Aparthied?? - with poll

[Jack]

Interesting discussion to have............not really archaeological......but then again could be:

All Apartheid is bad right?

http://pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=868

So why is Israel allowed?

[P Prentice]

because we let them or because we need them?

[BAJR]

Now there is an interesting archaeological question to be had here.

I am in contact with, friends with and supportive of many Israeli archaeologists ... on the other hand there are some archaeologists and institutions that I can’t agree with. However, you must also ask why specifically this country? that there are several countries that could be brought into this ... and to pick on only Israeli institutions in particular is jumping on the easy political band-wagon. I would be interested to ask if the same boycott should be done to
Russia for it's apartheid laws of homosexuality? for China for human rights abuses? what about Brazil? ... why not Canada for the mineral companies that are currently devastating the lands and rights of indigenous people across the world..? or even the Canadian National Museum that has rebranded to be Historical... Should Britain be boycotted by people who think that our armed forces should not be in other peoples countries?

So in a nutshell. the fad petition does nothing to help situations and only increases defensive positioning and isolation... There are positive actions that make far more impact.

Would like to know of country I don't have to boycott for some reason... ( am pretty sure Antarctica is ok... but then again... that ain't a country )

[Jack]

apartheid (ə-pärt′hīt′, -hāt′ n. (in South Africa) the official government policy of racial segregation or discrimination; officially renounced in 1991

Hosty, I agree to your sentiment. However the question is about apartheid. A practice widely accepted as bad.

In 1973, the UN adopted the Apartheid Convention which defines apartheid and even qualifies it as a crime against humanity which might lead to international criminal prosecution of the individuals responsible for perpetrating it.[SUP][90][/SUP] This convention has however only been ratified by 107 of the 193 member states as of August 2008. The convention was initially drafted by the former USSR and Guinea, before being presented to the UN General Assembly. The convention was adopted with a vote of 91 for, and 4 (Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) against the convention.

The crime of Apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
On November 30, 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.[SUP][1][/SUP] It defined the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."


[h=3]Israel[/h] Main article: Israel and the apartheid analogy
Critics have accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid; In a 2007 report, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine John Dugard stated that "elements of the [state of Israel's] occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law." and suggested that the "legal consequences of a prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid" be put to the International Court of Justice.[SUP][16][/SUP]
The UN Special Rapporteur concludes that this "general structure of apartheid that exists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories ... makes the allegation increasingly credible despite the differences between the specific characteristics of South African apartheid and that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories regime".[SUP][17][/SUP]
South African Judge Richard Goldstone, head of the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, also known as the Goldstone Report, writing in The New York Times in October 2011, said that "in Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute." Goldstone noted that Arab citizens of Israel are allowed to vote, have political parties, and hold seats in the Knesset and other positions, including one on the Israeli Supreme Court. Goldstone wrote that the situation in the West Bank was more complex, but that there is no attempt to maintain "an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group", and claimed that the seemingly oppressive measures taken by Israel were taken to protect its own citizens from attacks by Palestinian militants.[SUP][18][/SUP] However the Goldstone Report does not contain any reference to charges of apartheid, whether supported or not.[SUP][19][/SUP] With regard to associated issue of positive findings of Israeli war crimes in the report, Goldstone has argued for a redaction. However the other three authors of the Goldstone Report have publicly rejected this arguing Goldstone has "misrepresented facts in an attempt to delegitimise the [Goldstone Report's] findings and to cast doubts on its credibility".[SUP][20][/SUP]
Israeli journalist Yonatan Silverman wrote in Ynetnews that while inequality and injustice existed in the West Bank, Israel was not an apartheid state. Silverman wrote that while South Africa was a legally segretated society, Israel's actions in the West Bank are not rooted in legislation and stem from security concerns rather than racial bias.[SUP][21][/SUP]
Contrary to these, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine tends to judge in favor of the apartheid allegations. Amongst a large list of violations of international law, by both the US and Israel, the Tribunal judges "Violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on national origin through Israeli policies and practices akin to Apartheid (2011 Capetown findings of this Tribunal). Final conclusions of this Tribunal are expected in February 2013.[SUP][22][/SUP] The Russell Tribunal on Palestine has been criticised as biased against Israel by judge Richard Goldstone,[SUP][18][/SUP] and South African journalist and human rights activist Benjamin Pogrund, described the Cape Town Session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine "theatre".[SUP][23][/SUP] The Tribunal has on the other hand been endorsed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Jewish Voice for Peace, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and other organizations.[SUP][24][/SUP]




- Wikipedia

I'd say Russia and china bad but not apartheid. Don't know about Brazil. Does Canadian law discriminate on basis of race? Britain's law are not apartheid.

[BAJR]

So the question seems to be... Israel... bad and although there is lots of other bad... we will just concentrate on this bad because it is easier to .

