|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On December 05 2023 05:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:Tbh seems like the apartheid term is becoming less and less controversial in Israel too now. Confronted with Tamir Pardo's (former head of Mossad) claim that Israel is imposing apartheid, Mark Regev, who is Netanyahu's special advisor, replies that 'the factual part is correct. There is Israeli law for Israeli citizens, and palestinians living there are under military law'. This is Netanyahu's special advisor, and rather than deny the claim that it's an apartheid regime, he says that it's a temporary necessity and that the alternative is even worse. Honestly the interview in that second link is very good. I guess it might be geoblocked for non-norwegians, but here is an accurate (but not complete) summary.
That's not a small admission. We're making progress.
Next step will be to get them to admit that the Palestinian death toll is so high that the utility of the war can't be justified.
|
|
|
On December 05 2023 05:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 05:15 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 04:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:On December 04 2023 06:16 KwarK wrote:
The idea that “it wasn’t stolen from the people living there for generations because the new occupants had the legitimate ownership obtained from the British colonial administration” seems a bit of a stretch. I wonder how many people making that argument unconditionally accept British ownership rules elsewhere. My suspicion is that in general they don’t recognize the authority of the British colonial administration to declare who owns land but that in this instance it’s convenient to make an exception. @Ryzel I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/ I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites. This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza. Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from. I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct. That isn't true. You should read up on Apartheid in South Africa. The Bantustans had "autonomy". I have and even posted about it and included multiple sources in the past. It’s shitty, low effort, one liner gotcha posts that are ruining good discussion. I am literally only responding to your assertion that South Africa didn't have different rules for different races in different places when they clearly and demonstrably did. So if that was your main reason for not wanting to label Israel as an Apartheid regime... well, I guess now that you've educated yourself you believe Israel is an Apartheid regime. E: might as well respond to your Russia quip as well. There are a variety of different ideologies that like their mass deportations. Apartheid is one of them. Fascism is another. Russia falls more in the latter. It's less about living together and more about "everybody who disagrees with Putin gets a one-way to Siberia, and we'll reeducate the children to ensure they are properly Russified". You totally gotchad me, because I totally thought Russia was the good guys in that war! I said the opposite.
This is literally your quote:
South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
South Africa had a very complex system of rules. Nominally they weren't to keep the wites on top, or they could have made the rules far simpler. It was all about designating different areas where different people were in charge with different rules. The Zulus got their homeland, the Xhosa theirs, the Ndebele theirs, etc. etc. etc. Of course, at the end of the day, the white people just so happened to be designated the prime race in all of the industrial areas, all of the mining areas and most of the arable farmland, but that's just the luck of the draw, right? Anyway, really complex rules with "independent nations" and their own separate presidents making their own rules in their independent Bantustans. And there were actual border crossings and white people were not necessarily allowed into the Bantustans, and once there had different rules apply. Of course, there wasn't much reason to go to the Bantustans as a white person, but... DEFINITELY different rules in different places for different people.
|
On December 05 2023 05:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:Tbh seems like the apartheid term is becoming less and less controversial in Israel too now. Confronted with Tamir Pardo's (former head of Mossad) claim that Israel is imposing apartheid, Mark Regev, who is Netanyahu's special advisor, replies that 'the factual part is correct. There is Israeli law for Israeli citizens, and palestinians living there are under military law'. This is Netanyahu's special advisor, and rather than deny the claim that it's an apartheid regime, he says that it's a temporary necessity and that the alternative is even worse. Honestly the interview in that second link is very good. I guess it might be geoblocked for non-norwegians, but here is an accurate (but not complete) summary.
