I'm with synthome on this one.

One of the issues for me is that a lot of people on both sides are coming into this with prejudices and aren't bothering to determine the truth of other people's assertions, they're merely accepting or rejecting them on the basis of their prejudices. And I would add that if you either agree or disagree with something I've written, do some research and find out whether it is or isn't accurate.

In the case of some assertions made by Judy's response, i would have to challenge them. A major componenet of Apartheid, in fact THE major component of apartheid is disenfranchisement. Judy asserts,

"Isreal is more democratic within its own borders than other states in the Middle East, especially if you are Jewish.  For non-Jews, and especially for Palestinians in Israel, it is another story. By the same means one could have argued that apartheid South Africa was more democratic than many African countries, if you were white."

Her statement is spurious in suggesting that the situation of Israeli Arabs is comperable to South African Blacks under apartheid and doesn't help the credibility of a movement that is claiming Israel is an apartheid country. South African Blacks did not get to vote in general elections, they did not have the right to sit in the South African legislature. That is disenfranchisement and apartheid.

In Israel, Israeli Muslim Arabs have the right to vote, they are represented in the legislature, they are represented in the judiciary. There are no laws that say Israeli Arabs can not be employed in any professions, there are no civil laws preventing intermarriage. In short, despite what Judy has written above, Israel, in the eyes of the majority of the democratic world, is not apartheid.

And quite simply put, anecdoltal testimony from some individual South Africans who may say that their observations of treatment of Palestinians is , "even worse than what they faced" is not credible support.

What's making this worse for the cause of those who support Palestinian rights, who think Israel needs to make compromises and remove settlements, is that by making claims that people can see are untrue and seem bigoted because they are both untrue and single out Israel, the homeland of a people who have faced intollerance and persecution for centuries, the IAW is actually harming the credibility of the Palestinain Rights movement.

One of the big concerns is not whether freedom of speech is being inhibited, and I don't believe it is, but my belief on that matter isn't important. What's important is that the IAW is moving from being demonized to being ridiculed, and looking hateful or foolish is not helpful when you're trying to make a point about human suffering.

synthome is absolutely right as far as I'm concerned in saying,"I don't believe hatred is the best means towards transforming the world and achieving justice for all." IAW is coming across as hatred and hatred helps no one.