babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Israel and apartheid

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Israel and apartheid
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 01 January 2005 11:42 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In our last discussion macabee said:
"If you understand the concept of apartheid then you know that Israel (while there may be genuine issues of racism within the state that must be dealt with) is NOT an apartheid state. "

I guess Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu just don't "understand apartheid" then? Perhaps Macabee should enlighten them on the topic?

Boycott Israel, says Jewish minister in South Africa

quote:
A Jewish minister in the South African government threw his weight behind pressure for sanctions against Israel on Tuesday and said in an interview he would take the call to the cabinet soon.

Water Affairs and Forestry Minister Ronnie Kasrils, a former African National Congress (ANC) guerrilla, joined a small street protest in Cape Town by Jews and Muslims opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

“I am Jewish born. Since Israel purports to speak and act in the name of Jews everywhere... we are saying: No, not in my name. Never,” he told Reuters in an interview later.

Kasrils and Cape Town Jewish businessman Max Ozinsky launched a petition last year distancing themselves from the actions of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his government.

On Tuesday, Kasrils said the time had come for him to back calls for a boycott of Israeli goods and the isolation of its government.

“People are saying that there should be boycotts, there should be sanctions... I support the call now for the isolation and the boycott of Israel. I support sanctions,” he said.

“That is actually in the interests of all the people – Muslims, Jews and Christians – in the Middle East because the sooner we can stop this conflict... the sooner we can get to negotiations, to a settlement for peace and a recognition of the Palesinian people’s national rights.”

Kasrils said he had discussed his support for the Palestine Support Group in South Africa and its demand for action against Israel with cabinet colleagues and with President Thabo Mbeki.

“It’s something that I am raising, that I certainly will be raising, in the cabinet now... I think the leadership of our country will have to deal with this issue,” he said.

The ANC and its allies the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions have called for strong action against Israel and in support of Palestine.



From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 01 January 2005 11:46 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel: Time to Divest by Desmond Tutu

quote:
Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. Ronnie Kasrils and Max Ozinsky, two Jewish heroes of the anti-apartheid struggle, recently published a letter titled 'Not in My Name'. Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience.

I hope Macabee has learned not to be so arrogant as to speak on behalf of other people on what they should be offended by. Evidently the victims of apartheid are *not* offended by comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa as they are making those comparisons themselves. Perhaps Macabee disagrees but I suspect victims of apartheid and those who struggled against it have a better appreciation of what apartheid is than he does.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 January 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re: "Degrees useless" from the other thread.

It's one thing if you point out that your relevant professional experience means you know what the hell it is you're talking about. It's another thing if you preen over it and use it as a battering ram to assist you in sophistry.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 02:46 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Re: "Degrees useless" from the other thread.

It's one thing if you point out that your relevant professional experience means you know what the hell it is you're talking about. It's another thing if you preen over it and use it as a battering ram to assist you in sophistry.



As do you Doc?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 01 January 2005 03:00 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
I guess Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu just don't "understand apartheid" then?
Sure they do. They just don't understand Israel. So, when they compare the two, they are lookng at the situation through a cloudy window.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 January 2005 03:56 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
As do you Doc?

I'm not the kind of person who regularly uses obtuse sophistry to try and deflect statements about my hobby horse, so you may put away the "I'm-rubber-you're-glue" Booklet of Debate.

quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
Sure they do. They just don't understand Israel. So, when they compare the two, they are lookng at the situation through a cloudy window.

Wow. I didn't know Israel was so special. I thought you were the guy who said being the chosen people didn't equate to adopting an attitude of specialness and superiority.

Or should I say, "adopting an attitude of apartness"?

[ 01 January 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 01 January 2005 04:18 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, let me ask this of those who think that Israeli policies constitute "apartheid":

Is there anything about Israel that you would concede makes it unlike apartheid? I suspect that your answers may reveal your relative willingness to look at the issue fairly.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 04:32 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
I'm not the kind of person who regularly uses obtuse sophistry to try and deflect statements about my hobby horse, so you may put away the "I'm-rubber-you're-glue" Booklet of Debate.

[ 01 January 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]



No you're just the type of person who likes to brag about his scientific backround over and over and over and over......

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 04:36 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

Wow. I didn't know Israel was so special. I thought you were the guy who said being the chosen people didn't equate to adopting an attitude of specialness and superiority.

Or should I say, "adopting an attitude of apartness"?

[ 01 January 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]



Why would you make such an odious allusion? Where in anything that phonocidal posted do you see any mention of the biblical concept of "Chosen People". Usually those who threw the "Chosen People" concept in the faces of Jews have, shall we say pretty ulterior motives for doing so. Doc I give you the benefit of the doubt on this one but please be a bit more careful in the future of what you choose to hurl at Jewish Babblers.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 January 2005 04:39 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
Okay, let me ask this of those who think that Israeli policies constitute "apartheid":

Is there anything about Israel that you would concede makes it unlike apartheid? I suspect that your answers may reveal your relative willingness to look at the issue fairly.


I would say, but I am not sure of this, that Israel apartheid is not as "enshrined" in their laws, and possibly not as overt as the racial differences are not as pronounced and easy to "instantly" apply without sometimes first checking the victims papers.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 04:42 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

I would say, but I am not sure of this, that Israel apartheid is not as "enshrined" in their laws, and possibly not as overt as the racial differences are not as pronounced and easy to "instantly" apply without sometimes first checking the victims papers.


Its not enshrined in law because there is no Israeli Apartheid. Your struggle NY to put a square peg into a round hole is all to obvious and telling.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 January 2005 04:42 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is there anything about Israel that you would concede makes it unlike apartheid?

Huh?

I'm sure that kind of illogical question has been given a specific category and label by students of rhetoric, but I gotta tell you, it's defeatin' me.

Or is this some kind of "heads: I win; tails: you lose" game? When did you stop beating your wife?

[ 01 January 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 January 2005 04:57 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
No you're just the type of person who likes to brag about his scientific backround over and over and over and over......

And that has to do precisely what with using credentials to try and shut down debate? I have yet to see how radiochemistry can be used to attempt to claim that I know everything about the Israeli political situation and nobody else knows bupkiss.

Your obtuseness does not appear to be an affectation; you honestly seem to be incapable of grasping relatively subtle distinctions. The subtle distinction here is the difference between establishing one's background, and using it to try and "win" a debate (cf. Phonicidal's "Yo, I'm a lawyer and ain't I just GREAT" post, paraphrased heavily of course).

quote:
Why would you make such an odious allusion? Where in anything that phonocidal posted do you see any mention of the biblical concept of "Chosen People". Usually those who threw the "Chosen People" concept in the faces of Jews have, shall we say pretty ulterior motives for doing so. Doc I give you the benefit of the doubt on this one but please be a bit more careful in the future of what you choose to hurl at Jewish Babblers.

Oh, spare me your sanctimonious bullshit, Macabee. I've been over this with you again and again. Any religion which purports to put a heavy emphasis on its people being "Chosen" usually has the unfortunate side effect of creating an attitude of "apartness" (which, incidentally, is one possible literal translation of the word "apartheid") among the religion's adherents - and by the way, Christians are not immune to this; the early Protestants that landed on Plymouth Rock quickly developed a sense of "Manifest Destiny" that was a secular-religious worldview which combined the idealization of American government as The Best On Earth with the Christian religion's narrow belief that no one else was equally deserving of God's good grace except if one was converted, whether voluntarily or forcibly, and whether of free will or by deception. This "Manifest Destiny" belief had tragic consequences for many of the aboriginal peoples who lived on the North American continent before Europeans decided they ran the show.

I am sorry that you are incapable of grasping the fact that I simply have a very strong antipathy to religion in general.

