Yearly Assessment Report Brief Executive Summary Mission And: Fill & Download for Free

Starting up a school requires a combined set of skills that comprise knowledge of school education as well as business prowess. It mostly happens that the entrepreneurs lack either one or the other. Below is the complete procedure to open a school in India:Site Survey and Market Research-This is a key activity which is conducted to have a broad feel of the area where the school is to be set up.Conducting a widespread survey to sense the expectation and aspiration of the people falling in the catchment area.Carrying out a site and neighborhood survey for having an insight into market potential.Getting an idea about the fabric of major strata of the society and their willingness and ability to spend on child’s education.Meeting with opinion makers, preferably school teachers, reputed coaching owners and PTA members of reputed schools, social leaders etc.Preparation of detailed reports in modular form with in-depth demand forecasting.Guidance in Legal ComplianceAdvice on registration of schools under the legal regimes in India.Compatibility of the selected legal regime with the unique rules of the State in which the school is located.Advice on setting up a Minority Religious or Linguistic Trust in respect of Minority Educational Institutions under the Constitution of India, if applicable.Impact of the right of children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE-2009) on schools from different angles.Advice on obtaining a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the State Government.Advice on obtaining other NOC’s from the concerned government departments.Detailed Financial Reports (to avail bank loan)Purpose is to provide a feasibility study for setting up a school in the area and to get clarity on the outcome of the project. This is done by means of various assessment methods followed by analysis and synthesis of the collected data and information.The detailed financial report can be used for the purpose of acquiring bank loan or attracting investors on board.The DFR comprises of two stages:Stage 1 deliverables:Executive summaryOverview of education scenario of the cityLocation analysisRecommendation of fee structureHR proposalDrawing up of project goalsPrevailing trends in the areaOperating model detailsVision and philosophyUSPLicences and documents requisiteRoadmap of the projectFormation of company/trust/society and its roleManaging committee structure formationRegistration, approval and affiliation requisitesProposal for associatesConcept noteOverview of facilities to be includedDetails of infrastructure and area required for year 1, 2 and 3Software and ERPRegisters and record to be maintainedAdmission rules and regulationStage 2 deliverables:All projections to be done with a perspective of 10 yearsStudent flow projectionFee collection matrixCost of infrastructure and facilities (phase 1, phase 2)Pre and post operational budgetP/L accountSalary and other expensesArchitectural and Infra PlanningWell planned is half done. The project is planned very meticulously with consideration of each and every fine detail. This would form a strong base for smooth execution of work.Assessing the provision of land area to include all the planned facilities in accordance to board compliance.Architectural concept complying with the State, Centre and the affiliating Board.The architectural concept of the project based on the latest trends prevailing across the globe.Continuous coordination with the architect and the client to ensure the best quality, smooth, timely and cost-effective execution of the project.Planning and designing of science and subject labs, playgrounds, indoor game courts, auditorium, mess, library and other facilities.Interior Planning – Concept and detailed drawings including floor finish, tiling and cladding, carpentry details, wall finishes, artwork etc.Landscape – Ideation and site development services comprising precise drawings for the external area.Green School Planning – Incorporating energy efficient and environment friendly measures.Thoughtfully designed and strategically located boarding facility for students and residential facility for staff members in the campus.Project ConceptualizationWell planned is half done. The project is planned very meticulously with consideration of each and every fine detail. This would form a strong base for smooth execution of work.Creating Vision and Mission and PhilosophyGuidance for master planningFinalizing the milestones of the projectInputs on statutory requirementsAffiliation/ Board PlanningBoarding Management System (in case boarding facility is planned)Boarding is a home away from home for the child. It should provide an environment to give physical comfort and mental security to the child and be able to channelize his energy through positive and meaningful activities.Scheduling of activitiesLaundry managementMess management with a close eye on nutrition, hygiene and cost objective.Security managementPrep classes planning to ensure 100 % resultRecreation for rejuvenation of body, mind and soulPlanning to ensure hygiene in every nook and corner.Meticulous planning of sports activities for physical fitness of the boarding children.Recruitment and TrainingHuman resource requirement analysis at various stages of time.Drawing up detailed job description of academic and operational staff.Advertising, Short listing, Interview Conduction and Recommending Best candidate.Recruitment drive for Principal, HODs, key persons, teachers, operational and helping staff.Staff Training Program for faculty and operational staff prior to commissioning of school.Drafting Contracts for Principal, teachers and other staff members.Briefing of usage of CBSE, IGCSE and IB academic websites.Training of various committees to be formed as suggested by CBSE.Training for conduction of ASL in the school.Subject-specific, ECE, NCLB, POCSO, Soft skills and behavioural training.Organizing spoken English and communication skills training for the staff membersTraining on the establishment of a dynamic examination department complying with all the necessary requirements of the affiliating board.Branding and MarketingBranding reflects the vision and philosophy of an educational entity. A hundred-year-old institute also has to put consistent efforts to keep itself blossoming in the hearts of community so for a new school it becomes imperative to focus sharply on branding and marketing to maximize its reach.Generating a brand name, logo and a befitting taglineBranding and marketing for apt positioningGuidance for website development with consideration of all stakeholders.Strategy for making long-lasting and fruitful public relationsCreating marketing collaterals i.e. Brochure, leaflet, office stationery etc.Digital marketing PlanGuidance on scheduling and organizing conferences, seminars and workshopsGuidance in conducting community services