I can call Israel an apartheid state without referencing SA at all.

Of course you can. You make false statements constantly on here, but you will still be wrong. Apartheid was a society almost wholly based on racial criteria. Apartheid was an official policy of discrimination against blacks enforced through police violence and based on minority control over a majority population who could not vote. Israel is the opposite, a majority rule democracy with equal rights for all citizens including Arab citizens of Israel who vote freely.

Within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, blacks could not vote and were not even citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. There is NO legitimate comparison.

Alas for some of our esteemed members words such as apartheid, genocide or racism drop onto the lawn of reason like dog turds, fouling everywhere they land. The words lose their meaning and are diminished by those so vile and hate filled that they use them repeatedly, dishonestly and systematically to further their own poisonous agendas. Here is where you can really find apartheid.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5425/apartheid-week

I can call Israel an apartheid state without referencing SA at all.

Of course you can. You make false statements constantly on here, but you will still be wrong. Apartheid was a society almost wholly based on racial criteria. Apartheid was an official policy of discrimination against blacks enforced through police violence and based on minority control over a majority population who could not vote. Israel is the opposite, a majority rule democracy with equal rights for all citizens including Arab citizens of Israel who vote freely.

Within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, blacks could not vote and were not even citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. There is NO legitimate comparison.

"There is NO legitimate comparison."

Well, doh, that's what I said effectively! Don't accuse me of false statements and then agree with me ...especially since your most recent blatant lie about me you have failed to retract or apologise for. You are the false statement maker on record, not me.

The word has evolved, as words do, and no longer refers to SA specifically. Get with the times.

I can call Israel an apartheid state without referencing SA at all.

Of course you can. You make false statements constantly on here, but you will still be wrong. Apartheid was a society almost wholly based on racial criteria. Apartheid was an official policy of discrimination against blacks enforced through police violence and based on minority control over a majority population who could not vote. Israel is the opposite, a majority rule democracy with equal rights for all citizens including Arab citizens of Israel who vote freely.

Within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, blacks could not vote and were not even citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. There is NO legitimate comparison.

Alas for some of our esteemed members words such as apartheid, genocide or racism drop onto the lawn of reason like dog turds, fouling everywhere they land. The words lose their meaning and are diminished by those so vile and hate filled that they use them repeatedly, dishonestly and systematically to further their own poisonous agendas. Here is where you can really find apartheid.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5425/apartheid-week

Ahhh, nice. I'm flattered that you take a leaf from my book with regard to the over-use and resultant loss of meaning of words (cf "antisemitism").

Well, doh, that's what I said effectively!

More of the usual dishonest BS. No it isn't what you said "effectively". You are trying to assign your own meaning to a word that already has one. There is NO legitimate comparison - including your made up one.

I can call Israel an apartheid state without referencing SA at all.

Of course you can. You make false statements constantly on here, but you will still be wrong. Apartheid was a society almost wholly based on racial criteria. Apartheid was an official policy of discrimination against blacks enforced through police violence and based on minority control over a majority population who could not vote. Israel is the opposite, a majority rule democracy with equal rights for all citizens including Arab citizens of Israel who vote freely.

Within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, blacks could not vote and were not even citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. There is NO legitimate comparison.

Alas for some of our esteemed members words such as apartheid, genocide or racism drop onto the lawn of reason like dog turds, fouling everywhere they land. The words lose their meaning and are diminished by those so vile and hate filled that they use them repeatedly, dishonestly and systematically to further their own poisonous agendas. Here is where you can really find apartheid.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5425/apartheid-week

Indeed. One hateful lie and deflection after another to distort reality in favor of radical Islam.

I can call Israel an apartheid state without referencing SA at all.

Of course you can. You make false statements constantly on here, but you will still be wrong. Apartheid was a society almost wholly based on racial criteria. Apartheid was an official policy of discrimination against blacks enforced through police violence and based on minority control over a majority population who could not vote. Israel is the opposite, a majority rule democracy with equal rights for all citizens including Arab citizens of Israel who vote freely.

Within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, blacks could not vote and were not even citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. There is NO legitimate comparison.

Alas for some of our esteemed members words such as apartheid, genocide or racism drop onto the lawn of reason like dog turds, fouling everywhere they land. The words lose their meaning and are diminished by those so vile and hate filled that they use them repeatedly, dishonestly and systematically to further their own poisonous agendas. Here is where you can really find apartheid.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5425/apartheid-week

Indeed. One hateful lie and deflection after another to distort reality in favor of radical Islam.

Do you think TVF is clashes of civilizations? West vs. Islam.

Get some fresh LOS air and a full body massage.

