Israeli apartheid

Nodin

Mr. SS wrote: »

was it not jordan and egypt who created those borders? effectively taking the land off israel?.

No, the borders were recognised by the international community. They were larger than any previous proposal for an Israeli state.

Mr. SS wrote: »

As was said previously, the term apartheid is based on race, many words change meaning over time but "religious apartheid" would be more suited.

Semi-apartheid, apartheid-like, "apartheid", apartheidesque......I'd be a bit more concerned with the treatment that leads to such terms being coined than what variation of the word is used, personally speaking.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

The above includes ethnicity, which I then provide an defintion for:
So, seeing as your own defintion of racial includes ethnicity, and as per my own provided defintion of ethnicity, Palestinain and Israeli's are racial groups. Now, how about addressing this point, and not ignoring it, as you have in the last few posts. I won't be dropping this.

Ethnicity from oxford:

"Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological."

essentially separate from the main race/nation, in exactly the same fashion as travellers are an ethnic group here, but they are not their own race, and therefore are not discriminated upon in terms of race but in terms of ethnicity.

You saying palestinians and israelis are ethnic groups backs up my point further because the discrimination also exists in relation to palestinian christians, who would be different again, however the common discriminatory factor is religion and not race.

Now that you have a link between race and ethnicity you are clinging to it, however there is a diference as oxford have outlined.

Extending ethnicity to race is akin to extending Irish to European, it is a section of the whole but the whole is not part of the section. And hence the generalisation cannot be made

wes wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You claimed I am trying to avoid accepting the term "apartheid", I am simply asking, when I accept the wrongs of Israel, where is the gain for my argumant by rejecting this term?

As I said before, I believe you think that in the public eye there is greater importance on racial than religious discrimination, and so you use the term racist as opposed to religiously discriminatory because it holds more weight. You accusing me of trying to avoid the term apartheid because of its racial conutations confirms this belief to me.

Mr. SS

Nodin wrote: »

No, the borders were recognised by the international community. They were larger than any previous proposal for an Israeli state.



Semi-apartheid, apartheid-like, "apartheid", apartheidesque......I'd be a bit more concerned with the treatment that leads to such terms being coined than what variation of the word is used, personally speaking.

I accept that, but being in a heated debate with wes where definitions hold such importance, I cant give ground here! im far more concerned with the treatment also. Your ease is refreshing!

I realise the IC recognised the border but were they not established by Jordan and Egypt the day after Israel anounced independence.

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

Ethnicity from oxford:

"Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological."

essentially separate from the main race/nation, in exactly the same fashion as travellers are an ethnic group here, but they are not their own race, and therefore are not discriminated upon in terms of race but in terms of ethnicity.

You saying palestinians and israelis are ethnic groups backs up my point further because the discrimination also exists in relation to palestinian christians, who would be different again, however the common discriminatory factor is religion and not race.

Now that you have a link between race and ethnicity you are clinging to it, however there is a diference as oxford have outlined.

Extending ethnicity to race is akin to extending Irish to European, it is a section of the whole but the whole is not part of the section. And hence the generalisation cannot be made

Your defintion for racial includes ethnicty, and Palestinian as a an ethnic group would fall under your defintion for racial. I fail to see how this new defintion of ethnicity changes anything, as racial still include ethnic groups, as per your own defintion. Also, Palestinain do constitute a nation of people as well btw.

Also discrimination against Palestinian regardless of Religion goes complete against your point of Religous discrimination. All Palestinian are discriminated agianst, regardless of Religion or lack there of. There is no exception for Secular Palestinians, so the discrimination is on a racial basis.

Mr. SS wrote: »

You claimed I am trying to avoid accepting the term "apartheid", I am simply asking, when I accept the wrongs of Israel, where is the gain for my argumant by rejecting this term?

I have no idea. Perhaps, you should ask yourself this question, especially when you are disregarding your own definitions when it doesn't suit your arguement.

Mr. SS wrote: »

As I said before, I believe you think that in the public eye there is greater importance on racial than religious discrimination, and so you use the term racist as opposed to religiously discriminatory because it holds more weight. You accusing me of trying to avoid the term apartheid because of its racial conutations confirms this belief to me.

Discrimination is discrmination. It doesn't really matter either way. Still what Israel does is racism. Its a simple matter of being accurate, and I used the various defintions you provided to back up my assertion.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

Your defintion for racial includes ethnicty, and Palestinian as a an ethnic group would fall under your defintion for racial. I fail to see how this new defintion of ethnicity changes anything, as racial still include ethnic groups, as per your own defintion.