for earning faith in the regionAcademic PlanningSelection of publications and books for Pre-Primary, Primary and Middle classes.Designing of Handbook /school diaryDesigning of TimetableSyllabus designDesigning of yearly examination calendarDesigning of Yearly academic calendarDesigning of Yearly activity calendarDesigning of annual sports calendarDesigning of curriculum for special classesDesigning Assessment and monitoring system covering various aspects related to all stakeholdersPlanning for student-specific growth areas.Designing of Annual Assembly Calendar incorporating a spectrum of activities to give a good start to each new day.Designing of activities and communication platforms involving parents at various stages for mutual cooperation to ensure children’s overall development.Designing of PTA Constitution for seamless and effective communication between school and parents.Inclusion of technology for proper feedback systemPlanning Operational ServicesDeveloping an integrated IT Management/ ERP System for smooth running of operationsGuidance on Finance and Cost Management to inculcate financial discipline in the system right from the inception.Creating Policy Manual for all stakeholdersDrafting ruling manual for effective governanceEPF/ESIC/PT/TDS assistanceSuggesting Safety & Security measures to comply with state, centre, judiciary & affiliating board rules.Designing of Record Management System for error-free and time-saving operations.Transportation designing with consideration of safety, time and cost saving.Outlining Admission Rules and criteriaCanteen, /mess and tuck shop managementAnalyzing housekeeping requirement and guiding on negotiating contracts.Guidance in conduction of psychometric tests for utility/class IV staff.Board Affiliation ServicesAid in application and affiliation processVerification of all norms and procedures before applying for affiliationGuidance in case of deficiencies/objections from BoardIf you want to open a new school in India, visit http://ekatvam.org.in

Kennedy, Kennedy, and Kennedy.And the grant of a 10-year time frame to NASA.“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.”—President John F. Kennedy addressing a joint session of Congress, May 25, 1961That was the most important.Many presidents since John Kennedy have announced bold decisions, but few have followed those decisions with the budgetary and political commitments needed to ensure success.Kennedy’s commitment to the race to the Moon initiated the largest peacetime government-directed engineering project in U.S. history. Project Apollo by the time it was completed cost U.S. taxpayers $25.4 billion, which would be equal to some $151 billion in 2010 dollars.The OP who wrote “we all rallied to the cause”, that was all bollocks.Far many more, had rallied for industrial production in World War II.Well in truth, the American homeboys had no role whatsoever in the moon project, excepting seeing their tax money used up.Engineers and scientists had key roles. Everyone else sat on their haunches and watched TV. And possibly smoked weed.An intriguing insight into what may have been JFK’s views on space in the prepresidential period emerges from his February 16, 1960, response to a handwritten letter from a Princeton University freshman “with a strong Republican background” who told Senator Kennedy that he should “put more money in the space program.”In his response, Kennedy noted that the letter had reached him because of the author’s “undeviating Republicanism, Princetonian self-assurance and uncomplicated handwriting.” Kennedy suggested that “whatever the scale and pace of the American space effort, it should be a scientific program . . . In this interval when we lack adequate propulsion units, we should not attempt to cover this weakness with stunts.”He added, “When this weakness is overcome, our ventures should remain seriously scientific in their purpose.” Kennedy felt that “with respect to the competitive and psychological aspects of the space program, it is evident that we have suffered damage to American prestige and will continue to suffer for some time.”However, he pointed out that “our recent loss of international prestige results from an accumulation of real or believed deficiencies in the American performance on the world scene: military, diplomatic, and economic. It is not simply a consequence of our lag in the exploration of space vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.”Kennedy listed these deficiencies in the order in which he thought they should be addressed: “the missile gap,” “inadequate or misdirected policies in the underdeveloped areas,” “the disarray of NATO,” “the weakening of the international position of the dollar,” and, finally, “our inferior position in space exploration.”He thought that the United States “should accept the costs now of achieving the powerful propulsion unit a few years earlier than now may be the case” and looked forward to “the internationalization of space exploration, first on a Free World basis, then with the USSR.”This response suggests that Senator Kennedy had indeed given some thought to space issues before February 1960, and that in his judgment they had a lower priority in comparison to other threats to U.S. leadership.Notable is JFK’s interest at this early date in both increasing the lifting power of U.S. rockets and in internationalizing space activity. The letter also suggests, as in the use of the expression “propulsion unit” rather than launch vehicle, that Kennedy or whoever composed the response was not very familiar with the specifics of the U.S. space effort.Space issues did not play a major role in John Kennedy’s campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. Once the nomination was secured, Kennedy in his July 15 acceptance speech first used the term “New Frontier.”The Democratic platform on which Kennedy would run stated:The Republican Administration has remained incredibly blind to the prospects of space exploration. It has failed to pursue space programs with a sense of urgency at all close to their importance to the future of the world.The new Democratic Administration will press forward with our national space program in full realization of the importance of space accomplishments to our national security and our international prestige. We shall reorganize the program to achieve both efficiency and speedy execution. We shall bring top scientists into positions of responsibility. We shall undertake long-term basic research in space science and propulsion.To develop background material on the various issues he would have to address during his presidential campaign, Senator Kennedy in December 1958 established a “brain trust” drawn primarily from the faculties of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.According to the authoritative account of the Kennedy campaign, “The professors were to think, winnow, analyze and prepare data on the substance of national policy, to channel from university to speech writers to Cox to his closest policy adviser, Theodore C. Sorensen—and thus to the candidate.” This process failed in its execution. While an impressive amount of material was generated, little of it was read by Kennedy or used during the campaign.Later, Kennedy made frequent references to the space program in his campaign appearances. For example:If the Soviet Union was first in outer space, that is the most serious defeat the United States has suffered in many, many years . . . Because we failed to recognize the impact that being first in outer space would have, the impression began to move around the world that the Soviet Union was on the march, that it had definite goals, that it knew how to accomplish them, that it was moving and we were standing still. This is what we have to overcome, that psychological feeling in the world that the United States has reached maturity, that maybe our high noon has passed . . . and that now we are going into the long, slow afternoon.