When we find fault with the United Nations and seek opinion pieces to validate our views I think this is called confirmation bias.
The United Nations found fault with itself and pulled the report for bias. Â It was pulled by the Secretary General. Â Speaking of confirmation bias, the report was put together by a council made up of 18 Arab countries. Â Here is a link to the agency that produced the report:
Wait I'm supposed to discount the authors because they are Arabs? Aside from the fact that, the piece aligns a lot with what the poster above described.
Own what you are. I live in a country that hates black people and I deal. And you know Israel has been on my shit list since the forced sterilization of Ethiopian Jews. Sounds like Tuskegee.
I am not Puerto Rican. I am Palestinian. I have a lot more concern over how my family, and how my people are being treated in Palestine and wanting the injustice there to be fixed than in Puerto Rico. It doesn't mean I don't care about Puerto Rican people.
That is not me being antisemitic. It is not antisemitism to have a bigger interest in seeing your own people freed from oppression than the problems of other people somewhere else in the world.
Post by whereswaldo2010 on Jun 23, 2017 21:16:58 GMT -5
Really? Ok, other countries treat their people differently in certain ways like I guess green card holders have different rights than citizens in the US? But let's not set up false equivalencies. Can you give examples of countries that have policies like hours long checkpoints for people to access hospitals or to get to their own land like is the case in Israel? And saying you are against apartheid like policies does not mean you are against the existence of the state of Israel. I'm pretty sure the goal of the resistance in South Africa's case was to stop apartheid not to dismantle the state.
Post by imobviouslystaying on Jun 23, 2017 21:44:43 GMT -5
This thread is all over the fucking place.
Andwhat acted a damned fool the last time we had this discussion. I imagine that's how she got dragged with a quickness this time.
Secondly, it's odd of black folks to jump on Jewish women for feeling some type of way about educating folks on not buying into bigotry. If we shouldn't have to educate and explain delicately, neither should they.
Third, the word apartheid has a specific meaning. What is happening in Palestine is shameful, oppressive, and discriminatory. But it's not apartheid. Stop using that word like that.
And finally, my eyes cannot roll hard enough at the Becky conversation even if some of you aren't that serious. The majority of standard non Aiden/Jayden/caiden American names are old testament/ bible names, aka Jewish names. Mary and John are Jewish names ffs. And Becky was a pretty common suburban white girl name in the early 90s. Sir Mix A Lot was smack talking shiksas, I promise
Just because some parallels can be drawn to the treatment of black South Africans under apartheid does not make them the same. Certainly one could find similarities between the way Palestinians and American slaves were treated, but it would be absurd to the point of malevolence to claim that Israel was enslaving the Palestinians. Slavery is a very specific thing, and so is apartheid.
Just because some parallels can be drawn to the treatment of black South Africans under apartheid does not make them the same. Certainly one could find similarities between the way Palestinians and American slaves were treated, but it would be absurd to the point of malevolence to claim that Israel was enslaving the Palestinians. Slavery is a very specific thing, and so is apartheid.
Yes, exactly.
Palestinians are under an occupation and the people there live under extremely harsh conditions.
But apartheid is a legal system of governance that classifies residents of that country by race and grants those races rights and access based on that classification. Israel does not have Arab buses or Jewish buses. There are no miscegenation laws. And so on and so forth
Just because some parallels can be drawn to the treatment of black South Africans under apartheid does not make them the same. Certainly one could find similarities between the way Palestinians and American slaves were treated, but it would be absurd to the point of malevolence to claim that Israel was enslaving the Palestinians. Slavery is a very specific thing, and so is apartheid.
This is dumb. No one compared slavery to the Palestinian condition since the Palestinians are not held as property, regardless of similarities you might find (which, wtf, why are you okay with there being similarities between slavery and Israeli treatment of a people). However the defining quality of apartheid is a race based discrimination and separate treatment, which certainly does apply to the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians even if it doesn't mirror exactly South African policies. I'm just not okay with you guys labeling it anti-Semitic and not debatable. There is a large discussion to be had here about the use of this word even if it makes you feel bad about a country you have loyalty to. Even a former prime minister of Israel has used "apartheid" to describe the current policies and trends in Israel.
