I didn't say you were bad, nor do I think that. I think you're being hypocritical on this topic.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I didn't say you were bad, nor do I think that. I think you're being hypocritical on this topic.
Not specious, nor an admonition. You use legal words but then want to understand them in a non-legal way and have them import the same consequence and value as the legal concept. That's not how it works.That is a specious admonition.
You only prefer definitions that exculpate
Israel's apartheid....if they even do. Based
upon the bizarre rationalization for war
crimes & such in other posts, I doubt
that you read the law correctly.
The difference between your legal argumentNot specious, nor an admonition. You use legal words but then want to understand them in a non-legal way and have them import the same consequence and value as the legal concept. That's not how it works.
So according to that definition, there is NO apartheid in Israel and the constant charge of apartheid is false and baseless…APARTHEID (definition)
separating, setting apart
The term “apartheid”, an Afrikaans word, derived from the French term “mettre à part”, literally translated to “separating, setting apart.” Apartheid is a policy that is founded on the idea of separating people based on racial or ethnic criteria.
No, and I really wish you would try to follow along: I am making the point that word has a real and legal meaning and you are taking liberties with it, using it in a loose and common sense and thinking that has bearing on either the legal theory or the practical facts. You call using a word as it is defined a "game"? You are the one substituting an external definition for the one in the authoritative document.The difference between your legal argument
& the common argument is race vs other traits,
ie, primarily religion in this case. To think that
apartheid must be based only on race is bogus.
It's apartheid by every dictionary definition,
I've yet seen, so the term is correct.
You're simply using a word game to justify
oppression & apartheid of Palestinians.
Holy moly this is full of wrong information! There are separate roads, segregated settlements with gates, checkpoints, razor wire, there are walls. Palestinians who are essentially stateless live under a separate legal system. The blockade of Gaza has created human rights issues for decades. The U.N. says it's apartheid, along with several human rights organizations inside and outside of Israel.So according to that definition, there is NO apartheid in Israel and the constant charge of apartheid is false and baseless…
“ End Apartheid in Israel!”
“This is a slogan that garners massive support, but the slogan expresses a total lie. There is no Apartheid in Israel. None! Zilch! Nada!
Two million Palestinians live in Israel. They are citizens of Israel, and as such, they have complete freedom to live where they please and to use any hospital or means of transportation. There is no enforced separation of Jews and Arabs of any type that exists in Israel.
Arab Israelis have the right to vote and to serve in the Israeli parliament (the Knesset). They also have access to all the welfare services of the state. They have every freedom that the Jews have. In fact, they have been given a freedom Jews do not have! All Jews, except the small percentage of Ultra-Orthodox, are required to serve in the military — both men and women. Palestinian citizens are exempted from this requirement, although some voluntarily serve in non-combat positions.
The only Apartheid that exists in the Middle East is in the Arab countries where all their Jewish populations were forcibly evicted after the Suez War in 1956. The fact of the matter is that no Jews are allowed to live in Arab nations. That is true Apartheid!”
Deceptive Slogans In Propaganda War Against Israel :: By Dr. David Reagan
The pro-Palestinian demonstrations that have broken out across our nation are full of signs containing slogans that are either blatantly untrue orwww.raptureready.com
You're still ignoring the common usage basedNo, and I really wish you would try to follow along: I am making the point that word has a real and legal meaning and you are taking liberties with it, using it in a loose and common sense and thinking that has bearing on either the legal theory or the practical facts. You call using a word as it is defined a "game"? You are the one substituting an external definition for the one in the authoritative document.
Is Gaza Israel? No, it’s not. Gaza has its own Hamas controlled government. The UN or other agencies cannot just redefine “apartheid” or use it in a bias, twisted double standard way solely against Israel.Holy moly this is full of wrong information! There are separate roads, segregated settlements with gates, checkpoints, razor wire, there are walls. Palestinians who are essentially stateless live under a separate legal system. The blockade of Gaza has created human rights issues for decades. The U.N. says it's apartheid, along with several human rights organizations inside and outside of Israel.
Israel's apartheid against Palestinians
Palestinians are systematically subjected to home demolitions and forced evictions, and live in constant fear of losing their homes. For more than 73 years, Israel has been forcibly displacing entire Palestinian communities. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians’ homes have been demolished...www.amnesty.org
A Threshold Crossed
The 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” examines Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It presents the present-day reality of a single authority, the Israeli government, ruling primarily over the area between the Jordan River and...www.hrw.org
Is Gaza Israel? No, it’s not. Gaza has its own Hamas controlled government. The UN or other agencies cannot just redefine “apartheid” or use it in a bias, twisted double standard way solely against Israel.
“That apartheid refers to the racial segregation in pre-1990s South Africa, which does not remotely apply to Israel, is seemingly irrelevant to the UN, ostensible human rights groups and the media. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines‘apartheid’ as “a former policy of segregation and political, social, and economic discrimination against South Africa’s nonwhite majority.”
Compare that to Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians. Since the 1990s’ Oslo Accords, the vast majority of Palestinians have been governed by the PA or Hamas.
In Israel, Arabs serve as Supreme Court Justices, fighter pilots, politicians, artists and athletes. Everything Israelis do, Arab Israelis do. BDS co-founder and apartheid claim proponent Omar Barghouti even earned his degree at Tel Aviv University.
The legal, state-sanctioned discrimination that is the definition of apartheid is not only absent from Israel, it is furiously combatted by its laws and independent judiciary. Israel’s basic laws serve as legal safeguards, providing protection of life, body and dignity in a democratic state with equal rights for all, including ethnic minorities.
As such, singling Israel out exposes a double standard and misrepresents the actual legal and practical state of affairs within the country.”
