– Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
This is very important, for it shows that in the EU, politicians and lawmakers agree with Josh’s argument which he used to get the group disaffiliated and banned, that calling Israel an apartheid state is an expression of anti-Semitism.
While the definition only mentions comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, calling Israel an apartheid state or a terrorist state is functionally the same, it has the same motives and achieves the same outcomes.
Additionally, for Israel not to take the measures it takes to defend its population against terrorism is a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Even the USA fires rockets and bombs from drones at terrorist opponents, and this is accepted internationally as legitimate self defence. Checkpoints and the wall have been very effective in stopping homicide bombing and other murders of Israelis by terrorists.
In the event that SAIA is successful in overturning the decision of UMSU, might I suggest that Josh and his associates conduct an Arab apartheid week, where they highlight the conditions of the Palestinians in camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. These people have been kept there for over 60 years without right to citizenship, local jobs, leaving the camps, or marrying into the local populations. That is real oppression and apartheid.
Yours faithfully, Meyer Mussry, Australia
Following on from my earlier e-mail:
As an aside, while even Ezra Levant agrees that Israel Apartheid Week is anti-Semitic, he argues that it is a legitimate expression.