Fra HughesMany observers and organizations make parallels between the apartheid segregated Society of South Africa, the Jim Crow racial segregation laws of North America, and "Israel".

First Published In
Al Mayadeen English.

Apartheid (/əˈpɑːrt(h)aɪt/, especially South African English: /əˈpɑːrt(h)eɪt/, Afrikaans: [aˈpartɦɛit]; transl. "separateness", lit. "aparthood") was a system of institutionalized racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South-West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 until the early 1990s.


20 years on from the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, in conjunction with the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, held in Durban South Africa, where are we now?

The use of the law, in this case, an unjust and immoral law in South Africa by the minority white Dutch Afrikaans and the minority white British colonial invaders, was designed to keep white Europeans, in the ascendancy in South Africa.

Thirteen percent of the population who were white, ruled sixty-eight percent of the population who were black with an Asian community representing the remaining nineteen percent.

First, they ruled through a brutal military occupation, using the gun.

Then they ruled through a brutal racist government using repression and separation laws.

It was the use of apartheid laws that legalized and enforced a system of 'separateness'. A system of dual apartness which left the races unable to socialize, congregate or work together as brothers and sisters, equal and indivisible under the constitution.

In South Africa, they legalized colonial white supremacism through parliamentary statute, police enforcement, and judicial sentencing.

The first apartheid law passed in 1949 was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. This was followed by the Immorality Act of 1950 which made it illegal for many South Africans to marry or have sexual relations across racial lines.

The Pass laws were designed to force black people to live in designated areas, corralled as it were, like animals in a pen, thereby making them available as cheap labor for white farmers.

It was the coming to power of the African National Party in 1948 who created the apartheid laws and system of governing South African society, that reinforced the racial discrimination already self-evident in the country. A series of Land Acts gave more than 80% of the land to whites and banned Black crop sharers from working the land.

A series of discriminatory, racially biased laws, saw the permanent separation of the races, alongside a parallel system of separate transport systems, public lavatories, and housing districts.

In effect, the National Party which won the 1948 parliamentary elections on the slogan of Apartheid meaning 'separateness' created a privileged white minority class that used the indigenous black South Africans as a labor pool to work on the farms, clean their homes, as a subjugated underclass, kept in perpetual poverty, in appalling substandard housing units in shantytowns with poor education, poor health, and poor social provision.

Like all colonialists, they strove to keep the people apart by fomenting sectarian tensions between the regional ethnic groups in order to prevent a unified opposition to their racist endeavor. They encouraged black-on-black violence in the townships and in the countryside.

A land of milk and honey for the white supremacist colonial invaders beside a land of despair, oppression, and governmental indifference for the natives.

Apartheid lasted for 50 years in South Africa and only officially ended when the ANC, African National Conference which had historically opposed the apartheid system and fought a legitimate war against the unjust white only parliamentary system, finally came to power in 1993, when the majority of citizens were given the right to vote and they elected Nelson Mandela as the first Black President of the Republic of South Africa,

It can be claimed that not much has changed for the indigenous peoples of South Africa. While it is true they have a majority black representative government, the whites still own the land. White farmers still get rich while employing cheap black labor.

The captains of industry are still white although a new elite cadre of black politicians and civil servants may now live in gated (separate) communities, much of the pain of being poor, disenfranchised, and black has changed very little for so many.

A new black capitalist class also rides high above the black dispossessed workers and those who go to bed hungry.

Many observers and organizations make parallels between the apartheid segregated Society of South Africa, the Jim Crow racial segregation laws of North America, and "Israel". The use of Israeli-only roads and Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank are prime examples of Israeli separation laws.

The discrimination against black African Americans is again reflective of the white European racism that underpins white American society. It is mirrored in the majority of the white legislator, judiciary, police, and army aficionados in power in American civil society and in the corporate, business, and banking sectors.

White Americans control the levers of power and influence, in the media as well as on Capitol Hill.

The continued destruction of black Afro-American society through the widespread use of drugs, criminal gangs, poverty, underinvestment, governmental neglect, police brutality, judicial repression, are continued proof if it were needed, that a white European colonial mindset underpins discrimination and racial prejudice in societies where white Europeans want to maintain an internal hegemonic position of superiority which is then reflected in their foreign policies of exploitation and subjugation, in order to maintain white economic privilege in the countries of the EU, North America, Canada, and Australia.

All the countries I have mentioned above are guilty of genocide, racial intolerance, oppression, military adventurism, and ethnic cleansing.

Is "Israel" any different?

"Israel" is a white European colonial settler state.

It has followed all the steps taken by previous white European settler-colonial states such as South Africa, North America, Canada, and Australia,

It has colonized, subjugated, ethnically cleansed, and marginalized the indigenous populations of the country they have militarily conquered and supplanted.

"Israel" has its Nations state Law which many international observers see as a template for a Jewish only Israeli state that separates non-Jews and others from playing an active role in the state.

"Israel" now has usurped 85% of historic Palestine.

To me, apartheid is an abhorrent manifestation of a supremacist ideology that seeks to separate one from the other, to create disharmony, bitterness, hatred, and a divided dysfunctional broken society based on racial or religious purity.

"Israel" fulfills all these roles but it does so much more.

An apartheid state might use the law to discriminate. It may use the law to repress and isolate those it seeks to subdue but it doesn't bomb kindergartens, schools, hospitals, and bakeries, does it?

It may have separate roads and separate housing areas but it doesn't shoot countless children in the legs for throwing stones or bringing water to the kids resisting an illegal occupation, creating crippled boys, does it?

