Re: The myth of Israeli 'apartheid'

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Ride-A-Lot, Feb 3, 2005.

  1. Ride-A-Lot

    Ride-A-Lot Guest

    Not a myth...it's the truth


    file://C:\WINDOWS\Web\iejit.htmDear Friends,

    The following discussion by Barbara Kay in the National Post clearly
    explains why the highly offensive term ‘Apartheid’ is so inappropriate when
    referring to Israel, and why it is deliberately being used by the Arab
    Students Collective in their pro-Palestinian conference being held at the
    University of Toronto this week. Ms Kay explains what ‘Apartheid’ meant in
    South Africa and why this term does not apply to Israel. Terms such as this
    are used for their shock effect and to justify the big lie in the propaganda
    spread by the Arab students and their supporters.

    Most important Ms Kay explains the rationalization that the Palestinians and
    their supporters use to justify their insidious goal of a ‘one-state’
    solution and how the use of the term ‘apartheid’ plays into their scheme.

    This article is a must read! This conference wasn’t put together by a few
    students – it was highly orchestrated with the help from professional
    propagandists who are part of a much larger very skilled pro-Palestinian
    think tank. The University of Toronto naively considered that they were
    encouraging ‘honest and vibrant debate’ overlooking the fact that the Arab
    students were abusing the freedoms and privileges that our democracy offers
    to further their agenda to hold a hate-fest to demonize Israel.

    Shirley Anne Haber
    The Media Action Group
    [email protected]

    WRITE TO:

    The National Post
    [email protected]
    --------


    The myth of Israeli 'apartheid'


    Barbara Kay

    National Post

    Wednesday, February 02, 2005

    It's little wonder that Palestinian terrorists have agreed to stop attacking
    Israel at the urging of newly elected Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
    They have no choice: Israel's security fence has cut suicide bombings by
    90%. This good fence may yet turn longtime enemies into good neighbours.
    Inshallah.

    Palestinian sympathizers in the West prefer to see the fence as a symbol of
    colonialism, the greatest of crimes in the left-wing intellectual lexicon.
    Few care that its construction has saved hundreds of lives on both sides.
    Bogus accusations of "ethnic cleansing" and "apartheid" spill forth, linking
    Israel with Verwoerd-era South Africa.

    As you can tell by now, my views would make me persona non grata at "Israeli
    Apartheid Week," an anti-Zionist rally currently in progress at the
    University of Toronto (Jan. 31-Feb. 4). Indeed, "The Illegality of the
    Apartheid Wall and Canada's Responsibility" is a featured presentation, as
    are:

    - "Roots of Apartheid: Al-Naqba and the Right of Return"

    - "The Apartheid of the Camps: Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon"

    - "Labour Apartheid in Israel"

    - "Palestinian and Migrant Labour in the Apartheid State"

    "Apartheid" is a new battery to replace Arafat's run-down shibboleth,
    "liberation." Liberation has become generic, any oppressed group's word. But
    apartheid, conjuring up the suffering imposed on South African blacks by a
    white imperialist regime, still has the voltage to shock.

    The Israel-Palestinian situation is completely unlike the South African
    model. Historically, apartheid, as practised in pre-Civil War America, South
    Africa and pre-1945 Germany, was the opposite of a fence. True apartheid is
    internalized, a psychological dehumanization, not an external barrier. It
    arises when people of different races -- or genders or ethnicities --
    already live together in close association. True apartheid means separate
    drinking fountains, burqas, yellow stars. But historical and linguistic
    accuracy always suffer collateral damage among demagogues, who, like
    Humpty-Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking-Glass, use words to mean just
    what they choose them to mean.

    The international community widely endorses the two-state solution, as do
    the Palestinian intellectuals who paved the way for the Oslo accords. But to
    utopians in the West -- including a few on the far left in Israel -- a
    two-state solution implies separation and thus, by the hysterical hyperbole
    that is now casually accepted, apartheid. A minority opinion, marginal until
    recently, therefore calls for a one-state solution, with the avowed ideal
    that Palestinians and Israelis live as equals in a single democratic secular
    state.

    Palestinian nationalists have been happy to encourage this multi-ethnic
    fantasy, for they know they will easily outnumber, and therefore outvote,
    Jews under such an outcome. And since the one-state proposal is adamantly
    contingent on the right of return of about four million Palestinians to the
    homes their ancestors fled in 1948, the scheme is rightly dismissed by
    Middle East experts as a euphemism for the demographic eradication of
    Israel.

    The intellectual construct of apartheid is crucial to this eradication
    project, for it permits the radicals to cast the separation required for a
    two-state solution as racist by definition. The near-identical trope
    dominated the recent anti-Zionist (and anti-Semitic) hate-in at Duke
    University in North Carolina. Targeting Israel as a Western hegemon in the
    19th-century colonial mode, anti-Zionists aim to make Israel a pariah state,
    encouraging disinvestment and institutional condemnation.

    Such rallies as Israeli Apartheid Week braid into a single skein the
    promotion of the one-state solution, condemnation of Israel as a racist
    state, and fetishistic repetition of the Palestinian narrative of
    dispossession. Palestinian terrorism against Israel, on the other hand, is
    never on the agenda for open discussion -- except insofar as it must be
    explained as a symptom of "the occupation."

    The great irony, of course, is that these rallies are always held in
    universities -- purported centres of truth and learning. While there is
    nothing of academic worth to recommend such events, our campuses have become
    petri dishes for the cultivation of anti-Western, post-colonial ideologies.
    Shame on the University of Toronto for its complicity in this calumny
    against a fellow democracy.


    --
    "Beware when the ignoramus quotes Scripture." -- Sephardic saying
     
    Tags:


Loading...
Loading...