Israel and Apartheid

First topic message reminder :


Mira Bar Hillel

Friday 13 December 2013


The lame excuses made up by Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu for failing to go to Nelson Mandela’s memorial on Tuesday have raised eyebrows and wry smiles all over the world. Having insisted on a £150,000 refit of the plane he and his wife took for the five-hour flight to Lady Thatcher’s funeral in London earlier this year, the trip to Johannesburg would, he claimed, be “too costly”. This from a man who spends thousands a year – from the public purse - on pistachio ice-cream and scented candles.

However, it is quite possible that Mr Netanyahu may have been less than ecstatically welcomed in the new South Africa anyway, following revelations that the country’s apartheid regime was the Israeli defense industry’s biggest customer and sponsor.

For many years it was virtually a capital offence to use the word “apartheid” as an analogy to policies of the Israeli government in the Occupied Territories. In 2007 my friend Danny Rubenstein, the venerated Arab Affairs analyst of Haaretz newspaper, was invited by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain to address an event. On his way he stopped to address a UN committee in Brussels, and used the word “apartheid” to describe Israel’s attitude towards the Palestinians.

In response, he was unceremoniously dumped by the ZFGB and left high and dry in a B&B in Golders Green on a Friday night. He was eventually rescued by the New Fund for Israel and invited to a crowded gathering in a North London Reform synagogue.

But while Rubenstein was mainly concerned to warn the audience of the dangers of Israel following in the footsteps of the Afrikaaners, his interviewer – and most of the questioners - kept harping on what was constantly, if coyly, referred to as “the A-word”.

Yet it now emerges that for decades Israel supported the “A-word” regime and its military with advanced weapon systems at a time when Western sanctions meant no one else would. According to Haaretz editor Aluf Benn, the cooperation reached its peak in the late 1980s, the twilight of the apartheid regime.

In the summer of 1988, Benn says, Israel reportedly sold South Africa 60 Kfir combat planes in a hushed-up deal worth $1.7 billion. The planes were upgraded and renamed Atlas Cheetah and Israel’s involvement was played down because the US was party to the sanctions regime, according to Haaretz.

Israel joined the international sanctions in 1987 but said it would honour existing contracts so the deal went ahead anyway. A few weeks later, the Israelis launched the first Ofek reconnaissance satellite which Benn claims could only have been developed with South African funding. And only in 1991 was the US able to force the Israeli government to stop selling SA short and midrange missiles.

Maps which were only revealed in the past few days show how the Israelis plan to create bantustans for the Nomadic Bedouin in its southern Negev region. Tens of thousands of them would be forced into ghettoes to make way for new Jewish towns and military zones. A-word, anyone?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israel-and-apartheid-confused-you-will-be-9001321.html

The Israeli Government has got away with too much for too long. I got a communication from some Israeli peace protesters I am in touch with about Netanyahu's excuse for not going to Nelson Mandela's memorial. They had just heard about all this.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I certainly did make my views known when I said....

Yes, many countries stood by whilst the apartheid regime was in operation but most sent their head of state to Mandela's funeral recognising the legacy he left. Israel snubbed it,,,,,,,,shameful.

That's my reason and you can take it or leave it.

And you are just making things up now in forming my opinions for me when you do not know what I would do. If Obama refused to attend the funeral of Margaret Thatcher I most certainly would be critical of him for doing so. He represents the USA and of course Obama is nothing like the prime minister of Israel who says one thing and then something different happens just like it probably will with the relocation of certain groups of people within Israel itself. You can't trust him on his statement that the process has been shelved.

I condemn all violence wherever it occurs but the path towards peace and reconciliation can never be achieved until Israel stops bulldozing into the occupied territories and displacing people who have lived there most of their lives effectively placing them on virtual reservations that they can control even down to the degree of their water and electricity supply. A commitment to stop the process of building new settlements would be a good start.

That is not a reason of which I asked for dear Irn why you think it is shameful, stop telling porkies, you only said it was wrong.
I remember different in regards to Obama, so thanks for proving my point and thanks most of all for proving my point in regards to Israel as those famous words ring out!
Until.
Blame seeking, nothing more!
That is not reconciliation.

[/quote]

Didge, one thing I am not is a liar. I said it was shameful because it was a snub to South Africa and the legacy of Mandela because that's how I see it. That's my view and I'm sticking with it and you have no right to say that I am lying.

How dare I?
He was lying, it is there for all to see, you are not a moderator here sassy, so reign your neck in love!

I see you are looking for an altercation, sorry I like this site, so if you are, then let me know and I will bid you good night!

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


That is not a reason of which I asked for dear Irn why you think it is shameful, stop telling porkies, you only said it was wrong.
I remember different in regards to Obama, so thanks for proving my point and thanks most of all for proving my point in regards to Israel as those famous words ring out!
Until.
Blame seeking, nothing more!
That is not reconciliation.

Didge, one thing I am not is a liar. I said it was shameful because it was a snub to South Africa and the legacy of Mandela because that's how I see it. That's my view and I'm sticking with it and you have no right to say that I am lying.[/quote]


Saying a snub is a reason to be wrong is not a reason or any legacy, you need to present your reasons Irn

You were lying and exposed for it!

My my, showing your true colours now. You are the one calling people liars, you don't think they are going to sit there and take it do you?

And still avoiding the fact that they are going to move the Bedouin and it will be apartheid.

PhilDidge wrote:How dare I?
He was lying, it is there for all to see, you are not a moderator here sassy, so reign your neck in love!

I see you are looking for an altercation, sorry I like this site, so if you are, then let me know and I will bid you good night!

