Yes these two words belong side by side.
The most overlooked atrocity of the century is the apartheid against the Palestinian poeple. In Canada there are multiple movements to bring attention to what has been whitewashed for far too long.
Nelson Mandela, considerably an expert on apartheid, has declared Israel as an apartheid state. Gandhi, despite repeated attempts to win him over, refused to endorse Israel's actions in Palestine. The first course of action: Stop the Wall!
Mandela :
Perhaps it is strange for you to observe the situation in Palestine or more specifically, the structure of political and cultural relationships between Palestinians and Israelis, as an apartheid system. This is because you incorrectly think that the problem of Palestine began in 1967. This was demonstrated in your recent column "Bush's First Memo" in the New York Times on March 27, 2001...
Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa.
In the last few years, and especially during the reign of the Labor Party, Israel showed that it was not even willing to return what it occupied in 1967; that settlements remain, Jerusalem would be under exclusive Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would not have an independent state, but would be under Israeli economic domination with Israeli control of borders, land, air, water and sea...
Palestinian property is not recognized as private property because it can be confiscated.
As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called "Palestinian autonomous areas" are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system.
Palestinians have been ignored for too long
stop the wall
Israeli Apartheid
Israeli Apartheid
Posted in another thread but belonging here:
Declaration by South Africa on Apartheid Israel
...We acknowledge the theft of the land and realise how today the Jewish National Fund, a member of the World Zionist Organisation, administers 93% of the land of Israel. To live on land, lease it, sharecrop or work on it, one must establish four generations of maternal Jewish descent. In Israel, such a lineage is necessary in order to enjoy elementary rights. We cannot mistake the quintessentially racist character of such a state. Israel is an apartheid state, founded on pillage and predicated on exclusivity. Rights flow from ethnic and religious identity.
We, South Africans who have lived through apartheid cannot be silent as another entire people are treated as non-human beings; people without rights or human dignity and facing daily humiliation. We cannot permit a ruthless state to use military jets, helicopter gun-ships and tanks on civilians. We cannot accept state assassinations of activists, the torture of political prisoners, the murder of children and collective punishment.
We, South Africans who lived for decades under rulers with a colonial mentality see Israeli occupation as a strange survival of colonialism in the 21st century. Only in Israel do we hear of ‘settlements’ and ‘settlers’. Only in Israel do soldiers and armed civilian groups take over hilltops, demolish homes, uproot trees and destroy crops, shell schools, churches and mosques, plunder water reserves, and block access to an indigenous population’s freedom of movement and right to earn a living. These human rights violations were unacceptable in apartheid South Africa and are an affront to us in apartheid Israel.
Declaration by South Africa on Apartheid Israel
...We acknowledge the theft of the land and realise how today the Jewish National Fund, a member of the World Zionist Organisation, administers 93% of the land of Israel. To live on land, lease it, sharecrop or work on it, one must establish four generations of maternal Jewish descent. In Israel, such a lineage is necessary in order to enjoy elementary rights. We cannot mistake the quintessentially racist character of such a state. Israel is an apartheid state, founded on pillage and predicated on exclusivity. Rights flow from ethnic and religious identity.
We, South Africans who have lived through apartheid cannot be silent as another entire people are treated as non-human beings; people without rights or human dignity and facing daily humiliation. We cannot permit a ruthless state to use military jets, helicopter gun-ships and tanks on civilians. We cannot accept state assassinations of activists, the torture of political prisoners, the murder of children and collective punishment.
We, South Africans who lived for decades under rulers with a colonial mentality see Israeli occupation as a strange survival of colonialism in the 21st century. Only in Israel do we hear of ‘settlements’ and ‘settlers’. Only in Israel do soldiers and armed civilian groups take over hilltops, demolish homes, uproot trees and destroy crops, shell schools, churches and mosques, plunder water reserves, and block access to an indigenous population’s freedom of movement and right to earn a living. These human rights violations were unacceptable in apartheid South Africa and are an affront to us in apartheid Israel.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: The most overlooked atrocity of the century is the apartheid against the Palestinian poeple. Not even close.
Human rights violations of extremist Islamic communities - and nations - against women.
Human rights violations of Arab nations against immigrant workers.
Slavery in South America.
Starvation throughout Africa, even without food shortages.
Tibet
... and probably even worse atrocities that are being completely overlooked.
Human rights violations of extremist Islamic communities - and nations - against women.
Human rights violations of Arab nations against immigrant workers.
Slavery in South America.
Starvation throughout Africa, even without food shortages.
Tibet
... and probably even worse atrocities that are being completely overlooked.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Israeli Apartheid
Native Americans today, in the US and Canada...............
Indigenous people in Australia and New Zealand.......................
Indigenous people in Australia and New Zealand.......................
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Israeli Apartheid
Female genital mutilation as a cultural tradition.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Israeli Apartheid
Diuretic wrote: Um - not in this century in Australia, unless we discuss the continuing rape of children in indigenous outback communities. But that would require a separate thread and much time to discuss.I'd call that an atrocity - one which is definitely overlooked in this part of the world.
Israeli Apartheid
Israeli Committee Against House Demotions
House demolitions have become the hallmark of the Occupation. Indeed, since 1967 Israel has demolished almost 12,000 Palestinian homes, leaving some 70,000 without shelter and traumatized. The systematic demolition of Palestinian homes is an attack on an entire people, an attempt to make the Palestinians submit to a mini-state or worse, an "autonomous" set of islands -- under Israeli control. We need to struggle against the Occupation so that both our peoples will eventually enjoy the fruits of a just peace.
Amnesty International
Forced evictions and house demolitions are usually carried out without warning, often at night, and the occupants are given little or no time to leave their homes. Sometimes they are allowed a few minutes or half an hour, too little to salvage their belongings. Often the only warning is the rumbling of the Israeli army’s bulldozers and tanks and the inhabitants barely have time to flee as the bulldozers begin to tear down the walls of their homes. Thousands of families have had their homes and possessions destroyed under the blades of the Israeli army’s US-made Caterpillar bulldozers. In the wake of the demolitions men, women and children return to the ruins of their homes searching for whatever can be salvaged from under the rubble: passports or other documents, children’s schoolbooks, clothes, kitchenware or furniture which were not destroyed.
In most cases the justification given by the Israeli authorities for the destruction of homes, agricultural land and other properties is "military/security needs", while in other cases the justification is lack of building permits. The result is the same: families are left homeless and destitute. They must rely on relatives, friends and charity organizations for shelter and subsistence.
The destruction of Palestinian homes, agricultural land and other property in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, is inextricably linked with Israel’s long-standing policy of appropriating as much as possible of the land it occupies, notably by establishing Israeli settlements. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories violates international humanitarian law,(2) and the presence of these settlements has led to mass violations of human rights of the local Palestinian population.
There are approximately 10 000 detainees being held and tortured without charges. Some of these are women and children.
House demolitions have become the hallmark of the Occupation. Indeed, since 1967 Israel has demolished almost 12,000 Palestinian homes, leaving some 70,000 without shelter and traumatized. The systematic demolition of Palestinian homes is an attack on an entire people, an attempt to make the Palestinians submit to a mini-state or worse, an "autonomous" set of islands -- under Israeli control. We need to struggle against the Occupation so that both our peoples will eventually enjoy the fruits of a just peace.
Amnesty International
Forced evictions and house demolitions are usually carried out without warning, often at night, and the occupants are given little or no time to leave their homes. Sometimes they are allowed a few minutes or half an hour, too little to salvage their belongings. Often the only warning is the rumbling of the Israeli army’s bulldozers and tanks and the inhabitants barely have time to flee as the bulldozers begin to tear down the walls of their homes. Thousands of families have had their homes and possessions destroyed under the blades of the Israeli army’s US-made Caterpillar bulldozers. In the wake of the demolitions men, women and children return to the ruins of their homes searching for whatever can be salvaged from under the rubble: passports or other documents, children’s schoolbooks, clothes, kitchenware or furniture which were not destroyed.
In most cases the justification given by the Israeli authorities for the destruction of homes, agricultural land and other properties is "military/security needs", while in other cases the justification is lack of building permits. The result is the same: families are left homeless and destitute. They must rely on relatives, friends and charity organizations for shelter and subsistence.
The destruction of Palestinian homes, agricultural land and other property in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, is inextricably linked with Israel’s long-standing policy of appropriating as much as possible of the land it occupies, notably by establishing Israeli settlements. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories violates international humanitarian law,(2) and the presence of these settlements has led to mass violations of human rights of the local Palestinian population.
There are approximately 10 000 detainees being held and tortured without charges. Some of these are women and children.
Israeli Apartheid
"The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight. That time has now come to [guess which country]. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means within our power in defence of our people, our future and our freedom."
"[Guess which organization] will be at the front line of the people's defence. It will be the fighting arm of the people against the government and its policies of race oppression . It will be the striking force of the people for liberty, for rights and for their final liberation! Let the government, its supporters who put it into power, and those whose passive toleration of reaction keeps it in power, take note of where the Nationalist government is leading the country!"
really, guess where I found these quotes.
"[Guess which organization] will be at the front line of the people's defence. It will be the fighting arm of the people against the government and its policies of race oppression . It will be the striking force of the people for liberty, for rights and for their final liberation! Let the government, its supporters who put it into power, and those whose passive toleration of reaction keeps it in power, take note of where the Nationalist government is leading the country!"
really, guess where I found these quotes.
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: Declaration by South Africa on Apartheid Israel
No, sorry, you can't get away with that.
The Declaration is NOT by South Africa, but rather (allegedly) by a group of anti-Semitic, PRO-TERRORIST South AfricaNS, and that is obvious from the link itself. The fact that you refer to it as a declaration by South Africa, by which you imply the government of S.A., simply demonstrates that you are a liar. In addition, I find no names of members or sponsors of the organization providing the website, which is to say, it could be the work of anyone, and therefore has no authority or credibility whatever.
Also, I'm not sure that the information - excuse me - propaganda in the link is factual. I'm not sure that, for instance... To live on land, lease it, sharecrop or work on it, one must establish four generations of maternal Jewish descent. In Israel, such a lineage is necessary in order to enjoy elementary rights. I don't believe that ANY of that is true, but in any case I would have to learn the facts from an Israeli source. One you have established yourself as a liar, your credibility is lost. In any case, Israel is a JEWISH homeland. Why is that concept so difficult for the terminally bigotted? The 1947 partition provided three new nations, two Arab and one Jewish. Why is the Jewish homeland 'apartheid' and the various Arab hellholes in the region not?
Can, for example, a Christian practice his/her religion openly in Israel? Of course s/he can! In Saudi Arabia? OF COURSE NOT! S/he would be hunted down and killed!House demolitions have become the hallmark of the Occupation. Indeed, since 1967 Israel has demolished almost 12,000 Palestinian homes, leaving some 70,000 without shelter and traumatized. House demolitions have become the outcome of using one's house for terrrorist activities, for harboring terrrorists, or for supporting terrrorists. Maybe if they are sufficiently traumatized they will be unable to continue the terrrorism. One can hope.
