[ganjavih]

Isn't this just semantic nitpicking? Because Palestinians aren't Israeli citizens, the term Israeli apartheid cannot be used?

There are some unique things about the Israeli-Palestinian situation which is perhaps why it gains so much attention. First, Israelis claim they are like us... like European or North Americans societies... a first world democratic state that respects human rights. If so, they should be held to a higher standard than Saddam's Iraq, or Gaddafi's Libya. Secondly, the Palestinians are the only stateless people in the world who are living under a military occupation (as far as I know). It's a sad state that this persists in the year 2009. Lastly, with the current climate and the post 9/11 tension between the East and West, it's become clear that the solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is a key component of improving global security... and many believe, getting tougher with Israel is required to achieve this.

 

[Hydrogen]

If so, they should be held to a higher standard than Saddam's Iraq, or Gaddafi's Libya.

I know you didn't intend it, but this statement sounds like one should simply accept the poor records of countries lead by dictators like these because they don't really bother to aspire to democratic values.

While Israel certainly has plenty of problems politically, it is the only democracy in the region. So when it comes to democracy, it is the standard in so many instances when it comes to that part of the world.

Maybe if some of the other more dubious governments in the region were to accept and promote comparative democratic values, practices and traditions, they could begin to embarrass Israel in that respect. But most can't of course. Even the Palestinian leadership has failed to generate a sustainable democratic tradition over the decades - which is unfortunate. Had this been done, it would have amplified the cause of statehood far more effectively.

 

[kEiThZ]

gangjavih,

I recognize the validity of your argument. That's why I suggested that the term has appropriate application. However, there are distinctions that necessarily have to be drawn between Israel's treatment of its own citizens and its treatment of Palestinians as the occupying power.

It's restrictions on Arab Israelis would certainly be considered as a double standard that could possibly fall under the rubric of the term 'apartheid'. However, as an occupying power (which has a legal definition in international law) it has specific responsibilities with regards to the treatment of Palestinians, which by and large it fulfills. It is not, however, responsible for their human rights. The Palestinian Authority is. And that's the reality on the ground. Yes, because the place is a war zone for all intents and purposes, some rights for Palestinians are curtailed (freedom of movement being the big one) but most of the other restrictions on human rights (freedom of speech, belief, etc.) arise from Palestinian policies. If Israel is to be responsible for Palestinian human rights, is the US responsible for all human rights issues in Iraq or Afghanistan (including the abuses of their increasingly independent governments)?

It's quite dishonest on the part of those who routinely use the world 'apartheid' to try and conflate the occupation of Palestine with the human rights issues of Israeli Arabs. The two are not related. Indeed, they can and should be resolved independently of each other. One would hope that the rights of Israeli Arabs are not tied to the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. And vice versa, a peace agreement and a two-state solution should not be dependent on solving the rights issues of a sub-set of Israeli citizens.

Coming back to the original topic, I fear that groups like this one have no nuance in their arguments. I highly doubt that they would show anywhere close to the understanding I have here about the term. For them Israel is an apartheid state because it's an occupier. Never mind that Israeli Arabs still have more freedoms and a higher standard of living than their counterparts anywhere else in the region and never mind that Israel is not solely responsible for all Palestinian human rights. Nope, it's all Israel's fault cause they are an 'Apartheid state'.

To me groups that use terms such as 'apartheid' are just like groups that now routinely use the term 'genocide' or 'holocaust'. These words are quickly losing their meaning because they are applied so loosely. Can anyone suggest with a straight face that Israel today is like South Africa of the apartheid era? Have they forgotten what apartheid was like? I have never heard of separate drinking taps for arabs in Tel Aviv.

 

[ganjavih]

I know you didn't intend it, but this statement sounds like one should simply accept the poor records of countries lead by dictators like these because they don't really bother to aspire to democratic values.

I suppose it could come across that way, but I'm not presenting a justification, just a possible explanation as to why Israel receives more attention. It's the same with the United States. Human rights abuses in the US pale compared to those seen in many other parts of the world... but we expect more from the 'beacon of light' south of the border.

 

[lordmandeep]

Well imo the problem here is we always blame the Palestinians ?? Its both sides.


What about those hard right wing idiots like Lieberman and all of those people living in those illegal settlements???

They are type waiting for any reason to get more land and power from the Palestinians...


That is what I do not like.

Palestinians being killed by the dozens and having Harper having a jolly time with Zionists saying we are with you always.

Imo I think Western Leaders should become neutral in this conflict.

 

[Tewder]

Maybe it is the lack of a secular tradition in much of the Arab world that goes a long way in explaining the human rights abuses and deplorable attitudes there towards women and gays etc? There are homophobic christian extremists in North America obviously, and orthodox Jews in Israel as well, but these fringe groups tend to be tempered and kept in check by larger liberal-democratic secular movements in those places. This simply doesn't appear to be the case in most Arab nations, or islamic ones in general for that matter, which is why we in the 'west' have to be careful in our too broad understanding of 'tolerance' which may tempt us to extend basic religious tolerance to a tacit condoning of the cultural practices of those that follow certain religions. In other words we should love the religion but not the follower (necessarily...)

