Posted on 02/20/2006 9:41:13 AM PST by avile
February 20, 2006 Dissecting “Israel is an Apartheid Regime” Calumny Filed under: Front Page, Opinion, Middle East, Israel, Law, antisemitism TAKING IT TO THE PALESTINIANS’ USEFUL JEWISH IDIOTS
By Bill Narvey
All too often the world’s Jewish community tends to consider Jews in academia and other higher stations in life who allow themselves to be used to speak out in favor of Palestinians and against Israel as kooks that the Jewish community need not be too concerned about.
It is not only foolish, but dangerous for the Jewish communities and pro-Israel advocates to ignore these Jews who, by being Jews, lend instant credibility to pro-Palestinian propaganda. A great many of the public in Western nations will not look behind what these pro-Palestinian Jews are saying. Rather, they will be swayed to believe that if Jews are saying the same thing as the Palestinians’ say in their propaganda, that propaganda must be true.
Those mendacious Jews for Palestinians must be vigorously challenged, shown up for the dishonest Palestinian lackeys they really are, made fools of, marginalized and isolated.
Such a Jew is Dr. Uri Davis, a Jewish academic and a citizen of Israel and Britain. A quick check on the internet under his name brings up a number of sites regarding Dr. Davis where he advocates pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel views including his position that Israel is an apartheid state. These sites include an interview on October 17th, 2004 by a Jon Elmer where Dr. Davis describes himself as an anti-Zionist Palestinian Jew.
See Web Link: http://mr.open-publishing.be/news/2004/10/8386_comment.php The subject of this piece is an article by Dr. Uri Davis, “Why Israel Ought to be Treated Like Apartheid South Africa” published by the British Guardian July 24th, 2002. See the following link: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/VictimGroups/Palestinans/palestinans02.htm) The following observations are meant to show that in spite of the intelligent and sophisticated analysis Dr. Davis brings to bear to support his premise that Israel is an apartheid state, his article amounts to nothing more than pro-Palestinian anti-Israel disingenuous propaganda.
Many of the following observations, points, comments, arguments and analysis could just as easily be applied to confront, challenge and dismantle the arguments advanced by other Jews who offer themselves up as Palestinians’ useful idiots and discredit their views.
Perhaps therefore others who read this following piece, will find some of my article useful and will be inspired to take the time to bring it on and take it to these Jewish purveyors of Palestinian lies who seek to undermine Israel and deny its right to life.
Dr. Davis proceeds with his premise within a legalistic framework, first referencing several Israeli laws and then within the legal framework of International Law and the International Declaration of Human rights.
Referencing several Israeli laws, Dr. Davis explains how 4 distinct classes of people are created, one being Jewish and 3 classes of non Jews. He explains how these laws give Jews greater rights to Jews than the other 3 classes. Also referenced is a decision by the Israeli courts which Dr. Davis refers to as further evidence in support of his premise that Israel, like the former South Africa, by its laws has entitled Jews and disentitled non Jews.
Let us assume that there is some validity to Dr. Davis’ argument that the 2 or 3 Israeli laws he refers to, do give Jews greater rights than non Jews and that the court decision he cites is in furtherance of those several laws he cites.
Does that give credence to Dr. Davis’ premise that Israel is like the former apartheid South Africa? I submit it does not for the following reasons:
1. Dr. Davis has stacked the deck as it were to find comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa by narrowing his parameters well beyond the point where any true comparison can be drawn;
2. While Dr. Davis cites a few specific Israeli laws, he only generally and vaguely refers to South African apartheid laws. He in effect is comparing some Israeli laws under a microscope to the blur of South African apartheid and concluding what he sees in the microscope is the same as the blur of South African apartheid;
3. Dr. Davis draws a comparison between Israeli laws, to the limited extent he refers to them and the general notion of South African apartheid without regard to the vastly different historical genesis of Israel and the Israel Palestinian conflict and the vastly different and conflicting political, cultural and social context between Israel and the Palestinians;
4. Dr. Davis does not compare the few Israeli laws he cites against the much greater number of South African apartheid laws and therefore ignores qualitative and quantitative differences and analysis. It is simply not reasonable, let alone evidence of good scholarship to draw fair, let alone any conclusions from a few limited comparisons of Israeli laws against all of South African Apartheid laws;
5. Singling out Israel to demonize such as Dr. Davis does in comparing Israel with the South African apartheid regime is invariably one of the key indicators of an anti-Semitic bias. Dr. Davis’ argument that Israel is an apartheid regime is flawed if only that such kind of thinking leads to the conclusion that many other nations are apartheid regimes, yet neither he nor his pro-Palestinian academic cohorts would ever say that. There are however a number of examples.
The U.S. the segregation laws between whites and blacks were far closer to apartheid South African laws than the few laws he cites to compare Israel to South Africa.
To the extent the U.S. still has affirmative action laws that give advantage to Blacks and minorities over whites, they may be considered race laws and in that unrealistically limited context which Davis’ argument springs from, Davis has grounds to conclude that America is an apartheid state.
