Israeli–Palestinian conflict

The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42938
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Strangelove »

Topper wrote: Talking on the phone this afternoon with a friend of Jewish heritage who was telling me his adventures last week slaughtering and butchering pigs with an old German who had it down to an art form.

Submerge the dead whole pig in 150F water and then use sharp blades to remove the skin and epidermis. Unfortunately one pig had cooled so out came the tiger torch. the old German berated my friend for not scraping immediately behind the torch but my friend said he was just being cautious.

After butchering the pigs they had a large vat of fat that was going to be used for soap making.

I managed not the split a gut for only so long before commenting on the ridiculous scenario of a German and a Jew butchering a pig, having a tank of gas, a tiger torch and rendering fat for soap.
Sounds like something dreamt up by Kilgore Trout! :drink:
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18175
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Topper »

From a basement bunker in Dresden
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Per wrote: My previous post
Not entirely false, but also not entirely true.

Except for this sentence...

"The present solution is similar to the apartheid era in South Africa."

... which of course is completely asinine.


There are many ways to paint the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

This has been one of them.
Well, it is nothing that hasn't been said by Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, John Kerry, Alice Walker, Winnie Mandela, the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem or the Canadian Union of Public Employees. It's a pretty common analogy, which is probably not quite fair, but which does raise some serious issues about how the palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza are treated.

On the other hand many prominent people, such as Rob Ford, dismiss the claim out of hand. :drink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and ... id_analogy

Actually, according to Hirsh Goodman, David Ben-Gurion said on Israeli radio after the 1967 Arab–Israeli War that Israel would become an apartheid state if it did not rid itself of the Palestinian territories and their Arab population as soon as possible. We all know that that didn't happen.
And Ariel Sharon has suggested a Bantustan solution for the West Bank, so it seems the analogy is not completely foreign to Israeli politicians either.
I also refer to my earlier quote of Tzipi Livni (this time I did check the spelling), current Minister of Justice in Israel, who has warned that if Israel is to annex the West Bank it can remain Jewish or democratic, but not both. Which is why she despite being a hardliner and raised by Irgun members (both parents were prominent members of this terrorist group) favours a two state solution.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18175
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Topper »

and oddly the solution the aboriginals in Canada are proposing for themselves.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42938
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Strangelove »

Per wrote:
Strangelove wrote: Not entirely false, but also not entirely true.

Except for this sentence...

"The present solution is similar to the apartheid era in South Africa."

... which of course is completely asinine.
Per's response.
Per, you’ve explained many times over the years that you love to play “The Devil’s Advocate”.

That… for the sake of debate… you ignore truth and present an extreme view.

So I don't doubt that you know damn well that it’s morally wrong to compare Israel to SA apartheid

… but hey you do so because you love DEBATE!

I can appreciate that kind of stance.

Taking that kind of stance does not make you an asshole!

No, no, no…. invoking folks like Rob Ford is what makes you an asshole! :lol:

South African Apartheid: Racial segregation laws were in place.

Israel: NOT

South African Apartheid: Political representation by folks of certain races was not allowed.

Israel: NOT

South African Apartheid: Folks of certain races were deprived of citizenship.

Israel: NOT

South African Apartheid: No criticism of the government was allowed.

Israel: NOT

http://www.winnipegjewishreview.com/art ... =161&sec=1
ISRAELI ARAB LEGAL SCHOLAR: ISRAEL IS NOT AN APARTHEID STATE

Dr. Mohammed Wattad, an Arab Israeli Muslim who is a senior lecturer at Zefat College’s School of Law and editor of the International Journal on Medicine and Law told an audience here that Israel is not an apartheid state.

The very articulate Dr. Wattad spoke at the University of Manitoba during Israel Apartheid Week [IAW], but virtually none of the IAW organizers and supporters came to hear his lecture.