Nowhere does Regev call it Apartheid. Apartheid requires more than two sets of laws. It's further complicated by the fact that many Palestinians fall under Palestinian law.
|
United States44124 Posts
Apartheid would be an improvement to the foreverwar. Fewer premature baby corpses rotting in a hospital neonatal ICU.
|
On December 05 2023 05:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 05:15 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 04:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:On December 04 2023 06:16 KwarK wrote:
The idea that “it wasn’t stolen from the people living there for generations because the new occupants had the legitimate ownership obtained from the British colonial administration” seems a bit of a stretch. I wonder how many people making that argument unconditionally accept British ownership rules elsewhere. My suspicion is that in general they don’t recognize the authority of the British colonial administration to declare who owns land but that in this instance it’s convenient to make an exception. @Ryzel I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/ I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites. This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza. Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from. I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct. That isn't true. You should read up on Apartheid in South Africa. The Bantustans had "autonomy". I have and even posted about it and included multiple sources in the past. It’s shitty, low effort, one liner gotcha posts that are ruining good discussion. I am literally only responding to your assertion that South Africa didn't have different rules for different races in different places when they clearly and demonstrably did. So if that was your main reason for not wanting to label Israel as an Apartheid regime... well, I guess now that you've educated yourself you believe Israel is an Apartheid regime. E: might as well respond to your Russia quip as well. There are a variety of different ideologies that like their mass deportations. Apartheid is one of them. Fascism is another. Russia falls more in the latter. It's less about living together and more about "everybody who disagrees with Putin gets a one-way to Siberia, and we'll reeducate the children to ensure they are properly Russified". You totally gotchad me, because I totally thought Russia was the good guys in that war! I said the opposite. This is literally your quote: Show nested quote +South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
South Africa had a very complex system of rules. Nominally they weren't to keep the wites on top, or they could have made the rules far simpler. It was all about designating different areas where different people were in charge with different rules. The Zulus got their homeland, the Xhosa theirs, the Ndebele theirs, etc. etc. etc. Of course, at the end of the day, the white people just so happened to be designated the prime race in all of the industrial areas, all of the mining areas and most of the arable farmland, but that's just the luck of the draw, right? Anyway, really complex rules with "independent nations" and their own separate presidents making their own rules in their independent Bantustans. And there were actual border crossings and white people were not necessarily allowed into the Bantustans, and once there had different rules apply. Of course, there wasn't much reason to go to the Bantustans as a white person, but... DEFINITELY different rules in different places for different people.
I believe Jimmi's argument is that it's not Apartheid because Palestinian Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians are not treated in exactly the same way, while in Apartheid there was no different status for different groups of black people.
|
|
|
Norway28820 Posts
On December 05 2023 05:52 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 05:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:Tbh seems like the apartheid term is becoming less and less controversial in Israel too now. Confronted with Tamir Pardo's (former head of Mossad) claim that Israel is imposing apartheid, Mark Regev, who is Netanyahu's special advisor, replies that 'the factual part is correct. There is Israeli law for Israeli citizens, and palestinians living there are under military law'. This is Netanyahu's special advisor, and rather than deny the claim that it's an apartheid regime, he says that it's a temporary necessity and that the alternative is even worse. Honestly the interview in that second link is very good. I guess it might be geoblocked for non-norwegians, but here is an accurate (but not complete) summary. Nowhere does Regev call it Apartheid. Apartheid requires more than two sets of laws. It's further complicated by the fact that many Palestinians fall under Palestinian law.
I did not say that Regev calls it Apartheid, but he really doesn't contest the term, and he agrees that legalized discrimination takes place. I'm cautious not to get involved in semantics discussions tbh and don't see the point in going further with this, but I'll just reiterate my position one final time;
The apartheid phrase is used fairly consistently to describe the situation for palestinians in the west bank by a) south africans b) various human rights organizations c) increasingly, also by Israelis. I think it seems like a reasonable phrase to use, and Regev himself seems more concerned with arguing for the usefulness of apartheid policies from a security pov than he is with contesting the actual phrase.
Which I think is actually reasonable. I used to see very frequent suicide/car/bus bombs in the news before the policies that are what people regard as apartheid policies were implemented, so I think the argument that they've been successful from a security pov is coherent. (Not to be confused with 'I think they've been good.)