No, sorry, you can't get away with that.
The Declaration is NOT by South Africa, but rather (allegedly) by a group of anti-Semitic, PRO-TERRORIST South AfricaNS, and that is obvious from the link itself. The fact that you refer to it as a declaration by South Africa, by which you imply the government of S.A., simply demonstrates that you are a liar. In addition, I find no names of members or sponsors of the organization providing the website, which is to say, it could be the work of anyone, and therefore has no authority or credibility whatever.
Also, I'm not sure that the information - excuse me - propaganda in the link is factual. I'm not sure that, for instance... To live on land, lease it, sharecrop or work on it, one must establish four generations of maternal Jewish descent. In Israel, such a lineage is necessary in order to enjoy elementary rights. I don't believe that ANY of that is true, but in any case I would have to learn the facts from an Israeli source. One you have established yourself as a liar, your credibility is lost. In any case, Israel is a JEWISH homeland. Why is that concept so difficult for the terminally bigotted? The 1947 partition provided three new nations, two Arab and one Jewish. Why is the Jewish homeland 'apartheid' and the various Arab hellholes in the region not?
Can, for example, a Christian practice his/her religion openly in Israel? Of course s/he can! In Saudi Arabia? OF COURSE NOT! S/he would be hunted down and killed!House demolitions have become the hallmark of the Occupation. Indeed, since 1967 Israel has demolished almost 12,000 Palestinian homes, leaving some 70,000 without shelter and traumatized. House demolitions have become the outcome of using one's house for terrrorist activities, for harboring terrrorists, or for supporting terrrorists. Maybe if they are sufficiently traumatized they will be unable to continue the terrrorism. One can hope.
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: No, sorry, you can't get away with that.
The Declaration is NOT by South Africa, but rather (allegedly) by a group of anti-Semitic, PRO-TERRORIST South AfricaNS, and that is obvious from the link itself. The fact that you refer to it as a declaration by South Africa, by which you imply the government of S.A., simply demonstrates that you are a liar. In addition, I find no names of members or sponsors of the organization providing the website, which is to say, it could be the work of anyone, and therefore has no authority or credibility whatever.
You are correct that the heading should read "Africans" not "Africa". Your calling me a liar is quite dramatic.
This is what the South African Government has said about the wall:
The South African Government has decided to participate in this hearing due to the seriousness of the matter. The unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is of grave concern to the Government of South Africa, as is the worsening security situation in Israel. We have also endorsed on numerous occasions the right of Israel to ensure its security and have repeatedly called on all sides to terminate all violence. Actions, such as the construction of the Separation Wall, that further fuel the cycle of violence and counter-violence, must stop. We are convinced that the solution for the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is a negotiated settlement that would result in a two-state solution. However, the construction of a Separation Wall is a pretext to occupy more land and makes a negotiated settlement even harder to achieve. Indeed, the construction presents a direct threat to the successful implementation of the Road Map. The Separation Wall will make this two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict physically impossible to implement and gravely threaten any prospects for a just and peaceful settlement and a lasting peace. The Separation Wall is indeed undermining stability in the Middle East and jeopardising any attempt to reach a peaceful settlement of this long and bitter conflict.
Nelson Mandela has made it quite clear how he feels about the actions of the Israelis against Palestinians. He was their president and is most beloved by the South African people. Of course you may lump him in under your description of "anti-Semitic, PRO-TERRORIST South AfricaNS" but that doesn't sound very convincing. In fact, it's getting quite old.
Also, I'm not sure that the information - excuse me - propaganda in the link is factual. I'm not sure that, for instance... I don't believe that ANY of that is true, but in any case I would have to learn the facts from an Israeli source. One you have established yourself as a liar, your credibility is lost. In any case, Israel is a JEWISH homeland. Why is that concept so difficult for the terminally bigotted? The 1947 partition provided three new nations, two Arab and one Jewish. Why is the Jewish homeland 'apartheid' and the various Arab hellholes in the region not?
this is what I expect from you, Bronwen. You only believe what the Israelis will tell you. If we ran courts like that there would be no criminals. I am not established as a liar. You take a typing discrepancy and turn it into a character assessment. While, incidentally, making only unproven accusations yourself. Then you make a statement about Israel being for Jews and say that others are bigotted. What? There are Arabs in Israel. Ask the Arabs in the Negev desert how they are treated. As to the last question...do you know what apartheid is? Your question makes no sense to me.
Can, for example, a Christian practice his/her religion openly in Israel? Of course s/he can! In Saudi Arabia? OF COURSE NOT! S/he would be hunted down and killed!House demolitions have become the outcome of using one's house for terrrorist activities, for harboring terrrorists, or for supporting terrrorists. Maybe if they are sufficiently traumatized they will be unable to continue the terrrorism. One can hope.
What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Israel/Palestine? Do you know anything about this conflict? Talk about Iran, Syria, Lebanon...those have been connected but, where do you come up with Saudi Arabia? The only thing that makes sense is that you are the bigot who will use any Arab situation to judge all Arabs.
The house demolitions are being done to acquire land. They have little and, in many cases, nothing to do with terrorism.
I have to wonder, if the Arabs deserve all the punishment they get because they are resisting with violence, then why are we supposed to feel sorry for Israel? You suggest supporting Israel's violence while condemning the violence of Hezbollah. I condemn the violence of both.
The Declaration is NOT by South Africa, but rather (allegedly) by a group of anti-Semitic, PRO-TERRORIST South AfricaNS, and that is obvious from the link itself. The fact that you refer to it as a declaration by South Africa, by which you imply the government of S.A., simply demonstrates that you are a liar. In addition, I find no names of members or sponsors of the organization providing the website, which is to say, it could be the work of anyone, and therefore has no authority or credibility whatever.
You are correct that the heading should read "Africans" not "Africa". Your calling me a liar is quite dramatic.
This is what the South African Government has said about the wall:
The South African Government has decided to participate in this hearing due to the seriousness of the matter. The unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is of grave concern to the Government of South Africa, as is the worsening security situation in Israel. We have also endorsed on numerous occasions the right of Israel to ensure its security and have repeatedly called on all sides to terminate all violence. Actions, such as the construction of the Separation Wall, that further fuel the cycle of violence and counter-violence, must stop. We are convinced that the solution for the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is a negotiated settlement that would result in a two-state solution. However, the construction of a Separation Wall is a pretext to occupy more land and makes a negotiated settlement even harder to achieve. Indeed, the construction presents a direct threat to the successful implementation of the Road Map. The Separation Wall will make this two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict physically impossible to implement and gravely threaten any prospects for a just and peaceful settlement and a lasting peace. The Separation Wall is indeed undermining stability in the Middle East and jeopardising any attempt to reach a peaceful settlement of this long and bitter conflict.
Nelson Mandela has made it quite clear how he feels about the actions of the Israelis against Palestinians. He was their president and is most beloved by the South African people. Of course you may lump him in under your description of "anti-Semitic, PRO-TERRORIST South AfricaNS" but that doesn't sound very convincing. In fact, it's getting quite old.
Also, I'm not sure that the information - excuse me - propaganda in the link is factual. I'm not sure that, for instance... I don't believe that ANY of that is true, but in any case I would have to learn the facts from an Israeli source. One you have established yourself as a liar, your credibility is lost. In any case, Israel is a JEWISH homeland. Why is that concept so difficult for the terminally bigotted? The 1947 partition provided three new nations, two Arab and one Jewish. Why is the Jewish homeland 'apartheid' and the various Arab hellholes in the region not?
this is what I expect from you, Bronwen. You only believe what the Israelis will tell you. If we ran courts like that there would be no criminals. I am not established as a liar. You take a typing discrepancy and turn it into a character assessment. While, incidentally, making only unproven accusations yourself. Then you make a statement about Israel being for Jews and say that others are bigotted. What? There are Arabs in Israel. Ask the Arabs in the Negev desert how they are treated. As to the last question...do you know what apartheid is? Your question makes no sense to me.
Can, for example, a Christian practice his/her religion openly in Israel? Of course s/he can! In Saudi Arabia? OF COURSE NOT! S/he would be hunted down and killed!House demolitions have become the outcome of using one's house for terrrorist activities, for harboring terrrorists, or for supporting terrrorists. Maybe if they are sufficiently traumatized they will be unable to continue the terrrorism. One can hope.
What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Israel/Palestine? Do you know anything about this conflict? Talk about Iran, Syria, Lebanon...those have been connected but, where do you come up with Saudi Arabia? The only thing that makes sense is that you are the bigot who will use any Arab situation to judge all Arabs.
The house demolitions are being done to acquire land. They have little and, in many cases, nothing to do with terrorism.
I have to wonder, if the Arabs deserve all the punishment they get because they are resisting with violence, then why are we supposed to feel sorry for Israel? You suggest supporting Israel's violence while condemning the violence of Hezbollah. I condemn the violence of both.
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: No, sorry, you can't get away with that.
The Declaration is NOT by South Africa, but rather (allegedly) by a group of anti-Semitic, PRO-TERRORIST South AfricaNS, and that is obvious from the link itself. The fact that you refer to it as a declaration by South Africa, by which you imply the government of S.A., simply demonstrates that you are a liar. In addition, I find no names of members or sponsors of the organization providing the website, which is to say, it could be the work of anyone, and therefore has no authority or credibility whatever.
It would appear from your last xx posts that your instant reaction to anything that criticises Israael is that it's anti-semitic. The two are not automatic - you can disagree with what the Israeli government is doing without hating Jews.
And throwing out accusations of being a liar at the drop of a hat don't promote your cause either.
Bronwen wrote: Also, I'm not sure that the information - excuse me - propaganda in the link is factual. I'm not sure that, for instance... I don't believe that ANY of that is true, but in any case I would have to learn the facts from an Israeli source. One you have established yourself as a liar, your credibility is lost. In any case, Israel is a JEWISH homeland. Why is that concept so difficult for the terminally bigotted? The 1947 partition provided three new nations, two Arab and one Jewish. Why is the Jewish homeland 'apartheid' and the various Arab hellholes in the region not?
So only Israeli sources are credible and unbiased? And this is not a biased opinion?
Also, wouuld you please read the *legal* basis for for the foundation of Israel which differs markedly from the UDI that actually set up the State of Israel - although even that has grandiose phrases about equal right for Arabs and Christians.
Bronwen wrote: Can, for example, a Christian practice his/her religion openly in Israel? Of course s/he can! In Saudi Arabia? OF COURSE NOT! S/he would be hunted down and killed!
Which planet are you living on? There are many Christians working and living in Saudi Arabia and openly practicing their religion.
Bronwen wrote: House demolitions have become the outcome of using one's house for terrrorist activities, for harboring terrrorists, or for supporting terrrorists. Maybe if they are sufficiently traumatized they will be unable to continue the terrrorism. One can hope.