Dr. Wattad said that “As an Israeli citizen, I belong to a political entity...I have no other home than the State of Israel. I am a proud Israeli citizen but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize it…At the same time I am a proud Arab national. I like Arab culture, people, etc... Whenever something wrong happens to the Arab world, I feel it. These are not contradictory things.”

He added, “Don’t tell me Israel can’t define itself as Jewish and democratic… This doesn’t mean that Israel is innocent in all of this [conflict], but there are others here that also aren’t innocent.”

Dr. Wattad, who was sponsored by the Jewish Students Association/Hillel pointed out that “Israeli Arabs, for example in the Galilee, decided upon the State of Israel’s birth to stay and take citizenship, to be an Israeli citizen or not…That was their choice…”

In 2007, Dr. Wattad, was the recipient in Italy of the an award for the ‘‘Best Oralist for Legal Arguments” given by the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science. At the University of Manitoba he spoke about the difference between discrimination and apartheid.

“Is there discrimination in Israel? Yes-there is discrimination against women, elderly, Arabs, Russian Jews, Christians,…But the same goes for Canada. Is it good-No? But it means we have to deal with the problem from within…. The existence of discrimination in a state does not mean it is an apartheid state…There is a big difference between apartheid and discrimination,” he said.

“In an apartheid regime, there is no possibility of judicial review, because the judges are appointed by the regime and all serve one ideology. This is not the case in Israel…There is a very strong, independent Supreme Court in Israel. In an apartheid regime [unlike in Israel] there is no place to go to argue against the government,” Dr. Wattad added.


He further noted for example that in the case of Israel’s security “fence”, there were “‘more than 163 judgments of the Supreme Court where they decided that the fence had to be re-routed/rebuilt.” He also said that Egypt also has a fence between it and Gaza.

Regarding Hamas, Dr. Wattad said that a “big opportunity was lost,” saying that Hamas started launching missiles, when instead they ought to have used their ‘golden opportunity to build a state.”
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/511/islam-today-1
Islam Today
by Khaled Abu Toameh

Tolerance and Intolerance in the Islamic World

Held at the Palais des Nations during the Durban Review Conference.

All members of the Panel are Practicing Muslims.

I am an Arab Muslim living in Jerusalem. I am also an Israeli citizen, not because I am a collaborator with Israel, but because my father belongs to the Israeli-Arab community inside Israel. We are talking about nearly 1.4 million people living inside Israel. And I also happen to be a Palestinian because my mother is a Palestinian from the West Bank. So if you're confused you can call me an Israeli-Arab-Muslim-Palestinian.

We Arabs have been exposed to many good things inside Israel. I'm not ashamed to say that we learned from Israel. We learned about democracy. We learned about the freedom of debate. We learned about the freedom of the media.

That is why the Arabs had high hopes on the eve of the Oslo Accords. They were hoping that when they finally have their own Arab government over there, it would be a democracy like the one in Israel; that we would have our own *Knesset where someone can criticize the Prime Minister and government. And we would have a free media where someone could write about corruption.

When I used to work in the PLO newspaper, we used to say that we hope one day we will have a free media like the one these Jews have, where a writer can bring down a minister through an investigative report.

I want to see the leaders of the Israeli-Arab community inside Israel fighting for our rights from *the Knesset in Jerusalem and not from Damascus or Beirut or Gaza. And why do they forget that when they were elected they made an oath to the State of Israel. And then they come here to tell us that Israel is a state of apartheid?

Excuse me. What kind of hypocrisy is this? What then are you doing in *the Knesset? If you are living in an apartheid system, why were you allowed, as an Arab, to run in the election? What are you talking about?

We do have problems as Arabs with the establishment here. But to come and say that Israel is an apartheid state is a big exaggeration.


