Israel imposes 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians - U.N. report

[dexterm]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Equating Israel with the Nazis by definition is antisemitic. Normal criticism of Israeli government policies as towards any other nation isn't. Your post wasn't normal criticism. It was pure vile Jew hatred. 

It's quite depressing to see so much Jew hatred being expressed on this forum, though it's sadly predictable, but it's another good reason why the state of Israel needed to exist in the first place and continues to need to exist.

It was actually Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman in the OP, who was the first to make reference indirectly to Nazis without actually addressing any of the issues raised. Perhaps the Foreign Ministry should not be dishing it out, if they can't take it.

 

"Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman likened the report, which was published by the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), to Der Sturmer - a Nazi propaganda publication that was strongly anti-Semitic."

[ilostmypassword]

16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Equating Israel with the Nazis by definition is antisemitic. Normal criticism of Israeli government policies as towards any other nation isn't. Your post wasn't normal criticism. It was pure vile Jew hatred. 

It's quite depressing to see so much Jew hatred being expressed on this forum, though it's sadly predictable, but it's another good reason why the state of Israel needed to exist in the first place and continues to need to exist.

Israel isn't Judaism and Judaism isn't Israel. So no, equating the nation of Israel with the policies of Nazi Germany isn't anti-semitic. It's overstating the case, particularly in regards to the Final Solution, but it is not in and of itself anti-semitic.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

That's why the UN top distantiated themselves immediately after the publication of the UN report.

Nothing new...

Creators of the UN are actually the same as those who allowed the creation of Israel...

UN can criticise countries, but has no authority to create countries.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

So unless top UN officials fully embrace anti-Israeli opinions they are suspect?

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So unless top UN officials fully embrace anti-Israeli opinions they are suspect?

Actually, in the world of AIPAC and those who share its views, unless you completely disavow opinions critical of Israel, you are suspect.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Trouble said:

Lots of postings by both sides on this issue and as always the Israel supporters tend to defend Israel at all costs. Most accept that Israel should have its right to exist but we also knowing that things aren't quite right with Israel's policies with regard to the Palestinians and Palestinian land issues and many of Israeli policies are only making the problem worse. Maybe rather than taking a stand on this particular report one way or another people should actually read the report first. Whether it is authored by a person who has spoken out against some of Israel's policies or not, the report might just have some solid justification included or it might be a work of fiction.  The problem with everything that goes on in the political arena today is the fact that people rely on news reports of things not reported in enough detail to make a judgement and in this case take a stand on this particular report without having the slightest knowledge of what is in the report.  

 

Not quite. There are posters engaging in "defense at all costs" in supposed support of either side. If anything, there is a wee bit more evidence for balance opposite to what you alleged.

 

As for "most accept that Israel should have its right to exist", again, not quite so in the context of this report and topic. Many of the ESCWA (the body which commissioned the report) do not recognize Israel, and following the reasoning of the report's authors leads to conclusions rejecting the existence of the state of Israel. Such views are often expressed, one way or another, by some of the regular participants in these topic on TVF.

 

I'd agree that posters would be better served by being informed on topics. But disregarding the origins of the report or the timing of its publication is just another way of promoting ignorance. A report commissioned by a body with long standing one-sided views, and authored by people with similarly (or even more, in some cases) biased and extreme take on things, is not necessarily a reliable interpretation of  the circumstances. The report itself is not much different than the previous writings of the authors. It exhibits the same old bias, tunnel vision and reliance on abstract constructs. Commissioning these specific authors could not have resulted in anything but such a document, so no surprises there.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, in the world of AIPAC and those who share its views, unless you completely disavow opinions critical of Israel, you are suspect.

 

Actually, AIPAC isn't part of the OP - unless one insists on considering anything US-related and not critical of Israel as contrived and influenced. Pretty much the point made in my previous post. Thanks for making the point clearer.

 

[johna]

17 hours ago, Jingthing said:

What does that have to do specifically with the O.P?

Do I really have to connect all the dots between a book by Jimmy Carter called "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" and a topic titled 

"Israel imposes 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians - U.N. report" 

Try following the link I provided.

Israel, Palestine, peace and apartheid Jimmy Carter

[Morch]

 

@johna

 

Without subscribing to Carter's views, even his position does not run into the extremes expressed by the report and its authors. The main difference would be that Carter accepts that the conditions within Israel do not conform to the term. Similarly, he claimed that he does not tie the Israeli policies with racism.

 

There's quite a gap between this and the views expressed by the authors of the report.