In answer to the simple question is apartheid bad... the answer is no shit Sherlock ... of course it is. The complex answer is, why decide to specifically decide this is the "most baddest" and I will create an academic boycott of this particular country while allow other bad acts in other countries go boycotted

Question 1 Have you ever been to Israel and or Palestinian Territories etc. and spoken with academics and other archaeologists?
Question 2 Does blanket actions such as this have a positive effect? Those who are already "onside" are excluded and ostracised as well.
Question 3 Will you carry out similar academic boycotts on countries such as Russia for their anti gay legislation? To boycott Israel and not Russia (for example) would by logical derivation say to me that you are willing to allow homophobia, but not apartheid.


To be honest there is a lot of bad out there...and I have had my fair share of experience of it, ( when I went on a field trip with archaeology students from Ramallah Uni... and due to a new settlement were unable to get to the Palaeolithic cave site ) but I am certainly not going to also cut ties with excellent archaeologists such as Neer Lect-BenAmi or Julia Fridman or Chemi Shiff Why should I?

Look to initiatives such as this: http://en.calameo.com/read/000062729797e...36?page=29

rather than this ( to my opinion BAD) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/ma...rchaeology

and interesting views such as this... from my mate Chemi... http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/...-in-israel

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/...or-trouble


What I am saying is. yes rail against injustice - just be careful . This singularity view is like being a vegetarian who eats chicken.

[P Prentice]

remember in the thatcher years when black and white south africans asked the world to uphold sanctions against their own state - even though it cost them personally?
i would be interested to know how many israeli and palestinian scientists support such a veto and for that matter how many russian, chinese and canadian?

[Jack]

So the question seems to be... Israel... bad and although there is lots of other bad... we will just concentrate on this bad because it is easier to .

Not at all. I agree, there is plenty bad in the world. The question was is Israel Apartheid.
I'm not suggesting ignore all bad and focus on the PACBI agenda (I put that link in as I find it interesting but know very little about it - I pay very little attention to the news but am aware they've been in it as has the campaign to boycott)

In answer to the simple question is apartheid bad... the answer is no shit Sherlock ... of course it is. The complex answer is, why decide to specifically decide this is the "most baddest" and I will create an academic boycott of this particular country while allow other bad acts in other countries go boycotted

Yes of course, but is Israel an Apartheid state? if so should people do nothing because there is other bad states out there? What if people had said (and I bet they did) that we shouldn't boycott South Africa because China is bad? I'd say point out all bad, but maybe focus on one at a time?

Question 1 Have you ever been to Israel and or Palestinian Territories etc. and spoken with academics and other archaeologists?
Question 2 Does blanket actions such as this have a positive effect? Those who are already "onside" are excluded and ostracised as well.
Question 3 Will you carry out similar academic boycotts on countries such as Russia for their anti gay legislation? To boycott Israel and not Russia (for example) would by logical derivation say to me that you are willing to allow homophobia, but not apartheid.

Are these questions you are specifically asking me? Or generic questions one should ask oneself before jumping on the bandwagon?

To be honest there is a lot of bad out there...and I have had my fair share of experience of it, ( when I went on a field trip with archaeology students from Ramallah Uni... and due to a new settlement were unable to get to the Palaeolithic cave site ) but I am certainly not going to also cut ties with excellent archaeologists such as Neer Lect-BenAmi or Julia Fridman or Chemi Shiff Why should I?

A very good point! The crucial question everyone should ask before backing sanctions. What and/or who do the sanctions hit worse.

And yes, bridge-building is better than pointing and ranting...after all: hatred is'nt instinctive it is taught

What I am saying is. yes rail against injustice - just be careful . This singularity view is like being a vegetarian who eats chicken.

But every journey starts with a single step.

[Jack]

Ooo, just found this:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion...75245.html

not finished reading it so have no proper opinion yet

But it's like they were listening (reading) our discussion!

[kevin wooldridge]

I won't be voting on this, but I do have opinions and I also have my own little boycotting campaign going.

I don't knowingly buy any product that was manufactured or grown in Israel. Likewise I try to avoid all liquid products that originate from the United States. I don't knowingly buy GM foods from anywhere or meat and fish products originating from farms. I refuse to honour the British royal family, the flag or its national sporting teams in any way whatsoever. I (reluctantly) carry a British passport but would prefer to be thought of as a European. Never been to Russia or China but would consider the ongoing situation, if ever the opportunity arose. Don't think that the words 'apartheid' or 'holocaust' should be used outside of their obvious specific context....

[Boxoffrogs]

As a vegetarian who does not eat chicken I have met archaeologists from around the world..Christian Archaeologists hunting for the Ark (yup Noah's), Some hunting for the very footsteps their 'lord' left in clay (I kid you not). I have met Judaic a Archaeologist who will wantonly cut thru all non 'Judaic'(Arab) layers so as to prove a point of Jewish 'provenance' (in a state created last century), American Archaeologist in denial of the Native heritage.....we live on a multi cultural planet with societies at each others throats because of 'religion' ..Racism exists within the mindset and is taught to children..Northern Ireland a case in point WE, the PEOPLE HAVE TO CHANGE!