Apartheid might be the nicest choice of words
Jun 17
Warren Kinsella highlighted some NDP discussion called “Solidarity with Palestine and the boycott of Israeli apartheid”: NDP LINKS ISRAEL TO “APARTHEID”, and seems upset.
Look, I get it. Some people want to support Israel and defend it’s right to exist, and right to defend itself, etc. Call it noble or misguided, whatever you want, but at its core it’s at least a defensible position. What I’ve never been able to understand is why some of these fervent supporters feel the need to check their brains at the door while doing so.
You really want to get into an argument about whether Israels treatment of Palestinians counts as apartheid? Apartheid is the least of your worries. ”War crimes” and/or “Crimes against humanity” are brought up enough to at least be on the table for discussion. Yes, I know, it’s an ultra-complex situation and honestly neither side is right. But, I’d never understand how any objective person could look at the situation (decades of oppression, living under a gun, blockades, etc) and not have ideas like “war crimes” pop into their head. Sure, I’d say whoever is orchestrating the killing of Israeli civilians (if anyone) with suicide bombs and rockets would qualify under the same category. But, we all know it’s a bit different when considering the oppressor (with the powerful military) versus the oppressed.
RSS
Jun 17, 2011 @ 22:55:20
In slamming Ignatieff, Kinsella faulted him for his positions on the Tar Sands, Afghanistan, etc., but was mute on Iggy’s unbalanced support for Israel. I think that speaks volumes for Kinsella because old school Liberals know that both sides are intensely blameworthy. Warren is highly selective in his choice of facts to bolster his untenable arguments.
Jun 18, 2011 @ 05:06:05
And we should be able to have this discussion – it’s not one or the other!