Because now you have generalised ethnicity to race, and Oxford's definition says you cannot do that. you have said that ethnic discrimination is discrimination based on race. What you are doing is saying that because travellers are an ethnic group of irish people, they are being discriminated on by race, which they are not. All you have to do is use the correct terms, is it that hard.

wes wrote: »

All Palestinian are discriminated agianst, regardless of Religion or lack there of. There is no exception for Secular Palestinians, so the discrimination is on a racial basis.

Palestinian Jews are not discriminated against, therefore it is not on the basis of race.

wes wrote: »

Discrimination is discrmination. It doesn't really matter either way. Still what Israel does is racism. Its a simple matter of being accurate, and I used the various defintions you provided to back up my assertion.

Discrimination on religious grounds is religious discrimination.

It suits your argument to use race because it holds more weight. Most native Israelis and native palestinians are the same race, so how could it based on race? How can one be racist against their own race! its simply hilarious!

Agreed that discrimination is bad either way, I just want you to call it what it is.

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

Because now you have generalised ethnicity to race, and Oxford's definition says you cannot do that. you have said that ethnic discrimination is discrimination based on race. What you are doing is saying that because travellers are an ethnic group of irish people, they are being discriminated on by race, which they are not. All you have to do is use the correct terms, is it that hard.

Your own earlier defintion of racial included ethnicity:

I also have a definition for racial:

"Arising from or relating to ethnicity or difference in race",

So is the above accurate or inaccurate then? The above is your defintion, and now you are saying it is wrong, as I have pointed out that it doesn't support you arguement.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Palestinian Jews are not discriminated against, therefore it is not on the basis of race.

Is there a significant group that calls them Palestinian Jews, care to back that up?

Mr. SS wrote: »

Discrimination on religious grounds is religious discrimination.

Yes, of course it is. I have never said otherwise.

Mr. SS wrote: »

It suits your argument to use race because it holds more weight. Most native Israelis and native palestinians are the same race, so how could it based on race? How can one be racist against their own race! its simply hilarious!

Race is a social construct, both groups consider themselves to be seperate races, and as such there can be racial discrimination. Its absurd that you continue to deny this fact for reason only you know.

Also, as I said before discrimination any grounds is just as bad as any other.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Agreed that discrimination is bad either way, I just want you to call it what it is.

Same here, and I am calling it exactly what it is, and I eve used your own defintion to prove my point, before you back tracked on it.

Once again the defintion you provided, which clearly included ethnicity:

I also have a definition for racial:

"Arising from or relating to ethnicity or difference in race",

You clearly taught that was a good defintion, until I showed that you contradicted your claims.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

Your own earlier defintion of racial included ethnicity:

Yes, it included ethnicity. My point is that it is religious discrimination.

wes wrote: »

So is the above accurate or inaccurate then? The above is your defintion, and now you are saying it is wrong, as I have pointed out that it doesn't support you arguement.

I never said it was wrong, just that Israel is not doing it.

wes wrote: »

Race is a social construct, both groups consider themselves to be seperate races, and as such there can be racial discrimination. Its absurd that you continue to deny this fact for reason only you know.

Scientific evidence that Jews and Arabs are the same race or "population" (as you don't believe in race):

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html

*edit* Quote from study: "Palestinians and Jews are virtually indistinguishable."

And the conclusion of the report that Ive been touting this whole time: "This is a religious conflict, not a genetic one." *edit*


So, how can one be racist against his own race?

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

Yes, it included ethnicity. My point is that it is religious discrimination.

No, it was in your defintion of racial:

Mr. SS wrote: »

Considering you operate in a land of your own definitions and insist on accepting Israel's word when in any other situation you would cast it aside, I also have a definition for racial:

"Arising from or relating to ethnicity or difference in race",

You brought up ethnicity in your defintion for racial, not me. Again, by your own defintion, what I am saying is correct.

Mr. SS wrote: »

I never said it was wrong, just that Israel is not doing it.

Scientific evidence that Jews and Arabs are the same race or "population" (as you don't believe in race):

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html

*edit* Quote from study: "Palestinians and Jews are virtually indistinguishable."

So, how can one be racist against his own race?

Once again seeing as race is a social construct, and both side consider themselves to be different races, and hence they can be racist towards on another.

Also, your own defintion of racial includes ethnic groups, and your own defintion ot ethnic groups, includes national groups, both of which the Palestinians are.

