You are aware, aren’t you, that both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch departed from the internationally recognized definition of “apartheid” and invented one that not only ensnares Israel but, if they felt like applying the standard across the board, would include most Western countries.
You are aware, aren’t you, that both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch departed from the internationally recognized definition of “apartheid” and invented one that not only ensnares Israel but, if they felt like applying the standard across the board, would include most Western countries.
Your intemperate language suggests a mind impervious to taking on any facts that don’t fit your pre-conceived narrative. Nevertheless, you may wonder why both Freedom House and The Economist’s Democracy Index rank Israel where they do (and ahead of some Western European countries) and neither sees anything approaching “apartheid” however defined. Neither entity is known for any pro-Zionist bias, so don’t bother with that argument
Israel needs no help from anyone in ensnaring itself. Ad hom is not welcome on these threads but your retreat into it surely invite it.
Your posts are completely stereotyped. You go to ad hom immediately. And you talk about what is a nice look?
The ratings of Israel as a democracy discredit the raters and suggest they are not objective. And your comments about apartheid and its definition are reminiscent of the relentless attempts by the US to change definitions of genocide. Preposterously, given the atrocities committed on their Natives.
Maybe you should take your complaints up with The Economist and Freedom House.
As to your analogy to the US attempting to change the definition of genocide (though I’m not sure of the context, Rwanda? China? Myanmar?), you perhaps didn’t realize that AI and HRW are in the position of the US in trying to alter an internationally accepted definition.
"Freedom House advocates for U.S. leadership and collaboration with like-minded governments to vigorously oppose dictators and oppression, and strengthen democracy around the world. We amplify the voices of those struggling for freedom in repressive societies and counter authoritarian efforts to weaken international scrutiny of their regimes.
From their website. Laughable on its face. Neolib/neocon funded propaganda outlet for US imperialism and the MIC.
And the Economist's pet "democracy" project is another arm of their MIC propaganda outlet.
Quoting either in support of the Zionist government of Israel demonstrates conclusively that you are a bellicose purveyor of MIC propaganda and a vile zionist yourself.
Here's AI's definition of apartheid, would you reject out of hand with no analysis or evidence whatsoever.
"Apartheid can best be understood as a system of prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment by one racial group of members of another with the intention to control the second racial group. democracy around the world."
According to your "analysis" this is not a legit definition of apartheid. Only a Zionist would find fault with this because they are the ones practicing apartheid.
My point is that there is an international definition under which Israel is simply not an “apartheid” state or anything approaching it which is precisely why AI and HRW had to invent a more expansive definition - which they apply to no other country which should be the ultimate tell for the fair minded observer.
For those actually interested in the definition under international law, here’s the link to the UN Convention.
The other issue with the NGO reports is that much of what passes as supporting evidence has been shown to be demonstrably false or shorn of all explanatory context. But you’re entitled to your opinion nonetheless.
Blahblahbityblahblah. I say apartide, you say aparteed. Israel does nasty, immoral things to its neighbors. And while someone can "depart" from the definition of a duck, if it walks like one, looks like one, and quacks like one, I'm still calling it a duck.
That assumes you know what a duck is in the first place. In fact, your view is that of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty.
If you really think that blacks in apartheid South Africa had political parties, representatives in Parliament, went to school side-by-side with Whites or, for that matter, could enter any profession or business, go to any hospital for care, any beach, any restaurant, any sporting, theatrical or other social event side-by-side with Whites, you simply do not know your history, let the true meaning of “apartheid”.
Do you work for the government of Israel? Or for their PR team?
Dictionary.com says apartheid is a middle school level word. You referenced Lewis Carroll, so I'm going to guess yes on advancing to middle school. (That was me making a thinly veiled slight to your level of education. Childish, right? Just like your ad hominem vomiting on everyone who comments or questions yours. It's obnoxious when people do that, right?) Definition 1: "(in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid former policy of segregating and economically and politically oppressing the nonwhite population."
2. "any system or practice that separates people according to color, ethnicity, caste, etc."
