Israeli apartheid

Nodin · 27-04-2010 2:38pm

anymore wrote: »

Hamas is bring Palestinians beofre its own ' courts' and executing them. It has no legal mandate to do this, but it is. It has estblised its own State separate to and in defiance of the PLA.

Examples of the adjacent countries building civillian settlements outside their own borders, and enforcing a two-tier system in those areas. " ......?

BlaasForRafa · 27-04-2010 3:46pm

Israel's vile anti-miscegenation squads

At present, sex between different races is not illegal, but Israel does have miscegenation squads, and deplorable and racist marriage law.

Thats just typical, the Grauniad sees a few isolated examples and suddenly its "ISRAEL HAS MISCEGENATION SQUADS", a few isolated religious nutters does not reflect the bulk of Israeli society which is broadly secular. Making a claim that this reflects a broad movement would be like me saying "All palestinians support terrorists" at which you would get in a huff about.

It is allowed under various verisons of Islamic law.

but the children would have to be brought up as muslims and as jewish descent goes through the mothers line this is an issue.

Btw, Israel is most definetly an Aparthied state. Israel has Jewish only roads, which is something even Apartheid South Africa didn't even try.

As far as I recall it is the occupied territory which has jewish only roads not Israel itself. These are to protect travel between settlements (you know my view on settlements so don't start an argument about the validity or otherwise of the settlements. I just want to clarify that Israel itself does not have jewish only roads.

Nodin · 27-04-2010 5:01pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Thats just typical, the Grauniad sees a few isolated examples and suddenly its "ISRAEL HAS MISCEGENATION SQUADS", a few isolated religious nutters does not reflect the bulk of Israeli society which is broadly secular.

Alas, theres more to it than that, if you read the whole article....theres cops involved in an official capacity.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/997629.html

wes · 27-04-2010 5:33pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Thats just typical, the Grauniad sees a few isolated examples and suddenly its "ISRAEL HAS MISCEGENATION SQUADS", a few isolated religious nutters does not reflect the bulk of Israeli society which is broadly secular. Making a claim that this reflects a broad movement would be like me saying "All palestinians support terrorists" at which you would get in a huff about.

The fact that Israel has miscegnation squads operating in a official capacity, should deeply disturb anyone, but it was just one example. The racist marriage law is the main one.

Then, there is the citizenship being done along racial lines, where Palestinian are not Israeli citizens, but rather Arabs. This is another example of Apartheid.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

but the children would have to be brought up as muslims and as jewish descent goes through the mothers line this is an issue.

Yes, but I have no idea how Hamas is implementing marriage in Gaza, or if they even have the capicity to do so.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As far as I recall it is the occupied territory which has jewish only roads not Israel itself.

Yes, and this is Apartheid.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

These are to protect travel between settlements (you know my view on settlements so don't start an argument about the validity or otherwise of the settlements.

So, what? The seperation makes it Apartheid. Zionists can make whatever lame excuses they like, but as long as they exist, it is persuasive example of Apartheid. The settlements are also another example, where in the West Bank, one rule exists for colonists and another for Palestininians.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I just want to clarify that Israel itself does not have jewish only roads.

Yes, and it doesn't change a thing.

BlaasForRafa · 27-04-2010 6:21pm

The fact that Israel has miscegnation squads operating in a official capacity, should deeply disturb anyone, but it was just one example. The racist marriage law is the main one.

It disturbs me (you should note I never said that it didn't) and the Israeli state/judicial system should crack down on it.

Then, there is the citizenship being done along racial lines, where Palestinian are not Israeli citizens, but rather Arabs. This is another example of Apartheid.

Thats splitting hairs. Palestinians ARE Arabs.

Yes, but I have no idea how Hamas is implementing marriage in Gaza, or if they even have the capicity to do so.

I'd assume that marraige goes on in Gaza and the West Bank just as it always has for decades. My point wasn't about that as most of the issue at hand seems to be in areas around Bedouin settlements in Israel proper. The issue of jews being assimilated into islam is something thats out there but i think it is overstated.

Yes, and this is Apartheid.

You think that it is Apartheid. I think that is just another loaded word used by the anti-Israeli movement that devalues what actual Apartheid was.

So, what? The seperation makes it Apartheid. Zionists can make whatever lame excuses they like, but as long as they exist, it is persuasive example of Apartheid. The settlements are also another example, where in the West Bank, one rule exists for colonists and another for Palestininians.

I corrected your assertion about the seperate roads. Then you deliberately misread (whether intentionally or unintentionally I don't know) so as to continue an argument. I condemn the settlements, I condemn the seperate roads, we agree on this hmm?

wes · 27-04-2010 7:18pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It disturbs me (you should note I never said that it didn't) and the Israeli state/judicial system should crack down on it.

Fair enough, but to me, such a thing makes Israel no different than any other ME state.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Thats splitting hairs. Palestinians ARE Arabs.

Well, they ought to be Israeli, and not classified under there race. There is oddly enough, no such thing as Israeli nationality, and this is what i was talking about. Israel recognizes, Jewish nationality and Arab nationality, and this help enforce apartheid, as it separates peoples along racial lines.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'd assume that marraige goes on in Gaza and the West Bank just as it always has for decades. My point wasn't about that as most of the issue at hand seems to be in areas around Bedouin settlements in Israel proper. The issue of jews being assimilated into islam is something thats out there but i think it is overstated.

I have no idea what your saying here exactly.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You think that it is Apartheid. I think that is just another loaded word used by the anti-Israeli movement that devalues what actual Apartheid was.