I don't dispute your information above btw, I have actually post similar things myself in the past. Again, race is a social construct, a perception of being different racially is enough for people to discriminate against one another. The 2 sides consider themselves to be different races, which is of course silly considering they are the same people, but the fact remain is that Palestinian are considered to be not Jews in Israeli law, otherwise they would be allowed to return. Israel's law are on the basis of race, and hence racist, whether they are correct about the race or not doesn't matter. What matter is they discriminate on the basis of precieved racial differences, which is covered under the defintion or racism:

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
rac·ism
   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

As can be seen above, a "belief" of difference is enough for there to be racism. The above defintion make it very clear, that Israel belief in racial difference can be racist. So the main thrust of your arguement hold no water, when you actually look at the meaning of the word racism, which I used in the correct manner, as per the definition of the world.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

Once again seeing as race is a social construct, and both side consider themselves to be different races, and hence they can be racist towards on another.

Denying a genetic study? Can you even prove race is a social construct?

wes wrote: »

Also, your own defintion of racial includes ethnic groups, and your own defintion ot ethnic groups, includes national groups, both of which the Palestinians are.

Palestinian jews have right citizenship as this very anti-israel jew points out: Showing that once again it is about religion and not race and therefore is not racist:

http://lists.portside.org/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=ind0411c&L=portside&T=0&P=1486

This man is so anti Israel he will not even stand under the flag, and considers himself palestinian, part of the palestinian nation, says that what Israel does is apartheid, everthing about him is palestinian yet he is still entitled to citizenship and is free from discrimination because he is Jewish, concluding with the scientific evidence that this conflict is about religion.

wes wrote: »

What matter is they discriminate on the basis of precieved racial differences, which is covered under the defintion or racism:

From Oxford:
"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races."

Once again I ask the question, how can you be racist towards your own race?

The difference is that I operate under the definitions of hard science and actual biology. You are operating under a sociological concept! This makes our debate impossible and hence we are repeating ourselves.

karma_

Mr. SS wrote: »

Denying a genetic study? Can you even prove race is a social construct?

Palestinian jews have right citizenship as this very anti-israel jew points out: Showing that once again it is about religion and not race and therefore is not racist:

http://lists.portside.org/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=ind0411c&L=portside&T=0&P=1486

This man is so anti Israel he will not even stand under the flag, and considers himself palestinian, part of the palestinian nation, says that what Israel does is apartheid, everthing about him is palestinian yet he is still entitled to citizenship and is free from discrimination because he is Jewish, concluding with the scientific evidence that this conflict is about religion.


From Oxford:
"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races."

Once again I ask the question, how can you be racist towards your own race?

The difference is that I operate under the definitions of hard science and actual biology. You are operating under a sociological concept! This makes our debate impossible and hence we are repeating ourselves.

Is your whole argument about the use of the word 'apartheid' and not the fact that there is discrimination?

Seems a bit pedantic, no?

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

Denying a genetic study? Can you even prove race is a social construct?

I didn't deny anything. I already proved that race is a social construct, by referring to the Human Genome project findings.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Palestinian jews have right citizenship as this very anti-israel jew points out: Showing that once again it is about religion and not race and therefore is not racist:

http://lists.portside.org/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=ind0411c&L=portside&T=0&P=1486

This man is so anti Israel he will not even stand under the flag, and considers himself palestinian, part of the palestinian nation, says that what Israel does is apartheid, everthing about him is palestinian yet he is still entitled to citizenship and is free from discrimination because he is Jewish, concluding with the scientific evidence that this conflict is about religion.

Your source is another message board/email list? I am sorry, but you have to be joking.

Also, a single person is not a significant group. A single person does not a group make, but nice try.

Honestly, you grasping at straws here, especially when what you post doesn't back up your arguement and where the person you point out actively disagrees with you, as evidence by them calling Israel an apartheid state.

Mr. SS wrote: »

From Oxford:
"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races."

Once again I ask the question, how can you be racist towards your own race?

Again, a perception/belief of racial difference is enough for there to be racism, as per the defintion I provided earlier. Also, genetic similarities are irrelevant as race is a social construct.

Mr. SS wrote: »

The difference is that I operate under the definitions of hard science and actual biology. You are operating under a sociological concept! This makes our debate impossible and hence we are repeating ourselves.

I am operating under hard science. The concept of race is sociological one. The Human Genome project clearly shows that all Human Beings share 99% the same DNA e.g. 2 African share 99% the same dna, as does an African and a European, who will also share 99% the same dna. You have yet to provide any evidence to dispute this. Race is a social construct, and there is no real evidence imho that suggests otherwise.

