It is ‘superficial and ignorant’ to call Israel an apartheid state

Pogrund is a good egg, but he's wrong. Israel is an apartheid state, or at least becoming one.

Ah... becoming one. That's not quite the same as the intellectually lazy branding of Israel as an apartheid state right here and now and organising an international week (or more) of events to mark it.

whether we call it an apartheid state or not is surely a technicality, the Israeli occupation is wrong and discriminatory against the Palestinians, this cannot be disputed.

Any comparison will never 100% fit as the historical contexts are both unique, yet when your treating Palestinians by a completely different set of rules in terms of rights, freedom of movement restrictions, separate roads systems, then clearly you leave yourself open to claims of an 'apartheid' state - only when all citizens, Jews, Muslims and Christians are treated the same, then peace will be achieved

It is not a technicality. The word 'apartheid' is unique to the situation as it was in South Africa. It is an insult to apartheid and the struggle waged by black South Africans to use it in the Israeli/Palestinian context. The two situations cannot be compared. Why can't it be enough to call it occupation, oppression etc etc. Why must apartheid be used at all?

What is more, by using the term 'apartheid' incorrectly you are not at all helpful to those of us who are working to bring peace to the region, because you are empowering those who say everyone is against Israel no matter what the country does.

And when you say "only when all citizens, Jews, Muslims and Christians are treated the same, then peace will be achieved", I assume you mean throughout the middle east, and not just here.

Funny peculiar how people defame Israel as an apartheid state but stay shtum about Saudi Arabia etc.

OK, Marian: Israel is an apartheid state. It's Arab population gets less funding and fewer resources than the Jewish population. Arab schools and education systems face discrimination. They have no employment investment. Many Arab towns and villages are off the electricity and water grids. There are no Arabs allowed as high-ranking civil servants.
The clincher: Israel now controls more non-Jews than Jews (between the Sea and the River) and the majority of the non-Jews are disenfranchised. In fact, they are unenfranchised.
So, Israel has become an apartheid state, much as I love Benjamin Pogrund and Jerusalem's Yakar.

Moshe - you are saying here that members of Israel's Arab population are living in an apartheid state. This makes no sense to me at all here in Israel where this is my daily reality: working alongside Israeli Arab citizens, sitting next to them on buses and trains, shopping with them in all the local malls, sitting on the same park benches and using the same toilets. Oh yes, and voting in the same elections.

You don't need to ask any South African who is old enough to remember apartheid whether he or she did any of these activities with black South Africans because you know the answer.

Yes, Marian, that is exactly what I am saying. Yes you may sit next to Arabs on trains and buses and shop with them in malls, but you do not live with them in your cities, towns and villages because Arabs aren't really allowed to buy property in Jewish cities. Remember the Kaadans who wanted to live in Iron? Remember the judicial apartheid from earlier this month which prevents Arabs from Jaffo living in an area populated by nationalist religious? And Jaffo is supposedly an Arab town. How long before other segregation laws are introduced?
And now there is legislation about housing, loyalty and the marking of the Nakba.
Add to all what I wrote before about resources and funding and the fact that Israel now controls more non-Jews than Jews and the majority of them are unenfranchised and you have an apartheid situation. Even Ehud Barak acknowledges that.
On top of that, while you might vote in the same elections, their votes count for far less -- lo sofrim otam, as they say in Hebrew.

In an apartheid state you must have complete separation in every sphere of life. That does not happen in Israel. There are countless groups openly seeking to create and improve coexistence between Jew and Arab in Israel. The equivalent did not happen in South Africa.

And please do remind me: how much freedom do minorities (never mind Jews) have in Arab countries? As I have asked here before (and received no answer) does that bother anyone even slightly?

To answer your last question first, Marian, Israel claims it is a democracy, its neighbours do not make that claim. In a real democracy there is no discrimination based on ethnicity.
There is complete separation in Israel. How many Arabs own property in your building? In your street? what would happen if they tried to buy property near you? How many Arabs go to your children's schools? Sports clubs? Play groups? Youth groups?
And in apartheid South Africa there were also countless groups seeking to improve coexistence. Eventually, they won.

@ Chestnuthan
on your point 2. Israel already pulled out of Gaza in 2005.

Israel may have pulled out of Gaza, but it still controls it and the 1.5 million people therein.

@Marian AND moshetzarfati2

Marian - I don't think it's either 'superficial or ignorant', it's just an exaggeration. However, here are obviously some ways in which it closely resembles apartheid South Africa - specifically the policy of Bantustans (one that was never carried out). That's why people compare the two. Gaza and the West Bank are Bantustans, and you can't deny it.

moshetzarfati2 - I don't think you should over-do the level of discrimination against Arab-Israelis. I doubt it is much worse than the way minority ethnic groups have been treated in most other states. Just look at the way black people have been treated in Britain over the last 50 years.

The interesting question is which route do they take now?

1. One State + Bantustans. Continue the settlement of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza - then Israel will increasingly resemble South Africa if they had got away with the Bantustans. There is no future in this.

2. Two states. Pull out of the West Bank and Gaza and create a Palestinian state. But would Hamas ever accept this compromise? TALK TO THEM

3. One State. Give give citizenship to all those in the West Bank and Gaza and create a secular, multicultural state. Coming from a basically secular, multicultural state I think this is the best 'idealistic' option. However, this would obviously undermine Zionism entirely so would never be acceptable to the Israeli-Jewish population. Also such a state would be as riven by identity politics as Lebanon. So maybe not such a good idea

Who is going to be capable of achieving a compromise? Maybe we should look to Northern Ireland - it took getting the terrorist Gerry Adams and the bigot/terrorist Ian Paisley to sit at a table and talk. So we need the terrorist Ismail Haniya and the bigot Avigdor Lieberman to sit at a table and talk. Hopefully this will happen before Israel manages to start a war with Iran.

Or before Iran manages to start a war with Israel.

@ Michelle21

Yes, you are right in the sense that they removed the settlements. However, in reality, Gaza is still effectively occupied. It was bombed to oblivion and is now blockaded - fisherman cannot fish, reconstruction supplies cannot get through, medical supplies are in short supply...

I think if you check, Yvetta, Iran has been on the receiving end of those starting wars. Still, there's always a first time.

@Yvetta

Israel has a very strong track record of starting wars with neighbouring countries. Iran does not, despite the bellicose rhetoric from the odious Ahmajinedad.

If Iran manages to develop nuclear weapons, Israel will most likely bomb the nuclear facilities. It will be Israel who starts the war.

Israel's wars have always been defensive wars. Iran is a real and present threat.

Yeah, Yvetta, like Lebanon 1982 and 2005, "Cast Lead" 2008/9, and going back a bit Sinai 1956. There's no proof, by the way, that Israel would have been attacked in 1967 (and that "victory" led to 1973).

In 1967 the Arab armies were mobilising - Israel had the good sense to make a pre-emptive strike.

Nope, they were not. Nasser ordered the UN out of Sinai and blocked the Tiran straights, but he did not mobilise. Nor did Jordan or Syria. Israel mobilised several times in May 67, causing a lot of economic damage, and in the end the army chiefs and Dayan persuaded a reluctant Levi Eshkol to attack. Eshkol always maintained that occupying the West Bank was the worst thing to happen to Israel.

Oh well. It's all history now.

What I find so stupid is that everyone knows the solution
- end the blockade
- talk to Hamas
- pull the settlers out of the West Bank

Like I said, we're just waiting for the bigot to talk to the terrorist - maybe we should give them another 50 years...