The 'Apartheid' Myth: The Improper Use of False and Misleading Claims Regarding Israel | HonestReporting
Anti-Israel activists throughout the world are spearheading a full-blown assault on the Jewish state by disseminating outright lies.honestreporting.com
Justifying apartheid by saying it'sIs Gaza Israel? No, it’s not. Gaza has its own Hamas controlled government. The UN or other agencies cannot just redefine “apartheid” or use it in a bias, twisted double standard way solely against Israel.
“That apartheid refers to the racial segregation in pre-1990s South Africa, which does not remotely apply to Israel, is seemingly irrelevant to the UN, ostensible human rights groups and the media. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines‘apartheid’ as “a former policy of segregation and political, social, and economic discrimination against South Africa’s nonwhite majority.”
Compare that to Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians. Since the 1990s’ Oslo Accords, the vast majority of Palestinians have been governed by the PA or Hamas.
In Israel, Arabs serve as Supreme Court Justices, fighter pilots, politicians, artists and athletes. Everything Israelis do, Arab Israelis do. BDS co-founder and apartheid claim proponent Omar Barghouti even earned his degree at Tel Aviv University.
The legal, state-sanctioned discrimination that is the definition of apartheid is not only absent from Israel, it is furiously combatted by its laws and independent judiciary. Israel’s basic laws serve as legal safeguards, providing protection of life, body and dignity in a democratic state with equal rights for all, including ethnic minorities.
As such, singling Israel out exposes a double standard and misrepresents the actual legal and practical state of affairs within the country.”
The 'Apartheid' Myth: The Improper Use of False and Misleading Claims Regarding Israel | HonestReporting
Anti-Israel activists throughout the world are spearheading a full-blown assault on the Jewish state by disseminating outright lies.honestreporting.com
That's like saying "I don't care about legal definition. Eating yogurt is MURDER, therefore yogurt eaters are clearly murderers!You're still ignoring the common usage based
upon dictionary definitions. I don't claim a
legal definition. Israel commits apartheid.
Stop using intellectual dishonesty to support an incorrect claim.Stop using tricks to try to justify Israel's
criminal & evil behavior.
calling it apartheid when it isn't about race is cheap showmanship or just intellectual sloppiness?Justifying apartheid by saying it's
only about race...therefore apartheid
in Israel doesn't exist, or is acceptable?
Geeze Louise, is there any sillyEating yogurt is MURDER, therefore yogurt eaters are clearly murderers!
I gave you a link to dictionary.com's definition.The word has a specific definition.
Dishonesty, eh.Stop using intellectual dishonesty to support an incorrect claim.
Still don't believe in English dictionaries, eh.ca
calling it apartheid when it isn't about race is cheap showmanship or just intellectual sloppiness?
I’m sorry, but there’s no way HRW can be considered a legitimate, unbiased source.Lordy. Get out of your apologetic information bubble and you might learn something.
A Threshold Crossed
The 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” examines Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It presents the present-day reality of a single authority, the Israeli government, ruling primarily over the area between the Jordan River and...www.hrw.org
I’m not justifying apartheid in anyway, in Israel or elsewhere. Just saying Israel doesn’t practice apartheid.Justifying apartheid by saying it's
only about race...therefore apartheid
in Israel doesn't exist, or is acceptable?
Is there any point you will try to answer instead of snarking and running?Geeze Louise, is there any silly
thing you won't say to justify
apartheid?
Your dictionary definition doesn't have any impact on the word in the context of international law. If you want to use the word "apartheid" to refer to anything you think it should then you should be clear about how you mean the word. I'm telling you how I'm using it. The dictionary.com definition, by the way, doesn't do much to support your claimI gave you a link to dictionary.com's definition.
Israel has apartheid....in addition to torture,
war crimes, & other human rights violations
it inflicts on Palestinians.
Your word games don't change this reality.
people discussing a legal concept should use legal definitions instead of ad hoc conveniences.Dishonesty, eh.
Religious fanatics in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
By denying that it exists,I’m not justifying apartheid in anyway...
Can't you spot apologetics when you see them? The whataboutism used to deflect away from the actual issue should be a clue. Of course Israel tries to discredit anyone who points out what is happening.I’m sorry, but there’s no way HRW can be considered a legitimate, unbiased source.
“HRW frequently levels baseless accusations against Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, while victims of authoritarian regimes in Iran, Syria, and Yemen consistently get a pass.
Here are five things you should know about Human Rights Watch and its outrageous report….
“The report’s primary author is Omar Shakir, HRW’s Israel/Palestine director, who signed a pledge in 2015 to “honor the BDS call.” The founder and leader of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement has stated openly that his movement aims to see Israel dismantled as a Jewish state and BDS activists have achieved notoriety around the world for attacking Jews and Jewish institutions.
Israel expelled Shakir for violating a 2017 law that bars BDS supporters from entering the country. At the time, then-Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan said Shakir “reveals the true face of boycott activists… even when they present a false pose of ‘human rights activists.’”
An analysis of Shakir’s Twitter activity by the watchdog group NGO Monitor between June 2018 and February 2019 showed 970 tweets on issues relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of those 970 tweets, 18 condemned alleged Israeli attacks on Palestinians, but not one condemned terrorist attacks against Israel. “
5 Things You Should Know About Human Rights Watch’s Report on Israel
Human Rights Watch released the latest in an anti-Israel campaign by the once reputable watchdog group, which five years ago tapped a longtime anti-Israel activist as its director in that region.www.ajc.org
I've answered questions that were worthy.Is there any point you will try to answer instead of snarking and running?
The dictionary is the basis for language I use.Your dictionary definition doesn't have any impact on the word in the context of international law.
Ethnicity covers it, as does "etc".noun
- (in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid former policy of segregating and economically and politically oppressing the nonwhite population.
- any system or practice that separates people according to color, ethnicity, caste, etc.