Irlandese

wes wrote: »

You are making no sense what so ever.



I asked several questions in the following post:
Post 571

Can you please show me where you answered the questions I posed to you. I have already checked btw, and you did not answer a single question, I asked. So, I am asking your to retract the above false statement regarding me, or I will have to report your post for once again saying something false about me.



More irrelevant nonsense.

Look, friend, I am not about to waste time responding to someone's posts given to immature histrionics, with such posts dramatically spouting loose accusations like " hurling insults" and all re a joking pun on your pen-name or earlier commenting on "armchair warriors" or something similar.
Go on, complain to whoever you like. It is a free country and Scofflaw is a certainly a very reasonable moderator. It is a quite puerile and ridiculous re-action, but, like the use of hyperbole in "hurling insults" , it perhaps exposes much more about the poster's maturity and grasp on reality than you realise.

Before I go though, I have to thank you for the belly laugh you gave me with the bit about you "operating under hard science". What film did you get that silly line from ? I mean it. Your posts are really a laugh. Then the bit; "I didn't deny anything. I already proved that race is a social construct, by referring to the Human Genome project findings." is another howl. You probably don't realise or even care that you are crossing posts with some obviously rather experienced and informed posters, re accademic standards, if I read Anymore and SS correctly. I hold some serious quals myself, but prefer not to crow. However, given your comments, it is fair to say that we all show much more respect for accademic rigour in our posts than can be observed in yours.
I seperate the posts from the poster, in being thus so critical. Remember that when you run to mod !
have a nice day !

wes

Read the following via Juan Coles Informed comment blog:

http://www.elviscostello.com/news/it-is-after-cosiderable-contemplation/44

It is after considerable contemplation that I have lately arrived at the decision that I must withdraw from the two performances scheduled in Israel on the 30th of June and the 1st of July.

One lives in hope that music is more than mere noise, filling up idle time, whether intending to elate or lament.

Then there are occasions when merely having your name added to a concert schedule may be interpreted as a political act that resonates more than anything that might be sung and it may be assumed that one has no mind for the suffering of the innocent.

I must believe that the audience for the coming concerts would have contained many people who question the policies of their government on settlement and deplore conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians in the name of national security.

Elvis Costello joins Sting, Carlos Santana, and other in boycotting Israel. Looks like there after the IDFs assault on Gaza, where they targetted civlians as per the Goldstone report, has made people aware of Apartheid that exists there, where 1.5 million people are virtually imprisioned.

Scofflaw

Irlandese wrote: »

Look, friend, I am not about to waste time responding to someone's posts given to immature histrionics, with such posts dramatically spouting loose accusations like " hurling insults" and all re a joking pun on your pen-name or earlier commenting on "armchair warriors" or something similar.
Go on, complain to whoever you like. It is a free country and Scofflaw is a certainly a very reasonable moderator. It is a quite puerile and ridiculous re-action, but, like the use of hyperbole in "hurling insults" , it perhaps exposes much more about the poster's maturity and grasp on reality than you realise.

Before I go though, I have to thank you for the belly laugh you gave me with the bit about you "operating under hard science". What film did you get that silly line from ? I mean it. Your posts are really a laugh. Then the bit; "I didn't deny anything. I already proved that race is a social construct, by referring to the Human Genome project findings." is another howl. You probably don't realise or even care that you are crossing posts with some obviously rather experienced and informed posters, re accademic standards, if I read Anymore and SS correctly. I hold some serious quals myself, but prefer not to crow. However, given your comments, it is fair to say that we all show much more respect for accademic rigour in our posts than can be observed in yours.
I seperate the posts from the poster, in being thus so critical. Remember that when you run to mod !
have a nice day !

Have a nice week off. Use it to consider the notions of 'constructive engagement' and 'maturity'.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Mr. SS

karma_ wrote: »

Is your whole argument about the use of the word 'apartheid' and not the fact that there is discrimination?

Seems a bit pedantic, no?

My point is that wes is calling it racial discrimination when it is not, in an effort to gain more sypathy for the cause i can only presume.

karma_

Mr. SS wrote: »

My point is that wes is calling it racial discrimination when it is not, in an effort to gain more sypathy for the cause i can only presume.

Apartheid by any other name.

Congratulations for successfully obstructing any actual meaningful debate about the discrimination that does take place in Israel.

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

My point is that wes is calling it racial discrimination when it is not, in an effort to gain more sypathy for the cause i can only presume.