 

.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@johna

 

Without subscribing to Carter's views, even his position does not run into the extremes expressed by the report and its authors. The main difference would be that Carter accepts that the conditions within Israel do not conform to the term. Similarly, he claimed that he does not tie the Israeli policies with racism.

 

There's quite a gap between this and the views expressed by the authors of the report.

 

.

So Carter does say that within the Occupied Territories and East Jerusalem an apartheid system does exist?

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, johna said:

Do I really have to connect all the dots between a book by Jimmy Carter called "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" and a topic titled 

"Israel imposes 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians - U.N. report" 

Try following the link I provided.

Israel, Palestine, peace and apartheid Jimmy Carter

I didn't see the connection to AIPAC which was your post was about.

 

[gamini]

On 3/16/2017 at 1:07 PM, Morch said:

The heading is somewhat misleading - not quite a "UN report", but rather a report by a UN body with a standing anti-Israeli agenda.

 

From the OP:

 

 

Richard Falk is a rather well-known opponent of Israel, and his views can hardly be said to manifest anything resembling objectivity.

 

 

 

 

 

he is not an opponent of Israel. He is an opponent of the Zionist government. Like many of us who oppose Zionism  are accused of being anti semetic. it's like labelling those who dislike Trump as anti-American

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, gamini said:

he is not an opponent of Israel. He is an opponent of the Zionist government. Like many of us who oppose Zionism  are accused of being anti semetic. it's like labelling those who dislike Trump as anti-American

Depends on your definition of Zionism. The basic core definition is support for political self determination for the Jewish people in a national homeland. That national homeland is Israel. If you oppose that right for the Jewish people, yet support that right for other peoples such as Thais, then that is most definitely an anti-Jewish POV.

Perhaps you meant the faction of Zionism that is right wing or far right wing that does have a lot of control of the Israeli government. If that's what you mean, why don't you bloody say it and also say that while you oppose the right wing Zionist faction, you support the right of Israel to exist and defend itself.

Or if you don't ... say it. 

I reject your comparison to trump / USA. People are indeed anti-trump and pro USA (as I am) but they still support the right of the USA to exist and defend itself. Often (usually) people that say they are "anti-Zionists" do not support the right of Israel to exist and defend itself in ANY borders. Huge difference.

Again, if you are going to spray around general terms like you did .... you are saying nothing unless you are much more explicit about your true POV regarding the right of Israel to exist and defend itself. 

 

As far as whether the general term anti-Zionist indicates Jew hatred or not. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. It DEPENDS on the specific POV of that person. If they're running their mouths constantly about Israel being the same as Nazis, then definitely yes. If they're radicals that don't believe in any nation states being centered on ethnic, ethnoreligious or religious groups, and not singling out Jewish people for special hypocritical abuse, then they're obviously not. Such people would also by definition be against the Palestinian nationalist movement.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

On 3/16/2017 at 2:22 PM, Morch said:

 

The report claims to pertain to all Palestinians, whether or not residing in the West Bank or if living under Israeli occupation. If you wish to make such general nonsense claims as you do, either explain how the comparison to SA fully applies when considering all of the groups of Palestinians mentioned, or limit your argument.

 

If and when Israel does annex the West Bank, and if under such conditions it will refuse granting full rights to the Palestinians living there - then you'd have a point. Until such a time, the situation, while far from being acceptable, is not exactly what you go on about.

 

As to your assertions about the Israeli government's territorial wishes, there's yet to be something official declared to the effect you describe. Equating the expressed views of extreme elements (even within the current right wing coalition government) with official government policy is stretching things a bit.

 

Guess that pointing out the less than stellar human rights records of ESCWA member countries will be met with the usual one-sided "off topic" cries.

Just focusing for now on one of the 4 areas the report identifies as apartheid.

 

Morch wrote:
"If and when Israel does annex the West Bank, and if under such conditions it will refuse granting full rights to the Palestinians living there - then you'd have a point. Until such a time, the situation, while far from being acceptable, is not exactly what you go on about."

 

..So how come you don't condemn Israeli apartheid in annexed East Jerusalem, when clearly Palestinians are treated differently purely on the basis of their race/religion. Are you waiting until Israel formally annexes every last square inch of Palestine right up to the Jordan River, before you speak up against the de facto apartheid system in the rest of the Occupied Territories?

 

Apartheid in annexed East Jerusalem..