Where is the lie? Point it out please.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:How dare I?
He was lying, it is there for all to see, you are not a moderator here sassy, so reign your neck in love!

I see you are looking for an altercation, sorry I like this site, so if you are, then let me know and I will bid you good night!

Where is the lie? Point it out please.

You falied to provide reasons why you thing it was so shameful for him to miss the funeral.

Now its pointed out, which I guess means this was just another bashing Israel thread

Sassy wrote:My my, showing your true colours now.   You are the one calling people liars, you don't think they are going to sit there and take it do you?

And still avoiding the fact that they are going to move the Bedouin and it will be apartheid.

I do pipe down sassy, you are not god anymore and able to get your way!

Either debate or put a cork in it, you are trying to stir now

Are you having trouble reading tonight?

What about them changing their minds and carrying on with the plan for the Bedouins - apartheid?

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:My my, showing your true colours now.   You are the one calling people liars, you don't think they are going to sit there and take it do you?

And still avoiding the fact that they are going to move the Bedouin and it will be apartheid.

I do pipe down sassy, you are not god anymore and able to get your way!

Either debate or put a cork in it, you are trying to stir now

You tried to stir when you called Irn and liar, and you are yet again avoiding the question.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Where is the lie? Point it out please.

You falied to provide reasons why you thing it was so shameful for him to miss the funeral.

Now its pointed out, which I guess means this was just another bashing Israel thread

No, I gave my reasons and just because you don't accept them or like them doesn't make me a liar.

I do not tell lies and you really have a cheek coming out with that.

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:My my, showing your true colours now.   You are the one calling people liars, you don't think they are going to sit there and take it do you?

And still avoiding the fact that they are going to move the Bedouin and it will be apartheid.

I do pipe down sassy, you are not god anymore and able to get your way!

Either debate or put a cork in it, you are trying to stir now

So why don't you take your own advice and debate instead of taking it down to a level where you start calling people liars.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


You falied to provide reasons why you thing it was so shameful for him to miss the funeral.

Now its pointed out, which I guess means this was just another bashing Israel thread

No, I gave my reasons and just because you don't accept them or like them doesn't make me a liar.

I do not tell lies and you really have a cheek coming out with that.

Sorry Irn you only stated it was wrong and not gave after how many posts many reason to why you thought it was wrong.

No cheek and bored now, so have a Merry Christmas

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I do pipe down sassy, you are not god anymore and able to get your way!

Either debate or put a cork in it, you are trying to stir now

So why don't you take your own advice and debate instead of taking it down to a level where you start calling people liars.

And that is not continuing it?

Please spare me your fake moral, to stop something you just walk away as I am doing now.

Ciao

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I do pipe down sassy, you are not god anymore and able to get your way!

Either debate or put a cork in it, you are trying to stir now

You tried to stir when you called Irn and liar, and you are yet again avoiding the question.

 :-:bravo:-: 

 :-:bravo:-: 

 :-:bravo:-: 

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:

You tried to stir when you called Irn and liar, and you are yet again avoiding the question.

 :-:bravo:-: 

 :-:bravo:-: 

 :-:bravo:-: 

If only you had some, and the balls to say what you think about what they are planning to do with the Bedouins, which is apartheid.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

So why don't you take your own advice and debate instead of taking it down to a level where you start calling people liars.

And that is not continuing it?

Please spare me your fake moral, to stop something you just walk away as I am doing now.

Ciao

Yeah, walk away is the best thing you can do so that you can cool off.

Calling someone a liar in a debate is just anger and frustration seeping out and as good as throwing in the towel.

Goodnight, I'm away to watch the tele for a while.

It seems none of you want to admit that both of you are right, Hamas is not nice and neither is Israel. The Both commit atrocities not only against their 'enemies' but also just any innocent group that happens to be in the way of their agenda.

I don't mind him not going to the funeral it would be a bit hypocritical for him to.

veya_victaous wrote:It seems none of you want to admit that both of you are right, Hamas is not nice and neither is Israel. The Both commit atrocities not only against their 'enemies' but also just any innocent group that happens to be in the way of their agenda.

I don't mind him not going to the funeral it would be a bit hypocritical for him to.

I agree with you 100% Veya of which has been my point throughout in that both sides are wrong and it serves no purpose to counter a continuous argument on wrongs done, as stated I have not denied Israel has done wrongs, it has done plenty, my view point has always been on reconciliation. This whole thread was started over a funeral of which very little has been talked about and your last point is something I again agree with, as it would be, thank you for getting it back on topic

Have a merry Christmas Veya and all the Admin team .

PhilDidge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:It seems none of you want to admit that both of you are right, Hamas is not nice and neither is Israel. The Both commit atrocities not only against their 'enemies' but also just any innocent group that happens to be in the way of their agenda.

I don't mind him not going to the funeral it would be a bit hypocritical for him to.

I agree with you 100% Veya of which has been my point throughout in that both sides are wrong and it serves no purpose to counter a continuous argument on wrongs done, as stated I have not denied Israel has done wrongs, it has done plenty, my view point has always been on reconciliation. This whole thread was started over a funeral of which very little has been talked about and your last point is something I again agree with, as it would be, thank you for getting it back on topic

Have a merry Christmas Veya and all the Admin team .

And no-one else has either but in future do not call me a liar again.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I agree with you 100% Veya of which has been my point throughout in that both sides are wrong and it serves no purpose to counter a continuous argument on wrongs done, as stated I have not denied Israel has done wrongs, it has done plenty, my view point has always been on reconciliation. This whole thread was started over a funeral of which very little has been talked about and your last point is something I again agree with, as it would be, thank you for getting it back on topic

Have a merry Christmas Veya and all the Admin team .

