Judging from her pictures, I personally would not believe a woman with such fiery passion would cry bitter tears after the Israeli athlete disgraced herself by attacking a non-resisting opponent. I’d expect a raging anger.
Israeli athlete disgraced herself by attacking a non-resisting opponent.
what was the Israeli athlete supposed to exactly?
How about not attacking a person who clearly was engaged in nonviolent protest? Why is that so unfathomable to Israelis and their supporters?
“what was the Israeli athlete supposed to exactly?”
Yes, over Yom Kippur I asked God to forgive me for all the helpless victims I didn’t attack.
Thank you Sara Besbes. You are a hero. Inshallah soon sportsmen and women all over the world will follow your example. One of the wonderful consequences about the Arab Spring is that individual Arabs and groups are now free to express how they feel about the apartheid regime without fear of retribution from their own regimes.
Once again, many thanks.
I used to fence. It’s easy! You just wait til their back is turned, give a quick thrust with a shiv.
Energy Committee for Israel wants you
“Energy Committee for Israel wants you”
They’ll just have to wait until I have the energy. I’m vacationing in Basal, Metabolism.
More the pity that this hatred is passed from generation to generation.
I wish they would have fenced. Top echelon athletes have plenty of media exposure and venues for voicing dissent or protest. Her “gesture” hasn’t the power that a statement of protest would yield during a media interview. And a victory would have given her just such a podium.
I gotta agree with Jon’s initial comment. It truly is a shame that that that is bad must sully that which is good. These two athletes were deprived of a worthy endeavor, and both were damaged by the deprivation.
Two women trying to put each other’s eyes out is a worthy endeavor?