Actually, they are mostly a result of not having a permit - which the Israelis will not issue to Arabs. Arab East Jerusalem, no problem - know that Arab's houses down and when they've gone build homes for decent Jewish families.
And before you call *me* a lying anti-semite, do some research - you'll find it's true!
The Declaration is NOT by South Africa, but rather (allegedly) by a group of anti-Semitic, PRO-TERRORIST South AfricaNS, and that is obvious from the link itself. The fact that you refer to it as a declaration by South Africa, by which you imply the government of S.A., simply demonstrates that you are a liar. In addition, I find no names of members or sponsors of the organization providing the website, which is to say, it could be the work of anyone, and therefore has no authority or credibility whatever.
It would appear from your last xx posts that your instant reaction to anything that criticises Israael is that it's anti-semitic. The two are not automatic - you can disagree with what the Israeli government is doing without hating Jews.
And throwing out accusations of being a liar at the drop of a hat don't promote your cause either.
Bronwen wrote: Also, I'm not sure that the information - excuse me - propaganda in the link is factual. I'm not sure that, for instance... I don't believe that ANY of that is true, but in any case I would have to learn the facts from an Israeli source. One you have established yourself as a liar, your credibility is lost. In any case, Israel is a JEWISH homeland. Why is that concept so difficult for the terminally bigotted? The 1947 partition provided three new nations, two Arab and one Jewish. Why is the Jewish homeland 'apartheid' and the various Arab hellholes in the region not?
So only Israeli sources are credible and unbiased? And this is not a biased opinion?
Also, wouuld you please read the *legal* basis for for the foundation of Israel which differs markedly from the UDI that actually set up the State of Israel - although even that has grandiose phrases about equal right for Arabs and Christians.
Bronwen wrote: Can, for example, a Christian practice his/her religion openly in Israel? Of course s/he can! In Saudi Arabia? OF COURSE NOT! S/he would be hunted down and killed!
Which planet are you living on? There are many Christians working and living in Saudi Arabia and openly practicing their religion.
Bronwen wrote: House demolitions have become the outcome of using one's house for terrrorist activities, for harboring terrrorists, or for supporting terrrorists. Maybe if they are sufficiently traumatized they will be unable to continue the terrrorism. One can hope.
Actually, they are mostly a result of not having a permit - which the Israelis will not issue to Arabs. Arab East Jerusalem, no problem - know that Arab's houses down and when they've gone build homes for decent Jewish families.
And before you call *me* a lying anti-semite, do some research - you'll find it's true!
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: 1. You are correct that the heading should read "Africans" not "Africa". Your calling me a liar is quite dramatic.
2. This is what the South African Government has said about the wall.....What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Israel/Palestine?
3. Do you know anything about this conflict?
4. You only believe what the Israelis will tell you.
5. The house demolitions are being done to acquire land. They have little and, in many cases, nothing to do with terrrorism.
6. I have to wonder, if the Arabs deserve all the punishment they get because they are resisting....1. Well, those two letters didn't jump off the page by themselves. But that is really not the main issue. The website claims to represent the view of at least some South Africans, yet I was unable to find any specific accreditation such as the name of the webmaster or originator of the website. Without such information, the website cannot be regarded as anything more than one anonymous person's opinion. If it was stated as such, I would have no problem with that. Presenting it as the opinion of a nation, or of the people of that nation is deception.
2. What does South Africa have to do with Israel/Palestine? You're not being consistant here. Also, again there is no documentation. How do I know that the government of South Africa made any such official statement? The first part, that Israel has a right to defend itself, looks reasonably authentic. The latter part, that the purpose of the wall is to acquire land, does not. It doesn't seem reasonable that the government of a sovereign nation would make such an outrageous statement - but I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just asking for documentation which **PREDICTION** you are NOT going to provide.
3. Yes.
4. Now you're being silly. Israel either has the laws that the website claims or they do not. Are you saying that Israel has two sets of laws, one for the public to examine and another kept secret? Well, I guess that makes as much sense as anthing else you've posted on the subject.
5. Absolute nonsense. You still don't seem to grasp the basic fact that the Israelis fight to protect their homes, women and children and the Arabs fight while hiding behind theirs.
6. What hogwash! Who were Hezbollah 'resisting' when they invaded Israel, slew several Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others? That brings us back to the same unanswered challenge: Name ANY act of war or oppression imposed by the State of Israel on its neighbors, particularly the so-called 'Palestinians' that was not the direct result of Arab/Palestinian aggression or terrrorism. First comes the attack by Israel's enemies, then its response, that's a FACT and the only way Israel's enemies have of disputing this fact is by lying about it, as you have proven.
2. This is what the South African Government has said about the wall.....What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Israel/Palestine?
3. Do you know anything about this conflict?
4. You only believe what the Israelis will tell you.
5. The house demolitions are being done to acquire land. They have little and, in many cases, nothing to do with terrrorism.
6. I have to wonder, if the Arabs deserve all the punishment they get because they are resisting....1. Well, those two letters didn't jump off the page by themselves. But that is really not the main issue. The website claims to represent the view of at least some South Africans, yet I was unable to find any specific accreditation such as the name of the webmaster or originator of the website. Without such information, the website cannot be regarded as anything more than one anonymous person's opinion. If it was stated as such, I would have no problem with that. Presenting it as the opinion of a nation, or of the people of that nation is deception.
2. What does South Africa have to do with Israel/Palestine? You're not being consistant here. Also, again there is no documentation. How do I know that the government of South Africa made any such official statement? The first part, that Israel has a right to defend itself, looks reasonably authentic. The latter part, that the purpose of the wall is to acquire land, does not. It doesn't seem reasonable that the government of a sovereign nation would make such an outrageous statement - but I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just asking for documentation which **PREDICTION** you are NOT going to provide.
3. Yes.
4. Now you're being silly. Israel either has the laws that the website claims or they do not. Are you saying that Israel has two sets of laws, one for the public to examine and another kept secret? Well, I guess that makes as much sense as anthing else you've posted on the subject.
5. Absolute nonsense. You still don't seem to grasp the basic fact that the Israelis fight to protect their homes, women and children and the Arabs fight while hiding behind theirs.
6. What hogwash! Who were Hezbollah 'resisting' when they invaded Israel, slew several Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others? That brings us back to the same unanswered challenge: Name ANY act of war or oppression imposed by the State of Israel on its neighbors, particularly the so-called 'Palestinians' that was not the direct result of Arab/Palestinian aggression or terrrorism. First comes the attack by Israel's enemies, then its response, that's a FACT and the only way Israel's enemies have of disputing this fact is by lying about it, as you have proven.
Israeli Apartheid
Bryn Mawr wrote: Which planet are you living on? There are many Christians working and living in Saudi Arabia and openly practicing their religion.Bryn, I will give you credit here for a well-meaning but mistaken statement. That is utterly false. Christian guest-workers (or for that matter those of any other non-Islamic religion) must go behind SECURELY locked doors to conduct ANY sort of religious service. Even CASUAL discussion of one's non-Islamic religion in a public place, with no intention to proselytize, is strictly prohibited.
I wouldn't call that 'apartheid', but it's certainly an outrage that is not practiced in Israel or in any non-Islamic country that I know of.
In addition to that, Muslims themselves are not even allowed to know the truth about the history of their own religion or its founder. Salman Rushdie had a 'contract' put out on his life, and a Dutch TV producer was actually slain, each because they attempted to tell the truth about Islam, its history, its disgraceful abuse of women, and its founder.
I'm not going to attempt to do that here because if I did it's very possible that FG itself would become a target of Islamic terrrorism. But you need to read up on it - from a reliable source.
I wouldn't call that 'apartheid', but it's certainly an outrage that is not practiced in Israel or in any non-Islamic country that I know of.
In addition to that, Muslims themselves are not even allowed to know the truth about the history of their own religion or its founder. Salman Rushdie had a 'contract' put out on his life, and a Dutch TV producer was actually slain, each because they attempted to tell the truth about Islam, its history, its disgraceful abuse of women, and its founder.
I'm not going to attempt to do that here because if I did it's very possible that FG itself would become a target of Islamic terrrorism. But you need to read up on it - from a reliable source.
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: 1. Well, those two letters didn't jump off the page by themselves. But that is really not the main issue. The website claims to represent the view of at least some South Africans, yet I was unable to find any specific accreditation such as the name of the webmaster or originator of the website. Without such information, the website cannot be regarded as anything more than one anonymous person's opinion. If it was stated as such, I would have no problem with that. Presenting it as the opinion of a nation, or of the people of that nation is deception.
While I pasted the quotations from the page I hand typed the title. I type quickly and it is often faster for me to do that. So it was a mistype not a delete. Your presumption that it is one person because there aren't slews of names attached means that every association of people is not a group unless all their members are listed? I don't see that very often. You are grasping at straws there. Perhaps spot can source out the website info at some point. He's good at that. Even so, the WHOIS registry will likely only allow one name listed as the owner.
2. What does South Africa have to do with Israel/Palestine? You're not being consistant here. Also, again there is no documentation. How do I know that the government of South Africa made any such official statement? The first part, that Israel has a right to defend itself, looks reasonably authentic. The latter part, that the purpose of the wall is to acquire land, does not. It doesn't seem reasonable that the government of a sovereign nation would make such an outrageous statement - but I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just asking for documentation which **PREDICTION** you are NOT going to provide.
I am being completely consistent. SA has everything to do with apartheid. The statement is that Israel is conducting an apartheid. the subject revolves around the occupation and apartheid. I can't believe I had to explain that.
http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2004/04022409461002.htm
item 4. That is how you know it came from the government of South Africa. I don't need whois to tell you the government runs that site. and I don't much care which department it is official registered to.
3. Yes.
good. please start showing it.
4. Now you're being silly. Israel either has the laws that the website claims or they do not. Are you saying that Israel has two sets of laws, one for the public to examine and another kept secret? Well, I guess that makes as much sense as anthing else you've posted on the subject.
The supreme court of Israel ruled that the IDF had to stop using the "neighborhood procedure" as it used Palestinian civilians as human shields. The procedure was changed to "early warning" and the court ruled that the IDF could use the civilians if they agreed to it. How the agreement is procured was not looked into. That is one example that can be found. It is Israeli law and it can be found fairly easily when you know the name of the procedure. I'm pretty sure you won't find "Israeli sites" announcing this by loudspeaker. You should have a look at B'Tselem's site though. They are Israeli and they have more than a bit of a problem with some of the Israeli laws and procedures.
5. Absolute nonsense. You still don't seem to grasp the basic fact that the Israelis fight to protect their homes, women and children and the Arabs fight while hiding behind theirs.
That's the thing. The nonsense is that Israel can continue to say they are merely defending themselves. If the Arabs are the terrorists because they fight with violence then so are the Israelis. Drop your double standard. Everything the Israelis accuse the Arabs of can be found in their own policies. Assassinations, human shields, and using ambulances for military purposes. I have the information on that last bit coming up in my next post.
