The false equivalency of Israeli apartheid
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2012, 11:08 AM
RE: The false equivalency of Israeli apartheid
(18-11-2012 10:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-11-2012 10:17 AM)shiranl Wrote:  So...because we had relations with SA, it means automatically we're apartheid too?

And maybe I should tell you my personal story in order for you to understand it is not so simple as you try to picture it. My grandmother was born in Germany. Her father fought for Germany in WW1 (and lost his hearing as a result), when Hitler came to power he really didn't trust him, and uprooted his entire family to South Africa in 1937. my grandmother took the ship from Italy to SA when she was 12 years old, getting there with only few marks. My grandma and her family, being white-skinned, had a relative good life in SA. She played tennis and swom, she ice-skated and was active in the Red Cross and the Zionist movement. She had normal life and normal childhood, more normal then my own life and childhood. I can't imagine what her life could have been if she stayed in Germany. I don't know if I would be here to tell you that if my grandmother didn't leave Germany. In the end, Apartheid South Africa saved my family's life (and many other South African Jewish people's life) , and was among the few countries who were willing to do so. So, even if it was cruel regime (and I'm not saying it wasn't) for the South African community in Israel that regime was a LIFE SAVING regime. Would you turn your back to someone who saved your life, even if it was from the wrong reason?

What, do you think the Holocaust was a one-time event? the Jewish people suffered persecution for as long as history goes. Guess what- if your ancestors didn't harrassed and kill my ancestors, we wouldn't have this discussion. You can't blame a person or a nation trying to defend themselves!
costume made for people who think like you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY3QpWvYz...re=related
Yes, and Uganda was considered by Hertzel (which was the founder of the Zionist movment, not the king of it).....so what?

I'm glad you're worried about me (not enough to consider I might deserve a self determination, but well....) for you and the rest of this forum members who might be interested in my regard- I'm not living in the south of Israel, not even in Tel Aviv. I'm OK (If I wasn't, believe me I wouldn't have the time to write you those posts between air siren to another).


I hold the currently unpopular opinion that the modern State of Israel was illegally constituted, and the land had been stolen from the rightful owners/occupiers.

The holy books are not land deeds, so cannot be used as justification for taking the land.

You reap what you sow.
I agree that the Bible is no legitimate justification to claim that land. Religion motivates some Israelis to keep expanding to take over the rest of the Biblical Israel, and that is a big reason reason there will be no quick solution to this problem. The other being religious inspired hatred for Jews from the Palestinians.

If the original Israeli claim is not legitimate, then by what standard do we decide a claim is legitimate such that we do not advocate perpetual war? The couple generations that Israel has existed seems to indicate to me that this is a relatively permanent change. The mistake was granting Israel their state in the first place, but now that they have one, they have a right to defend it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 11:16 AM
RE: The false equivalency of Israeli apartheid
(18-11-2012 11:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-11-2012 10:57 AM)BryanS Wrote:  WTF. You think the holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy to take over Israel? You are arguing that Jews are so manipulative and capable of any depravity that they would willingly see millions killed just to convince their own numbers to move to Israel? Antisemitic bigotry like this is precisely why there will be no quick solution to this problem.
Wow, over-reaction, much?

He didn't say that. How did you get that reading?
I don't think it is an over-reaction. His posting was filled with "the classics" of stereotypical antisemitic assumptions. I'm just calling him out on it.

"The migration of jews out of europe was a plan from the late 1800's
other territories were considered, even Uganda, Zionist groups
considered using parts of the then brittish colony to create a jewish
state. The transfer plan to get jews out of germany was supported by
both Zionists and Nazis before WW2 started."

So world WW2 was just part of the larger plan of "Jewish migration", a Jewish plan in concert with their Nazi murderers. The only way someone can spout this crap is if they imagine Jews to be unscrupulous schemers and plotters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 11:21 AM
RE: The false equivalency of Israeli apartheid
(18-11-2012 11:08 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(18-11-2012 10:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  I hold the currently unpopular opinion that the modern State of Israel was illegally constituted, and the land had been stolen from the rightful owners/occupiers.

