The significance of Har Homa

Philip Weiss indicates that the presence of Har Homa, a settlement built in the 90s around the vicinity of East Jerusalem, is a prime example of how strong Israel's supporters are in Washington, so much so that they were able to paralyse President Clinton in his denouncement of the construction.

"In 1997 the Netanyahu government resolved to build Har Homa, under pressure from the right wing, including Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert, now the P.M., who was adamant about the need for the development's 6500 units, for Israeli Jews.

Yasir Arafat was enraged by the plans. Har Homa would serve to cut the southern West Bank off from East Jerusalem, and would violate the Oslo accords, which called on Israel not to establish any more "facts on the ground." Arafat said Har Homa was likely to detonate an "explosion" among Palestinians and he would respond to Har Homa with the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.

Arafat felt he had moved Clinton; but when he arrived at Andrews Air Force base to leave the country, he got a call from Dennis Ross. Ross informed him that Netanyahu was refusing to freeze the settlement.

Clinton did send a letter to Netanyahu asking him to postpone construction, the authors report. But Netanyahu blew that off.

The settlements have been a disaster, everyone agrees on that. And they arose from political pressures inside Israel...These settlements have been a pox on the peace process, as threatening to international security as Hamas's rise or Iran's noises about a bomb...Where is the American spine? Can you imagine an American president deferring to any other head of state in similar circumstances? The spinelessness can only be explained politically: that our government also has rightwing constituents engaged on the issue."

It's a sad fact that when a peace process is underway, with concessions forever asked of Palestinians while Israel refuses to define their borders, they accelerate their annexation, preceding to built more settlements in order to delegitimise a future Palestinian state, creating more "facts on the ground" to prevent any sovereignity, only autonomy "through the occupier". (Think Gaza.) All of this is not new. It is a testament as to how strong Israel's apologists are in the circles of policy wonks. Clinton balked. He didn't want to feel the sting of the Lobby. President Bush was helpless to halt Ariel Sharon in his continued building on the West Bank, even more so that he was called "a man of peace" for destroying more Palestinian homes and taking more of their land, at a time when Palestinian violence was rather low. Har Homa is typical. Tanya Reinhart concluded that

"But the new settlement is an irreversible act which eliminates their chances to ever get such rights [over Jerusalem]."

In conjuction, the US Government "vetoed two different UN Security Council resolutions that called on Israel to stop construction at Har Homa. The U.S. was the only country of the 15 members on the council to vote against the resolution." This along with the fact that the US (along with Israel and Micronesia) "were the only countries among the 185 members in the UN General Assembly to vote against an April 1997 resolution demanding an immediate halt to construction at Har Homa."

We hold our hopes in the mediator called the United States; but with all their actions in the Middle East, only a fool could accept such a broker in talks of peace. No one in the Third World is impressed with all the sophistry, no matter how many times you can call it "freedom", or a benevolent occupation, or a "peace envoy", it simply is not. The facts prove another result: that Palestinians are being tortured, assassinated, imprisons children, humiliated, starved, punished, prevented from leaving their homes or going to work, and "voluntarily" transferred.

But all that is necessary for the beauty that is Har Homa.

"As of 2006, there were approximately 2000 families, 8 kindergartens, 2 day care centers, 2 public grammar schools, 3 medical clinics, and 3 shopping centers."

It is important to remember that all of this construction is in violation of international law, further settlements encapsulates Zionist policy towards the West Bank, and continued annexation of Palestinian land is meant to halt any hope of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. By ignoring this, or perhaps by pre-empting such a fact of contiguity, Israel aims to halt any possibility of a state for Palestinians, that they want them off the land and driven to Jordan (or other neighbouring states). This is common knowledge, especially for any congressman in Washington. But what other state could thumb their noses at the biggest superpower today and adamantly refuse a condition that the US President maintains is an obligation towards a genuine peace settlement in this dialectic?