[ 01 January 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 January 2005 04:59 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Its not enshrined in law because there is no Israeli Apartheid. Your struggle NY to put a square peg into a round hole is all to obvious and telling.

Great, then if it's not enshrined in law, it will be that much easier to eliminate when Israel finally discovers the will to do so.


Phonicidal; is there anything about Israel that you would concede makes it like apartheid?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 January 2005 05:22 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
Okay, let me ask this of those who think that Israeli policies constitute "apartheid":

Is there anything about Israel that you would concede makes it unlike apartheid? I suspect that your answers may reveal your relative willingness to look at the issue fairly.


Sauce for the goose. You tell us where you see there to be similarities.

There are of course differences: The majority of South Africans, black and white, followed the same religion; unlike Israel/Palestine, the exploitation of black labour featured strongly in the battle against Apartheid; no viable voice on either side called for any form of partition in a post-Apartheid South Africa; the majority of Black South Africans had at least some recourse to civil law, unlike the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories who do not have even the benefit of second-class citizenship when confronted with the full weight of the occupation; the armed resistance movement (with a few exceptions) eschewed any targetting of civilians in favour of strategic zero-casualty targets. There are of course more differences.

And what of it? No two situations are ever exactly alike. That which connects is far more substantive than that which disconnects the two situations.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 01 January 2005 05:32 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee, Mycroft is also a "Jewish babbler". So is our Auntie.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 01 January 2005 06:00 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

Great, then if it's not enshrined in law, it will be that much easier to eliminate when Israel finally discovers the will to do so.


Phonicidal; is there anything about Israel that you would concede makes it like apartheid?


informal apartheid.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 06:36 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Macabee, Mycroft is also a "Jewish babbler". So is our Auntie.

And so...

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 January 2005 08:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hardly informal.

True, South African Apartheid was enshrined constitutionally, however, Israel has no constitution, instead it has a series of basic laws, as well as a series of subsidary ones that enforce Apartheid in practice. Among those of course are the immigration laws which reject right of return to Arabs, but encourage it for Jews. This is the case even when Jews have no direct family ties or relatives who have lived in the region, while the many Arabs seeking right of return actually were born in what is called Israel.

And Mac if you think that people making arguements about citizenship and Arabs that mirror the same kind of solopsisms espoused by Goering and Goebels in regard to Jews on Germany, or those used to defend Apartheid, dishonours the memories of the victims of the holocaust then perhaps you should not post and promote those ideas on the web.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 09:43 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Cue, it is people like you who make those antisemitic arguments. You do so not necessarily because you are an antisemite but more I fear because you know it causes much grief and pain to many Jews. I sadly. do not know which is worse.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 January 2005 10:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your defence of two tiered scale of rights based on citizenship is worse. It is what truly dishonours the memnory of those killed in the holocaust.

What is funny is that people seemed doomed to repeat the same mistkaes over and over again. The fact that you can't see a racist argument as as a racist argument for what it is, a racist arguement is the reason why this is the case. You are only interested in the surface apect of racism as it realtes to Jews only, you can not see it when it is applied by Jews or zionists against others.

That is what breeds facism. By defending and promoting ideas that support differeing rights based on citizenship you are a fellow traveler with those you say you despise.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 01 January 2005 10:14 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, do you support the abolishing of statehood, including citizenship, across the globe? That seems to be what you are advocating. It certainly is not racist to suggest that the special rights associated with citizenship need not be extended to non-citizens. If it were racist, every country on earth would be in the wrong.
From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 10:17 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cue you are welcome to your own stilted opinions. Indeed you may at times even make a valid point. Sadly for me and I would say others who support the Jewish state, it is impossible to take anyone who compares Israel with nazi brutality seriously.

I have never held Israel up as a panacea. Indeed I have said often that Israel, like many struggling democracies, battles many internal demons but apartheid is not one of them nor is it in any way comaparable to anything remotely nazi-like.

The fact that YOU refuse to understand that when you make such comparisions you not only diffuse any potentially good argument you may have, but as important, you cause pain to Holocaust (better spelled with an upper case "H" BTW) survivors and their decendants. Simply put if you cannot make your case without invoking the nazi spectre I suggest that the case you are trying to make is weak indeed. In fact my guess is that there is no case to be made, rather you wish, as I have already postulated, to cause only grief and heartache.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 01 January 2005 10:38 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
for me and I would say others who support the Jewish state . . . I have never held Israel up as a panacea. Indeed I have said often that Israel, like many struggling democracies, battles many internal demons . . .

Battling over labels is almost never useful, as I point out to clients every day who think they want to argue about whether to call their parenting arrangements "joint custody." (I was once questioning a man who knew he wanted joint custody but was completely unable to say why, or what he thought it meant. He was reduced to giving trivial examples, to which I said "it sounds to me like you want joint custody so you can give your wife hell when she forgets to send their mittens with them." But I digress.)

I am less interested in what you people each mean by "apartheid" than in whether Macabee can imagine any demons that would make him say "I can no longer call myself a supporter of Israel." I expect he can. I also expect he might find it awkward to say what they are. Perhaps he could accomplish his goal of getting other Babblers to understand his position by concentrating on areas where we mostly agree. I expect a list of all the points on which Macabee disagrees with current Israeli policy would be quite long.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 January 2005 10:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cue you are welcome to your own stilted opinions. Indeed you may at times even make a valid point. Sadly for me and I would say others who support the Jewish state, it is impossible to take anyone who compares Israel with nazi brutality seriously.

I did not in fact compare Israel to Nazi Germany, as others pointed out. I comapred a logical form of racialist thinking. This kind of racialist thinking is common. One does not have to go the extremes of the Nazis to evidence the root form of that thinking.

Making an arguement based on the idea that because someone has different citizenship means that they have lesser rigthts, is a facist arguement. In this case this arguement is being made, notwithstanding the fact that many of the idividuals with this lesser status were in fact born inside what is today called Israel is the height of duplicitous hypocrisy.

Again, this article (posted on the last thread), purported to be a defence of Israel against the charge that it is an Apratheid state, is in fact an argument for Aparatheid. I ask that the moderators remove it from the board just as they would any tract by the Heritage Front or articles by Holocaust Deniers.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 January 2005 11:02 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
Cueball, do you support the abolishing of statehood, including citizenship, across the globe? That seems to be what you are advocating. It certainly is not racist to suggest that the special rights associated with citizenship need not be extended to non-citizens. If it were racist, every country on earth would be in the wrong.
Red herring. How many of those non-citizens, globally, are under direct military occupation by a state which does not recognize their rights, but does recognize the rights of citizens who colonize their land?

Two people on the same land, subject to different laws designed to benefit the stronger group economically, militarily, and "ethnically". That is Apartheid, and your solipisms do not change that.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 01 January 2005 11:12 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Red herring.

It's not a red herring when Cueball makes silly statements like:

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Making an arguement based on the idea that because someone has different citizenship means that they have lesser rigthts, is a facist arguement.

quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Two people on the same land, subject to different laws designed to benefit the stronger group economically, militarily, and "ethnically". That is Apartheid
I am always facinated when people talk about Israeli "laws" or "policy" without specifying which laws or policies they're referring to. Could you be a bit more specific about a particular Israeli law or policy that constitutes "apartheid?" If you can't, I fail to see how you can support your claim.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 January 2005 11:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1) The laws wich allows Jews who have never set foot in Israel to become citizens, set againt the laws wich prevent many Arabs who were born there from becoming citizens.

2) The Laws which make Jewish residents of the occupied territories citizens, but does not afford Arab residents the same privilage.

If you are going to be a toady, at least do use the kindness of not making us reiterate the basic facts in question, again and again, and again, as if you suddenly aren't aware of the basic subject in disucssion. It makes you look stupid as well as duplicitous.

Or do you deny that those are the basic facts? Notice: When I ask this, I am not asking for an explanation of why you think those basic conditions are justifiable, but for a confirmation or denial of those facts as reality.

[ 01 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 01 January 2005 11:56 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
1) The laws wich allows Jews who have never set foot in Israel to become citizens, set againt the laws wich prevent many Arabs who were born there from becoming citizens.
Israel was conceived as a Jewish homeland and a refuge from persecution. There is no reason to make excuses for that. Anybody can apply to become a citizen of Israel just like they can apply to become a citizen of Canada. And, just like Canada, Israel has the right to set it's own imigration policies. Arabs born in the State of Israel are granted citizenship. Although, some in places like eastern Jerusalem refuse due to peer pressure.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
2) The Laws which make Jewish residents of the occupied territories citizens, but does not afford Arab residents the same privilage.
The Jews in that land don't care about secular government. They care about their rights to live in a part of their homeland near holy sites and on holy land. So, if it was possible for them to be citizens of "Palestine", they would be. But, all of them, other than those born there, have come through Israel to be there (I doubt many got there through Jordan or Egypt). So, they are citizens. Why shouldn't they be? If there was such a thing as Palestinian citizenship, they would probably be dual citizens. But, theroetically, there shouldn't be any more problem with Jews in an Arab state called "Palestine" than there is with Arabs in Israel.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
If you are going to be a toady, at least do use the kindness of not making us reiterate the basic facts in question...Or do you deny that those are the basic facts?
I am not making you reiterate anything. I am asking you to back up your claims of what is and is not a fact. I want to be able to agree with you on something. But, you are asking me to agree on your impression of a law, rather than on the law itself. That's why I am asking you to be more specific in naming a particular law. I am trying to determine if your impressions are entirely clouded by hatred or simply a misunderstanding.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 January 2005 12:14 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's also that recent law that doesn't allow non-Jewish spouses of Israeli citizens to automatically become citizens themselves.

And of course there's a lot of Jim Crow type legislation that discriminates against Palestinians without explicitly saying its discriminating against Palestinians, like laws linking the level of welfare type benefits to service in the Israeli army, something which disproportionately impacts on Palestinians (and before someone says what about Orthodox Jews who don't serve in the Israeli army - that is offset by all the money the various Haredi parties get from the government to run social services for their communities).

And, of course, there's the problem of land ownership. It's almost impossible for non-Jews to buy land in Israel or to lease land controlled by the Jewish Agency.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 12:46 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
There's also that recent law that doesn't allow non-Jewish spouses of Israeli citizens to automatically become citizens themselves.
The law, which can be found here, is a temporary measure for security purposes. It is designed to prevent Palestinians from fraudulently entering into Israel. The temporary revision includes provisions for people, on a case by case basis, to enter into Israel and to stay there:
quote:
Reservations
3. Despite the instructions of article 2 -

(1) The Minister of the Interior, or the Area Commander, as the case may be, is entitled to grant an inhabitant of an area a license to reside in Israel, or a permit to stay in Israel, for a fixed period, for the purpose of work, or in order to receive medical treatment, and also for some other temporary purpose - for a cumulative period of no more than six months, as well as a license to reside in Israel, or a permit to stay in Israel in order to prevent the separation of a child, aged up to 12, from its parent who is staying in Israel legally;

(2) The Minister of the Interior is entitled to grant citizenship, or provide a license to reside in Israel, to an inhabitant of an area, if he is convinced that he identifies with the State of Israel and its goals, and that he or a member of his family performed a significant act to promote the security, economy or some other important matter of the State, or that the granting of citizenship or provision of the license to reside in Israel, are of special interest to the State; In this paragraph, "member of family" - spouse, parent, child.



quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
And of course there's a lot of Jim Crow type legislation that discriminates against Palestinians without explicitly saying its discriminating against Palestinians...
An unsubstantiated generalization.

quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
And, of course, there's the problem of land ownership. It's almost impossible for non-Jews to buy land in Israel or to lease land controlled by the Jewish Agency.
According to Myths and Facts Online:
quote:
In the early part of the century, the Jewish National Fund was established by the World Zionist Congress to purchase land in Palestine for Jewish settlement. This land, and that acquired after Israel's War of Independence, was taken over by the government. Of the total area of Israel, 92 percent belongs to the State and is managed by the Land Management Authority. It is not for sale to anyone, Jew or Arab. The remaining 8 percent of the territory is privately owned. The Arab Waqf (the Muslim charitable endowment), for example, owns land that is for the express use and benefit of Muslim Arabs. Government land can be leased by anyone, regardless of race, religion or sex. All Arab citizens of Israel are eligible to lease government land.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 January 2005 01:38 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
All Arab citizens of Israel are eligible to lease government land.

Hence the fact that there is no problem whatsoever when Israeli Arabs wish to live in Jewish neighbourhoods or in Jewish towns or in Jewish Kibbutzim.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 January 2005 01:42 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Phonicidal, perhaps you can tell us how much of Israel's budget goes to Arab villages (per capita) compared to Jewish towns, how much is spent on the Arab educational system, per capita, compraed to the Jewish educational system and how much Israeli Arabs receive, per capita, in health care compared to Israeli Jews? If Israeli Arabs are not second class citizens than the money spent on services for the Israeli Arab community should be consistent with that spent for the Jewish community.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2005 02:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Phoney,

I asked you specfically to agree, or not, that those two conditions were the fact or not. I explicitly asked for you not to justify those facts. Typically, you have ignored the actual question and replied with justifications.

Vainly and stupidly I ask the question again. expecting of course the usual mealy-mouthed preverication and misdirection. Again, are those two conditions I cited the basic facts or not?

Aside from the very strong points brought forward by Mycroft on the actual conditions of Arabs who are citizens, you have failed to recognize that your pundits arguement, that citizenship should define the inferior rights for Palestinians, is the essential mechanism through which Israeli apartheid is enforced.

The article you published on the related thread is not a defence at all, but an arguement for Apartheid, enforced through the denial of citizenship, a status of citizenship that is then used to justify the inferior rights of Palestinians, as you are now arguing yourself.

As I pointed out, denial of citizenship and the associated rights, was a primary legal mechanism used to perpetrate the Holocaust against the Jews of Europe.

Your use of a Eichmanesque bureaucratic loophole hinging on 'citizenship' in the name of defending Israel, the Jewish state, is disgusting. Hanna Arendt is spinning in her grave, and Goebels is laughing in his.

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 02:24 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I asked you specfically to agree, or not, that those two conditions were the fact or not. I explicitly asked for you not to justify those facts. Typically, you have ignored the actual question and replied with justifications.
You didn't give facts. The basic understanding behind your questions were faulty. I didn't justify anything. I was pointing out that your questions didn't make sense to begin with. So, as you stated them, I would have to say that your assertions of fact are not accurate. They are, at best, only half true.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2005 03:30 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you disagree then that:

1) The laws wich allows Jews who have never set foot in Israel to become citizens, set againt the laws wich prevent many Arabs who were born there from becoming citizens.

2) The Laws which make Jewish residents of the occupied territories citizens, but does not afford Arab residents the same privilage.

Yes or no?

Point One...

Are any Jews citizezns of Israel no matter where they were born? Yes.

Are Arab persons automatically citizens if they lived in Israel prior to 1948? No.

Point Two...

Jews living in the West Bank are automatically citzens allowed to vote as Israelis in Israeli elections, the country whose laws govern their lives.

Arabs living in the West Bank are not automatically citzens allowed to vote as Israelis in Israeli elections, the country whose laws govern their lives.

Is anything above stated as a fact untrue. Again I am not asking why this is the case or wether it is right or wrong, simply wether or not those are the facts.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 04:05 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Are any Jews citizezns of Israel no matter where they were born? Yes.
Actually, if you put it that way, no, they are not. I was born in Canada, and I am a Jew. But, I am not a citizen of Israel.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Are Arab persons automatically citizens if they lived in Israel prior to 1948? No.
If they live in Israel, they sure as hell are citizens (if they accept citizenship).

But, if they lived in the Land of Israel prior to 1948, and then left for whatever reason, they did not live in the State of Israel. They lived under British or Turkish or Jordanian rule. And, if they aren't residents today, why should they be citizens? I am not a citizen of Poland, Russia, Lithuania, England, or Israel.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Jews living in the West Bank are automatically citzens allowed to vote as Israelis in Israeli elections, the country whose laws govern their lives.
Partly true (I say "partly" because there is an Aliyah process for which an application needs to be filed and which can be denied under certain circumstances).

And, so what? Expatriots of all sorts of countries, including Canada, vote in the elections in their country of citizenship from abroad. So, why should Israel be different?

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Arabs living in the West Bank are not automatically citzens allowed to vote as Israelis in Israeli elections, the country whose laws govern their lives.
Some Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza may in fact be citizens. In that case, they would be allowed to vote in Israeli elections. And, all Palestinians wil be able to vote in Palestinian elections.

Otherwise, what other country in the world allows non citizens to vote? Why should Israel?

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Phonicidal ]


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 02 January 2005 04:32 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Phonocidal said, in response to moi:
quote:
I am always facinated when people talk about Israeli "laws" or "policy" without specifying which laws or policies they're referring to.
This is more than a little obtuse. Even the most cursory examination of the issue at hand would be sufficient to glean at the very least the genre of actions undertaken by Israel which would be considered Apartheid. Most specifically, to the best of my experience, are the Israeli controlled roads within the
West Bank and Gaza on which no Palestinian inhabitant of those territories are allowed to set foot. Then there are of course the military and civil tribunals used to try militants or terrorists (depending on your favoured lexicon) with utter disregard for their rights under international law.
quote:
Could you be a bit more specific about a particular Israeli law or policy that constitutes "apartheid?" If you can't, I fail to see how you can support your claim.
Here, of course, we see what you are truly up to: dissembling and obfuscation. You demand evidence while providing none; you dismiss Tutu and Mandela with a disdainful wave of the hand; you incite and provoke and contribute not a wit. I wish for you, truly, time better spent.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 04:57 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
the Israeli controlled roads within the
West Bank and Gaza on which no Palestinian inhabitant of those territories are allowed to set foot.

They are not allowed on those roads because there have been a number of shooting attacks on drivers on those roads. But, once Palestinians accept statehood those roads aren't going to just be torn up. They will serve as an important part of the fledgeling Palestinian state's infrastructure.

quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Then there are of course the military and civil tribunals used to try militants or terrorists (depending on your favoured lexicon) with utter disregard for their rights under international law.
How can you say that these proceedings are against international law if you can't demonstrate which law they are against? In an occupied territory, the occupying force is partly responsible for maintaining order. So, prosecuting terrorists is entirely legitimate. Afterall, we also have to consider the human rights of their past victims and potential future ones.

quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
You demand evidence while providing none
You're making some very serious serious accusations here. So, that's why I am asking you to back up your claims. The burdon of proof is on you.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 02 January 2005 05:13 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're going to persist in this false discussion that you enter into with the worst of all possible faith. Good enough, I can't get to sleep just yet anyways.
quote:
They are not allowed on those roads because there have been a number of shooting attacks on drivers on those roads.
You would of course be, and rightly so by the way, appalled at similar logic employed in any other context - or at least I hope you would be. For instance, should an Irish-Canadian should someone in Toronto, you would be appalled to see all Irish-Canadians banned from Toronto, would you not? Assuming that you would be appalled at such an act (I am ever inclined towards generosity) we must acknowledge that your basis for supporting such an obviously racist act is political and well, racist, in origin. You support the occupation, therefor you support those apartheid policies which perpetuate and make up the daily grist of occupation. But you know all of this as much as I do, as do most of Israel's apologists.
quote:
But, once Palestinians accept statehood those roads aren't going to just be torn up. They will serve as an important part of the fledgeling Palestinian state's infrastructure.
You know, it had never occured to me just how concerned for the Palestinian people the settler movement which demanded and got this infastructure really is. Certainly, these roads would not have anything to do with creating facts on the ground greatly disfavourable to the forementioned fledgling state. Your blatant dishonesty is really very sad.
quote:
How can you say that these proceedings are against international law if you can't demonstrate which law they are against? In an occupied territory, the occupying force is partly responsible for maintaining order. So, prosecuting terrorists is entirely legitimate. Afterall, we also have to consider the human rights of their past victims and potential future ones.
Again, intentional disingenuousity. You know full well I am referring to the Geneva Conventions which Israel consistently maintains (in the face of international legal opinion) do not apply in the Occupied Territories. I am sadly certain you will defend this, too. Blinkered as you are.
quote:
You're making some very serious serious accusations here. So, that's why I am asking you to back up your claims. The burdon of proof is on you.
You waste my time. But I enjoy exposing your furtive little game, so . . .

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 January 2005 05:42 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Phonicidal, perhaps you can tell us how much of Israel's budget goes to Arab villages (per capita) compared to Jewish towns, how much is spent on the Arab educational system, per capita, compraed to the Jewish educational system and how much Israeli Arabs receive, per capita, in health care compared to Israeli Jews? If Israeli Arabs are not second class citizens than the money spent on services for the Israeli Arab community should be consistent with that spent for the Jewish community.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2005 05:43 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually, if you put it that way, no, they are not. I was born in Canada, and I am a Jew. But, I am not a citizen of Israel.

Is there no nit you will not pick in your search for the most perfectly obtuse statement?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 05:49 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Is there no nit you will not pick in your search for the most perfectly obtuse statement?
Well, why don't you make your statements nitless?

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2005 05:56 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because there is no pleasing the witless.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 January 2005 05:59 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cute, Dr. Seuss. So now that that nit is picked, let's move on.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 January 2005 11:57 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is there anything about Israel that you would concede makes it unlike apartheid? I suspect that your answers may reveal your relative willingness to look at the issue fairly.

Is there anyuthing about Israel you will agree is like apartheid? Let's examine your ability to view the issue fairly. I notice you have already failed to anser this question once, suggesting the answer.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 02 January 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Wouldn't it be nice, for Babble 2005, to be able to put 'roid-ragin' hairy, lefty-hating he-men Patriot Warriors, who, if cute and pumped-up, have not answered their true calling and become porn stars (much to my chagrin) on automatic ignore?
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
YPK
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6780

posted 02 January 2005 12:48 PM      Profile for YPK     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You would of course be, and rightly so by the way, appalled at similar logic employed in any other context - or at least I hope you would be. For instance, should an Irish-Canadian should someone in Toronto, you would be appalled to see all Irish-Canadians banned from Toronto, would you not?

You don't seriously believe that this parallels the terrorism situation in Israel, do you? If so, you're appallingly self-deluded. Your convictions have blinded you to reason. "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." It's fascinating to see the truth of that statement played out so vividly among fringe leftists.


From: GTA | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 January 2005 01:56 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Wouldn't it be nice, for Babble 2005, to be able to put 'roid-ragin' hairy, lefty-hating he-men Patriot Warriors, who, if cute and pumped-up, have not answered their true calling and become porn stars (much to my chagrin) on automatic ignore?

Yes. It would be heavenly. Sigh. My kingdom for a twit filter.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 January 2005 02:03 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

As I pointed out, denial of citizenship and the associated rights, was a primary legal mechanism used to perpetrate the Holocaust against the Jews of Europe.