|
On December 05 2023 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 05:44 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 05:15 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 04:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:On December 04 2023 06:16 KwarK wrote:
The idea that “it wasn’t stolen from the people living there for generations because the new occupants had the legitimate ownership obtained from the British colonial administration” seems a bit of a stretch. I wonder how many people making that argument unconditionally accept British ownership rules elsewhere. My suspicion is that in general they don’t recognize the authority of the British colonial administration to declare who owns land but that in this instance it’s convenient to make an exception. @Ryzel I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/ I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites. This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza. Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from. I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct. That isn't true. You should read up on Apartheid in South Africa. The Bantustans had "autonomy". I have and even posted about it and included multiple sources in the past. It’s shitty, low effort, one liner gotcha posts that are ruining good discussion. I am literally only responding to your assertion that South Africa didn't have different rules for different races in different places when they clearly and demonstrably did. So if that was your main reason for not wanting to label Israel as an Apartheid regime... well, I guess now that you've educated yourself you believe Israel is an Apartheid regime. E: might as well respond to your Russia quip as well. There are a variety of different ideologies that like their mass deportations. Apartheid is one of them. Fascism is another. Russia falls more in the latter. It's less about living together and more about "everybody who disagrees with Putin gets a one-way to Siberia, and we'll reeducate the children to ensure they are properly Russified". You totally gotchad me, because I totally thought Russia was the good guys in that war! I said the opposite. This is literally your quote: South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
South Africa had a very complex system of rules. Nominally they weren't to keep the wites on top, or they could have made the rules far simpler. It was all about designating different areas where different people were in charge with different rules. The Zulus got their homeland, the Xhosa theirs, the Ndebele theirs, etc. etc. etc. Of course, at the end of the day, the white people just so happened to be designated the prime race in all of the industrial areas, all of the mining areas and most of the arable farmland, but that's just the luck of the draw, right? Anyway, really complex rules with "independent nations" and their own separate presidents making their own rules in their independent Bantustans. And there were actual border crossings and white people were not necessarily allowed into the Bantustans, and once there had different rules apply. Of course, there wasn't much reason to go to the Bantustans as a white person, but... DEFINITELY different rules in different places for different people. I believe Jimmi's argument is that it's not Apartheid because Palestinian Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians are not treated in exactly the same way, while in Apartheid there was no different status for different groups of black people.
This is the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" version of the argument then? I thought it was an actual point that was worth responding to. My bad.
|
On December 05 2023 06:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 05:44 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 05:15 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 04:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
@Ryzel
I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?
Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/ I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites. This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza. Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from. I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct. That isn't true. You should read up on Apartheid in South Africa. The Bantustans had "autonomy". I have and even posted about it and included multiple sources in the past. It’s shitty, low effort, one liner gotcha posts that are ruining good discussion. I am literally only responding to your assertion that South Africa didn't have different rules for different races in different places when they clearly and demonstrably did. So if that was your main reason for not wanting to label Israel as an Apartheid regime... well, I guess now that you've educated yourself you believe Israel is an Apartheid regime. E: might as well respond to your Russia quip as well. There are a variety of different ideologies that like their mass deportations. Apartheid is one of them. Fascism is another. Russia falls more in the latter. It's less about living together and more about "everybody who disagrees with Putin gets a one-way to Siberia, and we'll reeducate the children to ensure they are properly Russified". You totally gotchad me, because I totally thought Russia was the good guys in that war! I said the opposite. This is literally your quote: South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
South Africa had a very complex system of rules. Nominally they weren't to keep the wites on top, or they could have made the rules far simpler. It was all about designating different areas where different people were in charge with different rules. The Zulus got their homeland, the Xhosa theirs, the Ndebele theirs, etc. etc. etc. Of course, at the end of the day, the white people just so happened to be designated the prime race in all of the industrial areas, all of the mining areas and most of the arable farmland, but that's just the luck of the draw, right? Anyway, really complex rules with "independent nations" and their own separate presidents making their own rules in their independent Bantustans. And there were actual border crossings and white people were not necessarily allowed into the Bantustans, and once there had different rules apply. Of course, there wasn't much reason to go to the Bantustans as a white person, but... DEFINITELY different rules in different places for different people. I believe Jimmi's argument is that it's not Apartheid because Palestinian Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians are not treated in exactly the same way, while in Apartheid there was no different status for different groups of black people. This is the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" version of the argument then? I thought it was an actual point that was worth responding to. My bad.
Oh yes it's a bad argument of course.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 05 2023 06:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 05:44 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 05:15 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 04:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On December 04 2023 23:52 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
@Ryzel
I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?
Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism. Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/ I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites. This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza. Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from. I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct. That isn't true. You should read up on Apartheid in South Africa. The Bantustans had "autonomy". I have and even posted about it and included multiple sources in the past. It’s shitty, low effort, one liner gotcha posts that are ruining good discussion. I am literally only responding to your assertion that South Africa didn't have different rules for different races in different places when they clearly and demonstrably did. So if that was your main reason for not wanting to label Israel as an Apartheid regime... well, I guess now that you've educated yourself you believe Israel is an Apartheid regime. E: might as well respond to your Russia quip as well. There are a variety of different ideologies that like their mass deportations. Apartheid is one of them. Fascism is another. Russia falls more in the latter. It's less about living together and more about "everybody who disagrees with Putin gets a one-way to Siberia, and we'll reeducate the children to ensure they are properly Russified". You totally gotchad me, because I totally thought Russia was the good guys in that war! I said the opposite. This is literally your quote: South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
South Africa had a very complex system of rules. Nominally they weren't to keep the wites on top, or they could have made the rules far simpler. It was all about designating different areas where different people were in charge with different rules. The Zulus got their homeland, the Xhosa theirs, the Ndebele theirs, etc. etc. etc. Of course, at the end of the day, the white people just so happened to be designated the prime race in all of the industrial areas, all of the mining areas and most of the arable farmland, but that's just the luck of the draw, right? Anyway, really complex rules with "independent nations" and their own separate presidents making their own rules in their independent Bantustans. And there were actual border crossings and white people were not necessarily allowed into the Bantustans, and once there had different rules apply. Of course, there wasn't much reason to go to the Bantustans as a white person, but... DEFINITELY different rules in different places for different people. I believe Jimmi's argument is that it's not Apartheid because Palestinian Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians are not treated in exactly the same way, while in Apartheid there was no different status for different groups of black people. This is the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" version of the argument then? I thought it was an actual point that was worth responding to. My bad.
It all hinges on the claim that they're being treated as equals in the State of Israel. This is not true, but it's a convenient lie that people don't bother scrutinizing because it requires research.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel
|
|
|
|
|
On December 05 2023 06:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 06:30 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2023 06:13 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 05:44 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 05:15 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 04:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza.
Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from.
I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct. That isn't true. You should read up on Apartheid in South Africa. The Bantustans had "autonomy". I have and even posted about it and included multiple sources in the past. It’s shitty, low effort, one liner gotcha posts that are ruining good discussion. I am literally only responding to your assertion that South Africa didn't have different rules for different races in different places when they clearly and demonstrably did. So if that was your main reason for not wanting to label Israel as an Apartheid regime... well, I guess now that you've educated yourself you believe Israel is an Apartheid regime. E: might as well respond to your Russia quip as well. There are a variety of different ideologies that like their mass deportations. Apartheid is one of them. Fascism is another. Russia falls more in the latter. It's less about living together and more about "everybody who disagrees with Putin gets a one-way to Siberia, and we'll reeducate the children to ensure they are properly Russified". You totally gotchad me, because I totally thought Russia was the good guys in that war! I said the opposite. This is literally your quote: South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
South Africa had a very complex system of rules. Nominally they weren't to keep the wites on top, or they could have made the rules far simpler. It was all about designating different areas where different people were in charge with different rules. The Zulus got their homeland, the Xhosa theirs, the Ndebele theirs, etc. etc. etc. Of course, at the end of the day, the white people just so happened to be designated the prime race in all of the industrial areas, all of the mining areas and most of the arable farmland, but that's just the luck of the draw, right? Anyway, really complex rules with "independent nations" and their own separate presidents making their own rules in their independent Bantustans. And there were actual border crossings and white people were not necessarily allowed into the Bantustans, and once there had different rules apply. Of course, there wasn't much reason to go to the Bantustans as a white person, but... DEFINITELY different rules in different places for different people. I believe Jimmi's argument is that it's not Apartheid because Palestinian Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians are not treated in exactly the same way, while in Apartheid there was no different status for different groups of black people. This is the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" version of the argument then? I thought it was an actual point that was worth responding to. My bad. It all hinges on the claim that they're being treated as equals in the State of Israel. This is not true, but it's a convenient lie that people don't bother scrutinizing because it requires research. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel No it doesn’t because apartheid is very different from structural racism which of course exists in Israel. And sadly exists in most of the world. Your article does a good job of exploring it and also how it’s at least being addressed. The Arab party joining ruling coalitions have helped as their interests get more attention. Again a huge difference when comparing to SA, where blacks could hold no power. Again not calling Israeli genocidal, or an apartheid or whatever does not mean I think it’s the land of milk, hunny and rainbows. There are tons of real issues that be talked about with accurate terms. I think our actual pro Israel poster would even agree things are far from perfect, he’s said as much.
Do you think the State of Israel is oppressing people?
|
On December 05 2023 06:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 06:30 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2023 06:13 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 05:44 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 05:15 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 04:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 00:05 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I’m not a fan of Apartheid because none of the past ones were anything like this. South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
This one is based on security as the Palestinian Israelis are not treated by the same rules as the ones in the west bank or Gaza.
Now it is certainly something not good because the Jewish settlers are treated differently than the Gaza Palestinians so there is a racial component. It is just applied differently and for different reasons than the SA one which where the word comes from.
I think a lot of people who hear apartheid think that Palestinians can’t hold certain jobs, positions in government, go to different schools. But my understanding is this is not correct. That isn't true. You should read up on Apartheid in South Africa. The Bantustans had "autonomy". I have and even posted about it and included multiple sources in the past. It’s shitty, low effort, one liner gotcha posts that are ruining good discussion. I am literally only responding to your assertion that South Africa didn't have different rules for different races in different places when they clearly and demonstrably did. So if that was your main reason for not wanting to label Israel as an Apartheid regime... well, I guess now that you've educated yourself you believe Israel is an Apartheid regime. E: might as well respond to your Russia quip as well. There are a variety of different ideologies that like their mass deportations. Apartheid is one of them. Fascism is another. Russia falls more in the latter. It's less about living together and more about "everybody who disagrees with Putin gets a one-way to Siberia, and we'll reeducate the children to ensure they are properly Russified". You totally gotchad me, because I totally thought Russia was the good guys in that war! I said the opposite. This is literally your quote: South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
South Africa had a very complex system of rules. Nominally they weren't to keep the wites on top, or they could have made the rules far simpler. It was all about designating different areas where different people were in charge with different rules. The Zulus got their homeland, the Xhosa theirs, the Ndebele theirs, etc. etc. etc. Of course, at the end of the day, the white people just so happened to be designated the prime race in all of the industrial areas, all of the mining areas and most of the arable farmland, but that's just the luck of the draw, right? Anyway, really complex rules with "independent nations" and their own separate presidents making their own rules in their independent Bantustans. And there were actual border crossings and white people were not necessarily allowed into the Bantustans, and once there had different rules apply. Of course, there wasn't much reason to go to the Bantustans as a white person, but... DEFINITELY different rules in different places for different people. I believe Jimmi's argument is that it's not Apartheid because Palestinian Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians are not treated in exactly the same way, while in Apartheid there was no different status for different groups of black people. This is the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" version of the argument then? I thought it was an actual point that was worth responding to. My bad. It all hinges on the claim that they're being treated as equals in the State of Israel. This is not true, but it's a convenient lie that people don't bother scrutinizing because it requires research. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel Again not calling Israeli genocidal, or an apartheid or whatever does not mean I think it’s the land of milk, hunny and rainbows. There are tons of real issues that be talked about with accurate terms. I think our actual pro Israel poster would even agree things are far from perfect, he’s said as much.
People have trouble following your argument because it's not consistent. You will argue against the use of the word Apartheid by pointing out that there's a "controversy", some people think it's the right term and some people think it's not, but then later you will say that it's "accurate" to not call it Apartheid, so you have taken a side in the controversy and you've decided that your side of the controversy has won, for no reason.
You will say that you believe Israel is doing something really bad even though it's not Apartheid sometimes, but at other points you will say something like "Russia is actually the evil country that people have claimed Isreal to be".
You don't seem that sure whether it's controversial or it's clearly not Apartheid, and you don't seem that sure whether it's evil or not. The only thing that you're very sure about is that you're right and everyone is unfair to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
