Then you have removed yourself from the conversation of what Israel should do. — Ennui Elucidator
Yeah, can't ask Israel to stop doing apartheid without 'removing myself from conversation'. Propagandist clown. — StreetlightX
Stop oppression = stop existing. — Ennui Elucidator
then you forfit your right to exist. — StreetlightX
Israel shouldn’t exist. — Ennui Elucidator
So Israel can only exist on the basis of mass suffering of others? — StreetlightX
How does Israel exist without causing the mass suffering of others? — Ennui Elucidator
Seems like a problem for Israel. — StreetlightX
Anyway, back to Israeli apartheid. — StreetlightX
You keep using the word, so a bit of substance would be nice. — Ennui Elucidator
The crime against humanity of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention, the Rome Statute and customary international law is committed when any inhuman or inhumane act (essentially a serious human rights violation) is perpetrated in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intention to maintain that system. A regime of oppression and domination can best be understood as the systematic, prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment by one racial group of members of another with the intention to control the second racial group.
Thus, the crime against humanity of apartheid is committed when serious human rights violations are committed in the context, and with the specific intent, of maintaining a regime or system of prolonged and cruel discriminatory control of one or more racial groups by another.
. . .
Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has pursued an explicit policy of establishing and maintaining
a Jewish demographic hegemony and maximizing its control over land to benefit Jewish Israelis while minimizing the number of Palestinians and restricting their rights and obstructing their ability to challenge this dispossession. In 1967, Israel extended this policy beyond the Green Line to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which it has occupied ever since. Today, all territories controlled by Israel continue to be administered with the purpose of benefiting Jewish Israelis to the detriment of Palestinians, while Palestinian refugees continue to be excluded.
Demographic considerations have from the outset guided Israeli legislation and policymaking. The demography of the newly created state was to be changed to the benefit of Jewish Israelis, while Palestinians – whether inside Israel or, later on, in the OPT – were perceived as a threat to establishing
a Jewish majority, and as a result were to be expelled, fragmented, segregated, controlled, dispossessed of their land and property and deprived of their economic and social rights.
Jewish Israelis form a group that is unified by a privileged legal status embedded in Israeli law, which extends to them through state services and protections regardless of where they reside in the territories under Israel’s effective control. The Jewish identity of the State of Israel has been established in its laws and the practice of its official and national institutions. Israeli laws perceive and treat Jewish identity, depending on the context, as a religious, descent-based, and/or national or ethnic identity. — “Amnesty International on Apartheid”
Even Amnesty international agrees with me. — Ennui Elucidator
This isn't the winning point you think it is. — StreetlightX
↪Ennui Elucidator Again, not my problem. — StreetlightX
Or if you prefer, my critique was about whether the failure to include Israel in the discussion as an entity with interests was textbook anti-semitism because, as it happens, everyone is oppressive including the Palestinians. — Ennui Elucidator
Critique Palestinians all you like. In the meantime, sucks about the mirdeous Israeli state. — StreetlightX
My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. Your writing and communication skills, evidently, are not up to par. — Seppo
yet to announce a considered policy about how we can get from shitsville to something approximating a moral/desirable resolution that doesn’t involve a whole lot of dead Jews — Ennui Elucidator
Stop apartheid.
Sorry that you seem so morally unclear about this. — StreetlightX
The arsonist blames the bonfire – a circumstance of Eurocentric-colonizing Israel's own making by dispossession of the several centuries-old occupants of Palestine in the late 1940s. Israelis have created enemies which they have ever since been compelled to perpetually scapegoat – to oppress – "in the name of security" because Israel, despite needing to 'justify' itself remaining a heavily subsidized US/NATO client-state, has neither a modern historical claim, international law or demographics on it's side. A tragic catch-22 which, IME, calls into question the "legitimacy" of the State of Israel every day that this apartheid regime (& its US/NATO patrons-accomplices) resign themselves to the status quo.given the "circumstance" Israel finds itself in, must it give up all forms of oppression — Ennui Elucidator
The arsonist blames the bonfire — 180 Proof
e idea that Israel's existence is premised on kidnapping children, bulldozing houses, and extra-judicial murder is more anti-semetic than anything I could even dream of coming up with. Well done though, I guess. — StreetlightX
Strawman. Red herring. Canard. Tired old apologetic bs. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.