Israel is a wonderful place to live and we are happy to be there. Israel is a free and open country. If I were given the choice, I would rather live in Israel as a second class citizen than as a first class citizen in Cairo, Gaza, Amman or Ramallah.
*The Knesset is the national legislature of Israel.

http://quotes.yourdictionary.com/apartheid
“The difference between the current Israeli situation and apartheid South Africa is emphasised at a very human level: Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, with the same facilities, attended by the same doctors and nurses, with the mothers recovering in adjoining beds in a ward. Two years ago I had major surgery in a Jerusalem hospital: the surgeon was Jewish, the anaesthetist was Arab, the doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other’s homes. Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid? Of course not.

- Benjamin Pogrund (a South African-born author now living in Israel).
http://themetropolitain.ca/articles/view/456
“the indictment of Israel as an apartheid state is a manifestation of ideological anti-Semitism”

- Prof Irwin Cotler (anti-apartheid activist who was once a lawyer for Nelson Mandela)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opini ... ander.html
“In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute… The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.”
R Goldstone (South African judge hailed for undermining apartheid from within)

CONTINUED....
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42938
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Strangelove »

http://spme.org/campus-news-climate/53- ... tate/4536/
53 Distinguished Stanford Faculty Members: “Israel is Not An Apartheid State!”

THE APARTHEID ANALOGY IS FALSE AND BREEDS CONFLICT ISRAEL IS NOT AN APARTHEID STATE

In pursuing peace, security and prosperity for Palestinians and Israelis we must focus on initiatives that bring the sides closer together. We are saddened and concerned by the malicious propaganda campaign being waged on various campuses, including Stanford, against Israel. In falsely seeking to smear Israel with the stain of apartheid, this campaign is sowing divisiveness, bigotry, and discord. Demonizing Israel is contrary to our values of mutual respect and academic integrity. It contributes to the perpetuation of the conflict, not its resolution.

Apartheid was the vicious policy of the old South Africa that kept races separate and caused untold suffering to the Black majority and other people of color. The anti-Israel movement is cynically exploiting the memory of African suffering in order to score points in the fraught field of Middle East politics. To describe Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, as apartheid, trivializes the South African past while doing a grave injustice to the most pluralistic and open society in the Middle East today.

Under Apartheid, people were legally classified into racial groups and forcibly separated from each other. Apartheid South Africa was ruled by a White-only government. A wide range of laws ensured racially based discrimination, including the prohibition of Blacks from voting, using Whites-only schools and hospitals, and even mixing with Whites in public places.

The State of Israel has nothing in common with apartheid. Israeli society, as many others, is not free of racial and religious discrimination. Yet, in Israel, all minorities – including the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Arab Christians and Muslims – have equal civil, political, economic and personal rights. Israeli Arabs form political parties, compete in free and fair elections, and are represented in all levels of the legislature, executive and judiciary. Arabs are members of, for example, the Israeli Parliament, cabinet, and High Court. Israelis of all religions and ethnicities can legally live in any public residential community, attend the same universities and use the same hospitals. Arabic is an official language, an Israeli Arab is the Minister of Culture, and Arab Israelis richly contribute to Israel’s science, culture and sports.

To equate Israel with apartheid displays a profound ignorance of the horror that was South Africa as well as contempt for democracy in Israel. The difficult path to peace in the Middle East can do without this sort of empty vilification. Rather, we need to work together toward the vital quest for true co-existence, peace and justice for all in the Middle East – Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Signed by…
Speaking of “completely asinine” and you playing “Devil’s Advocate” Per…

Remember when you took the side of Hamas in a debate on a fucking Canucks message board??!!

OMG THAT WAS SOOOO FUNNY!!! :lol:
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:http://spme.org/campus-news-climate/53- ... tate/4536/
53 Distinguished Stanford Faculty Members: “Israel is Not An Apartheid State!”