I have a hard time supporting Palestine because of the whole gay issue. At the end of the day the grievance against Isreal is one of perspective and politics (which is sort of the history of the world), whereas the human rights issues of the Arab world are more about a fundamental belief system. At the end of the day I am never going to route for the team that would turn around and make my very being and lifestyle a crime. Sorry, it's as basic as that.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

...In other words we should love the religion but not the follower (necessarily...)

it's the religion/ideology that causes the follower to have the views you disagree with.

love individuals if they deserve to be loved, regardless of their religion. dislike the ideologies that are harmful.

 

[unimaginative2]

Maybe it is the lack of a secular tradition in much of the Arab world that goes a long way in explaining the human rights abuses and deplorable attitudes there towards women and gays etc?

The Arab world has an extensive secular tradition. The dominant intellectual and political movement for decades was Nasserism and pan-Arabism which was secularist and socialist. Its various failures have caused it to fall from favour in much of the Arab world, to the advantage of Islamism.

 

[toraerach]

It doesn't matter how tolerant Israel is of homosexuals. You can't support human rights for gays but not for Palestinians, it is just hypocritical.

I agree. Like it or not homophobia is a huge problem around the world. We - the Queer community in Canada - can and must stand in solidarity with our counterparts overseas, but we cannot justify one form of oppression with another. How are gay Palestinians ever supposed to acheive their rights while they're living in a war zone? They can't. In order to change Palestinian society to be more open to homosexuality (a very long, and probably very painful process), Palestinian society itself must be freed from this conflict. Afterall, is a gay Palestinian really better off now stuck in a small stretch of land guarded from all sides with few to no economic prospects?

For all this talk about supporting gay rights around the world, the actions of our government and other like-minded governments don't stand up to scrutiny. Governments around the world routinely kill, torture, and imprison Queer men and women for no reason other than the fact that they are Queer. You can bet if it was another group experiencing the same treatment there'd be cries of human rights violations, economic sanctions, etc. Instead, our governments just ignore it. We can't have it both ways: if we're not going to recognize Palestine because of their attitudes towards homosexuality, we should not recognize Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Guyana, Afghanistan, or India, etc.

 

[urbanboom]

it's the religion/ideology that causes the follower to have the views you disagree with.

Or it could be that these people naturally held such views and used religion to hide behind them.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Or it could be that these people naturally held such views and used religion to hide behind them.

in order to hide behind it, the ideology of the religion has to agree somewhere with the ideology of the person. you can't use a religion to support gay bashing if that religion says to love gays and being gay is okay. whether a person truly believes in such a religion or just uses it, such a religion is still guilty if it is in agreement with the negative view of the user.


also, the views of religion are an extension of views of men with magical authority & divine revelation added. for example, the views of the bible are the reflection of the mindset of the people of the geographic region in the specific time in history in which the bible was born out of.

when a religious text says "love thy neighbor", that came from the mind of a man. when a religious text says "stone disobedient children to death" that too came from the mind of a man. the minds of men are subject to all kinds of goodness and unfortunately psychological illnesses & pure madness. the authority granted to a religion by people for whatever reason perpetuate the views of that religion, regardless if they're good, bad, or both. even though 99% of christians would never stone their children to death for being disobedient and are totally in disagreeance with such a view, they still perpetuate a text which endorses such a view, amongst other negative views, whether they know it or not.

 

[toraerach]

At the Pride parade I was standing next to a 50-something year old straight white couple who looked pretty well off. The woman closed her eyes everytime she saw a nude person. She kept inadvertantly jabbing her purse into my more sensitive regions. When the Anti-Israeli Apartheid folks went walking by she said "F***ing Muslims just never can get enough, can they?" Besides her, the crowd around me at least didn't seem to care about their presence at the event - they certainly got a warmer reception than the puzzled looks and muttering that greeted the Raelian contingent.

 

[adma]

At the Pride parade I was standing next to a 50-something year old straight white couple who looked pretty well off. The woman closed her eyes everytime she saw a nude person.

Though in all honesty, the male nudist contingent is a perennial source of ipecac jokes, no matter what one's orientation is...

 

[SP!RE]

As a young, gay male, I too cringed when I saw a naked man at Pride in most cases. Generally, I just didn't want to see it. Lecture me if you want, but that's me.

As for this anti-Israeli thing, no, I don't think so. Pro-Palestinian? Yes. It can hold both of those spaces at once. Supportive of both. Or atleast that's how I approach it.

 

[Chuck]

Being both Jewish and gay, I'm a bit upset to see a protest like this in the pride parade. Although Israel may still not be as progressive as say Canada, it is none the less the only Middle Eastern country that not only supports the rights of gay people as a policy, but even allows a pride parade to occur on its own soil. I dare these protesters to step foot in Saudi Arabia, or even the Gaza Strip for that matter, while holding their partner's hand.

Although Israel could undoubtedly be handling the Palestinian situation better, it's beyond ridiculous to protest Israel in a gay pride parade. Definitely keep protesting, but do so at a different venue.