There are other shining examples of such dualities that seems to escape any scrutiny (but more and more people are seeing the equation for what it is). And the debate rages on. How long can people shut their eyes before they see that these people are dangerous and their cantankerous distortions of policy is detrimental to their so called desires for "peace"? Unless their true intention is an Israel hegemony over the Middle East region, to which it is not us of the left who support "terrorists" but rather the right who support "extremists", then the expose of Israel's espionage should only be intensified.

James Petras reveals in his stunning article that it was the Israel Lobby that pushed for the invasion of Iraq, and the theory of "Big Oil" only clouds the true reason that the war took place, and "[T]he price of the ‘exonerate Israel’ strategy is to overlook the powerful role that the Israel First lobby is playing" to promote future wars (ie Iran) and exculpate the occupier from their duties under the Geneva Accords.

"Analytically, the differences between Israeli state policy and the leading US Zionist organizations are, with very rare exceptions, indistinguishable... An analysis of the relationship between the Israeli state and highly placed Zionist officials in the Bush Administration reveals first and foremost that Tel Aviv laid out the strategic policies of eliminating Middle East regimes opposed to its ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories and unlimited expansion of colonial settlements in Occupied Palestine and the consolidation of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

Mearsheimer and Walt describe the pro-Israel power configuration as a ‘lobby, just like any other US lobby’, a ‘loose collection of individuals and groups’ outside of government, acting on behalf of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. The power of Israel in the United States is manifested through a multiplicity of highly organized, well financed and centrally directed structures throughout the United States."

Although Petras may have overstated the influence of The Lobby to invade Iraq on Israel's behalf, the ratio between Bush and his corporate constituencies, Israel's good name and Cheney's lunacy is probably a question reserved for the historians of the future to analyse, it is beyond a doubt that the war in Iraq would not have taken place without the likes of "Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrook, Sandy Berger, William Cohen" in Clinton's administration and "Ari Fleischer, Paul Wolfowitz, David Frum, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eliott Abrams, Irving (Scooter) Libby, David Wurmser and others" during Bush's reign calling for the attack of Iraq (and to remodel the Middle East in Likudnik style). With key players in very important posts, offensives against Lebanon last year and Syrian strikes make more sense when juxtaposed with the PNAC strategy set up for Bibi all those years ago. In addition to this, the aggressive Israeli position against the Palestinians, which provoke more retaliation and hatred, hence more "terrorism", is overlooked thanks to the many who want to control what is said about the Jewish State. The list of "anti-Semites" is growing, Zionism is losing its luster, more are aware of Israel's human rights record, and the people who count are getting sick and tired of the war in Iraq. So why is it that the only candidates we can look forward to are just as hawkish as the ones we despise today?

It is because of what we have been speaking about all this time: those settlements, that war in Iraq, the smearing of respected figures in public, contemn of those who are willing to go out of line to reveal the true nature of Israel's occupation and treatment of Palestinians, the belligerent status of Israel's position against its neighbouring states (ie Lebanon and Syria), and the looming war in Iran, one that has military experts clamouring to show that that would be a disaster that makes Iraq look like a cakewalk; the Lobby has usurped the leadership and have seduced the public into thinking that all of this is necessary for Israel's good, which equals to America's well being. We can bet on more bellicose planning for the region, all configured to benefit the Jewish State and accomodate their whims. They wanted Saddam removed: they did it for us. They want Iran to be hit: the tough talk is not just for show. They want to keep Syria at bay besides their desire to improve relations: so they bomb them and can get away with it. They want Iran to be nuke-free while they keep their nukes under wraps: done. They want the Palestinians to continue their suffering and to be decimated, forever removed from reality, removed from history, removed from consciousness: it happens as we speak. What is next can only be speculated.

The wrath of God

Here's an interesting tidbit from Israeli rabbis:

""We wrote to President Bush, a man who believes in the Bible, to warn him against the terrible danger to which he is exposing his country by hosting such a conference," Rabbi Meir Druckman, one of eight signatories, told Army Radio. "The land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel. God punishes anyone who wants to force Israel to give up its land," he said, alluding to the occupied Gaza Strip and West Bank."