 

1. Continued illegal settlement expansion at the expense of the confiscation and destruction of homes of Palestinians who have lived there for generations. Often on the pretext of security, archaeological digs, and theme parks.

 

"In East Jerusalem, which Israel unilaterally annexed from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East War (it remains occupied territory under international law), Israel exerts full governmental control over 190,000 Israeli and roughly 270,000 Palestinian residents. This report documents that Israel has sponsored the development of Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem, even in houses from which Palestinian residents are evicted, while strictly limiting Palestinian building and development, including by demolishing homes. Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem pay taxes but receive far fewer services than do residents of predominantly Jewish West Jerusalem."

https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/12/19/separate-and-unequal/israels-discriminatory-treatment-palestinians-occupied

...the idea is of course to make life so uncomfortable for Palestinians that they move out and lose their residency. And the situation has grown considerably worse since this 2010 report.

 

2. Another way to make Palestinians 2nd class in East Jerusalem where they were born.. Palestinian residence and citizenship rights are confiscated at the whim of an Israeli offical if a Palestinian, born in Jerusalem, travels overseas for too long, whereas Jews anywhere in the world can claim Israeli citizenship and live permanently in East Jerusalem? Is that right or wrong?

 

...one such personal experience of the above..

 

"DISCRIMINATION RUNS DEEP IN EAST JERUSALEM
Pressure, harassment and unadulterated racism is ugly, but it will not stop Palestinian Jerusalemites from insisting that they are not going anywhere."

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Discrimination-runs-deep-in-east-Jerusalem-468079

 

3. Despite paying equal municipal taxes, Palestinians do not receive the same services as Israeli Jews.

 

"Ever since Israel annexed East Jerusalem and its environs in 1967, it has applied a discriminatory and restrictive policy there. This includes an absence of proper planning for Palestinian neighborhoods, which was attended by prohibitions on construction; the refusal of applications for family unification with Palestinians from other parts of the West Bank; and the denial of many basic services to the community. Over the years, the resulting harsh reality caused tens of thousands of Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to leave the city."

http://www.btselem.org/jerusalem/revocation_of_residency

 

"Discrimination Is Flourishing in East Jerusalem
.
While children in West Jerusalem schools are celebrating 'Jerusalem Day,' thousands of children in East Jerusalem will stay home or crowd into rickety schoolrooms."

http://www.haaretz.com/discrimination-is-flourishing-in-east-jerusalem-1.287733

Edited March 17, 2017 by dexterm
"" marks

[Thorgal]

 
So unless top UN officials fully embrace anti-Israeli opinions they are suspect?

Re-read my previous post. UN top decisions are not always suspect. It's rather the environment, or external influence who's suspect.

Being nowadays pro-Palestinian is political suicide in most western countries. It's also political suicide when you're against the illegal Israeli colonial project and related crimes.

Any attempt to criticise Israel is nowadays actually done in group or per association as in OP.

Please note that criticism of OP originates from countries where local pro-Israeli lobbyists are not allowed or almost non existent.

So far answering your loaded question.




Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Thorgal]

  Actually, AIPAC isn't part of the OP - unless one insists on considering anything US-related and not critical of Israel as contrived and influenced. Pretty much the point made in my previous post. Thanks for making the point clearer.  

Nikki Haley, US ambassador at the UN is actually a pro-Israeli lobbyist and guest speaker at AIPAC.She's mentioned in OP and 'she fits perfectly the cap' :

[/url]

Others have been less successful in the past by condemning Israeli apartheid :

http://www.timesofisrael.com/aipac-kerrys-comments-offensive-inappropriate/

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Saladin]

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Equating Israel with the Nazis by definition is antisemitic. Normal criticism of Israeli government policies as towards any other nation isn't. Your post wasn't normal criticism. It was pure vile Jew hatred. 

It's quite depressing to see so much Jew hatred being expressed on this forum, though it's sadly predictable, but it's another good reason why the state of Israel needed to exist in the first place and continues to need to exist.

I am not antisemitic or even anti Israel. I used to be a big fan of Israel but the behaviour of Netanyahu and the foreign settlers who flew in from the US, Russia, and elsewhere and displaced the Palestinians and stole their land has progressively turned me 180 degrees. I would suggest that Jews everywhere will suffer increasing antisemiticsm, not because of anything they have done but because of the behaviour of the Israeli fascists, and they should publicly distance themselves from them so that they don't have to take the rap.

