|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Let me counter Jewishly, with a question: how much credence would you give the argument that terrorist attacks such as 9/11 conducted by Islamist extremists are a serious factor in the worsening of Islamophobia in the West? Would your first response to such an argument not be "oh, this person is an Islamophobia apologist"? Islamist terrorists, apart from the State Department-listed Iran, and despite what those terrorists claim, are not state actors, therefore your question cannot be answered because it is comparing two wildly different levels of organization and organizational legitimacy.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Anti-Arab discrimination is not enshrined into Israeli law, although a few more bombing campaigns from Hamas and Bennett may yet change that. Pro-Israeli Jewish (exclusively) is implicitly anti-(Israeli everyone else). Kim Jong Il posted:The majority of Israelis believe that Gaza and the West Bank are part of a distinctly foreign country which will never be part of a political union with Israel, so the analogy does not apply. A citation is needed, obviously. At any rate, the people of Israel elected a Likudnik as PM who insists (ignoring his party's charter, mind you, which is far more severe) that a Palestinian state should only exist as an Israeli protectorate, without many powers accorded to a sovereign state. Do the majority of Israelis believe that Palestine ought to be actually sovereign?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Pro-Israeli Jewish (exclusively) is implicitly anti-(Israeli everyone else). Is England and the UK implicitly anti-semitic because of pro-Church of England policy implementation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 22:55
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Is England and the UK implicitly anti-semitic because of pro-Church of England policy implementation? This is such an absurdly fatuous remark.The UK does not privilege the Church of England in the same way Israel does its Jewish population, nor with the same deleterious outcomes or effects.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Is England and the UK implicitly anti-semitic because of pro-Church of England policy implementation? I once found your gimmick outrageous, then annoying, then dull, then amusing. This is a reversion to tediousness. For substance: does the UK privilege Episcopalians who immigrate to GB? No? Right, then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This is such an absurdly fatuous remark.The UK does not privilege the Church of England Can a publicly non-Church of England individual become Prime Minister? Like Israel is the Jewish state and The Holy See is a Roman Catholic state, the UK is a Church of England state. Do BDS folks protest against these states, or do they direct their hatreds solely against the Jewish state?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Is anyone in here making that argument? Behold: a man who has MIGF on ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:07
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Can a publicly non-Church of England individual become Prime Minister? Yes. Although mentioning personal religion in any way for a prime minister in office has been toxic for a long time.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I once found your gimmick outrageous, then annoying, then dull, then amusing. This is a reversion to tediousness. I'd call "no Jew can ever be the Head of State for the UK" to be a priviledge for the Church of England, wouldn't you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Can a publicly non-Church of England individual become Prime Minister? You may have heard of Tony Blair? My Imaginary GF posted:I'd call "no Jew can ever be the Head of State for the UK" to be a priviledge for the Church of England, wouldn't you? Please tell us more about this law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:09
|
|
Obliterati posted:You may have heard of Tony Blair? Tbf he basically hid his religion and only converted to Roman Catholicism after he left office, though everyone knew he was a Catholic in office. My Imaginary GF posted:I'd call "no Jew can ever be the Head of State for the UK" to be a priviledge for the Church of England, wouldn't you? Are you really going to play games about Disraeli, a person who left office in 1880 and who literally nobody believed was a sincere Anglican? He didn't even choose to become Anglican for political purposes, either - his father chose, for reasons of disagreement with his local Jewish community. On the other hand, Ted Heath was a Congregationalist and Jim Callaghan was not really religious at all, and grew up a baptist. Gordon Brown was a member of the church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian. It was an open secret that Blair was a Roman Catholic. You are a moron.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I'd call "no Jew can ever be the Head of State for the UK" to be a priviledge for the Church of England, wouldn't you? Disraeli was proud of his heritage and mocked others publicly for their anti-semitism, despite having converted. There exists a cultural norm within Britain to which which many people adhere pro forma. fake edit: Jesus, I forgot, Ed Miliband is Jewish by descent (by both parents!), as is his brother, who was foreign secretary. I suppose you'll claim it was anti-semitism which kept Labour out of government. Again, you're getting really tedious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:You may have heard of Tony Blair? I do believe its the acts of settlement which restrict succession of England's head of state to protestants, at the exclusion of Jews. Does this make the state of England an anti-semitic nation? It means that England is an Anglican state much as Israel is the Jewish state, and that folks who protest Israel for being a Jewish state but not England for being an Anglican state are disengenuous at best, anti-semitic at worst.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:17