It does not shoot paramedics and leave the wounded to bleed out on the street to die, does it?

It does not murder physicists in another jurisdiction, indiscriminately bomb bridges and civil infrastructure in neighboring countries, does it?

It does not count the calorific intake of those it is legally responsible for, to break their will to resist, to withhold food, medicine, vaccines, fuel in order to impoverish and emasculate an entire population of 1.8 million people, does it?

It does not bomb neighboring countries that are not at war with it, deny building permits to the indigenous population while simultaneously dismantling their homes in a land you are illegally occupying, and forcing homes owners to destroy their properties. To detain citizens under Administrative detention, internment without trial. To murder, maim, imprison, torture, and kill at will with impunity. Is this Apartheid? I think not. Yet these are the everyday actions of a rogue unaccountable state immune to international law and international sanctions, actively supported protected, and facilitated by the other white European ethnic colonies that Israel aspires to be.

"Israel" is Beyond Apartheid.

We must find a new way to describe "Israel" based on its everyday practices of Ethnic cleansing, murder, colonization, dispossession, and expansion.

We must call "Israel", not an Apartheid State which it is, but an Ethno cleansing pariah genocidal rogue state, because that it was, it does? That is what it is. That is what we must call it.

𒍨The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al Mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Fra Hughes is a columnist with Al Mayadeen. 

"Israel" - Beyond Apartheid

Fra HughesMany observers and organizations make parallels between the apartheid segregated Society of South Africa, the Jim Crow racial segregation laws of North America, and "Israel".

First Published In
Al Mayadeen English.

Apartheid (/əˈpɑːrt(h)aɪt/, especially South African English: /əˈpɑːrt(h)eɪt/, Afrikaans: [aˈpartɦɛit]; transl. "separateness", lit. "aparthood") was a system of institutionalized racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South-West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 until the early 1990s.


20 years on from the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, in conjunction with the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, held in Durban South Africa, where are we now?

The use of the law, in this case, an unjust and immoral law in South Africa by the minority white Dutch Afrikaans and the minority white British colonial invaders, was designed to keep white Europeans, in the ascendancy in South Africa.

Thirteen percent of the population who were white, ruled sixty-eight percent of the population who were black with an Asian community representing the remaining nineteen percent.

First, they ruled through a brutal military occupation, using the gun.

Then they ruled through a brutal racist government using repression and separation laws.

It was the use of apartheid laws that legalized and enforced a system of 'separateness'. A system of dual apartness which left the races unable to socialize, congregate or work together as brothers and sisters, equal and indivisible under the constitution.

In South Africa, they legalized colonial white supremacism through parliamentary statute, police enforcement, and judicial sentencing.

The first apartheid law passed in 1949 was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. This was followed by the Immorality Act of 1950 which made it illegal for many South Africans to marry or have sexual relations across racial lines.

The Pass laws were designed to force black people to live in designated areas, corralled as it were, like animals in a pen, thereby making them available as cheap labor for white farmers.

It was the coming to power of the African National Party in 1948 who created the apartheid laws and system of governing South African society, that reinforced the racial discrimination already self-evident in the country. A series of Land Acts gave more than 80% of the land to whites and banned Black crop sharers from working the land.

A series of discriminatory, racially biased laws, saw the permanent separation of the races, alongside a parallel system of separate transport systems, public lavatories, and housing districts.

In effect, the National Party which won the 1948 parliamentary elections on the slogan of Apartheid meaning 'separateness' created a privileged white minority class that used the indigenous black South Africans as a labor pool to work on the farms, clean their homes, as a subjugated underclass, kept in perpetual poverty, in appalling substandard housing units in shantytowns with poor education, poor health, and poor social provision.

Like all colonialists, they strove to keep the people apart by fomenting sectarian tensions between the regional ethnic groups in order to prevent a unified opposition to their racist endeavor. They encouraged black-on-black violence in the townships and in the countryside.

A land of milk and honey for the white supremacist colonial invaders beside a land of despair, oppression, and governmental indifference for the natives.

Apartheid lasted for 50 years in South Africa and only officially ended when the ANC, African National Conference which had historically opposed the apartheid system and fought a legitimate war against the unjust white only parliamentary system, finally came to power in 1993, when the majority of citizens were given the right to vote and they elected Nelson Mandela as the first Black President of the Republic of South Africa,

It can be claimed that not much has changed for the indigenous peoples of South Africa. While it is true they have a majority black representative government, the whites still own the land. White farmers still get rich while employing cheap black labor.

The captains of industry are still white although a new elite cadre of black politicians and civil servants may now live in gated (separate) communities, much of the pain of being poor, disenfranchised, and black has changed very little for so many.

A new black capitalist class also rides high above the black dispossessed workers and those who go to bed hungry.

Many observers and organizations make parallels between the apartheid segregated Society of South Africa, the Jim Crow racial segregation laws of North America, and "Israel". The use of Israeli-only roads and Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank are prime examples of Israeli separation laws.

The discrimination against black African Americans is again reflective of the white European racism that underpins white American society. It is mirrored in the majority of the white legislator, judiciary, police, and army aficionados in power in American civil society and in the corporate, business, and banking sectors.

White Americans control the levers of power and influence, in the media as well as on Capitol Hill.

The continued destruction of black Afro-American society through the widespread use of drugs, criminal gangs, poverty, underinvestment, governmental neglect, police brutality, judicial repression, are continued proof if it were needed, that a white European colonial mindset underpins discrimination and racial prejudice in societies where white Europeans want to maintain an internal hegemonic position of superiority which is then reflected in their foreign policies of exploitation and subjugation, in order to maintain white economic privilege in the countries of the EU, North America, Canada, and Australia.

