Slight Sleight

Jeff Halper pulls a semantic fast one, a sleight-of-the-word.

Here he writes:

One should not forget that, in the days of apartheid, South Africa established ten “bantustans,” small and impoverished “homelands” on 11 percent of South African land, seemingly to address the demand of the black population for self-determination but actually to ensure a “democracy” for the white population on 89 percent of the country. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s notion that the Palestinians should get “autonomy with certain characteristics of a state” on about 15 percent of historic Palestine — “autonomy plus-independence minus,” as he called it — is reminiscent of apartheid...Only a complete withdrawal of Israel from all the Occupied Territories and the sharing of Jerusalem with no restrictions on movement can avert a Palestinian bantustan.

We can argue whether or not the Pals. deserve a state or what form of political control they should have over their lives, whether it be even something like a bantustan or a condominium or whatever.

My point is that apartheid is not proven by bantustans. That's a illogical connection. One is not dependent on the other.

But, that's Jeff Halper for you.

And he goes on:

As for the “ideological” settlers of the West Bank, only about 40,000 in number (out of almost six million Jews altogether), they can easily be relocated inside Israel, just as were their counterparts in Gaza. Their relocation will be a test of international assertiveness, of course, because the settlers are able to mobilize the support of the right-wing parties in Israel. Since Israel can make no cogent argument as to the security necessity of these tiny settlements, however, internal opposition will simply have to be overruled...

Ah, a little assertiveness. Ah, a bit of overruling of democratic opinion.

And, Jeff, a very good cogent argument can be made for the security contributions our homes provide for Israel, like keeping Qassam rockets far away from Kfar Saba and Raanana, etc.

But Jeff is really a bad guy:

Obama’s only hope of breaking through the wall of Israeli and Democratic Party resistance is to articulate an approach to peace based on clear and accepted principles anchored in human rights and justice and then framed in terms of US interests...The movement targeting Israel for boycott, divestment and sanctions gains strength by the day, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict begins to assume the dimensions of the anti-apartheid struggle. But the Palestinians, exhausted and suffering as they may be, possess a trump card of their own. They are the gatekeepers. Until the majority of Palestinians, and not merely political leaders, declare that the conflict is over, the conflict is not over. Until most Palestinians believe it is time to normalize relations with Israel, there will be no normalization. Israel cannot “win” — though it believes it can, which is why it presses ahead to complete the matrix and foreclose the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. The failure of yet another peace initiative will only galvanize international efforts to achieve justice for the Palestinians. Only this time the demand is likely to be for a single binational state, the only alternative that fits the single-state, binational reality that Israel itself has forged in its futile attempt to impose an apartheid regime.

Bad why?

Because the Pals. have always refused and have always found themselves in a worse situation - so, by 'allowing' them the luxury of continuing to refuse, as he does, Jeff is merely helping the Pals. dig themselves in deeper into misery.

And Israel is not such a bad place for Arabs. In fact, when offered, theoretically by Avigdor Lieberman, the possibility of staying where they are but moving administratively into a "Palestinian state" through the redrawing of Israel's borders, the screamed and yelled. They know what's good for them and they do not want to be in a Pal. state.

If there's any apartheid, it's in the Arab world.