Post by whereswaldo2010 on Jun 23, 2017 22:34:05 GMT -5
Anyway, I can't take this board seriously on this topic when you let posters say things like: i know for a fact that most pro-Palestinian groups want to see the destruction of Israel. That's not offensive at all, right? I guess it's okay with y'all to paint Palestinians and their supporters as a violent people who don't want peace. Sorry to the palestinian poster -- I'm sure it's hard to share your perspective and your family's experience here but I appreciate that you did.
Just because some parallels can be drawn to the treatment of black South Africans under apartheid does not make them the same. Certainly one could find similarities between the way Palestinians and American slaves were treated, but it would be absurd to the point of malevolence to claim that Israel was enslaving the Palestinians. Slavery is a very specific thing, and so is apartheid.
This is dumb. No one compared slavery to the Palestinian condition since the Palestinians are not held as property, regardless of similarities you might find (which, wtf, why are you okay with there being similarities between slavery and Israeli treatment of a people). However the defining quality of apartheid is a race based discrimination and separate treatment, which certainly does apply to the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians even if it doesn't mirror exactly South African policies. I'm just not okay with you guys labeling it anti-Semitic and not debatable. There is a large discussion to be had here about the use of this word even if it makes you feel bad about a country you have loyalty to. Even a former prime minister of Israel has used "apartheid" to describe the current policies and trends in Israel.
By your definition, America is an apartheid system. It is not and it never was, not even during the Jim Crow era, or during slavery.
Again, apartheid is a legal system of government that classifies its residents based on race and assigns all rights and access based solely on that classification. It's inaccurate and ignores the issues in BOTH circumstances to mischaracterize it do.
It's about as helpful as saying racism is merely feeling some type of people off another race.
To call what's happening in these occupied areas as apartheid shuts down discussion and allows Israel to weasel out of the discussion because they can merely say, no it's not and they're right and the convo is over.
Just because some parallels can be drawn to the treatment of black South Africans under apartheid does not make them the same. Certainly one could find similarities between the way Palestinians and American slaves were treated, but it would be absurd to the point of malevolence to claim that Israel was enslaving the Palestinians. Slavery is a very specific thing, and so is apartheid.
This is dumb. No one compared slavery to the Palestinian condition since the Palestinians are not held as property, regardless of similarities you might find (which, wtf, why are you okay with there being similarities between slavery and Israeli treatment of a people).
Yes exactly! Thank you for illustrating my point.
However the defining quality of apartheid is a race based discrimination and separate treatment, which certainly does apply to the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians even if it doesn't mirror exactly South African policies.
This is just factually inaccurate.
The crime of Apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
By your Wikipedia definition, slavery and Jim Crow laws were apartheid. Yet we both agreed that's ridiculous. If you want to claim Israel is committing a crime against humanity, then use the right fucking definition.
It's a history thing, man! Plus, I don't think people really understand what apartheid was. They think it's like Jim Crow and no. I'd willingly transport myself to 1955 Mississippi if my other option was 1984 Johannesburg. I mean, shit, at least I could move to Detroit if I wanted to.
ETA: To be clear, I'm making no statement on what's worse, not between Jim Crow and Apartheid or Apartheid and the plight of the occupied territories. Discrimination, oppression, and human rights violations are apalling regardless of the guise they take and should be resisted at all turns.
No one should have to live in any of these systems.
I am fully comfortable with saying Israel is commiting human rights violations, btw.
Full stop.
I will say that I often find it's policies at odds with Judaism and its teachings. I won't speak for other Jews, but I daresay that's not a radical notion.