... To describe Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, as apartheid, trivializes the South African past ...
Yet many South Africans (including Desmond Tutu, Allan Boesak and Winnie Mandela) seem willing to do so:

On 15 May 2008, 34 leading South African activists published an open letter in The Citizen, under the heading "We fought apartheid; we see no reason to celebrate it in Israel now!". The signatories, who included Ronnie Kasrils and several other government ministers, COSATU General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, Ahmed Kathrada, Sam Ramsamy and Blade Nzimande, wrote "Apartheid is a crime against humanity. It was when it was done against South Africans; it is so when it is done against Palestinians!"

In May 2009, The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa released a legal study, subsequently published in 2012 as Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), finding that Israel is practicing both colonialism and apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories, according to the definition of apartheid provided by the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Further, Israel's practices could be grouped into three "pillars" of apartheid comparable to practices in South Africa:
The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews".
The second pillar is reflected in "Israel's 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT and ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel's extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians".
The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group."

(both examples from the wikipedia link I provided earlier)
Speaking of “completely asinine” and you playing “Devil’s Advocate” Per…

Remember when you took the side of Hamas in a debate on a fucking Canucks message board??!!

OMG THAT WAS SOOOO FUNNY!!! :lol:
You must have misinterpreted something I posted. I have never taken the side of Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation. I do however often take the side of the Palestinian civilians, who are being brutally mistreated by both Israel, Hamas and most of the rest of the world.

Just as the Israelis deserve a homeland, so do the Palestinians.

Pretty much the entire world stands behind the two state solution as outlined by the UN in 1947. It is also more or less universally accepted that the initial borders were cumbersome and should be changed to the ones that were on the ground between 1949 and 1967. The only ones to object to this are basically Hamas, the Israeli settler movement and some other fundamentalist groups within Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Virtually all international organisations and nations agree that this is what the solution looks like, in broad lines. Most Israeli parties accept this. Fatah accepts this. Egypt and Jordan accept this.

Some tweeking, like mutually agreed land swaps, the status of Jerusalem and how to settle the "right to return" issue is all that is up for debate. What is truely asinine is that 47 years have passed since 1967, and this matter is still not resolved!

(Btw, I do not think the apartheid comparisson holds water for Israel proper, but more so when referring to the situation in the occupied territories.)
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote: Per, you’ve explained many times over the years that you love to play “The Devil’s Advocate”.
That… for the sake of debate… you ignore truth and present an extreme view.
---
… but hey you do so because you love DEBATE!

I can appreciate that kind of stance.
Of course you can.
You do it all the time yourself.
Taking that kind of stance does not make you an asshole!

No, no, no…. invoking folks like Rob Ford is what makes you an asshole! :lol:
Ass intended! :drink:
South African Apartheid: Racial segregation laws were in place.

Israel: Interfaith marriages are not recognised under Israeli law. Jews may only marry Jews. Muslims may only marry Muslims. Christians mmay only marry Christians. Non-religious people are not allowed to marry at all. Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens are not allowed to move to Israel.

South African Apartheid: Political representation by folks of certain races was not allowed.

Israel: NOT

South African Apartheid: Folks of certain races were deprived of citizenship.

Israel: Under the law of right to return, anyone who can prove they're of Jewish origin has a right to citizenship, whereas a Palestinian refugee, even if they were born in present day Israel and/or have the legal deeds to show they are the rightful owner of land in Israel, has no chance of receiving Israeli citizenship, even if they marry an Israeli citizen.

South African Apartheid: No criticism of the government was allowed.

Israel: If you criticise the government you will be labelled an anti-semite, unless you are Jewish, in which case you will be labelled a self-hating Jew.
I took the liberty to expand a bit (in bold) on some of the one syllable descriptions you had of the Israeli situation.
Hope you don't mind.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42938
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Strangelove »

Per wrote: (Btw, I do not think the apartheid comparisson holds water for Israel proper, but more so when referring to the situation in the occupied territories.)
:roll:

By definition "apartheid" = racial legislation in a nation.

The term does not apply to a nation's actions in "occupied territories".