Further testament that Israel is unwilling to give up anything for peace. They want to encroach the totality of historic Palestine. It is rather evident that Zionism is still prevalent, and the audacity of negogiations to give up the occupied territories will bring God's wrath to those who "force Israel to give up its land". Nevermind that it belonged to someone else for a century or so. For example, here's a peak into Benny Morris' ideology, an astute Zionist and the leading figure of the new historians:

""A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population." According to him the Zionists made a mistake to have allowed any Palestinans to remain. "If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer of 1948. (...) In other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves (...) in a situation of warfare (...) acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential (...) If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified.""

Coupled with God's intention, the removal of Palestinians is a necessity for Israel's security, and an existential obligation. Or else face the consequences for having the temerity to offer peace:

"There is no doubt the New Orleans flood from the Katrina hurricane was God's punishment for dismantling the settlements...The recent fires in California should be considered the last warning..."

It's great to interpret things so distorted that it suits our ideology. Floods and hurricanes and forest fires; all coined for Israel's security. Even God is on their side.

Jeff Halper - Israeli Apartheid and the Path to Justice

Thanks to Australians for Palestine, I am able to feature an interview of Jeff Halper, the co-ordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, as he talks of Zionism, Israeli Apartheid, and the prospectives of the One-State and Two-State Solutions. Halper also coined the term "Matrix of Control", describing Israel's way of being ubiquitous in every form of Palestinian life.

Click here for the video.

Zionist panic!

The effervescent Tony Karon (I know, I cite him an awful lot, but if you read his priceless blog, you can see why.) observed more Zionist panic upon reading the Daniel Pipes entry that Zionism is in decline (that was posted here not long ago). Tony also quotes lengthy another favourite of mine, Philip Weiss, who was present at a CAMERA summit. Here's what Tony took out of Weiss' take on the Zionist gathering:

"The CAMERA people are losing and they know it. Near the end Cynthia Ozick was asked how we should go about delegitimizing the delegitimizers of the Jewish state and she sighed and said, “It’s hopeless.” Alvin Rosenfeld, the author of the disgraceful report on Jewish anti-Semitism put out by the American Jewish Committee, was mildly more optimistic. He said exactly what I say: “We are in a furious intellectual struggle. There is a war of ideas going on… it won’t end quickly…. It is steady work.” And it is “serious and worrisome” inasmuch as these ideas may now “enter the mainstream.” Amen.

…The reason It’s hopeless for the other side is that there was, in the basement of the synagogue, little to zero acknowledgement of the three great realities that are feeding Jewish post-Zionism.

1. the end of anti-Semitism. My old friend and I talked about a Jewish Daily News columnist who refused to hire Jews. That was 50 years ago. The injury is fresh. As the memories of anti-Semitism are for my parents. And they are virtually meaningless to young Americans. A panelist very briefly acknowledged this at the end, saying that Jews are so comfortable in America, how do we stir them?

2. the Israeli occupation of Arab lands and Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians were at no time acknowledged, but endlessly rationalized. The separate roadway system for settlers and Palestinian Arabs–rationalized. The incursion into Jenin–whitewashed. And so on. This sort of denial went on in South Africa during the campaign against apartheid. Young people don’t feel quite so defiant.

3. Not a word about Iraq. I have this feeling often in conservative Jewish gatherings. Iraq doesn’t touch them. It’s not a big deal to them, they are removed from it, they are for a hawkish policy in the Mideast and so they talk about Darfur/Sudan more than Baghdad..."

Weiss is then continued to be quoted:

"The heart of Levin’s concern was the American discourse. When Haaretz was just published in Israel, CAMERA didn’t care about its statements about the occupation and the destruction of Palestinian hopes and dreams and olive trees. “This all happened in Hebrew… causing little outward impact..”