Your use of a Eichmanesque bureaucratic loophole hinging on 'citizenship' in the name of defending Israel, the Jewish state, is disgusting. Hanna Arendt is spinning in her grave, and Goebels is laughing in his.

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]



And your continued use of nazi imagery and comparisions against the Jewish state is obscene bordering on anti-Semitism.

I have asked that you reconsider such allusions if only to spare Holocaust survivors and their decsendants emotional pain should they come across this thread. That you would so callously disregard such a request and continue with these ugly nazi comparisions is unconsionable in anyone's books.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 02:10 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Is there anyuthing about Israel you will agree is like apartheid? Let's examine your ability to view the issue fairly. I notice you have already failed to anser this question once, suggesting the answer.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head. But, maybe if you give a good airtight example, I would be able to agree with you on something. Take a shot...

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 January 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha. As I thought. You support the racist regime which, as far as I have seen so far, is in keeping with your personal views.

As has been discussed with macabee on many, many occassions, Israel recognizes citizenship of Jews in the West Bank but denies the same citizenship to Palestinians living next door. That is the text book definition of Aparthied. Now please, go ahead and minimize, defend and support this racist policy.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 January 2005 02:26 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Ha. As I thought. You support the racist regime which, as far as I have seen so far, is in keeping with your personal views.

As has been discussed with macabee on many, many occassions, Israel recognizes citizenship of Jews in the West Bank but denies the same citizenship to Palestinians living next door. That is the text book definition of Aparthied. Now please, go ahead and minimize, defend and support this racist policy.


Wingy is it that you just dont read or is it that you just dont care?

It seems to me that Phonicidal already answered this query quite well when he posted above:

Originally posted by Cueball:
2) The Laws which make Jewish residents of the occupied territories citizens, but does not afford Arab residents the same privilage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Jews in that land don't care about secular government. They care about their rights to live in a part of their homeland near holy sites and on holy land. So, if it was possible for them to be citizens of "Palestine", they would be. But, all of them, other than those born there, have come through Israel to be there (I doubt many got there through Jordan or Egypt). So, they are citizens. Why shouldn't they be? If there was such a thing as Palestinian citizenship, they would probably be dual citizens. But, theroetically, there shouldn't be any more problem with Jews in an Arab state called "Palestine" than there is with Arabs in Israel.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 02:33 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
By the way, for those who believe that the West Bank and Gaza (or Israel proper, for that matter) are "Palestine", are you at all concerned that Israeli citizenship bars someone from voting in the upcoming Palestinian elections? Afterall, Israeli Arabs are allowed to vote. So, why shouldn't Jewish residents of the territories also be allowed to vote? Is the PA guilty of implementing an apartheid policy?
From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 January 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does the PA have any administrative authority at all over the Jewish residents of the OT who can't vote?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Does the PA have any administrative authority at all over the Jewish residents of the OT who can't vote?
That's a moot point. They don't have administrative authority over Israeli Arabs. But, they will be allowed to vote.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 January 2005 02:57 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's a moot point.

No it isn't. Answer the question.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 03:35 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
No it isn't. Answer the question.
It is a moot point, I explained why. And, I didn't answer the question because it was clearly rhetorical and did not require an answer.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 January 2005 04:01 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
I can't think of anything off the top of my head. But, maybe if you give a good airtight example, I would be able to agree with you on something. Take a shot...

Ok, let's try this a third time:
Phonicidal, perhaps you can tell us how much of Israel's budget goes to Arab villages (per capita) compared to Jewish towns, how much is spent on the Arab educational system, per capita, compraed to the Jewish educational system and how much Israeli Arabs receive, per capita, in health care compared to Israeli Jews? If Israeli Arabs are not second class citizens than the money spent on services for the Israeli Arab community should be consistent with that spent for the Jewish community.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 January 2005 04:06 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
That's a moot point. They don't have administrative authority over Israeli Arabs. But, they will be allowed to vote.

It's not a moot point. The settlers live in the West Bank and Gaza yet they are not considered subjects of the Palestinian authority and are considered residents of Israel, a country they do not live in. They can even vote in Israeli elections, something non-residents of Israel cannot do unless they are diplomats.

Meanwhile, Palestinians living in Israel proper are not allowed to vote in Palestinian elections (it is Israel which does not permit them to do this) and are under Israeli authority rather than Palestinian authority.

The lack of a commensurate situation on both sides is not a moot point. Israel grants extraterriorital jurisdiction to its citizens living in the West Bank and Gaza but denies extraterritoriality to Palestinians living in Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 05:25 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
It's not a moot point. The settlers live in the West Bank and Gaza yet they are not considered subjects of the Palestinian authority and are considered residents of Israel, a country they do not live in.
It is a moot point as far as my question about the Palestinian election law goes. It's moot because Palestinian Arabs in Israel are not citizens or residents of "Palestine", yet they are allowed to vote in Palestinian elections.

quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
They can even vote in Israeli elections, something non-residents of Israel cannot do unless they are diplomats.
Are you telling me that Israeli citizens who are not diplomats cannot vote in Israeli elections from, say, Canada? That doesn't sound true. Do you have a reference to support your claim?

quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
Palestinians living in Israel proper are not allowed to vote in Palestinian elections (it is Israel which does not permit them to do this) and are under Israeli authority rather than Palestinian authority.
It's my understanding that Palestinians in Israel are able to vote. There was some discussion about this. Israel was concerned about the impression that allowing Palestinians in Israel to vote in the elections would compromise Israeli sovereignty over some areas. But, the final decision was that they could vote. What sources can you provide to demonstrate the opposite?

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 January 2005 05:42 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Are you telling me that Israeli citizens who are not diplomats cannot vote in Israeli elections from, say, Canada? That doesn't sound true. Do you have a reference to support your claim?

It is true. You can only vote inside Israel itself which is why every election you have numerous Israeli citizens living abroad flying to Israel to vote. The sole exception to the rule, apart from diplomats, are settlers in the West Bank and Gaza (and merchant mariners it seems).

quote:

Israeli law does not provide for absentee ballots, and voting takes place only on Israeli soil. The sole exceptions are official Israeli envoys serving in missions abroad, and members of the Israeli merchant marine.

The JVL article overlooks the settler exception, perhaps the West Bank etc is considered "Israeli soil"?

It was my understanding that Palestinians in Israel couldn't vote in the Palestinian election for fear that the PA could then use Palestinian votes to bolster its claim to East Jerusalem. I'm interested in your source that says otherwise.

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 06:08 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
Israeli law does not provide for absentee ballots, and voting takes place only on Israeli soil. The sole exceptions are official Israeli envoys serving in missions abroad, and members of the Israeli merchant marine.
That's interesting. I didn't know that. I suppose that it is a measure designed to offset the relative ease with which some can gain Israeli citizenship. But, I am not really sure why it's relevant.

quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
It was my understanding that Palestinians in Israel couldn't vote in the Palestinian election for fear that the PA could then use Palestinian votes to bolster its claim to East Jerusalem. I'm interested in your source that says otherwise.
You've got the reasoning right. But, this critical article, for example, acknowledges that Israel is allowing Jerusalem Arabs to vote. Although it gives voice to claims that they are being "harrassed":
quote:
On Sunday the Israeli cabinet approved measures to ensure a smooth election including a gradual withdrawal of Israel defence force soldiers from West Bank cities, granting Palestinians freedom of movement, and allowing candidates to canvass in east Jerusalem.

But campaigners say they are being obstructed by the Israeli security forces.



