Some discussion on apartheid

Below is some good discussion on the apartheid label, and how inappropriate it is regarding Israel…

The reason the apartheid nomenclature is inappropriate is that it seeks to present the conflict as having a racist foundation that in fact does not exist. Unlike South African apartheid which explicitly aimed to separate the inhabitants of South Africa along racial lines, the motives and history behind the differing legal structures in the territories is security not race. The apartheid analogy is no less ridiculous than the claim that my father-in-law is analogous to Stalin on account of them both wearing a moustache.

Under the absurd apartheid paradigm, Israel’s action and presence in the territories becomes an expression of a racist ideology rather than as it really is, a matter of security. The effect of this is five-fold; (1) Israel is falsely portrayed as a racist state and the Palestinian Arabs are falsely portrayed as innocent victims (2) Israel’s legitimate claims to Judea and Samaria are relegated from the discussion, (3) the conflict is likened to a situation whereby colonialists with no prior connection to the land oppress the native inhabitants for their own enrichment (4) discussion of Israel’s legitimate security concerns are also removed from the discussion and (5) Palestinian terrorism is laundered, when one views Israel as an apartheid state then Palestinian acts of intentional murder against Israeli citizens can be reclassified from terrorism to acts of self-defence.    The reason apartheid is invoked as a comparison is to allude to the racism and colonialism with which apartheid is strongly associated. To apply this to the Arab-Israeli conflict is simply to propagate a lie. The fact is that the only people who refer to the situation in the territories as apartheid are those who wish to destroy or demonise Israel by falsely painting its existence as a racist endeavour or some other form of injustice. I’ll admit that this makes for good propaganda but no-one serious about peace or a two-state solution (mis)uses language in such a fashion.

You anti Israel, anti-Jew BDS clowns call Israel an apartheid state when it treats its minorities better than any other state in the Middle East! Contrast Israeli treatment of Arabs, and other non Jews with the treatment of Jews and other non Muslims in ANY Islamic country! You and your fellow clowns have never once said a word abut the open prejudice,racism, bigotry, intimidation, and murder against non Muslims throughout the arab/islamic world. That is antisemitism based upon a standard that you apply to Israel, only. it’s simply who and what you are!

OK, OK, I get it! the intelletual type westerners, young and not so young, who feel free to criticize israel to the point of delegitemization, all the while finding it expedient to make no mention of the endless arab/Islamic actions and statements that dehumanize jews and others, as well as arab/Islamic declarations of intent to perpetrate genocide upon Jews and others, bristle at being labeled anti semites, or self hating Jews. OK Ok, I get it. you’re censoring me, right? So, let’s just say that you’re all so damn, “open-minded”, that your brains have fallen out of your head. does THAT work for you?

It is a given that not all criticism of Israel must be antisemitic, but all criticism of it based on a standard not used on other nations or on the falsification of facts is antisemitism and I rarely see criticism of Israel that does not fit into those categories. A prime example is calling Israel an apartheid state when it treats its minorities better than any other state in the Middle East, even those in the West Bank, especially in contrast to the head of the Palestinian Authority who makes it plain that he will allow no Jews in the prospective Palestinian state. Or calling the security barrier an apartheid wall, when it was built for the sole function of keeping out suicide bombers. Or charging it with war crimes when it targeted only terrorists, while its enemies targeted only civilians. Or calling Israel’s presence in the West Bank an occupation, when it was TransJordan which seized and occupied it with no claim of right to it and Israel who recovered it with every right to it under the League of Nations Mandate and the UN Charter.

Pin It

Comments are closed.