Well, Bishop Desmond Tutu would disagree:
Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid'

I think he knows apartheid far better than either of us.

I think calling Israel an apartheid state, is a simple statement of fact. Israel has gotten away with its crap for decades, and I see no reason why an accurate term like apartheid should not be used.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I corrected your assertion about the seperate roads. Then you deliberately misread (whether intentionally or unintentionally I don't know) so as to continue an argument. I condemn the settlements, I condemn the seperate roads, we agree on this hmm?

Yes, we do, but I was just pointing out that they still constitute an example of Apartheid. As long as they exists, they are perfectly legitimate example.

anymore · 28-04-2010 10:28am

wes wrote: »

So, instead of addressing any points, I made you try and avoid having to address them by asking a series of question. I will answer them, but I expect you to answer my questions in return. Its only fair after all, if you refuse to answer my questions, then I won't bother with yours from here on out.

Israel is founded on Ethnic cleansing, and a Palestinian was recently expelled form the West Bank (Links earlier in the thread, as well as the new order that allows such expulsions). Israel is in the process of creating a Greater Israel, and is stealing land from Palestinians to achieve this.

Just time for quick comment;
are you referring to released prisoner who was returned to the area as indicated on his Palestinian ID ? If so I am not quite sure what the problem is with this ?

'Racist' marriage law upheld by Israel

Israel's vile anti-miscegenation squads

The above 2 examples, show that Israel isn't like a modern democracy, when it comes to interracial relationaships.

At present, sex between different races is not illegal, but Israel does have miscegenation squads, and deplorable and racist marriage law.

One hell of a non-sequitor and no.

It is allowed under various verisons of Islamic law.

So how about addressing the points, I made in my previous posts, as opposed to your typical attempt at avoiding them, and answering my questions posed in the other thread, seeing as I have answered your questions. If you refuse to answer my questions, then don't expect me to answer yours or address anything you post from here on out, as I will be blocking you.

Btw, Israel is most definetly an Aparthied state. Israel has Jewish only roads, which is something even Apartheid South Africa didn't even try. You have not bothered to address any points, and engage in the same whataboutery, obfuscation, and avoidance, that you employ constantly.

Now as regards the racist marriage, there is a problem here to be sure, ( and we all acknowledge there are many issues that need to be addressed by Israel) but the question needs to be asked why it has arisen ? Apparently, from memory of reading it yesterday, 6,000 out of 22,000 .applicant cases have permitted to reside in Israel - so if this had been South Africa, none of these cases would have been approved which makes a complete nonsense of efforts to compare this with the Aparthied South Africa - thank you for providing this example.
Now the article makes claear this law/regulation only just got the sanction of the court with even the Chief Justice objecting to it - this in itself is very reassuring, dont you think so ?
P.S This report is from 2006, any update ?
Of the Judges who support this kind of ruling, it appears that the security situation is the main reason they do so :
The outgoing judge Michael Cheshin, who voted with the majority, said during a debate in February: "The Palestinian Authority is an enemy government, a government that wants to destroy the state and is not prepared to recognize Israel... Why should we take chances during wartime? Did England and America take chances with Germans seeking their destruction during the Second World War? No one is preventing them from building a family but they should live in Jenin instead of in [the Israeli Arab city of] Umm al-Fahm."
* The Israeli army said it had killed at least seven Palestinian militants in the West Bank yesterday. One of the men killed was Elias Al Ashkar, blamed for suicide attacks including the one in Tel Aviv on 17 April which killed 11.

This tends to back up my previous assertions that it is the abnormal security situation that Israel has lived under for decades that plays a great part in generating this kind of draconian action.

Regarding Israel's miscegenation squads, please read the opening paragraph :Whilst the proliferation of ultra-orthodox "vigilante police" is a stain on Israeli society, their Taliban-esque actions can at least be contextualised as the inevitable consequence of religious fundamentalism gone wild. Such communities are dominated by leaders who refuse to accommodate any form of modernisation or freedom of thought into their archaic systems of governance, and the emergence of "modesty squads" is simply a manifestation of such primitive and patriarchal thinking

Note the ' Taliban-esque' expression. These comments reflect my own on the evils that can come from religious fundamentalism - I have expressed this at great lengths on the 'Ban the Burqa ' thread and also note that even in the UK and other European countries that fundamentalism has played a role in permitting the evils of forced marriage, honor murders and suicide bombers.
Do yiu agree that religious fundamentalism has or can have many negative side effects ?

As for Bishop Tut's comments on Israel, it is not very difficult to get a comment from this cleric who seems to love the media limelight and always has.
How much better for humanity if he spent some time looking at the number of members of the ANC who have become very, very rich in a society which has so much chronic poverty - perhaps he might spend some time looking at how poor migrants from Zimbabwe are being forcibly evicted from mini shanty towns in advance of the World Cup - dont want the tourists to see the poor ?
I can well see how this cleric would prefer to look away to distant countries and criticse them

Nodin · 28-04-2010 10:50am

anymore wrote: »

Now as (....) draconian action.

'Racism is ok for the common good'

anymore wrote: »

Note the (......) effects ?

'sectarianism is ok for the greater good'

anymore wrote: »

As for Bishop (....)them

You know, you could have at least googled Tutu to make sure he hadn't condemned those things before making such a stupid, stupid statement......

wes · 28-04-2010 11:24am

anymore wrote: »

Now as regards the racist marriage, there is a problem here to be sure, ( and we all acknowledge there are many issues that need to be addressed by Israel) but the question needs to be asked why it has arisen ?

It has arisen due to the racist nature of the Israel ideology, that being Zionism.

anymore wrote: »

Apparently, from memory of reading it yesterday, 6,000 out of 22,000 .applicant cases have permitted to reside in Israel - so if this had been South Africa, none of these cases would have been approved which makes a complete nonsense of efforts to compare this with the Aparthied South Africa - thank you for providing this example.

Well, no actually it doesn't. I never said it was exactly the same as Apartheid South Africa, I said Israel is an apartheid state, and I gave multiple example of this. Nothing has been rubbished, the racist marriage law exists, and is an example of this Apartheid. It can't just be dismissed with a silly little straw man.

anymore wrote: »

Now the article makes claear this law/regulation only just got the sanction of the court with even the Chief Justice objecting to it - this in itself is very reassuring, dont you think so ?

No, not really. The law exists, and I won't be reassured until it is removed.

anymore wrote: »

P.S This report is from 2006, any update ?

The law has not been repealed in the mean time sadly.

anymore wrote: »

Of the Judges who support this kind of ruling, it appears that the security situation is the main reason they do so :

Absurd and racist nonsense would be more accurate. Racism is what drives this stupid and vile law. Security is just an excuse, that Israel trots out, and it seem some people think it make everything ok then.

anymore wrote: »

The outgoing judge Michael Cheshin, who voted with the majority, said during a debate in February: "The Palestinian Authority is an enemy government, a government that wants to destroy the state and is not prepared to recognize Israel... Why should we take chances during wartime? Did England and America take chances with Germans seeking their destruction during the Second World War? No one is preventing them from building a family but they should live in Jenin instead of in [the Israeli Arab city of] Umm al-Fahm."
* The Israeli army said it had killed at least seven Palestinian militants in the West Bank yesterday. One of the men killed was Elias Al Ashkar, blamed for suicide attacks including the one in Tel Aviv on 17 April which killed 11.

Nonsense, Fatah recognised Israel back in the 80's. So the judge is living in a racist fairy tale land, where he denies reality and creates a false narrative, to justify his racism.

anymore wrote: »

This tends to back up my previous assertions that it is the abnormal security situation that Israel has lived under for decades that plays a great part in generating this kind of draconian action.

No, its racism actually. Security is an excuse.

anymore wrote: »

Regarding Israel's miscegenation squads, please read the opening paragraph

Note the ' Taliban-esque' expression. These comments reflect my own on the evils that can come from religious fundamentalism - I have expressed this at great lengths on the 'Ban the Burqa ' thread and also note that even in the UK and other European countries that fundamentalism has played a role in permitting the evils of forced marriage, honor murders and suicide bombers.

Note, the fact that this is occuring in Israel, and is happening in a official capacity, and that it is another example of Apartheid which you deny for whatever bizare reason.

Also, telling Women what to wear from a secular pov is no different than religous nutters doing so from a Religous one, and again fundamentalism isn't the topic, and again you are trying to derail the discussion.

anymore wrote: »

Do yiu agree that religious fundamentalism has or can have many negative side effects ?

Any kind of fundamentalism is bad, but that isn't the topic under discussion.

anymore wrote: »

As for Bishop Tut's comments on Israel, it is not very difficult to get a comment from this cleric who seems to love the media limelight and always has.

How much better for humanity if he spent some time looking at the number of members of the ANC who have become very, very rich in a society which has so much chronic poverty - perhaps he might spend some time looking at how poor migrants from Zimbabwe are being forcibly evicted from mini shanty towns in advance of the World Cup - dont want the tourists to see the poor ?
I can well see how this cleric would prefer to look away to distant countries and criticse them

It isn't just Bishop Tutu, plenty of other members of the ANC have called Israel an apartheid state, and the best you can come up with, is accuse the man of self promotion. Bishop Tutu fought Apartheid, and is a far better man than most, and for someone to attack this man is nothing short of repugnant, and make such blatantly false accusations is horrible.

Your typical whataboutery as well is also laughable, instead of addressing a single point, you instead attack a great man, who fought against a vile bunch of racist to ensure equality for his people. You do realise, the Bishop comments on a great many things the world over, and that Israel is not special in this regard. Of course, any comment on Israel is meant with the same old cry of "what about?".

Btw, you didn't answer my question in the other thread, after I answered your multiple question in this one, so I am done. Don't bother replying to me or anything, you will blocked, seeing as you expect others to answer your question, but don't give that same courtesy to others.

anymore · 28-04-2010 12:20pm

wes wrote: »

It has arisen due to the racist nature of the Israel ideology, that being Zionism.

Well, no actually it doesn't. I never said it was exactly the same as Apartheid South Africa, I said Israel is an apartheid state, and I gave multiple example of this. Nothing has been rubbished, the racist marriage law exists, and is an example of this Apartheid. It can't just be dismissed with a silly little straw man.

No, not really. The law exists, and I won't be reassured until it is removed.

The law has not been repealed in the mean time sadly.

Absurd and racist nonsense would be more accurate. Racism is what drives this stupid and vile law. Security is just an excuse, that Israel trots out, and it seem some people think it make everything ok then.

Nonsense, Fatah recognised Israel back in the 80's. So the judge is living in a racist fairy tale land, where he denies reality and creates a false narrative, to justify his racism.

No, its racism actually. Security is an excuse.

Note, the fact that this is occuring in Israel, and is happening in a official capacity, and that it is another example of Apartheid which you deny for whatever bizare reason.

