The two girls interviewed calmly talk about how Israel is committing genocide, and how Israel is an apartheid state.
I wonder if they have any historical perspective or understanding of what those words mean.
I also suspect that they are firm advocates of things like gay rights, yet cannot seem to grasp that Israel is the ONLY place in the middle east where there actually are freedoms for all – gays, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Bahais, etc.
It is beyond comprehension how a group of people have managed to convince large groups of other people that Israel is committing genocide, which is defined by Webster as
“Deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, religious, political, or ethnic group. The term was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born jurist who served as an adviser to the U.S. Department of War during World War II, to describe the premeditated effort to destroy a population (see Holocaust). In 1946 the UN General Assembly declared genocide a punishable crime. By this declaration, genocide by definition may be committed by an individual, group, or government, against one’s own people or another, in peacetime or in wartime. This last point distinguishes genocide from “crimes against humanity,” whose legal definition specifies wartime. Suspects may be tried by a court in the country where the act was committed or by an international court (see International Criminal Court). An example of genocide more recent than the Holocaust is the slaughter of Tutsi people by the Hutu in Rwanda in the 1990s.”
Clearly, if Israel wanted to practice genocide against the Palestinians, there would be a LOT more deaths than there have been, and they would not occur under the circumstances in which they do occur – in the context of war, defense against terror attacks, etc.
Apartheid is also a ridiculous accusation. Webster defines it as:
“(Afrikaans: “apartness” or “separateness”) Policy of racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in South Africa. The term was first used as the name of the official policy of the National Party in 1948, though racial segregation, sanctioned by law, was already widely practiced. The Group Areas Act of 1950 established residential and business sectors in urban areas for each “race” and strengthened the existing “pass” laws, which required nonwhites to carry identification papers. Other laws forbade most social contacts between those of European descent and others, authorized segregated public facilities, established separate educational standards, restricted each group to certain types of jobs, curtailed nonwhite labour unions, denied nonwhite participation in the national government, and established various black African “homelands,” partly self-governing units that were nevertheless politically and economically dependent on South Africa. These so-called homelands were not recognized by international governments. Apartheid was always subject to internal criticism and led to many violent protests, strikes, and acts of sabotage; it also received international censure. In 1990–91 most apartheid legislation was repealed, but segregation continued on a de facto basis. In 1993 a new constitution enfranchised blacks and other racial groups, and all-race national elections in 1994 produced a coalition government with a black majority. These developments marked the end of legislated apartheid, though not of its entrenched social and economic effects. “
Israel guarantees, by law, equal rights for all citizens of Israel. The West Bank and Gaza are NOT part of Israel, and the West Bank is legally a disputed territory. Gaza is not at all under the governance of Israel.
Yes, Israel restricts movement in and out of Israeli-controlled areas. That is not apartheid, it is a security matter. BIG difference. There are not separate washrooms, drinking fountains, restaurants, etc. set aside for different ethnic or religious groups. Israel does not mandate different treatment based on religion or ethnicity. What a ridiculous accusation.
But, people all over the world buy into it. Are they stupid, ignorant, gullible, well-meaning (I’m sure many of them are), or just too lazy to research some basic facts?