Within Davis’ extremely limited field of comparison and reference, as between French and English Canada, there are laws that would qualify Canada as an apartheid state and certainly as regards the Province of Quebec, it would qualify as an apartheid Province for it has laws and policies that clearly advantage Quebecois.
Certain laws of Fiji, again within Davis’ frame of reference, would qualify it as an apartheid state.
Considering the race laws of a number of Arab states which clearly gives Arabs greater rights than Jews and other non-Muslims, would in Davis’ restricted meaning of apartheid and very limited frame of reference, make those Arab states apartheid;
6. The nature, character and essence of any particular nation cannot possibly be determined by considering several of its laws out of context from the whole of its laws, culture and values, ethics and mores. To do so is the mark of either a dishonest or irrational mind. I will let Dr. Davis choose which best describes his mind.
Dr. Davis goes on to claim that Jews enjoy rights in respect of 93% of the land of Israel since 1948 and Arabs only enjoy 7%, while white South Africa had 87% of the land for its use while relegating Blacks to 13% of the land. From that Dr. Davis concludes that Israel is a worse apartheid state than South Africa was.
Has Dr. Davis made a fair comparison? Not at all for the following reasons:
1. To accept this comparison, one must accept first that the UN resolution in 1947 partitioning the land to create the State of Israel in 1948 was unlawful and therefore no partition of the area known as Palestine ever took place;
2. From there Dr. Davis is able to say that Israelis since 1948 have illegally enforced their taking the benefit of 93% of the land, leaving only 7% for the Arabs/Palestinians;
3. In his anti- Zionist and pro-Palestinian zeal, Dr. Davis is denying a truth that even the Palestinians and a number of Arab nations do not deny.
Israel is recognized as a legitimate state by the Palestinians, pursuant to agreements entered into with Israel. Israel is recognized as a legitimate state by Egypt and Jordan that have entered into peace treaties with Israel. While some Arab nations do not recognize Israel de jure, they have engaged in words and deeds that while just short of such de jure recognition, clearly recognizes the de facto right of Israel to exist as a state, at least within its pre-1967 borders.
Dr. Davis next goes beyond specific Israeli laws and claims that Israel, in furtherance of its apartheid nature, discriminates against and abuses the human rights of the Palestinians by consideration of the Universal Declaration of Human rights and that Israel has transgressed International Law when he calls on the UN in the following words:
“to insist that the State of Israel comply with the terms of all UN resolutions relevant to the question of Palestine, including UN Resolution 181 of November 1947, determining that the State of Israel establish itself as a “Jewish State” - NOT as a “Jewish State” in the political Zionist sense of the term, namely, an apartheid state; NOT as a “Jewish state” with war criminal Governments guilty of the mass “ethnic cleansing” of the 1948 Palestine refugees from their now mostly destroyed hundreds of villages and many towns - but a “Jewish State” that is essentially democratic (with some “Jewish” trappings), namely, a democratic state for all of its citizens and 1948 Palestine refugee.”
Clearly Dr. Davis is calling for a single state that would have both Jewish and Muslim features, but it would not be a state that is Jewish, but rather a generic democracy for both Jews and Palestinians.
It appears that Dr. Davis is completely comfortable with dictatorial and authoritarian Muslim nations defining themselves as distinctly Islamic and Western democracies defining themselves in the context of Judeo-Christian culture, but he cannot abide Israel as a democracy that defines itself as a Jewish state.
What does that say about the learned professor with his education, a doctorate and all? The answer is pretty obvious!
I expect Dr. Davis in his singular focus has not noticed that he again singles out Israel by denying Israel the right that all other nations have to be known as they wish to be known and have all other nations respect that right. Again, what that reveals of Dr. Davis’ thought processes is obvious.
As has been noted, Dr. Davis states that he considers Israel a colonial power in illegal occupation of all the land of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank that is denying the legitimate rights of Palestinians and in its use of force against the Palestinians it is committing grievous human rights abuses.
Again, Dr. Davis engages in a dishonest and specious argument for the following reasons:
1. By denying Israel’s right to exist even within its 1948 borders, Dr. Davis who calls on Israel to abide by International Law, fails to recognize the legitimacy of such law. It appears that because the Arabs rejected the Partition Resolution in 1947, that that rejection amounted in Dr. Davis’ view to a veto. Consequently, Israel with the complicity of those UN member nations that voted by majority to allow Israel to become a state, have all acted illegally.
2. If the Arabs, whose interests were affected by the 1947 Partition resolution could legitimately veto that resolution, as Dr. Davis is implicitly contending, then Dr. Davis would have to concede that all the anti-Israel resolutions passed by the UN since 1948 are equally invalid for Israel’s rejection of same would similarly amount to a legitimate veto;
3. Dr. Davis again singles out Israel for condemnation in claiming that Israel has abused Palestinian Arab human rights as regards the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In doing so, he also expects the reader to accept his opinion that Israel is a colonial force in illegal occupation of Palestinian land. The lie has already been put to Dr. Davis’ opinion in that regard.
