You are reading a single comment by @Eejit and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I think it’s only difficult if you believe that the Telegraph (and whoever they may be quoting) is speaking in good faith and not just being breathtakingly cynical.
Eejit-
The thing that angers and upsets me most about this is Israel's knee-jerk response which is to dismiss any criticism as anti-semitism. It's a school kid level response, and by inextricably linking Israeli politics to Jewishness (is that the right word?) I'm pretty sure it encourages some people to harden their anti-semitic views.
I haven't read the report either. And I doubt anyone in the Israeli government will read it, let alone act on it.
fakenger35
It's difficult it's it?
Antisemitism has been steadily increasing, so anything that can be used to spread hate can also encourage violence. But at what point does that prevent any discussion?
What is frustrating is that from the bits I've seen, criticism of the report seems to amount to "I don't like the word apartheid". There doesn't seem to be any engagement with why it isn't.
Prima face (unless I'm missing something obvious) I don't see how the situation in the occupied territories are anything accept apartheid. In Israel Palestinians have the right to vote and have representatives, so their situation isn't directly analogous to SA. But, as i understand it, AA is saying that it meets the ICC definition
Again it doesn't seem like the most outlandish claim.
It would be interesting to see which other countries AA has made similar claims about.
(worth saying I haven't read the report)