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, Saladin said:

I am not antisemitic or even anti Israel. I used to be a big fan of Israel but the behaviour of Netanyahu and the foreign settlers who flew in from the US, Russia, and elsewhere and displaced the Palestinians and stole their land has progressively turned me 180 degrees. I would suggest that Jews everywhere will suffer increasing antisemiticsm, not because of anything they have done but because of the behaviour of the Israeli fascists, and they should publicly distance themselves from them so that they don't have to take the rap.

Distance themselves from supporting Netanyahu and right wing factions or distance themselves from core principles of Zionism, the right of Israel to exist and defend itself? Be more explicit if you're going to post something as inflammatory as what you just did. 
Dude, I don't think you get what most Jews get.

There will always be Jew haters in the world, from the left and the right.

Currently in the USA there is a spike in Jew hatred from the right inspired by white nationalist alt right faction of trumpism.

In Europe, it's mostly been from the left.

There is no reason for antisemitism. You offensively provide one.  Congratulations -- join the crowd through history playing that game and perhaps you'll better understand why the vast majority of Jews in the world support the existence of Israel and the right to defend it. 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Jingthing

[Saladin]

I support the existence of Israel too but within the borders that the UN agreed to. I do not support the land grabs and the behaviour of the Netanyahu Mob. That is not being antisemitic. 

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, Saladin said:

I support the existence of Israel too but within the borders that the UN agreed to. I do not support the land grabs and the behaviour of the Netanyahu Mob. That is not being antisemitic. 

I agree with you that is not antisemitic. I still found your last post offensive. That Jews should be compelled to act a certain way to avoid Jew hatred. You know nothing about history if you think Jews acting this way or that way is ever going to erase Jew hatred. Thus, Israel was needed. That's why the Zionist movement found resonance in the first place. History of Jews living in the diaspora showed there were always going to be waves of serious oppression and genocide against them everywhere, so a political solution was associating Jews with the power of a nation state. That core need hasn't changed and that core support isn't going to end among global Jewish people.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

20 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Distance themselves from supporting Netanyahu and right wing factions or distance themselves from core principles of Zionism, the right of Israel to exist and defend itself? Be more explicit if you're going to post something as inflammatory as what you just did. 
Dude, I don't think you get what most Jews get.

There will always be Jew haters in the world, from the left and the right.

Currently in the USA there is a spike in Jew hatred from the right inspired by white nationalist alt right faction of trumpism.

In Europe, it's mostly been from the left.

There is no reason for antisemitism. You offensively provide one.  Congratulations -- join the crowd through history playing that game and perhaps you'll better understand why the vast majority of Jews in the world support the existence of Israel and the right to defend it. 

>>core principles of Zionism, the right of Israel to exist and defend itself. 
...Zionism is a little more than Israel simply existing and defending itself. It involves preferential treatment for Jews only in many ways, primarily the right to migrate to Israel (and receive automatic citizenship) while denying the same right to Palestinian refugees who were born there.

 

This demographic engineering manifests itself in several discriminatory ways that consitute apartheid most often in form of confiscating Palestinian land, forbidding them building/repair permits while encouraging Jewish only settlements (colonies) on the same land in occupied territories; the right of Palestinians to marry whomsoever they wish, and the right of Palestinians to family reunification (all allowed to Israeli Jews)

 

The racist ideology of Zionism is the root of the entire problem...one race/religion, having colonized the land, now attempting to lord itself over another...classic apartheid as outlined in the OP report.

 

As Saladin pointed out, Zionist Israel, originally a haven for persecuted Jews escaping anti semitism, now has become a liability causing more harm than good to world Jewry. Israel now depends on world Jewry, not the other way around.

Edited March 17, 2017 by dexterm

[CharlieK]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

As Saladin pointed out, Zionist Israel, originally a haven for persecuted Jews escaping anti semitism, now has become a liability causing more harm than good to world Jewry. Israel now depends on world Jewry, not the other way around.

That is just BS, Israel doesn't rely on diaspora Jews for it's survival. Diaspora Jews do not shape Israeli foreign or domestic politics. Never have never will. 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

So Carter does say that within the Occupied Territories and East Jerusalem an apartheid system does exist?

 

His usage of the term differs some from that spewed by certain posters, and the authors of the "report". For example, he claims not to treat it as an issue of racism. So it would probably depend on how one defines it, and to which degree the definition applies. As said before, I'm not party to Carter's views - the point was simply that these do not fully match either those of posters or the authors of the "report".

 

Of course, one can actually read the book, related commentary and criticism, plus Carter's responses.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, gamini said:

he is not an opponent of Israel. He is an opponent of the Zionist government. Like many of us who oppose Zionism  are accused of being anti semetic. it's like labelling those who dislike Trump as anti-American

 

Pull the other one.