And no-one else has either but in future do not call me a liar again.

You did lie Irn and all can see so being as there is no reasons behind why you think it was wrong for him not to go other than stating you think it is shameful. I suggest you take some lessons in decency Irn and this is nothing personal, just stop telling porkies. I think you just don't like being caught out, that is your issue, not mine, as don't make claims to saying something, when you have not. I think more than anything this thread had nothing to do with anything about Mandela but once again a platform to promote a vie to bash Israel, as seen little debate has been had on the actual issue!

Enjoy your Chritsmas, maybe Santa has gotten you Pinocchio.

 :D

OK, this is fiesty! The way I see it, Phil thinks Irn lied when Irn said he had given reasons the snub of Mandela's funeral was shameful.

Looking back at the posts, I see Irn having written this: "If Obama refused to attend the funeral of Margaret Thatcher I most certainly would be critical of him for doing so. He represents the USA and of course Obama is nothing like the prime minister of Israel who says one thing and then something different happens just like it probably will with the relocation of certain groups of people within Israel itself."

I think that to Irn that was a reason Netanyahu not attending was shameful, but that Phil wanted more -- perhaps he found this a less-than-satisfactory explanation of the shamefulness of the snub, or that he just wants to go more into depth on the subject of how something like this becomes a snub. But that certainly didn't make Irn a liar.

Phil, if you really just want Irn to go into more depth as to why he thinks the snub was shameful, please just ask him to do so, rather than resorting to calling him a liar. You do that and it's just going to provoke a justifiably hostile reaction rather than actually getting you the information you want. To you, what Irn said might not have been a satisfactory explanation, but that doesn't mean he didn't offer any explanation.

As for me, I think the snub was shameful. I think that because gestures like this communicate, probably better than words, a person's attitudes, and to me not going makes it look like Netanyahu might still think the Israeli-S. African weapons deal was the right thing to do, that he still thinks Mandela was on the wrong side, that he doesn't respect Mandela, etc.

In broad strokes, to most of the world Mandela stood for ending apartheid and that's about as deep as most people get into it. When you're a head of state you need to remember that popular view and how it will look when you decide not to honor the man after he dies.

I'm not saying it's good that people don't take a more nuanced view, and I don't pretend to know the real reason Netanyahu didn't go. I'm just saying why I think it looks very bad, and how I can totally understand that it looks very bad to a lot of people.

And can I be a party pooper and point out that the point of this thread was that Israel supported apartheid with arms, and that has only just come to light in the last few weeks, and never mind what they have done to the Palestinians, they are now bringing in removal of the Bedouins and taking their land, making them live somewhere that they are not allowed to leave, and taking away their right to own land. That is exactly what S.Africa did to the coloured population, and that is apartheid, which Didge is doing his very best to ignore.

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, this is fiesty! The way I see it, Phil thinks Irn lied when Irn said he had given reasons the snub of Mandela's funeral was shameful.

Looking back at the posts, I see Irn having written this: "If Obama refused to attend the funeral of Margaret Thatcher I most certainly would be critical of him for doing so. He represents the USA and of course Obama is nothing like the prime minister of Israel who says one thing and then something different happens just like it probably will with the relocation of certain groups of people within Israel itself."

I think that to Irn that was a reason Netanyahu not attending was shameful, but that Phil wanted more -- perhaps he found this a less-than-satisfactory explanation of the shamefulness of the snub, or that he just wants to go more into depth on the subject of how something like this becomes a snub. But that certainly didn't make Irn a liar.

Phil, if you really just want Irn to go into more depth as to why he thinks the snub was shameful, please just ask him to do so, rather than resorting to calling him a liar. You do that and it's just going to provoke a justifiably hostile reaction rather than actually getting you the information you want. To you, what Irn said might not have been a satisfactory explanation, but that doesn't mean he didn't offer any explanation.

As for me, I think the snub was shameful. I think that because gestures like this communicate, probably better than words, a person's attitudes, and to me not going makes it look like Netanyahu might still think the Israeli-S. African weapons deal was the right thing to do, that he still thinks Mandela was on the wrong side, that he doesn't respect Mandela, etc.

In broad strokes, to most of the world Mandela stood for ending apartheid and that's about as deep as most people get into it. When you're a head of state you need to remember that popular view and how it will look when you decide not to honor the man after he dies.

I'm not saying it's good that people don't take a more nuanced view, and I don't pretend to know the real reason Netanyahu didn't go. I'm just saying why I think it looks very bad, and how I can totally understand that it looks very bad to a lot of people.

Hi Ben

That was stated after I had said he had not, as his reply was:

I certainly did make my views known when I said....

Yes, many countries stood by whilst the apartheid regime was in operation but most sent their head of state to Mandela's funeral recognising the legacy he left. Israel snubbed it,,,,,,,,shameful.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t1086p100-israel-and-apartheid


In that same post did he then state what you highlighted, so I am correct, he had not stated before and thus lied.

As we saw Obama snubbed Thatchers Funeral, someone who was greatly respected in America and as already explained due to the past history the Israel Government had with the Apartheid regime, is more than likely why he did not attend. I am very much in the belief of Mandela being a great man, just read my posts on the matter but that is the point being missed by some on here, in that his ideals were that once released from prison was not vengeance but reconciliation, of which is being lost upon Sassy, as this is the key to the middle east problem.

PhilDidge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, this is fiesty! The way I see it, Phil thinks Irn lied when Irn said he had given reasons the snub of Mandela's funeral was shameful.

Looking back at the posts, I see Irn having written this: "If Obama refused to attend the funeral of Margaret Thatcher I most certainly would be critical of him for doing so. He represents the USA and of course Obama is nothing like the prime minister of Israel who says one thing and then something different happens just like it probably will with the relocation of certain groups of people within Israel itself."

I think that to Irn that was a reason Netanyahu not attending was shameful, but that Phil wanted more -- perhaps he found this a less-than-satisfactory explanation of the shamefulness of the snub, or that he just wants to go more into depth on the subject of how something like this becomes a snub. But that certainly didn't make Irn a liar.

Phil, if you really just want Irn to go into more depth as to why he thinks the snub was shameful, please just ask him to do so, rather than resorting to calling him a liar. You do that and it's just going to provoke a justifiably hostile reaction rather than actually getting you the information you want. To you, what Irn said might not have been a satisfactory explanation, but that doesn't mean he didn't offer any explanation.

As for me, I think the snub was shameful. I think that because gestures like this communicate, probably better than words, a person's attitudes, and to me not going makes it look like Netanyahu might still think the Israeli-S. African weapons deal was the right thing to do, that he still thinks Mandela was on the wrong side, that he doesn't respect Mandela, etc.

In broad strokes, to most of the world Mandela stood for ending apartheid and that's about as deep as most people get into it. When you're a head of state you need to remember that popular view and how it will look when you decide not to honor the man after he dies.

I'm not saying it's good that people don't take a more nuanced view, and I don't pretend to know the real reason Netanyahu didn't go. I'm just saying why I think it looks very bad, and how I can totally understand that it looks very bad to a lot of people.

Hi Ben

That was stated after I had said he had not, as his reply was:

I certainly did make my views known when I said....

Yes, many countries stood by whilst the apartheid regime was in operation but most sent their head of state to Mandela's funeral recognising the legacy he left. Israel snubbed it,,,,,,,,shameful.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t1086p100-israel-and-apartheid


In that same post did he then state what you highlighted, so I am correct, he had not stated before and thus lied.

As we saw Obama snubbed Thatchers Funeral, someone who was greatly respected in America and as already explained due to the past history the Israel Government had with the Apartheid regime, is more than likely why he did not attend. I am very much in the belief of Mandela being a great man, just read my posts on the matter but that is the point being missed by some on here, in that his ideals were that once released from prison was not vengeance but reconciliation, of which is being lost upon Sassy, as this is the key to the middle east problem.

The fact is, you didn't accuse him of "telling porkies" until after he'd made the comment about Obama not attending Thatcher's funeral. So it looks like you're just trying to start a fight by calling him a liar after his explanation had already been made.

He said that he'd made his views known, he never said he explained them previously as you requested.

By the way, Cameron said that he didn't feel Thatcher's funeral had been snubbed simply because Obama wasn't present.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Hi Ben

That was stated after I had said he had not, as his reply was:

I certainly did make my views known when I said....

Yes, many countries stood by whilst the apartheid regime was in operation but most sent their head of state to Mandela's funeral recognising the legacy he left. Israel snubbed it,,,,,,,,shameful.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t1086p100-israel-and-apartheid


In that same post did he then state what you highlighted, so I am correct, he had not stated before and thus lied.

As we saw Obama snubbed Thatchers Funeral, someone who was greatly respected in America and as already explained due to the past history the Israel Government had with the Apartheid regime, is more than likely why he did not attend. I am very much in the belief of Mandela being a great man, just read my posts on the matter but that is the point being missed by some on here, in that his ideals were that once released from prison was not vengeance but reconciliation, of which is being lost upon Sassy, as this is the key to the middle east problem.

The fact is, you didn't accuse him of "telling porkies" until after he'd made the comment about Obama not attending Thatcher's funeral. So it looks like you're just trying to start a fight by calling him a liar after his explanation had already been made.

He said that he'd made his views known, he never said he explained them previously as you requested.

By the way, Cameron said that he didn't feel Thatcher's funeral had been snubbed simply because Obama wasn't present.

Actually I stated very clearly he had not given a reason to then say he had and only do so in that same post, please Ben spare me the antics of defending the left, I like Irn and he is a big boy able to defend himself, this kind of banter has gone on before between us and mean him no ill will. That is Cameron's opinion, I like Obama as much as I praise the greatness of Mandela, but Obama snubbed her funeral when she built great relationships between each nations, so by your logic Obama was just as appalling not to attend a great leader, no matter your views on that person. Inn my view this whole thread was nothing more than an excuse to Israel bash, so I am starting, blimey I see your way of thinking then, protect the left no matter when they are wrong, just ignore where I am called names, no matter if that is your stance, you will learn in time and I will give this place a miss for a while if that is your attitude to be honest Ben if you show imbalance. He lied plain and simple, no matter that he needs lefties to run to his rescue no matter how much you try and magic him out of doing so! I mean why start a thread and hardly even debate the points?

Go figure
Having said that, I hope you are having a lovely Christmas.

I mean why start a thread and hardly even debate the points?

I started the thread, and this was the point:

And can I be a party pooper and point out that the point of this thread was that Israel supported apartheid with arms, and that has only just come to light in the last few weeks, and never mind what they have done to the Palestinians, they are now bringing in removal of the Bedouins and taking their land, making them live somewhere that they are not allowed to leave, and taking away their right to own land. That is exactly what S.Africa did to the coloured population, and that is apartheid, which Didge is doing his very best to ignore.


Which you have completely failed to address.

Sassy wrote:I mean why start a thread and hardly even debate the points?

I started the thread, and this was the point:

And can I be a party pooper and point out that the point of this thread was that Israel supported apartheid with arms, and that has only just come to light in the last few weeks, and never mind what they have done to the Palestinians, they are now bringing in removal of the Bedouins and taking their land, making them live somewhere that they are not allowed to leave, and taking away their right to own land. That is exactly what S.Africa did to the coloured population, and that is apartheid, which Didge is doing his very best to ignore.


Which you have completely failed to address.

There is no Apartheid at all, you need to actually study the topic of apartheid, then you will realise you stance is complete nonsense. Many western nations supported the apartheid regime so your argument is flawed to say the least and show you have no concept of reconciliation, you only seek to divide people and there is no removal of any people, that was dropped and you ignore why it might have happened, but hey don;t let reason stand in the way of your campaign of hate against Israel!

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:I mean why start a thread and hardly even debate the points?

I started the thread, and this was the point:

And can I be a party pooper and point out that the point of this thread was that Israel supported apartheid with arms, and that has only just come to light in the last few weeks, and never mind what they have done to the Palestinians, they are now bringing in removal of the Bedouins and taking their land, making them live somewhere that they are not allowed to leave, and taking away their right to own land. That is exactly what S.Africa did to the coloured population, and that is apartheid, which Didge is doing his very best to ignore.


Which you have completely failed to address.

There is no Apartheid at all, you need to actually study the topic of apartheid, then you will realise you stance is complete nonsense. Many western nations supported the apartheid regime so your argument is flawed to say the least and show you have no concept of reconciliation, you only seek to divide people and there is no removal of any people, that was dropped and you ignore why it might have happened, but hey don;t let reason stand in the way of your campaign of hate against Israel!  

My campaign is against the Israeli government, the same as my campaign is about our Government. Now explain to me in detail how what they plan for the Bedouin is NOT apartheid, point by point.

1. They are going to forcibly evict them from land they legally own and not pay them for it.
2. They are going to send them to somewhere they don't want to go
3. They are not going to be allowed to live anywhere else
4. They will be separate from other people
5. They are not going to be allowed to own any land, even though theirs has been taken.

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


There is no Apartheid at all, you need to actually study the topic of apartheid, then you will realise you stance is complete nonsense. Many western nations supported the apartheid regime so your argument is flawed to say the least and show you have no concept of reconciliation, you only seek to divide people and there is no removal of any people, that was dropped and you ignore why it might have happened, but hey don;t let reason stand in the way of your campaign of hate against Israel!  

My campaign is against the Israeli government, the same as my campaign is about our Government.   Now explain to me in detail how what they plan for the Bedouin is NOT apartheid, point by point.
Which affects the people of Israel whilst saying nothing in regards to an Islamist ruling body that persecutes Christians and countless Muslims, engages in attacking Israel all the time, hides behind civillians cowardly, yes we see your silence here

1.   They are going to forcibly evict them from land they legally own and not pay them for it.
Incorrect
2.   They are going to send them to somewhere they don't want to go
Incorrect
3.   They are not going to be allowed to live anywhere else
Incorrect
4.    They will be separate from other people
Incorrect
5.    They are not going to be allowed to own any land, even though theirs has been taken.
Incorrect

The proposal of which you ignore much of has been dropped

Short term memory loss, go back to Irn's post of it being reinstated.

Sassy wrote:Short term memory loss, go back to Irn's post of it being reinstated.

None at all thanks

Update on the Bedouin relocation plan...

http://www.timesofisrael.com/prawer-plan-moves-ahead-despite-pms-freeze-order/

Say one thing do something else. Always the same

Irn's post from previous page.

So now go over the points one at a time.

Seems clear to me the bill is frozen, any other evidence?

Writers
Haviv Rettig Gur
Haviv Rettig Gur Haviv Rettig Gur is The Times of Israel's political correspondent.


A controversial plan to create planned Bedouin residential settlements in the Negev is continuing to advance through the Knesset despite the government’s announcement last week that the bill was frozen.


The Knesset Internal Affairs and Environment Committee on Monday debated the so-called Prawer Plan, formally called the Bill for the Arrangement of Bedouin Settlement in the Negev, in preparation for its second and third readings in the Knesset plenum.


You deliberately avoided reading it because you can't cope with it.

I read this with interest which shows another side to this:






Around 210,000 Bedouin live in the Negev. They are undoubtedly Israel’s weakest, poorest, most wretched and marginalized population group. About 120,000 live in recognized communities, whether in relatively organized towns such as Rahat or in those clusters of ramshackle huts. The remaining 80,000 live in Third-World shacks scattered around the Negev. All Israeli Bedouin communities are dead last on the socioeconomic ladder, centers of poverty, neglect and crime.

In this light, the suspicion of the Bedouin toward government proposals is understandable. They can't understand why the state is only now offering to develop their communities in the Negev, and why the proposal is being linked to their claims on the land.

Give the plan a chance

Nevertheless, the plan does constitute an invaluable opportunity. The state’s willingness to spend significant amounts to develop Bedouin communities, in exchange for settling the land dispute, should not be rejected out of hand. The state is committed to spending NIS 2.5 billion to on improvements to the new, or newly expanded, Bedouin communities, including for the construction of industrial parks that will provide jobs.

Moreover, the plan offers an entree to genuine change. The fight over land claims has in effect blocked the development of Bedouin communities. Government unwillingness to build roads is not the only reason for their paucity in the recognized Bedouin villages. Competing land ownership claims - dozens, if not hundreds of them - make zoning and development impossible. Solving this issue will sweep away a substantive restraint to development in this communities.

Then there's the relocation issue. While it may sound like a repeat of the “internal deportations" of the 1950s, but in fact the state can plausibly argue that it’s a necessary step toward providing the Bedouin with decent communities.

