Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Paragoni impropri

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815603.html
The head of the council of the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial on
Saturday assailed Jewish settlers who harass Palestinians in the West
Bank city of Hebron, saying the abuse recalled the anti-Semitism of
pre-World War Two Europe.
...
Lapid, a Holocaust survivor who lost his father to the Nazi genocide,
said in a weekly commentary on Israel Radio that the acts of some
Hebron settlers reminded him of persecution endured by Jews in his
native Yugoslavia on the eve of World War Two.
"It was not crematoria or pogroms that made our life in the diaspora
bitter before they began to kill us, but persecution, harassment,
stone-throwing, damage to livelihood, intimidation, spitting and
scorn," Lapid said.
"I was afraid to go to school, because of the little anti-Semites who
used to lay in ambush on the way and beat us up. How is that different
from a Palestinian child in Hebron?"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815284.html
Implement which law?
By Meron Benvenisti
Amid cabinet members' expressions of shock in response to a female
settler seen abusing a Hebron family came this comment by Ephraim Sneh:
"The laws of the state are not being implemented in the city with due
haste, particularly regarding Israeli citizens." The deputy defense
minister's words were meant as criticism of how the security forces
impose law and order in Hebron, but they contained the idea that the
problem lies not in the "laws of the state," but only in their
"implementation."
To which laws and which state was the deputy minister referring? After
all, Hebron has not been annexed to Israel, and ostensibly is subject
to military rule. But in the 40th year of the occupation, a deputy
minister can disregard such legal nuances and refer to Hebron as if it
were annexed territory - just like any Israeli community, Israeli
vehicle or Jew in the territories can be referred to as Israel's.
The education minister's directive to restore the Green Line to
textbook maps stirred much response, showing that many of those who
support the move believe there is an essential difference between the
two sides of the Green Line: With the exception of Jerusalem and the
Golan Heights, Israel did not impose its laws on the territories on the
other side.
Nothing could be more mistaken. The difference is solely in how the
annexation is accomplished. Unlike the declared, comprehensive
annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, where the
principle was set first and applied later, here the opposite method has
been taken: annexation in a piecemeal, selective fashion until, after a
few decades, the sum of the parts amount to full annexation despite the
facade of "non-imposition of the law."
This fiction is convenient for all concerned. The left can keep on
deluding itself that the Green Line marks open possibilities, and that
rule in the territories is "military" and therefore temporary. The
right can emphatically insist upon a "declarative implementation" of
the law and meanwhile enjoy selective annexation, which applies only to
Jews - wherein lies its cleverness.
The annexation for Jews alone has created a dual system under which
rule of law is determined based on an individual's or a community's
national identity. The "local" population is subject to only the
original law, as amended in thousands of military injunctions. The
right to choose is reserved for Jews. When it's convenient, they are
Israeli citizens in every way. When it's less convenient, like when it
comes to matters of higher education and especially infrastructure
planning, they are subject to the local law. The latter lags behind the
Israeli law, and therefore allows for manipulations.
The confrontation between the female settler and the Palestinian woman
from Hebron was a clash between two parallel worlds: The Jewish woman
possesses all the rights of a citizen of a free country, who is
entitled to the protection of its security forces. On the other side is
a woman from an occupied people, who is also entitled to protection.
However, the army of the occupation forgot long ago that under
international law, its role is to protect the "protected population."
The army has become the settlers' militia and views the local people as
hostile elements.
It's easy to condemn the vulgarity of the settler from Hebron, and it's
easy to dismiss the Jewish enclave there as a gang of violent thugs.
But they are only weeds that sprout from the rotten ground of the cruel
regime that prevails beyond the Green Line. It's a regime based on
ethnic discrimination and separation, double standards and an absence
of the rule of law.
Just which law does the deputy minister wish to see applied with "all
due haste"? That of the settler woman or of the Palestinian woman? In a
place where laws differ and discriminate based on national and personal
identities, no law prevails. What do we expect of soldiers and police
officers? Not to be influenced by orders that instruct them to act in a
discriminatory and selective fashion?
The outrage over the woman's crude tirade is just a distraction from
the reality that prevails beyond the Green Line, where life is
ostensibly normal. It won't be long before it's the liberals who are
seeking to have the Green Line erased from the maps, once it has been
permanently transformed from a symbol of the aspiration for peace to a
line delineating the realms of apartheid.

standards and an absence of the rule of law.
Stronzata.
Taglio il resto delle stronzate.
-Stefano