Falk is rabidly anti-Israel. One only needs to actually read his one-sided "reports", papers and blog posts in order to get what he's about. Then, perhaps, there would be less nonsense statements as to what he's about. 

 

Posters yapping about being anti-Zionist,  rather than anti-Israel, should have a meaningful and realistic answer to this - given that the core issue of Zionism is to establish a national home for Jews, what would the meaning of a non-Zionist (or an anti-Zionist) Israel even be?

 

As for the tired straw man argument. I did not accuse Falk of antisemitism, although I have little doubts on that score. Similarity, I rarely raise this as a general point against posters passing criticism of Israel, but reserve it for obvious cases. That there is no shortage of such on TVF is another matter.

 

And it has very little to do with Trump.

[Morch]

@dexterm

 

On previous topics and posts I have actually commented, and rather not favorably, on Israel's failures in treating the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem. That this will be ignored is almost a given, considering that you are not interested in exchange of opinions, but in advocating an extreme political point of view.

 

And yet, the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem was granted permanent residency status, with an option to apply for Israeli citizenship. For ideological and political reasons, the vast majority chose to decline the citizenship application. Over the years, there were changes (for better and worse) related to policies and their implementation on this front. In general, it can be said that whereas in the past it was easier for citizenship applications to be approved, but applications were scarce. In recent years, the trend changed and there are more applications, but also more hassles and rejections.

 

So a lot of the linked bits above are correct, even if your interpretations are rejected. There is discrimination, there is injustice and bad policies. Where we differ, is when it comes to concluding that this represents Apartheid, especially in the sense promoted. If and when it will be officially declared that this path to citizenship is closed, then things will be categorically different.

 

It does not mean condoning Israeli policy on this front, or denying the discrimination involved in Israel's rule over said population. It simply rejects the terminology and its application.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Re-read my previous post. UN top decisions are not always suspect. It's rather the environment, or external influence who's suspect.

Being nowadays pro-Palestinian is political suicide in most western countries. It's also political suicide when you're against the illegal Israeli colonial project and related crimes.

Any attempt to criticise Israel is nowadays actually done in group or per association as in OP.

Please note that criticism of OP originates from countries where local pro-Israeli lobbyists are not allowed or almost non existent.

So far answering your loaded question.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

So a "report" commissioned by a biased body, and delivered by biased authors is perfectly free of influence, whereas objections to the "report" are suspect. Yeah....that makes a whole lot of sense.

 

Being (supposedly and nominally) pro-Palestinian is not "political suicide" in most Western countries. In fact, posters who claim to be pro-Palestinian often proclaim overwhelming global support for the Palestinian cause. Can't have it both ways.

 

Umm...

Quote

Please note that criticism of OP originates from countries where local pro-Israeli lobbyists are not allowed or almost non existent.

No idea what you attempted to say there.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Thorgal said:

Nikki Haley, US ambassador at the UN is actually a pro-Israeli lobbyist and guest speaker at AIPAC.She's mentioned in OP and 'she fits perfectly the cap' :

[/url]

Others have been less successful in the past by condemning Israeli apartheid :

http://www.timesofisrael.com/aipac-kerrys-comments-offensive-inappropriate/

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Once more, why are focusing solely on the supposed affiliations of those opposing the "report" but ignoring the same when it comes to the commissioning body and its authors?

[Morch]

 

U.N. chief wants report on 'apartheid' Israel taken off web

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-israel-report-idUSKBN16O1WB?il=0

 

Head of U.N.'s ESCWA resigns over report on 'apartheid' Israel

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-israel-report-resignation-idUSKBN16O24X?il=0

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Saladin said:

I support the existence of Israel too but within the borders that the UN agreed to. I do not support the land grabs and the behaviour of the Netanyahu Mob. That is not being antisemitic. 

 

The view your propose is not antisemitic, not sure that the same can be said with regard to your first post on this topic. One doesn't need to go there in order to oppose Israel's policies and conduct.

 

The scope of responsibility and the conclusions included in the "report" are not indicate a line thinking which conforms to your first sentence.

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

@dexterm

 

On previous topics and posts I have actually commented, and rather not favorably, on Israel's failures in treating the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem. That this will be ignored is almost a given, considering that you are not interested in exchange of opinions, but in advocating an extreme political point of view.