From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 02 January 2005 06:46 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by YPK:

You don't seriously believe that this parallels the terrorism situation in Israel, do you? If so, you're appallingly self-deluded. Your convictions have blinded you to reason. "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." It's fascinating to see the truth of that statement played out so vividly among fringe leftists.


If you had read just a little further, you would have seen that I do not think the two are parallel. Though not for the reasons you do. I find it grimly logical that you would think a discussion about Israeli-only roads in the OTs is about "terrorism in Israel.. Speaking of delusions.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 02 January 2005 06:49 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would also like to acknowledge with deep appreciation the Israeli apologists who have concluded with some degree of sincerity that double-standards used to batter the Palestinians are 'moot'. I used to be angry with you people, now I hope you get over yourselves.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2005 06:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The mootness of a Palestinian narrative is, as Said often noted, an essential aspect of Zionisms opressive nature. Zionism exists ideologically entirely within framework of the Jewish experience, and as a consequence flattens anything in its way, that is not part of the experience, not so much from malevolence but from ignorance. Arab concerns simply do not exist, and if they are recognized they are secondary.

This singular cultural fixation is essential to the idoeplogical foundaion of the Zionist Apartheid.

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 January 2005 07:37 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And the above coming from someone who thinks nothing of using nazi imagery as a battering ram to make a point.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2005 07:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes the above coming from someone who understands history from the perspective of the ideas that underly tyrany, not just from the perspective of what Viktor Klemperer called narrow nationalism.

No stranger to the Nazi tyrany, as a German Jew and a resident of Dresden, he accused both the Nazis and the Zionists of sharing the same affection for 'narrow nationalism.' To make this point is not to qualify one as the same as the other, but to see the similarity of ideas that lead to the tyrany you like to pretend you oppose.

This is precisely because you share the Zionist fixation, which accounts only for the Jewish experience that I described above. What is important to you, apparently, is only the national identity of the victim, not the ideological systems that produce victims, and can make Jews just as capable of becoming the perpetrators of operession, as they are the possible victims of it.

The fact that you blindly post arguements of people that mirror those used to legally justify the Holocaust against the Jews, is a perfect example of how victim can become tyrant, and use the very same arguements to justify it.

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 January 2005 07:56 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You can believe what you want. At least I would never consider wilfully bringing pain to Holocaust survivors. You will of course forgive my "narrow nationalism".
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2005 08:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is you who are dishonouring the Holocaust victims by supporting arguements of a kind made by Eichman and others against the Jews of Europe to justify Israeli oppression of Palestinian Arabs.

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 08:35 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
It was my understanding that Palestinians in Israel couldn't vote in the Palestinian election for fear that the PA could then use Palestinian votes to bolster its claim to East Jerusalem. I'm interested in your source that says otherwise.
Apparently Israel has changed it's policy on the matter:
Israel will let Abbas campaign in E. Jerusalem

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 January 2005 08:46 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Jews in that land don't care about secular government. They care about their rights to live in a part of their homeland near holy sites and on holy land. So, if it was possible for them to be citizens of "Palestine", they would be. But, all of them, other than those born there, have come through Israel to be there (I doubt many got there through Jordan or Egypt). So, they are citizens. Why shouldn't they be? If there was such a thing as Palestinian citizenship, they would probably be dual citizens. But, theroetically, there shouldn't be any more problem with Jews in an Arab state called "Palestine" than there is with Arabs in Israel.

That is a disingenous answer not related to the question. It is the Israeli government that enforces citizenship in the West Bank and Gaza not the settlers and not the Palestinians.

It is the Israeli government that funds the settlements, builds the Jewish only roads, and sends in the IDF to support settler occupation and theft of resources from Palestinians.

I can call myself a Canadian and move to the United States, seize land in the name of John A. MacDonald, and kill any American who threatens me but the US would waste no time in bullet through my brain and the Canadian government would waste no effort in defending me.

Apartheid is simply law based on race. In the West Bank and Gaza Jews are afforded citizenship by the Israeli government and all the rights and benefits associated with that citizenship based on their being Jewsih. Palestinians are denied those same rights, are forced to use pass cards, move through checkpoints face brutalization, and humiliation and have no legal rights only because they are not Jewish.

You can obfuscate and lie and make excises for racism all you like but it remains as ugly and real as it always has been.

It is apartheid and it is a crime against humanity and the defenders of this insipid eveil regime are equally complicit in the atrocities committed in its name.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 January 2005 11:37 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It is you who are dishonouring the Holocaust victims by supporting arguements of a kind made by Eichman and others against the Jews of Europe to justify Israeli oppression of Palestinian Arabs.

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]



Right...

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 January 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is exaactly right. Jews had there citizneship stripped. The Nazi authorities argued that as they were not German they could be treated differently. Your article argues that because Arabs of the West Bank are not Israelis they can be treated differently.

Stop defending the arguement.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 12:31 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Jews had there citizneship stripped. The Nazi authorities argued that as they were not German they could be treated differently. Your article argues that because Arabs of the West Bank are not Israelis they can be treated differently.
The difference is that the Jews in Germany were German and saw themselves as such, whereas Palestinians in the territories (and even some in Israel) do not see themselves as Israelis or as living in Israel. You're comparing pomegranates and potatoes.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 January 2005 12:46 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So are you suggesting that Zinoist Jews who saw themselves first as Jews, first and formost were fair game for the SS, because they didn't "see themselves" as German? Just look at what you are forcing yourself to argue. Give it up.

You have no idea what you are talking about. They absolutely see themselves as citzens of the land they were born in, which is now defined as Israel. What do you think this dispute is about anyway, ethics? They may not wich to call that country Israel but they definitely claim citizenship.

You are playing games. Many of those people who have lesser rights, whom live in refugee camps in the West Bank, would under any normal ciizenship laws be citizens of Israel because they were born within its boundaries, and by that I mean on the Israeli side of the Greeen Line.

Israel neve had the right to srtip them of there citizenship in the first place. Just beacuse Germany changed its name after Hitler came to power, does not mean that persons living there did not have a right to citizenship, and equal rights with any other person whith a genuine claim, such as birth.

Israel? Palestine? The name means nothing what is essential is the fact that many refugees living in the West Bank have a direct claim through birth to citizenship, not just to a future Palestinian but to Israel proper, as they were born within the territory known as Israel.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
They may not wich to call that country Israel but they definitely claim citizenship.
Exactly which sovereign country do the Palestinians believe they belong to? In fact, the land that has been known as "Palestine" in the past was never under the sovereign control of any group identifying themselves as "Palestinians." The UN doesn't seem to think that they belong to any country. Isn't sovereignty a prerequisite to citizenship?

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Israel? Palestine? The name means nothing what is essential is the fact that many refugees living in the West Bank have a direct claim through birth to citizenship, not just to a future Palestinian but to Israel proper, as they were born within the territory known as Israel.
For many, it wasn't known as Israel when they were born. So, why should that segment be granted Israeli citizenship? And, the West Bank is not considered part of the State of Israel, so why should the Palestinians there be granted citizenship?

I am beginning to understand your motives now. You would like all Palestinians to be granted Israeli citizenship so that they can vote in Hamas at the leaders of the state. Nice try.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 January 2005 01:13 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am beginning to understand your motives now. You would like all Palestinians to be granted Israeli citizenship so that they can vote in Hamas at the leaders of the state. Nice try.


You are nuts.

And you agree then that the German state had the right to do whatever it wanted with Zionist Jews, given that they identified themselves as Jews primarily and not Germans, and the fact that they were born in German territory has no baring on their rights or their status a citizens, which can be adjusted by the state as it wishes on the basis of race, and ethnicity as defined by race laws, which gave preferential treatment to Aryans.