Outward impact. She means: now Haaretz is affecting U.S. opinion and foreign policy. The most important statement Levin made was that she gets the brushoff from Amos Schocken, the Haaretz publisher, but with the American media, “there is an unwritten contract between them and us.” (Verbatim transcript to come later, when I have a little time…) An unwritten contract: to be fair to Israel, to print CAMERA members’ letters, to pick up the phone.

Isn’t that amazing and scandalous? Levin is explaining why there is a free debate in Israel and not here. Because of the lobby and its “unwritten contract.” Because U.S. support is crucial to Israel’s existence. And so Americans, who supposedly so love the Middle East democracy that they support it out of the goodness of their hearts, must not read the news from Israel."

And the final word is reserved for Tony himself:

"When the Zionist right in America “defends Israel” by going after one of Israel’s most respected newspapers which happens to tell the truth about the occupation and related matters, it’s not hard to see why Pipes & co. have little cause for optimism. The Zionist moment is over, because most Jews around the world (and even many in Israel) are not inclined to a nationalist view of their Jewishness. And remember, Zionism is not much more than 100 years old, arising along with the nationalist currents of late 19th century Europe that accompanied the breakup of the Hapsburg empire. It’s hardly surprising that in a 21st century where we have had a free choice, almost two thirds of us have chosen to live not in a “Jewish State” but wherever in the world we choose to. Many Israelis today are excercising the same choice. And Jews who are not prone to nationalism have no need to rationalize Israel’s abuses against others."

The allure of Zionism is lost to the younger generation, perhaps for the lucid fact that Semites are easily integrated into any society that they are found in. While Herzl argued that Anti-Semitism could not be fought and had to be accepted by the Jew so they could remove the illusion of assimilation into Europe, hence the need for a separate state for Jews, by today's standards this is too foreign to fathom. Most would identify themselves as American, Canadian, Australian, Polish, etc. first rather than Jewish. Entangled with this is the poor PR that Israel is continuely dogged by, and it is a recipe for estrangement from the Jewish State. Or maybe segragation is not the answer anymore to "Anti-Semitic" problems. I leave this from a quote from Sara Roy (who was quoting her mother):

"She told me many times during my life that her decision not to live in Israel was based on a belief, learned and reinforced by her experiences during the war, that tolerance, compassion, and justice cannot be practiced or extended when one lives only among one's own. “I could not live as a Jew among Jews alone,” she said. “For me, it wasn’t possible and it wasn’t what I wanted. I wanted to live as a Jew in a pluralist society, where my group remained important to me but where others were important to me, too."

Zionism in crisis

Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum and a Zionist himself, wrote that the trend of the "once-tiny haredi", Jewish opponents of Zionism, is on the rise. The telling signs are as follows:

• Young Israelis are avoiding the military in record numbers, with 26 percent of enlistment-age Jewish males and 43 percent of females not drafted in 2006. An alarmed Israel Defense Forces has requested legislation to deny state-provided benefits to Jewish Israelis who do not serve.


• Israel's Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz has up-ended the work of the Jewish National Fund, one of the pioneer Zionist institutions (founded in 1901) by determining that its role of acquiring land specifically for Jews cannot continue in the future with state assistance.


• Prominent Israeli historians focus on showing how Israel was conceived in sin and has been a force for evil.


• Israel's ministry of education has approved schoolbooks for third-grade Arab students that present the creation of Israel in 1948 as a "catastrophe" (Arabic: nakba).


• Avraham Burg, scion of a leading Zionist household and himself a prominent Labor Party figure, has published a book comparing Israel with 1930s Germany.


• A 2004 poll found only 17 percent of American Jews call themselves "Zionist."

Pipes is hopeful for a revival, while Philip Weiss says "history is progressive, go with the flow." While certainly those points do their worth to contribute to the decline of Zionism, that 19th century ideology is something foreign by today's standards, with Israel having all the power and prestige that the Jews did not have back when it was born. And you know that it is in deep crisis when the Middle East Peace Envoy is "shocked" by the West Bank segregation.