6. What hogwash! Who were Hezbollah 'resisting' when they invaded Israel, slew several Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others? That brings us back to the same unanswered challenge: Name ANY act of war or oppression imposed by the State of Israel on its neighbors, particularly the so-called 'Palestinians' that was not the direct result of Arab/Palestinian aggression or terrrorism. First comes the attack by Israel's enemies, then its response, that's a FACT and the only way Israel's enemies have of disputing this fact is by lying about it, as you have proven.
actually there were I few things that happened right before the kidnapping I'll go fetch it for you. Also, the violence against the Palestinians never stops. They are resisting the apartheid. That's kinda what this thread is trying to teach you. :rolleyes:
While I pasted the quotations from the page I hand typed the title. I type quickly and it is often faster for me to do that. So it was a mistype not a delete. Your presumption that it is one person because there aren't slews of names attached means that every association of people is not a group unless all their members are listed? I don't see that very often. You are grasping at straws there. Perhaps spot can source out the website info at some point. He's good at that. Even so, the WHOIS registry will likely only allow one name listed as the owner.
2. What does South Africa have to do with Israel/Palestine? You're not being consistant here. Also, again there is no documentation. How do I know that the government of South Africa made any such official statement? The first part, that Israel has a right to defend itself, looks reasonably authentic. The latter part, that the purpose of the wall is to acquire land, does not. It doesn't seem reasonable that the government of a sovereign nation would make such an outrageous statement - but I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just asking for documentation which **PREDICTION** you are NOT going to provide.
I am being completely consistent. SA has everything to do with apartheid. The statement is that Israel is conducting an apartheid. the subject revolves around the occupation and apartheid. I can't believe I had to explain that.
http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2004/04022409461002.htm
item 4. That is how you know it came from the government of South Africa. I don't need whois to tell you the government runs that site. and I don't much care which department it is official registered to.
3. Yes.
good. please start showing it.
4. Now you're being silly. Israel either has the laws that the website claims or they do not. Are you saying that Israel has two sets of laws, one for the public to examine and another kept secret? Well, I guess that makes as much sense as anthing else you've posted on the subject.
The supreme court of Israel ruled that the IDF had to stop using the "neighborhood procedure" as it used Palestinian civilians as human shields. The procedure was changed to "early warning" and the court ruled that the IDF could use the civilians if they agreed to it. How the agreement is procured was not looked into. That is one example that can be found. It is Israeli law and it can be found fairly easily when you know the name of the procedure. I'm pretty sure you won't find "Israeli sites" announcing this by loudspeaker. You should have a look at B'Tselem's site though. They are Israeli and they have more than a bit of a problem with some of the Israeli laws and procedures.
5. Absolute nonsense. You still don't seem to grasp the basic fact that the Israelis fight to protect their homes, women and children and the Arabs fight while hiding behind theirs.
That's the thing. The nonsense is that Israel can continue to say they are merely defending themselves. If the Arabs are the terrorists because they fight with violence then so are the Israelis. Drop your double standard. Everything the Israelis accuse the Arabs of can be found in their own policies. Assassinations, human shields, and using ambulances for military purposes. I have the information on that last bit coming up in my next post.
6. What hogwash! Who were Hezbollah 'resisting' when they invaded Israel, slew several Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others? That brings us back to the same unanswered challenge: Name ANY act of war or oppression imposed by the State of Israel on its neighbors, particularly the so-called 'Palestinians' that was not the direct result of Arab/Palestinian aggression or terrrorism. First comes the attack by Israel's enemies, then its response, that's a FACT and the only way Israel's enemies have of disputing this fact is by lying about it, as you have proven.
actually there were I few things that happened right before the kidnapping I'll go fetch it for you. Also, the violence against the Palestinians never stops. They are resisting the apartheid. That's kinda what this thread is trying to teach you. :rolleyes:
Israeli Apartheid
Here's the bit about the ambulances. Hand typed so excuse any typos or such :rolleyes:
While the IDF justifies their bombing, shooting and blocking of ambulances in Palestine as resulting from terrorist use of the vehicles for military purposes, there was only one instance that such an event was recorded and it is highly suspicious as being a staged event. The vehicle was allowed unsearched through four checkpoints, which is abnormal, then delayed for more than an hour at the final point to await the arrival of TV cameras before the search was finally done, suggesting prior knowledge of it.
This one instance occured in March 2002, well after the regular destruction of ambulances and killing of medical personnel had become a standard routine.
On the other hand, "the only documented misuses of an ambulance were committed by Israel. For example, 'soldiers wee crammed into a bullet-proof ambulance in order to get as quickly as possible to the house' of a wanted Palestinian; 'IDF soldiers in Nablus forced several ambulance drivers to stop, get out of their ambulances, and stand between the soldiers and stone throwers'; 'soldiers took control of an ambulance and used it to block entry to the hospital in Tulkarm.'"
Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein p129-130 internal quotes from Physicians for Human Rights, Evaluation of the Use of Force and Harm to Medical Personnel
While this could have gone in the "human shields" thread I post it here to show how Israel takes its own crimes and projects them on to the enemy. They have significantly larger amounts of money for PR.
While the IDF justifies their bombing, shooting and blocking of ambulances in Palestine as resulting from terrorist use of the vehicles for military purposes, there was only one instance that such an event was recorded and it is highly suspicious as being a staged event. The vehicle was allowed unsearched through four checkpoints, which is abnormal, then delayed for more than an hour at the final point to await the arrival of TV cameras before the search was finally done, suggesting prior knowledge of it.
This one instance occured in March 2002, well after the regular destruction of ambulances and killing of medical personnel had become a standard routine.
On the other hand, "the only documented misuses of an ambulance were committed by Israel. For example, 'soldiers wee crammed into a bullet-proof ambulance in order to get as quickly as possible to the house' of a wanted Palestinian; 'IDF soldiers in Nablus forced several ambulance drivers to stop, get out of their ambulances, and stand between the soldiers and stone throwers'; 'soldiers took control of an ambulance and used it to block entry to the hospital in Tulkarm.'"
Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein p129-130 internal quotes from Physicians for Human Rights, Evaluation of the Use of Force and Harm to Medical Personnel
While this could have gone in the "human shields" thread I post it here to show how Israel takes its own crimes and projects them on to the enemy. They have significantly larger amounts of money for PR.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
the border between gaza and egypt is wide open. the border between jordan and the west bank is wide open.
the plight of the palestinians hasn't been created by the israeli's. it's been promulgated and fostered by the neighboring arab nations, who see the political gain to be found by *not providing any assistance to the palestinians*, who they see only as useful pawn to play against israel. The egyptians and Jordanians have no specific concern for the palestinians - that's palpable, otherwise the *jordanians* would provide water and medical care for the nomadic palestinians in the west bank, rather than israel being left with the job; otherwise the egyptians would be providing financial aid and medical care to the palestinians in gaza, rather than the israelis (remember the video of the mixed up young lady who tried blow herself up, with the intent to kill the israeli doctors who were treating her? why wasn't she in an egyptian hospital, if there is this apartheid going on?).
the plight of the palestinians hasn't been created by the israeli's. it's been promulgated and fostered by the neighboring arab nations, who see the political gain to be found by *not providing any assistance to the palestinians*, who they see only as useful pawn to play against israel. The egyptians and Jordanians have no specific concern for the palestinians - that's palpable, otherwise the *jordanians* would provide water and medical care for the nomadic palestinians in the west bank, rather than israel being left with the job; otherwise the egyptians would be providing financial aid and medical care to the palestinians in gaza, rather than the israelis (remember the video of the mixed up young lady who tried blow herself up, with the intent to kill the israeli doctors who were treating her? why wasn't she in an egyptian hospital, if there is this apartheid going on?).
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: the border between gaza and egypt is wide open. the border between jordan and the west bank is wide open.
the plight of the palestinians hasn't been created by the israeli's. it's been promulgated and fostered by the neighboring arab nations, who see the political gain to be found by *not providing any assistance to the palestinians*, who they see only as useful pawn to play against israel. The egyptians and Jordanians have no specific concern for the palestinians - that's palpable, otherwise the *jordanians* would provide water and medical care for the nomadic palestinians in the west bank, rather than israel being left with the job; otherwise the egyptians would be providing financial aid and medical care to the palestinians in gaza, rather than the israelis (remember the video of the mixed up young lady who tried blow herself up, with the intent to kill the israeli doctors who were treating her? why wasn't she in an egyptian hospital, if there is this apartheid going on?).
There is a simple answer as to why the Palestinians have a problem with medical care. Perhaps this story will enlighten you.
B'TSELEM, OPERATION DEFENSIVE SHIELD:
SOLDIERS' TESTIMONIES, PALESTINIAN TESTIMONIES
(Jerusalem, September 2002), p. 23
On Friday, April 5, 2002, Tahani 'Ali 'Asad Fatouh, a pharmacist from Al Msakan Ash Sha'abiya in the Nablus District began having labour pains. Her husband, Dr. Ghassan 'Ali Nashat Sha'ar, called an ambulance to take his seven months pregnant wife to the hospital. Due to the curfew imposed on the area, the ambulance could not reach the house and Dr. Sha'ar had to deliver the baby with the help of his neighbor, Dr. Sulfeh. The delivery went smoothly. During the delivery, the ambulance crew tried to reach the couple's home, as the newborn would have to be placed in an incubator. All attempts failed. Some 30 minutes after the birth, the baby's health began to deteriorate. Dr. Sha'ar managed to resuscitate his son twice. On the third attempt, the baby died. Tahani Fatouh had become pregnant after four years of fertility treatments. The hospital is only two kilometers away from the couple's home.
(any typos are mine. the article is sat in front of me not an online resource)
So. She can't even get 2km to save her baby's life. How is she to get out of the country? For what you propose, either other countries invade and take occupation away from the Israelis or all the Palestinians leave their own country.
Why don't they have their own, Palestinian medical care? Physicians for Human Rights-Israel has a detailed study on that called A Legacy of Injustice: A Critique of Israeli Approaches to the Right to Health of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories These are Jewish Doctors writing the study, not a pro-Palestinian group.
the plight of the palestinians hasn't been created by the israeli's. it's been promulgated and fostered by the neighboring arab nations, who see the political gain to be found by *not providing any assistance to the palestinians*, who they see only as useful pawn to play against israel. The egyptians and Jordanians have no specific concern for the palestinians - that's palpable, otherwise the *jordanians* would provide water and medical care for the nomadic palestinians in the west bank, rather than israel being left with the job; otherwise the egyptians would be providing financial aid and medical care to the palestinians in gaza, rather than the israelis (remember the video of the mixed up young lady who tried blow herself up, with the intent to kill the israeli doctors who were treating her? why wasn't she in an egyptian hospital, if there is this apartheid going on?).
