The Worst Rebuttal To The Apartheid Analogy (part II)
A blogger for Times of Israel has published a post titled “Israel is an Apartheid State.” As always, it got many people upset. Another blogger, Varda Epstein, posted a response which deserves “the worst argument on Israel/Palestine” of the month award (and strong candidate for the all-time record).
Before casually blaming ALL Arabs for “constantly and overwhelmingly [engaging] in acts of terror—not just in Israel, but all over the world” or discussing their habit of “decapitating 3 months-old infants” (seriously, it’s in the text), Epstein manages to get all her facts wrong in one paragraph:
Here is what Ms. Rachmany [the blogger who wrote the Apartheid piece] leaves out (in addition to mainstream definitions for the word that is the basis of her slander): Arabs who live in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens. This is because they have refused Israeli citizenship or have had an application for citizenship turned down because of say, ACTS OF TERROR. As such, these Arabs are not Israeli Arabs and therefore not entitled to use the Israeli court system.
Therefore, even if Ms. Rachmany’s definition of Apartheid, so hard to find in any standard dictionary, were true, it still does not describe the situation of Arabs who live over the Green Line. There is no discrimination against Arabs on the basis of race. There is nothing irrational about the set of legal recourses available to them. They made a choice: the Arabs. Not Israel.
MORE...
http://972mag.com/the-worst-rebuttal-of-the-apartheid-analogy-part-ii/74707/