—Eggers and O’Leary, If We Can Put a Man on the MoonKennedy’s campaign rhetoric with respect to the loss of U.S. prestige because of the Soviet space successes was reinforced by a classified U.S. Information Agency report that was leaked to The Washington Post. The title of the October 10 report was “The World Reaction to the United States and Soviet Space Programs—A Summary Assessment.” The report was based on polls taken in Great Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, and Norway. On the basis of the results of these surveys, the report concluded that “in anticipation of future U.S.-U.S.S.R. standing, foreign public opinion . . . appears to have declining confidence in the U.S. as the ‘wave of the future’ in a number of critical areas.”Throughout the campaign, Kennedy frequently l inked the Eisenhower administration’s failures in space to its allowing the Soviet Union to achieve a significant advantage vis-à-vis the United States with respect to the development and deployment of ballistic missiles—the so-called “missile gap.”On November 8, 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected by a very narrow margin as the thirty-fifth President of the United States; his victory was confirmed only shortly after noon on the next day.On Monday April 10, 1961, Kennedy’s deputy press secretary Andrew Hatcher told him that the United Press International news service was about to report that the Soviet Union had successfully recovered the first human to orbit the Earth. Kennedy asked Hatcher to check on the report; he had known for several weeks from intelligence briefings that such a launch was imminent.The Soviet Union had successfully completed one-orbit missions of a spacecraft carrying a dog as a passenger on March 9 (remember poor “Laika”?) and March 25. It was almost certain that the next step would be a mission with a human on board. Hatcher reported back a few innings later that the news reports “have not materialized” and that “elaborate Russian plans to make this anticipated announcement have been abandoned for today.”Also, said Hatcher, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) “could not confirm or deny the report” of the Soviet launch.By the end of the next day, April 11, the CIA did report that the Soviet launch was likely within the next few hours.Within a few seconds of the launch of the first human in space at 1:07 a.m. on April 12, Washington time (11:07 a.m. at the launch site in Soviet Central Asia), U.S. intelligence systems knew that it had taken place. They monitored the in-orbit communications during the single-orbit flight and decoded the television transmissions from the spacecraft that showed the cosmonaut moving about.It took several hours for Moscow to announce the successful mission; the Soviet dispatch said that “the world’s first space ship Vostok with a man on board has been launched on April 12 in the Soviet Union on a round-the-earth orbit. The first space navigator is Soviet citizen pilot Maj. Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin.”The United States had just lost the Space Race!

I’ve answered this question before, most recently here, so I’ll just restate that. TL;DR, yes, certainly according to experts on Apartheid and other matters like Mandela, Tutu, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, Adalah, the Haifa-based Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, D'Alema the former premier of Italy, Ronnie Kasrils as a leading member of the African National Congress during the apartheid era and former government minister, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, John Dugard, John Reynolds and many others. An example biography of one of the experts I quoted :Apartheid in Occupied Palestine: A Rejoinder to Yaffa Zilbershats“John Dugard is Emeritus Professor of International Law at the University of Leiden and Honorary Professor in the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria. He served as a member of the International Law Commission from 1997–2011 and as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory from 2001–2008. He has also served as judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice. John Reynolds is the EJ Phelan Fellow in International Law at the National University of Ireland, Galway.”“John Reynolds (pictured right) is the EJ Phelan Fellow in International Law at the National University of Ireland, Galway.Since I first wrote an answer, it’s actually worse with the nation state law described in Vox, i.e.:Israel’s hugely controversial "nation-state" law, explained“The law does three big things:It states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.”It establishes Hebrew as Israel’s official language, and downgrades Arabic — a language widely spoken by Arab Israelis — to a “special status.”It establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.””“The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, an Israeli human rights organization, has documented entrenched discrimination and socioeconomic differences in “land, urban planning, housing, infrastructure, economic development, and education.” More than half the poor families in Israel are Arab, and Arab municipalities are the poorest in Israel, according to ACRI.What’s more, ACRI says that Arab Israelis are treated with “hostility and mistrust” and that “large sections of the Israeli public [view] the Arab minority as both a fifth column and a demographic threat.”For Arab Israelis, then, the new nation-state law is merely the culmination of years of institutional discrimination. Only now the discrimination is officially enshrined in Israel’s basic law — the country’s constitutional equivalent.”Other experts make similar conclusions - Israel worse than an apartheid state“Recently Yigal Elam, the known Israeli historian, wrote: “The state is, first and foremost, the rule of law, this is its essence, it is not the authority of the