Address Apartheid in Israel-Palestine

Thank you Professor Lance for the wonderful article presenting a not popular and hidden point of view. We need more logical, clear and real voices like you present. Of course the comment board will be hijacked by people who disagree and who say you cannot use the term "apartheid," mainly because they are so ingrained in their biased perspective. Thank you for the wonderful op-ed. We need something like it in the NYT or Wash Post.

Great Article Professor.. It really exhibits the kind of oppression and injustice Palestinians are exposed to on a daily basis.We definitely need to see more articles like this in the future. Thank You.

"Of course the comment board will be hijacked by people who disagree and who say you cannot use the term "apartheid," mainly because they are so ingrained in their biased perspective."

Egads! How dare people voice their opinions on an opinion board?! And are you also telling me that there are "people who disagree"?!?!

They are so stupid and biased. For all the dumb readers out there, if there are two options (A and B), and you do not like the one I like, you are biased and I am "logical, clear and real". And obviously in this case, A is the correct choice.

For the original poster, if you could perhaps write up a more detailed list of what is acceptable and what is not, that will help all the idiots understand what they can and cannot write here.

"Thank you" for the "wonderful" comment. "Thank you" for the "wonderful" views.

I think Professor Lance raises a valid concern and highlights a legitimate injustice, but I'm not sure that the solution is to rollover to the demands of those who arent vested in a peaceful coexistance.

When the skillful meet the wise, the phoenix shall rise. The Harp will lead the worthy. Look for the Harp in the fields of Kiev. Look for the Circle on the streets of Dresden.

I'm also not sure that using worded terms like Apertied do more to clarify or cloud the issue in emotion rather than reason.

The Phoenix shall rise when the skillful meet the wise.

This article does an amazing job of addressing the bare bones of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and telling it like it is.
Thank you for putting out the real facts first before clearly stating to the reader what your viewpoint is. If all articles were written in this objective manner then maybe the media wouldn't be the 4th authority of this country.

Professor Lance,

You do a wonderful, clear and concise job of precisely presenting one side of the argument. As "Thanks" wrote above, you are clear and logical -- but I don't know if I could call you objective.

This is fine. It's important for each side to have its arguments clearly articulated. But one thing that was lacking from your Viewpoint was the counterarguments.

I don't intend to write out the counterarguments here, but only to briefly mention them.

You write about the Arab-Israeli wars, but you don't write about the years of terrorism and aggression in between them. You write about the assurances of the Arab governments, but you don't stop to ask whether or not they're worth the air they're spoken with, or examine the history of broken agreements, radicalism, violence, scapegoating and doublespeak on the part of Arab leaders.

You write about the dominance of the Jews in Palestine, but not about the dominance of the Arabs in the broader Middle East. You write about the suffering of the Palestinian people, but not about how despite their suffering they still live better and freer lives than virtually all of their brethren in neighboring Arab states.

You write about the evils of what you call apartheid, but not about the evils of targeting innocent civilians. You write about the right to freedom of movement, but not about the rights to life and security (and in a conflict of these rights, which prevails?).

You write about the ICJ decision, but not about the steps that the Israeli government has taken to comply with its own high court, in defiance of its military, to lessen the hardships imposed by the barrier.

You write about the displaced Palestinians, but not about the million Jews forced out of Arab lands with nowhere to run to but Israel. You write about UN Resolution 242, but not about the history of Arab-controlled anti-Semitism in the UN in the form of Resolution 3379 and the UNCHR.

I'm glad that you wrote this Viewpoint; it's a great summation of many of the pro-Palestinian faction's better arguments. I know that you can't exactly hit every point in only 600-800 words, but I do think that many crucial pro-Israeli (and, frankly, pro-barrier) counterarguments have been omitted. I and many other moderate Israelis agree with you that the situation is horrible and that in an ideal world things like the barrier wouldn't be needed, but I think you oversimplify the situation in comparing it to apartheid.

Israelis by and large don't have a dogma of racial supremacy or view Palestinians as less-than-human; they don't pointlessly disempower them. They built the barrier in reaction to decades of terrorism, and what do you know it has been working fairly well. Not understanding the difference between South African apartheid and the Israeli barrier is like not understanding the difference between voting against Obama because of race or voting against him because you truly disagree with him. The barrier is a necessary security operation that has been working, not an arbitrary and racist measure. You have a right to self-defense, and the Israeli courts have done a good job of curbing the unnecessarily burdensome parts of the barrier. Apartheid didn't exist for self-defense -- it was created over decades and decades as a result of white supremacist ideology, and affected everything from what jobs you could have to what education you could have to even things like marriage -- and it was within one state and one government even during periods of complete peace, not between two states in a period of extended conflict. In this one sense I think that your comparison of South African Apartheid and the situation in Israel speaks more to your limited understanding of the former and your forcedly and artificially clear and logical understanding of the latter.

Thanks again for your Viewpoint.

Professor Lance ends his article by suggesting that, as Black and Coloured South Africans live peacefully with White South Africans, so too could Palestinians live peacefully with Jews in a one-state solution. The latter point being possible, I would simply note that deep inequality and race-motivated attacks in South Africa suggest an uncertain future for that nation. I agree that equity dictates a democratic Israel with right-of-return, but it is not at all clear that both parties can coexist peaceably in the long term, and that the new minority would remain welcome at all. While Black and Coloured South Africans had the Right to a representative democracy in South Africa, White South Africans are no safer for it.

Mark Lance
Thanks to everyone for writing so far, for the kind words, and to those critical for writing in a civil and reasonable tone. I'll just respond to a couple things Avoda wrote:

I didn't go into detail on terrorism, but I most certainly did mention it, in the first sentence of my article. All attacks on civilians are horrible and immoral. The question is why they happen, and whether the current regime is making things more or less likely. There were many historical periods in which there was vastly less violence by Palestinians, but these periods -- for example the Oslo years -- typically saw an acceleration of the process of colonization. There have been many many positive developments over the years in terms of joint Palestinian-Israeli projects -- there are still many -- but making the conditions in Palestine unlivable is the surest way to make these efforts fail.

As for Arab States, I'm happy to talk or write about them. Most are contemptible, authoritarian, undemocratic, often anti-semitic states. Palestinians as well as Jews have been abused by many, and used by all. It isn't true that Palestinians are better off than citizens in any Arab country -- that is really a serious bit of hyperbole -- but no one should aspire to the levels of democracy and human rights of Arab regimes. But I refuse to play any game of which oppression is worse. They are all indefensible. The only reason for an American to focus more on the Israeli case is that we are paying for that one. (We pay for Egypt also, and should pay far more attention. Just for the record, I have protested at the Egyptian embassy, along with Arab-American comrades, on more than one occasion.)

I'm not sure why any steps to minimize the massive suffering of the wall is really relevant. The fact is that it is illegal, that it steals yet more land, and that it causes great suffering. That some steps have been taken to soften the impact -- often as a result of years of organizing and civil disobedience by Palestinians and brave Israeli groups like Anarchists Against the Wall, Gush Shalom, Machsom Watch, etc. -- is a good thing, but doesn't change the basic fact.

Finally, as I tried to make clear, calling this apartheid is not a matter of comparison. There are lots of comparisons -- most South Africans didn't have an ideology of racial superiority either, and I assure you that I know rather a lot about South African apartheid as I was actively involved in the movement against it -- but the claim is not a comparison. It is an application of a clear, well defined notion in international law. I quoted the relevant convention and every point is clearly in place. It is not just, or even primarily, a matter of the wall. It is the settlements, the Jewish only roads, the military in Hebron, the checkpoints, the passes, the fact that Israelis inside the green line aren't allowed to travel to the West Bank, the marriage laws, and on and on. It is an apartheid regime. That, I'm afraid, is just a fact.

