"Killing enemy soldiers in combat (even via sneaky tactics) is warfare, ugly but not terrorism."
Yeah, I guess we could keep pulling at this thread. There was a ceasefire on Oct 6th, so is it still warfare at that point? I don't know. I just don't buy into the premise that there's an acceptable or justifiable way of killing people who wer…
"Killing enemy soldiers in combat (even via sneaky tactics) is warfare, ugly but not terrorism."
Yeah, I guess we could keep pulling at this thread. There was a ceasefire on Oct 6th, so is it still warfare at that point? I don't know. I just don't buy into the premise that there's an acceptable or justifiable way of killing people who weren't trying to kill you. And yeah, collateral damage is an equally troubled concept.
But I was mainly referring to the settlements when I wrote about Israel's crimes. That and the effective apartheid state in Israel. The bombings are a two-way thing. But these aren't.
Agreed that the West Bank settlements are a major problem.
Steve, in my reading "apartheid" refers to a system of segregation, disenfranchisement, and official discrimination between racially or ethnically distinct portions of a nation's legal residents. If you have a more precise definition, I'd love to hear it (ie: how YOU use the term, to help discern if it applies to Israel or not).
As far as I understand, about 21% of Israelis are of Arabic descent (and overwhelmingly Muslim), but they are full citizens. They vote in the same elections, elect Arabic members of Parliament, and the high justice who ruled against Netanyahu was Arabic. They are not involuntarily segregated in living, employment, transportation, banking, etc. They are exempt from mandatory service in the IDF but can volunteer. Does that really match the conditions of Apartheid in South Africa?
I see the "apartheid" characterization as one of the typical word and emotion manipulation tactics of the Critical Social Justice ideology movement, not as a factual or objective characterization. As such, I question the repetition of it, absent better evidence for justifying it.
Please understand - things can still be wrong even if they don't fit under a hyperbolic label, so it's fine to criticize Israel for any factual mistreatment of their citizens one can cite, but to qualify as "apartheid" is a distinct step. The IS a degree of actual and/or asserted discrimination in Israel. If the label doesn't fit, it's best to stop using it and just describe more specifically the infractions on their own merits, rather than use an intentionally misleading label applied by propagandists.
If you still think the "progressive western activist" label of "apartheid" for Israel is factually justified and you carefully considered the issue before adopting their terminology as accurate, could you give your operational definition and some of the evidence which you considered? I'm open to reason on this labeling. (And I agree with much of the criticism of Israel in other areas).
"As far as I understand, about 21% of Israelis are of Arabic descent (and overwhelmingly Muslim), but they are full citizens. "
Not really. Not even Sephardic Jews, who are racially identical to Palestinians, are first-class citizens. They may have legal rights but the treatment they receive is quite different from that of the Ashkenazi majority.
Israeli law openly and unapologetically disfavors non-Jews. If a Jew marries a non-Jew, they may not live under the same roof. And that marriage cannot be performed in Israel.
American racists are overwhelmingly driven by inferiority complexes; they are mostly uneducated, poor, humble of intellect, so they cultivate the belief that others are lower than them.
Israeli bigotry is altogether different, a deeply-held conviction that they are the master race (the "Chosen People") and that others are literally subhuman. There is a wiely-held belief that a killing is only a murder if the victim is a Jew.
"Killing enemy soldiers in combat (even via sneaky tactics) is warfare, ugly but not terrorism."
Yeah, I guess we could keep pulling at this thread. There was a ceasefire on Oct 6th, so is it still warfare at that point? I don't know. I just don't buy into the premise that there's an acceptable or justifiable way of killing people who weren't trying to kill you. And yeah, collateral damage is an equally troubled concept.
But I was mainly referring to the settlements when I wrote about Israel's crimes. That and the effective apartheid state in Israel. The bombings are a two-way thing. But these aren't.
Agreed that the West Bank settlements are a major problem.
Steve, in my reading "apartheid" refers to a system of segregation, disenfranchisement, and official discrimination between racially or ethnically distinct portions of a nation's legal residents. If you have a more precise definition, I'd love to hear it (ie: how YOU use the term, to help discern if it applies to Israel or not).
As far as I understand, about 21% of Israelis are of Arabic descent (and overwhelmingly Muslim), but they are full citizens. They vote in the same elections, elect Arabic members of Parliament, and the high justice who ruled against Netanyahu was Arabic. They are not involuntarily segregated in living, employment, transportation, banking, etc. They are exempt from mandatory service in the IDF but can volunteer. Does that really match the conditions of Apartheid in South Africa?
I see the "apartheid" characterization as one of the typical word and emotion manipulation tactics of the Critical Social Justice ideology movement, not as a factual or objective characterization. As such, I question the repetition of it, absent better evidence for justifying it.
Please understand - things can still be wrong even if they don't fit under a hyperbolic label, so it's fine to criticize Israel for any factual mistreatment of their citizens one can cite, but to qualify as "apartheid" is a distinct step. The IS a degree of actual and/or asserted discrimination in Israel. If the label doesn't fit, it's best to stop using it and just describe more specifically the infractions on their own merits, rather than use an intentionally misleading label applied by propagandists.
If you still think the "progressive western activist" label of "apartheid" for Israel is factually justified and you carefully considered the issue before adopting their terminology as accurate, could you give your operational definition and some of the evidence which you considered? I'm open to reason on this labeling. (And I agree with much of the criticism of Israel in other areas).
"As far as I understand, about 21% of Israelis are of Arabic descent (and overwhelmingly Muslim), but they are full citizens. "
Not really. Not even Sephardic Jews, who are racially identical to Palestinians, are first-class citizens. They may have legal rights but the treatment they receive is quite different from that of the Ashkenazi majority.
Israeli law openly and unapologetically disfavors non-Jews. If a Jew marries a non-Jew, they may not live under the same roof. And that marriage cannot be performed in Israel.
American racists are overwhelmingly driven by inferiority complexes; they are mostly uneducated, poor, humble of intellect, so they cultivate the belief that others are lower than them.
Israeli bigotry is altogether different, a deeply-held conviction that they are the master race (the "Chosen People") and that others are literally subhuman. There is a wiely-held belief that a killing is only a murder if the victim is a Jew.
Why do we support these people?