“We can't lay thousands of kilometers of pipes to reach every group of shacks in the middle of the desert,” explains former minister without portfolio Benny Begin, who is still promoting the legislation in the Knesset on behalf of the government. “If we want to improve the situation of the Bedouin, we must concentrate them in reasonably-sized communities, big enough to have a school and with everyone within walking distance so that even the youngest children can attend.” Begin was hinting at one of the plan's major conditions, that small communities be evacuated and only larger ones receive official recognition.

Begin held a comprehensive public hearing for the Bedouin after the Prawer plan was published, and afterward introduced two major changes. These were 100% compensation for every recognized ownership claim (instead of 50% under the Prawer plan), and the recognition of ownership claims made by Bedouin who were removed from the western Negev in the evacuations of the 1950s.

Right-wing figures accused Begin of handing thousands of dunams of land to the Bedouin as a gift in the total absence of legal support for their claims. Many believe this opposition prevented Begin from being reelected in the last election.

At the same time, many Bedouin oppose even the amended proposal because it still calls for relocated around 30,000 Bedouin from villages considered too small. In addition, many existing homes in recognized communities slated to absorb new residents will have to be razed and rebuilt to accommodate higher population density.

A house for every Bedouin

Begin points out that only 15% of Negev Bedouin lay claim to land, and says the 85% who don’t will benefit from the right, stipulated in the plan, to have their own homes in either a newly or already recognized community. That, in addition to the massive state spending that is envisioned.

In other words, the plan promises a major boost to the standard of living and quality of life of Negev Bedouin, if the stumbling block in the form of ownership claims can be removed. Just 2% of the Bedouin are responsible for half of these claims, by the way.

So is the Begin plan merely a clever, tarted up version of the expulsions and expropriations of the 1950s? Presumably it is not, and in any event it probably doesn't much matter. Israel's Bedouin population is in such wretched shape that such an historic opportunity mustn’t be missed. Perhaps poetic justice will not be realized, but in terms of their daily life this could be the breakthrough the community so desperately needs.

http://www.haaretz.com/business/business-opinion/.premium-1.561400

Without any consultations with them and being forced. That's exactly what they said about the townships in S.Africa. 'it will give them a much better life'. Why do you think the UN have condemned it?

So it seems not only were you telling porkies sassy, this is about moving "some" not all of them to better their lives with improvement, apartheid, man alive talk about desperate.

Read what I posted again, as it is clearly trying to improve living standards for them, something you conveniently left out!

No need to say anything more on this, as this was clearly twisted as seen by the left!

Exactly what they said about the townships.   Very free with your use of telling people they are lying.

Eyes wide shut.   Back to the thriller, better writing and more interesting.

PS, and written from the Israeli side, no mention of the condemnation by the UN.

The UN has a delegate from Iran and china on its board of human rights committee, I do not think they are in a place to judge anything.

So all this money and development on a people who live already in abject poverty is not trying to help them and with wanting to only move some, I guess the cost aspect might have slipped your attention.

My error here in not researching earlier, but as seen this is far from what is being claimed in regards to apartheid, that is nonsense as seen

Job done

You haven't a bloody clue about it, its being done so that Israel can have their land and settle it illegally:

British public figures have condemned Israel’s plan to expel tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouins from their land, describing it as “ethnic cleansing.”


More than 50 renowned British public figures, including high-profile artists, musicians and writers have signed a letter to protest Israel’s plan to expel 70,000 of Bedouins from the Negev Desert by destroying their villages in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The destruction of villages means “the forced displacement of Palestinians from their homes and land, and systematic discrimination and separation," the letter said.

David Calder, an English actor and one of the letter's signatories, said, "Israel not only practices apartheid against the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories, but it seems they have no hesitation in practicing apartheid on their own citizens - in this instance, the Bedouins. When is the west going to find these actions intolerable?"


The signatories also called on the British government to demand that Israel comply with international human rights law and obligations.

The letter, published in The Guardian is part of a day of protest on Saturday in more than two dozen countries over an Israeli parliamentary bill to approve the eviction by the year-end.

The bill, known as “Prawer law,” threatens to wipe up to 40 Bedouin villages off the map of the occupied territories; a move which will pave the way for illegal construction of new settler units in the historic desert.

Israel has long denied basic services to the Bedouins, whose voting and land rights have never been recognized.

Now, by the new law, the population of these villages will be removed to designated towns.

The United Nations (UN) has censured Tel Aviv’s plan to uproot the villages as racist. The European Parliament also called on Israel to withdraw it.

Adalah legal center, which promotes the legal rights of Israel’s Arab minority, said the real purpose of the legislation is “the complete and final severance of the Bedouin's historical ties to their land."

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/11/30/337444/britons-protest-israel-plan-for-bedouins/

Ben_Reilly wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Hi Ben

That was stated after I had said he had not, as his reply was:

I certainly did make my views known when I said....

Yes, many countries stood by whilst the apartheid regime was in operation but most sent their head of state to Mandela's funeral recognising the legacy he left. Israel snubbed it,,,,,,,,shameful.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t1086p100-israel-and-apartheid


In that same post did he then state what you highlighted, so I am correct, he had not stated before and thus lied.

As we saw Obama snubbed Thatchers Funeral, someone who was greatly respected in America and as already explained due to the past history the Israel Government had with the Apartheid regime, is more than likely why he did not attend. I am very much in the belief of Mandela being a great man, just read my posts on the matter but that is the point being missed by some on here, in that his ideals were that once released from prison was not vengeance but reconciliation, of which is being lost upon Sassy, as this is the key to the middle east problem.

The fact is, you didn't accuse him of "telling porkies" until after he'd made the comment about Obama not attending Thatcher's funeral. So it looks like you're just trying to start a fight by calling him a liar after his explanation had already been made.

He said that he'd made his views known, he never said he explained them previously as you requested.

By the way, Cameron said that he didn't feel Thatcher's funeral had been snubbed simply because Obama wasn't present.

..that is correct Ben, Irn had only said he had indeed made his views known,it's all there to see.

Joy Division wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The fact is, you didn't accuse him of "telling porkies" until after he'd made the comment about Obama not attending Thatcher's funeral. So it looks like you're just trying to start a fight by calling him a liar after his explanation had already been made.

He said that he'd made his views known, he never said he explained them previously as you requested.

By the way, Cameron said that he didn't feel Thatcher's funeral had been snubbed simply because Obama wasn't present.

..that is correct Ben, Irn had only said he had indeed made his views known,it's  all there to see.

PMSL Joy, a left wing man defending another left wing man already backed by a left wing man, you could make a 10000 episodes of series on that soap opera.

 :D 

On the other hand Didge, your repetitions wouldn't hold anyone's interest for a short playlet.

I'm well aware that Irn is a big boy -- you're supposed to be one, too, correct?

So how about acting like one, and if you want more exposition from Irn, just ask him clearly for it or say you don't accept his reasons for calling the snub shameful, rather than resorting to goading and verbal gymnastics and driving this discussion to pretty much the opposite side of the world from the point?

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm well aware that Irn is a big boy -- you're supposed to be one, too, correct?

So how about acting like one, and if you want more exposition from Irn, just ask him clearly for it or say you don't accept his reasons for calling the snub shameful, rather than resorting to goading and verbal gymnastics and driving this discussion to pretty much the opposite side of the world from the point?

You are starting to make me laugh now Ben by saying that to me when the person before you said this:


On the other hand Didge, your repetitions wouldn't hold anyone's interest for a short playlet.

And that is not goading, I suggest you read through the thread again and then show some balance buddy

Get your balance hat on before saying anything because if you allow others as seen to goading and verbal gymnastics and driving this discussion to pretty much the opposite side of the world, then you lose any credibility to mediate as read back as there is goading and insults throughout mainly from one poster and that was not me, in my view he lied and it is my position which I am entitled to and after your poor mediation I see very much how very much you lean to one side, clearly the left, hey ho my views easily showed the futility of the position of the other posters here, where my argument of reconciliation is much better way forward for the middle east of which none of them had an answer to, even worse the claim of apartheid was a complete left wing load of bullshit once again invented to try and bash Israel, and very poorly at that!

Well you said your peace I have said mine, but show some balance next time if you are going to ump in and say anything.

Thanks

Now Didge, when you have stopped being rude to the person whose board this is, not very clever, shall we go back to this:


You haven't a bloody clue about it, its being done so that Israel can have their land and settle it illegally:

British public figures have condemned Israel’s plan to expel tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouins from their land, describing it as “ethnic cleansing.”


More than 50 renowned British public figures, including high-profile artists, musicians and writers have signed a letter to protest Israel’s plan to expel 70,000 of Bedouins from the Negev Desert by destroying their villages in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The destruction of villages means “the forced displacement of Palestinians from their homes and land, and systematic discrimination and separation," the letter said.

David Calder, an English actor and one of the letter's signatories, said, "Israel not only practices apartheid against the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories, but it seems they have no hesitation in practicing apartheid on their own citizens - in this instance, the Bedouins. When is the west going to find these actions intolerable?"


The signatories also called on the British government to demand that Israel comply with international human rights law and obligations.

The letter, published in The Guardian is part of a day of protest on Saturday in more than two dozen countries over an Israeli parliamentary bill to approve the eviction by the year-end.

The bill, known as “Prawer law,” threatens to wipe up to 40 Bedouin villages off the map of the occupied territories; a move which will pave the way for illegal construction of new settler units in the historic desert.

Israel has long denied basic services to the Bedouins, whose voting and land rights have never been recognized.

Now, by the new law, the population of these villages will be removed to designated towns.

The United Nations (UN) has censured Tel Aviv’s plan to uproot the villages as racist. The European Parliament also called on Israel to withdraw it.

Adalah legal center, which promotes the legal rights of Israel’s Arab minority, said the real purpose of the legislation is “the complete and final severance of the Bedouin's historical ties to their land."

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/11/30/337444/britons-protest-israel-plan-for-bedouins/

And this from Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper:

The cabinet’s decision on Sunday to build the new town of Hiran on the lands of the Bedouin village Umm al-Hiran will require the village to be evacuated and demolished. This constitutes a new low in the state’s treatment of the Bedouin of the Negev, and a new stage in Israel’s becoming an ethnocracy: a regime that exists for the good of a single ethnic group, and that grants rights on the basis of ethnic affiliation rather than the principles of equality.

Like many Bedouin in the Negev, Umm al-Hiran’s residents were expelled from their lands many years ago by Israel’s military administration and wandered from place to place. In 1956, they were ordered to move to the Nahal Yatir area, where they settled. A government document from 1957 discovered by Adalah, a legal advocacy group for Arab rights in Israel, includes a statement to this effect by the official who served at the time as the prime minister’s adviser on Arab affairs.

Despite this, the village never received government recognition, leaving its residents deprived of basic services such as water, electricity and a sewage system. Residents of Umm al-Hiran say that when the state sought to issue demolition orders targeting their homes and filed suit for their evacuation, it concealed the fact that the village had existed since 1956 and that its residents settled there on orders from the military governor. Appeals have been filed against these demolition orders, and are pending.