The only person talking about South Africa in the past is you. Everyone else is commenting on Israel's poor conduct toward the Palestinians. Can people of Arab descent live in Israel? Yes. Does Israel commit war crimes against Gaza? Yes. Both can be true. Both are true.
When there is a legal definition of a crime, and you accuse someone of that crime, you rely on the statutory definition and not the dictionary. Why anyone would pretend otherwise might make for interesting psychological research.
The international convention I cited defines the crime of apartheid by setting out its specific elements. The dictionary doesn’t.
It really boils down to something very elementary. There’s the legal definition which acquits Israel of the charge, and there’s the rhetorical slur which activists tend to deploy only against Israel. In so doing, they diminish the horrors of actual apartheid in a manner similar to Holocaust minimization.
And, for what it’s worth, it’s also evident that you also have your own personal definition of “ad hominem”, apparently to avoid having to grapple with the merits of arguments you can’t refute on the evidence.
I read some of that link and it seems to me that Israel commits some of the acts they define as apartheid.
And anyway, legal definitions can be debated endlessly. Most people, if they don’t have an emotional attachment to the guilty party, would look at Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and say it looks like apartheid. Desmond Tutu did, but of course you claim he is biased.
I could imagine a parallel universe where Israel apologetics were true. In such a world there would be no settlements on the WB. Israel’s history would not include the Nakba. All of the terrorism and atrocities would have been committed by the Palestinians. But in this universe, that isn’t true.
Yes, I know— I must have some sinister motive, etc…. I don’t like America’s horrible human rights record and part of that is our support for governments which do horrible things. Like Israel. Though I would say the Saudis are worse. But not many Westerners have an emotional attachment to the Saudi monarchy, so the only people who defend them are paid to do it.
You are aware, aren’t you, that both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch departed from the internationally recognized definition of “apartheid” and invented one that not only ensnares Israel but, if they felt like applying the standard across the board, would include most Western countries.
Your intemperate language suggests a mind impervious to taking on any facts that don’t fit your pre-conceived narrative. Nevertheless, you may wonder why both Freedom House and The Economist’s Democracy Index rank Israel where they do (and ahead of some Western European countries) and neither sees anything approaching “apartheid” however defined. Neither entity is known for any pro-Zionist bias, so don’t bother with that argument
Israel needs no help from anyone in ensnaring itself. Ad hom is not welcome on these threads but your retreat into it surely invite it.
Your posts are completely stereotyped. You go to ad hom immediately. And you talk about what is a nice look?
The ratings of Israel as a democracy discredit the raters and suggest they are not objective. And your comments about apartheid and its definition are reminiscent of the relentless attempts by the US to change definitions of genocide. Preposterously, given the atrocities committed on their Natives.
Maybe you should take your complaints up with The Economist and Freedom House.
As to your analogy to the US attempting to change the definition of genocide (though I’m not sure of the context, Rwanda? China? Myanmar?), you perhaps didn’t realize that AI and HRW are in the position of the US in trying to alter an internationally accepted definition.
"Freedom House advocates for U.S. leadership and collaboration with like-minded governments to vigorously oppose dictators and oppression, and strengthen democracy around the world. We amplify the voices of those struggling for freedom in repressive societies and counter authoritarian efforts to weaken international scrutiny of their regimes.
From their website. Laughable on its face. Neolib/neocon funded propaganda outlet for US imperialism and the MIC.
And the Economist's pet "democracy" project is another arm of their MIC propaganda outlet.
Quoting either in support of the Zionist government of Israel demonstrates conclusively that you are a bellicose purveyor of MIC propaganda and a vile zionist yourself.
Here's AI's definition of apartheid, would you reject out of hand with no analysis or evidence whatsoever.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/#:~:text=Apartheid%20can%20best%20be%20understood,take%20our%20course
"Apartheid can best be understood as a system of prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment by one racial group of members of another with the intention to control the second racial group. democracy around the world."
According to your "analysis" this is not a legit definition of apartheid. Only a Zionist would find fault with this because they are the ones practicing apartheid.
My point is that there is an international definition under which Israel is simply not an “apartheid” state or anything approaching it which is precisely why AI and HRW had to invent a more expansive definition - which they apply to no other country which should be the ultimate tell for the fair minded observer.
