Other than that, your post’s thesis seems to be that, while there have emerged apartheid analogies for other countries, like China, only Israel has been singled out for a boycott.

Very much on-topic, I replied that the same was true for apartheid South Africa. Back in the days of Pik Botha, South Africa was subjected to sanctions, even though you had at least some freedom there, while other countries that had no freedom got no sanctions.

So my question is: do you think South Africa was unfairly treated during the Apartheid years?

It’s vain nonsense. And it provides an excuse to look for conspiracies, rather than accepting the unglamorous truth that someone has written a bad (in Carter’s case, laughably bad) book.

I was about to respond to this charge on the relevant post, but comments were suddenly disabled. Never mind; after we crushed Brazil in Olympics soccer today I understood that my only identity had to be Argentinian.

There were plenty of other human rights abusers in Africa during the apartheid period whose misdeeds were in the public eye.

But not to the same extent as South Africa: Idi Amin’s Uganda’s athletes were not banned from participating in international competitions, for instance.

Do you agree that South Africa was unfairly treated, taking into account that many other much more tyrannical regimes were not boycotted?

an obscure newspaper called the International Herald Tribune rejected the suggestion that Carter is antisemitic

Actually, they said “his book is a piece of crap, but an antisemite he is not,” which is a far cry from “the apartheid analogy with Israel” becoming “an acceptable line of argument in the western mainstream.” The apartheid analogy is clearly rejected in the piece you cite.

Jonathan Demme - who works in Zionist-controlled Hollywood - made a documentary devoted solely to Carter

The US relies heavily on illegal Vietnamese workers to pick its strawberries, which helps keep the fruit’s price down. The day they need someone to pick cherries, I know who they can hire: you.

The Demme documentary does not counterbalance the very unusual move by the Carter Center’s advisors to resign after the book’s publication. I.e. he was avoided like the pest by the very people who the day before yesterday had been working with him. Or the scandalous behavior of Brandeis donors who withheld USD 5M in funds to punish Carter’s lecture there. Do I need to make a list of the humiliation and vituperation Carter has been subjected to?

As to jealously guarding the A-S word, when we see it, we say it.

Same here; we have no doubt what to call an ethnic segregation system aimed at taking the natural resources from the oppressed and giving them to the oppressors. As Yossi Sarid said, “what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid.” And he was not talking about South Africa.

You have a tendency to twist the facts. I made it very clear that there is no objection to your using a pseudonym - what is not permissible is for you to pass yourself off as an Arab and speak as an Arab when you are not one. We don’t say you can’t write under the name Ibrahim. You cannot, however, assume an Arab identity and pretend that you represent an authentically Arab voice.

As far as your response here goes:

You are saying there is no oppressor-oppressed relationship in China. Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution? Or does oppression only become worthy of the name if you can finger Zionism or imperialism behind it?

South Africa was not portrayed as uniquely malevolent. It was portrayed - accurately so - as enforcing a legal system based on racial separation founded, in turn, upon racial superiority. There were plenty of other human rights abusers in Africa during the apartheid period whose misdeeds were in the public eye. Like, for example, Amin in Uganda. Indeed, for our purposes here, Amin is very interesting, because Israel contributed to his overthrow with its successful operation to free Israelis and Jews kidnapped by him during the Entebbe hijacking.

Poor Jimmy Carter. His freedom of speech has really suffered. The silencing was merely compounded when Oscar-winning director Jonathan Demme - who works in Zionist-controlled Hollywood - made a documentary devoted solely to Carter. And when an obscure newspaper called the International Herald Tribune rejected the suggestion that Carter is antisemitic (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/05/arts/idbriefs6C.php), they, too, must have been joining in the plot to muzzle Jimmy. Come on, Argentinian person! It really is time for a reality check.

As to jealously guarding the A-S word, when we see it, we say it. We call Hitler antisemitic, you see. And Ahmadinejad. And Nasrallah. It’s amazing what you can achieve once you remove the ideological blinders.

The boycott campaign would have us believe that not only does Israel replicate apartheid, but that it is the only country in the world to do so.

The boycott campaign does not claim that. And China is apartheid just in the same way that the US is apartheid towards the illegal foreign workers it welcomes to keep its food prices down. That’s a long way from the oppressor-oppressed relationship in the West Bank.

Portraying Israel as uniquely malevolent is a key aspect of their demonization strategy

South Africa was also “portrayed as uniquely malevolent.” Everybody talked about South Africa, no one talked about the much worse human rights violations elsewhere in Africa. Should we conclude that it was wrong to boycott South Africa; that there was some element of demonization in combatting apartheid; that it would be better if South Africa were still an apartheid country today, because in that case it wouldn’t have been treated unfairly?

While the apartheid analogy with Israel has become an acceptable line of argument in the western mainstream (think of the title of Jimmy Carter’s book)

Give me a break; Carter was machine-gunned by the American media!!! And he’s now avoided like the pest by “mainstream” intellectuals, and only taken seriously by the “loony leftitsts.”

That means keeping a jealous eye on how the “A” word is deployed.

How about keeping a jealous eye on how the “A-S” word is deployed?