Yaron Ben Ezra, the director of the World Zionist Organization's settlement division, told TheMarker in 2011 that the purpose of the plan for new Jewish communities in the Negev is “to prevent the continued invasion of state lands by the Bedouin and to prevent the creation of Bedouin or Arab [territorial] contiguity.” A month before this admission, the Prime Minister’s Office, crudely intervening in a professional decision by the National Planning and Building Council, denied recognition to two Bedouin villages in the Negev, one of which was Umm al-Hiran (the other was Tel Arad).

To enable the establishment of Hiran, which is earmarked for Jews from the religious Zionist community and will be one of several Jewish towns being built in the area, the state has categorically ignored the existing residents. Currently, 500 non-Jewish citizens of the state are supposed to be expelled to another community (Hurra) for the benefit of these Jewish citizens.

The story of Umm al-Hiran is the story of many unrecognized villages, which, contrary to the story the government periodically tries to sell, are not the result of a Bedouin “invasion” of Israeli land. Some have existed since before the establishment of the state, and some were created because their residents were expelled from the places where they had previously lived.

The government should not wait for the court to rule. It must renounce this act of theft and recognize the right of the Bedouin residents to remain in their village.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.557517

Sassy wrote:Now Didge, when you have stopped being rude to the person whose board this is, not very clever, shall we go back to this:


You haven't a bloody clue about it, its being done so that Israel can have their land and settle it illegally:


http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.557517

I rest my case Ben!

Last week, Israel was set to bring a major resolution to the dispute by enacting a law — years in the making and following months of Knesset debate — that would have legalized some Bedouin villages and given them infrastructure while forcing others to relocate to recognized towns, where they would be given small land plots and some cash grants.

But the plan was shelved late last week with no vote after opponents on the right and left expressed concerns. Now the government must go back to the drawing board.

Some opponents of the law and many Bedouin say the government wants to confiscate their land and profit from it, using it for industry or the military. The government says it wants to settle the claims so that it can use the lands to develop housing and infrastructure.

The law would have addressed the status of approximately 110,000 Bedouin who live in unrecognized villages in the northern Negev.

“It’s not about taking the Bedouin and making a transfer,” said Doron Almog, director of the office of Economic and Community Development of the Negev Bedouin in the Prime Minister’s Office. “It’s relocation from poverty to modernity. This will happen together with the Bedouin.”

In Lakia, one of seven Bedouin towns set up by the government about four decades ago as an experiment in transitioning the historically nomadic group to a more modern, urban lifestyle, one vexing issue is what the newly resettled nomadic Bedouin would do in their new urban digs.

“Bedouins used to plant olive trees and work the land, but that isn’t appropriate for the city,” said Nabhan El-Sana, project director for the Lakia Local Council.

Life in the Bedouin towns is not easy. According to Israel’s socioeconomic rating system, no Bedouin town scores better than a two out of 10. Residents tend to be poor, unemployment is high, infrastructure is in short supply and municipal budgets are small. Those who work usually do so outside of town in nearby Jewish villages or cities.

“The situation is very difficult,” said Talal Alkrinawi, mayor of Rahat, the largest Bedouin city in Israel. “The worst communities are the Bedouin towns. The reason is that the government didn’t invest resources to develop industry and economy in the Bedouin cities. They didn’t worry about quality of life.”

Alkrinawi says that 79 percent of Rahat residents live below the poverty line. In 2009, the unemployment rates for Rahat and Lakia were 12 percent and 19 percent, respectively, compared to 6 percent nationally. In Rahat, the average annual salary is less than $20,000, compared to more than $32,000 nationally.

A government-sponsored employment program in Rahat run out of a new community center for young people aims to put more of the city’s young adults to work. It offers employment counseling, professional certification programs and entrepreneurship coaching.

But Hasan Abu Zaid, the youth center’s director, says many challenges persist. One of the greatest is the relatively small proportion of Bedouin with college degrees. About 46 percent of Israelis aged 25 to 64 have college degrees, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, but only 6 percent of Rahat residents do.

“The picture is not rosy,” Abu Zaid told JTA. “We believe that employment must be accompanied by business development in the town. The Bedouin population always worked. It’s not that they don’t want to work.”

Government officials say that programs like the youth center plus a final settlement to land disputes will help growth in Bedouin employment rates and quality of life. The government is developing an industrial park outside Rahat, as well as a new neighborhood in the city that will offer subsidized housing to local Bedouin.

“We need to plan things and execute them slowly,” said Ami Tesler, head of the Community Relations Department for the Bedouin in the Prime Minister’s Office. “If you understand you have a certain number of families in a certain area, you have to plan schools and roads. It’s a process.”

Many Bedouin living in the unrecognized villages do not see relocation as the answer, however. Attia Alasam, head of the Regional Council of Unrecognized Villages, says he prefers that the government instead recognize the unofficial villages, settling land disputes and providing the villages with infrastructure and basic services.

“They need to solve this with dialogue,” he told JTA. “The state says I want to do good to you. When it destroys my village, what’s good about that?”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-hardscrabble-villages-bedouin-want-recognition-not-relocation/


This is not apartheid, it needs better planning of that I agree and it is needed as many live in utter poverty, which has to change to give people a better quality of life!

PhilDidge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..that is correct Ben, Irn had only said he had indeed made his views known,it's  all there to see.

PMSL Joy, a left wing man defending another left wing man already backed by a left wing man, you could make a 10000 episodes of series on that soap opera.

 :D 

..ah come on Didge , if Irn was LW he would surely be a Labour supporter and I don't recall Irn saying he was a Labour supporter,you  were caught with your breeks doon, just do the right thing by apologising to Irn and move on.

You know, with all that sand in your ears and eyes Didge, you should live either on a beach on in a desert.