All the countries I have mentioned above are guilty of genocide, racial intolerance, oppression, military adventurism, and ethnic cleansing.

Is "Israel" any different?

"Israel" is a white European colonial settler state.

It has followed all the steps taken by previous white European settler-colonial states such as South Africa, North America, Canada, and Australia,

It has colonized, subjugated, ethnically cleansed, and marginalized the indigenous populations of the country they have militarily conquered and supplanted.

"Israel" has its Nations state Law which many international observers see as a template for a Jewish only Israeli state that separates non-Jews and others from playing an active role in the state.

"Israel" now has usurped 85% of historic Palestine.

To me, apartheid is an abhorrent manifestation of a supremacist ideology that seeks to separate one from the other, to create disharmony, bitterness, hatred, and a divided dysfunctional broken society based on racial or religious purity.

"Israel" fulfills all these roles but it does so much more.

An apartheid state might use the law to discriminate. It may use the law to repress and isolate those it seeks to subdue but it doesn't bomb kindergartens, schools, hospitals, and bakeries, does it?

It may have separate roads and separate housing areas but it doesn't shoot countless children in the legs for throwing stones or bringing water to the kids resisting an illegal occupation, creating crippled boys, does it?

It does not shoot paramedics and leave the wounded to bleed out on the street to die, does it?

It does not murder physicists in another jurisdiction, indiscriminately bomb bridges and civil infrastructure in neighboring countries, does it?

It does not count the calorific intake of those it is legally responsible for, to break their will to resist, to withhold food, medicine, vaccines, fuel in order to impoverish and emasculate an entire population of 1.8 million people, does it?

It does not bomb neighboring countries that are not at war with it, deny building permits to the indigenous population while simultaneously dismantling their homes in a land you are illegally occupying, and forcing homes owners to destroy their properties. To detain citizens under Administrative detention, internment without trial. To murder, maim, imprison, torture, and kill at will with impunity. Is this Apartheid? I think not. Yet these are the everyday actions of a rogue unaccountable state immune to international law and international sanctions, actively supported protected, and facilitated by the other white European ethnic colonies that Israel aspires to be.

"Israel" is Beyond Apartheid.

We must find a new way to describe "Israel" based on its everyday practices of Ethnic cleansing, murder, colonization, dispossession, and expansion.

We must call "Israel", not an Apartheid State which it is, but an Ethno cleansing pariah genocidal rogue state, because that it was, it does? That is what it is. That is what we must call it.

𒍨The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al Mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Fra Hughes is a columnist with Al Mayadeen. 

51 comments:

  1. "An Ethno cleansing pariah genocidal rogue state"

    Sounds like a good description of Syria under Hafaz and then Bashar Assad. After all, all power is concentrated in the hands of the Alawite Shia Muslim sect which comprises 15% of Syria's population and which massacres through chemical weapons, barrel bombs, starvation and ethnic cleansing operations the Sunni Muslim majority (with the help of Fra's other friends Russia, Iran and Hezbollah).

    Being the stalwart stooge of Assad's psychopathic war criminal regime, I wonder does Fra take himself seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "An Ethno cleansing pariah genocidal rogue state" - sounds like a good description of both Syria and Israel. But I do agree Fra's argument would reach a much wider audience were it to tackle war crime regimes across the range

      Delete
    2. Barry

      Fra Hughes has no problem with genocide or crimes against humanity, he just uses the term to attack those he does not like. Some time ago he proudly posted a picture on TPQ of himself shaking hands with Assad in war torn Syria. In Fra's warped mind, it is only genocide if the Isrealis are involved, he has no inhibition with supporting others who commit genocide and other atrocities.

      Delete
    3. Christy - one immediate effect of shaking hands with Assad is that the fingers of the same hand can no longer point at Netanyahu. Genocide is either opposed or it is not. And it should never be used tactically or strategically on some spurious greater good ground.
      Assad and Netanyahu should be cellmates in the Hague.

      Delete
    4. Fra may wish to put Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan in inverted commas as well. These states were all artificially created regardless of the their ethnic/tribal make up (e.g. Kurds were forcibly incorporated into Iraq) as a result of the Sykes-Picot carve up of the Middle east by Britain and France in the aftermath of World War I.

      Delete
  2. AM

    My thoughts exactly. To me, Fra Hughes comes across as someone who has no problem with genocide per-say, his objection is only based upon who has a right to use it as a tactic of war. It's a judgment call that Fra Hughes is not entitled to make. International law is clear that genocide and crimes against humanity are prohibited absolutely, there are no exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it leads to the logic that if it is only a crime against us, then it is not a crime at all. I enjoy reading Fra's take on foreign matters but if you want to photograph a rainbow, don't use a black and white camera.

      Delete
  3. I didn't see any mention of Syria in the article. Is it not better to analyse opinion pieces or articles on the information at hand instead of engaging in whataboutery. I don't know anything about the author, if he has apologised for Assad war crimes, that's outrageous but does it make the comparisons made any less valid. The truth is the truth, no?
    It's an evolutionary imperative to favour ones own, while we can be against genocide in principal, we really don't care that much, if we did we would be in Syria or Palestine or number of places fighting tyrants. That's not to say criticism isn't justified or even useful, it's just when we ignore or belittle facts because someone has a prejudice it seems ridiculous, particularly when most peoples solution to war crimes is to get a stronger nation to inflict war crimes of their own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. It does not make the comparisons any less true. It just makes them harder to convey as true.
      Favouring one's own is not a licence to brutalise those who are not one's own. If we value universalism above particularism, we will expect all people to have the same rights. Rights are rights even when asserted by 'them' against 'us'.
      I think most people's solution to war crimes is to abolish them, not have them inflicted by a higher power.