There is a simple answer as to why the Palestinians have a problem with medical care. Perhaps this story will enlighten you.
B'TSELEM, OPERATION DEFENSIVE SHIELD:
SOLDIERS' TESTIMONIES, PALESTINIAN TESTIMONIES
(Jerusalem, September 2002), p. 23
On Friday, April 5, 2002, Tahani 'Ali 'Asad Fatouh, a pharmacist from Al Msakan Ash Sha'abiya in the Nablus District began having labour pains. Her husband, Dr. Ghassan 'Ali Nashat Sha'ar, called an ambulance to take his seven months pregnant wife to the hospital. Due to the curfew imposed on the area, the ambulance could not reach the house and Dr. Sha'ar had to deliver the baby with the help of his neighbor, Dr. Sulfeh. The delivery went smoothly. During the delivery, the ambulance crew tried to reach the couple's home, as the newborn would have to be placed in an incubator. All attempts failed. Some 30 minutes after the birth, the baby's health began to deteriorate. Dr. Sha'ar managed to resuscitate his son twice. On the third attempt, the baby died. Tahani Fatouh had become pregnant after four years of fertility treatments. The hospital is only two kilometers away from the couple's home.
(any typos are mine. the article is sat in front of me not an online resource)
So. She can't even get 2km to save her baby's life. How is she to get out of the country? For what you propose, either other countries invade and take occupation away from the Israelis or all the Palestinians leave their own country.
Why don't they have their own, Palestinian medical care? Physicians for Human Rights-Israel has a detailed study on that called A Legacy of Injustice: A Critique of Israeli Approaches to the Right to Health of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories These are Jewish Doctors writing the study, not a pro-Palestinian group.
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: Bryn, I will give you credit here for a well-meaning but mistaken statement. That is utterly false. Christian guest-workers (or for that matter those of any other non-Islamic religion) must go behind SECURELY locked doors to conduct ANY sort of religious service. Even CASUAL discussion of one's non-Islamic religion in a public place, with no intention to proselytize, is strictly prohibited.
I wouldn't call that 'apartheid', but it's certainly an outrage that is not practiced in Israel or in any non-Islamic country that I know of.
and you presumably have evident that you can present for this - because it is certainly not the experience of friends of mine who worked out there. They could not drink openly but they had no difficulty with their religion.
Bronwen wrote: In addition to that, Muslims themselves are not even allowed to know the truth about the history of their own religion or its founder. Salman Rushdie had a 'contract' put out on his life, and a Dutch TV producer was actually slain, each because they attempted to tell the truth about Islam, its history, its disgraceful abuse of women, and its founder.
I'm not going to attempt to do that here because if I did it's very possible that FG itself would become a target of Islamic terrrorism. But you need to read up on it - from a reliable source.
All of which is spurious window dressing. We were discussing the situation in Saudi Arabia, not some generic Arab bashing and scare mongering with nothing to back it up but "it's very possible that FG itself would become a target of Islamic terrrorism."
I wouldn't call that 'apartheid', but it's certainly an outrage that is not practiced in Israel or in any non-Islamic country that I know of.
and you presumably have evident that you can present for this - because it is certainly not the experience of friends of mine who worked out there. They could not drink openly but they had no difficulty with their religion.
Bronwen wrote: In addition to that, Muslims themselves are not even allowed to know the truth about the history of their own religion or its founder. Salman Rushdie had a 'contract' put out on his life, and a Dutch TV producer was actually slain, each because they attempted to tell the truth about Islam, its history, its disgraceful abuse of women, and its founder.
I'm not going to attempt to do that here because if I did it's very possible that FG itself would become a target of Islamic terrrorism. But you need to read up on it - from a reliable source.
All of which is spurious window dressing. We were discussing the situation in Saudi Arabia, not some generic Arab bashing and scare mongering with nothing to back it up but "it's very possible that FG itself would become a target of Islamic terrrorism."
Israeli Apartheid
Bryn Mawr wrote: and you presumably have eviden[ce] that you can present for this - because it is certainly not the experience of friends of mine who worked out there. They could not drink openly but they had no difficulty with their religion. Really? In which way or ways did they practice their religion openly? It is possible that they lived apart from the general population in some sort of CLOSED (not open) community and within those limits had no particular difficulty. That is not 'openly practicing their religion' as you claimed earlier.Saudi Arabia: Christians Imprisoned, Beaten for Worship of Jesus
By Paul Strand
CWNews
June 10, 2005
CBN.com – For years, the government of Saudi Arabia has spent billions of dollars building their mosques and spreading their Islam throughout the Western World, including the United States . But in the country where Islam began, Saudis have no tolerance for other religions or even other forms of Islam. And they're markedly increasing their persecution of Christians.
It's being called the worst crackdown on Christian believers in Saudi Arabia , in a decade. Over the past three months, close to 100 Christians—all of them guest workers in Saudi Arabia —have been arrested by Saudi religious police. The guest workers’ crime? Worshipping Jesus Christ.
In April, 40 Pakistani Christians were arrested at an underground church outside of Riyadh . In May, as many as 7 Christians from East Africa were arrested at a private worship service. And just last week, 46 more Christians —all natives of India —were rounded up and thrown in prison. Some received severe beatings.
Jeff King is President of International Christian Concern.
King said, “It's a terrible situation. People, expat workers, coming there who are Christians. They want to worship—not evangelize there, not spread the Gospel there—but just communicate with each other and worship together. But they can't do it. Yet, they will do it, but under great risk."
In the latest round of arrests, Saudi religious police ransacked the Christians' homes. They destroyed any Bibles they found.
Critics say the Saudi’s blatant disregard for the Christian Holy Book is the height of hypocrisy, given the recent Saudi condemnation of the U.S. over alleged mishandling of the Koran at Guantanamo .
Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told us, "It's clearly hypocrisy to have a country teaching their people, in their madrassas—schools—to be intolerant of other religions, to desecrate religious symbols and religious holy books of others, to persecute individuals who hold different religious beliefs. Then the same clerics, putting out this kind of hate of other religions, (are) outraged if one of their religious articles is somehow offended."
Media critics say the strangest thing is how the American media seem to play up every abuse of Muslim prisoners, but rarely cover Saudi abuse of Christians.
Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis for the Media Research Council.
Graham said, “They really feel that it's the American media's job to hold Americans accountable, but only Americans. So in this case, when we're discussing the Koran vs. the Bible, the Saudis can destroy the Bible and ‘nobody really cares’. Because the Saudis don't have a standard of separating church and state, or have religious tolerance. Therefore, the media thinks, we don't have to hold the Saudis to that standard—we only hold America to that standard.
Yet Senator Santorum countered that, saying Saudi Arabia is “not being helpful in the region, no matter how much oil we get from them. This is simply unacceptable behavior."
The Saudi government forbids all public displays of religious faith except their official state religion—Wahabbi Islam, also called Wahabbism.
Wahabbism is the same type of Islam practiced by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
The Saudi government allows no Christian churches or symbols in Saudi Arabia . In addition, Muslims who don't practice Wahabbism are also subject to persecution.
But these days, more often than not, it's Christians who take the brunt of the Saudi abuse.
Concerned lawmakers say the U.S. government isn’t doing enough to stop it, and indeed must do more to stop it.
Santorum added, “The Saudis have a terrible record, such a terrible record we have put them on the list of countries who are the worst offenders of religious persecution. simply add to the problem. I would make the argument that this has got to be a high priority for this administration."
Saudi officials, this week, denied reports of Christian persecution in Saudi Arabia . In his meeting in Crawford , Texas with President Bush in April, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah said that, "tolerance must extend to those of all faiths and practices."
But so far, those observing the situation from outside Saudi Arabia say, “the Saudi words and the Saudi deeds just aren't matching. Yes, the preceding is from a Christian source:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.aspx
...but I seriously doubt that they are making it up. I also recommend the Wikipedia article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_ ... udi_Arabia
By Paul Strand
CWNews
June 10, 2005
CBN.com – For years, the government of Saudi Arabia has spent billions of dollars building their mosques and spreading their Islam throughout the Western World, including the United States . But in the country where Islam began, Saudis have no tolerance for other religions or even other forms of Islam. And they're markedly increasing their persecution of Christians.
It's being called the worst crackdown on Christian believers in Saudi Arabia , in a decade. Over the past three months, close to 100 Christians—all of them guest workers in Saudi Arabia —have been arrested by Saudi religious police. The guest workers’ crime? Worshipping Jesus Christ.
In April, 40 Pakistani Christians were arrested at an underground church outside of Riyadh . In May, as many as 7 Christians from East Africa were arrested at a private worship service. And just last week, 46 more Christians —all natives of India —were rounded up and thrown in prison. Some received severe beatings.
Jeff King is President of International Christian Concern.
King said, “It's a terrible situation. People, expat workers, coming there who are Christians. They want to worship—not evangelize there, not spread the Gospel there—but just communicate with each other and worship together. But they can't do it. Yet, they will do it, but under great risk."
In the latest round of arrests, Saudi religious police ransacked the Christians' homes. They destroyed any Bibles they found.
Critics say the Saudi’s blatant disregard for the Christian Holy Book is the height of hypocrisy, given the recent Saudi condemnation of the U.S. over alleged mishandling of the Koran at Guantanamo .
Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told us, "It's clearly hypocrisy to have a country teaching their people, in their madrassas—schools—to be intolerant of other religions, to desecrate religious symbols and religious holy books of others, to persecute individuals who hold different religious beliefs. Then the same clerics, putting out this kind of hate of other religions, (are) outraged if one of their religious articles is somehow offended."
Media critics say the strangest thing is how the American media seem to play up every abuse of Muslim prisoners, but rarely cover Saudi abuse of Christians.
Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis for the Media Research Council.
Graham said, “They really feel that it's the American media's job to hold Americans accountable, but only Americans. So in this case, when we're discussing the Koran vs. the Bible, the Saudis can destroy the Bible and ‘nobody really cares’. Because the Saudis don't have a standard of separating church and state, or have religious tolerance. Therefore, the media thinks, we don't have to hold the Saudis to that standard—we only hold America to that standard.
Yet Senator Santorum countered that, saying Saudi Arabia is “not being helpful in the region, no matter how much oil we get from them. This is simply unacceptable behavior."
The Saudi government forbids all public displays of religious faith except their official state religion—Wahabbi Islam, also called Wahabbism.
Wahabbism is the same type of Islam practiced by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
The Saudi government allows no Christian churches or symbols in Saudi Arabia . In addition, Muslims who don't practice Wahabbism are also subject to persecution.
But these days, more often than not, it's Christians who take the brunt of the Saudi abuse.
Concerned lawmakers say the U.S. government isn’t doing enough to stop it, and indeed must do more to stop it.
Santorum added, “The Saudis have a terrible record, such a terrible record we have put them on the list of countries who are the worst offenders of religious persecution. simply add to the problem. I would make the argument that this has got to be a high priority for this administration."
