Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Talking Point Combat: Apartheid States

One of the most beloved talking points by the Palsbarists is the idea of Israel being an "apartheid state." We've discussed this at length and why both Israel and the Israeli occupation do not fit the exact definition of apartheid but arguments based on facts and logic don't work quite as well on Internet discussion boards. So I'm going to show you a better way to fight this talking point.

The Palsbarist argument: Israel is an apartheid state because it's a state for Jews and mistreats minorities.

You will see a lot of variations on this argument but that core is always there. Israel is apartheid because it's a state for Jews.

The counter argument: Meshaal's speech and the Palestinian National Covenant.

Meshaal's speech:
"Second, Palestine was, continues to be, and will remain Arab and Islamic. It belongs to the Arab and the Islamic world. Palestine belongs to us and to nobody else. This is the Palestine which we know and in which we believe."
Palestinian National Covenant:
"Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation."
 So according to both the secular Palestinian National Covenant and the new Islamist leadership, Palestine is at a minimum an Arab homeland/state/entity (whatever you want to call it).

Therefore, by the exact same criteria the Palsbarists have laid out for Israel to be apartheid, Palestine must be apartheid as well, to say nothing about all the other Arab states in the Middle East. If anything, Israel is far less discriminatory than Palestine, etc. because anyone can convert to Judaism and become a Jew. I don't know how to become an Arab if you aren't born one.

I prefer not to defend Israel when presented with this apartheid accusation because it's not as effective as going on the offensive and attacking your opponent's biased and incorrect definition of apartheid. When using his own definition of apartheid against him (or her), you force your opponent to either admit Israel is not an apartheid state or admit Palestine is an apartheid state and therefore he is supporting apartheid (or I guess admit that they are both apartheid and he hates Israel more than Palestine just because).

By posting those quotes above, you can force your opponent into answering one of the unanswerable questions that all Palestinian supporters cannot handle: Why is a Jewish state "discriminatory and apartheid" by definition but an Arab state is not? Once you've got them into that corner, there's no way out without admitting prejudice against Jews.

1 comment:

  1. I don't think this will be effective. The problem is that when these people are confronted with the Apartheid nature of Palestinian Arab regimes, they will just say:

    "Well I don't support that. I support a bi-national state with equal rights for all."

    Some of them in their naivite do actually support that, while most of course don't, but they all claim to.

    ReplyDelete

Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.