      Delete
    2. David

      What nonsense are you on about? One can either stomach genocide and war crimes or one is repulsed by such atrocities. It is irrelevant who commits them. Fra Hughes is an uncritical supporter of the Assad regime and that fact is 'information at hand'. Contrary to your assertion, no it is not right or reasonable to support or tolerate your own side committing such crimes.

      And stopping war criminals does not necessatate an opposing side committing war crimes in return.

      Delete
  4. Looking forward to hearing Ben Shapiro debate Israeli legitimacy on Rogan soon. I don't particularly care one way or the other, though I did watch a clip on YouTube were the Arab countries were all condemning Israel for the Apartheid mentioned above.

    Some Israeli representative immediately responded by asking all the Arab nations where are your Jews? He did/does have a point in that the Jewish populations of those countries dramatically dropped particularly in the time of Wahabbi Sunni controlled countries like Saudi. Israel may be bastards but it's not the only one in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve R

      700,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries in the aftermath of the 1948 war. Jews had dhimmi (i.e. second class citizenship based on sufferance) status in Arab/Muslim countries. Arab states gave refuge to Nazi war criminals such as Alois Brunner in Syria and Holocaust denial and Elders of Zion tracts flow freely throughout the Middle East.

      Delete
    2. Steve - the history of Arab regimes leaves a lot to be desired. Autocratic and kleptocratic, they have a very limited view on human rights and democracy. They have regularly engaged in the same Nazi-like practices as Israel. The West pretends that Israel is a democracy in a sea of dark age obscurantism rather than a colonial outpost in the Middle East whereby white Europeans stole the land of people of olive complexion evicted them ands set up what has evolved into an apartheid state.
      Jews have every reason to feel unsafe in the anti Semitic world they experience. I can understand the sense of urgency for many of them to create a safe home but why didn't they take Bavaria?
      If Israel emerged from the gas chambers it was the spirit of the camp Kapos that built it. You can advocate genocide in Israel and still serve in government.

      Delete
    3. AM,

      I think we talked about this years ago on the blog but I agree, a safe haven should have been carved out of Germany if they wanted their own State. Even the last Brit leader in the Palestine Protectorate said it was madness to allow the influx from Europe free rein to establish their own fiefdom at the expense of the indigenous. Hell, even Heydrich wanted to deport them to Sri Lanka rather than Palestine and he was the absolute worst of the Nazis.

      Barry ,

      Yes I know. Another stupid book that convinces the easily persuaded. But none of it excuses Israel for what they continue to do. But the facts that you stated give Tel Aviv the fodder to the lie that they have been persecuted against but they have never persecuted others.

      Delete
  5. Should it make it harder to convey as true? It's that the fault of the prejudice of the one propagating or the hypocrisy of the listener?
    I don't believe it should be a licence to brutal use although it gives it a convenient base to draw support from. How can you have universal rights without the genocide of certain cultures? In the west we have transnational bodies set up to enforce such laws and still they happen on a daily basis, often with the support of said organisations.
    I'm not arguing against the premise more the desire to fulfill obligations. If people truly wanted such things they would them, but they don't, the want a better life for their kids, above all else, at the expense of other kids, that's just how we are built.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does make it harder to convey. Truth exists but context is often a lens thru which it is viewed. And if the propagator is seen to stand in a certain place by the listener then what is propagated can all too easily seem like propaganda.

      Delete
    2. David
      David
      " How can you have universal rights without the genocide of certain cultures? In the west we have transnational bodies set up to enforce such laws and still they happen on a daily basis, often with the support of said organisations."

      Can you please explain what you mean by this.

      Delete
    3. David,

      Are you for real? "How can you have universal rights without the genocide of certain cultures?" Where are you getting this nonsense?

      Delete
  6. Zionism and the impetus to set up a Jewish homeland in Palestine where Jews have a historic connection to it emerged from the centuries of pogroms and persecution in Europe culminating in the Shoah/Holocaust. Far from being "white European colonists"; Jews were the "other" to European imperialist powers and the Holocaust was partly their colonialism brought back to Europe.

    Zionists through the Jewish National Fund purchased land from Arabs prior to the creation of Israel; the land was not stolen unlike the settlements that have been built on the West Bank.

    Within the boundaries of the Green Line; Israel is a parliamentary democracy with full voting rights for its citizens with no Jim Crow laws, pass laws, separate facilities for different races, bans on mixed marriages etc. contrary to what the likes of Fra Hughes might state. Somehow I cannot imagine an Assad, a Sisi or a Saudi Crow Prince being tried in a court of independent law in their countries like Netananyu is currently undergoing.

    Outside the Green Line is an illegal occupation where the danger of the creation of Bantustans is a possibility. But it is not genocide. If Israel wanted to genocide the Palestinians; it has the power and resources to do so but has not done it unlike the Myanmar regime's genocide of the Rohingya; Saddam Hussein's Anfal of the Kurds or the genocide of the black Darfuris by the Bashir regime in Sudan and all of which was perpetrated with total impunity.

    It is regimes like Hamas that embody the spirit of the Camp kapos with its specific genocidal intention towards Jews in its founding Charter.