Again, it is racial discrimination under any reasonable defintion of the term, including some of your own provided defintions.

You are simply incorrect, and I have already stated my reasons for disagreeing with your, so stop saying I am trying to gain more sympathy, as I have already clarified my reasons.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

I didn't deny anything. I already proved that race is a social construct, by referring to the Human Genome project findings.

Scientific proof please.

wes wrote: »

Your source is another message board/email list? I am sorry, but you have to be joking.

Its from a catholic newspaper in toronto. You need the subscription to see proper format.

wes wrote: »

Also, a single person is not a significant group. A single person does not a group make, but nice try.

which in fact validates my point that once they are Jewish they are not considered Palestinian. But here is a jewish group supporting the creation of a single Palestinian state and the end of Zionism.

http://news.spirithit.com/index/europe/more/jewish_group_backs_palestinians_on_al_aqsa/

wes wrote: »

Honestly, you grasping at straws here, especially when what you post doesn't back up your arguement and where the person you point out actively disagrees with you, as evidence by them calling Israel an apartheid state.

True he doesnt back up what I say, but that is irrelevant and is testament to its use.

The point being made was that even though he is a member of the palestinian "race", as argued by you, he should face discrimination, but he does not because he is jewish, again showing that the issues are about religion. The muslims, druze and christians and jews of the area are all the same race, but the latter discriminates the formers on the basis of their religion.

wes wrote: »

I am operating under hard science. The concept of race is sociological one. The Human Genome project clearly shows that all Human Beings share 99% the same DNA e.g. 2 African share 99% the same dna, as does an African and a European, who will also share 99% the same dna. You have yet to provide any evidence to dispute this. Race is a social construct, and there is no real evidence imho that suggests otherwise.

HA! are you saying that because humans are 99% the same it means that race as a social construction is therefore proven!!! That is a long way from science buddy!

Humans share 96% of their DNA with Chimps for gods sake! the only thing the HGP showed is that there is a 1% difference! and that difference is big enough to change the external apperance of a human being to be distinctly different from another.

Mr. SS

karma_ wrote: »

Apartheid by any other name.

Congratulations for successfully obstructing any actual meaningful debate about the discrimination that does take place in Israel.

If you go back about six pages you will see where I said I was finished discussing this. It kept reappearing.

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

Scientific proof please.

I provided it a long time ago, from a reputable source as well.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Its from a catholic newspaper in toronto. You need the subscription to see proper format.

which in fact validates my point that once they are Jewish they are not considered Palestinian. But here is a jewish group supporting the creation of a single Palestinian state and the end of Zionism.

http://news.spirithit.com/index/europe/more/jewish_group_backs_palestinians_on_al_aqsa/

Yes, as I said before race is a social construct.

Also, the link doesn't back up any of your claims and its inclusions make no sense at all. Honestly, you are making no sense at all to me.

Mr. SS wrote: »

True he doesnt back up what I say, but that is irrelevant and is testament to its use.

No, its actually completely relevant, as it shows that even your own chosen sources don't back you up, and that your claims make no sense at all.

Mr. SS wrote: »

The point being made was that even though he is a member of the palestinian "race", as argued by you, he should face discrimination, but he does not because he is jewish, again showing that the issues are about religion. The muslims, druze and christians and jews of the area are all the same race, but the latter discriminates the formers on the basis of their religion.

You are attributing an argument to me that i never made. Genetically, there is only the Human Race, everything else is a social construct.

So everything you say above doesn't make any sense, as your arguing against something i never claimed.

Mr. SS wrote: »

HA! are you saying that because humans are 99% the same it means that race as a social construction is therefore proven!!! That is a long way from science buddy!

Once again you mis-represent my argument. Once again, Humans regardless of so called race, are 99% the same. People of the same race, and of different races are 99% the same. I am saying that genetic similarity between Humans is consistent between the so called race.

Again, you need to actually address what i am saying, and not what you come up with yourself.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Humans share 96% of their DNA with Chimps for gods sake! the only thing the HGP showed is that there is a 1% difference! and that difference is big enough to change the external apperance of a human being to be distinctly different from another.

Nope, actually it also showed that the 1% difference is consistent, regardless of so called race. Why you constantly ignore this argument is beyond me. I have shown time and again that race has not genetic basis, and you have constantly ignored the argument I have actually made, and substituted your own claims which you then wrongly attribute to me.