This is logical since you are arguing that Palestinians would prefer to live in a Palestinian state, and as such have no right to be identified as Israeli citizens, just as Zionists living in Germany in the 30's might prefer to live in a Jewish state, and as such have no right to be identified as Germans. Given that non-citizens may be accorded second class rights, according to you, it would seem that German treatment of Zionist Jews, deportation, forced evictions, etc. etc, would AOK.

Again, denial of citizenship is the primary mode through which Zionist Apartheid works.

quote:
For many, it wasn't known as Israel when they were born. So, why should that segment be granted Israeli citizenship? And, the West Bank is not considered part of the State of Israel, so why should the Palestinians there be granted citizenship?

You are arguing that Israeli Jews who were born in the Palestine Mandate prior to the creation of Israel should also have their cizenship removed as "it wasn't known as Israel when they were born," and that Jewish settlers living in the West Bank should also have their citizenship stripped as "the West Bank is not part of the State of Israel?"

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 January 2005 01:36 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
I am beginning to understand your motives now. You would like all Palestinians to be granted Israeli citizenship so that they can vote in Hamas at the leaders of the state. Nice try.

I didn't think I could be astounded by statements in this forum. I am, unfortunately, proven wrong by your statement.

You have shown that there is no limit to how low you will sink in your base accusations based on extreme overgeneralizations not only about the Palestinian-Arabs, but also about the denizens of this forum.

You spiteful little creature. Get out of my sight.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 January 2005 01:46 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wasn't that offended.

This little off-colour outburst seemed to be am expression of desperation evoked by the moment when the ideological substruct cold no longer support the argued construct. A sharp retaliatory outburst could be expected as a means to re-affirm the solvency of the ideological underpinnings of the parnoid racialist fear and nationalist meta-amphetamines, wich are the essential motivation for all this circular nonsense that Phonicidal would like as to contrue as clever arguementation.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 01:47 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Again, denial of citizenship is the primary mode through which Zionist Apartheid works.
Open your eyes and mind for a split second. Ready? Are you sure? OK...

Apartheid occurs within one state between two peoples. You are talking about the rights seperate peoples in seperate land. Your comparisson is silly. Your argument might be a bit more logical if you were referring to Arabs and Jews in Israel, not Jews in Israel and Arabs outside of Israel. Your use of the word "apartheid" in this case is just silly.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You are arguing that Israeli Jews who were born in the Palestine Mandate prior to the creation of Israel should also have their cizenship removed as "it wasn't known as Israel when they were born," and that Jewish settlers living in the West Bank should also have their citizenship stripped as "the West Bank is not part of the State of Israel?"
I am not arguing that anybody have their citizenship removed. If you are not going to try to comprehend my arguments, why should I even try explaining anything to you?

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 January 2005 01:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Palestinians who have left the region of Israel proper to reside in the West Bank, are not afforded citizenship of Israel, then why can Jews who have left the region of Israel proper to reside in the West Bank be afforded Israeli citizenship?

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 January 2005 08:21 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It is exaactly right. Jews had there citizneship stripped. The Nazi authorities argued that as they were not German they could be treated differently. Your article argues that because Arabs of the West Bank are not Israelis they can be treated differently.

Stop defending the arguement.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


It should now be clear to everyone that your obsessesive use of nazi imagery against Jews and Israelis has put you over the line.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 January 2005 08:26 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
If Palestinians who have left the region of Israel proper to reside in the West Bank, are not afforded citizenship of Israel, then why can Jews who have left the region of Israel proper to reside in the West Bank be afforded Israeli citizenship?

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


If you leave Canada to reside in Belgium, are you still a Canadian citizen?,

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 January 2005 08:45 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
It should now be clear to everyone that your obsessesive use of nazi imagery against Jews and Israelis has put you over the line.

You're emoting again. Give a logical argument if you'd like to, but emoting gets ignored, sorry.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 January 2005 08:58 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Forgive my emoting. Can't help myself. Given the fact that I am a child of Holocaust survivors I have a bit of a preoccupation with those who obsess over nazi imagery.

Not that I would ever expect you to understand or sympathize.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 03 January 2005 09:17 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
*tsk* ... now where's that picture of that manure spreader when I need it...?
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 January 2005 09:27 AM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is disgusting how callous and for lack of a better word mean we are on this thread and on others to anyone whose opinions differ from our own.

In this thread and others what I am about to describe has occured by both pro-Israel and pro-palestinian babblers. Here are a couple of examples

If someone asks a question for clarification we attack.
If evidence is given to support an argument we attack.
And in this latest case if someone condemns the use of Nazi imagery a moderator calls that emoting. Rather than accepting the fact that racist imagery is hurtful to all and is something that we as progressives fight to eliminate.

Very simply people...grow up. We all write things to get a rise out of someone. The problem is that when it works we then attack them for responding in the mannor that we wanted.

Why don't we try to make it a new years resolution to try to understand why people take some comments so personally and at least emphasize with them.

Edited to add:
Why is it that we spend so much time attacking ourselves rather than taking a step back and seeing that all we are really doing is lenghthening the divide that already exists in the progressive community.

Now everyone flame me as I know that you will.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2005 09:32 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now everyone flame me as I know that you will.

Wow, miles. Way to undermine your own resolution before you've even finished your first post, eh?

Thanks a lot for your faith.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 January 2005 09:46 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Miles you are asking to be flamed by saying now flame me. And I fear that your message will be lost based on your last comment.

But your message echos what a lot of us wrote in a previous thread about what is wrong with babble.

It seems that on a lot of threads that surround heated topics posters are attacked for who they are regardless of what they say.

Then again sometimes we are so heated in our arguing that we only see an issue based upon those that are with us and those that are not.

It is too bad that we can never find grey area not necessarily on the subject matter but at least in accepting differeing points of view from the various posters.

Not everyone who presents an oposing point of view is a jackass.

Miles did Skdadl fall into a trap you tried to set?


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 January 2005 10:03 AM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
edited because I may be about to encounter the definition of lunacy which is continually doing the samething to no better result

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2005 10:12 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
miles and jpj: do you consider what I wrote to be a "flame"?

Y'know, I consider broadside insults to all other babblers to be several steps worse than anything I've posted. And one of the reasons some other posters react even more intensely than I did is that they feel insulted too by people who come here only to slag babble, to rabbit on and on about how bad things are here, to police those who may be "crossing lines."

Why don't some of those now tied up in their own little melodramatic knots try RESPECTING THIS BOARD first of all. Many of us are here because we like babble and want to see it nurtured, not policed or spammed. If that's not you, then recognize that you are likely to run into a little friction when you start off by insulting us and then whine and cry because we aren't grateful to be insulted.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 January 2005 11:31 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually I have always been against censorship but at the same time have thought that self control and the ability for humans to take responsiblity for their own actions is the most important thing.

I for one have never advocate, requested or wanted any censorship or big brother looking down at the posts.

Rather I would like to see individuals think before posting.

Maybe just maybe as Skdadl pointed out I am too idealistic in my belief that we can all control what we say in our posts alleviating the need for outside discipline from even moderators.

I have been as guilty as anyone but as I stated in a Pm to someone I am atleast going to try to do a better job.

But back on topic: Is Israel an apartheid state? I really do not knwo because my only example of evidence was South Africa where it was enshrined in Law and did not involve any territory that depending on whose side you are on is either occupied or was won in battle.

That being said. Are Palestinians treated the same as the average Israeli...no. Does this equate to apartheid I am not sure.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 12:22 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
If Palestinians who have left the region of Israel proper to reside in the West Bank, are not afforded citizenship of Israel, then why can Jews who have left the region of Israel proper to reside in the West Bank be afforded Israeli citizenship?
Because Jews in the West Bank accept Israeli rule and laws and contribute to Israeli society through taxes etc. The Palestinians in the West Bank, whether they previously lived in the British Mandate, the State of Israel, or originally lived in the West Bank, do not.

