Welcome Guest ( Log In  ·  Register)



2 Pages  1 2 > 
Reply to this topicStart Poll
Israel?, ?
[ Standard ] · Linear+
mG_Despair
post Jan 29 2013, 10:23 PM
Post #1


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,247

Submissions: None
Joined: 9-June 04

Member No.: 6,543






Is Israel an apartheid state? Why does Israel deny Palestine statehood?

Draw your own, likely uber-biased conclusions.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Jan 30 2013, 12:55 AM
Post #2


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






dude i thought we had this debate already 11

Israel is obvious not an apartheid state, it just doesn't fit the definition.

The apartheid system of SA was based upon the idea that whites were inherently superior to blacks, and other coloured people. All political, ie military, power was centralized with the whites, and racism was enforced by the government.
-Basically an "apartheid style" state is one where not all citizens are defined equally under the law. As a result of this, one group is able to claim a monopoly over political and military power, and may use this power to subjugate the other group(s).

All we have to do is see if Israel fits this definition.
-In Israel all Israeli citizens are defined as equals under the law, ergo it cannot be an apartheid state. All Israeli citizens have the right to vote, join the military, and hold political office.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mG_Despair
post Jan 30 2013, 07:55 PM
Post #3


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,247

Submissions: None
Joined: 9-June 04

Member No.: 6,543






lol.... just because something is officially that way doesn't make it so

Minorities theoretically enjoy equal rights in the United States for example. But anyone who is familiar with New York City's stop and frisk arrests knows it isn't the case.

Your entire argument is based upon equal rights for citizens. But this is a twisted logical construction, why? Because the Palestinians never agreed to cede their land to Israel - it was taken in war.

To become an Israeli citizen as a Palestinian (and gain the supposedly "equal" rights) is to acknowledge illegal Zionist suzerainty over the land. For the Palestinians expelled by Israel, this is not even a possibility - as only Jews are granted aaliyah - the law of return. A further proof that in Israel, there is a law for Jews, and a law for everyone else.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Slow_Runner
post Jan 31 2013, 06:27 AM
Post #4


The Forum Fact Faerie signal called?
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,520

Submissions: None
Joined: 23-May 05

From: Finland
Member No.: 54,881






Uh... they don't have to cede their land if a foreign nation takes it in an armed conflict. The part of Finland called Karelia that was taken by the Soviet Union back in WW2 is still a part of Russia. To the victor go the spoils.

Zionist do have "suzerainty" over the land, whatever that means. :P

Aliyah (Aaliayh is the singer) applies to Jews only. That's because Israel was set up as a Jewish nation, a home for all Jews living in exile. It makes sense that Jews living abroad are given the right to become Israeli citizens if they so choose and that the same right does not apply to everybody else.

In the state of Israel all citizens are given the same rights whereas in South Africa, racial segregation was enforced by law. In the Palestinian territories there are some measures, due to Palestinian terrorism, which can be seen as Apartheid-like (different roads for Palestinians and Israeli citizens). However, Israel as such is not an apartheid state.

The measures taken are a result of decades of terrorism by the Palestinians. They are not equal, but if they were, they would be abused by the terrorists. Most likely, if Palestinians ceased their attacks on Israel, Israel would cease the security measures.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mG_Despair
post Jan 31 2013, 12:37 PM
Post #5


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,247

Submissions: None
Joined: 9-June 04

Member No.: 6,543






Your bias is showing

Violence by jews to take land = legitimate act of war

violence by palestinians to get their stolen land back = TERRORISM

try again

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Jan 31 2013, 01:09 PM
Post #6


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(FREE_MY_PEOPLE @ Jan 30 2013, 06:55 PM)
1) lol.... just because something is officially that way doesn't make it so

2) Your entire argument is based upon equal rights for citizens. But this is a twisted logical construction, why? Because the Palestinians never agreed to cede their land to Israel - it was taken in war.

To become an Israeli citizen as a Palestinian (and gain the supposedly "equal" rights) is to acknowledge illegal Zionist suzerainty over the land. For the Palestinians expelled by Israel, this is not even a possibility - as only Jews are granted aaliyah - the law of return. A further proof that in Israel, there is a law for Jews, and a law for everyone else.
*



1) All a government can do is control the law of the land, the rest is cultural. For example, SA is no long an apartheid state, but the whites still control most of the military and economic power and concider themselves superior to coloured people. Does that mean they are still an apartheid state? No, that is a result of the government. As a result, the same logic must apply to Israel, which means it is NOT an apartheid state (assuming we acquire the definition via analogy to SA).