Also, telling Women what to wear from a secular pov is no different than religous nutters doing so from a Religous one, and again fundamentalism isn't the topic, and again you are trying to derail the discussion.

Any kind of fundamentalism is bad, but that isn't the topic under discussion.

It isn't just Bishop Tutu, plenty of other members of the ANC have called Israel an apartheid state, and the best you can come up with, is accuse the man of self promotion. Bishop Tutu fought Apartheid, and is a far better man than most, and for someone to attack this man is nothing short of repugnant, and make such blatantly false accusations is horrible.

Your typical whataboutery as well is also laughable, instead of addressing a single point, you instead attack a great man, who fought against a vile bunch of racist to ensure equality for his people. You do realise, the Bishop comments on a great many things the world over, and that Israel is not special in this regard. Of course, any comment on Israel is meant with the same old cry of "what about?".

Btw, you didn't answer my question in the other thread, after I answered your multiple question in this one, so I am done. Don't bother replying to me or anything, you will blocked, seeing as you expect others to answer your question, but don't give that same courtesy to others.

South Africa is not an equal society ! The rich are still getting richer and the former comrades, some of them, have joined the ranks of the wealthy.

According to Forbes magazine, South Africa has the most billionaires in sub-Saharan Africa. While the above mentioned Patrice Motsepe has
become South Africa's first Black billionaires.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201004271163.html
Destitute Zimbabweans living in shacks in urban areas in South Africa are becoming victims of a 'clean up' exercise, as the government prepares for the World Cup which starts in June.
The South African government is using what are effectively militia groups, called the Red Ants, to evict immigrants. They wear red overalls, paid for by the various municipalities, arrive without warning and force the slum dwellers out, often using brutal force and giving them no time to pack their belongings. They are often drawn from vigilante groups and refer to immigrants as 'parasites or cockroaches' and have become a growing force as the government begins a campaign of "beautification", to move the desperate refugees out, before the World Cup tourists arrive.

From The Sunday Times (UK)
April 25, 2010

http://www.abahlali.org/node/6639

Slum clearance, South Africa-style
WAVING iron bars and pickaxes, the Red Ants, a rented mob of thugs in bright red overalls and crimson helmets, used the half-light of dawn for cover as they marched into the slum. Stamping out the first cooking fires of the day with heavy boots, they spread out in a long line. Then they attacked.
Bleary immigrant women dropped plastic water containers and ran in panic towards their corrugated iron homes. “Grab the children,” they screamed.
By sunrise their shacks on the outskirts of Johannesburg had been razed. They were forced to watch as their few possessions were burnt.

Perhaps the reverend gentleman might look a little more closely in his own backyard ?
He was the subject of a UK TV programme during the week; he was hosting a discussion with a number of prominent SA personalities in a very nice restaurant. The topic was Chinese investment in SA. It was a pleasant discussion in which there was no mention of SA'a chronic poverty or any of the pressing concerns such as the treatment of Zimbabwee's refugees in SA.

Nodin · 28-04-2010 12:29pm

anymore wrote: »

South Africa is not an equal society ! (....)in SA.

South Africa is not colonising it's neighbours, nor does it have a two tier justice system. Desmonds Tutus condemnation of all that you mentioned in your original post is a matter of public record and easily accessible via google.

You've been asked for examples of the adjacent countries building civillian settlements outside their own borders, and enforcing a two-tier system in those areas. " ......? Could we have an answer please.

anymore · 28-04-2010 12:34pm

Nodin wrote: »

South Africa is not colonising it's neighbours, nor does it have a two tier justice system. Desmonds Tutus condemnation of all that you mentioned in your original post is a matter of public record and easily accessible via google.

You've been asked for examples of the adjacent countries building civillian settlements outside their own borders, and enforcing a two-tier system in those areas. " ......? Could we have an answer please.

Have you rejected Saudi Arabia ?
Well what about Afghanistan ? There seem to be several different competing power structures there all with their own infrastructure - I am told that the actual real government do not have real authority over large swathes of its own country !

Nodin · 28-04-2010 12:53pm

anymore wrote: »

Have you rejected Saudi Arabia ?
Well what about Afghanistan ? There seem to be several different competing power structures there all with their own infrastructure - I am told that the actual real government do not have real authority over large swathes of its own country !

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a two tier system, nor is it building colonies outside it's own borders. Neither does Afghanistan (which is far from "adjacent"). Try again.

anymore · 29-04-2010 10:32am

Nodin wrote: »

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a two tier system, nor is it building colonies outside it's own borders. Neither does Afghanistan (which is far from "adjacent"). Try again.

Well what about pakistan ?
There seems to be separate tribal areas which are a law unto themsleves and which require the Government to ' invade' then every now and then to clear out the terrorists. Is that 'two tier' enough for you ?

Nodin · 29-04-2010 11:51am

anymore wrote: »

Well what about pakistan ?
There seems to be separate tribal areas which are a law unto themsleves and which require the Government to ' invade' then every now and then to clear out the terrorists. Is that 'two tier' enough for you ?

If the government can't impose it's will on those areas, then obviously it can't impose a two tier legal system. Secondly, those areas are within the internationally recognised borders of the state of Pakistan.

(I'll take a mad chance and say that Pakistan isn't adjacent to Israel as well)

Try again.

anymore · 30-04-2010 10:45am

Nodin wrote: »

If the government can't impose it's will on those areas, then obviously it can't impose a two tier legal system. Secondly, those areas are within the internationally recognised borders of the state of Pakistan.

(I'll take a mad chance and say that Pakistan isn't adjacent to Israel as well)

Try again.

What about Yemen - now here is acountry woth looking at .

Sura 10:93-94
“We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place...If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee" - In case you had any doubts about whether the Koran talks about the Jews' right to live in the land of Israel.

Wow ! I didnt know until now that the Koran actually supported the rights of Israelis to thier home !

Nodin · 30-04-2010 12:05pm

anymore wrote: »

What about Yemen - now here is acountry woth looking at .

Why? Try to make and outline a point rather than just posting for the sake of it.

anymore wrote: »

Wow ! I didnt know until now that the Koran actually supported the rights of Israelis to thier home !

Wow, like I've used any holy book to disagree or agree with anything.....

anymore · 30-04-2010 12:16pm

Nodin wrote: »

Why? Try to make and outline a point rather than just posting for the sake of it.

Wow, like I've used any holy book to disagree or agree with anything.....

I assume that in your own fashion, that you agree with the quote.

wes · 30-04-2010 12:21pm

More ethnic cleansing from Israel:

Israel expels citizen from Hebron to Gaza

Bethlehem – Ma'an – A 19-year-old Hebron resident was detained by Israeli forces Tuesday night, removed from the West Bank, and expelled into Gaza, security sources said.

The young man, identified as Fadi Aiada Al-Azazma, had lived with his family in Hebron for 15 years. His identity card was reportedly issued in Gaza before he moved to the West Bank.

According to witnesses, Israeli forces took Al-Azazma from his workplace in Hebron and detained him for hours before deporting him to Gaza via the Erez crossing.

Al-Azazma refused to enter the Strip, remaining with a growing number of expelled West Bankers at a tent set up by the de facto government near the crossing point.

--SNIP--
Last week, the government of South Africa called the military orders "reminiscent of past laws under apartheid South Africa," and described the situation as "unacceptable."

Click here for full article

As per earlier in the thread, where several posters pointed out that Israel new military order would result in expulsions, and here we have another one. It is profoundly disturbing that what amounts to a slow ethnic cleansing is not being condemned by Israel Western allies, especially as this is just another in the long list of example of Apartheid engaged by the Israeli state. Of course, a lot of these allies are complicit in the siege of Gaza, and furnish Israel with weapons, cover in the UN, and favourable trade term, regardless of the in-humanity they show Palestinians.

anymore · 30-04-2010 12:32pm

wes wrote: »

More ethnic cleansing from Israel:

As per earlier in the thread, where several posters pointed out that Israel new military order would result in expulsions, and here we have another one. It is profoundly disturbing that what amounts to a slow ethnic cleansing is not being condemned by Israel Western allies, especially as this is just another in the long list of example of Apartheid engaged by the Israeli state. Of course, a lot of these allies are complicit in the siege of Gaza, and furnish Israel with weapons, cover in the UN, and favourable trade term, regardless of the in-humanity they show Palestinians.

Tou meam having to live in one part of Palestine rather than another is etnic cleansing ? just like in Baghdad ?
It is profoundly disturbing that what amounts to a slow ethnic cleansing iof Iraq s not being condemned by Israel Western allies, Arab countries especially as this is just another in the long list of example of Apartheid engaged by the Israeli state. Islamic militias.

So whats new in the ME ?

Nodin · 30-04-2010 12:58pm

anymore wrote: »

I assume that in your own fashion, that you agree with the quote.

It's irrelevant. It could say the opposite and it would still be irrelevant.

Would you care to explain the point you were trying to make about Yemen?

anymore · 30-04-2010 7:39pm

wes wrote: »

More ethnic cleansing from Israel:

As per earlier in the thread, where several posters pointed out that Israel new military order would result in expulsions, and here we have another one. It is profoundly disturbing that what amounts to a slow ethnic cleansing is not being condemned by Israel Western allies, especially as this is just another in the long list of example of Apartheid engaged by the Israeli state. Of course, a lot of these allies are complicit in the siege of Gaza, and furnish Israel with weapons, cover in the UN, and favourable trade term, regardless of the in-humanity they show Palestinians.

ANC graft threatens S.Africa rule of law

Michael Georgy
JOHANNESBURG
Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:55am GMT

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Fraud and corruption in South Africa's ruling ANC could compromise the rule of law in the country, a leading think tank said, as a new graft scandal put the party under a spotlight ahead of an election.

Meanwhile the Reverend Gentleman Tutu continues with his media career !"

anymore · 30-04-2010 7:54pm

jhegarty wrote: »

The difference is no one can agree on who was there first.

It was very clear cut in South Africa , Europeans came and ran the natives off their land.

In the middle east each side have been kicking the other off their land for at least 2000 years.

Just rereading the thread and wanted to post comment on this in the interests of accuracy.
It was not at all clear in South africa ! The Zulus were in fact interlopers who displaced the San people.
And the San people are still being persecuted in Africa as the excerpt below shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen
Since the mid-1990s the central government of Botswana has implemented a relocation policy, aiming to move the Bushmen out of their ancestral land on the Central Kalahari Game Reserve into newly created settlements. Although the government has categorically denied that relocation has been forced[9], a recent court ruling confirmed that the removal was unconstitutional and residents were forcibly removed.[10]
o displaced the indigenous Sand people.

So persecution of indigenous peoples is not the preserve of white europeans !

Nodin · 30-04-2010 8:31pm

anymore wrote: »

Meanwhile the Reverend Gentleman Tutu continues with his media career !"

This is off topic.

