Because genocide did not start with Nazi Germany.
Apartheid, a S. African word, started in S. Africa. You're welcome.
Name what you're looking for something else. It has evolved from what S. African policy was. They are not the same.
Arab Zionism. Hamas/Hezbollah/Palestinians (some, not all)
- Thread starter shack
- Start date
Apartheid, a S. African word, started in S. Africa. You're welcome.
Name what you're looking for something else. It has evolved from what S. African policy was. They are not the same.
Your ignorance is astounding.
That's a lot of yelling about an idiotic assumption that you'd realize is idiotic if you read the reports, the charges and the law.
There is no new name, no new rules.
Amnesty, UN, HRW, B'teselem et al all refer to the internationally recognized definition of apartheid.
Really, just stop with these idiotic rants until you do your basic homework
It just makes you look ridiculous.
75 years of occupation says otherwise.
So do Amnesty, HRW, UN, B'tselem and the rest of the world.
So S. Africa's policy dictated definition was about 25 years earlier.
1)Did S. Africa refer to that convention when they decided what their policies would be?
2)Very much means that it was different. Hence the nomenclature needs to be changed to reflect those differences.
Oh, look. S. Africa disagreed with the convention. They knew that the UN's interpretation was wrong.
From Wilkipedia:
four against (Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States)
Thanks for you help in disproving your racist rhetoric.
Just give it up, its a stupid argument.
Israel is apartheid, whining about the name is pathetic.
read the reports
Israel's apartheid against Palestinians
Palestinians are systematically subjected to home demolitions and forced evictions, and live in constant fear of losing their homes. For more than 73 years, Israel has been forcibly displacing entire Palestinian communities. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians’ homes have been demolished...
www.amnesty.org
A Threshold Crossed
The 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” examines Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It presents the present-day reality of a single authority, the Israeli government, ruling primarily over the area between the Jordan River and...
Apartheid
The Israeli regime enacts in all the territory it controls (Israeli sovereign territory, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip) an apartheid regime. One organizing principle lies at the base of a wide array of Israeli policies: advancing and perpetuating the supremacy of one group –...
Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory is ‘apartheid’: UN rights expert
Calling on the international community to accept and adopt the recent findings in his report, an independent human rights expert said on Friday that “apartheid is being practiced by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory”.
Like Israel disagrees with it?
All you prove is that guilty people try to deny their guilt.
Really, just stop with these idiotic rants until you do your basic homework[/QUOTE]
It just makes you look ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]Insults without facts proves you know you've lost the debate.
As you've tried using over and over. I've demonstrated how that doesn't prove anything. They changed what apartheid means from what S. Africa's laws and policies said it means. You have no actual facts to logically disprove my premise.
I know that there's no new name yet. There needs to be because the UN's parameters for what comprises apartheid is different than what S. Africa said they were according to their policies. An evolved species has new names.
All the different names for man as he's evolved.
H. habilis and H. gautengensis
H. rudolfensis and H. georgicus
H. ergaster and H. erectus
H. cepranensis and H. antecessor
H. heidelbergensis
H. rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium
Neanderthal and Denisovan
H. floresiensis
H. luzonensis
H. sapiens
The parameters for what is apartheid changed from how S. Africa designated it to how the UN tried to designated it. It needs a new name.
Their actions created the definition. And their actions mirrored exactly the wording of their policies and laws.
You're not really serious are you? Hahahaha.
You're scraping the bottom of the semantics barrel. Your arguments are getting more and more pathetic.
Another thing I noticed is that my justifications for my argument that this is not the classic S. African definition of apartheid and needs a new name have been 100% consistent. I have not needed to waver. You and fringie keep getting rebuffed by my stance and keep needing to try a new approach. It's an admission that each time you change it's because your previous attempts were bullshit and did not in any way disprove my point.
You need facts and logic instead of relying on an arbitrary body, the UN, making an arbitrary definition based on arbitrary parameters.
You CANNOT disprove that the UN's definition is a new animal/species.
BTW, here's a question. What is the problem with, what is so difficult about coming up with a new name? My theory is that you don't want to give up the stigma that comes with that name. You want to misappropriate that definition even though your definition is a bastardization of what S. Africa intended.
It just makes you look ridiculous.
I'll gladly chip in to buy you a sandwich board, a sharpie and a bus ticket to the Hague.
Then you can tell them all what's what.
good luck
Until then, you get more ridiculous every day.
Islam in Israel - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Look, Kauty! Actual facts!!!
Discrimination
In a 2015 survey, 79% of Arabs say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims in Israel. 38% of Muslims report having experienced at least one incident of discrimination within 12 months, including being questioned by security officials (17%), being prevented from traveling (15%), physically threatened or attacked (15%), or having suffered property damage (13%) because of their religion.
The survey also asked about positive interactions, slightly more than a quarter (26%) of Israeli Muslims saying a Jew has expressed concern or sympathy toward them in the past year because of their religious identity.[14]
Jewish public opinion is divided on whether Israel can serve as a homeland for Jews while also accommodating the country’s Arab minority. Nearly half (48%) of Israeli Jews say Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, including roughly one-in-five Jewish adults who strongly agree with this position.[14]
Arab citizens within Israel have equal rights and may become parliamentarians, judges, diplomats, public health officials, and IDF generals.[23]
Arab citizens of Israel - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
2000–present
Arab Israelis from Shefa-'Amr demonstrating in front of the Haifa court building with Palestinian flagsTensions between Arabs and the state rose in October 2000 when 12 Arab citizens and one man from Gaza were killed while protesting the government's response to the Second Intifada. In response to this incident, the government established the Or Commission. The events of October 2000 caused many Arabs to question the nature of their Israeli citizenship. To a large extent, they boycotted the 2001 Israeli Elections as a means of protest.[52] This boycott helped Ariel Sharon defeat Ehud Barak; as aforementioned, in the 1999 elections, 94 percent of Israel's Arab minority had voted for Ehud Barak.[59] IDF enlistment by Bedouin citizens of Israel dropped significantly.[60]
During the 2006 Lebanon War, Arab advocacy organizations complained that the Israeli government had invested time and effort to protect Jewish citizens from Hezbollah attacks, but had neglected Arab citizens. They pointed to a dearth of bomb shelters in Arab towns and villages and a lack of basic emergency information in Arabic.[61] Many Israeli Jews viewed the Arab opposition to government policy and sympathy with the Lebanese as a sign of disloyalty.[62]
In October 2006, tensions rose when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert invited a right-wing political party Yisrael Beiteinu, to join his coalition government. The party leader, Avigdor Lieberman, advocated an ethnicity based territory exchange, the Lieberman Plan, by transferring heavily populated Arab areas (mainly the Triangle), to Palestinian Authority control and annexing major Jewish Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank close to the green line as part of a peace proposal.[63] Arabs who would prefer to remain in Israel instead of becoming citizens of a Palestinian state would be able to move to Israel. All citizens of Israel, whether Jews or Arabs, would be required to pledge an oath of allegiance to retain citizenship. Those who refuse could remain in Israel as permanent residents.[64]
In January 2007 the first non-Druze Arab minister in Israel's history, Raleb Majadele, was appointed minister without portfolio (Salah Tarif, a Druze, had been appointed a minister without portfolio in 2001). The appointment was criticized by the left, which felt it was an attempt to cover up the Labor Party's decision to sit with Yisrael Beiteinu in the government, and by the right, who saw it as a threat to Israel's status as a Jewish state.[65][66]
During the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis widespread protests and riots intensified across Israel, particularly in cities with large Arab populations. In Lod, rocks were thrown at Jewish apartments and some Jewish residents were evacuated from their homes by the police. Synagogues and a Muslim cemetery were vandalized.[67] Communal violence including "riots, stabbings, arson, attempted home invasions and shootings" was reported from Beersheba, Rahat, Ramla, Lod, Nasiriyah, Tiberias, Jerusalem, Haifa and Acre.[68]
Since the outbreak of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Israel has carried out mass arrests and detentions of Palestinian workers and Arab citizens of Israel.[69][70] On 5 November 2023, CNN reported that "dozens" of Palestinian residents and Arab Israelis were arrested in Israel for expressions of solidarity with the civilian population of Gaza, sharing Quran verses, or expressing "any support for the Palestinian people".[71] Haaretz described the widespread targeting of Arab Israelis by Israeli security forces.[72] Referring to "hundreds" of interrogations, El País reported on 11 November that Israel increasingly treats its Arab minority as a "potential fifth column".[73]
I read that and I see a lot of inter community tension and inequality. None of that is "apartheid" though.
I'm ridiculous because you refuse to accept the UN's definition is different than how S. Africa defined it so therefore they are not the same thing. Sorry there. Try living in this world and accept reality, not your BS.
You calling me ridiculous is a compliment because you can't win this debate. I have proven that when things evolve/change, they get new names, which is the case here. For you it's UN. UN. UN. You're a one trick pony and that pony's got a broken leg. I had to put it down. The corrupt and prejudiced UN is a farce.
I've moved straight ahead with a consistent message. The parameters with which the UN designates apartheid has differences than what S. Africa instituted. I have not wavered.
Gaslighting. They were always citizens but all of a sudden they were citizens with fewer rights, ONE of which losing the right to vote.