Besides there is no racism in Israel according to YOU:

viewtopic.php?p=216556#p216556
Per [color=#FF0000][b]Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:02 pm[/b][/color] wrote: the Palestinians really are Jews! Genetic studies show that they are roughly 80% Jewish, which is more than the Sephardic (Middle East) Jews, who are only about 70% Jewish. Ashkenazi Jews, for all their blonde hair and blue eyes and fondness for pork, are also about 80% Jewish
BOOM :lol:
Per wrote:
South African Apartheid: Racial segregation laws were in place.

Israel: Interfaith marriages are not recognised under Israeli law. Jews may only marry Jews. Muslims may only marry Muslims. Christians mmay only marry Christians. Non-religious people are not allowed to marry at all. Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens are not allowed to move to Israel.
What does interfaith have to do with race???

BOOM!! :thumbs:
Per wrote:
South African Apartheid: Political representation by folks of certain races was not allowed.

Israel: NOT

South African Apartheid: Folks of certain races were deprived of citizenship.

Israel: Under the law of right to return, anyone who can prove they're of Jewish origin has a right to citizenship, whereas a Palestinian refugee, even if they were born in present day Israel and/or have the legal deeds to show they are the rightful owner of land in Israel, has no chance of receiving Israeli citizenship, even if they marry an Israeli citizen.
You're going to have to explain further.

There are hundreds of thousands of palestinian land-owning citizens in Israel.

Besides... (notice "races")... according to YOU... palestinans are jews!

BOOM!!! :mrgreen:

Per wrote:
South African Apartheid: No criticism of the government was allowed.

Israel: If you criticise the government you will be labelled an anti-semite, unless you are Jewish, in which case you will be labelled a self-hating Jew.
Labelled by whom? :hmmm:
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Per wrote: (Btw, I do not think the apartheid comparisson holds water for Israel proper, but more so when referring to the situation in the occupied territories.)
:roll:

By definition "apartheid" = racial legislation in a nation.

The term does not apply to a nation's actions in "occupied territories".

Besides there is no racism in Israel according to YOU:

viewtopic.php?p=216556#p216556
Per [color=#FF0000][b]Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:02 pm[/b][/color] wrote: the Palestinians really are Jews! Genetic studies show that they are roughly 80% Jewish, which is more than the Sephardic (Middle East) Jews, who are only about 70% Jewish. Ashkenazi Jews, for all their blonde hair and blue eyes and fondness for pork, are also about 80% Jewish
BOOM :lol:
Per wrote:
South African Apartheid: Racial segregation laws were in place.

Israel: Interfaith marriages are not recognised under Israeli law. Jews may only marry Jews. Muslims may only marry Muslims. Christians mmay only marry Christians. Non-religious people are not allowed to marry at all. Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens are not allowed to move to Israel.
What does interfaith have to do with race???

BOOM!! :thumbs:
Sigh... OK, seems we have to look at some definitions here:
"Apartheid" isn't just a term of insult; it's a word with a very specific legal meaning, as defined by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1973 and ratified by most United Nations member states (Israel and the United States are exceptions, to their shame).

According to Article II of that convention, the term applies to acts "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." Denying those others the right to life and liberty, subjecting them to arbitrary arrest, expropriating their property, depriving them of the right to leave and return to their country or the right to freedom of movement and of residence, creating separate reserves and ghettos for the members of different racial groups, preventing mixed marriages — these are all examples of the crime of apartheid specifically mentioned in the convention.

Seeing the reference to racial groups here, some people might think of race in a putatively biological sense or as a matter of skin color. That is a rather simplistic (and dated) way of thinking about racial identity. More to the point, however, the operative definition of "racial identity" is provided in the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (to which Israel is a signatory), on which the apartheid convention explicitly draws.