Again, thanks for writing in with your responses. I disagree, obviously, but very much appreciate the engagement.

But South Africa isn't safe for the white minority. They are the frequent victims of targeted violence. I can only imagine the same for Israel.

Mark Lance
Ryan:
There has been some racially motivated violence in SA, but nothing approaching the level of violent crime in, say, the US. Not even that of Israel (which has never been as high as the US). So while it would obviously be important to provide safeguards, build trust, etc., I don't think there is any reason to believe that this is impossible.

Mark Lance
Sorry, meant to say that the Israeli violent death rate has never been above that of major US cities -- say DC (except in wars). In some years Israel's rate has been above that of the US as a whole. But Post-apartheid SA has never approached that of the US.

Prof. Lance,

Thank you for your response. You made a lot of good counterarguments, many of them that I've heard many times, and many of them valid.

One of the things that makes this debate so challenging is one that I alluded to before: the abundance of facts and arguments pointing in every direction, the complexity of the context in which those facts are grounded, and the simple reality that there are good arguments on both sides so that anyone's ultimate position is more of a judgment call than a clean and logical conclusion.

I agree with you that Palestinian suffering is more complex than just the barrier -- the roads, the license plates, the checkpoints. Even the marriage laws. And I agree with you that most colonization and settlement is wrong and counterproductive (as a former settler myself I can speak to this firsthand).

But again, the situation is more complex than I think you give it credit for. The roads and license plates also grew out of the security situation and the need to keep Israeli citizens safe, not out of the same racial segregation motivations in Jim Crow and Apartheid. (I challenge you on your argument that South African Apartheid was not a matter of racial supremacy; having studied the history of it pretty extensively, the origins of it during the colonial period were completely racial and divorced from anything that I could call a "good reason", such as arguably security. White South Africans never, as far as I could tell, offered anything remotely like a passable argument for Apartheid, whereas I think even though we disagree on how to resolve it you can identify the security concern as a valid one among supporters of the barrier.)

The military in Hebron again is complicated, and there as a reaction; a community of Jews has continuously lived in Hebron for thousands of years, the community there is an enormously important part of our culture, and the military is there to protect them from violent attacks. That the Israelis there sometimes get out of hand is unfortunate but there are documented instances of the military there protecting the Arabs as well as the Jews. Again, not a great situation, but better than allowing either side to slaughter the other in a mini-Holocaust.

Even the need for settlement is more complex than just opportunistic religious fervor. Yes, there are some of those, but one argument you did not note was the simple fact that for most of its existence, Israel has been the main recipient of waves and waves of Jewish refugees, going back all the way to the days of Independence when Jews were expelled either by law or by hardship from every Arab land, going further back to the Holocaust, and further forward to the crisis of Soviet Jewry. Simply stated the several million Jews who had nowhere else to go (for most of that period not even the United States) needed somewhere to live; some settlement was necessary, though I agree with you that needlessly provocative settlement and the continued active dispossession of Palestinians is unconscionable.

As a student of international law, I am also skeptical of arguments such as the importance of the ICJ's ruling. I don't think that it renders the barrier "illegal." The reality is that international law, especially when it concerns the ICJ, is pretty unformed and has only really ever been useful when tackling relatively straightforward and recent issues. While I look forward to the day when we can all settle international disputes in court, quite frankly the ICJ is so far removed from the realities and the histories of the issue that its ruling carries as much water with me as the UN Commission on Human Rights's explicitly biased reports. I, like many notable legal scholars, simply ignore the ICJ as little more than the global community's Neighborhood Watch program.

Which brings me to the ultimate point of disagreement between us. I suspect that we share the same ultimate goal that Israeli and Palestinian people will be able to live in peace, without a barrier, in an arrangement of their choosing confirmed by the will of both peoples. The question, then, is how do we deal with the conflict between the rights of the Palestinians and the rights of the Israelis. Under the circumstances, is the barrier, which I agreed with you from the outset is a tragedy, still an unthinkable option? Does the violent terroristic situation, which was also as great a tragedy as the barrier (arguably worse), justify what would clearly otherwise be an illegal wall? How do we choose between two evils?

You have good arguments against the barrier, which I have never disputed. Rather I wonder if I have better arguments for it, namely that it's necessary to protect civilian Israeli lives.

It is illegal in the way that wars are illegal; given that wars and barriers happen, I'm glad that Israel has often tried to do it right when it comes to this barrier. And, seeing the wall as I do as a short-term solution, I disagree with you on whether or not it is "only making things worse." My hope is that when this wall is torn down, like the Berlin wall it will be the beginning of greater peace and reconciliation. (To be clear and avoid rhetorical jousting, that is where I think the comparison with the Berlin wall ends.)

"Walls" are an unpopular image, just like war. But like war, they are sometimes just, though they are always tragedies (and my relatives in Auschwitz would have agreed, and greatly thanked those who died to end the Nazi Reich.)

I wish I could see it as clearly as you do. For me it's an agonizing call, but I side with the barrier.

Thanks for your response.

Mark Lance
Avoda: On settlements generally. Settlements are not a response to an influx of Jewish immigrants. In fact, Israel has gone to enormous trouble to generate immigrants, even going so far as to loosen the definition of "Jew" to allow for more Russian immigrants. And then there are massive incentives to go to settlements. The majority on the West Bank aren't ideological, but so-called "economic settlers" those who would prefer to live in Israel proper, but who can't afford it and are put in settlements by government policy. The truth is that the settlement movement has, from the beginning, largely been a matter of political policy to control land.

In light of this, security/safety arguments don't fly at all. It would be like my taking over a third of Tel Aviv, moving a community of racist Germans there, and then justifying a whole system of apartheid because the residents might attack them.

Now the settlers in hebron are quite another matter. Yes, there has been a small Jewish community there continuously, and one that lived completely peacefully with its Palestinian neighbors. Trouble began very recently with the massive influx of religious extremist, racially supremacist, and mostly American settlers. I've been to Hebron. There are two striking things when you read the graffiti that covers most Paletinian businesses in the Old City -- "Die Sand Niggers" was the most popular -- it's obscenity, and it's language.One doesn't hear Hebrew, or Arabic among the setters, but English, Brooklyn accented. And the attacks are not occasional. Look at the reports from Christian Peacemaker Teams who live there. Every Sabbath settlers run rampant, smashing windows, burning cars, beating people (all apparently consistent with Sabbath law.) The army facilitates all this. The only sense in which they "protect" Palestinians is that they enforce a curfew on them.

As for the Wall, I think would be counterproductive on sum, but I respect your difference on that. But there is one absolutely crucial point. Everyone, including the ICJ, has always said that if Israel had built a wall on the border, or in Israel, it would be legal. But they did not. They built it mostly on Palestinian land. The wall conveniently annexes the major aquifers of the western part of the WB. It is, thereby, part of the colonization process, and that is why it was declared illegal.

I agree with you that sometimes war is a necessity. My father fought in WWII in the Pacific, and was in the occupation of Germany after the war. Unlike his later participation in Korea, I think this was a just and correct war to participate in. But there is no analogy. There have been numerous periods --- like the first 5 years of Oslo, or most of the first Intifada -- in which terrorism fell to virtually nonexistent. But Israel used this time not to build for peace, but to accelerate the theft of land. This is not a response to Auschwitz, but the colonization of a people. I urge you to look at the work of groups like Jewish Voice For Peace who see the historical imperative in just hte opposite way that you do. Where you see the lessons of Auschwitz to be that you must side with a Jewish State, they see it as a lesson that one must side with the oppressed.