"He was shocked by what he was told about conditions in Hebron and diplomats say he was genuinely taken aback by his trip to the West Bank sector of the Jordan Valley – where Palestinians are allowed to dig wells only a third as deep as Israelis – at the exploitation of resources by the rich Jewish agricultural settlements at the expense of closed in Palestinian farmers. And he has been privately dismissive – rather more so perhaps than he was as Prime Minister – of the argument by some Israelis that security comes first, with economics and a political deal well behind it."

It's a pity that Blair only could go so far in his condemnation, but then again, he did piggy-back Bushie to invade Iraq. Too bad he forgets about Gaza, a place that is now compared to "a zoo".

"The comparison to a zoo was made by Dr. Mamdouh al Aker, a doctor who heads the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights. For another Gazan, a prominent businessman whose food plant is working at about 5 percent of its capacity, the situation is reminiscent of a hospital: Like patients, the inhabitants do not work, but they receive food. They do not work, because for four months Israel has prohibited not only the exit of any Gazan products to market, but also the entry of any raw materials or means of production. If the prices of goods continue to rise and the cash crisis worsens because of the severing of contact between banks in Israel and the banks in Gaza, the international aid organizations will soon increase the quantities of food that they donate, which today account for about 10 percent of the supplies that are brought in. Perhaps the day will come when they will drop food packages from helicopters.

The governments of Israel, the United States and Europe see the hermetic imprisonment of 1.5 million human beings and the final destruction of Gaza's economic infrastructure as a suitable answer to Hamas, at least until it falls. It appears that the Ramallah "government" agrees with them. Indeed, the head of the Gazan "government," Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, has hinted that the exclusive Hamas regime in Gaza is temporary. But, this temporary nature depends on the success of a dialogue between Hamas and Fatah, whereas Israel and the United States are forbidding Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas from carrying on such a dialogue. And Abbas, in any case, is for the moment sticking to the approach that Hamas is a hostile entity."

Forget about Gazans, they deserve what they get, for they are "hostile". But nothing passes by our "peace" envoy.

"He thinks the similarities with Northern Ireland are as great as the differences but since it irritates Israelis for him to say so, he doesn't."

Apartheid is a no-no; so is Northern Ireland. What could one compare Israel's occupation to?

Finally, Ray HaCohen writes about the new initiative coming from the Hard Right, who eschews that

"The settlers' ideology is usually shared by the Israeli military, and the military is the central political agent in Israel, much more important than any short-lived government or prime minister. This is why plans, demands, and suggestions of the Israeli far Right, no matter how lunatic they sound when launched, are often the best prediction for future reality, which usually lags just a few years behind."

This is Zionism at its greatest. They aim to sweep out all Palestinians to Jordan, and annex the entire West Bank, dismantle UNRWA and make the Palestinians a foreign entity, similar to tourists, in their own homes. Perhaps this tactic most of all is why people are so exhausted with peace proposals. How much will Abbas give up for his own whelp of a fragmented nation?

A New Chapter in the Boycott Campaign

By Joshua Alzona

On a Saturday afternoon, in the picturesque season of fall on a corner that is typically awash with smugness and affluence, pedestrians and would-be consumers were met with a slightly askew version of a flyer handout in front of the biggest bookstore franchise in Canada. One by one, they all slip through the sidewalk traffic, many doing their best just to ignore what's facing them, while the rest attempt to scoot on nonchalantly in a vain hope that this stranger might miss the opportunity to give them a little piece of paper, dismissing this as something of little importance on a typical weekend walk downtown. But it's not just any old theme. It's altogether more provocative.