people, or the rule of the majority, it is not either the rule of the elites.” He added: “But things have been mixed up with us lately. Israel has given up and removed from under its feet the rule on which any civilised country stands, because the state, which does not recognise its civil content as a priori, appears to be an abnormal state.”Elam concluded: “With the [new Israeli] National Law, the principle of achieving and guaranteeing equality in the social and political rights of all citizens, regardless of religious, ethnic or gender affiliation, is removed. Within such a situation, Israel is not a state but a quasi-state, because the state that denies its civil essence is not worthy of being recognised as a State”.”So back to my original answer, why do people say that Israel is an apartheid state, because of the evidence. It’s easy to cherry pick the odd Arab Muslim celebrity that makes it through the system, so instead I’ll start with Rima Najjar excellent answer Rima Najjar's answer to Do Palestinians from the West Bank all require a biometric ID card to get into Israel, or are their traditional hawiya and permit enough?, specifically this part, the infographic below Identity Crisis: The Israeli ID System which highlights the differential treatment:Another one from Visualizing Palestine shows how roads are separated:Israel's System of Segregated Roads in the Occupied Palestinian TerritoriesAlso, these areas are what Ariel Sharon referred to as the "bantustan model", the same model as the “homelands” in South Africa. This was reported by many news organisations, including here below in Haaretz: People and Politics / Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hope:“The former premier from the Italian left said that three or four years ago he had a long conversation with Sharon, who was in Rome for a brief visit. According to D'Alema, Sharon explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict.The defender of Israel quickly protested. "Surely that was your personal interpretation of what Sharon said."D'Alema didn't give in. "No, sir, that is not interpretation. That is a precise quotation of your prime minister."Supplementary evidence backing D'Alema's story can be found in an expensively produced brochure prepared for Tourism Minister Benny Elon, who is promoting a two-state solution - Israel and Jordan. Under the title "The Road to War: a tiny protectorate, overpopulated, carved up and demilitarized," the Moledet Party leader presents "the map of the Palestinian state, according to Sharon's proposal." Sharon's map is surprisingly similar to the plan for protectorates in South Africa in the early 1960s. Even the number of cantons is the same - 10 in the West Bank (and one more in Gaza). Dr. Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa, notes that the South Africans only managed to create four of their 10 planned Bantustans.The Bantustan model, says Liel, was the ugliest of all the tricks used to perpetuate the apartheid regime in most of South Africa's territory. By 1986, unrest in the Bantustans turned into ongoing rioting and terror, which descended into coups in the so-called independent regimes, and South African intervention. The minuscule support the Bantustan governments did enjoy evaporated, so by January 1994, they were finally dismantled and became integrated into the united South Africa of black majority rule.”read more: People and Politics / Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hopeFrom Rula Jebreal in the New York timesChief among the more than 50 discriminatory Israeli laws documented by Adalah, the Haifa-based Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, is the Law of Return, which automatically guarantees Israeli citizenship for every Jew regardless of birthplace. Often, they are shepherded into settlements in the West Bank (illegal under international law), where they receive government benefits. Palestinian Israeli citizens, meanwhile, are subject to a ban on family reunification: If they marry a fellow Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza, they are prohibited from living in Israel under the Citizenship and Entry Into Israel Law.In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city.Further ethnic separation is maintained by the education system. Aside from a few mixed schools, most educational institutions in Israel are divided into Arab and Jewish ones. According to Nurit Peled-Elhanan, a Hebrew University professor of sociology who has produced the most comprehensive survey of Israeli public school curriculums, not one positive reference to Palestinians exists in Israeli high school textbooks. Palestinians are described as either “Arab farmers with no nationality” or fearsome “terrorists,” as Professor Peled-Elhanan documented in her book “Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education.”Calling Israel's occupation of Palestine apartheid isn't lazy or inflammatory – it's based on fact“Do Israeli laws and practices match this definition? In the words of the US State Department, Palestinian citizens face “institutional and societal discrimination”. This affects areas such as immigration and family life, land and housing.”I fought South African apartheid. I see the same brutal policies in IsraelRonnie Kasrils“I was shut down in South Africa for speaking out, and I’m disturbed that the same is happening to critics of Israel now• Ronnie Kasrils was a leading member of the African National Congress during the apartheid era and former government minister‘Benjamin Netanyahu said recently: ‘Israel is not a state of all its citizens … Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and them alone.’ Photograph: Amir Levy/Getty ImagesAs a Jewish South African anti-apartheid activist I look with horror on the far-right shift in Israel ahead of this month’s elections, and the impact in the Palestinian territories and worldwide.Israel’s repression of Palestinian citizens, African refugees and Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza has become more brutal over time. Ethnic cleansing, land seizure, home demolition, military occupation, bombing of Gaza and international law violations led Archbishop Tutu to declare that the treatment of Palestinians reminded him of apartheid, only worse.”Someone who understood Apartheid well - Nelson Mandela:Nelson Mandela Speaking on Palestine [Extracts]From Mandela’s address at The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (4 December 1997). Tellingly, he CHOSE TO USE the word “Palestinian”."Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians "Nelson Mandela’s harsh attack on Israel at the start of his three-day visit to Australia.