2) Apartheid was a system of segregation applied by the government to its own people, ie citizens of SA. It did not apply to foreigners, or territories conquered in war. As a result, Palistine doesn't even enter the equation in terms of the argument YOU defined. All that matters is whether or not Israeli citizens are treated equally under the law (not even whether who can acquire citizenship): they are. So this particular can of worms is closed.

Although Israel isn't an "apartheid state", it would be interesting to discuss the meatier problem of the ethical validity of the Israeli-Palistine relationship. As far as I can really see, Israel conquered Palistine and thus it belongs to them: the same way the Arabs conquered it from the Christians in the first place. What goes around comes around, so I have no sympathy to spare.

Remember, your entire nation (and mine) is the result of a conquest of an entire continent. We conquered it, it's ours. Israel conquered it, it's theirs. When someone stronger comes along and takes it back, it will be rightfully theirs. Such is life.

This post has been edited by ArmyCore: Jan 31 2013, 01:14 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mG_Despair
post Jan 31 2013, 05:09 PM
Post #7


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,247

Submissions: None
Joined: 9-June 04

Member No.: 6,543






brb

heading to your house to murder you and make all your poopie "rightfully mine"

all you guys have done is fight me on semantics, or utilize Machiavellian constructions

you know I'm right.

This post has been edited by FREE_MY_PEOPLE: Jan 31 2013, 05:12 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Hellsravage
post Jan 31 2013, 06:29 PM
Post #8


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Staff
Posts: 18,206

Submissions: None
Joined: 9-October 06

Member No.: 45,923






I think the real problem here is that the Jews did not 'conquer' anything. If I'm not mistaken, they were given sovereignty after WWII because the West basically felt bad about the transgressions upon them for centuries. Sure, they have had to defend it for half a century now, but that doesn't necessarily make their initial sovereignty anymore legitimate.

Another thing I will add is that denying humans their basic natural rights cannot be rationalized by a statement like 'such is life.' The real problem in this region, of course, is not law, it is a religious battle that is never going to end. Both stake a claim to the land based on religious doctrine, and knowing the radicalism that exists in the region, that will not be quelled by some peace agreement.

This post has been edited by LoVe_HellsRavage: Jan 31 2013, 06:34 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Feb 1 2013, 12:51 AM
Post #9


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(FREE_MY_PEOPLE @ Jan 31 2013, 04:09 PM)
brb

1) heading to your house to murder you and make all your poopie "rightfully mine"

2) all you guys have done is fight me on semantics, or utilize Machiavellian constructions

3) you know I'm right.
*



1) States do not follow the same laws as do men. A nation is an emergent property of mankind, thus it is governed by different laws (the same way 1 car follows a certain set of laws, whereas traffic follows a different set of laws: or the same way that atoms follow a different set of physical laws than do the cosmos).

2) You posited this argument in semantic terms. I responded to your argument over the definition and proved that Israel has literally nothing to do with apartheid.

3) You are right in an emotional way, but totally and abjectly wrong according to the terms of the debate.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Feb 1 2013, 01:11 AM
Post #10


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(LoVe_HellsRavage @ Jan 31 2013, 05:29 PM)
1) I think the real problem here is that the Jews did not 'conquer' anything. If I'm not mistaken, they were given sovereignty after WWII because the West basically felt bad about the transgressions upon them for centuries. Sure, they have had to defend it for half a century now, but that doesn't necessarily make their initial sovereignty anymore legitimate.

2) Another thing I will add is that denying humans their basic natural rights cannot be rationalized by a statement like 'such is life.' The real problem in this region, of course, is not law, it is a religious battle that is never going to end. Both stake a claim to the land based on religious doctrine, and knowing the radicalism that exists in the region, that will not be quelled by some peace agreement.
*



1) You are mostly correct. The British Empire actually had a very powerful Christian zionist leaning throughout the Victorian Era. As a result, they sympathized with the Jews and had intended upon giving them back Israel. However, the British also respected the Arabs, who proved their mettle as British allies against the Ottoman Empire in WWI.
-The Empire had intended that there be a two-state solution. However, the Jews actually took their share, and rejected the British demands that the Arabs be allowed a separate state.

So in a way, they were both granted the land by the British, and they also conquered the Arab share.

