Israel's Leading Publisher States that His Country Is an 'Apartheid State'

Amos Schocken is the publisher of Haaretz. Today in that great newspaper that his family has published for three generations he prints an amazing editorial stating that Israel has become an "apartheid" state because for the eighth time the government has extended a "temporary" citizenship law that in essence forbids someone from living in Israel with his/her spouse if he/she married a Palestinian form the West Bank. It is worth quoting this editorial at length:

It is obvious that this has barely any effect on the right of young Israeli Jews to live in their country with the spouse of their choice, because there are hardly any marriages between Israeli Jews and Palestinians from Judea and Samaria. On the other hand, these Palestinians constitute Israeli Arabs' natural pool for choosing a spouse. For this reason, the law severely discriminates when comparing the rights of young Israeli Jewish citizens and young Israeli Arab citizens.

When the law was first passed in 2003, supposedly as a temporary one-year measure, it was accompanied by security reasoning - the risk of implanting terrorists in Israel via marriage. The reasoning was faulty even at that time: Every Palestinian who wishes to enter Israel must be addressed individually. It is the Shin Bet security service's task to do this and thus carry out its mission - protecting the security of Israel's citizens such that the country remains democratic, with equal rights for all. However, as the years go by, it becomes clear that the security argument and the term "temporary measure" are merely a deception aimed at "koshering" discriminatory legislation for demographic reasons.

The claim that there are indications of an apartheid state in Israel is widely heard in the Western world. The word apartheid is catchy and understood in many parts of the world, which makes it useful to send a message that we resent and which we claim has no connection with reality in Israel. However, we do not have to identify the characteristics of South African apartheid in the civil rights discrimination in Israel in order to call Israel an apartheid state. The amendment to the Citizenship Law is exactly the kind of practice that leads to the use of such a term, and it is best that we not try to evade the truth: Its existence in the law books turns Israel into an apartheid state.

This editorial is a ravishing moral statement. Ravishing because of its incredible clarity and grand impatience with petty objections. Ravishing to me personally because a Jew has said these things, and I still have my Jewish chauvinism. Israel still has its miracles. When will America allow this type of expression?

(Thanks to Richard Witty for the heads up.)

Here, by the way, is a Palestinian perspective, from Omar Barghouti:

Even the owner of Haaretz, Amos Schocken, here admits what
Palestinians have known for 60 years: that Israel itself, not just in
the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967, acts as an
apartheid state -- that is a state that institutionalizes and
legalizes racial discrimination.

It is contemptible, though, how someone as well informed as Mr.
Schocken would act shocked -- quite disingenusouly -- that such an
apartheid marriage law should pass in Israel, knowing quite well that
more than 20 laws, including some far more fundamental ones, have for
decades discriminated against all "non-Jewish" citizens of the state,
particularly against the indigenous Palestinian citizens of the state.

Comments

[Laurie]

"When will America allow this type of expression?" When non Jews get sick and tired of hearing the truth described as 'antisemitic'. It blows my mind how Jews congratulate themselves on discovering/revealing the truth about Israel when the rest of the world knew from Israel's conception that it was a state built on a racist (for jews only) foundation.

[Oarwell]

Jimmy Carter?

[Richard Witty]

Schocken is a humanist, a Zionist, but advocating for reform.

Applying his native human and Jewish sensivity of justice and compassion.

[Madrid]

What distinguishes a "human" "senstivity of justice and compassion" from a "Jewish sensitivity of justice and compassion"?

(I hate identity politics)

[Tavist d]

"What distinguishes a "human" "senstivity of justice and compassion" from a "Jewish sensitivity of justice and compassion"?"

Harvard Yiddish scholar and Lieberman-in-Law, Ruth Wisse, says we should look at IQ differentials for the answer.

[MM]

"Harvard Yiddish scholar and Lieberman-in-Law, Ruth Wisse, says we should look at IQ differentials for the answer."

You know, that's a good point.

Can we really trust the goyim to run this zionist interventionist military empire?

[ej]

Witty's 'native human and Jewish sensivity of justice and compassion' has, root and branch, been vitiated by the conception, the construction, the perpetuation and the virulent defense of the state of Israel.
Witty's phrase is now an oxymoron.
Meanwhile, Schocken's decision to sign his editorial is a revolutionary act that should be replicated across the print media.

[Richard Witty]

Native human compassion the oxymoron or native Jewish compassion?

Better that we walked to the gas chambers without fighting?

[ej]

Clearly 'native Jewish compassion'.
And what does the holocaust have to do with Israel's intrinsic criminality?
Ironies here. Israel (and much of world Jewry) incredulous that the Palestinians do not themselves agree to walk to their equivalent of the gas chambers without fighting.

[samuel burke]

ted koppel calling zionism an apartheid state way back in 75

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DLgk5tpoSc

[cogit8]

"Native human compassion the oxymoron or native Jewish compassion?

Better that we walked to the gas chambers without fighting?"

Witty: Thank you for this revealing comment.
It is unfortunate but true: this image of "walking to the gas chambers" exerts a powerful 'pull' on Jewish sensibility. Like a giant unseen gravity magnet that throws off what should be a simple perception of reality, the memory of the holocaust (and before that the pogroms) continues to affect the moral calculus of Jews today.

Jews are so proud of remembering and celebrating their history, without realizing that this is precisely the mechanism which perpetuates their searing memories. And these memories can damage one's moral clarity. “What is one hungry Palestinian life compared to six million dead” is one powerful example. Alan Dershowitz et al justifications of torture are another example.

Witty, your assertion that Israel has a right to pre-emptive war is another example. If Jews have a right to pre-emptive attack, then so do everyone else, ie, complete breakdown of international system of law.

[Richard Witty]

"If Jews have a right to pre-emptive attack, then so do everyone else, ie, complete breakdown of international system of law."

Jews, not Israel?

Individuals and states do have a "right" to pre-emptive attack IF they are in immanent danger, and the preemption will deter or remove that danger, and only in a manner that will cost minimum harm.

The same logic applies to all action, not only in arms, but also in words.

And that is NOT a slippery slope so long as the whole equation is applied.

The slippery slope occurs among those that are too lazy to bother to distinguish between conditions, choices of actions, effects on others.

[Charles Keating]

Witty, Hitler would agree with you.
I never thought he was insane.

[Charles Keating]

Just narrow, like you. Your kid join the US Army yet? The IDF?

[cogit8]

witty, then you accept the premise that ww2 jewish holocaust is your moral baseline. and continue to force other people to pay historical debts which they had no part in creating.
[better hope that the outside society that outnumbers you 1000 to 1 doesn't adopt your moral blindness and blame the jews for stuff that also happened in the mysts of history.]