I'm afraid that I do think the overall structure is clear. Palestinians have done unconscionable things, to be sure -- as did South Africans, Native Americans, etc. -- but the causes of the ongoing crisis are on Israel and the US. For 25 years they could have ended this with a two state solution. They may now have made that impossible with the massive infrastructure of occupation, and so will have to accept a bi-national state with justice for all. I don't know which approach will succeed, but the world is turning against the situation, just as it did in South Africa. And sooner or later, change will come. I only hope it can come as peacefully as it did in South Africa. I suspect that whether it does will depend mostly on whether the leaders of the US and Israel have the wisdom that the last leaders of White South Africa had.

A few quick points:

- The barrier doesn't exist to defend the settlers; it exists to defend the rest of Israel from terrorist attacks, including places as far from the territories as Tel Aviv.

- Violence in the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflict predates settlement and the annexation/occupation of territory. To say that settlement is the cause of all this would be incorrect and, I think, naive.

- I think the idea that peace is at hand if not for Israel and the US is also a naive statement. Not only is a true partner for peace lacking (and even if you blame Israel for radicalizing the Palestinians, you can't escape the fact that other Arab countries and the Palestinians themselves ultimately are more responsible for their own actions), but even when a partner for peace has been available, creating a viable two-state solution is incredible complex. Issues such as the territories/settlers, Jerusalem, the security situation, etc all pose strong barriers to a deal. It's not as simple as "Israel could just withdraw the settlements and sue for peace" and suddenly this would all go away. Recent history teaches that this may just be seen as an opportunity to finish that age-old mission of driving the Jews into the sea. (Oh that all Palestinians would be as moderate as the ones you consort with.)

- As a former settler I can tell you that you are flat-out wrong about a very big part of the reality of settlement in Israel. Yes, there are some settlers who go way out there to very provocative places for the sole reason of laying claim to that land (though Israel has been willing to remove these settlers in peace deal proposals), and yes there are some economic incentives, but there's also just the natural growth and sprawl from Israeli border towns that have nowhere else to go. When your entire livelihood is in a border town and you can't find a place to live but it is slowly sprawling across the Green Line, what do you do? Who cares if it's a half-kilometer across the green line in completely empty land? You need a house. Not defending it, just saying that's the way it is.

On your other points regarding Hebron and Israel seeking Jewish immigrants I don't disagree (though the fact that Israel has sought to serve as a relief for foreign/Jewish refugees is not a sinister thing; reading sinister motives into something so central to the nation's identity is losing the forest for the trees). Hebron is a very tricky situation and I agree with you that more needs to be done to restrain but protect the Jewish settlers. In general I am against most of the settlements... but that doesn't mean that I'm against the barrier. As my first point said, the barrier is on the whole if not in the particulars a pretty separate issue from the settlers. I get the sense that you would be against the wall regardless of whether or not the ICJ ruled it "illegal". Yes, I wish it had been built with more deference to Palestinian concerns and I disagree with parts of it, but overall I still support it.

Mark Lance
"- The barrier doesn't exist to defend the settlers; it exists to defend the rest of Israel from terrorist attacks, including places as far from the territories as Tel Aviv." Yes, I understand that this is the claim. But it ignores the fact that the wall is not on Israeli land. My point about the settlements was your claim that the rest of the infrastructure of occupation is to defend Israel. Settler-only roads in the OT are not to defend Tel Aviv.

Violence: yes it predates the occupation, as I said. But there were long periods of cooperation destroyed either by settlement expansion, or deliberate provocation. Violence today is the result of the settlements.

"no partner for peace". I'm sorry but this is just an excuse. All factions, and all Arab states are offering peace. Israel and the US refuse, continually. There is no project, and if there was no possibility, of driving Jews into the sea, but Palestinians are certainly being driven out of the area.

You say I'm flat-out wrong, but then don't actually say anything incompatible with anything I said. Sure, there's some growth, but there are massive incentives to put settlers out there in the first place. This is not controversial. It is completely open government policy.

The barrier would be illegal whether ruled by the ICJ or not. As I keep saying, it would be legal on Israeli land, and is illegal on Palestinian land. This is a completely straightforward principle.

It's hard to be sympathetic with the palestinians, given that when they got the right to choose their own government a few years back, they chose a party of terrorist murderers.