I wish I had something more intelligent to add. Since we're at the "you stupid Jew" portion of this discussion, I'll just say, thank you to my fellow Jewish women on this board for continuing to help the non-Jews around here listen and learn, and say thanks to our allies for being able to speak intelligently on this issue.
So does anyone think we can re-rail this discussion for the 2nd time?
Just because some parallels can be drawn to the treatment of black South Africans under apartheid does not make them the same. Certainly one could find similarities between the way Palestinians and American slaves were treated, but it would be absurd to the point of malevolence to claim that Israel was enslaving the Palestinians. Slavery is a very specific thing, and so is apartheid.
Yes, exactly.
Palestinians are under an occupation and the people there live under extremely harsh conditions.
But apartheid is a legal system of governance that classifies residents of that country by race and grants those races rights and access based on that classification. Israel does not have Arab buses or Jewish buses. There are no miscegenation laws. And so on and so forth
See my previous posts about how Palestinians are classified by their ethnicity ( I know that is not race) and denied rights and access based on that. Israel doesn't have Arab and Israeli only buses? It has roads that only Israelis can travel on, so, yeah it kind of does have Israeli only buses. Trust though, that a road they can't drive on is the least of their worries.
Here's a quote from an article a previous poster posted arguing that Israel should not be labeled an apartheid state:
"Apartheid in South Africa maintained privilege for the white minority and doomed people of color to subservience; it determined every aspect of life — the school you attended, the work you did, where you lived, which hospital and ambulance you used, whom you could marry, right down to which park bench you could sit on without facing arrest."
Again, as I said in a prior post, Palestinians experience all of the above restrictions.
Googling the definition of apartheid brings up many variations of essentially the same definition-"segregating and economically and politically oppressing the nonwhite."
I can understand, (without me saying it is) why people draw similarities between the oppression of Palestinians and the oppression of black people in South Africa.
I don't think all those people are antisemetic idiots. I do wish they wouldn't use the term because it is not accurate. Maybe it would lead to meaningful discussions happening without one party automatically dismissing the other.
So if we'd like to have meaningful discussion on this topic on this board, then let's go ahead and not describe Israel as an apartheid state. There are other ways to talk about what's happening, to examine policies, and listen to experiences resulting from those policies in a way such that no side can dismiss the other. I say we do that.
I wish I had something more intelligent to add. Since we're at the "you stupid Jew" portion of this discussion, I'll just say, thank you to my fellow Jewish women on this board for continuing to help the non-Jews around here listen and learn, and say thanks to our allies for being able to speak intelligently on this issue.
So does anyone think we can re-rail this discussion for the 2nd time?
Where is the stupid Jew portion you are speaking of?
Am I one of the "non Jews around here" that you hope are listening and learning?
So if we'd like to have meaningful discussion on this topic on this board, then let's go ahead and not describe Israel as an apartheid state. There are other ways to talk about what's happening, to examine policies, and listen to experiences resulting from those policies in a way such that no side can dismiss the other. I say we do that.
Yes. Arguing about definitions is inflammatory and ultimately pointless. It ignores the actual problem.
I can understand, (without me saying it is) why people draw similarities between the oppression of Palestinians and the oppression of black people in South Africa.
I don't think all those people are antisemetic idiots. I do wish they wouldn't use the term because it is not accurate. Maybe it would lead to meaningful discussions happening without one party automatically dismissing the other.
I appreciate this comment from fryjack2. This is just as personal to her as it is to the Jewish posters, and we must respect each other if there's any hope of peace.
But the rest of you who didn't know, now you do. Let's not gaslight the Jewish posters that shit isn't offensive to us like we don't know better.
I wish I had something more intelligent to add. Since we're at the "you stupid Jew" portion of this discussion, I'll just say, thank you to my fellow Jewish women on this board for continuing to help the non-Jews around here listen and learn, and say thanks to our allies for being able to speak intelligently on this issue.
So does anyone think we can re-rail this discussion for the 2nd time?
Where is the stupid Jew portion you are speaking of?