Saudi officials, this week, denied reports of Christian persecution in Saudi Arabia . In his meeting in Crawford , Texas with President Bush in April, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah said that, "tolerance must extend to those of all faiths and practices."
But so far, those observing the situation from outside Saudi Arabia say, “the Saudi words and the Saudi deeds just aren't matching. Yes, the preceding is from a Christian source:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.aspx
...but I seriously doubt that they are making it up. I also recommend the Wikipedia article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_ ... udi_Arabia
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: Really? In which way or ways did they practice their religion openly? It is possible that they lived apart from the general population in some sort of CLOSED (not open) community and within those limits had no particular difficulty. That is not 'openly practicing their religion' as you claimed earlier.Yes, the preceding is from a Christian source:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.aspx
...but I seriously doubt that they are making it up. I also recommend the Wikipedia article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_ ... udi_Arabia
From Amnesty International:
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
Head of state and government: King Fahd Bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Saud
Death penalty: retentionist
International Criminal Court: not signed
Gross human rights violations continued and were exacerbated by the government policy of “combating terrorism in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA. The violations were perpetuated by the strictly secretive criminal justice system and the prohibition of political parties, trade unions and independent human rights organizations. Hundreds of suspected religious activists and critics of the state were arrested, and the legal status of most of those held from previous years remained shrouded in secrecy. Women continued to suffer severe discrimination. Torture and ill-treatment remained rife. At least 48 people were executed. Over 5,000 Iraqi refugees continued to live in Rafha camp as virtual prisoners. International non-governmental human rights organizations were denied access to the country and the government failed to respond to any of the concerns raised by AI during the year.
I guess that's why no one is bombing them; they are acting in the name of 'War On Terror'.
I agree, it is not good to be a Christian living in Saudi Arabia. I still don't understand what this has to do with Israel/Palestine except that the most often refered to terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and yet Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon are being held responsible for it.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.aspx
...but I seriously doubt that they are making it up. I also recommend the Wikipedia article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_ ... udi_Arabia
From Amnesty International:
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
Head of state and government: King Fahd Bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Saud
Death penalty: retentionist
International Criminal Court: not signed
Gross human rights violations continued and were exacerbated by the government policy of “combating terrorism in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA. The violations were perpetuated by the strictly secretive criminal justice system and the prohibition of political parties, trade unions and independent human rights organizations. Hundreds of suspected religious activists and critics of the state were arrested, and the legal status of most of those held from previous years remained shrouded in secrecy. Women continued to suffer severe discrimination. Torture and ill-treatment remained rife. At least 48 people were executed. Over 5,000 Iraqi refugees continued to live in Rafha camp as virtual prisoners. International non-governmental human rights organizations were denied access to the country and the government failed to respond to any of the concerns raised by AI during the year.
I guess that's why no one is bombing them; they are acting in the name of 'War On Terror'.
I agree, it is not good to be a Christian living in Saudi Arabia. I still don't understand what this has to do with Israel/Palestine except that the most often refered to terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and yet Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon are being held responsible for it.
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: I still don't understand what this has to do with Israel/Palestine except that the most often refered to ists come from Saudi Arabia and yet Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon are being held responsible for it.What it has to do with it is this: The purpose of the thread is an addle-brained attempt to equate Israel with former apartheid in South Africa.
Israel is a J-E-W-I-S-H H-O-M-E-L-A-N-D. Which syllable - which letter - which PENSTROKE of that don't you understand? At the time that it was established, the A-R-A-B state of Jordan was also created and provision made for a second A-R-A-B state to be named later. In terms of land area, the A-R-A-B-S got by far the better of the deal, and the J-E-W-S were not heard to complain.
There was never the least idea or concept that ANY of these three new countries should be, like the USA, Canada, Australia and some other countries, intentionally diverse 'melting pots' or 'mosaics' of various races and religions, tho' in the state of Israel there was certainly great diverstiy with regard to former place of residence; all were, nonetheless, united by their Jewish faith.
Non-Jews in Israel, and for that matter non-Arabs in Jordan, are a lot like non-Mormons in the American state of Utah, or like non-Catholics in coutries like Ireland or Italy. They are outnumbered and certainly constantly aware of that, yet many such people prefer to live there for various reasons, and in most cases are treated with civility by the majority UNLESS, of course, they begin to commit criminal acts against their home/host country, in which case they are expelled or imprisoned.
What's wrong with this picture? Nothing that I can see. If I were Jewish, I would very possibly be living in Israel myself. As a Christian, I have wanted to visit there for many years, but, as I stated previously in another thread, I'm SCARED SH*TLESS that some maniacal Islamic LUNATIC will sidle up to me at a streetcoerner, or board a bus on which I'm traveling, and blow him/herself to atoms, and me also.
The Israelis I do not fear. Nor should any person of good will.
Israel is a J-E-W-I-S-H H-O-M-E-L-A-N-D. Which syllable - which letter - which PENSTROKE of that don't you understand? At the time that it was established, the A-R-A-B state of Jordan was also created and provision made for a second A-R-A-B state to be named later. In terms of land area, the A-R-A-B-S got by far the better of the deal, and the J-E-W-S were not heard to complain.
There was never the least idea or concept that ANY of these three new countries should be, like the USA, Canada, Australia and some other countries, intentionally diverse 'melting pots' or 'mosaics' of various races and religions, tho' in the state of Israel there was certainly great diverstiy with regard to former place of residence; all were, nonetheless, united by their Jewish faith.
Non-Jews in Israel, and for that matter non-Arabs in Jordan, are a lot like non-Mormons in the American state of Utah, or like non-Catholics in coutries like Ireland or Italy. They are outnumbered and certainly constantly aware of that, yet many such people prefer to live there for various reasons, and in most cases are treated with civility by the majority UNLESS, of course, they begin to commit criminal acts against their home/host country, in which case they are expelled or imprisoned.
What's wrong with this picture? Nothing that I can see. If I were Jewish, I would very possibly be living in Israel myself. As a Christian, I have wanted to visit there for many years, but, as I stated previously in another thread, I'm SCARED SH*TLESS that some maniacal Islamic LUNATIC will sidle up to me at a streetcoerner, or board a bus on which I'm traveling, and blow him/herself to atoms, and me also.
The Israelis I do not fear. Nor should any person of good will.
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: What it has to do with it is this: The purpose of the thread is an addle-brained attempt to equate Israel with former apartheid in South Africa.
Apparently the world is full of addle-brained people. Nelson Mandela must be one of them. There is a general rule with this sort of thing. If the crazy people outnumber you it means that you are likely the one with the odd ideas.
Israel is a J-E-W-I-S-H H-O-M-E-L-A-N-D. I don't mistake a letter of what you are saying. It seems that the Israel is free to persecute others because they are Jewish and yet you bring in Saudi Arabia to complete the point that only the Jewish State is allowed to do this. How you support the one and not the other is beyond me.
In terms of land area, the A-R-A-B-S got by far the better of the deal, and the J-E-W-S were not heard to complain. Please show me the numbers on the first part. The Jews have got most of Palestine and are still fighting for more. On the second part: You have slipped into insanity. The J-E-W-S (read Israelis) have done more than complain about the land alotted to them. 1967. War. Occupied territories. I suggest when you write you try to better your argument not worsen it. That, or admit you are wrong.
There was never the least idea or concept that ANY of these three new countries should be,... There is a concept that ALL of these nations should respect international law.
What's wrong with this picture? Nothing that I can see. Take your blinders off.
I give you facts, names, dates. You give me your broad, personal interpretation of events. Do try harder.
Apparently the world is full of addle-brained people. Nelson Mandela must be one of them. There is a general rule with this sort of thing. If the crazy people outnumber you it means that you are likely the one with the odd ideas.
Israel is a J-E-W-I-S-H H-O-M-E-L-A-N-D. I don't mistake a letter of what you are saying. It seems that the Israel is free to persecute others because they are Jewish and yet you bring in Saudi Arabia to complete the point that only the Jewish State is allowed to do this. How you support the one and not the other is beyond me.
In terms of land area, the A-R-A-B-S got by far the better of the deal, and the J-E-W-S were not heard to complain. Please show me the numbers on the first part. The Jews have got most of Palestine and are still fighting for more. On the second part: You have slipped into insanity. The J-E-W-S (read Israelis) have done more than complain about the land alotted to them. 1967. War. Occupied territories. I suggest when you write you try to better your argument not worsen it. That, or admit you are wrong.
There was never the least idea or concept that ANY of these three new countries should be,... There is a concept that ALL of these nations should respect international law.
What's wrong with this picture? Nothing that I can see. Take your blinders off.
I give you facts, names, dates. You give me your broad, personal interpretation of events. Do try harder.
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: 1. Apparently the world is full of addle-brained people.
2. Nelson Mandela must be one of them. There is a general rule with this sort of thing. If the crazy people outnumber you it means that you are likely the one with the odd ideas.
3. I don't mistake a letter of what you are saying. It seems that the Israel is free to persecute others because they are Jewish and yet you bring in Saudi Arabia to complete the point that only the Jewish State is allowed to do this. How you support the one and not the other is beyond me.
4. Please show me the numbers on the first part. The Jews have got most of Palestine and are still fighting for more. On the second part: You have slipped into insanity. The J-E-W-S (read Israelis) have done more than complain about the land alotted to them. 1967. War. Occupied territories. I suggest when you write you try to better your argument not worsen it. That, or admit you are wrong.
5. There is a concept that ALL of these nations should respect international law.
1. I sure can't argue with that.
2. Nelson Mandela was a great freedom fighter and deserves all the respect and adulation he attained thereby. That does not make him an expert on Middle Eastern history, politics, or culture. Or anything else.
3. Can you give some examples of who is being persecuted in Israel for their religious affiliation? As I said, I have never been there for the reason I stated. Are you telling me that if I were to go there I could not find a Catholic Church in which to attend Sunday Mass? That I could not own a New Testament or read one in public? Who is wearing blinders here?
4. You can look up the geographical stats in an encyclopedia. As I told another poster, the number that sticks in my mind is 27% of what used to be Palestine+Trans-Jordan. If that is incorrect, any poster is free to give the stats, or I will look it up myself when I have time. In any case, Israel got 55% of Palestine, the A-rabs got the other 45% plus 100% of Trans-Jordan. Israel acquired additional territory because the Arab nations invaded Israel and Israel beat the living sh*t out of them. Israel has always been willing to give back MOST of that additional land in return for assurance of peace and security. Surely it did not escape your notice that when Egypt made peace with Israel the Sinai was returned IMMEDIATELY. Nor that Gaza was recently returned because it was more of a burden to Israel than a benefit and that it then was, just as IMMEDIATELY, used once again to launch rocket attacks against Israel, which is why it was occupied in the first place. The insanity is the belief that 60 years of terrrorism against Israel should not have consequences, that Israel should say, OK, we're going to go back to previous borders in exchange for nothing and as if nothing ever happened. One doubts, if not your sanity, at least your seriousness.