 

And yet, the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem was granted permanent residency status, with an option to apply for Israeli citizenship. For ideological and political reasons, the vast majority chose to decline the citizenship application. Over the years, there were changes (for better and worse) related to policies and their implementation on this front. In general, it can be said that whereas in the past it was easier for citizenship applications to be approved, but applications were scarce. In recent years, the trend changed and there are more applications, but also more hassles and rejections.

 

So a lot of the linked bits above are correct, even if your interpretations are rejected. There is discrimination, there is injustice and bad policies. Where we differ, is when it comes to concluding that this represents Apartheid, especially in the sense promoted. If and when it will be officially declared that this path to citizenship is closed, then things will be categorically different.

 

It does not mean condoning Israeli policy on this front, or denying the discrimination involved in Israel's rule over said population. It simply rejects the terminology and its application.

So your defense that Israel is not practising apartheid in East Jerusalem all boils down to a technicality.

 

Morch wrote..

"It does not mean condoning Israeli policy on this front, or denying the discrimination involved in Israel's rule over said population. It simply rejects the terminology and its application."

 

So you agree: Palestinians are being discriminated against, denied residency that Jews can take for granted, have their homes demolished to make way for new arrivals of fanatical Jews from New York or London. But this does not amount to apartheid because all it needs is for a single East Jerusalem Palestinian (who must humiliatingly swear to the right of a foreign power to seize his land) to still be allowed to apply for citizenship and be granted it (despite perhaps thousands applying and denied) for you to be satisfied that all the rest of de facto apartheid can be swept under the carpet as simply a disagreement over terminology. 

 

Pure disingenuous charlatan chicanery. Now I can see you clearly for what you are. You are hiding behind the niceties of legalistic minutiae to deny that Israel is practising de facto apartheid. Truly disappointing apologist stuff.

 

So, according to your logic, if white South Africans on paper at least had offered citizenship to just one black African, then all the rest of its discriminatory state apparatus would not count as apartheid.

 

This legalistic ploy obviously is going to be your pretext for the denial of apartheid all the way through every phase of Israeli annexation. You are transparently trying to defend the indefensible, and it don't cut the mustard.

Edited March 17, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

9 hours ago, dexterm said:

So your defense that Israel is not practising apartheid in East Jerusalem all boils down to a technicality.

 

Morch wrote..

"It does not mean condoning Israeli policy on this front, or denying the discrimination involved in Israel's rule over said population. It simply rejects the terminology and its application."

 

So you agree: Palestinians are being discriminated against, denied residency that Jews can take for granted, have their homes demolished to make way for new arrivals of fanatical Jews from New York or London. But this does not amount to apartheid because all it needs is for a single East Jerusalem Palestinian (who must humiliatingly swear to the right of a foreign power to seize his land) to still be allowed to apply for citizenship and be granted it (despite perhaps thousands applying and denied) for you to be satisfied that all the rest of de facto apartheid can be swept under the carpet as simply a disagreement over terminology. 

 

Pure disingenuous charlatan chicanery. Now I can see you clearly for what you are. You are hiding behind the niceties of legalistic minutiae to deny that Israel is practising de facto apartheid. Truly disappointing apologist stuff.

 

So, according to your logic, if white South Africans on paper at least had offered citizenship to just one black African, then all the rest of its discriminatory state apparatus would not count as apartheid.

 

This legalistic ploy obviously is going to be your pretext for the denial of apartheid all the way through every phase of Israeli annexation. You are transparently trying to defend the indefensible, and it don't cut the mustard.

 

Instead of putting words in my mouth, twisting what I have actually posted and assuming the usual faux indignant holier than thou position, may want to pay attention once in a while.

 

If you had read the "report", you would have realized that it solely rests on definitions, technicalities and interpretations. That seems to bother you only when applied one way, but not the other. It is also quite when you employ such arguments, but unacceptable for others. Not that I expect anything resembling a reasonable discussion from the likes of you, just pointing out the double standard.

 

And please, do limit the co-opting nonsense to others. Discrimination does not automatically imply an Apartheid, nor all the fiery claims and terms usually featuring in your posts. And Palestinians in East Jerusalem are not routinely denied residency - they have are permanent resident status, by law. The issue raised was to do with citizenship.

 

The false presentation of my words and view by taking it to an extreme I did not relate to, while disregarding some of the other points made is the usual fare. Nothing but another dishonest rhetorical garbage masquerading as "discussion". If you can not debate you argument in a civilized manner, but only through resorting to such low means, there is little point in addressing it.