    It would of course be much preferable if Jews felt fully integrated and safe in the nations in which they live in. Sadly, history keeps reinventing the spectre of the suitcase in the cubby room for Jews (the hostile environment did much the same for British Caribbeans) and it is for that reason that Jews see Israel as the ultimate bolthole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry - Alan Dershowitz could have wrote that. Jews have a biblical connection to it more than a historical one. They had no right to to it. By the 40s only about 5-7% of the land had been purchased. The vast bulk of it was stolen when the Kapo state was set up in 48. Since then the policy of Lebensraum has eaten up huge chunks of other people's land.
      The Holocaust terrible as it was, has no place claiming for itself the worst act of WW2. That belonged to the War of Extermination/Annihilation in the East. Yet, we could hardly justify the Soviet post war land grab on the basis that its people were subject to the War's greatest atrocity.

      As a Jewish academic wrote in the Guardian: Israel’s only defence against the accusation of apartheid is that its hold over the West Bank is a temporary occupation. If this is not its case, it doesn’t have a case. Even if it were its case, after some 53 years it would be running perilously thin.’
      Even if your green line argument is accepted for the sake of discussion, the Kapo state remains an apartheid one.
      Genocide is not restricted to the gas chambers. Most of us know instinctively that not gassing the Palestinians is a strategic decision not a moral one.
      There is nothing in Hamas policy or practice that come remotely close to the barbarism of the Kapo state. Hamas war crimes pale in significance to those of the Kapos.
      There is no dispute that Jews do not feel safe in many places where they live. The crimes against humanity regularly inflicted by the Israeli government does nothing to lessen that fear. But that does not give licence to behave in the appallingly brutal manner that the Israeli state does.
      The sooner it ceases to exist the better with a one state that is democratic and secular in its place.

      Delete
  7. Christy,
    Why respond to nonsense?
    Barry,
    Eg, Religious fundamentalists whether they be Islamic militants or Christians denying rights to gays or Jews saying God gave them a strip of land or Indians enforcing the caste system. If these people resisted physically how would you enforce universal rights without essentially wiping them out, at least as a resistance. Basically there's that many cultures and beliefs, universal rights will be what they have always been, the laws of the empire.
    Anthony,
    Who's fault would that be though? Is it not incumbent on a critically thinking adult to concentrate on the validity of information and ignore the source?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part of critical thinking is to assess the validity of information which cannot exist in a separate sphere from the source. Part of how we assess validity in a world of information glut is to consider how it arrived in front of us. In cop land they call it motive. All judges and juries want to see it.
      But it is not really about the validity of information here, rather about the circumstances that limit its communication. I think Fra is right about Israel but that critique carries significantly less moral potency because of the stance he takes on other issues. His critics here are not accusing him of being wrong on Israel but do focus on the benefit of such criticism when it lacks consistency across the board. I detect in Christy an annoyance that a great injustice is often let off the hook because those lobbying against it are found to be in favour of the injustice elsewhere.

      Delete
    2. Cops are trying to prove a crime was committed, motive takes on another significance. Mostly we're discussing politics were everyone is agenda driven. My musings weren't about Fra per se rather the almost immediate character questioning that is the automatic response to any situation. Thinking back it was always like this, people were always getting rubbished as a stick, irsp or hood or whatever the fuck. Social media seems to have amplified it though. Everyone sees themselves as moral crusaders against whatever the threat is that day, very rarely is it based in reality. Ah well, nothing more to add. Your responses are appreciated. It helps when you are doing mental gymnastics to get someone else's thoughts.

      Delete
    3. Yes, cops are trying to prove a physical crime was committed and the critics are trying to prove that a moral crime was committed - motive is essential to both.

      Imagine this: Mr X stands up and proclaims Prince Andrew a paedophile. Elsewhere, he has been singing the praises of Jimmy Saville for his role in defending children's rights. What do you think the response is going to be? Would the character questioning really come as a surprise to you? What would be the graver of the transgressions - the defence of Saville or the character questioning.
      The instances you cite are examples of people having their motives impugned for the purposes of undermining their observation. This has not happened here. Fra's contentions against Israel are not being challenged - unless Barry is doing so. But there are more discussing the matter than Barry.


      Delete
    4. It doesn't come as a surprise, rather I think it is a deliberate deflection, not always but a lot of time. I'm not accusing anyone of undermining, it caught my attention that the topic went from Israel to Syria in one comment. It struck me as a familiar tactic that seems widespread, so I commented. I have no real interest in peoples motives on here, I mean that, not to be disrespectful, but, I'm not getting emotionally involved in an online discussion, if I feel I could get educated or enlightened in some way, brilliant. If the topic is interesting brilliant otherwise I just spectate.

      Delete
    5. On occasion the homing in on motive is a deflection. But to think motive will be ruled out from consideration of an opinion is an idea unlikely to progress very far.
      Where it is used to deflect is in a situation where a motive is attributed to what is said for the purpose of claiming what is said is wrong. Mr X is only saying this because of Factor Y
      It is not being said by either myself or Christy that Fra is wrong. What is being said is that the potency of his correct interpretation is limited because his criticism is focused not on what is done but on who it is done by.
      Now Fra of course is free to assume a position that holds that Assad or others are not in fact guilty of the atrocities they have been accused of and that he is not therefore compelled to evaluate the two situations in the same light. But that is a somewhat different argument.