“The deputy president of the African National Congress likened Israel to a terrorist state.”We identify with them because we do not believe it is right for the Israeli government to suppress basic human rights in the conquered territories.” Mandela declared.”"If one has to refer to any of the parties as a terrorist state, one might refer to the Israeli government, because they are the people who are slaughtering defenseless and innocent Arabs in the occupied territories, and we don’t regard that as acceptable.”"My view is that talk of peace remains hollow if Israel continues to occupy Arab lands””From a BBC report - Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid'“South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians.The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".In a speech in the United States, carried in the UK's Guardian newspaper, Archbishop Tutu said he saw "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about".Tutu: Issue is the same in Palestine as it was in South Africa, ‘equality’ – Mondoweiss“I have been to the Ocupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of Apartheid. I have witnessed the humiliation of Palestinian men, women, and children made to wait hours at Israeli military checkpoints routinely when trying to make the most basic of trips to visit relatives or attend school or college, and this humiliation is familiar to me and the many black South Africans who were corralled and regularly insulted by the security forces of the Apartheid government.”Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? - A study coordinated by the Middle East Project of the Democracy and Governance Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa“Israel’s practices in the Occupied Territories, (OPT) can be defined by the same three ‘pillars’ of apartheid. The first pillar derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews. The product of this in the OPT is an institutionalised system that privileges Jewish settlers and discriminates against Palestinians on the basis of the inferior status afforded to non-Jews by Israel. At the root of this system are Israel’s citizenship laws, whereby group identity is the primary factor in determining questions involving the acquisition of Israeli citizenship. The 1950 Law of Return defines who is a Jew for purposes of the law and allows every Jew to immigrate to Israel or the OPT. The 1952 Citizenship Law then grants automatic citizenship to people who immigrate under the Law of Return, while erecting insurmountable obstacles to citizenship for Palestinian refugees. Israeli law conveying special standing to Jewish identity is then applied extra-territorially to extend preferential legal status and material privileges to Jewish settlers in the OPT and thus discriminate against Palestinians. The review of Israel’s practices under Article 2 of the Apartheid Convention provides abundant evidence of discrimination against Palestinians that flows from that inferior status, in realms such as the right to leave and return to one’s country, freedom of movement and residence, and access to land. The 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law banning Palestinian family unification is a further example of legislation that confers benefits to Jews over Palestinians and illustrates the adverse impact of having the status of Palestinian Arab. The disparity in how the two groups are treated by Israel is highlighted through the application of a harsher set of laws and different courts for Palestinians in the OPT than for Jewish settlers, as well as through the restrictions imposed by the permit and ID systems.The second pillar is reflected in Israel’s grand policy to fragment the OPT for the purposes of segregation and domination. This policy is evidenced by: Israel’s extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians. That these measures are intended to segregate the population along racial lines in violation of Article 2(d) of the Apartheid Convention is clear from the visible web of walls, separate roads, and checkpoints, and the invisible web of permit and ID systems, that combine to ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. Whether the confinement of Palestinians to certain reserves or enclaves within the OPT is analogous to South African ‘grand apartheid’ in the further sense that Israel intends Palestinian rights ultimately to be met by the creation of a State in parts of the OPT whose rationale is based on racial segregation engages political questions beyond the scope and method of this study. Within the scope of this study is that, much as the same restrictions functioned in apartheid South Africa, the policy of geographic fragmentation has the effect of crushing Palestinian socio-economic life, securing Palestinian vulnerability to Israeli economic dominance, and of enforcing a rigid segregation of Palestinian and Jewish populations. The fragmentation of the territorial integrity of a self-determination unit for the purposes of racial segregation and domination is prohibited by international law.The third pillar upon which Israel’s system of apartheid in the OPT rests is its ‘security’ laws and policies. The extrajudicial killing, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of Palestinians, as described under the rubric of Article 2(a) of the Apartheid 22 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Convention, are all justified by Israel on the pretext of security. These policies are State-sanctioned, and often approved by the Israeli judicial system, and supported by an oppressive code of military laws and a system of improperly constituted military courts. Additionally, this study finds that Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement also often purports to mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination, and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group. This study does not contend that Israel’s claims about security are by definition lacking in merit; however, Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate severe policies and disproportionate practices toward the Palestinians often masks the intent to suppress Palestinian opposition to a system of domination by one racial group over another.”In the European Journal of International Law - Apartheid, International Law, and the Occupied Palestinian TerritoryJohn Dugard, John Reynolds“The available evidence suggests that Israel is responsible for committing inhuman acts within the meaning of Article 2(a), (c), (d), and (f) of the Apartheid Convention, while it does not suggest Israeli culpability for the inhuman acts described by Article 2(b) and (e) of the Convention.Article 2(a) relates to the denial to a member or members of a racial group of the right to life and liberty of person. Israel’s policies and practices in the West Bank include denial of the right to life through state-sanctioned extra-judicial killings of Palestinians opposed to the occupation, including the targeting of political leaders and militants at times when they were not participating in hostilities and were thus protected by international humanitarian law.127To aggravate matters, such targeted killings have often resulted