Every sovereign country in the world has the autonomy to decide on who they wish to bestow citizenship.
It's not apartheid. It's international law.
Munk Debate on Zionism
- Thread starter shack
- Start date
It's not apartheid. It's international law.
The way South Africa used their autonomy to declare that black South Africans weren't citizens?
Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Do you prefer to call the new plans concentration camps or banthustans?
Indeed. Most Gulf States have strict laws on who can or cannot be a citizen. They don't bullshit the world by calling themselves "democracies".
Don't change the topic.
You are agreeing that the UN told Hamas to return the hostages, unconditionally. That means that what Israel does is irrelevant to Hamas returning the hostages. It is NOT a condition for disobeying the order. Orders to Hamas are independent of orders to Israel. They are not linked. So, let's talk about Hamas first and then we'll talk about Israel.
Hamas has not returned the hostages from Oct.7. First, you condemn Hamas for disobeying the UN orders. After that, Israel.
How many times can you be so wrong? From Wiki:
Segregation of coloured voters In 1951 Parliament passed the Separate Representation of Voters Act, which removed coloured voters from the common voters roll
This is documented history and it is contrary to your claims. You are clearly ignorant in regards to this history. Education is more important than your self-admitted anti-Semitism if you want to win a debate on the topic.
You now know that this is wrong. Unlike the blacks in S. Africa, Palestinians have NEVER had the right to vote and were NEVER citizens. Those things never existed. As the old blues men used to sing, "You can't lose what you ain't never had."
Totally different situations as per your newfound education. Hence there is no apartheid against certain/Arab Israeli citizens.
All I have to show is that the UN passed a resolution in 1963 against S. African apartheid, which I've previously done. They have not done so with Israel. If the UN felt Israel was guilty of apartheid, history (there's that inconvenient word for you) shows that they would pass a resolution saying so.
More than one topic at a time is too much for you. We were already talking about apartheid and now you're throwing in genocide. As such genocide is irrelevant for this discussion. Don't be like Geno.
You never fail to amaze me how flawed and adolescent your arguments are. I'm not going to lower myself to your level and embarrass myself the way you do to yourself. My opinion of you is backed up by at least a handful of intelligent, educated and respected posters. I can understand why you don't want to list Amoeba and Geno as proof of your deficit in intellect, grasp of logic and being factually accurate.
History shows that blacks had a vote but it was taken away by apartheid. You need to change history to prove your point.
Seriously? That is idiotic.
The actual reason that they don't called themselves democracies is because they are monarchies. Hahahahahaha.
That is the most STOOPID statement I've ever read. But thanks for the laugh and reaffirming my statement that every sovereign state has the right to decide who becomes citizens and that Israel has the same right. You agree that Geno's claim that Israel MUST bestow citizenship on Palis/Gazans is patently false.
Its the same subject, Shazi.
Why on earth would you think only one side has to abide by the UNSC resolutions?
Hamas isn't even a state or UN member, the UN has no jurisdiction on them.
Israel is a member and as such is the party that must abide by UNSC resolutions.
As a member they must also abide by ICJ provisional measures.
Even so, Hamas sent in a letter saying they'd abide and Israel has refused to do so.
Instead, Netanyahu declared he's more interested in some kind of final solution.
Netanyahu says he won't agree to a deal that ends the war in Gaza, testing the latest truce proposal
His latest comments come at a sensitive time and could represent another setback for mediators trying to end the war.
apnews.com
Israel has the choice to remain apartheid just as the world had a choice in sanctioning South Africa to end apartheid.
Israel had a choice to commit genocide and continue the occupation.
You just have to accept the consequences of turning zionism into the new nazis.
I didn't say that. They are 2 different countries and take different actions and as such, they require different commentaries. There are many times that you've discussed Israel without mentioning Hamas.
What is your commentary on Hamas as a single entity defying UN orders? Or are you too afraid to criticize them? (Actually, that's a rhetorical question. We know you won't. You do not have the integrity to tell the truth.)
Which means that they can kill and rape with impunity. That also shows that your calls to send both sides to the ICJ is just bullshit. Sending Hamas to court means nothing.
You are never honest and every post/tweet/picture are fraudulent. You continually lie and I just proved it about your call to send Hamas to court.
Yes, the UN lead that charge by passing the 1963 resolution against S. African apartheid.
Why aren't they doing that now with Israel? Until they do so this proves that your claims of Israeli apartheid are bullshit. You need to start being honest.
Hamas is not a country. They are the government of Gaza under Israeli military occupation.
Palestine is a UN member, they would have to abide by UN resolutions but not Hamas.
Israel is defying more UN resolutions than any other country in the world.
They are a pariah state, illegally occupying Palestine, still trying to take more land through colonization, ruling through apartheid and committing genocide.
Israel is a terrorist state presently attacking 4 other countries, they are a danger to world peace.
Israel has killed more children, more journalists, more UN workers and more civilians than any other country this century.
Israel is the problem.
They are, they are just slow.
The Implications of An ICJ Finding that Israel is Committing the Crime Against Humanity of Apartheid
Reconstituting the U.N. Special Committee Against Apartheid and the Group of Three should be given due consideration.
www.justsecurity.org
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.
Last edited:
Gobbledygoop.
So why have you been calling for Hamas to be taken to the international court? Just pure BS.
The UN ordered HAMAS to return the hostages. Do you condemn them for disobeying? The UN says that it's the proper thing to do.
You said blacks never had the vote in S. Africa. I provided the act that took away their vote in 1951. That is historical fact. Your claim is wrong no matter how much you pretzel. From wiki: Segregation of coloured voters In 1951 Parliament passed the Separate Representation of Voters Act, which removed coloured voters from the common voters roll
Your answer is now saying that voting rights don't mean voting rights. The most amazing pretzel ever. How do you function in this world? BTW, I didn't mention citizenship. I said that blacks who previously had the vote had it taken away because of apartheid and backed it up.
At this point you are descending to the depths of dumbassery. I don't have your experience in that realm. Enjoy talking to yourself as you cement your widely accepted and deserved reputation as someone of low intellect who cannot follow the facts in a debate..
The UN ordered Israel to ceasefire.
How are you supposed to return hostages when Israel is killing everyone on the streets?
May your life be forever followed by the families of those you back killing.
May you never rest without being called a zionist again.
I'm constantly amazed that you can find new levels of stupid and evil to sink to, Shazi.
Trying to argue that South Africa wasn't really apartheid so that you can claim Israel isn't apartheid is a brand new low.
The UN, which you love to quote, says Israel is apartheid, the occupation illegal and Israel committing genocide.
Who could possibly care about your supremacist rationalizations when they can read the legal documents on the UN and at the ICJ and ICC.
Its way beyond you trying to argue they are wrong.
You're just a Shazi trying to make yourself feel better even though you know what you've become.
Israel proposed along with the US. Hamas rejected it.
That's not Israel's problem. The UN specifically ordered Hamas to return the hostages unconditionally. Are you saying that the UN is being unfair to Hamas?