For those actually interested in the definition under international law, here’s the link to the UN Convention.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.10_International%20Convention%20on%20the%20Suppression%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Apartheid.pdf
The other issue with the NGO reports is that much of what passes as supporting evidence has been shown to be demonstrably false or shorn of all explanatory context. But you’re entitled to your opinion nonetheless.
Blahblahbityblahblah. I say apartide, you say aparteed. Israel does nasty, immoral things to its neighbors. And while someone can "depart" from the definition of a duck, if it walks like one, looks like one, and quacks like one, I'm still calling it a duck.
That assumes you know what a duck is in the first place. In fact, your view is that of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty.
If you really think that blacks in apartheid South Africa had political parties, representatives in Parliament, went to school side-by-side with Whites or, for that matter, could enter any profession or business, go to any hospital for care, any beach, any restaurant, any sporting, theatrical or other social event side-by-side with Whites, you simply do not know your history, let the true meaning of “apartheid”.
Do you work for the government of Israel? Or for their PR team?
Dictionary.com says apartheid is a middle school level word. You referenced Lewis Carroll, so I'm going to guess yes on advancing to middle school. (That was me making a thinly veiled slight to your level of education. Childish, right? Just like your ad hominem vomiting on everyone who comments or questions yours. It's obnoxious when people do that, right?) Definition 1: "(in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid former policy of segregating and economically and politically oppressing the nonwhite population."
2. "any system or practice that separates people according to color, ethnicity, caste, etc."
The only person talking about South Africa in the past is you. Everyone else is commenting on Israel's poor conduct toward the Palestinians. Can people of Arab descent live in Israel? Yes. Does Israel commit war crimes against Gaza? Yes. Both can be true. Both are true.
But how 'bout we get back to Ukraine?
When there is a legal definition of a crime, and you accuse someone of that crime, you rely on the statutory definition and not the dictionary. Why anyone would pretend otherwise might make for interesting psychological research.
The international convention I cited defines the crime of apartheid by setting out its specific elements. The dictionary doesn’t.
It really boils down to something very elementary. There’s the legal definition which acquits Israel of the charge, and there’s the rhetorical slur which activists tend to deploy only against Israel. In so doing, they diminish the horrors of actual apartheid in a manner similar to Holocaust minimization.
And, for what it’s worth, it’s also evident that you also have your own personal definition of “ad hominem”, apparently to avoid having to grapple with the merits of arguments you can’t refute on the evidence.
Pro hasbarist for sure.
One big tell is how they keep cool even under fire as they "catapult the propaganda".
Israeli propaganda is among the best, if not the best in the world.
If Israel had invaded the Ukraine, the world would be cheering that! As it is...
The UN? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
How is AI's definition expansive exactly?
You're zionist scum and utterly unable to marshall any legit defense of your vile opinions. I'm done.
Now everyone knows how you would react to being checkmated in a game of chess.
Project much? Like I said, you're a 🤡
And I would destroy you in chess as easily as I poked holes in literally every single point you made.
gfy
I read some of that link and it seems to me that Israel commits some of the acts they define as apartheid.
And anyway, legal definitions can be debated endlessly. Most people, if they don’t have an emotional attachment to the guilty party, would look at Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and say it looks like apartheid. Desmond Tutu did, but of course you claim he is biased.
This B’Tselem link makes the case well.
https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid
I could imagine a parallel universe where Israel apologetics were true. In such a world there would be no settlements on the WB. Israel’s history would not include the Nakba. All of the terrorism and atrocities would have been committed by the Palestinians. But in this universe, that isn’t true.
Yes, I know— I must have some sinister motive, etc…. I don’t like America’s horrible human rights record and part of that is our support for governments which do horrible things. Like Israel. Though I would say the Saudis are worse. But not many Westerners have an emotional attachment to the Saudi monarchy, so the only people who defend them are paid to do it.
Have you read George Orwell's essay on Nationalism where he describes how Israel becomes a fascist state?
It is a chilling read. Orwell died in 1950 . I was two at the time and just beginning to read.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/