There, the term "racial discrimination" is defined as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

Thus the UN convention banning apartheid defines racial discrimination as any discrimination based on eg descent or national or ethic origin. I think those are the key elements here. Biologically you cannot distinguish between Israelis or Palestinians, but it is still not OK to discriminate them based on their cultural ethnicity or the fact that they descend from the Jews that stayed in Israel after the destruction of the temple whereas those who are recognised as Jews today are descended from the Jews who fled the country at that time.

Seriously, you must have grasped that the "apartheid" people accuse the Israeli government of is based on ethnicity and religion rather than skin colour, right? I mean, sure, the Orthodox Jews are giving black Israelis and immigrants a really hard time, but that's not what people refer to when they accuse Israel of apartheid. You're just being obtuse on purpose. :hmmm:
Last edited by Per on Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Per wrote:

South African Apartheid: Folks of certain races were deprived of citizenship.

Israel: Under the law of right to return, anyone who can prove they're of Jewish origin has a right to citizenship, whereas a Palestinian refugee, even if they were born in present day Israel and/or have the legal deeds to show they are the rightful owner of land in Israel, has no chance of receiving Israeli citizenship, even if they marry an Israeli citizen.
You're going to have to explain further.

There are hundreds of thousands of palestinian land-owning citizens in Israel.
Sort of. The Palestinians that stayed put when Israel was created have been granted citizenship, but they are usually not referred to as Palestinians, but as Israeli Arabs. Kind of as Canadians are generally not referred to as Americans, eventhough Canada is situated on the American continent. I mean, technically the term would be correct, but that's not how people use it. Normally you distinguish between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians, even if they basically are the same ethnic and cultural group.

As you can see above I was referring to the Law of Return, which allows any Jew to immediately become an Israeli citizen, but denies that right to Palestinian refugees, even if they can prove that they were born in Israel or rightfully own land there (which more often than not has been confiscated). So, the descendants of people who fled the area nearly two thousand years ago have a right to return, but the descendants of people (or the actual people) who fled the area 65 or 47 years ago do not.

People who never left are not affected by the Law of Return.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Cousin Strawberry
MVP
MVP
Posts: 26173
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Cousin Strawberry »

Not actually relative to the topic at hand but intersting nonetheless.

http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2 ... y-muslims/

Wondering if their callous disrespect of Allemansrätten will bring the age old right of access tradition to an end...as far as I know this tradition is only found in the Scandinavian countries. Sad really
If you need air...call it in
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Per wrote:
South African Apartheid: No criticism of the government was allowed.

Israel: If you criticise the government you will be labelled an anti-semite, unless you are Jewish, in which case you will be labelled a self-hating Jew.
Labelled by whom? :hmmm:
Mainly people connected to Likud, the Orthodox fringe and/or the settler movement.
Kind of the same people who get their panties in a bunch because Prime Minister Netanyahu's son has been seen dating a shiksa...
http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/01/b ... ew/357423/

Not that I would ever dare hinting that Israeli right wingers seem to be a tad racist or having problems differentiating between national and private matters... :oops:

Mind you, if Yair really wants to spit on his grandparents' grave, as his uncle so diplomatically puts it, couldn't he do it properly and date a Palestinian girl instead of a Norwegian? :eh:
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Per »

Uncle dans leg wrote:Not actually relative to the topic at hand but intersting nonetheless.

http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2 ... y-muslims/

Wondering if their callous disrespect of Allemansrätten will bring the age old right of access tradition to an end...as far as I know this tradition is only found in the Scandinavian countries. Sad really
Wow...! :|
Under what neonazi rock did you find that report? I mean, it's ridiculouslyclumsy st what it attempts to do, and the phrasing reeks of extreme right propaganda...

It talks of a totalitarian socialist regime in Sweden in 1975? Seriously. :roll:
Sweden has had a parliament since the Middle Ages, albeit equal and universal suffrage just from 1921.
Before that voting rights were skewered depending on income and wealth, and women could not vote, but alredy in the 18th century the parliament was often at odds with the king, and we had a power struggle, sort of like between the white house and congress in the US, so even back then it wasn't quite totaliraian, even if it was a deeply flawed democracy.
Now, referring to a totalitarian government in 1975 truly reveals that this site is part of the neonazi or fascist movement, since they insist that there is no difference between the social democrats, the liberals or the conservatives, so they don't really believe that the elections make any difference. OK, there is an extreme left wing fringe that reasons the same way, but the rest of the text makes it pretty clear thst we're dealing with right wing xenophobes.
And the headline is misleading. The stats he brings up show an increase in reported assaults, and this is compared with statistics showing an increase in immigration. Wow! This is like the famous statistics showing a negative correlation between the number of telephones in a country and average number of children per family... The graphs were perfect and seemed to show a clear correlation, but of course there is none.
Seriously, there are so many flaws in this, that I don't really know where to begin. He doesn't show any statistics that are relevant for the statements he makes, and several of the claims are clearly wrong. I know for a fact that our crime statistics do not mention what religion suspected or convicted people subscribe to. There is some statistics (albeit not cited here) that show country of birth, but that has nothing to do with religion! One of the biggest immigrant groups in Sweden are the Assyrians. They hail from Syria and Iraq, and most of them have moved to Sweden because of persecution in their home countries, since they are Christians! Now, the idiot behind the article you posted will of course consider all Assyrians Muslims, since he seems to think that country of origin equals religion. What a moron! :lol:
Same goes for many other groups. A lot of the Iranians in Sweden have come here because they are Bahaï, Zoroastrians or Atheists. Or gay. Or communists. Very few of them are devout Muslims.

Then there is the problem with "reported assaults". Back in the day young men fought on a Friday or Saturday night and then they went home. No reports filed. These days pretty much every bar fight leads to a police report, or typically two, since both guys report their opponent for having assaulted them. Since the 1970's we have also banned the use of physical violence against children, which means that some of the reported assaults probablyresult from neighbours reporting people who discipline their children by beating them. This is a good thing, of course, but it means that when you compare assault stats from 1975 with assault stats from today, it's apples and pears. They don't mean the same thing. Surveys that ask people if they have been the victim of violent crime in the past year show an opposite trend, so most social scientists think the rising assault numbers merely reflect an increase in the number of assaults reported, not in the number of actual assaults.

This is confirmed if you look at the number of homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, which has been fairly stable in Sweden since the 19th century, with lows in the1850's and 1950's and a peak in the 1980's through 1990's and is now falling again. Logically, if there really is an increase in violent crime, that should allso be reflected in the homicide rate. In 2012 the Swedish homicide rate was 0.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, which is less than half of Canada's 1.6 and less than a sixth of the 4.7 of the USA, so I'm not so worried.

So, to sum it up, seems you stumbled upon some right wing bullshitter who is doing his best in trying to make some random stats show that Muslims are evil, but fortunately lacks the skills and intellect to succeed.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... icide_rate
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Post by Per »

Btw, Allemansrätten (=all men's right) refers to the right to wander freely in forests and pastures, to pick wild berries, mushrooms and flowers, and the right to pitch your tent pretty much anywhere you like for one night (does of course not apply to tilled or planted fields, someone's yard or in the middle of the road, but most other places, for one night) or longer if you have the land owners permission.

I fail to see the connection between this and suggested violence among Muslims.
I'm not even sure most Muslims are that interested in mushroom picking in the mosquito infested woods.

There's been some debate about Romanian, Bulgarian and Thai berry pickers who camp in the woods for weeks and leave garbage piles where they've been. But the problem there is mainly that they litter and that they have failed to contact the landowner to ask permission to stay more than that one night they're entitled too. I can't really see that this would lead to repealing a centuries old law either.

I think a worse problem would be eg white water rafting companies who exploit the right to ealk across someone's land day after day after day without asking permission or paying for the inconvenience. This could easily be fixed by adding the provision that the law does not apply for commercial enterprises.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
Post Reply