      Delete
    6. I think it's wrong that the information loses potency through the beliefs of the source. The current Kyle Rittenhouse trial just now is evidence of this. I only read in depth about this over the last few days until then I ignorantly thought it was a white supremacist. Partly through support following turns out he is well within Wisconsin's self defense laws. We can't go on like this and pretend we are rational human beings regardless of how eloquently we make our assessments

      Delete
    7. If its purpose is to persuade then it will lose potency. If it is to write it into the record it might not. I don't see the Rittenhouse trial of any serious significance to the current discussion.
      We are rational human beings with a large dose of irrationality factored in. Our rationality is what distinguishes us from other animals.

      Delete
    8. I think it is all relevant. We started off talking about a critique of Israel and ended up discussing the Author's blind eye to certain genocide. I think the Rittenhouse trial has a certain association. Instead of focusing on whether he broke the law, the prosecution and media centred on his supposed character and affiliations, there is a similar thing going on with the English cricketer who said he was racially abused, people are now saying he's an anti-Semite, he's a sexcase and I can't help thinking, maybe he is, deal with that separately, was he racially abused or not.
      What distinguishes us from the animals is consciousness, self consciousness and our yearning to understand the universe and our place in it. What role rationality plays in that I'm not sure because I don't truly understand rationality. I don't know if it is a purely intellectual process of our neurological function or a an animalistic evolutionary survivalist product refined over the years. It is beyond my remit.

      Delete
    9. No matter how I flip it about Rittenhouse seems to be wholly marginal to this discussion. What is under focus is whether or not an allegedly wholly inconsistent position can be flagged up as such.
      Nor do I think consciousness is what distinguishes us from other animals. Our ability to reason does that. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness which was supported by scientific luminaries like Stephen Hawking, endorsed the view emphasized that scientific evidence showed clearly that non-human animals have “conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors.”
      While I love reading and listening to scientists, I profess no grasp of it. But it seems plausible to me.
      Human animals differ from other animals with consciousness in our ability to recursively reflect.
      You have had better outings than this one and you will have better again. Best not to dig in. Just let it float on by.

      Delete
    10. I let most things float by nowadays, particularly faceless discussions. I disagree though, I wasn't talking about inconsistent behavior being flagged up rather a societal norm of deflecting or rubbishing of a statement based on the character of the orator. That to me is a problem. It's becoming harder to draw the line between flagging inconsistency and aversion of the truth.

      Delete
    11. But that is not really what had happened. The statement was not rubbished. The perceived inconsistency of the author of the statement was flagged up. That inconsistency was not used to argue a position that because the author was inconsistent that the statement on Israel also had to be wrong.

      Delete
  8. David

    For the benefit of others I drew some attention to your ludicrous assertions... such as universal human rights require some class of people suffering genocide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't assert anything. I ponder. What rights have ever been achieved without suffering? I'm still none the wiser how you enforce human rights on a global standpoint when so many cultures have so many ideas on what constitutes human rights. People can rest easier known you will fearlessly highlight what you perceive as nonsense. There are obviously too stupid to do so themselves.

      Delete
  9. David

    You assert/ponder that human rights are dependant upon acts of genocide. Whichever way you frame it, acts of genocide are not a necessary requirement for human rights. Thus your defence of Fra Hughes support or tolerance of genocide or crimes against humanity as acceptable, and no one should bring it up because he has not specifically repeated his support here. You appear to be trying to bolster FH hypocracy in so far as only Israel should be condemned here and not others with whom we support.

    There is universal consensus that genocide is a prohibited war tactic. The problem of who enforces that is more the problem rather than there are different views about the use of genocide.

    I see your input as either ill-informed or intentionally trying to derail the topic with wider and all inclusive references to human rights generally and cultural differences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wondered how they would be enforced, they struggle to define it never mind enforce it.
      I have zero interest in defending Fra Hughes, he means nothing to me, never clapped eyes on the man.
      Your assessment of my input is beyond immaterial to me, I find your responses confrontational rather than thought provoking. I mean confrontational in a sardonic sense anyone who thinks they can be confrontational behind the comfort of a screen is to borrow a Scottish put down, a rocket.

      Delete
  10. David

    FYI, genocide is defined under article 6 of the Rome Statute, which has been signed and ratified by 123 countries. Hence, the difficulty is in prosecuting it and, not as you incorrectly say, in defining it. You might call these facts rocket fuel to you nonsense.

    No question Isreal is basically everything it is alleged to be. Fra Hughes only objects to atrocities when he does not like the perpetrators. On that basis his agenda is for political milage and not to express any revulsion or condemnation with the use of genocide.

    I have found your approach to be dismissive and hostile as you have irrationally attempted to argue, seemingly in FH defence, that genocide is a necessary evil that coexists alongside human rights.

    At no time have you come across as someone in pursuit of enlightenment. Like you, I have never set eyes on Fra Hughes either, so that claim is nothing more than a redherring to your defence of his hypocracy and the right for some, but not others, use of genocide as a war tactic.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's been signed, ratified and still not enforced, otherwise Assad and Israeli government would be charged by it. The reason they are not is the move the goalposts therefore can't define it.
      I don't give a fuck about Fra Hughes let alone defend him. The necessary evil comment is idiotic, I asked how you enforce these rights in a universal fashion and got no answer just roundabout shite about defending a stranger.
      How sheltered can you be? When you think people can be hostile in this environment? This is people who too much spare time talking shite, a little bit more nuanced than that but an apt description

      Delete
  11. David

    I noted your hostility but I couldn't care less about it. I mention it only in so far as it exposes your failed attempts at trying to portray yourself as someone merely looking to be enlightened. You appear to use the approach of an honest observer as a tactic rather than the true state of your equilibrium. You 'ponder' things by way of asserting your conclusions and opinions, even when they are demonstrably wrong or false. You are not as subtle as you think that you are.

