Jeff Walton of the IRD has the quotes that you didn’t see in the mainstream media, or in any of the mainline apologetics for the conference. First, there’s Naim Ateek, the head of Sabeel:
“Today the government of Israel is obsessed with domination and by a deep desire to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians and force them to leave their territory,” thundered the Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, President of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Organization in Jerusalem and one of the featured speakers at the conference.
Ateek, a former canon of St. George’s (Anglican) Cathedral, Jerusalem, provided the opening address, explaining that the apartheid term was used because “the racism of the government of Israel has become more obviously clear.”
“This [Israeli] racism is a crime against God and our fellow human beings,” said Ateek, continuing to make the apartheid connection.
The Israelis must be really incompetent–I mean, here they want to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and Gaza, and yet there are still millions of Palestinians living there. And they let over a million Palestinians continue to live in Israel and enjoy the rights of citizens! What a bunch of wusses!
The there’s the lifting of the mask with regard to ultimate intentions by a UMass professor:
“Israel did not intend to be an apartheid state, but in de facto created one,” said author Leila Farsakh of the University of Massachusetts. Farsakh was one of several speakers that compared the current state of the Palestinian territories to that of the South African “bantustans” that placed native peoples into small, semi-independent states that were not economically viable. Farsakh said that because of the Israeli policy of breaking up the West Bank with Jewish settlements, it was no longer possible to have separate Jewish and Palestinian states. The situation could be solved only by a one-state solution, she contended.
“Everyone living on the land has a right to that land in one state,” said Farsakh.
Which, if 20th century history is any indication, will soon by Judenrein. Then there’s the representative of the United Nations, one of the “quartet” that’s supposed to bring about peace:
Others shared the same view, drawing links to colonialism and domination. “Israel is practicing apartheid in a very dishonest, concealed manner,” complained John Dugard, a Special Rapporteur to the U.N. Human Rights Council on the Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. “At least South Africa was honest about apartheid.”
Dugard went on to allege that the main purpose of the Israeli security barrier was to seize land. In an apparent rejection of concerns about Palestinian terrorism, he retorted that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.”
I’m sure his “rapports” are unbiased, objective, and even-handed. Then there’s Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committe Against House Demolitions, demonstrating that being an Israeli doesn’t automatically give you either a survival instinct or a sense of right and wrong:
Halper deflected a written question from a conferee about the prevention of suicide bombings, dismissing the attacks as a mere “symptom” of the Israeli occupation. “There is a correlation between violence and resistance and what we call terrorism [and the policies of Israel],” he argued. “People have a right to resist oppression and occupation.”
By blowing up civilians, apparently. These are the activists that the United Church of Christ is proud to partner with, to have in their churches, to recognize as having legitimate contributions to make to the peace process. I hope they’re happy with the face they show to the world.