Would you consider it acceptable for an Arab state to build roads in Israel that Arabs but not Jews were allowed to travel on? Or to build settlements there exclusively for Arabs? — Baden

No because Israel is its own country. Israel doesn't build settlements in other Arab countries.

No need to refer to fictional laws. South Africa had real ones just like Israel's.

The West Bank is a Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. So, would you consider it acceptable for an Arab state occupying Israeli territory to build roads Arabs but not Jews were allowed to travel on? Or to build settlements there exclusively for Arabs? And if you object to any of that, you can reduce it to, "would you consider it anti-semitic for roads to be built that Jews were not allowed to travel on but Arabs were"?

Don't forget about Israeli settlers destroying Palestinian homes and livelihoods under the protection of Israeli security forces, who brutalize any Palestinian who dares fight back.

The West Bank is a Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. — Baden

Which sector of the WB are you talking about? Or are you talking about all of it? Why does all of the WB necessarily belong to the Palestinians? What about the Jewish communities there?

Absolutely, just want to put forward a very simple proposition based on a very simple fact that puts defenders of Israel in the position of having to defend hypothetical anti-semitism or condemn Israeli apartheid. There is no other consistent ethical position.

"would you consider it anti-semitic for roads to be built that Jews were not allowed to travel on but Arabs were"? — Baden

Stop squirming and answer the question above. Anti-semitic or not?

You're dropping the earlier discussion because you just don't know. You need to make an effort to learn the history of the demographics in that area before you jump to conclusions like that the Palestinians are just entitled to the entire WB for some reason.

As for the roads are these near security checkpoints? It might make sense to allow some cars through quicker, but I would think this is only around the border.

'The history of the demographics' are the Israeli settler colonists have continually displaced Palestinian populations in the West Bank by threat and exercise of violence.

What's funny here is watching @BitconnectCarlos squirm and try to avoid condemning obvious anti-semitism. @Andrew4Handel, you're next. If you can't condemn roads being built that Jews would not be allowed to travel on but Arabs would, you're an anti-semite. Period.

Jews have lived in the region for thousands of years, continuously. Way, way before Israel. Jewish populations have been ethnically cleansed from Arab lands.

Utterly irrelevant.

If you can't condemn roads being built that Jews would not be allowed to travel on but Arabs would, you're an anti-semite. Period. — Baden

I honestly wouldn't mind if it were in Egypt or something and it was near a border and they just let the Egyptian citizens speed through quicker. It would hasten the process.

I

Yes, Jews being ethnically cleansed from Arab lands and repeatedly subject to massacres in Palestine before the existence of Israel is utterly irrelevant to you. I wouldn't have expected anything different from you.

Dude, you can't even unequivocally say that Jews should be allowed to use roads there, so everything you say now is coated in the absurd.



Answer the question:

"would you consider it anti-semitic for roads to be built that Jews were not allowed to travel on but Arabs were"? — Baden

Yes or no.

I have no idea what you're talking about. We're talking about the use of separate roads, right? Near checkpoints? To speed up the process?

I said I wouldn't have a problem if in Arab countries they had some system like that near checkpoints. Gaza is simply not its own country.

a state suffused with racism from top to bottom. — StreetlightX

America? Britain? France? Brazil?

Yep, because nothing justifies ethnic cleansing in the present. It's that simple.

Ah, I see you've learnt the 'whatabout' trick from TwoBit.

Ethnically cleanse as in murder? Or move? Was in ethnic cleansing when Israel forced Israelis to move out of Gaza in 2005?

I simply gave you an example of hypothetical anti-semitism, which you squirmed around and refused to condemn because you thought you couldn't without twisting yourself into an ethical doughnut. Funny to watch. Carry on.

I've already said I don't care if X is allowed to use some roads while Y is allowed to use others near checkpoints. No one is building roads in other countries without their permission and Gaza is not a country. It is not independent.

Ethnically cleanse as in murder? Or move? — BitconnectCarlos

Israel doesn't discriminate.

Was in ethnic cleansing when Israel forced Israelis to move out of Gaza in 2005? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, obviously.

Now the game is to pretend he doesn't understand what a hypothetical is. :lol: Thing about these guys is they're actually just vanilla bigots. The fact that their bigotry is directed towards Arabs, who they think shouldn't be afforded the rights they take for granted for themselves, is kind of incidental. They'd be bigots if they were Arabs too, and probably anti-semites.

Yes, obviously. — StreetlightX

You know that you're siding with the Israeli right on this one? I just like to let you know when you're further to the right than me.

I don't particularly care who I'm 'siding with' because I'm not an idiot who thinks labels mean anything whatsoever.

For others who are less disengenouous, getting away from rhetorical hypotheticals and focusing on facts on the ground, a report from the Israeli rights group, B'Tselem*.

"This report deals with one of the primary, albeit lesser known, components of Israel’s policy of restricting Palestinian movement in the Occupied Territories: restrictions and prohibitions on Palestinian travel along certain roads in the West Bank. This phenomenon is referred to in the report as the “Forbidden Roads Regime.” The regime, based on the principle of separation through discrimination, bears striking similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994."

https://www.btselem.org/download/200408_forbidden_roads_eng.pdf

(*B'Tselem
"Historian Mordechai Bar-On writes that B'Tselem's reports "frequently included ugly accounts of the behavior of Israeli security officials" and that Israelis "were often disturbed by these reports." At the same time, the Israeli media viewed the organization as "a reliable source of information" and their reports were in most cases proven to be accurate. Israeli military authorities also frequently turned to B'tselem to confirm the IDF's own information. It has also been called the best neutral source for incidents in the Palestinian territories.")

It heartens me that arguments in support of Israel are, and can only be, as vapid and slimy as those advanced by those like TwoBit. Anyone with half a brain can see just how cynical, unprincipled, and craven are these miserable attempts to defend the indefensible. It's good to let them speak. They are their own ideological gravediggers, by virtue of opening their mouths.

oh these people know who they are. they're just too far outside the overton window to productively engage, but occasionally we'll hurl insults at each other as a way of saying hi. — BitconnectCarlos

The only person here entirely outside of the overton window is the only guy you seem to agree with.

i was talking about muslim on muslim oppression which is considered so pervasive in the west (and not without reason) that we just don't talk about it because we just don't care. it's not nearly as exciting as an ethnic struggle! — BitconnectCarlos

... Except Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurds, Libya, Egypt and Islamism in general have all been discussed. It gets plenty of attention really but as Baden pointed out, more whataboutism.

Fact is you don't have an ethicial leg to stand on. If Arabs insituted a state that kept Jews in an open air prison that they regularly bombed and built roads especially for Arabs that Jews weren't allowed travel on, you, us, and the rest of the world would be rightly outraged. That you think this should be fine when it's done to Muslims makes you, at the very least, a bigot. — Baden

If I understand his position it's not so much that they are Muslims but that it's Israel (particularly Israeli Jews) committing the crime and he thinks loyalty trumps justice or something.

I don't particularly care who I'm 'siding with' because I'm not an idiot who thinks labels mean anything whatsoever. — StreetlightX

Ok, what's funny to me was that the Arabs supported the withdrawal as did the more moderate to left section of the Israeli population, so basically those who are interested in peace or at least going in that direction.

And on the other side we have the Israeli right many of whom do not care about peace and.... you who is against Israel "ethnically cleansing" its own population of Jews. :death:

And therein lies the essence of bigotry. I take the side of my group against the other, whatever the injustice against the other. It's "us" against "them". I agree it doesn't really matter that the "them" are Muslims in this case. As I also emphasized, Bitconnect's type are just as common among anti-semites. Same approach, just different labels.