In either case, all's the pity.
He's published Apartheid, by any other name and claims
^
No, Israel is not an apartheid state, but the occupation in the territories is apartheid.
Are we really as terrible as all that? Anyone who tries to draw a comparison between the occupation regime in the territories to the South African apartheid regime - and their number is rising constantly - is instantly labeled anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. But the facts justify the comparison. No, Israel is not an apartheid state, but the occupation in the territories is apartheid.
The comparison is legitimate...
...[Brian] Brown, [a South African cleric] notes the distinction between "petty apartheid" and "grand apartheid" within South Africa and between the two regimes. In the case of petty apartheid - racial segregation in places of entertainment and the like - the difference between the regimes is indeed great. But South Africa's blacks, he says, did not launch their battle in order to be able to sit on the same park bench as whites. Their fight was against grand apartheid, the apartheid of institutionalized, violent dispossession. The Palestinians are fighting the same battle. Should we call this comparison ridiculous, baseless, anti-Semitic?
Posts
8 comments:
Your crass and somewhat pathetic summary of Gideon's article only serves to prove how correct his analysis is. He makes very valid comparisons of all aspects of the issue and you would do well to address them with more concern, especially as it is people like you who live in the occupied territories who perpetuate the ridiculous situation there.
Mike, you must be new here. Do yourself a favor and enter "apartheid" in my search box and read. Or google "apartheid" and "myrightword".
I've only been here for 32 years.
Perhaps that's not enough.
I think you should look in the mirror and also what's around you.
What right do you have as an American, to settle in a place which isn't part of Israel proper anyway?
Are you a grand occupier or a petty occupier?
by "here", I meant my blog, silly. not Israel.
i do look. too often i see people like you who disregard history, submit themselves to outlandish theories, don't know what's a "right" or even "wrong" place, and insist on denigrating themselves, their people, their homeland, their security, their future.
we do not "occupy" Shiloh, Hebron or Elon Moreh, but have returned after being ethnically cleansed by agressive Arabs during the Mandate and the 48 war, after a 19 year old terror campaign when we had just "little" Israel which the Arabs never recognized and in 1967, regained our legal territory as per international law from 1922 and in a defensive war have every right to maintain our administration of it.
Well I suppose it's just a matter of how you view the situation.
I'm not trying to convince you as that wouldn't work anyway.
I see it differently so I think we should agree to disagree. After all, that's the essence of democracy.
true but the real essence is that in a democracy, once the majority has won - and as long as there are no unlawful acts commited in fulfilling the policy adopted and the minority has full rights, - for the minority to seek to undermine the government by appealing to outside forces, and to do so dishonestly with misrepresentations, that isn't democracy in play but subversion.
Well, as I said it depends how you interpret it.
But it was interesting to discuss this with you and nice to make your acquaintance.
I'm sure we will probably have further disagreements in the future! I have your blog on a shortcut already so I'll come back regularly.
Take care there in the wild west bank....
To the letters editor
Haaretz
The Nov. 11 article "Apartheid, by any other name" by Gideon Levy is based entirely on the most blatant logical fallacy, "guilt by association".
It reminds us of that brilliant BBC sitcom "Yes, Prime Minister" in which Sir Humphrey Appleby spoofed this type of illogic by saying "All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog".
The arguments quoted by Levy are equally fallacious. For example his argument that because the Boers in South Africa and the Zionists in Israel based their right to the respective lands on divine decree Israel practices apartheid in the West Bank, is absurd.
The article's historical statements are as inaccurate as its purported logical arguments. Levy's statement that Israel and the Boers conquered territory (South West Africa - SWA) in violation of international law is untrue. Israel's War of Independence and the Six Day War were undoubtedly legal defensive wars. See http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id127.html
South Africa did not conquer SWA in 1910. It was a German colony since 1884. During WW1, SWA was taken by South African forces acting on behalf of Britain. After the war it was declared a League of Nations Mandated territory with South Africa responsible for administration.
The statement "The violence of the African National Congress and the Palestine Liberation Organization, respectively, was reactive" cannot remain unchallenged. The PLO was not reactive. It was founded in 1964 before there was an occupation or settlements to react to. Its declared objective was to destroy Israel within its internationally recognized 1948 borders by armed struggle as the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. (article 9)
Post a Comment