An excellent article – it is about time Israel’s defenders were told, loud and clear, that the country defend perpetrates apartheid. Thank you for making the distinction between the international legal definition of it, and the use of the term to make comparisons between Israel and South Africa.

I look forward to your book, and expect the comments thread to be polluted with many pro-Israel loons hereafter! Shining a light on a festering wound often exposes the pus emanating from within it.

Thanks for this piece. Very thoughtful and nuanced, and definitely a welcome change from the usual “ZOMG ISRAEL IS A NAZI STATE” vs “UR ALL ANTISEMITES” mudslinging.

Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs may or may not constitute apartheid, but whatever it is, it’s certainly unacceptable.

The point at which this falls down is that it is based on the assumption that the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel. This is not the position of the Israeli government, and nor is it that of the international community, which generally accepts that both territories are in a legal limbo and not part of any state whether recognized or not. They are not made de facto part of Israel merely because they are under Israeli military occupation, and under international law an occupying power has no duty to treat occupied territories as part of its sovereign territory.

Apartheid only refers to the conduct of affairs within a single country. For that we must look at to how Israel treats people who reside within its internationally-recognized borders (plus East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which Israel has officially annexed even though not generally recognized). Within Israel, the equal treatment of different racial groups is strictly kept to. Perhaps the only significant legal racial discrimination is the practice of successive defence ministers in exempting most non-Jews from conscription.

The position of the Israeli government appears to be that the OT is not part of Israel, except when it comes to building settlements there.

Not convinced of the appropriateness of using the term apartheid to describe the situation in Israel/Palestine.

I suspect ‘apartheid’ is being employed simplistically as a means of trying to bring absolute moral clarity to a very complicated conflict; i.e. Israel is ‘the bad side’ because it is supposedly like the universally reviled apartheid regime in South Africa.

Much like the placards declaring Israel’s recent military operation in the Gaza strip a “holocaust” are using crude historical analogy.

I’m speaking as someone who thinks that when it comes to the peace process and the two state solution the onus is on Israel to make most concessions. I just think the use of this kind of language is unhelpful for making progress.

Yes, there is much that can be said about the plight of Palestinians in the OT but if you are going to discuss the notion of Israel as an apartheid state you surely have to look at how it treats the Arab minority within its own borders. Now I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on this – I’ve heard various claims and counter claims, but nothing that convinces me that Israel practices anything seriously resembling apartheid. And as Jako says, given the general tone of discussions on I/P in general throwing around terms such as apartheid is at best not exactly helpful and at worst in very bad taste.

Excellent article Ben. The people staging bizarre legalist complaints that the OT somehow don’t count are of course ignoring the fact that those areas are being eagerly colonised by hardcore Zionists. A convenient fact to overlook.

‘Excellent article Ben. The people staging bizarre legalist complaints that the OT somehow don’t count are of course ignoring the fact that those areas are being eagerly colonised by hardcore Zionists. A convenient fact to overlook.’

If Isreali’s are ‘colonising’ this territory, that strengthens the case it’s an OCCUPATION, not apartheid.

Are Palestinians asking for independence and self-determination or merely equal rights WITHIN Israel?

It seems like the most common argument against using this term is that the Palestinian Territories are not in Israel, therefore they do not count. South African Bantustans were declared by South Africa to be independent nations, that does not mean that SA therefore did not have a responsibility to govern them responsibly. Israel clearly claims sovereignty over the territories. For example:

-Israel law is that which applies in all settlements and in an area “C” land.
-Israeli military and/or police have the ability to enter anywhere in the West Bank or Gaza in order to apprehend or kill individuals who they deem a threat.
-Palestinian organizations and companies need israeli permission to operate
-Israel controls all the entry and exit into the West Bank and Gaza
-Palestinians need to carry Israeli issued ID card at all times, and can be arrested for failing to do so, even within the West Bank.

I know that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel, but I have a hard time buying the excuse that Israel’s actions there do not count as apartheid simply because of that technicality.

We all know how this needs to be sorted.

How using the word “apartheid” illuminates anything or helps in any way is beyond me.
What consequences flow from that?
(Though I can see how it adds to Mr White’s overweening sense of moral superiority.)

