As I have told you many times before I stay razor focused on the topic under discussion and I never let anyone obfuscate. You responded to my post about citizenship with a quote about voting rights. They are related but citizenship rights do not automatically mean voting rights for all. As an example, women were citizens in the US, but they did not have voting rights until the women's suffrage movement succeeded. Even today, children below a certain age cannot vote even though they are citizens. Therefore:
1. Your response is not a response to my post at all regarding citizenship. Black South Africans, did not have citizenship in Natal, Transvaal and the Orange Free State provinces of S.A. In Cape Colony, 99.99% of Black South Africans did not have citizenship. Less than 1%, of Blacks were allowed to vote and have some citizenship privileges, if they met certain income and property ownership criteria. The Natives Land Act of 1913, further restricted black land ownership to designated reserves, which constituted only 7% of S.A 's land, which further reduced the 1% to near ZERO. The 1948 Apartheid govt. pretty much put the nail on the coffin of what little the black South Africans had. So no, for all practical purposes, almost ALL Black South Africans neither had citizenship or voting rights even prior to 1948.
2. We are comparing apartheid in South Africa, to apartheid in the West Bank. Therefore, it is not a logical argument to say that just because Palestinians did not have voting rights in the past because they lived under the Ottomans or the British colonial empire , it isn't apartheid to deny them basic civil rights TODAY. That is a non-sequitur. In the past, they were free, all over present day Israel even if they did not get to vote. Today the territory is controlled by Israel, and they are not free. Hence, the fact that they did not have voting rights or citizenship in the past, in no way justifies the segregation, apartheid and denial of basic civil rights in the present.
I dont think I have to repeat my comparison again. Now that I have actually educated you on both the history of South Africa, and how your argument is essentially a non-sequitur, it is time for you to change your mind.
There are many crimes that the UN has not adopted a resolution for. That does not mean those crimes do not exist. Again, a non-sequitur.
It is valid to bring up the topic of the Armenian Genocide because it is acknowledged as a genocide. However the UN has not adopted a resolution for it. As I mentioned in my response above, the absence of a UN resolution on the Armenian Genocide does not take away from the fact that the Genocide actually happened. Similarly, the absense of a UN resolution against apartheid in the west bank in no way takes away from the fact that apartheid in fact exists.
I dont list anybody because I dont need to list them. My arguments are factually and historically correct and a cursory search will prove that to you. Yours aren't as I have repeatedly fact checked you. So you repeatedly rely on your buddies at the bingo hall for moral support while calling them educated etc when in reality they are usually laughed at by other members. Therefore your opinion or the opinions of your right wing buddies will always be irrelevant.
