Saturday, June 02, 2007

Thinking Like A Lawyer?

Law professors sometimes contend that they teach their students to "think like lawyers". If this guy is an example of what law professors mean by "thinking like a lawyer", let's hope that they fail in their mission. His argument, on analogies between South Africa and the situation in the occupied territories commences,
For reasons that should be obvious to any objective observer, I find the South Africa analogy to be both absurd and obscene. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that Israel's occupation of the lands it captured in 1967 is indeed morally analogous to South African apartheid.
Okay, so far so good. It's not at all unreasonable to point to the many differences between the two situations. Lawyers frequently advance positions they don't accept "for the sake of argument". So let's see where he runs with this. What happened after Apartheid ended?
Instead, the black population of South Africa voted in a new government composed of black supremacists, who expressed openly and vigorously their hatred and contempt of white people, and swore that they would never negotiate any accommodation with the South African government, short of turning all of South Africa into a black supremacist state, with whites being forced to return to their "homelands". The new black government used its new territorial sovereignty to establish terrorist bases, smuggle weapons, and establish new military and political ties to other organizations that had genocidal views toward South African whites. White South African towns faced a constant missile barrage from this territory.

Even knowing the hatred leveled at South Africa during apartheid years, I find it hard to believe that under these circumstances anyone with a modicum of respectability would have been calling for boycotts of the South African government.
So the analogy he would have us accept between South Africa and Israel's occupation of the West Bank is that the subjects of Apartheid and the occupation are similarly nasty, awful people, undeserving of freedom and self-determination. Nobody with a "modicum of respectability" would disagree, once they accept that "fact". If you support a boycott in favor of the freedom of these awful, nasty, undeserving people, you are "morally bankrupt" and support terrorism.


You don't have to agree with a boycott to grasp the depravity of that position.

No comments:

Post a Comment