BTW would this be the same Ben White who wrote:

” I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are.”?

Classy.

Later in the article I especially liked:

“Comparisons between the Israeli government and the Nazis is unwise and unsound, since the Israelis have not (at the time of going to press) exterminated in a systematic fashion an enormous percentage of the Palestinians.”

“At the time of going to press” – nice touch that. Really nice.

http://www.counterpunch.org/white0617.html

Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country… [including] the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence…

Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups…the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group…”

There are two points here. The first, as has been mentioned above, is that none of the Bantustans received international recognition as a state – they were all held to be integral parts of South Africa. In Israel and Palestine, I don’t think it is argued that Gaza and the West Bank are integral parts of Israel – or at least that would be a highly controversial opinion. As such, Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza can’t be apartheid. It’s a definitional point, rather than a moral one. It can still be bad, even if it isn’t apartheid.

The second is that apartheid is explicitly a racial policy. Aren’t we always told that Jews and Palestinians are both Semites? Of the same race? Or if the argument is that Jews and Arabs are different races, how are Israeli Arabs treated by the law? If Israeli Arabs are herded into ghettoes and have their land appropriated etc. then there might be more of a case, but as far as I am aware that isn’t the case.

The problem is that labelling Israeli policy as being apartheid is just a way of shutting down debate – Israelis = evil. Apartheid (like fascism, sigh) was a policy of its time and of its place.

Sorry I don’t have much time to reply right now, but…

Thanks to those who left positive feedback.

Thankfully, with few exceptions, most people have got the fact that using the word apartheid in connection with Israel is not about saying South Africa = Israel (I almost put ‘not’ in capital letters, but somehow I think some people aren’t really reading…)

In terms of the whole ‘can it be apartheid if it is occupied territory’ I guess I would recommend reading the study I referred to by legal scholars – you can find exec summary and full report here – http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml

Thankfully, with few exceptions, most people have got the fact that using the word apartheid in connection with Israel is not about saying South Africa = Israel

Except that that is precisely how it will be interpreted by everyone, whether it is intentional or not. In what other context can one read apartheid? How else is it ever used? How many other Afrikaans words are in political parlance?

Whatever its legal definition, the term “apartheid” is inextricably associated in the present generations’ minds with South Africa and so I don’t think it can be of assistance in any other case until that association has faded into history. Comparisons with South Africa are inevitable whether intended or not and so use of the word must be very emotive. As I read the article, however, that is not what is intended here.

If a technical definition is intended (with a view to legal proceedings?) then presumably the legal tecnicalities that the OT are not inside Israel are very pertinent.

The people comparing Israel and its treatment of the territories it occupies on the one hand, with South Africa and its creations of bantustans on the other, are inadvertently undermining their case.

In the case of Israel, there is no territorial claim on the West Bank and Gaza; in international law they are straightforward military occupations (which incidentally obliges Israel to keep occupying them until another government can take over). Palestinians who live in Israel proper are not subject to any legal discrimination.

In the case of South Africa, the bantustans were declared independent by the South African government but recognized as independent by nobody else. Only a minority of black South Africans lived in them, and the black South Africans were still a majority and subject to apartheid outside them.

‘Israel clearly claims sovereignty over the territories’

But do Palastinians see themselves as belonging to an occupied nation or as an oppressed people within Israel?

Does accepting Israel’s claim to sovereignty further the Palestinian cause?

The term apartheid is inextricably linked in the minds of the public – and to the Left in particular – with the rather less morally complex oppression of South African Blacks, just as the word ‘gulag’ is linked to oppression in the Soviet Union.

“Thankfully, with few exceptions, most people have got the fact that using the word apartheid in connection with Israel is not about saying South Africa = Israel (I almost put ‘not’ in capital letters, but somehow I think some people aren’t really reading…)

In terms of the whole ‘can it be apartheid if it is occupied territory’ I guess I would recommend reading the study I referred to by legal scholars – you can find exec summary and full report here”

So the people who are ambivalent about using the word apartheid in this context are accused by some of being pedantic and ‘legalistic’, and then Ben himself insists that he’s only talking in terms of legal definitions!