I'm not arguing this means we shouldn't seek a peaceful solution, I am only suggesting that this idea that the premise that palestinians are meek victims is outright untrue. In fact, a majority - that group that elected their current murderous regime - supports terrorism. To the extent you are sincere, Prof. Lance, good luck trying to make peaceful neighbors out of them because they themselves have proven more interest in killing innocent schoolchildren than being members of a community of peace.

PS - your history of Israel is rather interesting. I wonder why it is you didn't mention that the arabs who now go by the name "palestinian" are a band of nomads who made (and had) zero claim to Israel until the time they realized that the Jews had actually turned it into a livable place. THEN, they were very interested in being recognized as a people...but never before then.

Given your M.O., Prof. Lance, I suppose you'll call me names now for daring to disagree with you (so much for opposing hegemony). I would expect nothing more from you, but I'd ask everyone who reads what I am sure will be your forthcoming ad hominem attack to recognize that you will be unable to offer a legitimate argument to any of the facts I've written.

Mark Lance
Oh for heaven's sake anon. I haven't called anyone a name in nearly a year of continuous conversation on these discussions.

Your "historical" claim is simply false. I suppose you've been reading either Joan Peters or Alan Dershowitz's copy of her "history" since those are the two main "sources" for this nonsense. The reality is that both have been utterly discredited by historians. Read any real history and you will see that the Jewish population of Palestine has been a minority for well over the last thousand years, that there was a recognized separate culture and political unit of Palestine in the times of the Romans. In fact, your claim that Palestine wasn't livable until the fine EUropeans rescued it from the savages is typical racist western nonsense.

As for Hamas, yes, I think it is a shame that Hamas was elected, and Hamas has murdered innocent people. Not nearly as many innocent people as the Israeli government, of course, but no one thinks that Israelis lose their human rights because their government bombs schools, apartment buildings, families on beaches, etc. Everyone recognizes that to be irrelevant. But if Palestinians, frustrated over decades of colonization, with some of the most plausible political candidates in Israeli prison, turn to a militant religious party, this negates their rights and retrospectively justifies everything Israel has done to them over the years.

As for "when they got the right to choose their own government" the Palestinians like everyone else have a right to choose their own government. They didnt' "get the right" from a generous Israel. The Israeli government simply stopped, temporarily, violating that one right. But then immediately upon the election turning out different from their intent, they began murdering leaders of the elected government.

You haven't called anyone a name? Are you kidding? From article #1 (wasn't that the famous "white people should just shut the f#ck up" article you wrote?) you've been calling people names. You should go back and read some of the responses you wrote to e-mails and then correct your claim that you haven't called anyone names.

Now, on to the substance: when you accuse me of not reading history by any "real" historians, I presume you mean a historian that agrees with you? I've read histories by several "real" historians and what they tell me is that "palestinians" are nomads who didn't decide that they belonged in Israel until Israel became a place worth living in (i.e. when the Jews arrived in numbers and made it a decent place).

By the way: very clever. Your ad hominem attack was certainly there, it was just more veiled than usual. Instead if calling me a typical western racist, you said my views were one of a typical western racist. Shame on you.

Finally, your views might hold some water if you didn't choose to champion every single nutty cause. Free Mumia? Check. Immigration policy? Should be dictated by a counsel of people descended from native-born people! Political philosophy? Anarchy! Israel? Divest and save the palestinian heroes!

Is the idea to adopt every unpopular viewpoint then push it on others (then argue about it with others on this website)? I don't get it, but I'm sure there's a reason for it.

In your message above, it seems that after first saying Hamas is bad, you attempted to justify their election because Israel has also done wrong.

Here's your quote: "As for Hamas, yes, I think it is a shame that Hamas was elected, and Hamas has murdered innocent people. Not nearly as many innocent people as the Israeli government, of course, but no one thinks that Israelis lose their human rights because their government bombs schools, apartment buildings, families on beaches, etc."

