[Winstonm]

I read an editorial piece today that compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories as the equivalent of apartheid; however, I am sure Israel would argue that such acts are necessary to preserve Israeli security.

Any comments?

[hrothgar]

What makes you think that these are mutually exclusive?

[EricK]

A handy rule of thumb is that any piece of journalism which compares a country or a government to apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union etc is not trying to advance anyone's understanding of the region but is using simple triggers to instil a negative perception of that country in their readers.

Most people don't have a clue what life was like in a Bantustan under apartheid. Similarly for the other examples. All they know is that they were "bad". So any such comparison rarely serves a constructive purpose.

[mike777]

What is wrong with an editorial trying to install a negative perception. I think you fail to see the purpose of what an editorial is used for. The main purpose is not to inform. It's suppose to take a viewpoint and argue for that point and try to influence others. The main purpose is not to be unbiased and inform.

[Winstonm]

I probably should have clarified that there was no attempt at comparison with South Africa, but the more general sense of the word per the following definition:
apartheid - a social policy or racial segregation involving political and economic and legal discrimination.

And the question is do you believe that Israel's actions in the occupied territories are justified or do they go beyond mere security and into apartheid based on the above definition?

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Feb 25 2007, 03:14 PM, said:

What makes you think that these are mutually exclusive?

I don't, necessarily. I am posing the question if you think the actions of the Israelis in the occupied territories is justified or whether it has stepped over that boundary into a persecutorial type of apartheid?

I supply the basis for the question from an editorial, just so all would know it is not my belief, necessarily, but it did raise what I perceived as a legitimate question.

Being no expert on Israel, I would like to hear input from both sides.

[EricK]

mike777, on Feb 25 2007, 10:13 PM, said:

What is wrong with an editorial trying to install a negative perception. I think you fail to see the purpose of what an editorial is used for. The main purpose is not to inform. It's suppose to take a viewpoint and argue for that point and try to influence others. The main purpose is not to be unbiased and inform.

Which is why the rational action is to ignore editorials.

In fact, if an editorial (or any argument for that matter) primarily uses demagoguery rather than facts to make its case then there is a good reason to take the opposing line (after all, they would surely use facts if the facts helped their case).

[mike777]

I never said ignore it. I never said do not oppose it.

I just asked what was wrong with an editorial using demagoguery. Remember the MAINE! Remember 9-11!

[Winstonm]

EricK, on Feb 25 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 25 2007, 10:13 PM, said:

What is wrong with an editorial trying to install a negative perception.  I think you fail to see the purpose of what an editorial is used for. The main purpose is not to inform. It's suppose to take a viewpoint and argue for that point and try to influence others.  The main purpose is not to be unbiased and inform.

Which is why the rational action is to ignore editorials.

In fact, if an editorial (or any argument for that matter) primarily uses demagoguery rather than facts to make its case then there is a good reason to take the opposing line (after all, they would surely use facts if the facts helped their case).

If you sincerely believe that non-editorial news is not biased by slant and that facts cannot be manipulated to support that slant, you must be naive. Editorials do use facts, but at least the writer is honest enough to state it as an opinon piece so you can weigh those facts against that slant.

Many times what began as an editorial piece in 10 years becomes current fact.