I do not buy this idea that you are employing the term ‘apartheid’ in a strict legal sense and not simply trying to make a history analogy between present day Israel and South Africa under white-rule.

It is crude; it is misleading; and it doesn’t help further any understanding of the situation in the Middle East.

Do you consider yourself primarily motivated by gaining knowledge and understanding of the Middle East to somehow help the peace process or is your mission purely to demonise Israel and portray this as a ‘right versus wrong’ conflict?

I think you have to swallow the whole Tony Blair Liberal Intervention schtick to believe that ‘apartheid’ is automatically WORSE than ‘invasion’ and ‘occupation’.

Israel is not an apartheid state — rather the opposite, it is easily the most democratic and politically egalitarian state in the Middle East, in which Arabs Israelis enjoy far more freedom, better social services, etc. than in all the Arab states surrounding it. Indeed, Arab representatives in the Knesset, who continuously call for dismantling the Jewish state, support the Hezbollah, etc., enjoy more freedom than many Western democracies give their internal Oppositions. (The U.S. would prosecute and jail Congressmen calling for the overthrow of the U.S. Govt. or the demise of the U.S.) The best comparison would be the treatment of Japanese Americans by the US Govt … and the British Govt. [incarceration] of German émigrés in Britain WWII … Israel’s Arabs by and large identify with Israel’s enemies, the Palestinians. But Israel hasn’t jailed or curtailed their freedoms en masse.

As to the occupied territories, Israeli policy is fueled by security considerations (whether one agrees with them or not, or with all the specific measures adopted at any given time) rather than racism (though, to be sure, there are Israelis who are motivated by racism in their attitude and actions towards Arabs) — and indeed the Arab population suffers as a result. But Gaza’s and the West Bank’s population (Arabs) are not Israeli citizens and cannot expect to benefit from the same rights as Israeli citizens so long as the occupation or semi-occupation (more accurately) continues, which itself is a function of the continued state of war between the Hamas-led Palestinians (and their Syrian and other Arab allies) and Israel.

The difference between the current Israeli situation and apartheid South Africa is emphasized at a very human level: Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, with the same facilities, attended by the same doctors and nurses, with the mothers recovering in adjoining beds in a ward. If one need to have a surgery in a Israeli hospital: the surgeon might be Arab or Jewish, the anaesthetist is a Jew or Arab, the nurses who looked afteryou might be Jewishs and Arabs. Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other’s homes. Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid? Of course not.

Arabs are exersizing Apartheid against Jews when they prevent from the Jews to live in Arab villages.

The very burden for both people is the will of extreme Islamic Fascists forced to annihilate the Jewish state and clean the “Islamic” Middle East from non Islamic states and communities! http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html .

Palestinians who live in Israel proper are not subject to any legal discrimination.

But this is not strictly true, if some people actually had done research on this area.

http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2008/04/04/the-unrecognized-still-unrecognized/

I love the fact that people post already prepared tracts without actually reading the article in question. Apartheid has a specific English meaning, as well as a technical meaning. If the meaning matches then its legitimate use. Blustering on either side doesn’t help really.

That article on Harry’s Place by Lucy Lips is similarly fatuous. The author hasn’t actually read the article as commenters point out that Ben does the exact opposite of what ‘Lucy Lips’ says he does. Typical really.

Ben, I wonder if your fascination with Apartheid is a new phenomenon or were you one of the active anti apartheid activists for South Africa.

I have started wondering where all those vocal anti South African Apartheid activists have gone to once they made sure it doesn’t exist in South Africa anymore and realise that they have moved onto Israel.

The thing is that currently in South Africa, the murder rate is 50 a day and the rape at 100 per day, the poverty and lack of healhcare is unbelievable, much worse then under apartheid – but those activists that so cared for the black South Africans don’t make a peep. It reminds me of the staunch pro-lifers – they just want the baby born and don’t care whether it will be adequately fed or cared for.

Pick another topic to write a book about – this one just doesn’t make sense at all!