2) How grand a statement. Do humans have "natural rights"? I would argue that what rights a human has is equivalent to what rights he can defend. Are the rights you demand for all humanity any more legitimate than the rights demanded for all humanity 1000 years ago? I assure you that they are quite different, but both equally valid.
-Based upon your opinions in this and the firearms control debate, I can see that you do not respect that there exist multiple and conflicting axioms of truth in different discourses. It is a "fact" for Robert E. Lee that blacks are inferior and deserve to be slaves; just as it is a "fact" for you that blacks are equal and deserve to be free men.
-Knowledge is relative, and understanding that is power. The only knowledge which is not relative are the natural laws of the universe, as derived through pure logic (or crude experimentation where the logic is too complex for the mind).

I also object to your comment about religion. Do you think that if the Jews and Arabs were both Christians that the war would not continue? The fact is that people are going to define the other using any metric they can. If it wasn't religious, it would be racial; if not racial, then cultural; if not cultural, then economic etc.
-The problem is that both groups live there and neither wants to leave. Neither of them wants to share. As a result, they will be forever at war until either one side destroys the other, one side leaves, one side becomes the other, or both sides agree to share and live in peace.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Hellsravage
post Feb 1 2013, 01:26 AM
Post #11


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Staff
Posts: 18,206

Submissions: None
Joined: 9-October 06

Member No.: 45,923






You just turned this argument into some kind of philosophical debate. I don't believe truth is relative, and its not something we can really debate. I believe there is a such thing as natural law.

About Israel, I think the religious disagreement has become so entrenched that no, I don't believe it can be solved by a shared state. Its going to end horribly for one of these groups.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Feb 1 2013, 02:45 AM
Post #12


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(LoVe_HellsRavage @ Feb 1 2013, 12:26 AM)
You just turned this argument into some kind of philosophical debate. I don't believe truth is relative, and its not something we can really debate. I believe there is a such thing as natural law.

About Israel, I think the religious disagreement has become so entrenched that no, I don't believe it can be solved by a shared state. Its going to end horribly for one of these groups.
*



Truth is relative in the sense that it is only as advanced as our thought is. For example, before the discovery of Australia it was an axiomatic truth that all swans were white: this was known for certain. However, in Australia, it was an axiomatic truth that all swans were black. So there you have relative truths, two societies with incomplete knowledge of the universe, both with the "truth" that swans were either, and only, white or black.
-Now, you can say that neither side had complete information, and as a result, neither side actually knew the truth. However, does this metaknowledge negate the truth that both sides acknowledged their own truth? It is truth, then, that both held their own truths, which were completely opposite, and both incorrect?

By understanding the relativism of truth, it is then possible to understand everything that people understand, and yet understand that you know nothing.

Also, I question what you define as "natural law"? Really, what the hell is that? Let's say that there are only 2 entities existing. One believes X, one believes -X. What do they know? X-X=0. As a result, they can be sure of nothing.
-In the real world, we can say that culture A knows X, and culture B knows -X. Now, if culture A exterminates culture B, we know X, and not -X. As a result, our knowledge is X. What we can conlude here is that knowledge depends upon something to sustain it. Knowledge is only as valid when it can be defended and sustained.

My point? First, that your idea of "natural law" is only as valid as someone elses idea of "natural law". Second, the only "natural law" is that might is right.

Now, to give a final example. The West believes in the right of individual life (except parts of the usa). China believes that the individual must sacrifice himself for the collective. Which "natural law" is correct? In the end it doesn't even matter (not that we could know), all that matters is whether or not either the west or china can sustain their rights in the face of the other.
-If China conquered the west, we would adopt their axiom of sacrifice, which would become our own truth. If we conquered them, they would adopt ours. In either case the "truth" would prevail, despite the fact that both truths are different.

Once you understand this, you can disregard all of the grand illusions you are learning in university and become a free man.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
polo_blue
post Feb 1 2013, 05:30 PM
Post #13


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 2,127

Submissions: None
Joined: 14-October 05

From: USA
Member No.: 20,125






hells spits truthiness quite regularly!

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mG_Despair
post Feb 1 2013, 09:20 PM
Post #14


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,247

Submissions: None
Joined: 9-June 04

Member No.: 6,543






Armycore never admits he is wrong about anything.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Feb 2 2013, 02:21 AM
Post #15


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(FREE_MY_PEOPLE @ Feb 1 2013, 08:20 PM)
Armycore never admits he is wrong about anything.
*



I shut poopie down here son.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages  1 2 >
Reply to this topicTopic Options
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 




Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 12:14 AM
About Us  ·   Advertising  ·   Contact Us  ·   Terms of Use  ·   Privacy Policy