5. There is no international law that I'm aware of that supports ANY of the terrorist acts committed against Israel during the last 60 years by its Arab neighbors.
The essence of war is not a shot-for-shot exchange. The essence of war is bringing your enemy to his knees as quickly as possible, so that in the long run casualities and destruction are minimized. That is what Israel has always striven to do when attacked, and that is why its current leader is in such political hot water right now. Most Israelis feel that he should have finished the job and accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender. Then they could have sat back and let the wishy-washy UN set up whatever sort of cease-fire and peacekeeping arrangements seemed appropriate.
2. Nelson Mandela must be one of them. There is a general rule with this sort of thing. If the crazy people outnumber you it means that you are likely the one with the odd ideas.
3. I don't mistake a letter of what you are saying. It seems that the Israel is free to persecute others because they are Jewish and yet you bring in Saudi Arabia to complete the point that only the Jewish State is allowed to do this. How you support the one and not the other is beyond me.
4. Please show me the numbers on the first part. The Jews have got most of Palestine and are still fighting for more. On the second part: You have slipped into insanity. The J-E-W-S (read Israelis) have done more than complain about the land alotted to them. 1967. War. Occupied territories. I suggest when you write you try to better your argument not worsen it. That, or admit you are wrong.
5. There is a concept that ALL of these nations should respect international law.
1. I sure can't argue with that.
2. Nelson Mandela was a great freedom fighter and deserves all the respect and adulation he attained thereby. That does not make him an expert on Middle Eastern history, politics, or culture. Or anything else.
3. Can you give some examples of who is being persecuted in Israel for their religious affiliation? As I said, I have never been there for the reason I stated. Are you telling me that if I were to go there I could not find a Catholic Church in which to attend Sunday Mass? That I could not own a New Testament or read one in public? Who is wearing blinders here?
4. You can look up the geographical stats in an encyclopedia. As I told another poster, the number that sticks in my mind is 27% of what used to be Palestine+Trans-Jordan. If that is incorrect, any poster is free to give the stats, or I will look it up myself when I have time. In any case, Israel got 55% of Palestine, the A-rabs got the other 45% plus 100% of Trans-Jordan. Israel acquired additional territory because the Arab nations invaded Israel and Israel beat the living sh*t out of them. Israel has always been willing to give back MOST of that additional land in return for assurance of peace and security. Surely it did not escape your notice that when Egypt made peace with Israel the Sinai was returned IMMEDIATELY. Nor that Gaza was recently returned because it was more of a burden to Israel than a benefit and that it then was, just as IMMEDIATELY, used once again to launch rocket attacks against Israel, which is why it was occupied in the first place. The insanity is the belief that 60 years of terrrorism against Israel should not have consequences, that Israel should say, OK, we're going to go back to previous borders in exchange for nothing and as if nothing ever happened. One doubts, if not your sanity, at least your seriousness.
5. There is no international law that I'm aware of that supports ANY of the terrorist acts committed against Israel during the last 60 years by its Arab neighbors.
The essence of war is not a shot-for-shot exchange. The essence of war is bringing your enemy to his knees as quickly as possible, so that in the long run casualities and destruction are minimized. That is what Israel has always striven to do when attacked, and that is why its current leader is in such political hot water right now. Most Israelis feel that he should have finished the job and accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender. Then they could have sat back and let the wishy-washy UN set up whatever sort of cease-fire and peacekeeping arrangements seemed appropriate.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Having been alive longer than Israel has been in existence and having been able to follow most of the twists and turns of postwar Middle East events, I really have to wonder if Israel has a right to exist.
Is it not time to declare it a maverick state and sanction its dismemberment, returning its population to either their countries of ethnic origin or choice. The land mass might be apportioned to the surrounding states.
I suppose if the pro-Israel lobby in North America felt strongly enough about the proposal, they could always arrange for part of Utah or Arizona to become an independant Israeli settlement.
At least it would resolve the Middle East question.
WE
Is it not time to declare it a maverick state and sanction its dismemberment, returning its population to either their countries of ethnic origin or choice. The land mass might be apportioned to the surrounding states.
I suppose if the pro-Israel lobby in North America felt strongly enough about the proposal, they could always arrange for part of Utah or Arizona to become an independant Israeli settlement.
At least it would resolve the Middle East question.
WE
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Having been alive longer than Israel has been in existence and having been able to follow most of the twists and turns of postwar Middle East events, I really have to wonder if Israel has a right to exist.
Is it not time to declare it a maverick state and sanction its dismemberment, returning its population to either their countries of ethnic origin or choice. The land mass might be apportioned to the surrounding states.
I suppose if the pro-Israel lobby in North America felt strongly enough about the proposal, they could always arrange for part of Utah or Arizona to become an independant Israeli settlement.
At least it would resolve the Middle East question.
WEGee whiz, Billy, if that's the way you feel, why not organize a cadre of losers as screwy as yourself and go over there and teach them yids a lesson. Don't forget to take your wives and kids so's you'll have somebody to hide behind.
I suggest you get in by scaling the security fence - the electrified part.
Is it not time to declare it a maverick state and sanction its dismemberment, returning its population to either their countries of ethnic origin or choice. The land mass might be apportioned to the surrounding states.
I suppose if the pro-Israel lobby in North America felt strongly enough about the proposal, they could always arrange for part of Utah or Arizona to become an independant Israeli settlement.
At least it would resolve the Middle East question.
WEGee whiz, Billy, if that's the way you feel, why not organize a cadre of losers as screwy as yourself and go over there and teach them yids a lesson. Don't forget to take your wives and kids so's you'll have somebody to hide behind.
I suggest you get in by scaling the security fence - the electrified part.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: Gee whiz, Billy, if that's the way you feel, why not organize a cadre of losers as screwy as yourself and go over there and teach them yids a lesson. Don't forget to take your wives and kids so's you'll have somebody to hide behind.
I suggest you get in by scaling the security fence - the electrified part.
The object of a debate is to reach a conclusion by responding to a proposition with a number of reasoned and balanced arguments. What you have done is to respond in the way that a spoilt seven year old having a tantrum might. Try again and this time to use a force of argument: the age of reason is more than simply a cliche.
(I must say that finding someone from Germany supporting the case for Jews is, to someone of my generation, a somewhat novel experience).
Try also to look more kindly upon the principles of grammar. To say 'them yids' is quite wrong. I think you mean 'those yids'.
WE
I suggest you get in by scaling the security fence - the electrified part.
The object of a debate is to reach a conclusion by responding to a proposition with a number of reasoned and balanced arguments. What you have done is to respond in the way that a spoilt seven year old having a tantrum might. Try again and this time to use a force of argument: the age of reason is more than simply a cliche.
(I must say that finding someone from Germany supporting the case for Jews is, to someone of my generation, a somewhat novel experience).
Try also to look more kindly upon the principles of grammar. To say 'them yids' is quite wrong. I think you mean 'those yids'.
WE
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: 1. The object of a debate is to reach a conclusion by responding to a proposition with a number of reasoned and balanced arguments. What you have done is to respond in the way that a spoilt seven year old having a tantrum might. Try again and try this time to use a force of argument. the age of reason is more than simply a cliche.
(I must say that finding someone from Germany supporting the case for Jews is, to someone of my generation, a somewhat novel experience).
Try also to look more kindly upon the principles of grammar.
2. To say 'them yids' is quite wrong. I think you mean 'those yids'.
WE1. If I'd thought you were serious I would have posted a serious response. The ridiculous deserves only ridicule.
2. 'Them' in place of 'those' is American idiom (so's "so's"), used mainly by the uneducated. I was attempting to be colorful.
Edited to add: If you think modern Germany is an anti-Semitic country you have obviously never been here, or if you have, you must have spent your time hanging out with the trash. Germany is, in fact, probably Israel's strongest supporter in Europe.
(I must say that finding someone from Germany supporting the case for Jews is, to someone of my generation, a somewhat novel experience).
Try also to look more kindly upon the principles of grammar.
2. To say 'them yids' is quite wrong. I think you mean 'those yids'.
WE1. If I'd thought you were serious I would have posted a serious response. The ridiculous deserves only ridicule.
2. 'Them' in place of 'those' is American idiom (so's "so's"), used mainly by the uneducated. I was attempting to be colorful.
Edited to add: If you think modern Germany is an anti-Semitic country you have obviously never been here, or if you have, you must have spent your time hanging out with the trash. Germany is, in fact, probably Israel's strongest supporter in Europe.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: 1. If I'd thought you were serious I would have posted a serious response. The ridiculous deserves only ridicule.
2. 'Them' in place of 'those' is American idiom, used mainly by the uneducated. I was attempting to be colorful.
Edited to add:If you think modern Germany is an anti-Semitic country you have obviously never been here, or if you have, you must have spent your time hanging out with the trash. Germany is, in fact, probably Israel's strongest supporter in Europe.
1. I was never more serious and I might remind you there are still a number of countries who do not recognise Israel. Perhaps now you might respond correctly.
2. Used by the uneducated. So it doth appear.
3. I am simply not prepared to accept that a nation that behaved so abominably and who perpetrated so much carnage with such collective relish, can change in the short space of time of sixty years. The ghosts of fifty million dead will haunt Germany for some time yet - and quite rightly. Germany may have forgiven itself but that is not the same as being forgiven by those Germany sinned against.
2. 'Them' in place of 'those' is American idiom, used mainly by the uneducated. I was attempting to be colorful.
Edited to add:If you think modern Germany is an anti-Semitic country you have obviously never been here, or if you have, you must have spent your time hanging out with the trash. Germany is, in fact, probably Israel's strongest supporter in Europe.
1. I was never more serious and I might remind you there are still a number of countries who do not recognise Israel. Perhaps now you might respond correctly.
2. Used by the uneducated. So it doth appear.
3. I am simply not prepared to accept that a nation that behaved so abominably and who perpetrated so much carnage with such collective relish, can change in the short space of time of sixty years. The ghosts of fifty million dead will haunt Germany for some time yet - and quite rightly. Germany may have forgiven itself but that is not the same as being forgiven by those Germany sinned against.
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen,
I don't see how you answered any of the points raised by my last post to you. Please try again.
I don't see how you answered any of the points raised by my last post to you. Please try again.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Hear, hear. Let us have a reasoned response. Address the issue!
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Scrat wrote: The Jewish people have a right to live there.
I quite agree with what you say about the way in which the Israeli government appears to conduct its affairs but what makes you say that the Jewish people have a 'right' to live in Israel? A case can certainly be made for the opposite point of view but I would like to hear yours.
WE
I quite agree with what you say about the way in which the Israeli government appears to conduct its affairs but what makes you say that the Jewish people have a 'right' to live in Israel? A case can certainly be made for the opposite point of view but I would like to hear yours.