AbeBird: “Arab representatives in the Knesset, who continuously call for dismantling the Jewish state, support the Hezbollah, etc., enjoy more freedom than many Western democracies give their internal Oppositions. (The U.S. would prosecute and jail Congressmen calling for the overthrow of the U.S. Govt. or the demise of the U.S.)”

Except that’s manifestly not true.

Here in the UK we have the Scottish National Party, whose clearly stated long term policy goal is the dismantling of the UK and then the removal of the Queen as Scotland’s head of state. Enemies of the nation? In jail? No. Running the devolved government in Edinburgh. Doing well in the polls.

“But Gaza’s and the West Bank’s population (Arabs) are not Israeli citizens”

But why not? They were there when Israel invaded and made the land subject to Israeli law and Israeli military control – i.e. de facto part of Israel. Generally when a nation invades and claims land in war the existing indigenous inhabitants become citizens. But in Israel’s case, they did not, basically because they weren’t Jewish.

You are correct, I think, to say Israel itself is not practicing apartheid against Arabs as such; but it is without a doubt practicing techniques that could meet most definitions of apartheid against Palestinians. Right now, it really hinges on whether you think Palestinians count as a race. And the term apartheid is just that: a word. It doesn’t change the fact that what Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians is still heinous.

And looking to the future, if many in the current Israeli government get their way, making arguments about Israeli Arabs’ traitorhood much like your own, that distinction will cease to exist and any serious argument that it is not apartheid will become very difficult to make.

“Arabs are exersizing Apartheid against Jews when they prevent from the Jews to live in Arab villages.”

And then you make a total mockery of your own argument with that. The entire reason Palestinians are Israel’s enemies is because they were and are prevented from living in villages, towns and cities by the Israeli state, fundamentally on the basis of their ethnicity.

That article on Harry’s Place by Lucy Lips is similarly fatuous. The author hasn’t actually read the article as commenters point out that Ben does the exact opposite of what ‘Lucy Lips’ says he does. Typical really.

Well quite – regardless of the rights and wrongs of Ben’s piece you can guarantee that they will be total wankers about it.

Having said that, the statement by Ben (from another piece) which they are particularly riled about –

” I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are”

is pretty indefensible.

I’m not touching Israel and Apartheid with a bargepole, but “Lucy Lips” is Harry of the Place, and I claim my five pounds.

The General Assembly does not create international law. Its decisions are non-binding.

As far as the Rome Statute, how many Jews are equal citizens in the society you champion? Calling for a discussion on how Israel is an apartheid state is cynical and shows a fundamental lack of morality.

Any control Israel maintains over the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians is a defensive mechanism brought on by mass murder, incitement to genocide, and a complete disregard of internationally accepted norms of behavior on the part of the Arabs you are enamored with.

The only fair comparison to apartheid and Israel is the fact that the Muslim world has segregated through persecution the majority of ts Jewish population, barred them from returning, boycotted, and under threat of violence confined them to a tiny bantustan that they wish to reduce in size even more. And ill advised crusaders such as yourself fail to see the irony of it.

South Africa is still a dump. A few ruling elite Blacks have feathered their own nests. It’s the SAME SHIT DIFFERENT DAY.
The left need a new hate figure and why not rely on that old favorite of both the left and the right, a big hand for THE OLDEST HATRED. Lets blame the Kikes. The fact that the whole Arab world uses a few Palestinians for it’s own benefit. Lets ignore Arab Homophobia, Sexism , Honour killings, Corruption, Terrorism.
The comments on this article remind me of that old joke The Aristocrats, how low can the left go in demonising The Jews.

The real problem with using the term apartheid, as with comparing Isralis to Nazis or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to the one in Northern Ireland (apart from the fact that yes, most of the time the comparisons are made with inflammatory, morally reductive intent), is that it betrays a deep lack of imagination about and understanding of the history and current realities of the conflict.

Israel/Palestine really is not “like” any of these things in any historical sense, and legally most of the parallels are tenuous and fragmentary. It’s its own tight little world of pain. If commentators want the right to claim credibility when pronouncing on the rights, wrongs, ins, and outs of it, then they should stop reaching for lame ass analogies.

All together now THROW THE JEW DOWN THE WELL.