4. Given his views, Dr. Davis is inferring that Palestinians are entitled to engage in acts of legitimate resistance to Israel’s illegal occupation as he contends and therefore they are entitled to employ any and all means, including terrorism that seeks to kill and maim innocent Israelis.
5. Dr. Davis ignores the long pre 1948 and post 1948 history of Arab/Palestinian hatred of Jews, Israelis and Israel and the genocidal goals that such hatred has inspired.
6. Dr. Davis ignores that Israel engages in security measures such as its security fence which has worked as hoped and retaliatory military measures against Palestinian terrorists that seek to avoid harm coming to Palestinians that are not combatants. He also ignores that Palestinians on the other hand, seek to only harm innocent non-combatant Israelis.
7. Dr. Davis while saying that actions by Israel such as its security fence and military action tramples on or denies Palestinians their human rights, by ignoring Palestinian terrorism he is essentially saying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everyone, except Israelis. That smacks of extreme bias in favor of Palestinians.
How can Dr. Davis come to honest and fair assessments and conclusions about the Israel – Arab/Palestinian conflict unless all the considerations raised here to counter Dr. Davis’ views, assertions, accusations and conclusions are taken into account, confronted and dealt with?
How can Dr. Davis ignore the long history of Arab/Palestinian Jew hatred, their genocidal goals that their hatred inspires and the Arab/Palestinian ongoing efforts to realize those vile goals?
How can Dr. Davis conclude that Israel is an apartheid state?
Dr. Davis had to be aware of all the points raised here to counter his views. Instead of dealing with them, he has chosen to ignore them altogether.
Obviously an educated scholar such as Dr. Davis simply cannot honestly and fairly consider and analyze anything about the nature of Israel or the Israel – Palestinian conflict unless he forsakes honesty and truth. That is precisely what Dr. Davis has done.
So what does that say about Dr. Uri Davis? The answer again is obvious.
Finally, a few concluding thoughts.
If Dr. Davis is truly interested in finding whether apartheid regimes still exist in this day and age, he need look no further than to Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia where no religion but Islam is tolerated and Jordan where no Jew is allowed to own property.
Islam itself is as a religio-political ideology that is the closest to a South African apartheid state. In Islam there are a host of laws, values and mores that speak to the supremacy of Islam over the non-Islamic world and which give far greater rights to Muslims then non-Muslims within Islamic society in virtually all spheres including rights before the law, property rights, and civil rights. Add to that, Islam mandates that non-Muslims are forced to pay a tax to the Muslim authorities, ie., protection monies, to allow them some lesser modicum of life within Islamic lands.
Dr. Davis’ sophisticated and analytical comparison of Israel to the former apartheid regime of South Africa and his concluding that Israel is an apartheid regime is about as intelligent as trying to compare soup and nuts and nuts is probably the best way to describe how this arrogant man’s mind works.
I will conclude as I began, calling on worldwide Jewish communities and pro-Israel Jews to not ignore Jews like Dr. Uri Davis or take them lightly.
Instead I implore worldwide Jews, Jewish communities and pro-Israel advocates to expose these Palestinians’ Jewish useful idiots for the traitors to truth, justice and morality that they really are, to hold them up to ridicule that they so richly deserve and to not give them a moment’s peace.
antisemitism, apartheid, Israel, Law, Middle East, Opinion, racist
Amazing that the people who created Dhimmitude can invoke "aparteid"
If you want to delegitimize the Israeli nation, one good way is to through around the term "apartheid".
through=throw
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
Oh is this another one of those Israeli's a racist country articles? You know this article wouldn't be so hypocritical for the fact that Jews have been the subject of some of the worst racist attacks and vilification since the begin of time.
If you read the post and are familiar with Israpundit , you would realize that its aim is to delegitimize those that refer to Israel as Apartheid.
As long as they have the liberal movements in the US and Eurabia propping them up, then we have an even bigger fight on our hands. In the spirit of the article, we have to make sure that we discredit these frauds for who they are and to "call a spade, a spade" (I love Sam Spade).
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
My guess for the discrepancy is the Western Left's self-hatred and worship of "the other" (two manias blatantly absent in the Third World Left which in its superpatriotism seems more Fascist than Marxist). Back when Jews were victims of the West liberals supported Israel while attacking South Africa (whose particular ideology aroused American guilt about its own racial history). Now that the Left has decided that Israel is indeed part of the West (something Pat Buchanan and his pointy-headed sheet-wearing brigades haven't figured out yet) and the Arabs are their "victims"--voila!--Israel is suddenly on the same side as South Africa (which the Soviet Union understood back in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies when too many conservatives were reflexively anti-Israel). While Israel certainly isn't an apartheid state (since it has never legally distinguished between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens of Israel but only between Israelis and "palestinians" who are under "occupation"), it seems the Left has finally caught up with the reality of where it fits in in the current world conflict. Even famous "pro-Israel liberals" like Al Gore Jr. are now on their knees before the Saudis.
The Buchanan's Waffen Brigades are the only ones still outside the loop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.