**EDIT**
Anyway, I have said my piece, and I won't concede my point, and will continue to accurately refer to Israel treatment of Palestinians as racist, and refer to Israel as an a apartheid state, until such time as they end there racist policies towards the Palestinians.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

I provided it a long time ago, from a reputable source as well.

This is science, which shows diference in genetic makeup between not only races but tribes:

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/...-jews-and.html

Why do you deny science?

By the way how is it possible to scientifically prove a sociological concept as you have claimed? another hilarity.

wes wrote: »

Yes, as I said before race is a social construct.

You are yet to prove this. an antropology study does not prove a sociological concept.

wes wrote: »

You are attributing an argument to me that i never made. Genetically, there is only the Human Race, everything else is a social construct. So everything you say above doesn't make any sense, as your arguing against something i never claimed.

I misunderstood that part but it is completely irrevlevant as the study above points out, there are clear differences in the genetics of people between races, not just across the "human race", which is my point.

Read that link, it basically concurs with everything I say up to and including its conclusion on the holy land conflict being about religion and not race.

wes wrote: »

Once again you mis-represent my argument. Once again, Humans regardless of so called race, are 99% the same. People of the same race, and of different races are 99% the same. I am saying that genetic similarity between Humans is consistent between the so called race.

1% is consistant? Can you offer evidence (for example) that the genetic difference between two neighbours in Norway and a man from angola differ by one percent each equally?

You honestly don't believe that the two neighbours would share more genetics in common than the man from angola??? Who needs science, a child could tell you tell you that! and so does that study by the way, you should have a read.

Acurately refer away. But as science shows, Jews and palestinians are the same race and it is impossible to be racist against your own race.

It is not needed for you to conceed the point when science is on my side.

Mr. SS

Mr. SS wrote: »

I misunderstood that part.

Looking back I didnt misunderstand it, sorry, the 1% difference still stands as being able to create external differences in humans apperance. sorry.

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

This is science, which shows diference in genetic makeup between not only races but tribes:

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/...-jews-and.html

Why do you deny science?

When did I deny science? Why do you continue to attribute views to me that I never said.

Also, again you link doesn't even back up any of your claims as per usual, and I never denied it the first time you posted the same link. Also, your link in no way shape or form, backs up any of your claims, nor does it even address any of the various points I have brought up.

Mr. SS wrote: »

By the way how is it possible to scientifically prove a sociological concept as you have claimed? another hilarity.

Well, i think you continued denial of the fact of Israel inherent racism is hilarious, and levels of obfuscation you have gone to deny it.

Suffice, to say race has no real basis in science. Human Beings are all basically the same.

Mr. SS wrote: »

You are yet to prove this. an antropology study does not prove a sociological concept.

I linked to no study on anthropology, but I did link the Human Genome Project, which was not a anthropology study.

Mr. SS wrote: »

I misunderstood that part but it is completely irrevlevant as the study above points out, there are clear differences in the genetics of people between races, not just across the "human race", which is my point.

Read that link, it basically concurs with everything I say up to and including its conclusion on the holy land conflict being about religion and not race.

No, it doesn't concur with anything you have said actually. It proves a common ancestry between Jews and Palestinians, which does not dispute anything I have said regarding race.

Mr. SS wrote: »

1% is consistant? Can you offer evidence (for example) that the genetic difference between two neighbours in Norway and a man from angola differ by one percent each equally?

Link was provided pages ago. I see no reason to re post it again.

Mr. SS wrote: »

You honestly don't believe that the two neighbours would share more genetics in common than the man from angola??? Who needs science, a child could tell you tell you that! and so does that study by the way, you should have a read.

Again, the Human Genome project has already proven all my claims.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Acurately refer away. But as science shows, Jews and palestinians are the same race and it is impossible to be racist against your own race.

It is not needed for you to conceed the point when science is on my side.

Science is not on your side. You have yet to debunk the Human Genome project, get back to me when you have done so.

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to dispute any of the finding of Human Genome project. So get back to me when you have some proof.

Here is my earlier link again:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/research/sequencing.shtml

When you can debunk those finding with a proper attributed sources, that actually addresses the finding within, then your claims will have a leg to stand on.

You have however, completely disregarded the Human Genome Project, and never bothered to address any of the finding found with in, which is the basis of my argument, which you have continually ignored, and you have constantly falsely attributed positions to me again and again.

So, I expect you debunk the above, and not just avoid it like you have done for the last several pages, of constant obfuscation, avoidance, and constant denial, of your own links which don't even back up any of you claims. Not to mention definitions, which you provided, that I showed clearly back up what i said, which you then proceeded to again obfuscate and then dismiss.

