Wow. I just stumbled across a really interesting site that draws an uncomfortable parallel between apartheid in South Africa and treatment of Palestinians in Israel. What?! Apartheid was horrid! Is this guy for real? I'm still digesting the article, but here's a quote from it, just to whet your appetite:
"The implementation of an apartheid regime in Palestine/Israel is wholly unacceptable. Where are the voices in the international community that did not rest until the South African government gave the indigenous people justice? Where are the celebrities, the governments of the world, the international media that, inspired by the indigenous anti-apartheid movement, made the ruling South African regime accountable to international law? Is our global consciousness selective? The Palestinian people, like black South Africans, will continue to live under a state of occupation, as opposed to a state of autonomy, until these institutions find their voices again."
Posted by nickles at October 11, 2005 05:46 PM | TrackBackThose voices realize that the South Africans don't have a tendency to blow up busses to make their point.
Posted by: ryan at October 12, 2005 10:56 AMHey! Thanks for your encouragement! We had a great time in DC!! I am in the middle of moving, so stay tuned for updates! I loved your airports and bumpers post!! Are you headed to Hodges anytime soon?!! Look forward to hanging out sometime!
Posted by: Mary at October 12, 2005 11:14 AMIsn't "indigenous" the key word here? What makes the Israel/Palestine issue so complicated is that, unlike in S. Africa, there is no clear delineation between the indigenous people and colonizers. Both I. and P. claim to have historic ties to the tiny piece of land. There are clear injustices on both sides (the bus comment comes into play here), and arguments can be made in defense of either party (defense of their motivations, not necessarily their actions). This is not true in South Africa.
It's just a much more complicated issue and I think to compare it to Apartheid in S. Africa is to belittle those complexities.
I've done another tiny baby essay comment, It's a bad habit of mine. But I get a little fired up about this particular issue. :)
Yeah, I think the article was a bit ridiculous. There aren't any morally uncompromised individuals, anywhere. Right? So our understanding of justice shouldn't mean giving people what they deserve, but rather witnessing to the kingdom and working for shalom.
The comparison this author makes is incorrect and oversimplified, I think, but that seems to be the kind of rhetoric we have to wade through when we look for the facts. Situations in Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Niger, N. Korea, Iraq, etc. all incite powerful emotions. I should probably re-read this article, but I didn't find it all that much more biased or oversimplified than the rhetoric that surrounds these other places. Grrr. How does one wade through first-hand analysis and come up with anything useful?
I'm gonna go read the Economist.
Posted by: bob at October 12, 2005 04:33 PMThat article was rather frustrating to read through. The Author has some biased ties that almost make the article null and void, which makes it easier sometimes just to write off. However I think you hit it right on the nose about justice. I am always amazed at how in emotional situations such as this, we as Christians need to absorb this anger and finger pointing and speak about unbiased truth rather than do what I really want to do, which involves yelling, words that were not allowed at the dinner table and to be validated as I the role of the victim in this lifelong drama
Yikes!!!I have a lot to learn about Grace.
Back to studying,
Posted by: Procrastinator at October 18, 2005 03:08 PM