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I do believe its the acts of settlement which restrict succession of England's head of state to protestants, at the exclusion of Jews. Does this make the state of England an anti-semitic nation? It means that England is an Anglican state much as Israel is the Jewish state, and that folks who protest Israel for being a Jewish state but not England for being an Anglican state are disengenuous at best, anti-semitic at worst. Those laws aren't on the books MIGF. Reply to my post.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
gently caress me, I thought to post this right after I saw he posted his last comment. MIGF is an excellent troll, I must admit. Of course he would post a "head of state"/"head of government" argument. Well done, MIGF. You're back to amusing for me. Please stop replying to MIGF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Racism: Arabs' fault. Under your reasoning terrorism happens in a vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:gently caress me, I thought to post this right after I saw he posted his last comment. MIGF is an excellent troll, I must admit. Of course he would post a "head of state"/"head of government" argument. The secret is he's not a troll, unfortunately.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I'd call "no Jew can ever be the Head of State for the UK" to be a priviledge for the Church of England, wouldn't you? If you mean Jewish by Ethnicity there is Benjamin Disraeli. If you mean by Religion, no there wasnt a Jewish PM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Let me counter Jewishly, with a question: how much credence would you give the argument that terrorist attacks such as 9/11 conducted by Islamist extremists are a serious factor in the worsening of Islamophobia in the West? Would your first response to such an argument not be "oh, this person is an Islamophobia apologist"? There is a vast difference between "Anti-semitism is the fault of the anti-semites, who try to justify their hatred by actions taken by certain groups of Jewish people" and "Anti-semitism is the fault of Jews". Neurolimal posted:And this is the sentiment that allows Israel to create concentrated camps of palestinians, abuse ethiopian jews, and deny a significant number of its own citizens basic rights and respect. As long as we're talking about anti-semitic tropes masquerading as legitimate anti-Zionism, "Jew are the new Nazis and Palestinians are the new Jews" sure as hell qualifies. DarkCrawler posted:Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is lazy. Israel is an apartheid state though. Your ethnic group determines the laws that apply to you, the level of state support you receive, the responsibilities you have, how is that not apartheid? We could play the "You name black Supreme Court justices and high-ranking military commanders and members of parliament for apartheid South Africa, I'll do the same with Arabs in Israel and we'll see whose list is longer" game, but I'll skip that and ask you if the United States is an apartheid terror-state because of the unique legal status of federally recognized American Indian tribes. quote:No cheerleading: Don't try to shut down a debate. Popular examples include "Don't listen to him, he's crazy," "Everyone else agrees with me," and "Yeah, this guy has it right." Jack of Hearts posted:gently caress me, I thought to post this right after I saw he posted his last comment. MIGF is an excellent troll, I must admit. Of course he would post a "head of state"/"head of government" argument. You've got like half a dozen of these on this page alone, I'm not sure what you think you're going to accomplish or how you manage to keep doing this. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The secret is he's not a troll, unfortunately. I'm leaning towards the idea he's too capable to be truly mad. He's the new TT. Rigged Death Trap posted:If you mean Jewish by Ethnicity there is Benjamin Disraeli. If you mean by Religion, no there wasnt a Jewish PM. But Judaism is ethno-religious, so Disraeli may not really count, yet Miliband came reasonably close in that sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I do believe its the acts of settlement which restrict succession of England's head of state to protestants, at the exclusion of Jews. Does this make the state of England an anti-semitic nation? It means that England is an Anglican state much as Israel is the Jewish state, and that folks who protest Israel for being a Jewish state but not England for being an Anglican state are disengenuous at best, anti-semitic at worst. Baha that law's about Catholics, you fool