    You might do some research on international law and sovereignty of nations before you make your ill-informed assertions and conclusions. It is a complex matter in bringing a head of state before The Hague. First, they have to be lawfully arrested as is normal with due process. For various reasons other countries cannot simply invade Isreal or Syria to make arrests. If given the opportunity, Syrian or Isreali citizens can arrest anyone, within their national borders, who has an ICC arrest warrant against them, for example, if Syrian rebels catch Assade they can hand him over. Alternatively, if the heads of state enter the territory of another sovereign state, then that state can arrest and extradite the fugitive to The Hague to stand trial. For that reason war criminals tend to avoid entering foreign jurisdictions where they might be arrested and extradited. No goal posts are moved as you incorrectly allege.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Portray myself? To strangers, on a on a political forum, you wired up right? I work for a living, you think I've got time to research international by laws? It seems very simple to me, the Empire of the time decides the laws, been that way since time immemorial. Tell them to serve their icc warrants to Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden see how they get on. Aye you are right, the goalposts are firmly planted in the ground. Lack of arrest techniques that's the problem.

      Delete
    2. Again, you are not looking for enlightenment as you falsely set out above, you have only been interested in making your definitive statements on matters you clearly know nothing about, and, by your own admission have no time to research. It turns out, your description of rockets and people talking shite happens to fit your un-knowledgable self.

      As a final word to correct your latest incorrect assertion, the Rome Statute, in its entirety, was agreed upon by numerous countries, many of which are known for thier opposition toward 'the Empire of the day'.

      Delete
    3. You don't really address much do, make stupid insults that I very much doubt you'd make them face to face, although they do make me smile, I must admit. All these countries that sign these statutes and the like, why don't they implement them, why are the never used against USA, China or Russia eg. The dogs in the streets know these legislation are pointless, they might get used against weaker nations for time to time but war crimes go on and on and on. At least you get to be all indignant and furiously type shite like a rocket.

      Delete
    4. David

      I debunked some of what you wrote as nonsense, you came back with the personal insults, and now somehow if I saw you face to face I would somehow cower to your ... what? There are gobshites like you all over the Internet, authorities on their own opinions and unable to come to terms that they made an ass of themselves. Actually you are a little more pathetic, flexing and threatening because your delicate ego has been bruised. Pal, I'm fucking laughing at you.



      Delete
    5. David

      To be clear, there have been loads of Americans charged with war crimes, and a not insignifant number successfully convicted.

      Delete
  12. Steve

    " Another stupid book that convinces the easily persuaded. But none of it excuses Israel for what they continue to do. But the facts that you stated give Tel Aviv the fodder to the lie that they have been persecuted against but they have never persecuted others."

    The facts that I state are just those - facts. I do not cite them in order to justify the Occupation of the West Bank or any other Israeli crime and misdemeanour, allegedly or otherwise.

    " safe haven should have been carved out of Germany if they wanted their own State. Even the last Brit leader in the Palestine Protectorate said it was madness to allow the influx from Europe free rein to establish their own fiefdom at the expense of the indigenous. Hell, even Heydrich wanted to deport them to Sri Lanka rather than Palestine and he was the absolute worst of the Nazis"

    First of all, it would have been much too late to talk about safe havens for Jews in Germany after the Holocaust. The creation of safe havens and destruction of the death camps should instead have been war aims throughout World War II.

    Secondly how could such a state ipso facto the Holocaust been created? Who would have overseen its establishment? Most important how could Jews in the Displaced Persons camps have been persuaded to become part of it as they would have very good reasons to mistrust any European guarantee for their future safety and security bearing in mind the persistence of anti-Semitism in what was to become the Soviet bloc.

    The Holocaust was not just a German responsibility. it was also a Vichy French, Romanian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Slovakian, Hungarian and Croatian responsibility. It was the climax of a millennium and a half of Christian deicide and infanticide3 calumnies, popular prejudices about Jewish association with money and disloyalty to the countries in which they lived in sufferance fused with the pseudo-scientific racism exported by European imperialists in the 19th century and brought back to Europe with interests in the shooting pits, gas chambers and crematoria of East-Central Europe. So I think Jews would have been entitled to say a big fat thanks but no thanks to such a state which actually had been suggested in the Soviet region of Birdobzian in the 1930s under the benevolent eye of Uncle Joe but which got no takers as did proposals for Madagascar and Uganda.

    Should a similar state not have been proposed for Europe's Roman, Sinti and Gypsy because of their experience of Nazi genocide?

    Ultimately Heydrich wanted to exterminate the Jews rather than deport them.

    As for the last Brit ruler of the Palestine protectorate; the Brits did their very best to turn back ships carrying Jewish refugees from and survivors of the Holocaust to Palestine under the terms of the 1939 White Paper immigration restrictions.

    So how do refugees and survivors of European extermination programmes of the other suddenly become part of a "colonial implant" in the Middle East? Answers on a postcard please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve R Comments

      1/1

      Barry Gilheany


      “The facts that I state are just those - facts. I do not cite them in order to justify the Occupation of the West Bank or any other Israeli crime and misdemeanour, allegedly or otherwise.”

      I was referring to the Anti Semetic trope the Protocols…yadada
      And I didn’t think you were attempting to justify anything Barry.


      " safe haven should have been carved out of Germany if they wanted their own State. Even the last Brit leader in the Palestine Protectorate said it was madness to allow the influx from Europe free rein to establish their own fiefdom at the expense of the indigenous. Hell, even Heydrich wanted to deport them to Sri Lanka rather than Palestine and he was the absolute worst of the Nazis"

      “First of all, it would have been much too late to talk about safe havens for Jews in Germany after the Holocaust. The creation of safe havens and destruction of the death camps should instead have been war aims throughout World War II.”