Gaslight. All citizens of Israel have equal rights.
Of course it is more valid because the policies that they instituted were what they called apartheid. It's even a S. African word. What the UN proposes is something different. It evolved. It needs a new name.
You showed me nothing more than the inability to disprove my point. Israel may be guilty of some things, but not apartheid. It never has instituted apartheid. All citizens have equal rights in Israel.
Your new name is NOT a name. You are still using the word apartheid but designating that policy as being illegal. The problem is that the UN changed what apartheid means. It needs to be the crime of ____some other name but not apartheid. The crime of murder vs. murder. Murder is murder is murder. You are just telling us that it's illegal BUT IT IS THE SAME MURDER. Unfortunately for you, you are using different "apartheids".
It is you and the UN using semantics. You are the ones changing the wording of what apartheid is comprised of. I have been 100% consistent. If you change terms, then you have changed the definition such that you are dealing with a new entity. That requires a new name. That's my argument from day one and you are twisting yourself in a knot trying to disprove my point. You are failing miserably.
I have nothing to back out of. What you are calling apartheid by Israel is very different than the apartheid that was the policy used by S. Africa. That is exactly why you can't use the same word for two different things. You just proved my point. You need to come up with a new name.
You are arguing to the Nth degree because you so badly want the stigma of apartheid applied to Israel. You want to demonize because you hate Jews. Own up to it. If I am wrong about your motivation please tell us why you are so opposed to using a new name for something that is different? Manslaughter is not murder but it still sends somebody to jail.
But I'm quite sure that I am 100% correct. You want that stigma applied to Israel.
Last edited:
I have repeated the same simple points over and over. You refuse to comprehend.
You love using that word irrelevant when you have nothing to counter with. I say the world is round. You say the world is flat. I then show a picture proving that the world is round. That is where you would say "That's irrelevant,"
Balderdash. S. Africa had their "official" definition. You prefer using somebody else's "official", once again proving my point. The definitions are different. Since S. Africa had been using their definition decades earlier, the UN needs to find a new name for their definition. Let them know.
Gaslight, they are very different. S. African apartheid was only applied within S. Africa. The UN definition is more widespread.
Gaslight. they are different. See above.
I agreed to no such thing.
Watch me. I deny that they are both true.
My message has been consistent and unwavering.
Because you say so? Too funny.
So by maintaining my points consistently, that means I'm backing out? You are desparate.
Gaslight. You are sounding more and more like frank, trying to put words in mouth.
I will give you credit for pretty much addressing all my points. That is allll except one.
Unsurprisingly you refused to explain your motivation as to why you insist on using the term apartheid even though what S. African laws comprising their apartheid differ were different than what the UN laid out. Coming up with a different name is sooo easy and would remove any ambiguity.
Obviously I was correct in my speculation that the only reason is that you want to carry the horrible stigma associated with that word/policy and attach it to Israel. You and the UN want to demonize Israel. You cannot do that without using that word. It is just more propaganda from people like you.
But thank you for admitting I am right as displayed by the fact you answered every other point in my post but conveniently (meaning intentionally) avoiding that one. The hate and lack of integrity is completely transparent.
No, I didn't dick shoot. I left it in deliberately to be fair.Yup, they MAY. But they don't. Because they are treated like second class citizens, with enormous systemic racism and discrimination.
From your own excerpt, below. Talk about shooting yourself in the dick.
Thank you for providing proof of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
In a 2015 survey, 79% of Arabs say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims in Israel. 38% of Muslims report having experienced at least one incident of discrimination within 12 months, including being questioned by security officials (17%), being prevented from traveling (15%), physically threatened or attacked (15%), or having suffered property damage (13%) because of their religion.
Nearly half (48%) of Israeli Jews say Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, including roughly one-in-five Jewish adults who strongly agree with this position.
It's pretty clear that Muslims encounter discrimination in Israel. But that's not apartheid.
Hell, that's not even "Alabama in 1955" level repression.
Show me some proof that Muslims can't eat in Jewish restaurants or have to piss in their own washrooms?
Show me some proof that Muslims are beaten and lynched if they try to vote?
Blacks in South Africa couldn't vote.
Is Israel fucked up?... Yes. Who caused the fuckage?.... Well, both sides. Because extremist Zionists are extremists and bigoted. And Muslims - because Jews have every reason to believe that the Muslim down the road might kill their kids because.... it actually happens regularly. So why should Jews treat Muslims as co equal partners when Muslims are pretty much non-committed to any solution other than kicking Jews out of their own country?
And yeah, it's the Jews' country as much as the Muslims now. Because 100 years of living there and building the place.
You mean like Israel does?
Is it only bad when Palestinians do it?
