Comments on: Dogpile on the rabbit

By: Gary Rosen

Gary Rosen — Tue, 11 May 2010 05:52:08 +0000

Another reason “apartheid” is wrong (not that any facts or logic will stop the Jew-baiters) is that there are a million or more Arab citizens of Israel, ethnically indistinguishable from the Palestinians, who can vote.

By: Myackie

Myackie — Mon, 10 May 2010 17:10:38 +0000

Don’t feed the trolls

By: Gary Rosen

Gary Rosen — Mon, 10 May 2010 08:58:40 +0000

"It finally occurred to me why heâ€s stuck on the term â€œapartheid.â€ " He, and Mearshimer and the rest are "stuck" on the term apartheid because they are deliberately trying to demonize Israel and place all the blame for the failure to resolve this conflict on Israel despite the fact that the fault for its perpetuation lies OVERWHELMINGLY with the Arabs. It has nothing to do with misunderstanding the term, rather it is a sophistic and dishonest debating tactic. In other words, it's exactly what you expect from antisemites.

By: Laura SF

Laura SF — Mon, 10 May 2010 04:28:56 +0000

It finally occurred to me why he’s stuck on the term “apartheid.” He thinks it means any case of “a smaller group having political control over a larger group.” Thus, while Israel is in control of the territories, if there are more people living in the territories than there are citizens of Israel, Israel is (by his definition) an apartheid state. Because this is his definition, it doesn’t matter that the Palestinians are not and never have been citizens of Israel. It doesn’t matter that the Palestinians have their own leadership and their own elections. It doesn’t matter that the Palestinians are at war with Israel. And in fact, he explicitly states that it doesn’t even matter that the Palestinians *could* have their own state right now if they wanted, because it’s their right to reject any offer made to them. So – in his mind, as long as Israel controls the territories and doesn’t let the Palestinians become full citizens, that’s apartheid. Q.E.D.

In other words – he’s a crank.

By: Laura SF

Laura SF — Mon, 10 May 2010 02:30:03 +0000

I gave it a go, but as aunursa and gliker commented, above, he’s arguing in bad faith and therefore not worth the effort. Anyone who considers terrorism “resistance” and the Palestinians’ “right” is beyond hope.

Laura

By: gliker

gliker — Sun, 09 May 2010 21:13:28 +0000

If “he” doesn’t see the language of Mearsheimer as nasty and Jew baiting, then there is no reason to even try.

By: aunursa

aunursa — Sun, 09 May 2010 17:48:29 +0000

There is no point. Mearsheimer already discredited himself with his anti-Semitic and refuted “The Israel Lobby” screed. Moreover, I didn’t see any actual evidence in the speech that Israel is an apartheid state. It was all just Mearsheimer’s personal opinions and predictions. The few facts that were in the the speech were out of context.

If the commenter can provide any evidence to support the claim that Israel is an apartheid state, then the charge can be addressed. (It would also be interesting how the commenter feels about Saudi Arabia and Jordan regarding the charge of apartheid. If he merely singles out Israel for criticism, that in itself is telling.)