“Israeli Apartheid Week” more likely to divide than to unite

I know that this article is a little dated, and the comment that I am responding to is from a couple days ago, but it is so ridiculous that I figure it warrants refuting. First of all the sort of dogmatic language which you have used in your comment is the kind that you most likely learned from looking at a poster or handbill rather than actually taking the time to learn about the situation as it actually is.
My article was in no way an attempt to justify the actions of the Israeli article, but more about calling for a more balanced and nuanced portrayal of what is happening in Israel/the occupied territories. I think that it is as well important to highlight Egypt’s involvement in the ill treatment of the Palestinians. The ignoring of that involvement by the organizers of the “Israeli Apartheid Week” resulted in many having an inaccurate understanding of the situation, and to a certain extent betrays certain biases that do not lend to their cause being taken seriously by the most informed people.
In terms of your comment that Egypt did not steal Palestinian land, that is just plain wrong. For some reason, a lot of people who are actively involved in the Palestinian “human rights” movements do not like to talk about how before 1967, and since 1948, Egypt occupied much of Gaza, and Jordan occupied most of the West Bank. During these two occupations, the Palestinian people were subjected to horrible treatment at the hands of both of those dictatorial regimes. I think it is important to remember that the Palestinian people have been persecuted by most governments which they have come into contact with, including their own. While Israel has played a large part in the treatment of the Palestinians, to portray Israel as the only bad guy in the situation is inaccurate and misleading.
In terms of justifying Israel’s “war crimes” by looking at them in the context of Israel’s desire for security, I don’t think that I was attempting to justify anything which Israel has done. I disagree with many actions which the Israeli state has taken in relation to the Palestinians, but believe that in order to properly understand those actions, they must be looked at in the context of the de-facto 60 plus year conflict which has been taking place in Israel/the occupied territories. Israel has legitimate security concerns, as do the Palestinians. In my opinion, they have both made serious errors in terms of the way in which they have attempted to attain the sort of security which they desire.
In terms of Zionists being “greedy, dissatisfied, disgruntled, and morons who are disliked in all parts of the world,” I would say that I agree with you to a certain extent. That being said, I think the same thing could be said about most groups in the world, including many Palestinian groups. Every national group that has their own interests at heart is inherently greedy, dissatisfied, disgruntled, not just the Palestinians. As well, while I would agree that Zionism is not very popular world wide, I think that it is important to separate Zionism, which is a political ideology, from the actions of the Israeli state, which, although it is motivated by Zionism, is also motivated by many other ideologies and factors.
All in all, I think that your comment was based on a lack of information, and as well a certain amount of malice. Comments such as yours only perpetuate the us versus them type of mentality which has allowed this conflict to go on for so long. I think that if you did a real study of the situation, you would see that the real situation is a lot more complex and nuanced than you have portrayed it, and that there are no real good or bad guys in this situation. If the whole Palestinian “human rights” lobby is ever going to attain the sort of help and respect which is claims to desire, it is going to have to abandon the sort of bombastic and combative language which you have used in your combat, and portray themselves as more fair and balanced.

1.The International Convention on the Suppression and punishment of the Crime of Apartheid was a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly. Any astute follower of the UN will tell you that the UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. That means that they carry no weight, and are akin to a suggestion. This As well, we would all be well served in remembering that the UN is the same organization which has shown a consistent bias against the Israeli state, frequently complaining of its alleged human rights abuses while ignoring those of worse offenders such as Sadaam Hussein’s Iraq, North Korea, and Zimbabwe. Overall, the UN has proved itself to be less than reliable in terms of human rights issues, and we would all be well served by taking any comments which they have on the matter with a grain of salt.

2.Israel does indeed practice discrimination against many Palestinian people, although for the most part in the interests of defense and security. While no one would excuse any sort of discrimination, it is important to understand that all of this is occurring within the context of what has essentially been a war which has lasted over 60 years.
In terms of Israel having expelled the Palestinian refugees, while expulsions did occur, the reality is far more complex, and to assert that all Palestinian refugees were expelled form what is now Israel would be to misrepresent the truth.

3.In terms of the Palestinians living in the occupied territories, no one would deny that they face a harsh existence, nor would any one deny that much of that harsh existence is the fault of the Israeli military. What has to be remembered however, is the context in which their harsh existence has come about. The Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories have proved time and time again their willingness to engage in and support violent actions against the State of Israel and its citizens. While Palestinian anger and potentially even the violent actions which result may be to a certain extent justified, the same can be said of the Israeli response. What differentiates Israeli actions from those of the South African Apartheid government is that the Israeli policies are based on security concerns, rather than concerns related to race or colour.

4.The key distinction between the allowance for African self-government in Apartheid South Africa and the enfranchisement of Palstinians which I was referring to in the article is that blacks in South Africa could only participate in their own, segregated political bodies, whereas Palestinian citizens living in Israel participate in the same political system as their Israeli neighbours.

5. While it is true that Desmond Tutu and others who suffered under Apartheid have likened their experiences with those of the Palestinian people, they are presenting personal opinion, and nothing more. To assume that someone such as Desmond Tutu is the ultimate authority on what constitutes Apartheid is similar to assuming that someone who was a victim of the Hiroshima nuclear attack is an expert in nuclear physics or the effects of radiation on the human body. It just doesn’t add up.

6.I would be very surprised to think that any respectable Israeli politician would compare Israel with Apartheid South Africa. I would suspect that upon closer inspection, it would be revealed that such comments have most likely been taken out of context, or potentially fabricated.

Lastly, I hope that what I wrote was not construed as being in any way anti-Palestinian. I firmly support the rights of the Palestinian people, as I support the rights of all people. What I don’t support is groups such as QPRIG and SPHR misrepresenting the facts. To liken what is occurring is Israel/Palestine to Apartheid is insulting both to people who actually suffered under Apartheid, and as well to the Palestinians themselves. The suffering which the Palestinian people have endured is unique, and has occurred under specific circumstances which simply have no parallel. While I guess the term “Apartheid” is catchy and looks good on posters, it is simply misleading, inaccurate, and the wrong way to promote an event which is supposed to be about the human rights of real people. Rather than political grandstanding and attempting to spur controversy, I think a more responsible and accurate title for the “week” would have been more likely to bring people together to work towards some “actual” improvements in the lives of the Palestinian people.