Sometimes I like to prolong injustices by trolling on the Internet using CAPITAL LETTERS to make my point. Also I enjoy wild ACCUSATIONS of anti-Semitism which I will later pretend I never resort to.

Because I refuse to consider Palestinians as human beings with rights and will never bother to look at this conflict from a perspective I don’t already agree with, I FIND REASONS to change the subject whenever THEY ARE mentioned and talk about something else.

Also I like to accuse the left of IGNORING human rights abuses that I myself never, ever, ever, ever do anything practical about except to use as a reason for ignoring injustices done to Arabs committed by my government and its allies with my approval.

I live with my withered conscience through a combination of unprovoked resentment and COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. Youlibsyoujustdontgetitdoyou?

‘The Lady’ thinks that using the term apartheid is a “lame ass analogy”.

The South African Human Sciences research Council thinks it a valid analogy:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10578.shtml

I wonder who might be bettter qualified to decide?

Exactly how can it be colonialism when the border is not defined yet? And what would you say they practice in Saudi Arabia or neighboring Jordan where it is illegal to be a Jew just for comparison?

Exactly how can it be colonialism when the border is not defined yet?

Because settlers are stealing land. It doesn’t matter whether they’ve done this in a neat fashion or not.

And what would you say they practice in Saudi Arabia or neighboring Jordan where it is illegal to be a Jew just for comparison?

They practice something heinous but irrelevant to our discussion.

If the border is not defined, how does James know that land is stolen? The document that created the cease fire states clearly that the demarcation line would not prejudice future border negotiations. James has no way of knowing whether the Jewish communities both inside and outside of the demarcation line will lie inside of Israel in the end. Claiming that a Jew building on unowned land is stealing is an untidy fabrication in itself.

All things are relevant, James. If you agree that the Jordanians practice something worse than the governing method you condemn in Israel then it is logical that you and Mr White have produced a volume of writing condemning said government commensurate with the outrage. Lacking this, a reader can only assume your motivations lie outside the realm of compassionate human rights advocacy as I suspect.

Your legalism really doesn’t get us around the fact that colonists are performing extensive and systematic land-grabs. Jordan is irrelevant to this.

Its only the zionists who think the borders aren’t defined. And the apartheid mindset is to think that having taken 78% of Palestine, they’re still entitled to more. The International Court of Justice were pretty clear that the wall couldn’t run inside Palestinian territory – something they couldn’t have come up with if the borders genuinely weren’t established.

Perhaps Michael LeFavour is part of this scam:
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=34520

Still, the continued land and resource theft means that a 2 state solution will never happen. To greedy for their own good you see…..

Maybe English is a second language for you, James. Colony…”a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.” Discarding the simple fact that Arab Muslims are culturally linked to Arabia and spiritually linked to Mecca, and that Israeli Jews are culturally linked to Judea and spiritually linked to Jerusalem, how can you state with a straight face that Israelis have left Israel to colonize another’s land when the border is not defined? And further, since there has never been a Palestine, or an independent movement to create a Palestine aside from opposition to Jewish aspirations, should there be any consequence for refusing peace? Lastly, if it is land grabs that are the impediment to peace, why do you not condemn systematic colonization by Arabs on the disputed land as well? Your vociferous condemnation of the Jews and refusal to condemn Jordan speaks volumes. This is why to you legality and legitimacy are mere nuisances to be brushed aside for the larger purpose.

ftp, much as it pains me to address three ridiculous letters of the alphabet, plenty of others besides Zionists understand there are no defined borders to Israel. Amongst others it is usually ignorant, terror enabling, partisan that assume all land beyond the cease fire line automatically defaults to the Arab. Odd that those you champion made it emphatically clear that the violence would only stop upon the agreement that the line not prejudice future border negotiations. You and every other 12 year old fail to grasp this concept though.

As to Apartheid, Jews are banned and boycotted from large parts of the Middle East where they once flourished. Jordan (East Palestine), where no Jew is allowed to live, occupies 75% of Palestine, where did you learn your math, No Jew U?

The ICJ did not make a judgment on the borders, and if it is implied that they did it is of no value to the discussion. The ruling was a politically motivated, non-binding “opinion” worth little more than the tissue I use to wipe my smelly rear with.