Secondly, its already been pointed out to you that Desmond Tutu has criticised corruption and inequality repeatedly since the end of Apartheid. Should you bring this up once more, I will report the post concerned.

Thirdly, you tried to raise Yemen as (yet another attempt) to answer the request for examples "of the adjacent countries building civillian settlements outside their own borders, and enforcing a two-tier system in those areas. " yet haven't even bothered to try to explain why its suitable.

anymore · 30-04-2010 8:57pm

Nodin wrote: »

This is off topic.

Secondly, its already been pointed out to you that Desmond Tutu has criticised corruption and inequality repeatedly since the end of Apartheid. Should you bring this up once more, I will report the post concerned.

Thirdly, you tried to raise Yemen as (yet another attempt) to answer the request for examples "of the adjacent countries building civillian settlements outside their own borders, and enforcing a two-tier system in those areas. " yet haven't even bothered to try to explain why its suitable.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/yemen_rediscovered.html

Yemen is the south Armagh of the ME :
America’s attention deficit disorder-afflicted media spent the last week rediscovering Yemen as a country of serious concern for global security. The renewed attention on Yemen, resulting from the failed Christmas Day airline bombing attempt in Detroit, reminds us that terror networks adapt and can quickly defy conventional military responses like troop surges in Afghanistan and Iraq by migrating around the world.
Top newspapers have sent correspondents into Yemen, and last night, ABC’s “World News Tonight” program led with a story quoting an expert saying that Yemen is a “near perfect haven” for terrorists. The fact that leading news organizations still perpetuate the “safe haven” myth, even as a number of terrorism experts and analysts have noted the flaws and fallacies of “safe haven” arguments, is astounding. The most important preparations for the 9/11 attacks took place in Germany and flight schools in the United States. Stateless terror networks can be just as lethal when they use our own territory or countries as a base—even with strong law enforcement and intelligence organizations operating in those areas. The sooner our country understands that, the quicker we’ll adapt our thinking to make our country safer.

As for Rev Tutu is he now to be added to the list of pro palestinians who may not be criticised ?

Nodin · 01-05-2010 12:22am

anymore wrote: »

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/yemen_rediscovered.html

Yemen is the south Armagh of the ME :
America’s attention deficit disorder-afflicted media spent the last week rediscovering Yemen as a country of serious concern for global security. The renewed attention on Yemen, resulting from the failed Christmas Day airline bombing attempt in Detroit, reminds us that terror networks adapt and can quickly defy conventional military responses like troop surges in Afghanistan and Iraq by migrating around the world.
Top newspapers have sent correspondents into Yemen, and last night, ABC’s “World News Tonight” program led with a story quoting an expert saying that Yemen is a “near perfect haven” for terrorists. The fact that leading news organizations still perpetuate the “safe haven” myth, even as a number of terrorism experts and analysts have noted the flaws and fallacies of “safe haven” arguments, is astounding. The most important preparations for the 9/11 attacks took place in Germany and flight schools in the United States. Stateless terror networks can be just as lethal when they use our own territory or countries as a base—even with strong law enforcement and intelligence organizations operating in those areas. The sooner our country understands that, the quicker we’ll adapt our thinking to make our country safer.

.....Where's the two tier justice system? Who is Yemen colonising? Is Yemen being Colonised?

Why did you mention Yemen when its blatantly obvious that nothing related to the question you were asked is going on there?

Irlandese · 16-05-2010 12:01pm

Nodin wrote: »

.....Where's the two tier justice system? Who is Yemen colonising? Is Yemen being Colonised?

Why did you mention Yemen when its blatantly obvious that nothing related to the question you were asked is going on there?

I have to thank a lot of you here for helping me to make a major shift in my understanding and thinking about Israel and it's position in the ME.
I have a long history, over twenty years, in fact, of pro-palestinian rights activism. I was often involved with fellow anti-zionists, including jews, in this on-off endevour. I was a "blinded person" who only really looked at one side of the debate. But, in recent times, particularly thanks to talks and tough arguaments with a new friend, who is still active in the IDF reserves special forces, I have moved very far from my old comfortable and naive condemnation of Israel's response to the Palestinian question. I have also begun to read and look critically at the biased nonsense that passes for debate about any issue involving Israel. I am still anti-zionist, in principle, but now support the general arguament of Israel's right to defend itself vigorously against armed aggression and it's right to impose severe restrictions on a palestinian mayhem that threatens so many aspects of it's life.
here, I have to particularly thank the anti-Israel zealots from this discussion who have convinced me of the folly of trying to reason with so many of the so called pro-palestinian but better described as the "anti-Israel" side. You have shown me the error of my former ways and I am now firmly entrenched in the opposing trenches and will hereforth opt for the pro-Israel side in such arguaments and may, should the occasion require, even offer my personal services within their IDF to support the military and political struggle of that imperfect but often in parts quite fantastic example of democracy in action, surrounded by a sea of reprehensible repressive backward, feudal, misoginistic, fanatical, homicidal regimes.
Time to take off the blinkers boys and girls and see the world as it is, not how you want to see it. There is no viable and popular fatah anymore and it was never much more than Arafats personal corrupt mafia anyway. The Hamas zealotry runs inevitably towards Islamic fanatism and all it's inherent evils. Zionism must be stopped, but by Israelis, democratically and free of external terrorism and terribly naive and un-informed anti-Israel bias in too many movements guided by ill intentioned manipulators.

