Should critics of Israeli government policies be labeled anti-Semitic?

[istara]

december - there’s a VAST difference between causing a massacre, and failing to prevent one. In fact, the paragraph you quote appears to excuse rather than condemn Dutch inaction:

The Dutch government was not prepared to sacrifice its soldiers to try to prevent the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia in 1995, the general in charge of UN forces at the time told a Dutch committee of inquiry yesterday. General Rupert Smith of Britain said the impression he had received from the Dutch authorities in the runup to the massacre was, in his own words, “It is not worth dying for this.” However, the general could not shed light on the question that was central in earlier hearings of the fact-finding mission: Why were the Dutch peacekeepers at Srebrenica denied UN air support after several requests?

Nowhere does it accuse them of responsibility for it.

[december]

*Originally posted by istara *there’s a VAST difference between causing a massacre, and failing to prevent one… Nowhere does it accuse them of responsibility for it. **

Right. But, compare this to the fuss over Ariel Sharon when he didn’t prevent a massacre committed by Lebanese Christians.

[rampisad]

december, you beat me to it! Curse this human weakness called hunger!:smack:

[istara]

december - these are NOT analagous.

(1) Lightly armed dutch soldiers decide they can’t defend an enclave. They might be charged at worst with cowardice, but they are hardly complicit, or responsible.

(2) Israeli defence minister Ariel Sharon was Israeli defence minister fails to prevent a Lebanese Christian militia allied to Israel from killing hundreds of civilians at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps

Am I missing something?

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

1. Though the IDF did not carry out the massacre at Sabra and Chantilla, their role went beyond just standing by, they blocked off the two camps to stop anyone from getting in or out and they allowed the phalangists in.

2. South Africa was a democracy, though ableit with most of it’s population disenfranchised and furthermore sanctions against appartheid South Africa were vocally supported by it’s black population.

At the end of the day it’s horses for courses, the Sudanese government is at least attempting to work with the UN, especially over the slavery issue. You have to ask yourself is divestment an effective policy in this situation? Because otherwise if it is just going to heap more suffering onto the civilian population, then it cannot be justified.

It is intellectually dishonest to say that my view is that if Ariel Sharon suspended the knesset, everything would be fine. Divestment against dictatorships can work by pressuring the people to over-throw the dictator, but in the case of Sudan again you have to ask yourself is this policy effective? Sharon is an elected leader and the occupation has the support of the majority of Israelis, the idea of divestment is to make support for Sharon and the occupation untenable and to force Israel to offer a fair settlment to the Palestinians.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

To move the comparision on, I do believe in divestment from Zimbawe and moves are already being made in this direction. Though land-reforms were desparately needed there, the way Mugabe has gone about this is criminal in the extreme (though I don’t feel that much sympathy for the white farmers as the racist regime of Rhodesia created the Frankenstein that is Mugabe).

But the thing is, the arguments not to divest from Israel are ‘Tu quoque’ and really only question whether we should divest from other countries too and not whether we should divest from Israel.