The holy books are not land deeds, so cannot be used as justification for taking the land.

You reap what you sow.
I agree that the Bible is no legitimate justification to claim that land. Religion motivates some Israelis to keep expanding to take over the rest of the Biblical Israel, and that is a big reason reason there will be no quick solution to this problem. The other being religious inspired hatred for Jews from the Palestinians.

If the original Israeli claim is not legitimate, then by what standard do we decide a claim is legitimate such that we do not advocate perpetual war? The couple generations that Israel has existed seems to indicate to me that this is a relatively permanent change. The mistake was granting Israel their state in the first place, but now that they have one, they have a right to defend it.
I will quibble slightly: they have the right to defend themselves.

If their state is not legitimately constituted, it is not morally defensible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 11:22 AM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2012 11:29 AM by shiranl.)
RE: The false equivalency of Israeli apartheid
(18-11-2012 11:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-11-2012 10:51 AM)shiranl Wrote:  You mean the British? because they occupied the land before Israel was established.
They controlled it politically as a result of World War I and the demise of the Ottoman Empire under a mandate from the League of Nations; they did not settle it.

One can argue that the British Mandate itself was none too legal, but to the victor ...

Neither the League of Nations Mandate nor the U.N. resolution heeded the wishes of those who actually lived there. The original partition plan was never implemented largely due to opposition by Palestinians and other Arabs.

Had the U.N. set up a secular state that respected everyone's rights there might not be the mess there is today.
".....due to opposition by Palestinians and other Arabs."

Nicely put description to the Jew-killing-journey the entire Arab world was committed to after Jews declared independence and called for a good neighbouring between us. It's written right there in our Independence Scroll....

Yeah....because the tiny UN was the one to fight 7 armies one day after it was established and win them? The UN didn't "set up" Israel, there were actual people who fought and were killed in order to "set up" Israel.

And if I understood correctly, you hold that opinion:

http://www.google.com/imgres?start=632&h...80&bih=653
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 11:23 AM
RE: The false equivalency of Israeli apartheid
(18-11-2012 11:16 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(18-11-2012 11:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  Wow, over-reaction, much?

He didn't say that. How did you get that reading?
I don't think it is an over-reaction. His posting was filled with "the classics" of stereotypical antisemitic assumptions. I'm just calling him out on it.

"The migration of jews out of europe was a plan from the late 1800's
other territories were considered, even Uganda, Zionist groups
considered using parts of the then brittish colony to create a jewish
state. The transfer plan to get jews out of germany was supported by
both Zionists and Nazis before WW2 started."

So world WW2 was just part of the larger plan of "Jewish migration", a Jewish plan in concert with their Nazi murderers. The only way someone can spout this crap is if they imagine Jews to be unscrupulous schemers and plotters.
No, I think you are reading into it. There were plans that existed prior to WWII; he doesn't say those plans in any way provoked WWII.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 11:33 AM
RE: The false equivalency of Israeli apartheid
(18-11-2012 11:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-11-2012 11:08 AM)BryanS Wrote:  I agree that the Bible is no legitimate justification to claim that land. Religion motivates some Israelis to keep expanding to take over the rest of the Biblical Israel, and that is a big reason reason there will be no quick solution to this problem. The other being religious inspired hatred for Jews from the Palestinians.

If the original Israeli claim is not legitimate, then by what standard do we decide a claim is legitimate such that we do not advocate perpetual war? The couple generations that Israel has existed seems to indicate to me that this is a relatively permanent change. The mistake was granting Israel their state in the first place, but now that they have one, they have a right to defend it.
I will quibble slightly: they have the right to defend themselves.

If their state is not legitimately constituted, it is not morally defensible.
One could make the same argument about any modern state--all the modern nations formed out of the new worlds discovered by Europeans had peoples there before us. In older lands, people can adjust their 'we were here first' argument to almost any point in history--or fudge the history where it suits their needs--to justify perpetual war.