If there is pay for what I do, please sign me up.

Michael LeFavour opined that “plenty of others besides Zionists understand there are no defined borders to Israel.”

needless to say, he neglected to say who they were.He then went on a smearing distraction.

Whether other states are discriminatory makes no more difference now than it did at comment 35.

Is there any meat to your argument Michael?

“refusal to condemn”? I’m just saying that they aren’t the topic at hand. That’s the settlers systematically thieving land. If you deny that that’s happening you haven’t really got a basic knowledge of events on the ground…

BTW, nice attempt to present me as an anti-semite without saying as much, there. Just say “James, you are an anti-semite” if that is your view so that I can sue you for libel, please.

to the alphabet letters ftp,

Declaration of Principles – Main Points
13 Sep 1993

2. The DOP does not Prejudge the Permanent Status:

The DOP specifically states that permanent status issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and borders are to be excluded from the interim arrangements and that the outcome of the permanent status talks should not be prejudged or preempted by the interim arrangements.

The Wye River Memorandum
(October 23, 1998)

IV. PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS

The two sides will immediately resume permanent status negotiations on an accelerated basis and will make a determined effort to achieve the mutual goal of reaching an agreement by May 4, 1999. The negotiations will be continuous and without interruption. The U.S. has expressed its willingness to facilitate these negotiations.

The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum
(September 4, 1999)

1. Permanent Status negotiations:

1. In the context of the implementation of the prior agreements, the two Sides will resume the Permanent Status negotiations in an accelerated manner and will make a determined effort to achieve their mutual goal of reaching a Permanent Status Agreement based on the agreed agenda i.e. the specific issues reserved for Permanent Status negotiators and other issues of common interest.
2. The two Sides reaffirm their understanding that the negotiations on the Permanent Status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338;
3. The two Sides will make a determined effort to conclude a Framework Agreement on all Permanent Status issues in five months from the resumption of the Permanent Status negotiations;
4. The two Sides will conclude a comprehensive agreement on all Permanent Status issues within one year from the resumption of the Permanent Status negotiations;
5. Permanent Status negotiations will resume after the implementation of the first stage of release of prisoners and the second stage of the First and Second Further Redeployments and not later than September 13, 1999. In the Wye River Memorandum, the United States has expressed its willingness to facilitate these negotiations.

What do you suppose Saeb Erekat was talking about this past June when he stated, “The peace process has been moving at the speed of a tortoise . . . Netanyahu has flipped it over on its back. [His] speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations”

Everyone seems to be talking about “permanent status negotiations except a few letters of the alphabet. It is hard to prove a negative assertion. If you claim there is a brder perhaps you can show us where it is and why everyone…oh, in the entire freaking world is talking about negotiating a border, but you? Didn’t think so….

James, immigration is not stealing. If you understand the Ottoman Land Code, which Hashemite Occupied Palestine (Jordan) kept in place until their illegal occupation of the land was ended in 1967, you will understand that mawat land is unused land and 90% of the Jewish communities are built on mawat land. You can’t steal something that is not owned. It is your own partisan view that the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians default to all the land despite their insistence that violence would only end in 1948 if it was made clear that the cease fire line was not to prejudice future border negotiations. So unless you are willing to condemn Arab growth on the disputed land, and Arab colonialism, and Arab theft of the land it is logical to conclude that your singling out Israeli Jews is in fact anti-Semitism. I live in the Detroit Michigan area, if you wish to sue me, have fun…

It is your own partisan view that the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians

…You mean the Palestinians?

So unless you are willing to condemn Arab growth on the disputed land, and Arab colonialism, and Arab theft of the land it is logical to conclude that your singling out Israeli Jews is in fact anti-Semitism. I live in the Detroit Michigan area, if you wish to sue me, have fun…

I’ll be lenient today, Michael & just settle for this: you’re the sort of scum that makes internet debating largely not worth bothering with. If you can’t tell an anti-imperialist from an anti-semite then get the fuck out & don’t come back until you’ve read some fucking books.

http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/will-you-condemn-thon.html