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

Looking back I didnt misunderstand it, sorry, the 1% difference still stands as being able to create external differences in humans apperance. sorry.

Yes, and variation was discussed in the link, I posted several pages ago, and posted again above. I am not making this stuff up, I actually backed this all up several pages ago. I referred to a well known project, that has been peer reviewed, and whose results are trusted by scientists, and provided a link to a summary of there results several pages ago.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

Again, the Human Genome project has already proven all my claims. Science is not on your side. You have yet to debunk the Human Genome project, get back to me when you have done so.

When have I denied the HGP? I did not, and is not necessary to prove my point.

You are yet to prove that race is a social construct. Where are we, about ten posts later? any evidence at all?

Oh and the HGP has nothing to do with race as a social construct so stop offering it as evidence.

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

When have I denied the HGP? I did not, and is not necessary to prove my point.

You are yet to prove that race is a social construct. Where are we, about ten posts later? any evidence at all?

Oh and the HGP has nothing to do with race as a social construct so stop offering it as evidence.

I offered the Human genome project to show that there is no genetic basis for race. Also, I never said you denied it either btw, so why you ask the above question is beyond me. Now you instead just didn't bother to address the central component of my argument, which readily admit to. Of course, by ignoring it, you never really addressed my argument, and were never to disprove my claims by doing so.

Also, what point? Most of the stuff you linked didn't back up anything you said (in fact a lot of it said the opposite of your claims), and didn't even debunk any of my claims either. In fact you pretty much ignored what I said, and posted random articles, and claimed I denied them, and yet I never did so, and in fact accepted them.

Again, you are completely ignoring my entire argument. My whole point is that there is no Genetic or biological basis for race, and I showed the findings of the Human Genome Project to back this up. We are all basically the same. Now do you dispute the finding of the Human Genome project regarding race or not? If you do, can you provide peer reviewed source, that debunks it.

Now, seeing as race has no basis in Genetics, then it is clearly something we Human came up with i.e. a Social construct. This is what my entire argument has rested on, and I have repeated it several times. i have clearly explained my reasoning again and again. I used the science, and came to a reasoned conclusion based on the evidence, as have many others, once they realize there is no genetic basis for race.

I have also shown that what Israel is engaged in is racial discrimination. i used your own definition of racial to show that Palestinians are a racial group, and I also used your own definition of apartheid, to confirm that as well. i have more than proven my point, again and again. No amount of pointless obfuscation changes the fact, that Israel is an apartheid state, and it is an apartheid state even under the definition you picked.

Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid'

The above link is from a man who knows all about Apartheid. A man who lived through it, and a man who is better placed than anyone here to judge what is and isn't apartheid. Israel is an apartheid state, and I have more than proven that a dozen times over, and even done so using your provided definition.

I have no clue why you continue this pointless obfuscation, and continued denial of basic realities of this conflict. Which is a conflict over land by 2 different racial groups as per your definition btw, which you then did your best to once again obfuscate.

The Israeli's discriminate against all Palestinians, they don't stop to ask what Religion they are, they don't care, and this confirmed day in and day out by Israel actions, and the words of there leaders. This is the reality, and no amount of denial can change this.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

My whole point is that there is no Genetic or biological basis for race.

Heres one for you M. F. Hammer (2000). Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97 (12), 6769-6774 DOI

Now why are thousands of scientists studying something you claim doesnt exist? ie the different genetic make up of races.

Jews and mid east non-jews share common gene pool, as in separate to other gene pools as in Genetically Different! why do you say there is no genetic basis for race then?

wes wrote: »

Now, seeing as race has no basis in Genetics

the graph above pretty much destroys that argument. different races=different genetics. Funny that, I didnt know you could plot a "social construct"!!!

wes wrote: »

then it is clearly something we Human came up with i.e. a Social construct.

Ah so you just assumed it is a social construct. And by the way could you direct me to where the HGP says race has no basis in genetics?

wes wrote: »

I have also shown that what Israel is engaged in is racial discrimination. i used your own definition of racial to show that Palestinians are a racial group, and I also used your own definition of apartheid, to confirm that as well. i have more than proven my point, again and again. No amount of pointless obfuscation changes the fact, that Israel is an apartheid state, and it is an apartheid state even under the definition you picked.

