Page One

Apartheid means segregation by skin color

David Singer Berkeley
Tuesday September 04, 2001


RE: “Campus activists call for end to ‘Israeli apartheid’,” Aug. 31. 

I was ecstatic to find out that The Daily Planet has taken to advertising for various political groups in the Berkeley area in the “News” section. I would like it if next you interviewed the Berkeley Communist Club; let them make as many unsubstantiated claims as they want and then rebut their argument with a few quotes from the Pro-Democracy Union on wanting dialogue.  

You also may wish to invite the West Coast Neo-Nazi organization for a “news article” since what they will have to say is I am sure no less opinionated then the “objective” piece on Students for Justice in Palestine. 

Has the Daily Planet forgotten the cardinal rule of reporting? Last time I checked, newspapers were supposed to write with objectivity – opinions are to be left for the opinions page.  

Your Aug. 31 piece reflects nothing but a desire to promote one political group and opinion over another.  

You have given SJP free advertising for their hate campaign, but have as of yet shown no intention of doing a similar piece expressing the other side of the story… truly a shame. 

Further, in the future please use the Oxford English Dictionary as your source for definitions – not Mr. Shingavi. Under his “definition” of apartheid, every Arab State, as well Afghanistan, European Countries, Iraq, and even the United States are “apartheid states” for their treatment of Jews, Kurds, Hindus, Gypsies, and Native Americans. Apartheid was the system of governing under which citizens of South Africa were confined to certain areas and subjugated to harsher laws because of the color of their skin. Not one of those characteristics applies to Israel.  

But, who knows, I could be wrong – maybe Shingavi’s definition is more correct than the OED’s. Then should we divest from the United States? It’s your call, SJP. 


David Singer