The West Bank is disputed. It was disputed when the Jordanians forcefully stole it in 1948

Indeed. Lest we forget (and it is surprising just how many aren't even aware of this very important aspect of 48 and up to 67)

When a minority population bands together with the central theme of electing one person that is seen as a viable, inclusive act of democratic freedom but when a person running for office notes the minority population is banding together with the single purpose of defeating him that is considered inappropriate. It is the same hostage taking political correctness sweeping the western world. In the US black/minority populations are permitted, authorized, condoned to "get out the vote" for a black/minority candidate only, but this is overlooked as democratic process. Were white people to do this it would be racism. If a coalition of ultra orthodox jews were determined to band together and vote for someone who would share and accommodate their orthodox views, this too would likely be seen as racist or some other pejorative. It is nearly impossible not to begin to detest people like this, the ones who wear "racism" as an amulet to ward off valid scrutiny and query.

When a minority population bands together with the central theme of electing one person that is seen as a viable, inclusive act of democratic freedom but when a person running for office notes the minority population is banding together with the single purpose of defeating him that is considered inappropriate.

That is considered interest group politics which is the normal state of affairs in democracies, democratic electoral processes and it is as old as democracy itself. In a democracy a political party wins by cobbling together a coalition, whether it is a coalition of voters under the 'big tent' custom of the US two major political parties before voting day, or in other democracies after the election by forming a coalition of political parties based on the number of seats each party won. This is the lifeblood of electoral democracy and it cuts across all democratic processes whether they occur in a republic, which is what Israel is, or in a constitutional monarchy such as in the UK and elsewhere. The construct in the post is so far out of the mainstream of democratic processes and government as to be completely wrong, invalid, unrealistic, a fabrication designed and presented for ulterior motives, goals and purposes. The single purpose of political parties comprised of citizens of a common interest is to elect their candidate and to do it reasonably within the rules, if not absolutely. The poster seems to overlook the fact Netanyahu apologized for his gross indiscretion that went far beyond accepted electoral process norms and rules, of both elections and of civil society.

In the US black/minority populations are permitted, authorized, condoned to "get out the vote" for a black/minority candidate only, but this is overlooked as democratic process. Were white people to do this it would be racism.

Not for a black/minority candidate only. Black voters in the US are a part of a major political party that includes vast other interest groups that deliver their respective vote to the party. Blacks do this to the extent of voting 90% for the candidates of that party up and down the ballot across all offices on the ballot. Other voters in the US either belong to the Republican party and do the same, or are Independent voters who are dependent on their own unattached political whims. Both major political parties in the US do get out the vote campaigns, to include registering voters, to vote for the respective big tent party's candidates. The post asserting otherwise indicates a view of democratic political processes in the US that are bizarrely focused on race and race only as if the whole of the process as practiced by each major political party did not exist. Barack Obama got 43% of the white vote which the bizarre assertions concerning black voters ignores. The statement above thus indicates an obliviousness to basic political parties and their processes in the United States, actual data, and an obsession on one single particular voter public, blacks, and assigns to them evil intent, designs, purposes. This is highly objectionable and perhaps even repugnant thinking.

If a coalition of ultra orthodox jews were determined to band together and vote for someone who would share and accommodate their orthodox views, this too would likely be seen as racist or some other pejorative.

Completely wrongheaded and oblivious to democratic interest group politics, ellections, government in any democracy. Interest groups band together to vote whether they are Christian fundamentalists or soccer moms or the Nascar voters etc etc etc.

Where did you go to school to learn all of this lunar and dark matter understanding of democracy that you have??????????????? The statements in the post are hell-bent and seriously wrong to the point of being severely abnormal.

It is nearly impossible not to begin to detest people like this, the ones who wear "racism" as an amulet to ward off valid scrutiny and query.

The statement here indicates the believer should seek professional help and to do it asap because the expressed view of life and the world is plainly deranged.

Edited March 24, 201511 yr by Publicus

How can this be anything but apartheid?

It can't, because it is most clearly an apartheid style policy and this can no longer be denied. To any unbiased and rational observer there is no doubt that Israel is a democracy in name only. Only Israel's most revolting apologists would attempt to deny this reality.

They should be along shortly.

The leadership of the Conservative Jewish movement in the USA strongly condemns Bibi's "droves" statement.

On Election Day, March 17, 2015, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated that Israel was endangered by Israeli Arabs exercising their right to vote. ‘The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are going en masse to the polls,’ said Prime Minister Netanyahu. This statement, which indefensibly singled out the Arab citizens of Israel, is unacceptable and undermines the principles upon which the State of Israel was founded. Because we proudly and unreservedly continue our unflagging support for the State of Israel, its citizens and its values, we must condemn the Prime Minister’s statement, singling out Arab citizens for exercising their legitimate right to vote. It is incumbent upon Jews around the world to denounce the Prime Minister’s divisive and undemocratic statement and we do so here.

http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/story/pm-statement-regarding-israeli-arab-voters-unacceptable?tp=25

I concur.

Edited March 24, 201511 yr by Jingthing