Friday, March 16, 2007
The trouble with the apartheid analogy
Joel Pollak's article is helpful in further exposing how the present disinformation campaign against Israel - the apartheid analogy - exploits the ignorant and emotional against all reason.
However, what Pollak apparently fails to grasp is that he throws fuel on the fires of the never-ending conflict when he states: "Israeli settlement policy is indefensible." Why should Jews living in the Promised Land of Israel, the Jewish Homeland, have to defend restoring Zion and making the desert blossom as a rose, by the grace of God?
Pollak also uses the term "occupied territories," aiding and abetting Israel's sworn enemies. If he can call Judea and Samaria, biblical territories, "occupied territories," then the Nazi-Muslims can call any area the Jews have liberated as "occupied."
What is indefensible is for any Jew or Israeli (or those who profess to be their friends and allies) to speak against Israeli settlements anywhere in the Promised Land of Israel, as it is tacit approval of JUDENREIN policies that reward terrorism.
What is indefensible is to use the term "occupied territories" unless one is referring to those Arab-occupied territories that yearn to be returned to Zion (having been dismembered and surrendered), to be reclaimed, to be liberated by those who love God, Torah and the Land.