However, he takes the step that Carter cannot--if you are going to compare Israel's actions to the policies of the white government of South Africa, then you should compare the Palestinian "militants" with the South African resistance, the African National Congress [ANC].
Among the points of comparison that Eisikovits makes:
- After its establishment, the ANC had a philosophy of non-violence for close to 50 years and even when it did turn to violence it was done more sporadicly and reluctantly than the PLO, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. Eisikovits points out that the reason the ANC espoused non-violence is that they felt armed struggle would alienate whites--I suppose that since Palestinian terrorists want to destroy Israel, alienation is really not a consideration.
- The ANC first tried negotiation. Only after that failed did they turned to armed resistance during the early 1960s. They progressed from sabotaging property to attacking security forces and eventually even civilians. On the other hand, the Palestinian groups have demonstrated no real interest in using non-violent means and the terrorist groups plainly refuse to draw any distinction between the military and innocent civilians. Eisikovits writes, "They have targeted women and children, for much longer, much more consistently and with far more devastating results than the ANC."
- When the opportunity for peace presented itself in the 1990's, the ANC pursued comprise with the whites. In contrast, the Palestinians refused to take advantage of the peace proposals of President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak during the summer of 2000. The Palestinians voted Hamas into power--a group that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, has called for Israel's destruction and has aligned itself with the Holocaust-denying Iran and its client Hezbollah.
Technorati Tag: Israel and Jimmy Carter and South Africa and Apartheid.
No comments:
Post a Comment