Sunday, June 13, 2010

Highway 443; A Sign of the Times

The following photo was uploaded to a few days ago -- and the official yellow sign reads as follows:

Israeli [citizen]: Be Aware;
If you have reached this point,
you have made a mistake!

This sign appears on a road coming off of 443, and means that if you're an Israeli citizen, you've made a mistake, and the road you are now on, is only for Palestinians.

Of course, highway 443 is open to all, but some roads, like the one above, are forbidden to Jews.

Gotta love peace.

It is of course, no worse than this sign, which is only selectively enforced against Israeli Jews and not Israeli Arabs:

(The Hebrew version doesn't say "Israeli law", just "the law")

Talk about the Palestinian Apartheid State.

One-Click Pro-Israel Activism!
It takes just 1 Click to help Israel!

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד


rutimizrachi said...

Apropos of this, a new friend recently stated that we are living in an Apartheid State. I calmed myself, wanting to hear her opinion, but expecting to be rankled by it. "Yes?" I asked. "In what way?" She pointed to a woman in a hijab, dining in the restaurant near us. "She can eat and walk and shop anywhere in Israel she wants to. But if I go into Jenin or Ramallah, or even into certain parts of Jerusalem, I am taking my life in my hands. That is the definition of Apartheid -- when someone cannot freely move about because of her race." Mental note: I have GOT to stop judging the politics of women in slacks as automatically being Left-of-Center. My apologies. I'm learning.

NormanF said...

Its apartheid applied to Jews. Backed by leftists throughout Israeli society. In the name of peace. Jews are forbidden from driving through and building in their own country. And the restrictions will accumulate.

yoni r. said...

The first sign is not-enforceable, it's informational only.

The second sign was probably put up by Israel, since it is written in the two official Israeli languages plus English. Also, the word "החוק", which literally means, "the law", is used to refer to Israeli law. The same way an American in America will tell you that something is "against the law", and not "against the American (or state) law". It's thus not a Palestinian Apartheid (note the spelling) State, since they're not preventing us from entering, we're preventing ourselves. Although I'm not sure it that doesn't make it worse.

(The "Palestinian Apartheid State" is neither "Palestinian", not "Apartheid", nor a "State". Discuss.)

JoeSettler said...

Discuss? You're right.

Anonymous said...

Nothing about the Uri Brodsky arrested, upon arrival in Warsaw?

Anonymous said...

The sign is on a road that until recently was forbidden to the Arabs who lived around it.
Whole Israeli roads in the Territories are forbidden to Arabs.
Checkpoints in the Territories abound for the inspection of... Arabs.
Now I understand that these measures are necessary for many reasons, but surely you have to realize the absurdity of suggesting you are the victims of Apartheid like laws.
Can Arabs in Ramallah vote? Can you?
It's like suggesting that Native Americans rule the U.S. because they control the reservations into which they were herded.

Yonatan said...

Stop making sense...You're making my head hurt!

Anonymous said...

Ramallah is still in Israeli territory.
Your argument about Palestinians voting for Abbas or Hamas gives credence to the idea of an independent state, something you obviously do not wish to advocate. Be careful what examples you cite.

Anonymous said...

1- They have an army of 20,000 combat soldiers (not including non-uniformed combatants).

2- They have a parliament

3- They have both a President and Prime Minister

4- They have their own telephone country code

5- They have their own internet suffix

6- They have (or had) elections, and coups.

7 - They have their own passports

If that's not a state (or two if you count Hamastan/Gaza separately) then I don't know what is.

Gila said...

You know...there is something rather a bit bizarre about expressing shock &/or fury that the State would allow Palestineans to travel on a road (that is--you believe that the road should be open to Jews only) but then also expressing shock &/or fury that the State might restrict Jewish travel on a road. So....all Palestinian roads are bad, but all Jewish roads are fine?

I also travel 443, and am pretty sure that I have seen signs which bar Palestinians without permits from certain segments of the road. Which would mean that the limitations are going both ways.

But then, putting up pictures of both signs would not be nearly as good propoganda.

Anonymous said...

Gila, Gila, Gila. The restrictions are only because the Palestinians have murdered Jews on those roads.
It's not about propaganda, it's about Israel abandoning certain areas as too unsafe for Jews to travel on.

Yonatan said...

Yeah, I really don't hear about too many ambushes being made by Jews on Palestinians. I wonder why?

But don't let the truth or facts get in your way.

Anonymous said...

I realize this post was a few days ago, but I must admit I'm puzzled.
Many of you commenters are formerly American, so you must be familiar, on some level, with "equal representation under the law."
Just try to address the actual question that Gila asks. Your reasoning as to the reasoning of the law is inconsequential.
Here it is: Is it OK to have Palestinian only roads? If not, is it OK to have Jewish Israeli only roads? If you answer 2 yeses or 2 no's, then at least you are consistent. However,if your answer to the 1st quest is no and the answer to your second question is yes, then from my perspective, something is wrong.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

L: Puzzled by equal representation under the law? 443 was closed to Palestinian traffic because of murderous terror attacks.

The supreme court ruled that 443 should not be a "Jewish" only road, but should be mixed. However, the same court refuses to open roads which are closed to Jews.

Hint; they aren't closed to Jews because the Jews are committing terror attacks on Palestinians, but the IDF doesn't want Jews there because they don't want to have to protect them against getting murdered by...Palestinians!

In a perfect world, everyone could go on every road. In fact, before the Oslo "peace" accords, thats the way it was. Only since the "peace" came to our region, has there been a quantum leap in terror attacks against Jews.

And by the way, today, Palestinians are allowed on all roads in the West Bank. I can show you a whole bunch which are forbidden to Jews.

Anonymous said...

People like you scare me, I can't lie.
When I typed it originally I wasn't sure how to phrase it, "Jews," "Israelis," "Jewish Israelis." So I went with the last choice. I agree, it probably wasn't accurate and should have been "Israelis," but no clever semantic intent was intended (syllogism alert).
Scary Sammy, I'm Jewish, religious (yes, a loaded phrase) and staunchly Zionist. Not everything is a conspiracy or a trap.
Once again, try to remember that even in a world where you feel the need to make everything "Us vs.Them," you should be careful where you draw those lines. I try not to think of you as "Them" and I hope you will give me the same benefit of the doubt.

Jameel, you know the political situation in the immediate area where you live much better than I do, but the last time I was in Israel-- about a year ago, there most certainly were roads that were for "Israelis" only. Of course that is safety based, but it existed --at least until very recently-- nonetheless.
If I am not mistaken, the road built from the Gush area with the tunnel was created just to avoid Palestinian areas (Beit Lechem?). Again, you would know better than me, but I believe that is/was an "Israeli" only road.
Not all the Palestinian only roads are safety issues. Some are Palestinian Area A roads, a remnant from the Oslo Accords,
Nevertheless, the question remains, if you are protesting that 443 is not Israelis only, then why complain that there are roads that are Palestinian only. Why not agree that there should be both or neither? Again, I understand security issues are critical, but I don't think you really want the unsafe roads open to Israelis; you want a particular unsafe road closed to Palestinians.
These debates that you and I have often had in the comment section of your blog always boil down to the same issue: Is Israel a true democracy? Is it a democracy for its entire population or for its Jewish population?
Regardless of the cause of the road closings (even though it is due to the violence of the Palestinians who live in the villages alongside those roads), one law has to apply to everyone. Either closing or no closings. It's how the law works, in most places.
The Supreme Court ruled the way it did on 443 because it is a main thoroughfare and because when it was initially built, it was presented as advantageous for all the residents who live near the road, regardless of origin (How's that, Sammy?).
Again, it's tragic that Palestinians have closed the roads due to violence, but the law is the law. It should apply to all the same regardless of the source of the problem. (That's why justice is portrayed wearing a blindfold).

Anonymous said...

Jameel, these Palestinian only roads, where do they lead to? How large are they? Ho many people do these closings inconvenience? Can you cite specific details?

Anonymous "HUH!"
I'm not advocating that Palestinians are given the vote in Israeli elections, but until they are, you can't really say they can vote in good conscience.
It's like letting an African American vote for the mayor of Birmingham but not for governor or President.

Sammy Shomron said...

Indeed Anonymous, what is scary then is how easily you fell into the trap that is so commonly used in attempts to delegitimize Israel.

Israel's biggest attackers specifically use lies like "Jewish only roads" in order to portray Israel as an apartheid regime. So when a phrase like that is used, bells ring.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, except that you again repeated the slogans of the anti-Zionists.

When you ask "Is Israel a true democracy? Is it a democracy for its entire population or for its Jewish population?" you are again repeating the same typical phrases used by those trying to delegitimize Israel.

Perhaps you are just extremely careless in your words, as you try to ask Jameel for a very specific answer.

Perhaps you just read to much anti-Israel material uncritically, and inadvertently pick up and use all their anti-Zionist slogans.

Or Perhaps, your not the staunch Zionist you claim to be,

Sammy Shomron said...

The road between Har Homa and Tekoa was a Palestinian-only road.
Tekoa was constantly described as being "deep inside the West Bank" by the media.
Once the road was finally opened to Jews (between the hours of 600-1800) Tekoa became a 7 minute drive from Har Homa, no longer deep inside the West Bank.

As for Mr. Huh. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Palestinians have their own President and Parliament whom they voted for. They enact their own laws, such as it is illegal to sell land to Jews, and they enforce it with the death penalty.

Perhaps you mean it's not in good conscience to let them vote if that is the end result.

Anonymous said...

I am a Zionist. I am a Zionist who sometimes questions what Israel does. I am a Zionist who lives outside Israel and feels that I can disagree with Israeli government policies, just as I might with my own government's policies, and still be a supporter.
I do not believe that Israel is an "Apartheid state," but I also understand that there are problems having a population within your borders that are treated differently than other members of the population.
If there are Israeli only roads, then it is not anti-zionist to discuss them. That is unless you consider it wrong to discuss the topic. I guess that would be a freedom of speech issue.
I'm not careless in my words.
You just don't like them.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

L: Just got home from work and a shiur. Will reply tomorrow.

Layla tov,


Anonymous said...

Is America a true democracy when it allows "affirmative action" in the university system where one population within its borders are treated differently than other members of the population?
Is France a true democracy when it forbids the wearing of a Hijab in public and discriminates against its Muslim citizens freedom of expression?
Is the US a true democracy when it forbids naturalized citizens to become President (current President excluded)?
That all sounds like unequal treatment. I guess the US and France aren't true democracies.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

PS: I've blogged specifics before about roads closed to Jews...will write all about it tomorrow.

Examples include Kvish Wallerstein, Gush Talmonim road to Jerusalem, highway 446, etc.

Search the Muqata


Related Posts with Thumbnails