Hamas is a party of terrorists, plain and simple. You should say so and leave it at that. Justifying the decision of the majority of Palestinians who chose them over peaceful parties is like arguing that because the U.S. has some bad policies, it's excusable for Middle Easterners to support Al Queda terrorists.

The world isn't so simple and the Palestinians whose cause you have championed aren't as innocent as you'd like folks to believe. I think you should just leave it at that.

Mark Lance
How in the world can you read "I think it is a shame that Hamas was elected and Hamas has murdered innocent people." as justifying electing Hamas? I feel like I'm arguing with a character in an Orwell book. As I said in the article, and as I said in this response, I oppose the program of Hamas and the terrorist actions of Hamas. But that doesn't mean Palestinians in general lose their human rights anymore than the various, and more extensive crimes against humanity of the Israeli government means that Israelis lose their human rights.

I not only didn't assume all Palestinians are innocent, I explicitly said -- in the first line of my article -- that they aren't. But you see I won't leave it at that, because the fact that some members of a group have committed crimes is no justification for apartheid.

The cause I champion is human rights, and justice for all, not any tribal loyalty.

Mark Lance
Anon:
What I wrote about immigration was that I had a dream that on one particular issue that they have dominated for 200 years white people would shut up and let others have the floor. I also noted that this was an unrealistic dream and made a more serious suggestion. Nothing in that is remotely name-calling, and nothing in any other post is either.

Please tell me what historian justifies your claim. If you are not basing it on Peters and Dershowitz, please site a reputable historian who says that Jews were the majority of the population of Palestine anytime in the last 1000 years.

On racism, let me be clear: Claiming that the Palestinians do not exist is racist. Straightforward enough for you?

And finally, you list a bunch of unpopular views that are caricatures of things I support, announce that they are nutty without responding to a single argument of a single person, and take this as grounds to reject any argument I give on any topic. Quite obviously there is nothing that I can possibly do to engage with that sort of rhetoric.

If you want to engage with any of this seriously, please do, but until then I'll have to conclude that my goals here are finding no traction with you and end this thread.

In response to your request {"Please tell me what historian justifies your claim. If you are not basing it on Peters and Dershowitz, please site a reputable historian who says that Jews were the majority of the population of Palestine anytime in the last 1000 years."), here you go: Arieh Avneri, in his book "The Claim of Dispossession," (NJ: Transaction Books, 1984) states that the Jews were a majority in the land partitioned to them in 1947.

I suppose that answers your question. If you've never read the Avneri book, you'll find that information on p. 252.

Wait, wait, let me guess: Avneri is not a "reputable historian" in your view (of course, I recognize that you define "reputable" as "he agrees with me.").

I suppose I should wait for your apology.

Mark Lance
Good. Now if we ignore the last two paragraphs of pointlessly hostile rhetoric, you are at least engaging in real debate, citing an actual source to challenge something I said.

Unfortunately, you mis-cite that very source. What Avnery -- someone who very clearly is trying his best to justify a Zionist political project -- says is that Jews were the majority in the area partitioned to them. That is, in the 55% of Palestine that was the Jewish state. That, of course, is not contrary to what I said. I said that there had not been a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, something Avnery does not deny. Avnery says that there were around twice as many Arabs as Jews in Palestine in 1947.

Your statement is, at best, misleading. As you well know, the definition of what is "palestine" has changed over time and is up for debate. For example, parts of Syria and Lebanon are included by some as "palestine." Obviously, those have always been arab places and no reasonable person would claim otherwise. However, the RELEVANT geographic area is the part of "palestine" partitioned to Israel.

Also, I'm curious what you know about Avnery. Have you read his works? By any definition, he is a "real" historian, yet you seem to feel the need to try to attack his legitimacy ("very clearly [Avnery is] trying his best to justify a Zionist political project").

With all due respect, he IS a historian. He has dedicated his life to studying middle eastern history, whereas you have a degree from Pitt and write about linguistics. If anyone is a pretender, all signs point to you.

