Israel Matzav: 'Israel has faults, but apartheid isn't one of them' says...

'Israel has faults, but apartheid isn't one of them' says...

'Israel has its faults, but apartheid isn't one of them' says.... the Washington Post's Richard Cohen? The same guy who once called Israel a 'mistake?' Awesome.... Well, not quite (Hat Tip: Shmuel Rosner):

What can be said about others who apply the term to Israel in general? No apology has come from them -- and the way things are going, none will be forthcoming. The use of the word has become commonplace -- Google "Israel and apartheid" and you will see that the two are linked in cyberspace, as love and marriage are in at least one song. The meaning is clear: Israel is a state where political and civil rights are withheld on the basis of race and race alone. This is not the case.

The Israel of today and the South Africa of yesterday have almost nothing in common. In South Africa, the minority white population harshly ruled the majority black population. Nonwhites were denied civil rights, and in 1958, they were even deprived of citizenship. In contrast, Israeli Arabs, about one-fifth of the country, have the same civil and political rights as do Israeli Jews. Arabs sit in the Knesset and serve in the military, although most are exempt from the draft. Whatever this is -- and it looks suspiciously like a liberal democracy -- it cannot be apartheid.

The West Bank, more or less under Israeli military rule, is a different matter. But it is not part of Israel proper, and under every conceivable peace plan -- including those proposed by Israeli governments -- almost all of it will revert to the Palestinian Authority and become the heartland of a Palestinian state.

Read the whole thing. Richard still has a way to go.

Israel Matzav: 'Israel has faults, but apartheid isn't one of them' says...