Perhaps we need a lot less of the armchair would-be "toy freedom fighters" in between war games on their gameboys or whatever and much more insightful and un-biased study, with some real field experience, far from home, in real war and post-war environments, to back up the usual sad and totally batty histrionics?

wes · 17-05-2010 11:24am

Irlandese wrote: »

I have to thank a lot of you here for helping me to make a major shift in my understanding and thinking about Israel and it's position in the ME.
I have a long history, over twenty years, in fact, of pro-palestinian rights activism. I was often involved with fellow anti-zionists, including jews, in this on-off endevour. I was a "blinded person" who only really looked at one side of the debate. But, in recent times, particularly thanks to talks and tough arguaments with a new friend, who is still active in the IDF reserves special forces, I have moved very far from my old comfortable and naive condemnation of Israel's response to the Palestinian question. I have also begun to read and look critically at the biased nonsense that passes for debate about any issue involving Israel. I am still anti-zionist, in principle, but now support the general arguament of Israel's right to defend itself vigorously against armed aggression and it's right to impose severe restrictions on a palestinian mayhem that threatens so many aspects of it's life.
here, I have to particularly thank the anti-Israel zealots from this discussion who have convinced me of the folly of trying to reason with so many of the so called pro-palestinian but better described as the "anti-Israel" side. You have shown me the error of my former ways and I am now firmly entrenched in the opposing trenches and will hereforth opt for the pro-Israel side in such arguaments and may, should the occasion require, even offer my personal services within their IDF to support the military and political struggle of that imperfect but often in parts quite fantastic example of democracy in action, surrounded by a sea of reprehensible repressive backward, feudal, misoginistic, fanatical, homicidal regimes.
Time to take off the blinkers boys and girls and see the world as it is, not how you want to see it. There is no viable and popular fatah anymore and it was never much more than Arafats personal corrupt mafia anyway. The Hamas zealotry runs inevitably towards Islamic fanatism and all it's inherent evils. Zionism must be stopped, but by Israelis, democratically and free of external terrorism and terribly naive and un-informed anti-Israel bias in too many movements guided by ill intentioned manipulators.

Perhaps we need a lot less of the armchair would-be "toy freedom fighters" in between war games on their gameboys or whatever and much more insightful and un-biased study, with some real field experience, far from home, in real war and post-war environments, to back up the usual sad and totally batty histrionics?

An interesting POV, that basically attackes other posters, as opposed to engaging in any kind of debate, while complaining about other not debating right. Perhaps, practicing what you preach is in order?

Also, name calling is hardly proper debate either. I fail to see how calling other posters "armchair would-be "toy freedom fighters"" is in anyway helpful to any kind of debate, this is doubly funny imho, in that you seem to be suggesting others, aren't up to your stands of debating. Well, seeing as you are engaging in name calling, I hardly see how you can really complain about the quality of debate.

Now, here is an idea, how about cut the name calling, and argue against what is being said, and not attack other posters. Personally, I tend to think anyone who engages in name calling, knows they don't have a leg to stand on with there position, so tries to make it about other posters to deflect attention from the actual topic.

Also, offering to help the IDF, kind of makings you name calling ("armchair would-be "toy freedom fighters""), kind of ironic. I don't remember a single person on here, saying they are going to go help Hamas, and yet you actually accuse other posters of a bias, in the same post, where you declare your intent to help one of the sides in the conflict? Seriously, that is nothing short of the funniest thing I have read on here in ages. Apparently, those of us positng on a message board, are hopelessly biased for stating a opinion different than yours, but someone who is going to offer there services to the IDF, are magically some how not biased?

**EDIT**
Also, there is no real different between the IDF punishing (via murder, near starvation, denial of basic human rights etc) all Palestinians for the violence of the few, and Hamas launching random rocket attacks at Israeli civilians, for the actions of there own crazies running there country. Both sides come up with pathetic excuses, but it doesn't change the fact what they do is wrong.

Also, the IDF are hardly any example of democracy:
IDF ignores court, continues Gaza journalists ban

That is just one example, care to explain how the military ignoring the courts is democracy in action? Last time, I checked most countries would find such an action pretty damn anti-democratic.
**END EDIT**

Irlandese · 17-05-2010 1:24pm

Ah, Wes, my friend, I do not see this as a debating forum at all, at all.
But, as you mention it, can i politely ask what do you understand by the term "debate"?
I ask because I am now convinced, after weeks of reading the way you and some others operate here, that "debate" is the last thing you are interested in, especially since real and honest "debate" usually runs the risk of participants learning something and perhaps being educated and changing your position, as i have certainly changed mine, 180 degrees.
I see the potential of these kinds of blogs as a "learning opportunity" as opposed to a "debate" with all the contra-positioning that such entails. We are on a thread about alleged "apartheid" in Israel. If this was a debate, someone or everyone would have defined the term and been questioned on this and then we would have arrived at a workable agreed definition. This did not happen in this way. We would then have examined the hypothesis in an agreed way. This did not happen. In fact, most used the thread as yet another opportunity to repeat the usual mindless anti-Israeli mantras and re-write ME history to support same, usually far from the original thread topic.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I actually learn that way. You and some others do have a problem with this approach to dialectics and misrepresenting my own more open stance is typical of your closed approach to this and related topics, friend.
I now support the IDF, actually in a big and growing way and I can even see the logic and the inevitability of their repressive actions in the territories, given the behaviour of the palestinian leaderships and terrorist splinter groups. I have seen a lot of bloody-mindedness on the part of palestinians in the past and ignored it. No more. I will now call a spade a spade and will give credit to the Israelis for where they deserve it and discuss other cases with an open and an honest mind, not like those who I ridiculed in the earlier post and here again.
Try not to put words in the mouths of others or misrepresent them, if you wish to live and learn. But, then, I do not accuse you of wishing to learn, but of wishing to hate and to misrepresent. Logic and openess are wasted on people who are fixed on hating and seeking war and violence. people like you very seldom wish to contribute to solutions, only to shout, barrack and wave flags.
Long live a free and democratic and gender equal Israel !
I cannot wait to visit and see what >i can do to help !

wes · 17-05-2010 1:51pm

Irlandese wrote: »

I do not see this as a debating forum at all.