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:We could play the "You name black Supreme Court justices and high-ranking military commanders and members of parliament for apartheid South Africa, I'll do the same with Arabs in Israel and we'll see whose list is longer" game, but I'll skip that and ask you if the United States is an apartheid terror-state because of the unique legal status of federally recognized American Indian tribes. Interesting. Please compare the privileges and restrictions imposed upon American Indians in America and Palestinians. To my knowledge, all American Indians are American citizens. Your turn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:We could play the "You name black Supreme Court justices and high-ranking military commanders and members of parliament for apartheid South Africa, I'll do the same with Arabs in Israel and we'll see whose list is longer" game, but I'll skip that and ask you if the United States is an apartheid terror-state because of the unique legal status of federally recognized American Indian tribes. Do Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs have equal rights and responsibilities under Israeli law, yes or no? Are American Indians American citizens, capable of going anywhere in America and have equal rights under American law? Is ethnically/religiously based different treatment of American citizens written on U.S. law, like say, all White Christian Americans are drafted to the military?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Do Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs have equal rights and responsibilities under Israeli law, yes or no? You said that Israel was an apartheid state because "your ethnic group determines the laws that apply to you." There are cases in the US of your ethnic group determining the laws that apply to you. Does the fact that there is a legal regime that only applies to members of recognized Indian tribes or on tribal land make the United States an apartheid society? Or would you like to the change your criteria for being considered an apartheid state?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:You said that Israel was an apartheid state because "your ethnic group determines the laws that apply to you." There are cases in the US of your ethnic group determining the laws that apply to you. Does the fact that there is a legal regime that only applies to members of recognized Indian tribes or on tribal land make the United States an apartheid society? Or would you like to the change your criteria for being considered an apartheid state? Okey dokey. I will cheerfully concede that the US is just like apartheid South Africa. Tell me true: what is the basis, within a unified polity (i.e., without bantustans or reservations) for according certain rights and responsibilities to one group, certain rights and responsibilities to another, enforcing certain laws upon one, and other laws upon the other? e: The Romans were domineering imperialists, but at least they had the good taste not to pretend. The citizen/non-citizen divide was extremely clear with them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
It really is a coin flip if an explosion of posts is because of breaking news or because of this kind of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:You've got like half a dozen of these on this page alone, I'm not sure what you think you're going to accomplish or how you manage to keep doing this. I don't know what this means.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Okey dokey. I will cheerfully concede that the US is just like apartheid South Africa. Tell me true: what is the basis, within a unified polity (i.e., without bantustans or reservations) for according certain rights and responsibilities to one group, certain rights and responsibilities to another, enforcing certain laws upon one, and other laws upon the other? When everyone is like apartheid south africa, no-one is like apartheid south africa and the term apartheid is rendered meaningless. Quit appropriating specific terms with specific meanings to press your pet political issue by shrouding yourself in false legitimacy. A democratic state is free to choose the priviledges it grants individuals in exchange for their commitment to certain responsibilities. For instance, in America, all male citizens aged 18 must register for selective service; in Israel, all Jewish citizens must register for national service. Does that make Israel discriminatory because it chooses to engage in the spending necessary to maintain a national service program for the majority of it citizens, while America elects to engage in such spending when it pleases? No. It makes Israel a responsible state actor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:When everyone is like apartheid south africa, no-one is like apartheid south africa and the term apartheid is rendered meaningless. Quit appropriating specific terms with specific meanings to press your pet political issue by shrouding yourself in false legitimacy. [whisper]Shhhhh, MIGF, you're giving the game away.[/whisper]
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Is said democratic state free to restrict or selectively afford rights, such as freedom of movement, based on ethnic or religious background alone?
Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Is said democratic free to restrict or selectively afford rights, such as freedom of movement, based on ethnic or religious background alone? Like America does by incarcerating polygamist mormons?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:You said that Israel was an apartheid state because "your ethnic group determines the laws that apply to you." There are cases in the US of your ethnic group determining the laws that apply to you. Does the fact that there is a legal regime that only applies to members of recognized Indian tribes or on tribal land make the United States an apartheid society? Or would you like to the change your criteria for being considered an apartheid state? If you're talking about reservations, autonomous areas are a whole different thing. Native American tribes used to be sovereign entities in their own right and U.S. law to a limited degree recognizes this. It's not like U.S. is alone in this, you have Brits with Isle of Man, etc, Finland with Åland, and so on. Hell, U.S. states have different laws. I'm talking about citizens living in the same territory without national sub-divisions with different jurisdictions. Israel is an apartheid state because your ethnic group determines the laws that apply to you, not where you live. An Native American living in New York has the exact same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen of U.S. living in New York. An Israeli Arab and Israeli Jew living in Haifa do not, because Israel is an apartheid state. Israel does have national sub-divisions it controls with different laws - its colony in West Bank. In there we're way past talking about citizen rights and the debate is about whether colonialism is OK though. We can talk about how Israeli Arabs aren't allowed to colonize poo poo though and how most settlements are explicitly Jewish-only. So again, instead of dodging the question, do Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs have equal rights and responsibilities under Israeli law, yes or no? DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Like America does by incarcerating polygamist mormons? Polygamy is unilaterally illegal in the US. Mormon polygamy is not more illegal than non religious or other religious kinds. Im not American, but I think one or two states do make affordances or turn a blind eye to its practice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Like America does by incarcerating polygamist mormons? Mormons aren't typically polygamist anymore, only some old school fundamentalist sects. Also they only really prosecute people for polygamy when they're also throwing the book at them for child rape and stuff. As well as that they apply the laws to everyone who tries to engage in polygamy, not just Mormons. Plus the quote you responded to was about restricting rights. Which right grants people the ability to have multiple marriages simultaneously? Otherwise sure, perfect analogy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Mormons aren't typically polygamist anymore, only some old school fundamentalist sects. Also they only really prosecute people for polygamy when they're also throwing the book at them for child rape and stuff. As well as that they apply the laws to everyone who tries to engage in polygamy, not just Mormons. Plus the quote you responded to was about restricting rights. Which right grants people the ability to have multiple marriages simultaneously? Exactly, there is no right to have multiple marriages simultaneously in Israel; this is the sort of 'apartheid' and 'repression' which BDS supporters point to when they call for the dismantling of Israel as the Jewish state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Yet it is not a right that is federally granted or afforded to a set of people and denied from the other.
Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Exactly, there is no right to have multiple marriages simultaneously in Israel; this is the sort of 'apartheid' and 'repression' which BDS supporters point to when they call for the dismantling of Israel as the Jewish state. Civil marriage didn't exist in Israel until quite recently. Even though it didn't happen in practice, a Jew could be legally barred from marriage for being a manzer, for example. In fact, interfaith marriage within marriage was and still is effectively illegal, though Israel will recognize your dirty miscegenation if you marry elsewhere (kind of like how the Irish get abortions in the UK).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
I think it might help the discussion if someone were to cite in-thread (rather than through a link) a few examples of Israeli laws which treat Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs differently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I think it might help the discussion if someone were to cite in-thread (rather than through a link) a few examples of Israeli laws which treat Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs differently. Only Israeli Jews and Druze are drafted. The Law of Return is a discriminatory law that gives one native racial/religious group precedence over all others in immigration. The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law bars Israel's subjects from West Bank attaining citizenship, even if they have been born in Israel proper, want to marry an Israeli citizen or have relatives there. The Jewish National Fund is a discriminatory organization ensuring that Jews will have a dispropotionate amount of ownership of the land in Israel, supported by the government. If Jewish National Fund gives land to an Arab (which it does rarely) the government has to give the exact same amount of land back to it. This has ensured that Arab ownership of Israel's land is only three percent. Arab citizens of Israel are not permitted to start settlements on the West Bank or living in already existing settlements if the settlement council doesn't tolerate Arabs. The Israeli government has a long-standing policy of denying state recognition to holy places that aren't Jewish. The government spends far less the amount of money per every Jewish student then it does per every Arab Student. Human Rights Watch has found systematic discrimination in the number, quality and condition of the buildings, classroom sizes, provision of teaching resources and government funding. Few Jews learn even basic Arabic, whereas Arab children are required to learn Hebrew to advanced level. Despite both ostensibly being official languages of the state. University courses in Israel are in Hebrew or English. Israel does not have a nationality - only Jews are both Israeli nationals and citizens. A political party can be disqualified if they don't recognize Israel as a Jewish state. State education law states loyalty to the Jewish people as one of the main goals of state education. State Jewish religious schools can have independent curriculum, state Arab schools can´t.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 02:31
|
|