Today's opinion page at the Sunday Times can only be described as a raging anti-Israel hatefest. (See the zaptrash cartoon in the entry below).
Today's editorial reveals how the anti-Israel crew has leveraged the Gaza withdrawal to morph their "Israel is Apartheid" slurs into a new adaption of the comparison with Apartheid South Africa.
Olmert Must be Reined In THERE was a time when apartheid South Africa — under the leadership of PW Botha — was notorious for its cross-border raids into neighbouring countries. That was when the South African Defence Force was the main instrument used to destabilise South Africa’s neighbours. The Nats argued that these raids were carried out in pursuit of “ANC terrorists” in those countries. In most cases innocent civilians— many of them citizens of those countries— were maimed or killed. The latest Israeli assault against the Palestinian people is a grim reminder of Botha’s military tactics against South Africa’s neighbours. Israel’s offensive against Hamas this week did not spare civilians. Infrastructure — roads, bridges, power stations and even private homes — was bombed. While we condemn Hamas’s reluctance to behave like a legitimate government rather than the wayward resistance movement it once was, we believe Israel’s actions go way beyond the limits of a legitimate military operation. They have caused untold suffering. A war that knows no boundaries between innocent civilians and legitimate military targets can only be described as state terrorism. The Western world, which imposed sanctions on Palestine when a Hamas government was voted in, must show even-handedness by reining in Ehud Olmert, who seems every bit as heartless as his predecessor, Ariel Sharon. |
Media bias? What media bias!!!
Israel did not withdraw from Gaza 10 months ago so that it could wage "cross border" raids into Gaza. This military operation, which has exercised tremendous restraint, is an effort by Israel to defend itself, and to rescue a soldier who was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists (2 other soldiers were killed).
After their election into the Palestinian Government Hamas had a choice. Faced with the possibility of governing a Gaza completely free from Israeli presence they could have acted in the interests of ordinary Palestinians and concentrated on things like service delivery, law and order. Instead, at a time when the talk from Israel was of further withdrawals from deep within the West Bank, Hamas chose war.
And why not? Editorials like this one take their side no matter what they do, never holding them responsible for anything, creating an incentive for them to escalate the violence and to hold out for everything.
The current tragedy afflicting the Palestinian people is a tragedy entirely of their own making. Israel voted in a centre-left government ready for painful concessions that could pave the way to peace. In return the Palestinians elected Hamas.
Instead of facing up to this reality and demanding that he Palestinian Authority put down its weapons and face up to its responsibilities the Sunday Times have disgracefully behaved like cheerleading apologists for Palestinian terrorism.
Comments and letters to [email protected]
Update
As usual, fellow South African blog Commentary has a sober and concise take on the whole saga. Read it here.
I am all for debate and criticism. But this weekend’s Anti-Israel hatefest in the SA newspapers is not legitimate. It is totally devoid of context. Israel did not unprovoked invade Gaza. Hamas (the Palestinian government) first declared war on the Jewish state from this territory. A nation surely has every right to responded to rocket fire and the kidnapping of its soldiers by the government of a neighbouring territory.
It would certainly have been legitimate for Zapiro and the Sunday Times editor to debate the proportionality of Israel’s response. The question of if in urban warfare it is legitimate to hit power stations and other infrastructure in order to hinder the enemy, is an important one. But they did not do this. Rather they attempted to delegitimize any use of force by the Jewish state.
The idea of Jewish power repulses them. Under no circumstances (even in self-defence) will they ever accept Israel taking up arms against Palestinians. This type of criticism unfortunately does nothing to serve the interests of peace or Palestinian statehood.
Steve explained how it relieves Palestinians from any responsibility for their own actions. But I would add that it also marginalizes those on the Jewish side who are interested in compromise. It forces those of us who supported disengagement to admit that the rightwing were in fact correct. Concessions do not serve to strengthen Israel’s diplomatic position. And no matter what Israel does its critics will always be against it.
Posted by: Mike | July 03, 2006 at 11:50
Bravo!
Posted by: Anti-UN | July 03, 2006 at 11:53
The Palestinians are the new Chosen People.
According to popular opinion, they are responsible for none of their actions and no retaliation or even security measure against them, is legitimate.
It's just like a kangaroo court.
I'm also getting really sick and tired of South Africans trying to legitimise the equation of Israel with Apartheid S.A.
Posted by: greenmamba | July 03, 2006 at 16:13
ISLAMIC [REAL] APARTHEID
The collective intolerant Islamic apartheid systems one by one.
All minorities suffer from harsh discrimination in all Arab/Islamic societies, not to mention the wide ethnic cleansing of a Million Jewish refugees.
Among regimes accused of 'apartheid' are:
- Iran [Ethnic racist apartheid against: Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen etc. Religious apartheid: against all other faiths: Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahai', Jews, etc.].
- Sudan [Arab racist supremacist genocide and oppression motivated by racism against non-Arab natives].
- Mauritania [against non-Arab natives].
- Bahrain [anti-Shiite].
- Arab-Palestine, Palestinian Authority [against Christians, Jews (such as, a 'Jew-free' policy, with a racist law punishable by death of anyone selling land to Jews), Ahmadis, blacks].
- Jordan [against Christians, Arab-Palestinians, non-Bedouin Arabs, Jews (in fact, already in 1948, it instituted a real 'legal' religious apartheid system in its occupied Jerusalem, which was abolished when Israel liberated it in 1967), Gypsies].
- Syria [against the majority who is not Alawi... Still, Kurds are among the non-Arab groups who suffer probably the most of Arab racism.
- Kuwait / UAE / Saudi Arabia [against Asians, Jews, Christians, Blacks].
- Bahrain, Saudi Arabia [anti-Shia apartheid].
- Egypt [against Christian Copts - the pre-Arab invasion indigenous people, and against blacks].
- Iraq [still, post Saddam's era, anti-Black discriminations, anti-Assyrian and anti-Kurd].
- Lebanon [anti-Blacks, anti Arab-Palestinian and deep Muslim Christian divide].
- Libya [anti-black racism, oppression].
- Turkey [against (Christians as a whole) Greeks (plus the apartheid on Cyprus), Armenians, Kurds.
- Yemen [against indigenous al-Akhdam].
- Morocco / Tunisia / Algeria [against Berbers - indigenous people, before the Arab invasion].
- Malaysia [racial superiority against non-Malaysians].
- Indonesia [non-Muslims, especially Chinese, Christians, also long bloody history on 'others,' in Papua and in E. Timor].
- Pakistan [non-Muslims in general, especially Indians, incuding certain election laws desinged to block non-Muslims].
DEMOCRATIC ISRAEL'S CONSTANT SELF-DEFENSE STRUGGLE - YET PROVIDES PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT AND OTHER ADVANTAGES TO ITS ARABS
Worth mentioning that while Christians dwindle all over intolerant Middle East, they flourish only in Israel...
Israeli Arabs enjoy preferential treatment (affirmative action on campus, employment) and reach all high positions. Including a 2007 Arab president of the Jewish democratic State.
Case after case in Israeli courts systems, Israeli Arabs are often given preferences, especially in issues involving land.
On top of it, there's a serious gross imbalance which Israeli-Arabs have an advantage in. Unlike Israeli Jews, the Arabs are not obligated to serve in the military, yet possess all rights Israeli Jews have.
Anti-Israel radicals try to portray, what Israel defends against a racist 'ocean' of entities who openly seek to wipe it off, as "racist". If denying its right to survive is not racism, what is?
Just because Carter (has copied M. Bishara's 2002 book title after he was paid by the Arab lobby, and so irresponsibly used) the "apartheid" slur, doesn't make it true.
ROOT OF RACIST ARAB 'APARTHEID SLUR' BY HITLER'S ALLY: A. SHUKAIRY
Let's not forget, that it was the first chairman of the PLO, Ahmad Shukairy --who, aided the Mufti during his pact with Hitler in WW2-- in 1961 in his UN hate speech, with the racist idea of erroneously comparing democratic Israel to "apartheid."
CARTER'S OWN WORDS
In fact, Carter's use of the slur was/is only intended to provoke and incite, to provoke debate and to provoke discussion as Carter admitted himself (CNN, Nov. 27, 2006).
He also said: "I recognize that Israel is a wonderful democracy with freedom of speech and equality of treatment under the law between Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis." (CNN, Dec. 12, 2006).
Posted by: Lula | October 12, 2011 at 17:00