WE
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: I quite agree with what you say about the way in which the Israeli government appears to conduct its affairs but what makes you say that the Jewish people have a 'right' to live in Israel? A case can certainly be made for the opposite point of view but I would like to hear yours.
WE
I think people have a right to live anywhere they choose. (leave aside the wanted criminals)
There is nothing offensive about Jewish people. It is the government body that was was formed under Zionism that deserves the criticism. The Jewish people were blocked from being polled on where they wanted to live and prevented from returning to countries from which they had fled. Just an interesting fact.
WE
I think people have a right to live anywhere they choose. (leave aside the wanted criminals)
There is nothing offensive about Jewish people. It is the government body that was was formed under Zionism that deserves the criticism. The Jewish people were blocked from being polled on where they wanted to live and prevented from returning to countries from which they had fled. Just an interesting fact.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: I think people have a right to live anywhere they choose. (leave aside the wanted criminals)
There is nothing offensive about Jewish people. It is the government body that was was formed under Zionism that deserves the criticism. The Jewish people were blocked from being polled on where they wanted to live and prevented from returning to countries from which they had fled. Just an interesting fact.
It has not been suggested that the Jewish people are in any way offensive. To argue, however, that they have the 'right' to live in Israel simply because you think that people have the right to live anywhere they choose is a non-sequiter.
I might like to think that I have a 'right' to live in, for example, North America but I doubt if the immigration authorities would regard that right very sympathetically. And why indeed should they?
In fact there are many parts of the globe that I might like to choose to live but my right to settle in any of them is rather limited.
So, we return to the question. It may be a difficult issue but, then, if difficult issues did not arise, there would be little value to the exersize of debate. I ask again, By what right do the Jewish people live in Israel?
There is nothing offensive about Jewish people. It is the government body that was was formed under Zionism that deserves the criticism. The Jewish people were blocked from being polled on where they wanted to live and prevented from returning to countries from which they had fled. Just an interesting fact.
It has not been suggested that the Jewish people are in any way offensive. To argue, however, that they have the 'right' to live in Israel simply because you think that people have the right to live anywhere they choose is a non-sequiter.
I might like to think that I have a 'right' to live in, for example, North America but I doubt if the immigration authorities would regard that right very sympathetically. And why indeed should they?
In fact there are many parts of the globe that I might like to choose to live but my right to settle in any of them is rather limited.
So, we return to the question. It may be a difficult issue but, then, if difficult issues did not arise, there would be little value to the exersize of debate. I ask again, By what right do the Jewish people live in Israel?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: The object of a debate is to reach a conclusion by responding to a proposition with a number of reasoned and balanced arguments. What you have done is to respond in the way that a spoilt seven year old having a tantrum might. Try again and this time to use a force of argument: the age of reason is more than simply a cliche.
(I must say that finding someone from Germany supporting the case for Jews is, to someone of my generation, a somewhat novel experience).
Try also to look more kindly upon the principles of grammar. To say 'them yids' is quite wrong. I think you mean 'those yids'.
WE
i believe north wales should be dissolved. DNA tests performed, and the inhabitants sent packing to the shores their ancestors came from.
i claim that this is a reasoned and balanced argument.
(I must say that finding someone from Germany supporting the case for Jews is, to someone of my generation, a somewhat novel experience).
Try also to look more kindly upon the principles of grammar. To say 'them yids' is quite wrong. I think you mean 'those yids'.
WE
i believe north wales should be dissolved. DNA tests performed, and the inhabitants sent packing to the shores their ancestors came from.
i claim that this is a reasoned and balanced argument.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: It has not been suggested that the Jewish people are in any way offensive. To argue, however, that they have the 'right' to live in Israel simply because you think that people have the right to live anywhere they choose is a non-sequiter.
I might like to think that I have a 'right' to live in, for example, North America but I doubt if the immigration authorities would regard that right very sympathetically. And why indeed should they?
In fact there are many parts of the globe that I might like to choose to live but my right to settle in any of them is rather limited.
So, we return to the question. It may be a difficult issue but, then, if difficult issues did not arise, there would be little value to the exersize of debate. I ask again, By what right do the Jewish people live in Israel?
I'm actually quite against borders as restrictions. I'm against the hoarding of resources that results and the justifications offered as to why one group of people deserve those resources more than any other group.
I completely understand your reasoning and object only to the idea that any people should be removed from their place of residence by force or mandate. Be they Jewish or Arab or purple penguins.
I might like to think that I have a 'right' to live in, for example, North America but I doubt if the immigration authorities would regard that right very sympathetically. And why indeed should they?
In fact there are many parts of the globe that I might like to choose to live but my right to settle in any of them is rather limited.
So, we return to the question. It may be a difficult issue but, then, if difficult issues did not arise, there would be little value to the exersize of debate. I ask again, By what right do the Jewish people live in Israel?
I'm actually quite against borders as restrictions. I'm against the hoarding of resources that results and the justifications offered as to why one group of people deserve those resources more than any other group.
I completely understand your reasoning and object only to the idea that any people should be removed from their place of residence by force or mandate. Be they Jewish or Arab or purple penguins.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: It has not been suggested that the Jewish people are in any way offensive. To argue, however, that they have the 'right' to live in Israel simply because you think that people have the right to live anywhere they choose is a non-sequiter.
I might like to think that I have a 'right' to live in, for example, North America but I doubt if the immigration authorities would regard that right very sympathetically. And why indeed should they?
In fact there are many parts of the globe that I might like to choose to live but my right to settle in any of them is rather limited.
So, we return to the question. It may be a difficult issue but, then, if difficult issues did not arise, there would be little value to the exersize of debate. I ask again, By what right do the Jewish people live in Israel?
because they are a sovereign nation *where no sovereign nation existed before its creation*.
I might like to think that I have a 'right' to live in, for example, North America but I doubt if the immigration authorities would regard that right very sympathetically. And why indeed should they?
In fact there are many parts of the globe that I might like to choose to live but my right to settle in any of them is rather limited.
So, we return to the question. It may be a difficult issue but, then, if difficult issues did not arise, there would be little value to the exersize of debate. I ask again, By what right do the Jewish people live in Israel?
because they are a sovereign nation *where no sovereign nation existed before its creation*.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: i believe north wales should be dissolved. DNA tests performed, and the inhabitants sent packing to the shores their ancestors came from.
i claim that this is a reasoned and balanced argument.
Views about what should happen to the good people of North Wales do not affect me directly since I am not Welsh. If you regard your statement as reasoned and balance, one would like to see an example of something you deem to be reductio ad absurdum.
Fortunately help may be at hand. One of my sons is a psychiatrist and, mirabile dictu, practices in Sonoma County, California where, he tells me, there is no shortage of raw material. His fees are extortionate, the cure uncertain but after a course of treatment you will certainly emerge poorer but with a balanced sense of reason.
WE
i claim that this is a reasoned and balanced argument.
Views about what should happen to the good people of North Wales do not affect me directly since I am not Welsh. If you regard your statement as reasoned and balance, one would like to see an example of something you deem to be reductio ad absurdum.
Fortunately help may be at hand. One of my sons is a psychiatrist and, mirabile dictu, practices in Sonoma County, California where, he tells me, there is no shortage of raw material. His fees are extortionate, the cure uncertain but after a course of treatment you will certainly emerge poorer but with a balanced sense of reason.
WE
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Views about what should happen to the good people of North Wales do not affect me directly since I am not Welsh. If you regard your statement as reasoned and balance, one would like to see an example of something you deem to be reductio ad absurdum.
i have employed exactly the same 'reasoning' you have, and the same method of argument - by simply proclaiming that i've written a reasoned argument - as you did - it does not make it so.
Fortunately help may be at hand. One of my sons is a psychiatrist and, mirabile dictu, practices in Sonoma County, California where, he tells me, there is no shortage of raw material. His fees are extortionate, the cure uncertain but after a course of treatment you will certainly emerge poorer but with a balanced sense of reason.
WE
a near perfect example of ad hominem fallacy. good show.
i have employed exactly the same 'reasoning' you have, and the same method of argument - by simply proclaiming that i've written a reasoned argument - as you did - it does not make it so.
Fortunately help may be at hand. One of my sons is a psychiatrist and, mirabile dictu, practices in Sonoma County, California where, he tells me, there is no shortage of raw material. His fees are extortionate, the cure uncertain but after a course of treatment you will certainly emerge poorer but with a balanced sense of reason.
WE
a near perfect example of ad hominem fallacy. good show.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Views about what should happen to the good people of North Wales do not affect me directly since I am not Welsh. If you regard your statement as reasoned and balance, one would like to see an example of something you deem to be reductio ad absurdum.
Fortunately help may be at hand. One of my sons is a psychiatrist and, mirabile dictu, practices in Sonoma County, California where, he tells me, there is no shortage of raw material. His fees are extortionate, the cure uncertain but after a course of treatment you will certainly emerge poorer but with a balanced sense of reason.
WE
:-6
Fortunately help may be at hand. One of my sons is a psychiatrist and, mirabile dictu, practices in Sonoma County, California where, he tells me, there is no shortage of raw material. His fees are extortionate, the cure uncertain but after a course of treatment you will certainly emerge poorer but with a balanced sense of reason.
WE
:-6
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: I'm actually quite against borders as restrictions. I'm against the hoarding of resources that results and the justifications offered as to why one group of people deserve those resources more than any other group.
I completely understand your reasoning and object only to the idea that any people should be removed from their place of residence by force or mandate. Be they Jewish or Arab or purple penguins.
The first point you make is surely an ideal and whilst it may be an admirable goal, do we not have to deal with the state as it is rather than as we should like it to be?
As to the second, I have not (yet) done any reasoning. So far all I have done is to pose a question to which I am still waiting for an answer.
There are, surely, circumstances where it may be justifiable to remove people from their place of residence. In the early 1940's large numbers of civilian people from Germany settled in the occupied countries including Western Russia. Was their removal in 1945 justifiable? In this case, presuming you have right on your side, it is not what you do but how you do it.
I completely understand your reasoning and object only to the idea that any people should be removed from their place of residence by force or mandate. Be they Jewish or Arab or purple penguins.
The first point you make is surely an ideal and whilst it may be an admirable goal, do we not have to deal with the state as it is rather than as we should like it to be?
As to the second, I have not (yet) done any reasoning. So far all I have done is to pose a question to which I am still waiting for an answer.
There are, surely, circumstances where it may be justifiable to remove people from their place of residence. In the early 1940's large numbers of civilian people from Germany settled in the occupied countries including Western Russia. Was their removal in 1945 justifiable? In this case, presuming you have right on your side, it is not what you do but how you do it.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: i have employed exactly the same 'reasoning' you have, and the same method of argument - by simply proclaiming that i've written a reasoned argument - as you did - it does not make it so.
I haven't started reasoning yet. I have merely asked a question.
a near perfect example of ad hominem fallacy. good show.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
I haven't started reasoning yet. I have merely asked a question.
a near perfect example of ad hominem fallacy. good show.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything.