In today's LA Times, Saree Makdisi presents a good case why Israel should be described as an apartheid country. Does the term 'apartheid' fit Israel? Of course it does. - Los Angeles Times: I thought his argument was reasonable, and was based upon the international legal definitions.
Michael Oren, a previous Israeli ambassador to the US wrote a response to the argument, ( http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html ) which quibbled about the terms involved in the definition of Apartheid. The overarching argument he presented was that Israel still feels that they are "at war" with the Arabs, and that absolves their treatment of all non-Jews. During Apartheid, the South African government also felt that they were "at war" with the black majority. They were trying to defend "their way of life" from the masses of their country. It isn't clear what the difference is.
During Apartheid in South Africa, the US could have done a lot to stop it. However our government generally sided with the South African Government. Israel, and the US helped the Government of South Africa and refused for a long time to support the anti-apartheid movement. Israel and the US helped provide weapons to South Africa, and the US refused to sign UN documents which defined and condemned Apartheid.
Many people describe Israel as a friend of the US. But while they accept our billions of dollars in foreign aid, they are the only country in that region who has continually spied on our government, stolen our corporate trade secrets, and has attacked our military ships. We ask them to quit building "settlements" and they snub their nose at us. I wouldn't call that a "friendship" --more like a parasite. They seem to want to start a war with Iran over nuclear weapons, while they maintain their own -- which is one of the reasons that everyone else in the region feels they need them. I think we need some "tough love" in dealing with Israel. I wish the US Jews would see it that way too. They have made it illegal for US citizens to donate money to any cause but their own.
Michael Oren, a previous Israeli ambassador to the US wrote a response to the argument, ( http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html ) which quibbled about the terms involved in the definition of Apartheid. The overarching argument he presented was that Israel still feels that they are "at war" with the Arabs, and that absolves their treatment of all non-Jews. During Apartheid, the South African government also felt that they were "at war" with the black majority. They were trying to defend "their way of life" from the masses of their country. It isn't clear what the difference is.
During Apartheid in South Africa, the US could have done a lot to stop it. However our government generally sided with the South African Government. Israel, and the US helped the Government of South Africa and refused for a long time to support the anti-apartheid movement. Israel and the US helped provide weapons to South Africa, and the US refused to sign UN documents which defined and condemned Apartheid.
Many people describe Israel as a friend of the US. But while they accept our billions of dollars in foreign aid, they are the only country in that region who has continually spied on our government, stolen our corporate trade secrets, and has attacked our military ships. We ask them to quit building "settlements" and they snub their nose at us. I wouldn't call that a "friendship" --more like a parasite. They seem to want to start a war with Iran over nuclear weapons, while they maintain their own -- which is one of the reasons that everyone else in the region feels they need them. I think we need some "tough love" in dealing with Israel. I wish the US Jews would see it that way too. They have made it illegal for US citizens to donate money to any cause but their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment