To imply that the racist, misogynist, gay-bashing, despotic Palestinian Authority is the ideological or moral descendant of the ANC is a revolting assault on the memory of Nelson Mandela.
The accusation of “apartheid” is inaccurate and lazy, of course, but there has indeed been a erected a system of what I would, I suppose, deem “defensive separation” between the State of Israel and Palestinian areas. This is understandable when you are under assault by suicidal terrorists. Israel itself integrates far too many Arabs into its key institutions for “apartheid” to make descriptive sense. But of course if one hates Israel one might not be terribly concerned with descriptive accuracy. In fact one might well relish conflating the plight of the Palestinians with that of blacks in pre-Mandela South Africa. “Apartheid” is not so much a description of Israel as it is a rock to be picked up and thrown at it. Now, Israel has much to answer for. Complacency in the face of Arab suffering and unwise settlements are at the top of that list. Failure to rein in West Bank thugs who make sport of assaulting Arabs is up there too. For their part the Palestinians, as has often been said, “have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” They got pushed aside and outmaneuvered and could not reconcile themselves to sharing land they deemed to have been historically theirs. History disappointed them; Britain ignored them. Most recently they have been reduced to a “lawn” to be occasionally mowed by the IDF. There has been no shortage of bad decisions. The salient fact now, however, is to be rid of Hamas with as little collateral damage as possible so that Israelis and Arabs might someday find a way to flourish together. To be truly pro-Palestinian one must also be pro-Israel, strange as that sounds. The fates of these two peoples are inexorably joined. Simple rock-throwing gets us nowhere.
You are absolutely correct: You cannot be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. You cannot be pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. Either both sides win or both sides lose.
In the West Bank Israel enforces a sort of apartheid. Illegal settlers are privileged, and arabs are treated as second-class citizens. This goes far beyond military control for Israel's defense. And Likud is explicitly committed to this regime continuing for ever.
True but . . . Israel has engaged in suppression that was bound to spill over into oppression. And most countries harbor a thuggish element that requires control that Israel has not exercised. In an ethno-religious state it stands to reason that one might see ethno-religious thugs. Likud found them useful, or at least found it politically advantageous not to clamp down on them. Since they really did want the Palestinians gone it was tempting to let the thugs encourage their departure. The Palestinians rejected half a loaf and ended up with a crust. Bad call. Israel insisted on pressing its post-1967 advantage to claim more territory. The rationales were multiple: security, population needs, biblical promises. Both sides boxed themselves in with unrealistic dreams. I so wish that the Palestinians had long ago adopted nonviolent resistance as their preferred mode of protest. By now they would have shamed Israel into more concessions than they’ve won with arms and terror. Imagine! Nonviolent resistance! There were examples to learn from. I’ll let you guess at them.
The accusation of “apartheid” is inaccurate and lazy, of course, but there has indeed been a erected a system of what I would, I suppose, deem “defensive separation” between the State of Israel and Palestinian areas. This is understandable when you are under assault by suicidal terrorists. Israel itself integrates far too many Arabs into its key institutions for “apartheid” to make descriptive sense. But of course if one hates Israel one might not be terribly concerned with descriptive accuracy. In fact one might well relish conflating the plight of the Palestinians with that of blacks in pre-Mandela South Africa. “Apartheid” is not so much a description of Israel as it is a rock to be picked up and thrown at it. Now, Israel has much to answer for. Complacency in the face of Arab suffering and unwise settlements are at the top of that list. Failure to rein in West Bank thugs who make sport of assaulting Arabs is up there too. For their part the Palestinians, as has often been said, “have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” They got pushed aside and outmaneuvered and could not reconcile themselves to sharing land they deemed to have been historically theirs. History disappointed them; Britain ignored them. Most recently they have been reduced to a “lawn” to be occasionally mowed by the IDF. There has been no shortage of bad decisions. The salient fact now, however, is to be rid of Hamas with as little collateral damage as possible so that Israelis and Arabs might someday find a way to flourish together. To be truly pro-Palestinian one must also be pro-Israel, strange as that sounds. The fates of these two peoples are inexorably joined. Simple rock-throwing gets us nowhere.
You are absolutely correct: You cannot be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. You cannot be pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. Either both sides win or both sides lose.
In the West Bank Israel enforces a sort of apartheid. Illegal settlers are privileged, and arabs are treated as second-class citizens. This goes far beyond military control for Israel's defense. And Likud is explicitly committed to this regime continuing for ever.
True but . . . Israel has engaged in suppression that was bound to spill over into oppression. And most countries harbor a thuggish element that requires control that Israel has not exercised. In an ethno-religious state it stands to reason that one might see ethno-religious thugs. Likud found them useful, or at least found it politically advantageous not to clamp down on them. Since they really did want the Palestinians gone it was tempting to let the thugs encourage their departure. The Palestinians rejected half a loaf and ended up with a crust. Bad call. Israel insisted on pressing its post-1967 advantage to claim more territory. The rationales were multiple: security, population needs, biblical promises. Both sides boxed themselves in with unrealistic dreams. I so wish that the Palestinians had long ago adopted nonviolent resistance as their preferred mode of protest. By now they would have shamed Israel into more concessions than they’ve won with arms and terror. Imagine! Nonviolent resistance! There were examples to learn from. I’ll let you guess at them.