Once again given that apartheid was a system based on race, and jews and palestinians are the same race, therefore it cannot be racist. However, academic and common usage are two different things and I will not hold this thread up anymore by objecting to you calling it "apartheid", many others do the same.

wes wrote: »

The Israeli's discriminate against all Palestinians, they don't stop to ask what Religion they are, they don't care, and this confirmed day in and day out by Israel actions, and the words of there leaders. This is the reality, and no amount of denial can change this.

Not Jewish palestinians, as they are in fact offered full Israeli citizenship. Once again demonstrating that religion is the main thing at play here.

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

Heres one for you M. F. Hammer (2000). Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97 (12), 6769-6774 DOI

Now why are thousands of scientists studying something you claim doesnt exist? ie the different genetic make up of races.

Jews and mid east non-jews share common gene pool, as in separate to other gene pools as in Genetically Different! why do you say there is no genetic basis for race then?




the graph above pretty much destroys that argument. different races=different genetics. Funny that, I didnt know you could plot a "social construct"!!!

Why are you repeating things, that i have never disagreed with? I full accept the above links. I just disagree with your conclusions.

There is no genetic basis for race, as we are all consistently 99% the same regardless of race.

The above information does not support your assertion of race having a genetic basis, what it does establish is a common ancestry for the 2 groups. Which I of course accept, as stated the last 3 or 4 times you brought it up.

I have answered you question dozens of times already. Why are you still asking the same question. i won't give a different answer. Now, can you debunk the findings of the Human Genome project? Of course not, as it there finding are well accepted fact.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Ah so you just assumed it is a social construct. And by the way could you direct me to where the HGP says race has no basis in genetics?

I have already mentioned it several times. Why are you asking question for things i have answered several times? Again, all Human are 99% the same regardless of race. i have already answered this question a dozen times. Why are you asking the same thing over and over again. I will keep giving the same answer.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Once again given that apartheid was a system based on race, and jews and palestinians are the same race, therefore it cannot be racist. However, academic and common usage are two different things and I will not hold this thread up anymore by objecting to you calling it "apartheid", many others do the same.

Yes, Jews and Palestinians are the same race, as are Europeans, Africans, Indians etc. We are all part of the Human race.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Not Jewish palestinians, as they are in fact offered full Israeli citizenship. Once again demonstrating that religion is the main thing at play here.

Nope, its all about the land. Everything else is just the same old tired excuses, Human have used to butcher each other.

Again, what Israel does is racial discrimination, and I already showed that as per the definition your provided of the term racial, that this is indeed the case. You are of course, going through the exact same obfuscation, that you have done so for last 7 or 8 pages, and asking the same questions, that I have already answered dozens of times.

We are going in circles again and again. I have already proven my point, and I even used your own definitions of apartheid and racial to do so. I have answered the same question again and again, and I won't give a different answer.

Posting the exact same argument again and again, won't elicit a different response from me. I know I am right, and have proven so several times, and I even used your own definition etc to do so.

The Saint

Mr. SS wrote: »

Discrimination on religious grounds is religious discrimination.

OK, I think this whole arguement on race/religion has gotten a bit out of hand with posters referencing dictionaries, scientific articles and facy diagrams. I think it is far more instructive to look at the situation on the ground. For the purpose here I'm going to focus on the West Bank and East Jerusalem as dealing with Israel proper is more problematic.

In looking at your assertion that it is religious discrimination a number of factors need to be examined. Palestinians are by the majority Muslim and Christian. Therefore if discriminatory policies in the territories are based on religion this criteria should be universally applicable to any Muslim or Christian person either residing or travelling within the territories. However, Israeli Muslims and Christians are permitted full access in the territories. Myself, as an Irish Christian (I mean this in the loosest sense of the word) am entitled to travel throughout the territory, including the settlements. The same would apply to a Muslim Egyptian. However, a Jordanian Palestinian will also have restrictions imposed on them travelling within the territories, if they are allowed into the territories in the first place which is unlikely. Therefore the only determining factor to the policies implemented in the territories is the racial/ethnic/national criteria of the indigenous population living there and it's diaspora and is not applicable to anyone else. This would imply that the policies are of a racial and not a religious character.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

Why are you repeating things, that i have never disagreed with? I full accept the above links. I just disagree with your conclusions.
...

Posting the exact same argument again and again, won't elicit a different response from me. I know I am right, and have proven so several times, and I even used your own definition etc to do so.

Assumptions are not proof, you have admitted that you just assumed it was a social construct. But fair enough.

I'm finished here now, we've exhausted this.

But I will leave you with a situation to ponder: how is it that forensic scientists can tell police the race of a suspect from hair or semen samples if there is no genetic basis for race. They're probably just guessing no.