The new apartheid

[luzribeiro]

http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000637.php

What the UN rapporteur has concluded has been no secret for quite a while, but some particular factors in the West (especially the US) have remained rather reluctant to name things with their true names - the reasons for which I'm leaving to the audience to analyze for themselves. The point is, even a brief look at the situation in the West Bank calls some stunning memories about the apartheid era, especially in someone who has actually seen it first-hand, even if for a brief period in her early life (thankfully). And, though the statement now comes directly from a UN official, I'm not surprised that I won't be seeing anyone holding their breath about any change in the situation coming any time soon.

More...

Comments

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I always find these discussions very, very difficult to be honest. I don't like the term "apartheid" partially because while Israel is committing massive human rights crimes in the territories, Israel is not an apartheid state inside its legal borders -- somehow we haven't found the descriptive word for the oppression and immorality of the occupation. And also because it leaves open exactly that semantic argument that quickly spirals into not discussing how the Palestinian people are still being held stateless 20 years after Oslo.

Maybe the term apartheid needs to be used so all sides would agree to a truth and reconciliation process where all parties are obliged to confess to their faults and agree to move forward.

In the much better past, Israel would have realized in the wake of 1973 that they had won decisively and that they should have taken the Palestinian parts of the old Mandate, built roads, water works, electrical plants, schools and hospitals -- and handed it over to the Palestinians as their own country. That's my dream of a "do over".