Am I one of the "non Jews around here" that you hope are listening and learning?
Andwhat acted a damned fool the last time we had this discussion. I imagine that's how she got dragged with a quickness this time.
Secondly, it's odd of black folks to jump on Jewish women for feeling some type of way about educating folks on not buying into bigotry. If we shouldn't have to educate and explain delicately, neither should they.
Third, the word apartheid has a specific meaning. What is happening in Palestine is shameful, oppressive, and discriminatory. But it's not apartheid. Stop using that word like that.
And finally, my eyes cannot roll hard enough at the Becky conversation even if some of you aren't that serious. The majority of standard non Aiden/Jayden/caiden American names are old testament/ bible names, aka Jewish names. Mary and John are Jewish names ffs. And Becky was a pretty common suburban white girl name in the early 90s. Sir Mix A Lot was smack talking shiksas, I promise
There is a tag function if you have something to say about me.
I was really just going to read this thread to see what was discussed and not even contribute but since I am being dragged into it...
I have to LOL that something I was taught and took at face value I was supposed to question, but people who were taught that Palestinians did math problems about the killing of Jews don't. So I was taught that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was based on religion. I had no reason to question that and a quick Google search has articles from The Guardian, jpost, Haaretz, and a ton of other sites discussing this conflict as not just a geopolitical war, but a holy (religious) one. So Catholic school taught me this conflict was religious, the Jewish population in my area is less than 1% now and it was even less when I was in school, and it isn't a topic I had a vested interest in so I never went and researched it further. But yes, I was showing my ass.
And then I am supposed to believe what some internet strangers have to say on the subject when clearly their own opinions are biased and there were other posters, namely fryjack2, who posted a view that was a complete 180 from that of the Jewish posters. You felt I was showing my ass because I still questioned strangers (you). Um, that is just being smart. And even after the tensions died down some and I went to go try to find further information, I was still told all those sources were biased. Funny to me because they were saying things just like fryjack has mentioned and are mentioned in that UN report.
Post by barcelonagirl on Jun 24, 2017 6:19:26 GMT -5
It's interesting to bring up Jim Crow laws. My father who was born in 1933 im Fairmont West Virgina category negro described his experience as apartheid.
Post by barcelonagirl on Jun 24, 2017 6:40:39 GMT -5
And it is BECAUSE I am a black woman who recognizes that power influences meaning I stand against the oppressor. I stand by fryjack2 and agree with the work done by
Richard Falk (LLB, Yale University; SJD, Harvard University) is currently Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global and International Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, and Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice Emeritus at Princeton University. From 2008 through 2014, he served as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. He is author or editor of some 60 books and hundreds of articles on international human rights law, Middle East politics, environmental justice, and other fields concerning human rights and international relations. Virginia Tilley (MA and PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and MA in Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University) is Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University. From 2006 to 2011, she served as Chief Research Specialist in the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa and from 2007 to 2010 led the Council’s Middle East Project, which undertook a two-year study of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories. In addition to many articles on the politics and ideologies of the conflict in Israel-Palestine, she is author of The One-State Solution (University of Michigan Press and Manchester University Press, 2005) and editor of Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Pluto Press, 2012
I wish I had something more intelligent to add. Since we're at the "you stupid Jew" portion of this discussion, I'll just say, thank you to my fellow Jewish women on this board for continuing to help the non-Jews around here listen and learn, and say thanks to our allies for being able to speak intelligently on this issue.
So does anyone think we can re-rail this discussion for the 2nd time?
Where is the stupid Jew portion you are speaking of?
Am I one of the "non Jews around here" that you hope are listening and learning?
I'm confused by your post.
I promise you are not. Not from your posts and because, hi, you and I have had this discussion in a respectful and productive way so many times, and if they would just send the two of us instead of Jared Kushner, we could probably actually accomplish something.
But I came into this post with all of these replies expecting a that same kind of respectful conversation and I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes (not because of you)