in the killing of innocent bystanders as ‘collateral damage’.128The Israeli Supreme Court has placed restraints on this practice short of declaring it unlawful,129but it continues unabated. In many cases the killing of Palestinian militants constitutes the extra-judicial killing of persons who could be arrested and brought to trial rather than summarily executed. South Africa’s apartheid security forces on occasion killed political opponents in an arbitrary and secretive manner,130but in most instances they preferred to bring such persons to trial. This was because treason and terrorism were capital crimes in a country that then practised the death penalty. Arguably, South Africa’s judicially approved execution of militants was more forthright than Israel’s extrajudicial executions, which allow militants to be killed while at the same time allowing Israel to proclaim proudly that it does not practise the death penalty. Certainly apartheid South Africa did not practise systematic extrajudicial killings openly and with the public authorization of senior security and political officials as is done by Israel.”ISRAELI APARTHEID FACTSHEET - War on Want NGOUN OFFICIALS AND COMMITTEES ON ISRAEL AND APARTHEIDIsrael’s treatment of Palestinians has been regularly cited by UN Special Rapporteurs on the Human Rights Situation in Palestine as evidence of an Apartheid system in action. For example:● Richard Falk, emeritus professor of law at Princeton University and UN special rapporteur 2008-2014, wrote in a report to the UN Human Rights Council that Israel is guilty of racial discrimination, apartheid and torture in its “systematic oppression” of the Palestinian people. (UN document A/HRC/25/67)● John Dugard, South African law professor and Falk’s predecessor in the post of UN Special Rapporteur, wrote a detailed study in 2013 on whether the charge of apartheid applies to Israel, concluding: “On the basis of the systemic and institutionalized nature of the racial domination that exists, there are indeed strong grounds to conclude that a system of apartheid has developed in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israeli practices in the occupied territory are not only reminiscent of – and, in some cases, worse than – apartheid as it existed in South Africa, but are in breach of the legal prohibition of apartheid.”● The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination censured Israel in 2012 for implementing “two entirely separate legal systems and sets of institutions for Jewish communities grouped in illegal settlements on the one hand and Palestinian populations living in Palestinian towns and villages on the other hand.” The Committee declared itself “particularly appalled at the hermetic character of the separation of two groups, who live on the same territory but do not enjoy either equal use of roads and infrastructure or equal access to basic services and water resources”. It called on Israel to eradicate all policies and practices of “racial segregation and apartheid” affecting the Palestinian people (UN document CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16).● In March 2017, the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) commissioned and published a report called 'Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid' which concludes, "on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid, and urges swift action to oppose and end it." The report also recommends that national governments and civil society actors should support boycott, divestment and sanctions activities in response to Israel's Apartheid regime.ISRAELI OFFICIALS ON APARTHEIDA number of Israeli government officials have used the term apartheid in reference to Israeli control over Palestinians:● Reuven Rivlin, the currently sitting President of Israel, was quoted in the Israeli press on 12 February 2017 saying that Israel’s newly passed ‘Regularisation Law’, which formally expropriates several tracts of Palestinian land, “will cause Israel to be seen as an apartheid state.”● One of the first people to use the word apartheid in relation to Israel was Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion. Following the 1967 June war, he warned of Israel becoming an “apartheid state” if it retained control of the occupied territory, which it has done.● In 1999, then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak stated: "Every attempt to keep hold of [Israel and the occupied territory] as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state.” In 2010, Barak repeated the apartheid comparison, stating: "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic… If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."LEGAL SCHOLARS ON APARTHEID AND ISRAEL: ‘OCCUPATION, COLONIALISM, APARTHEID’● In 2009, an international team of legal scholars working under the auspices of the Human Sciences Research Council in Cape Town, South Africa published a study called Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? The study concluded that the Israeli state has imposed a state of Apartheid on the Palestinian people, in that Israel is guilty of many of the practices and policies of Apartheid identified in the Apartheid Convention adopted by the United Nations in 1973, and that these acts together constitute the “integrated and complementary elements of an institutionalised and oppressive system of Israeli domination and oppression over Palestinians as a group; that is, a system of apartheid.”● The study noted that Israel has implemented all three of the pillars that characterised apartheid in the South African context, namely: (a) the categorisation of the population along racial lines; (b) the segregation of the population on the basis of this categorisation into different geographical areas allocated to different racial groups; and (c) a system of laws and policies that subject the Palestinian people to extrajudicial killing, torture and arbitrary arrest and detention, as well as sweeping restrictions on Palestinians’ rights to freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement.PollsPalestinians are seen as second class citizens including the desire to implement ethnic transfer, segregation and exclusion from voting. Looking at the survey, the majority acknowledge Apartheid! One can start with the Times of Israel: Nearly half of Jewish Israelis want to expel Arabs, survey showsPew study finds 79% believe Jews should get preferential treatment over Arab citizensOrSurvey: Most Israeli Jews wouldn't give Palestinians vote if West Bank was annexed (Haaretz)BBC NewsIsraeli anti-Arab racism 'rises'“Israeli Arabs complain they are treated differently to Israel's JewsAn Israeli civil rights group has said racism against Arab citizens of Israel has risen sharply in the past year.In a report, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said expression of anti-Arab views had doubled, and racist incidents had increased by 26%.Christian or