This Hobbesian world may be our natural state, but that's why we have the UN, and the UN recognized Israel as a state. That may be a flawed system, but it's a smidge better for conferring legitimacy than just a claim for who was there first. There are still 'refugee camps' with multiple generations refusing to acknowledge they lost a war 50 years ago, still itching for the fight to remove the Jews from 'their land'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 04:17 PM
RE: The false equivalency of Israeli apartheid
(18-11-2012 10:57 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(18-11-2012 08:47 AM)I and I Wrote:  I hope you are ok Shiranl

Actually it's not a lie, the Israeli government towards the end of the south african racist apartheid government was alone in the countries that still supported the racist government in 1987. Even when most countries had enough of the racist government in South Africa. Sounds like they didn't teach you that in Israeli schools?

The migration of jews out of europe was a plan from the late 1800's other territories were considered, even Uganda, Zionist groups considered using parts of the then brittish colony to create a jewish state. The transfer plan to get jews out of germany was supported by both Zionists and Nazis before WW2 started.

Reading about the zionist considering Uganda, one of the reasons they didn't choose Uganda was because they people that went to look at the land were afraid of lions. Are you sure you want to travel to Africa? lol I am kidding.
WTF. You think the holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy to take over Israel? You are arguing that Jews are so manipulative and capable of any depravity that they would willingly see millions killed just to convince their own numbers to move to Israel? Antisemitic bigotry like this is precisely why there will be no quick solution to this problem.
No stupid I am saying that zionism before WW2 were looking at other places to settle other than palestine to create a "pure jewish state" whatever that is supposed to be. One of these places was then brittish colony Uganda, they considered having the brittish give them parts of Uganda (of course this would be illegitimate also). And before WW2 the zionists and the nazi government had worked together for a plan to transfer jews out of europe. Hitler knew that he couldn't have his country that was in a depression being boycotted by jewish business world wide. So even though these two groups didn't like each other and since it was good ole capitalism, the zionists like any other good capitalist would suck the dick of the devil for that next dollar bill, at this time europeans and americans were doing business with nazis as well.

Many things caused the holocaust. A general racist european attitude is one of them, and this racist attitude apparently has influenced the europeans that went to settle the non-european land of palestine.

European country 1 steals land from someone then gives it to other europeans to settle....that sounds like pure bullshit and as illegitimate as it gets.


Speaking of history, the biggest threat to judaism has been christianity by far, much more so than islam.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 04:22 PM
RE: The false equivalency of Israeli apartheid
(18-11-2012 11:33 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(18-11-2012 11:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  I will quibble slightly: they have the right to defend themselves.

If their state is not legitimately constituted, it is not morally defensible.
One could make the same argument about any modern state--all the modern nations formed out of the new worlds discovered by Europeans had peoples there before us. In older lands, people can adjust their 'we were here first' argument to almost any point in history--or fudge the history where it suits their needs--to justify perpetual war.

This Hobbesian world may be our natural state, but that's why we have the UN, and the UN recognized Israel as a state. That may be a flawed system, but it's a smidge better for conferring legitimacy than just a claim for who was there first. There are still 'refugee camps' with multiple generations refusing to acknowledge they lost a war 50 years ago, still itching for the fight to remove the Jews from 'their land'.
Do you believe that the bible is evidence of land rights?

Drinking Beverage

and 50 years is nothing in relevance to history, most countries borders in the middle east were drawn up more than 50 years ago yet many people that live on those borders don't really pay attention to the border. Or here is another example: more than 50 years ago Iran elected a secular popular leader, but this guy was an evil commie so the U.S. overthrew him and put in a puppet dictatorship, this then caused hatred for americans and gave rise to radical islam in Iran which then overthrew the U.S. puppet and now look what we have today. Yes what happened 50 years ago can have a real affect on what happens today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: