RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceLast month, hundreds of college campuses dedicated a week to raising awareness about the increasingly evident similarities between the current policies of the Israeli government in the occupied territories and those of the racist South African apartheid regime. This initiative ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
I am definitely going to completely disregard the words of a notable and experienced diplomat who has decades of experience in the Middle East (Dan Kurtzer) after reading this piece of garbage. Good quoting of the UN dictionary...the same document which recognizes a State's right to defend itself and its citizens from indiscriminate terror. As Ambassador Kurtzer elegantly said, I too am not saying that Israel is perfect nor that we should not criticize it for mistakes made, but Apartheid is a word that does not apply to a state in which Arab citizens have more rights and freedoms than in most (if not all) other Arab nations. If the Princeton Committee on Palestine wants to advocate for peace, quit the over-dramatic, ridiculous theatrics, stop the unnecessary and inaccurate name calling and discuss your grievances maturely.
This editorial is too simplistic. Whatever you believe about the occupation of the West Bank, surely honesty should compel you to recognize that imposing different laws on members of an often hostile group in a distinct, disputed geographical region with at least limited political autonomy is different from denying rights to minority citizens within a country's recognized boundaries. It is a problem that no treaty has clarified the status of Palestinian communities in the West Bank, and there are differing opinions as to which side bears most of the blame for that. But in either case, the fact that Palestinians in Ramallah, who vote in Palestinian elections and live in an area that is, at least on a local level, administered by the Palestinian Authority do not have equal rights to Israelis is hardly apartheid: they also don't have the same rights as Palestinians living in Haifa. I might add that if there is a Palestinian state established in much of the West Bank, it is not going to have open borders with Israel; the US, after all, patrols the border with Mexico, and Mexico doesn't have a history of sending terrorists to the US
This is not to say that there aren't some inequalities affecting even Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, and they are deplorable. But instances of discrimination or unequal distribution of funds is a far cry from apartheid.
"This external pressure is the formula that worked in South Africa, and it was driven by boycotts, protests and divestments at college campuses across the United States — in other words, activism."
And so it was. But this Palestine issue won't be. No one really cares.
"The U.N. definition of apartheid includes “any legislative measures” that deny members of a racial group certain rights."
Since when were the Palestinians a race?
"The Palestinian National Charter, as amended by the PLO's Palestine National Council in July 1968, defined "Palestinians" as "those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there."
Again with the false analogy to apartheid. The issue here is that even West Bank and Gazan Palestinians do not claim to be citizens of the state of Israel, which means that yes, they do not have the same rights as the citizens of a nation-state. They also do not have the same responsibilities, either.
Any solution to the conflict is going to involve two states living side by side, and I assure you that the citizens of those two states will have different rights under their national governments. That will not, however, constitute apartheid. Apartheid is an issue within a state, not an issue between a state and a national group fighting for separate statehood.
The analogy is spotty, and it is damaging as well. The loss of "rights" described in the article is a byproduct of the lack of a successful nation-state. It is also problematic to use such a bad analogy to criticize Israeli actions. Israel is far from blameless, but out and out dishonesty about the conflict helps no one.
Palistinians are not a race, they are a porradge people who were born within certain boundries which are now occupied and controlled by Israel who can generally be visually distinguished from the full citizens of Israel because of their arabness. Akahaa, they are not a race so that apartheid rule can not apply. Back to ejecting the inferior non Jews from their homes and land, but don't call it apartheid because palistinians don't even qualify as a race.
Arabs DO have rights in Israel. They can vote, attend public school, serve in the Parliament, set up businesses. The fact that Israel established a different set of laws for Palestinians -- people of a different nationality, not race -- should not be surprising. Plus, the PCP members' utter lack of acknowledgement of the Palestinian terror that necessitated the security barrier shows that they are not honest in this piece. Also, for the Daily Prince fact checkers, not only does Israel not torture, but it was singled out by anti-torture advocates as being a model state that gets information from terrorists without torturing them.
You want real apartheid? Study Islam.
http://www.hudsonny.org/2010/03/what-about-the-...
You want real apartheid? Study Islam.
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2010/03/wh...
Are planning on "showing me" apartheid if I study Islam?