Muslim Arab citizens of Israel make up 20% of the population.But the civil rights quoted polls suggesting half of Jewish Israelis do not believe Arab citizens of Israel should have equal rights.About the same amount said they wanted the government to encourage Arab emigration from Israel.In another poll, almost 75% of Jewish youths said Arabs were less intelligent and less clean than Jews.”Ynet News‘Marriage to an Arab is national treason’“Recent poll reveals steep rise in racist views against Arabs in Israel; many participants feel hatred, fear when overhearing Arabic, 75 percent don’t approve of shared apartment buildingsRoee Nahmias|Published: 27.03.07 , 19:55Over half of the Jewish population in Israel believes the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason, according to a recent survey by the Geocartography Institute. The survey, which was conducted for the Center Against Racism, also found that over 75 percent of participants did not approve of apartment buildings being shared between Arabs and Jews. Sixty percent of participants said they would not allow an Arab to visit their home. Five hundred Jewish men and women participated in the poll, which was published Tuesday. “Ynet news againPoll: 36% of Jews want to revoke Arabs' voting rights“While few Israeli Jews say they are nationalistic, many favor anti-democratic values, survey findsThirty-six percent of Israeli Jews are in favor of revoking the voting rights of non-Jews, Yedioth Ahronoth reported, citing findings by the Dahaf polling agency, headed by Dr. Mina Tzemach.”Poll: Half of Israeli high schoolers oppose equal rights for Arabs”“In response to the question of whether Arab citizens should be granted rights equal to that of Jews, 49.5 percent answered in the negative. “Catrina Stewart in The IndependentThe new Israeli apartheid: Poll reveals widespread Jewish support for policy of discrimination against Arab minority“47 per cent of respondents would like to see Israel's Arab citizens stripped of their citizenship rightsClassroom shortages and unequal property rights are ‘proof’ of Israeli Arabs’ second-class status ReutersA new poll has revealed that a majority of Israeli Jews believe that the Jewish State practises "apartheid" against Palestinians, with many openly supporting discriminatory policies against the country's Arab citizens.A third of respondents believe that Israel's Arab citizens should be denied the vote, while almost half – 47 per cent – would like to see them stripped of their citizenship rights and placed under Palestinian Authority control, according to Israel's liberal Haaretz newspaper, which published the poll's findings yesterday.”Times of Israel - Ashkelon warned over Arab worker ban, as poll shows public support“Weinstein wrote in a letter to Shimoni that his singling out of a specific ethnic group for the directive was “likely to have serious public and legal repercussions.”“Not employing workers due to their being Arabs, and having a public official sending the message that employing Arabs is undesirable, does not comply with the law,” Weinstein wrote.In his letter, the attorney general demanded an explanation from Shimoni.Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein (Photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)Weinstein’s warning followed fierce condemnation of the Ashkelon mayor’s move from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Reuven Rivlin and politicians from both sides of the political spectrum.But many Israelis backed the directive, which came on the heels of a Tuesday terror attack by Palestinians from East Jerusalem on a synagogue in Har Nof, in which five Israelis were killed, in a part of Jerusalem far from the violence that has wracked the city in recent weeks.A Channel 10 poll showed 58 percent of Israelis supported Shimoni’s move, 32% did not support it and 10% did not know. The channel did not release methodology details.”Academic Research on “Ethnic Democracy”The concept of ethnic democracy dominates the question of Apartheid. Here is an academic paper on the topic with some quotes below it.As’ad Ghanem, Nadim Rouhana and Oren Yiftachel, Questioning “Ethnic Democracy”“As an ethnic state, Israel makes equality between Arab and Jew impossible in practice or in theory. It is membership in the Jewish people, not citizenship in Israel, that is the chief criterion for the claim of state ownership. The state system is predicated on a constitutional arrangement that contradicts the conditions of equal citizenship and, therefore, democracy. The essence of this contradiction stems from Israel’s very raison d’être. As argued elsewhere, (Rouhana 1997), Israel embodies in theory, ideology, and practice exclusive Jewish state ownership in the sense that Israel is the state of the Jewish people only. It is the political tool of the Jewish people regardless of citizenship; thus the state is structurally and openly biased in favor of one of its two main ethnic groups.Accordingly, Israel is an “ethnic state,” in which the exclusive privileges of the dominant ethnic group is constitutionally grounded in a number of most important Basic Laws including the Laws of Return and Citizenship, and Basic Law: the Knesset (Section 7A), which defines Israel as the state of the Jewish people and limits the right of citizens to campaign democratically for representation in the parliament if they do not recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people.(Kretzmer 1990; Rouhana 1997) Thus Israel has been termed a “constitutionally exclusive ethnic state,”[9] whose exclusion of the Arab citizens from its national goals, identity, and mission is constitutional.Furthermore, as elaborated below, a number of laws that deal with most important issues, such as land ownership and control, education, and distribution of resources, openly base privileged treatment on being Jewish. In addition, there are numerous regulations that do not use the term Jewish or Arab explicitly, but which make it clear that preferential treatment of Jewish citizens is supported by statutory law and institutional regulations.[10] These regulations cover a broad range of individual and collective state-supported assistance. Thus, Israel, by imposing the criterion of belonging to a group—ethnic affIliation—for privileged and discriminatory treatment, anchors the violation of equal opportunity in its own law. A Jewish state (in the form established in Israel) cannot provide the prerequisites for equal citizenship and, hence, for democracy. Furthermore, the violations of equal citizenship that are anchored in constitutional law and the legal system itself are supported by broad segments of both the Jewish public and the Jewish elites.Unequal citizenship that is obviously inferior deprives Arab citizens of a meaningful identity that derives from their citizenship. Under the existing ethnic structure that so openly prefers Jew to Arab, and that sometimes treats Arabs as an internal or potential enemy, identification with the state is paramount to accepting constitutional inferiority and being existentially unequal. One of Smooha’s fundamental theoretical and empirical claims is that the Arabs have undergone a profound process of Israelization,[11] a conclusion that is based on conceptual and methodological pitfalls.