I joined the monthly picket against the Chapters/Indigo corporation organised by the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid. Upon my arrival, there was no sign of the picket slowing down. A squad car accompanied by a couple of police officers were keeping a close watch just in case us "lefties" went nuts, but there was nothing to be worried about. (In CAIA's email, they mentioned that it was the picketers who needed protection from some Zionists who were a little too belligerent in their defense of Israel, verbally, of course.) Nothing too ominous, no loud chants, only a couple of signs, and by CAIA's email, a total of ten activists rallied to show support.

The CAIA campaign against Chapters/Indigo is directed at two the owners, Heather Reisman and Gerry Schwartz, who "established a fund called Heseg - Foundation for Lone Soldiers". The Heseg Foundation is a subsidiary of the Israel military, which enables those who have no family ties to Israel but express the desire to enlist in the IDF to fulfill this wish aka "lone soldier". According to CAIA, the owners can donate up to" $3 million a year to provide scholarships and other support" to the IDF and its offshoots. These soldiers participate in any IDF activity, whether it be manning checkpoints, being on board in the incursions in the Occupied Territories, and destroying Palestinian houses (all in a day's business for an IDF soldier).

I was made aware of CAIA through an article by Sue Ferguson. In it, she depicts the birth of a new movement in its infancy, but one that may not be kept in the shadows for much longer. Ferguson already attests that the boycott campaign against Israel is fast gaining merit in many circles and that this is another cog in the machine that could tear down Israel's continued oppression of the Palestinians.

"The moment, say activists, is ripe for action. The ever-intensifying strife in the West Bank and Gaza reminds the world almost daily of the international community’s failure to hammer out a workable peace accord... On the ground, the BDS campaign is simmering, both in Canada and abroad, where it focuses on academic links to Israeli universities, supermarkets selling Israeli produce, and mining, telecommunications and other hi-tech companies with links to Israel."

Ferguson also chronicles the current campaign against Chapters/Indigo, and how it is definitely getting people's attention, and that the owners have reason to worry (and call the police when there is a picket in town). "Regular protests now take place at the Toronto store and Indigo or Chapters outlets in Montreal, Vancouver, Victoria and Halifax." In Toronto, at the heart of downtown and in front of the biggest Chapters store, there is a weekly picket every Friday afternoon, banded together with another dissident group the Jewish Women's Committee Against the Occupation. And monthly, the protests is situated at different locales in the Greater Toronto Area in the hopes of spreading this message to a wider audience.

Stationed at a corner blocking the McDonald's entry, myself and Saeed, bearing the Palestinian flag, position ourselves to bear the traffic heading at us in both directions. "Boycott Chapters and Israeli Apartheid" is our main slogan. Most just continue with their faux conversations and convenient cell phone calls and move on to cross the street (only to be met by more activists in the eastern and northern side of Bloor). A car stops to asks Saeed what flag he was holding, and then speeds off when he gets the answer. Another erroneously corrects me that it is meant to have three stars in the middle stripe. I see a few people carrying a Chapters bag and accompanying it is the CAIA flyer. I also see it as a potential disposal on plenty of others. Maybe they can go on ignoring what just happened here.

"We know we're not going to bring down Chapters," says Andrew, the co-ordinator of the picket. "It's more of a symbolic measure." And the strategy does work. Chapters is one of the biggest names in Canada, and by targeting such a large company, controversy will follow. The more we press, the more pressure will build against the biggest book retailer in the country. But Andrew and CAIA is realistic: their campaign to boycott Chapters is not going to make Reisman and Schwartz bankrupt but rather bring the message that people won't stand for their support of crimes against humanity.

Upon uttering the two words, a young woman stopped dead in her tracks and questions abruptly "What?! Chapters?" The pamphlet was discussed for many minutes and she expressed an interest in knowing about such matters. The big name target strategem was already a success. She expressed solidarity and was aghast that the owners of Chapters could be responsible for such a transgression.

Many were receptive and a select few did take a few minutes to question what all the fuss was about. Not all gave support but all did leave rethinking what shopping at Chapters might ensue.

