See Full HTML Site

Letter: Group's use of 'apartheid' appropriate

By

Published: Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Updated: Wednesday, March 10, 2010

To the Editor:

The guest column by Roberta Goldman '13 ("Brown Students for Palestine (and Israel)," March 4) misrepresents Brown Students for Justice in Palestine, as well as their use of the word "apartheid."

To be clear, I am not writing as a member of Brown Students for Justice in Palestine. I attended BSJP's presentation on their campaign for University divestment from companies profiting from Israeli apartheid in the Occupied Territories. I learned that the goal of BSJP is not divestment from Israel itself; rather, it is divestment from companies that profit from the illegal military occupation of the Palestinian Territories. BSJP has demonstrated a precise and responsible use of language. Anyone who attended their event or visited their table on the Main Green would know that they limit their use of "apartheid" to refer to the Occupied Territories only.

Misrepresenting BSJP by distorting their language (down to their name and main goal) and then accusing them of "cheapening" words demonstrates a refusal to engage in a factual debate about divestment and the reality of life under occupation. It would be nice, for example, to hear Goldman's perspective on illegal settlements, in which Israeli settlers are subject to civilian law while Palestinians endure military law. This dual system of law establishes the condition of apartheid as defined by the United Nations. The illegal settler population can live freely, while limitations on movement, confiscation of natural resources, and restrictions on political freedom define the Palestinian experience.

A sign on the main green asking, "Do you want your university profiting from apartheid?" leaves no room for objection. Whatever you label it (apartheid, occupation or plain old injustice), let's not pay for it. If the use of a single word was the sole objection of BSJP's detractors, then I see that as an endorsement of BSJP's message of ending our complicity in Israel's human rights violations.

Currently, Brown University is potentially invested in companies that facilitate the illegal military occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Rejecting an unacceptable status quo through selective divestment is the true message of Brown Students for Justice in Palestine. It is one that all of us should endorse.

Malcolm Shanks '11
March 7

Comments

10 comments
R M
Tue Mar 23 2010 20:02
Yes, you've already posted that comment. Now try addressing the argument.
Arafat Yasir
Mon Mar 22 2010 12:52
“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t.

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he was an atheist). At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God.

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

R M
Wed Mar 17 2010 02:06
Yeah, it's not like Exodus 22:20 orders the execution of anyone who doesn't believe in a particular god, or anything like that. Or like Deuteronomy 2:25 says that God's followers will terrorize all the other nations.

Or like God orders the Jews to take non-Jews as slaves. (multiple verses)

Or like God "hardens the hearts" of non-Jews to give himself or the Jews an excuse to kill them. (multiple verses)

Or like God orders the Jews to destroy cities if people in them worship differently. (Deut 13:12)

Or like God orders the Jews to kill anyone of a different religion. (Deut 17:2)

Or like God promises to destroy non-Jews. (Psalms 2:8)

Or like God laughs as he kills non-Jews. (Psalms 59:8)

Or like God threatens to kill anyone who doesn't worship him. (Zeph 1:4)

This is an *extremely* cursory read of the Old Testament alone.

For that matter, though, why would it be better if the Bible only ordered the genocides of the Amalekites and Canaanites etc. etc.? Would you be less Islamophobic if the Qur'an specified that it was Christians and Jews that had to be eliminated?

Religious books are really, really violent. It's useless to pretend they're not. What matters is what people make of them. Muslims terrorists are bad because they're terrorists, not because they're Muslims. They are no worse than the Christian terrorists that the USA has more of an infection of.

Arafat Yasir
Fri Mar 12 2010 11:36
R.M.,

The answer to your question is very simple, and I’m glad you have asked it.

The Koran’s endless verses inciting violence are open-ended. Meaning the verses encourage Muslims to kill ALL non-Muslims until Islam rules the world.

The violence as described in the Old Testament is NOT open-ended. In the Old Testament the violent verses are specific. Specific to a specific time and place and people. The verses do NOT apply beyond those specific places, time and people like the Koran does.

R M
Thu Mar 11 2010 18:46
Tell me, then - what are the verses in the Qur'an that support terrorism? And why are they important while the verses in the Bible ordering mass murder are not important?
Arafat Yasir
Thu Mar 11 2010 10:38
“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t.

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he was an atheist). At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God.

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

R M
Wed Mar 10 2010 15:15
Islam is not a supremacist religion any more than any other religion. It's not as if the Bible doesn't order the slaughter of foreigners.
jon a
Wed Mar 10 2010 13:20
For DECADES Jews lived with no issues in Muslim countries. Even now, large Jewish communities still reside, even in Iran.

Please remind me where the Holocaust happened?

Arafat Yasir
Wed Mar 10 2010 11:50
Did someone say "Apartheid"?

I hate to disagree with the rhetoric. Even more, I hate to enter some facts into the debate, but with that said the facts do NOT support the rhetoric.

Simply put Islam IS a supremacist religion and a natural by-product of Islam is apartheid. When non-Muslims are of lesser value than Muslims (which is and has always been the case in Islam) than aprtheid here we come!

I have listed the percentage of Muslim citizens in a handful of countries. In each of the countries listed the trends are toward the percentage of Muslims increasing, except, of course, where it is already 100% Muslim.
Saudi Arabia: 100% Muslim/Not one non-Muslim citizen.
Iran: 98% Muslim.
Turkey: 98% Muslim.
Afghanistan: 100% Muslim.
Pakistan: 95% Muslim.
Somalia: 100% Muslim.
Sudan: Estimated 70% Muslim. I wonder how long the genocide will continue before it is 100% Muslim?
Libya: 97% Muslim.
Yemen: 100% Muslim.
Mauritania: 100% Muslim
Algeria: 100% Muslim.
Israel: 75% Jewish. 16% Muslim with the Muslim population the fastest growing.

jon a
Wed Mar 10 2010 10:48
Very true. Couldn't agree more. The "pro-Israel" people should realize that Brown students aren't dumb - they realize there's an actual issue here, beyond a specific word.

Whatever word you use to describe what Israel is doing - it must be stopped!

Most Popular

Most Commented