Really? I taught the whole purpose of the politics forum, was to debate various issues.

Irlandese wrote: »

But, as you mention it, can i ask what do you understand by "debate"?

From thefreedictionary.com
de·bate (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.

From the above definition, seems to me that is what has been going in this thread at least for the most part.

Irlandese wrote: »

I am now convinced, after weeks of reading the way you and some others operate here, that "debate" is the last thing you are interested in, since "debate" runs the risk of learning something and perhaps being educated and changing your position, as i have mine.

How exactly have I not been debating? What is this hidden agenda of mine, you seem to be hinting at? I have argued my corner like every other poster here, on both sides of the arguement.

Let me put it to you simply, I disagree with your positon, and you seem to take issue with me and others disagreeing with you, and then call other posters names. How exactly do you think name calling is going to convince me of your position exactly? In fact, your name calling has convinced me, even more that your position is the wrong one.

Irlandese wrote: »

I see the potential of these kinds of blogs as a "learning opportunity" as opposed to a "debate" with all the contra-positioning that such entails.

A message board, and a blog is not the same thing. A message board can serve several purpose, be it debate, education etc.

Irlandese wrote: »

We are on a thread about alleged "apartheid" in Israel. If this was a debate, someone or everyone would have defined the term and been questioned on this and then we would have arrived at a workable agreed definition.

A definition of apartheid already exists:
Crime of apartheid

The UN one would accepted by most countries last I checked. So we already have a defintion to compare Israels apartheid, which imho, under the largely accept defintion of the UN, fits the bill.

Irlandese wrote: »

This did not happen in this way. We would then have examined the hypothesis in an agreed way. This did not happen. In fact, most used the thread as yet another opportunity to repeat the usual mindless mantras and re-write history to support same, far from the original thread topic.

Who has rewritten history? You keep making claims, and yet don't support them in anyway. Saying something, does not make it true.

Irlandese wrote: »

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I actually learn that way. You and some others do have a problem with this approach to dialectics and misreèpresenting my own more open stance is typical of your closed approachj to this and related topics, friend.

Let me quote you:

Irlandese wrote: »

here, I have to particularly thank the anti-Israel zealots from this discussion who have convinced me of the folly of trying to reason with so many of the so called pro-palestinian but better described as the "anti-Israel" side.

You refer to people who disagree with your as "anti-Israel zealots". Now, its seem to me that via your name calling you do have problems with other posters, otherwise, you would not engage in name calling.

Irlandese wrote: »

Perhaps we need a lot less of the armchair would-be "toy freedom fighters" in between war games on their gameboys or whatever and much more insightful and un-biased study, with some real field experience, far from home, in real war and post-war environments, to back up the usual sad and totally batty histrionics?

Now, here you refer to other posters as "armchair would-be "toy freedom fighters"", again you are calling people names.

So, on basis of the name calling, it seem you have a personal problem with other posters, who disagree with your. Otherwise, you would not use such terms at all. So, I have not misrepresented you position at all. You engaged in calling other posters names, and I came to a pretty reasonable conclusion that you have issue with poster who disagree with you.

Irlandese wrote: »

I now support the IDF in a big way and can even see the logic in their repressive actions in the territories, given the behaviour of the palestinian leaderships.

I don't support the murderous excesses or crazed ultra nationalist and relgious extremists personally (talking about the IDF here), and I find most of there actions to be truly repugnant and reprehesible, and find the IDF to be no different than the murderous Palestinian groups, and don't buy either side pathetic excuses for murdering innocent people.

Irlandese wrote: »

I have seen a lot of bloody-mindedness on the part of palestinians in the past and ignored it. No more. I will now call a spade a spade and will give credit to the Israelis for where they deserve it and discuss other cases with an open and an honest mind, not like those who I critisized in the earlier post and here again.

Good for you. I will call a spade a spade as well, and will criticise all the murderous excess of the IDF, and will defend myself from people who use terms such as, "armchair would-be "toy freedom fighters"" and "anti-Israel zealots".

Irlandese wrote: »

Try not to put words in the mouths of others or misrepresent them, if you wish to live and learn. But, then, I do not accuse you of wishoing to learn, but of wishing to hate and to misrepresent.

Look, you are the one who engage in name calling here, and your accusations against other poster are pretty silly. You have called other posters names, and I have quoted what you said, so I am not mis-representing anything.

You have now accused me of hatred and trying to misrepresent your position, which is of course simply untrue. You have referred to me and others who disagree with you, as "armchair would-be "toy freedom fighters"", and you have referred to me and other as "anti-Israel zealots". You said these things, and as such no mis-representation on my part has taken place. You are attacking other posters, plain and simple.

You also accuse me of "hatred". Again, instead of addressing what I say, you make things personal with name calling and untrue accusations about my character. Personally, when I see someone do this, I know they are not interested in discussing a topic, and would rather attack other posters, with names and false accusations.

Israeli apartheid

Comments