Apartheid by Any Other Name

The battle against Israel is not met without any backlash and today was no different. Although not new to the scene of activism, it is the first event that I participated in that could have certain repurcussions equivalent to slander. The typical slur was muttered by a tiny few but it is those few that I find myself questioning over and over, despite at the success of the entire afternoon. They may be the minority but it is the reactionary that really perplexes me and I could minimise their problem with my presence and the boycott: Apartheid.

The use of the term has not been given a warm welcome and those who stand by it are given the lynching by Israel's supporters. "Anti-Semitic dribble" mouthed one lady in her forties. Another repeated a slight variation of the previous invective. A couple of boos here and there. Of course, not one wanted to stay and discuss their objection; they merely wanted to say what they had to say and strut along on their lovely high horse believing what they did was for the greater good, how they put myself and us "lefties" in our place for having the temerity to stand up against Israel. If they had of stuck around, or even glanced at the pamphlet and then maybe we could have made some progress but alas, it was not to be. Saeed tells me that that reaction "does not even hold water anymore". But I start to dwell on the defamation game.

"You can't call it Apartheid. If you are for Palestinian rights, then so be it but calling it Apartheid is wrong. This is slander," expressed one older fellow. Slander to whom sir? South Africa or Israel? Sadly he also didn't stay, opting to jet off to his next rendezous.

It matters not that many South Africans have given credence to the apartheid comparison. Archbishop Desmond Tutu is getting blacklisted because of such a claim. Jimmy Carter published a book with the word in the title describing the debacle in the Occupied Territories while some say Carter didn't go far enough and that Israeli Jews are also its victim. And the issue of apartheid is a lively debate in the Knesset and in the Israeli press. It seems the only place that it is not accepted is around our continent. How about the Jewish publication Forward, doing its best to undermine the analogy, still states that "there are similarities between the lives of Palestinians under Israeli occupation and those of black South Africans under apartheid. Indeed, in certain respects, the conditions Palestinians face are arguably even worse." This is a paper this home to none other than Alan Dershowitz, Israel's prime apologist.

Sure, one can nitpick and say it's not exactly the same. But since when is any comparison exactly the same? In the words of Ari Shavit, an Israeli journalist,

"The associations are too strong. Like a believer whose faith is cracking, I go over and over again in my mind the long list of arguments, the list of differences. But then I realize [...] that the problem is not in the similarity--for no one can seriously think that there is a real similarity--but that there isn't enough lack of similarity. The problem is that the lack of similarity isn't strong enough to silence once and for all the evil echoes, the accusing images."

As long as there is more similarities than differences, or the similarities resemble Apartheid a little too strongly, then the analogy will not die. (Shavit was comparing it to Nazism rather than apartheid.) Besides, "BDS campaigners do not claim Israel is an exact replica of apartheid South Africa," states Sue Ferguson. Andrew and I were in agreement that the use of apartheid is leaned more towards provocation than perfect comparison. It is designed to create a "buzz".

"For most it was their first exposure to the boycott and the concept of Israeli apartheid." Yes, the similarities are there and with this comparison, people can connect the segregation policy of South Africa in the past and Israel today. We did not stand for apartheid South Africa so we hope that they will not stand for an Israeli-version of apartheid, which some do state is much worse because Palestinians do not contribute to the Israeli economy.

"Separate development", "functionally separated", "ghettoisation" instead "bantustanisation", it seems we're willing to name the Palestinian plight anything but apartheid despite the realities that sees them isolated in enclaves, encircled by roadblocks, checkpoints and "security" wall, prohibited from using highways reserved for Jews. A list of restrictions imposed on Palestinians ONLY is extensive. If this doesn't qualify to be compared to apartheid, then what can be? Tony Karon expresses the duplicity of those who defend the indefensible:

"But the logic of suggesting it is 'racist' to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa is simply bizarre. What if Israel objectively behaves like apartheid South Africa? What then?"