Apartheid was a way of maintaining power in a country by depriving people who would otherwise ensure that they took power, of the vote - and hence their ability to do so. That was its entire purpose. The argument simply can't be made to fit the occupied territories, the occupation of which is wrong and should be ended. The point there is that they are occupied. The issue is not discrimination aimed at preventing democratic rights - it is occupation. Apartheid is an exciting argument for the anti-Semitic anti-Zionists because it allows condemnation of the State of Israel itself, not the occupation and not the State's actions. It is a way of undermining the legitimacy of the entire enterprise. Mr Levy's argument is thus misplaced. The occupation can't be sorted by a commission - it needs to end with Israelis being foreigners (on whatever terms might ultimately prevail) in Palestine, or negotiating citizenship. It will not bring citizenship automatically. In reality allowing oneself to consider the issue seriously is being suckered into the game that says anyone can have a state except Jews.
Ya'alon has 'total confidence' in deputy chief, decries political attempts to harm IDF (Haaretz)
from the article: Apartheid, by any other name
Most ministers in the security cabinet were sidelined and did not receive full information during Operation Protective Edge, according to officials who have seen a draft report by State Comptroller Joseph Shapira.09:09 05.05.16 | 0 comments
When Adolf Hitler first sent Jews to die, Europeans and Americans agreed that it was not their problem. Israel may be about to make the same mistake about Assad's killings in Syria.11:04 05.05.16 | 0 comments
Critics blame the emotional trauma inflicted on teenagers, the high cost imposed on parents, and the nationalist message at the expense of universal values.10:56 05.05.16 | 0 comments