Whiner

[_JS]

That was combined with another debate I had had with Sirs that concerned the topic of apartheid.

Anything else?

[Mucho]

That was combined with another debate I had had with Sirs that concerned the topic of apartheid.

Anything else?

JSov, Dont you recognize that Sirs & Ami are the same? Just like the chatter in WRoom that used two browsers and would always agree with and declare his other persona the winner!

[sirs]

That was combined with another debate I had had with Sirs that concerned the topic of apartheid.

Actually the topic was Carter, and his Presidential "legacy".  But some how in that thread, I was accused of supporting aparthied because I dared to criticize Mandela       

[Amianthus]

JSov, Dont you recognize that Sirs & Ami are the same?

Always wrong, Ms. Knute.

[_JS]

Actually the topic was Carter, and his Presidential "legacy".  But some how in that thread, I was accused of supporting aparthied because I dared to criticize Mandela

The topic was former President Carter daring to criticize Israel, which as it happens was the connection between both our conversations concerning apartheid (Israel, not Carter). You did and do support apartheid policies in Israel because you claim they are necessary for "security" purposes. Whether you supported apartheid in South Africa matters little, as it is an unfortunate and disconcerting historical legacy.

You certainly have not condemned the practice in Israel and neither has Ami. By the logic of this thread you must both condone it.

[Amianthus]

The topic was former President Carter daring to criticize Israel, which as it happens was the connection between both our conversations concerning apartheid (Israel, not Carter). You did and do support apartheid policies in Israel because you claim they are necessary for "security" purposes. Whether you supported apartheid in South Africa matters little, as it is an unfortunate and disconcerting historical legacy.

Actually, I went back and re-read the thread just now. First mention of Apartheid was XO, then you. Sirs' only claim was that Carter's policies while he was president were bad, and he provided a list of those policies he disagreed with. You and XO both made the claim that since Sirs did not like Carter's support of Mandela, he was a defacto supporter of Apartheid.

I already provided the link, feel free to go back and re-read it yourself.

[Amianthus]

You certainly have not condemned the practice in Israel and neither has Ami.

You do not know this to be true.

[_JS]

You do not know this to be true.

So you do condemn apartheid policies in Israel?

[Amianthus]

So you do condemn apartheid policies in Israel?

I think they're justified in defending themselves from outsiders, but a lot of what they do to those within their borders is wrong.

[_JS]

I think they're justified in defending themselves from outsiders, but a lot of what they do to those within their borders is wrong.

A bit tepid, but I guess it counts as a condemnation.

[Amianthus]

A bit tepid, but I guess it counts as a condemnation.

You want specific condemnations, bring up specific charges. Unlike others around here, I don't make blanket accusations. Unless it's targetted at a specific person, a kind of "this is how you're treating others."

[sirs]

Actually the topic was Carter, and his Presidential "legacy".  But some how in that thread, I was accused of supporting aparthied because I dared to criticize Mandela

The topic was former President Carter daring to criticize Israel, which as it happens was the connection between both our conversations concerning apartheid (Israel, not Carter).

I looked back quite thoroughly, and the topic was Carter's overt failures as a President, from my end, & I don't recall myself ever taking this into how Carter dared to Criticise Israel.  When did Carter, as President ever criticize Israel?

You did and do support apartheid policies in Israel because you claim they are necessary for "security" purposes. Whether you supported apartheid in South Africa matters little, as it is an unfortunate and disconcerting historical legacy.  You certainly have not condemned the practice in Israel and neither has Ami. By the logic of this thread you must both condone it.

A) their not the same "apartheid" practices.  South Africa wasn't suddenly provided a place to live by the UN, then had to deal with the enemies both external & internal that were trying to abolish them right then & there.

B) Palestinians are free to work where they want & when they want.  If they wish to work in Isreal, they must abide by Israeli laws.  If they don't like them, they're free to move & work elsewhere

C) Whatever racist actions that Israel may employ, would be condemned by myself, if it had no bearing on Israel ability to exist in the region

[_JS]

I looked back quite thoroughly, and the topic was Carter's overt failures as a President, from my end, & I don't recall myself ever taking this into how Carter dared to Criticise Israel.  When did Carter, as President ever criticize Israel?

When Begin was helping arm the Iranians for one. When Israel was helping aid Somoza in Nicaragua for another. The list is long.

their not the same "apartheid" practices.  South Africa wasn't suddenly provided a place to live by the UN, then had to deal with the enemies both external & internal that were trying to abolish them right then & there.

They are much the same. Israel destroyed entire villages, many of which weren't hostile in the least. They massacred Arab villages and a couple of Greek Christian villages for which they thought might prove trouble later. As an example of these heroic Jews, who learned so much from the Holocaust, here is what they did at Al-Dawayima during the 1948 War:

Rape, summary executions, looting, plundering, and the children were killed by hitting them in the head with poles.

Was this done in the heat of combat? No, it was done as part of a process of "depopulation." Purely racist in orientation

To this day there are cities within Israel where only Jews may live. Is that apartheid? Damn well believe it is. South African Jews have evn said so.

Palestinians are free to work where they want & when they want.

Absolutely and unequivocally a lie.

If they wish to work in Isreal, they must abide by Israeli laws.  If they don't like them, they're free to move & work elsewhere

Right, just like the blacks of South Africa who were "citizens" of homelands despite never having lived in them. Sorry Sirs, just because it is a law and because Israel tells them that they are citizens of a land they've never lived in doesn't make it so. A law is not just simply by action of being a law. I'm really surprised you'd take such a tact.

Whatever racist actions that Israel may employ, would be condemned by myself, if it had no bearing on Israel ability to exist in the region

A cop out. I gave you a specific situation, very specific in our last debate on this topic, and you still did not support the Palestinian man's right to his own property. You still supported racist policies in Israel.

Why do you support the right of existence to a nation that does not support democratic principles?

[domer]

JS seems to be long in his criticism of Israel, but the seeds of truth he builds upon do not grow a tree capable of shading the whole field. One vital fact is that Israel has survived in a hostile environment. Did the "apartheid practices," as security measures, contribute to or enable that survival? What would the situation now be like if the Israelis, as is my preference, adopted a more hand-extending policy? Indeed, throughout the decades, were the Palestinians, through sworn opposition and terrorism, not highly contributory to their own fate? At what point does the history of the conflict recede as the dynamo that guides action here, a history that most prominently and tragically starts with the Holocaust, and is replaced -- suddenly -- by the simple architecture of social and political relations among these peoples? In this regard, like a hand grenade, is history stored like an explosive here, capable of detonation at the pull of a pin? Yes, I'm suggesting that the whole apparatus could explode.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Israel is essentially a European-style colony plunked down in the midst of the Arab world. The UN was originally based on an end to colonialism, being as what Hitler did to Poland was rather like what Israel did to the Palestinians, ie, shove aside the locals and colonize the choice places with themselves. True, the Israelis did not build extermination camps, but neither did they treat the Palestinians decently.

The Germans sought to colonize Poland and other European nations. This was morally wrong.
The Israelis sought to colonize Palestine, which was equally wrong.
Great injustices were done to the Jews and others, but not by the Palestinians.
Still, it was the Palestinians who lost their country to the Zionist colonists.