--->
![]()
The Myth of Apartheid Israel- political sex appeal?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
[ Reads:928 / Comments:8 / 579 ] When it comes to selling a product, most marketers and advertisers will tell you that it is all about how you package, position and sell it. Slick branding or packaging and a sexy catchphrase help the greater public buy yours over your competitors. Brand Britney has amassed more wealth through the coverage of her alleged demise than over her meteoric rise to fame. Nowhere in the fight for public opinion is this more apparent than the “Israel is an Apartheid State” analogy. This statement is the seductive byline in helping to convince people to “Buy this product and you too can paint Israel as a pariah state, divest economically and academically and call into question the existence of this sovereign and democratic entity.” Graduates of the Joseph Goebbels School of Public Relations are pulling out all the stops to place their product in the global political consciousness.
Those of us who lived through the Apartheid era and also know a thing or two about Israeli society, know that not only does this dangerous analogy denigrate the crime that was Apartheid and mock the suffering of its victims but it also shows a complete lack of understanding and ignorance about the conflict in the Middle East. Comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa is blatant anti-Semitism and ignorance. It is politically incorrect to be anti-semitic and I am sure that some of Israel’s greatest detractors’ best friends are Jewish. However it is decidedly more palatable to be anti-Zionist. The axiom seems to be “we love your Jewish traditions, Mazel Tov! Gefilte fish! It is just your racist Zionist ideology we disagree with.” As if the two can be remotely separate! So what does this have to do with comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa and where on earth does this ridiculous analogy originate from? Ironically the analogy came to light at the height of Apartheid in 1975. The United Nations passed a resolution sponsored by the Former Soviet Union equating Zionism with Racism. This has since been refuted but the seeds were planted for this nefarious campaign. The idea gained momentum and accelerated worldwide after the UN Conference on Racism that was held in Durban 2001. The conference’s intent was to explore worldwide racism and intolerance but instead spiraled into a festival of Israel bashing and anti-Semitism that resulted in both the Israeli and American delegations to walk out in protest, The fact that the launching pad of such a campaign took place in once-pariah South Africa is a bitter irony that is not unnoticed. The symbolism of the quest to package and treat Israel the same way that South Africa was treated and therefore call into question her legitimacy as a state is not lost on us. Strange that nobody ever questions the legitimacy of existence for countries like Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia and even during the Apartheid years, nobody questioned the existence of South Africa as a country. Only Israel is singled out for this kind of judgement. Israel is singled out for opprobrium and is the chief scapegoat for all of the world’s ills. From the crimes of practicing Apartheid to the Mossad allegedly having caused the Asian Tsunami, there is not an incident that hasn’t been blamed on Israel. If we sit and compare Israeli and Apartheid legislation law for law, this comparison is shown to be ridiculous, Oh but wait, that is the fundamental difference! 1948 was the birth year of Apartheid South Africa but it was also the birth year of democratic Israel. Israel’s Declaration of Independence advocated inclusiveness for all her citizens – a concept unheard of in that neighbourhood. It is easy to make grand comparisons but we tend to forget definition behind catchy slogans. Apartheid was state sanctioned laws of discrimination and forced removals that made it possible for a white minority to rule and subjugate the black majority. In making the case for Israel the role of cause and effect is irrefutable. Is there a separation fence? Yes, because in an effort to eradicate terror attacks on her citizens, Israel has erected a barrier after all, fences can be torn down but lives never replaced. Only the Palestinians hold the key to tearing down the barrier by ensuring a sustainable peace. What about checkpoints? And separate roads? Aren’t these the tools favoured by Apartheid practitioners? No, they are the mechanisms used by a sovereign country to fulfill its most important mandate – the protection of its citizens. Trying to mete out the same justice to Israel that was administered to Apartheid South Africa not only robs both sides of national determination but denies sincere peace loving people their dignity. Israel’s critics are confident that their competitive product comes in a glossier packaging, don’t be fooled by glitter and sparkle. Buy brand Israel, it may not be as seductive but morally, ethically, democratically and intellectually, it is by far the superior product.
2925 Lyndall Beddy
[ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 | 8:07:57 PM ]
G
Read my post "We all agree Palestinians are victims, but victims of whom?"
2388 G
[ Friday, October 02, 2009 | 8:07:20 AM ]
Lyndall - there is certainly not two sides to the story, there are many, many more!
Are you saying there is only the Israel side and nothing else? Everything else is Propaganda? Or am I misreading you - which is likely.
2379 Lyndall Beddy
[ Friday, October 02, 2009 | 4:57:57 AM ]
G and Gary
There is a historic background to this - simply put the Arabs don't want either a Jewish state or any living Jews at all in the world. They want them all dead. And since 1948 the 1.4 billion of the Arabs have been using their oil wealth to buy propaganda against Israel and the 13 million Jews in the world.. Which is why you even think that there are two sides to the story. The Palestinians are merely the pawns - of the Arabs.
2308 G
[ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 | 11:44:10 AM ]
The point I do not want to argue – as many others will point hem out – is that your entire reasoning has more loopholes than a bag of pretzels.
What I do want to say as a “secular humanist (also reborn capitalist) I am GETVOL of this whole Israel and Palestinian issue. I feel like a school headmaster who always have the two same laities in his office for continually barney-ing. I’m at the point where I’m now gonna say “leave me out of it – you have your backyard-barney, leave me alone. I can see Israel’s point of view. I can see Palestine’s point of view. Both are valid, both are right, both are wrong. And this battle that has been raging for centuries will continue to rage for centuries, with all the he-said-she-said bulldust and drama thrown in for headlines. I just don’t care anymore. I care more about the state of our bowlers than I care about this debacle. Greater minds than mine have applied itself to the problem and failed – I’m never going to find a solution, and even if I do – who is gonna listen to me? It saddens me a great deal to play the role of Pontius Pilate, I care too much for me not to be pained by my own choice – but I wash my hands of Israel and Palestine. “hulle moet nou maar aangaan”. I’m worried about what I’m gonna make for dinner and WTF is happening with Golden Lions rugby. That has a direct bearing on my life. I vs P is just not worth worrying over, as there will never be a result unless one of the parties are “the bigger person” and says “okay, you know what, we mucked up, we’re wrong, how will we settle this?” And I will also have a date with Miss Universe right before I win the lottery. Now, about them Proteas…
2197 Lyndall Beddy
[ Friday, September 25, 2009 | 11:44:36 AM ]
The UN has EVERY year had one group(the communists) pass a resolution for the USA to stop its boycott of Cuba; and the other group (the Muslims) censure Israel
Pete The Palestinians are mainly bussed in Arabs who should never have been bussed in at all. Which is why they keep calling it "Arab" land.See my post "We all agree that Palestinians are victims, but victims of whom"
2192 Pete
[ Friday, September 25, 2009 | 12:36:33 AM ]
With the collapse of the two-state peace process, and Israeli settlers having taken so much land that a Palestinian state would be unsustainable, Israel supporters need to understand that: (a) a one state system is the only practical thing left on the table, and, (b) when one group of people are enclosed in ghettos, shelled and refused exit to leave, and are discriminated against by mainstream society, that's pretty much Apartheid down to a tee.
As Archbishop Desmond Tutu says, if anything, Israeli Apartheid is much more brutal than South African Apartheid ever was. The American Right really needs to pull its finger out. The Israelis are crushing their own dream. The US isn't doing Israel any favours by being their enabler.
2163 Gary
[ Wednesday, September 23, 2009 | 6:05:49 PM ]
By citing Zimbabwe in this article you have inversely raised the question of its legitimacy as a state. A state is not illegitimate or called into question because it is run by a dictator, a monarchy or a non democratic system!
The issue with israel is that some people are denied the same rights that others (in this case Jews) are afforded. It is simply not acceptable that free movement and full autonomy is not granted to a people based on their faith. This is the parallel to Apartheid. Please note that I am not saying it is apartheid - apartheid was unique to SA - there are however parallels. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||