General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[bikerdruid]

If that's the only criterion, then your home country of Canada is also an apartheid state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_school

Do you agree?

not remotely.
although canada has 'seperate schools', there is no obligation to attend them.
in most of alberta, seperate schools are catholic.
anyone may enroll in them, just as catholics are welcome in the public system.
in st. alberta, the public schools are catholic, and anyone is welcome there.

 

[mortimer]

not remotely.
although canada has 'seperate schools', there is no obligation to attend them.
in most of alberta, seperate schools are catholic.
anyone may enroll in them, just as catholics are welcome in the public system.
in st. alberta, the public schools are catholic, and anyone is welcome there.

Do Canadian Muslims have the right to establish separate schools? If not, Canadian Muslims do not have the same rights as Canadian Catholics, which you say is the only criterion for a state to be apartheid.

Or does that definition only apply to Israel?

 

[WildCat]

this thread is not about south africa.
nor is it about 'hostile foreigners'.

We're discussing the redefinition of "apartheid" to include Israel, remember? South Africa defined the term, indeed they coined it. You are giving it a brand-new definition.

are not palestinians in east jerusalem and the west bank israeli citizens?

IIRC all Palestinians residing in East Jerusalem have an outstanding offer of full Israeli citizenship. Many, if not most, have refused this offer. There is no such offer in the West Bank and Palestinians residing there are not Israeli citizens, for the simple reason of they never lived in Israel or never accepted Israeli citizenship. As any reputable map will showe, the West Bank is not located in Israel.

are there not double standards that apply to them from which israeli jews are exempt?

if israeli muslims are treated differently than israeli jews, apartheid exists.

Can you list some of these examples?

 

[bikerdruid]

Can you list some of these examples?

thunder did that very well in his post #3965, which no one has addressed.

 

[LashL]

in most of alberta, seperate schools are catholic.
anyone may enroll in them,

This is not the case in Ontario. My young niece began living with me last year and when I wanted to enroll her in the Catholic school nearby, it turned out that she could not attend there without being a baptized Catholic.

Do Canadian Muslims have the right to establish separate schools?

No, they do not.

 

[mortimer]

This is not the case in Ontario. My young niece began living with me last year and when I wanted to enroll her in the Catholic school nearby, it turned out that she could not attend there without being a baptized Catholic.




No, they do not.

I thought that was the case but wanted to verify.

Canada is apartheid, according to bikerdruid's definition then.

if israeli muslims are treated differently than israeli jews, apartheid exists.

 

[JihadJane]

Canada is apartheid, according to bikerdruid's definition then.

So what?

 

[Thunder]

Canada is apartheid, according to bikerdruid's definition then.

Canada has government sponsored, funded, and legalized discrimination against minority groups?

I thought not. You can take back your silly strawman now.

 

[Thunder]

Please do educate yourself about strawman arguments. You use it repeatedly to refer to arguments you don't agree with, but are clearly not strawmen.

do you agree with Wildcat's strawman, making a BS analogy between Likud and the KKK?

 

[mortimer]

Canada has government sponsored, funded, and legalized discrimination against minority groups?

I thought not. You can take back your silly strawman now.

Yes. I posted a link earlier. But I'll post it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_school

ETA: This is not a strawman.

 

[Thunder]

Of course you can't. You will have to do what a_u_p and Thunder do, claim apartheid because of differential treatment not only against foreigners, but foreigners who are engaged in a war of destruiction against Israel, and even a genocidal one for the more radical Palestinian elements like Hamas.

oh, so Israel's discriminatory and racist policies in the West Bank only started with the creation of Hamas and their terrorist attacks?

FAIL

Israel started illegally confiscating Arab private property in the West Bank more than 30 years ago. More than 15 years before the First Intifada began.

And they didn't simply confiscate land from folks convicted or even accused of committing crimes against Israel, they stole land from anyone who had land where Israel wanted it.

so much for your BS argument about Israel engaging in Apartheid against only Palestinians who wage war and genocide against Israelis.

 

[mortimer]

do you agree with Wildcat's strawman, making a BS analogy between Likud and the KKK?

That was not a strawman.

 

[Thunder]

It is an implacable hostility to Jews and Israel. It is a hatred unlike any other.

Its very sad that the opposers of peace & justice feel the only way they can win their argument is by falsely and baselessly accusing people of anti-Semitism.

Got any evidence of him being an anti-Semite? Or his his daring to challenge the will of right-wing Zionism, enough evidence for you?

Tell me, former PM Olmert offered the Palestinians more than 95% of the West Bank. Do you consider him to be an anti-Semite as well?

 

[Thunder]

That was not a strawman.

ah yes, making an anology between the leading party in Israel's governing Knesset coalition, to the all but powerless and impotent KKK...is not a strawman.

good one.

 

[WildCat]

thunder did that very well in his post #3965, which no one has addressed.

With Israeli Arabs? I really doubt it. Perhaps you can paraphrase some for me, since the thunderous entity is on my ignore list.

 

[mortimer]

ah yes, making an anology between the leading party in Israel's governing Knesset coalition, to the all but powerless and impotent KKK...is not a strawman.

good one.

That is correct. It is not a strawman. It's an analogy. It may be a bad analogy, but it certainly is *not* a strawman.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument

Wildcat did not misrepresent AUP's position at all. A key element in a strawman argument.

 

[WildCat]

It may be a bad analogy, but it certainly is *not* a strawman.

It was an awesome analogy!

And hell, 75 years ago the KKK actually did control the government in a large part of the country.

 

[Thunder]

And hell, 75 years ago the KKK actually did control the government in a large part of the country.

really? did the KKK rule the Republican or Democratic Party?

oh, and btw, your post referred to TODAY...not 75 years ago.

Originally Posted by WildCat
And the Ku Klux Klan works towards a whites-only USA.

See? You are clearly comparing the Ku Klux Klan of today, a powerless, impotent, not even shadow of its former self, to the leading party of today's Israeli governing coalition.

Its perhaps THE worst analogy every made on JREF.

 

[mortimer]

the leading party of today's Israeli governing coalition.

I agree, not a great analogy. But, the point is still there. Likud platform positions are not automatically official Israeli policy just because their party leads the coalition. Does every stance in the Democrat Party platform in the U.S. automatically become government policy when a Democrat is elected to President, or even holds a majority in both houses? No, of course not.

 

[Thunder]

I agree, not a great analogy. But, the point is still there. Likud platform positions are not automatically official Israeli policy just because their party leads the coalition. Does every stance in the Democrat Party platform in the U.S. automatically become government policy when a Democrat is elected to President, or even holds a majority in both houses? No, of course not.

When the Senate and the House are run by the same party, and the President of the United States is also a member of that party, then that party's goals, agendas, and yes..ideology..sets the agenda for the path of the Unites States.

Likud is the governing power of the current Knesset coalition. And the Prime Minister is a member of that party. The Likud agenda, ideology, and goals indeed play a major role in Israel's affairs and legislation.

Are you honestly going to tell us that Likud's ideology and agenda play no significant part in Israel's affairs???

wow.