      Perhaps, but up until the liberation of Orhdruf (Buchenwald), Auschwitz and Majdanek there was a general sense of disbelief among the Allies that such barbarities even existed. This is why Eisenhower wanted it documented.

      “Secondly how could such a state ipso facto the Holocaust been created? Who would have overseen its establishment? Most important how could Jews in the Displaced Persons camps have been persuaded to become part of it as they would have very good reasons to mistrust any European guarantee for their future safety and security bearing in mind the persistence of anti-Semitism in what was to become the Soviet bloc.”

      All very good questions with no easy solution. Hypothetically Eisenhower could have centralized them by carving out a sizeable portion of arable land with a port. German civilians would have to be displaced but that would have been a small price to pay. Maybe an area more to the East?

      “The Holocaust was not just a German responsibility. it was also a Vichy French, Romanian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Slovakian, Hungarian and Croatian responsibility. It was the climax of a millennium and a half of Christian deicide and infanticide3 calumnies”

      Not entirely sure of your point here but the charge of Deicide was levelled against the entire Jewish faith due to the nature of their central tenent. Christendom certainly believed they prosecuted Christ. Anti-semitism is the outworking of that bigotry.

      Delete
    2. Steve R Comments

      1/2

      “..popular prejudices about Jewish association with money and disloyalty to the countries in which they lived in sufferance fused with the pseudo-scientific racism exported by European imperialists in the 19th century and brought back to Europe with interests in the shooting pits, gas chambers and crematoria of East-Central Europe.”

      Erm, OK?

      “So I think Jews would have been entitled to say a big fat thanks but no thanks to such a state which actually had been suggested in the Soviet region of Birdobzian in the 1930s under the benevolent eye of Uncle Joe but which got no takers as did proposals for Madagascar and Uganda.”

      Yes absolutely they could have said no. Doesn’t give them any right to Palestine though.

      “Should a similar state not have been proposed for Europe's Roman, Sinti and Gypsy because of their experience of Nazi genocide?”

      Or the LGBTQI and Freemasons? Why not…hypothetically…lol

      Ultimately Heydrich wanted to exterminate the Jews rather than deport them.

      “As for the last Brit ruler of the Palestine protectorate; the Brits did their very best to turn back ships carrying Jewish refugees from and survivors of the Holocaust to Palestine under the terms of the 1939 White Paper immigration restrictions.”

      Yeah for good reason, the Yishuv and Palestinians were knocking seven bells of shite out of each other for the 30 years beforehand! Stevie Wonder could have seen that dumping a ton of angry Jewish refugees in Palestine wasn’t exactly likely to initiate an Arab Woodstock love in!

      “So how do refugees and survivors of European extermination programmes of the other suddenly become part of a "colonial implant" in the Middle East? Answers on a postcard please.”

      See above. They allowed them in to seriously tilt the demography in Palestine when the sensible solution would have been carving a whack out of German territory as a protectorate for them and as punishment for Germany.

      No prizes for guessing the Allies saw this as creating further turmoil in Europe, far better to let them chuck Asian rocks at each other.

      Delete
  13. Steve R

    "German civilians would have to be displaced but that would have been a small price to pay. Maybe an area more to the East?".

    Steve, since you do not believe that Jews have no connection to Palestine and therefore no right to settle there, what is your understanding of who Jews are and how did they become a diaspora?



    12m ethnic German civilians were expelled from East-Central Europe in the aftermath of World War II. No talk of right of return for them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Steve, since you do not believe that Jews have no connection to Palestine and therefore no right to settle there, what is your understanding of who Jews are and how did they become a diaspora?"

      When did I say that? The DNA bears out the fact that the Arab and Hebrew ancestors are one and the same. Tel Aviv has spent considerable time and resources looking for another explanation, due to them really believing they are "God's chosen people". What really pissed them off was the link between ancient Israelis and Palestinians. What I think is a bit much is allowing them free rein to suddenly supplant existing residents and create a state apart, that's all.

      So what's your understanding of the Jewish people, and why do they have a right to a country but the Palestinians do not?

      Delete
  14. Steve R

    I accept that disentangling the origins of the Jews from 3,000 years of archeology and historical record is difficult but it is my understanding that Jews refer to the original inhabitants of Judea who, after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem were then taken as slaves in their hundreds of thousands to Rome. From there one segment migrated to Europe where they became the Ashkenazi branch; another went to Spain where they became known as the Sephardic and the Mishrawi branch remained in Babylon. That essentially is the origin of the Jewish diaspora.

    I have always believed in an independent Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel which was on offer only for the Palestinian leadership to reject it once in the form of the Peel Commission Report in 1937 and again in the UN Partition Proposals in 1947 to say nothing of the scuppering of the Oslo Accords although it is fair to say that extremists on both sides were to blame for that epic tragedy.

    As an atheist I have never accepted the "God's chosen people" narrative and know no advocate of a two-state solution who believes it either not least because it is an antisemitic trope.

    Steve, be assured that I am not of the "Israel right or wrong" persuasion. It is just that some anti-Israel commentary (including some on the TPQ weblog) goes way beyond legitimate criticism towards almost deranged hostility with consequences such as the antisemitic scandals in Corbyn's Labour party and the six fold rise in antisemitic hate crime in Britain during the latest Gaza conflict in May this year.

    ReplyDelete