The new apartheid

[luzribeiro]

Comments

[a_new_machine]

It irks me so much that "anti-Zionist" has been, as a term, co-opted by some of the more virulent anti-Semites as a code/cover word for their anti-Semitism. The idea that a uniquely Jewish state must exist in that particular place, consequences for others be damned, is just as blameworthy in creating this situation as the idea that no Jewish state can be tolerated. But that's exactly why the one-state solution (which, clearly, would have to lose its Jewish character or else be a simple re-naming of the current apartheid problem) is seen as anti-Semitic.

[a_new_machine]

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. The hard-line stances of both sides' extremes are equally detrimental, but (IMO anyway) only the Palestinian hard-liners seem to get much in the way of blame, at least in the mainstream, when both are equally blameworthy.

[policraticus]

Either the PA is a separate nation, or it isn't.

You can have apartheid within a state, but not between states. Apartheid between states is called "sovereignty."

[policraticus]

What part of international borders don't you understand? If the PA is annexed to Israel, then it is clearly an unjustifiable infringement on the rights of the Palestinian Israelis who are living in the West Bank. Just like it was an injustice for white South Africans to segregate black South Africans into places like Soweto. But, if the PA is an independent state, then different rules apply and the "apartness" is simply a function of international relations. The meaning of the word apartheid, taken so broadly, becomes a giant nothingburger simply standing in for "some state of affairs I don't like." Now, you can argue that the Israelis are treating their neighbors unjustly, or you can argue that Israeli actions are even an act of war against their neighbors in the PA. If that is what you believe, make the case. But trotting out "aparthied" is a small step away from dragging out "fascism," or "the Nazis" as a way to argue from emotion.

[luzribeiro]

Or maybe "socialism". You could've opted for that example, but curiously, you didn't. ;-)

[notmrgarrison]

The parallels are uncanny.

South Africa suffered Intifadas?
People were being blown up at hotels, nightclubs, restaurants, and universities? School buses were being shot up?
I don't remember that at all.

[notmrgarrison]

As best I can tell from that page there were bombings back in the 60s, and yes, I don't remember that. Today is the first I heard of it.

Please show me incidents of teenagers at nightclubs being blown to bits, or elementary schoolkids being shot on their school bus.

When I heard of the movement, it was the 80s, the newspapers never talked about the opposition being violent. Something tells me if they had been blowing up innocent civilians, weekly, likely the Palestinians were doing in 2002, then there wouldn't have been all that international pressure and condemnation. And if blacks marching in the streets shouting "death to white people" had been a common occurrence, I'm guessing that wouldn't have helped either.

[peristaltor]

There's a reason no one bandies the A-word; those that do get attacked, and hard, branded everything from merely anti-Semetic to outright Hitlerian. Take, for example, this fellow:

[paft]

One of the most disgusting attacks on him was the concern-trolling from people saying they were CONCERNED because they thought he was going senile.

[comeonyouspurs]

Fascist pig.

I mean, take this passage, for instance: "a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed ...
b. The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israel's permanent legal boundary ...
c. The sovereignty of all Middle East nations & sanctity of international borders must be honored ..."

It reads just like something out of Mein Kampf!

[peristaltor]

It reads just like something out of Mein Kampf!

It must, since they treated him not unlike Hitler.

[ddstory]

Funny, how it's suddenly all about how the word 'apartheid' is not the most proper word, while the core of the problem itself somehow remains pushed aside. Not surprisingly, those who are so eager to defend Israel's actions seem to be the first to jump into this conveniently distracting semantic game. Not surprising at all.

BECAUSE THEY ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT LANGUAGE!!1!1

[notmrgarrison]

It's not the word, it's the analogy.

[ddstory]

Oh, you mean the analogy with a system where part of the population is being kept in fenced areas with restricted access, and deprived of basic civil rights in their own country? How dare they make such an analogy! There's no place for comparison whatsoever! Zero.

Ain't you adorable?

[luzribeiro]

Oh, but they're doing all that in response to the threat to their security; the threat to their security did not happen in response to them doing all those things* - so, you see, there's a huge difference!

* except, it did