[12] Israelization, in the sense of accepting Jewish exclusivity and privilege and the Arab inferiority that comes with it, and in the sense of accepting Israel as the state of the Jewish people, is an illusionary identity at best and a distorted identity at worst. The failure to over—even theoretically—equal citizenship means that the only identity Israel can provide is, at its center, one which enforces inequality and exclusion.”The history of Zionism.I’ll begin this part by looking at Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky (1880-1940) and then Arthur Ruppin. Jabotinsky is a huge figure in this narrative:Jabotinsky helped lead Revisionist Zionist Movement which eventually evolved into the post-1948 Herut Party and eventually the Likud Party. His Secretary, a historian Benzion Netanyahu is the father of Binyamin Netanyahu. Benzion’s final book, The Founding Fathers of Zionism, described Israel as a country that—like America—was built on the intellectual foundations of its founders: Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau, Israel Zangwill, and Ze’ev Jabotinsky.Jabotinsky also set up the party's youth movement, Betar, which was characterized by militaristic, almost fascist, appearance including dark brown uniforms. Jabotinsky admired Mussolini. His movement repeatedly sought affiliation with and assistance from Rome.In his IRON WALL article that was published in Ha'aretz Daily in 1923. Jabotinsky stated:".... Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ....a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogan 'No, never' lose their influence, and only then their influence be transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against PUSHING THEM OUT, and equality of civil, and national rights."From "Eliminate the Diaspora, or the Diaspora will surely eliminate you." (From "Tisha B'av 1937"), Jabotinsky said“the source of national feeling … lies in a man’s blood … in his racio-physical type, and in that alone … a man’s spiritual outlooks are primarily determined by his physical structure … For that reason we do not believe in spiritual assimilation. It is inconceivable, from the physical point of view, that a Jew born to a family of pure Jewish blood … can become adapted to the spiritual outlooks of a German or a Frenchman … He maybe wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish”“A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German custom, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical-racial type are Jewish. ... It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. ... There can be no assimilation as long as there is no mixed marriage. ... An increase in the number of mixed marriages is the only sure and infallible means for the destruction of nationality as such. ... A preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority”Jabotinsky stated in 1923, according to the book America And The Founding Of Israel, John W Mulhall (Author), p.90:"The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was no misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement."Moving on to Arthur Ruppin :He headed the Jewish Agency between 1933 and 1935, ‘The Father of Jewish settlement in Palestine’ and helped to settle the large numbers of Jewish immigrants. (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Benny Morris)"This very likeness to the Asiatic peoples, from whom they have been separated for 2000 years, shows that the Jews have remained unchanged, and that in the Jews of today we may say we may have the same people who fought victoriously under King David, who repented their misdeeds under Ezra and Nehemiah, died fighting for freedom under Bar-Kokhba, were the great carriers of trade under between Europe and the Orient in the early Middle Ages….Thus the Jews have not only preserved their great natural racial gifts, but through a long process of selection these gifts have become strengthened. The terrible conditions under which the Jews lived during the last 500 years necessitated a bitter struggle for life in which only the cleverest and strongest survived… The result is that in the Jew of today, we have what is in some respects a particular valuable human type. Other nations may have other points of superiority, but in respect of intellectual gifts the Jews can scarcely be surpassed by any nation.” (The Invention of the Jewish People, Shlomo Sand)“I do not believe in the TRANSFER of an individual. I believe in the TRANSFER of entire villages.” (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Benny Morris)What ‘The Father’ had in mind? Arthur Ruppin (1876–1943), cultural identity, weltanschauung and action“Ruppin’s constant aspiration for racial purity in the Jews emerged from within the scientific and medical discourse which praised racial purity”Review of “My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel” by Ari ShavitIn Shavit’s words, the Arabs living there “are hardly noticeable to a Victorian gentleman,” who as a “white man of the Victorian era, cannot see non-whites as equals.” Shavit’s great-grandfather “does not see because he is motivated by the need not to see.” And in this respect, he was typical of the early Zionists. [Cf. also Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, by John B. Judis.] Shavit says that among the early Zionists only Israel Zangwill had a clear view of the Arab population of Palestine, and Zangwill asserted that the Zionists must “drive out by sword the tribes in possession, as our forefathers did.”Prior to 1948, few Zionists would have admitted to agreeing with Zangwill. At the same time, few of them would have looked on their Arab neighbors as equals. Shavit describes the early Zionists as living in a state of denial about the Arabs.Finally, one cannot claim that the Palestinians haven’t made pece offers as shown by leaked papers:Secret papers reveal slow death of Middle East peace process“The offers were made in 2008-9, in the wake of George Bush's Annapolis conference, and were privately hailed by the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, as giving Israel "the biggest Yerushalayim [the Hebrew name for Jerusalem] in history" in order to resolve the world's most intractable conflict. Israeli leaders, backed by the US government, said the offers were inadequate.”To summarize, the comparison with Apartheid is done via:Direct quotes from politiciansLegal structuresExternal expertsFeedback from key players in the South African modelPollsAcademic researchHistorical concepts based on race theoryHard evidence of offers of peace from the Palestinian side