Mark Lance
No. Syria and Lebanon are irrelevant here. The area in question is Israel proper plus Gaza and the West Bank. That is what is referred to as 'Palestine,' what I was referring to, and what Avnery refers to as "western Palestine." The part partitioned to Israel is just over half of that and is not referred to as "Palestine" by anyone. My statement was not only not misleading, it was absolutely accurate. You misunderstood the book. He says that the area of Israel+Gaza+WB had twice as many Arabs as Jews in 1947.

And then you have to engage in more ignorant insults. (Yes, a degree from Pitt -- shocking! Pitt! A plebian school! Well, just for the record at the time I was there, Pitt had the top ranked graduate program in philosophy in the world. But I have never justified anything I say here on the basis of a degree. That is shallow credentialism. I either make arguments, or site facts that are the consensus of major figures in the relevant area. As I've done here.)

I did not say Averny wasn't a historian. I said he was a historian with a political agenda, and one whose work tends to press that agenda. This is not controversial. It is widely understood by his supporters and his detractors. But congratulations for attacking another position that I never put forward. I imagine that seems easier than dealing with what I actually said.

Who cares about Gaza and WB? In the context of the discussion, as stated before, those places are IRRELEVANT. The partitioned area - the part that was made the property of the Jews - had a Jewish majority. No matter how many times you try to spin the facts (Bill O'Reilly would be proud), you're not going to change them.

Let's back up a little. At first, you said I wouldn't be able to find a legitimate source to support my statement about a Jewish majority. I did. So, you took a new tact and said that my source might be a real historian, but he's got a political agenda.

How about you, Professor, any political agenda at play for you? You should use that Philosophy degree from Pitt to consider what's going on here.

Mark Lance
Anon:
You are simply lying. I challenged you to show a source that says there was a majority of Jews in Palestine. That was in response to your claim that there were virtually no Palestinians in Palestine through most of its history. You looked foolish because you didn't know that the source you cited was only talking about the area that became Israel, and to cover you absurdly tried to change the issue. Now you claim that we are arguing about whether there was a majority in the half of Palestine given to a Jewish State. No one ever denied it, and you are covering your change of subject with bluster.

The nonsense about historians having an agenda is also irrelevant. I never challenged the source. Because he said exactly what I said: in 1947 2/3 Arabs, 1/3 Jews, yet 55% of the land given to the Jewish state.

We are done here because you are unwilling to argue honestly.

No, sir, we are done because I refuse to reframe my point into the false, irrelevant argument you want me to frame it into so you can be correct. Read my words from above again and then note that I never, ever claimed that anything but the partitioned area (i.e. ISRAEL) had a Jewish majority. Yet, you invent a claim that I said something different and then call me a liar. For a final time, the partitioned area is the only relevant area to consider. I suspect you're smart enough to realize this, but your ego won't let you. Shame on you (and not shame on you for your incorrect positions; rather, shame on you for your egotistical, phallocentric/macho-man style of bombastic argument).

If the system in Israel is akin to apartheid, how do you explain Arab citizens of Israel? I'm not suggesting Israel does things perfectly (far from it), but can't Arabs attain full rights (voting, civic life, etc.)?

I'll yield if you say that's not correct, but I've read that something like 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab/non-Jews.

Mark Lance
Oz:
Yes, there are Arab citizens of Israel. You are quite right and I wouldn't call their situation apartheid. But Israel also exercises complete control of the occupied territories. It is this area that I claim is apartheid. (Not akin to, but is. It is a well defined notion in international law.)
The Arab citizens of Israel do not have equal rights. They can vote, but around 90% of the land of Israel is designated for hte use of the Jewish people. There is massively disproportionate funding of schools and neighborhoods. There is job discrimination. There are numerous laws that distinguish Jewish and Palestinian citizens. Without going into too much detail, I'd describe the situation inside Israel as like Jim Crow segregation, and the conditions in the territories as apartheid.