If Palestinians in the WB and Gaza were offered Israeli citizenship, do you think they'd accept it? If Israelis were offered "Palestinian Citizenship" (in quotes because there is not yet such a thing as a Palestinian state to be a citizen of) would they accept it? No, and no. Your question is silly to begin with.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 03 January 2005 01:29 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's try this a fourth time:

Ok, let's try this a third time:
Phonicidal, perhaps you can tell us how much of Israel's budget goes to Arab villages (per capita) compared to Jewish towns, how much is spent on the Arab educational system, per capita, compraed to the Jewish educational system and how much Israeli Arabs receive, per capita, in health care compared to Israeli Jews? If Israeli Arabs are not second class citizens than the money spent on services for the Israeli Arab community should be consistent with that spent for the Jewish community.

Macabee, feel free to try your hand too


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 January 2005 01:36 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If Palestinians in the WB and Gaza were offered Israeli citizenship, do you think they'd accept it?

Is it being offered? Because I think the vast majority would grab at it.

In your defence of racism you display an astounding ignorance of Aparthied. Part of Aparthied was teh Bantu states where South Africa could claim the black residents were not citizens of the nation that routinely sent armed forces in to repress them or used security apparatus to torture and kill them.

You can deny it, but Israel today is no different than the Afrikaan government of yesterday.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 03 January 2005 01:45 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Btselem, the Israeli human rights organisation certainly seems to think that there is apartheid. Check out many of their publications dealing with this (open: Pick an issue on the bottom left; there are many with implications in relation to the topic of this thread):
http://www.btselem.org/index.asp

One such issue is the right, or absence thereof, to use roads:

"...B'Tselem's investigation indicates that the roads subject to the regime may be classified into three categories based on the severity of the restrictions on Palestinian travel on these roads: completely prohibited, partially prohibited, and restricted use roads.

Completely prohibited roads - The first category consists of roads for the exclusive use of Israeli citizens. This includes what the IDF calls "sterile roads" where the prohibition against Palestinian travel is explicit and obvious: Israel places a staffed checkpoint through which only Israeli vehicles are allowed to pass. This category also includes roads on which travel is not possible, or pointless, because the access roads leading to and from Palestinian villages are blocked.

Partially prohibited roads - The second category includes roads on which Palestinians are allowed to travel only if they have special permits issued by the Civil Administration, or if the identity cards of the driver and passengers indicate that they are residents of villages entirely dependent on the road on which they are traveling.

Restricted use roads - The third category includes roads on which Palestinian vehicles are allowed to travel without a special permit, but access to the roads is restricted by concrete blocks and other obstacles. In most cases, a driver who wants to get onto the road has to go to an intersection where soldiers check the vehicles and persons wanting to use the road.

The roads regime is enforced through a variety of means: an aggressive and discriminatory enforcement of the traffic laws against Palestinians only, prolonged delays of Palestinians, and confiscation of Palestinian vehicles with no due process. As a result, many Palestinian drivers refrain from using even those roads nominally open to them...."

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/Forbidden_Roads_2004.asp

"special permits issued by the Civil Administration, or if the identity cards of the driver and passengers indicate that they are residents of villages entirely dependent on the road on which they are traveling."

Remember South African pass laws and how they were used?



From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2005 01:46 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If Palestinians in the WB and Gaza were offered Israeli citizenship, do you think they'd accept it? If Israelis were offered "Palestinian Citizenship" (in quotes because there is not yet such a thing as a Palestinian state to be a citizen of) would they accept it? No, and no. Your question is silly to begin with.

Y'know, this is comical. This discussion has now come full circle.

It began with Phonicidal complaining that settlers in West Bank towns cannot vote in elections for the PA.

And he seemed to think that he had made a point there, even when he conceded that West Bank settlements aren't part of the PA.

That was some distance back. Now he is saying that anyone who expects the settlers to think of selves as part of the PA is "silly."

Well, like ... yeah?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 January 2005 06:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Because Jews in the West Bank accept Israeli rule and laws and contribute to Israeli society through taxes etc. The Palestinians in the West Bank, whether they previously lived in the British Mandate, the State of Israel, or originally lived in the West Bank, do not.

Your powers of ESP, even exceed, your abilities in circular tautology, I see. You know that all Arabs asking for return do not want to become Israelis? What survey did this piece of news derive from?

Accroding to you arguement any Arab who agreed to accept Israeli citizenship should, theoretically, if they lived previously within the borders of what is now Israel, be allowed right of return, if they agree to be Israelis.

Arabs who are demanding 'right of return' are obviously asking to be returned to Israel, where they would be given Israeli citizenship. There has never been any question that those Arabs 'returned' are asking to return as as Arab Israelis, of which there are a number. Where has anyone said that Arab returned would not be Israelis, living under Israeli laws and paying taxes to the state of Israel. It is not extraordinary.

Also you should know that before the PA came into existence Arabs of the West Bank paid taxes to the Israeli governing authority, and lived under Israeli law. Probably not. Does that mean they should have been awarded citizenship, even in 1989, since they paid taxes and were governed by Israel, as you say is the case for settlers. But this is just another exmaple of how your flatulent self-serving dependence on legalistic technicalities kills your arguements even as you make them.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 06:35 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You know that all Arabs asking for return do not want to become Israelis?
I wouldn't say "all." I'm sure some would.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Accroding to you arguement any Arab who agreed to accept Israeli citizenship should, theoretically, if they lived previously within the borders of what is now Israel, be allowed right of return, if they agree to be Israelis.
I wouldn't say that any Arab should be allowed to return to Israel. But, I don't object to some returning, provided that they actually did live in Israel and did not leave willingly.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Does that mean they should have been awarded citizenship, even in 1989, since they paid taxes and were governed by Israel
It's a moot point since that's not what happened, they are not citizens of Israel now, and the PA is recognized by Israel and the world as the representatives of the Palestinian people.

How many Arabs in the territories would you estimate would wish to move to Israel and be citizens?


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 January 2005 06:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I wouldn't say that any Arab should be allowed to return to Israel. But, I don't object to some returning, provided that they actually did live in Israel and did not leave willingly.

But the Jewish settlers living in the West Bank have left Israel willingly. Should they not also have their Israeli citizenship revoked?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 08:03 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
But the Jewish settlers living in the West Bank have left Israel willingly. Should they not also have their Israeli citizenship revoked?
Well, they don't believe that they have left Israel at all. And, as long as they are still committed to Israeli society they should be citizens, just as a Canadian who moves to the USA may be able to retain their Canadian citizenship rather than renounce it.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 03 January 2005 08:05 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, they don't believe that they have left Israel at all.
Do you?

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 January 2005 08:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well in the last thread on this subject he argued:

quote:
This isn't about bureaucracy. It's about law. If the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel, it's not just a matter of not wanting to grant citizenship to Palestinian Arabs. As long as you argue that Israel has no right to occupy that land, Israel is not legally entitled to grant citizenship to the inhabitants (assuming they would accept it).

It would seem, as Phonicidal argues, that Israel has no right to offer citizenship to persons living in the West Bank. One would assume that would include Jewsih expatriots.

quote:
Well, they don't believe that they have left Israel at all. And, as long as they are still committed to Israeli society they should be citizens, just as a Canadian who moves to the USA may be able to retain their Canadian citizenship rather than renounce it.

Just as Arabs whom have left the terrrotory of Israel (wilingly or not) should be able to return to the villages where they were born and re-claim the citizenship they are entitled too through right of birth.

But they are not, and that is because they are Arabs not Jews, and as Phonecidal has proved again and again, that is why Israel is an Apartheid state.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 January 2005 10:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca