I wish some of you would get your terms right

[The_Professor]

Quote
Do you deny you succumb to the PC "conspiracy"?

By all means Professor, explain how I have fallen prey to this brilliant conspiracy.

You change your vocabulary to change whatever is currently in vogue, so you essentially bob and weave to whatever terminology is predominant by whomever has currently changed this terminology to suit their political/cultural aims. Weak, my man, weak. Be bold. Stand up for what is true and right, using your own terms, not those used by anothers' agenda.

[The_Professor]

Plane, as usual, makes an interesitng point. Why are you linking democracy with 100% suffrage. So, by this logic chain, if you have 99% then you are not a democracy or 80% or 51% or

What defies a democracy is surely broader than this, correct?

Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic. Is it perfect? no, but then again, this is an evolving process.

[_JS]

You change your vocabulary to change whatever is currently in vogue, so you essentially bob and weave to whatever terminology is predominant by whomever has currently changed this terminology to suit their political/cultural aims. Weak, my man, weak. Be bold. Stand up for what is true and right, using your own terms, not those used by anothers' agenda.

Example?

Why are you linking democracy with 100% suffrage.

Not once have I done so. I am merely asking the question of whether or not segregationist or apartheid policies as carried out by Israel or formerly by South Africa truly belong to a democratic state. It is up to you as to whether or not you answer "yes" and defend said policies.

If you believe that systematic disenfranchisement of a specific group of people is acceptable in a democratic state, then let's hear you defend it. I'm not the one defining democracy, I'm just asking the question.

So, do you consider a state that enforces segregation to be a democratic state?

[The_Professor]

If you believe that systematic disenfranchisement of a specific group of people is acceptable in a democratic state, then let's hear you defend it. I'm not the one defining democracy, I'm just asking the question.

So, do you consider a state that enforces segregation to be a democratic state?

No, it is definitely NOT acceptable. But, that doesn't mean that the government is not a democractic one. It jsut means that the government has its flaws. It is similar to being a Chrisitna. Yo can be so, but that doesn't mean you are perfect. We all fall short of the glory of God.

Democracy is not an event...it is a process, sometimes a slow and painful one.

[_JS]

So, you don't think it is acceptable but is some part of the "growing pains" of an imperfect system.

There seems to be a disagreement then, as Sirs has said that the segregation performed by Israel is their sovereign right and that they are in fact more democratic than the United States due to their Parliamentary political system.

Should the United States support a nation that systematically disenfranchises of a specific group of people?

[The_Professor]

Should the United States support a nation that systematically disenfranchises of a specific group of people?


Sure, otherwise we would support NO ONE as I we can obviously find such problems in any nation as imperfections exist universally. Canada, for example, has had an "interesting" history with thier northern minorities as had/has Australia with their aboriginees. As we have in how we treated/treat native Americans here. Did we EVER actually upload a treaty we signed with them? I doubt it.

You work with what you have (other nation's governments), whether you fully endorse their actions. Otherwise, we would be talking to NO ONE.

[_JS]

The problem with your statement is that it is not parallel. We have supposedly learned from our dealings with the Native Americans. We do not systematically refuse to allow them into specific cities. We do not require them to hold a pass or restrict them from certain jobs.

That is not true of Israel.

We did not aid Ian Smith's regime in Southern Rhodesia. Eventually we even came to our senses in South Africa. Why do we support it in Israel?

[The_Professor]

Well, we respectfully disagree then as I feel my analogies are accurate.

Anyway, we support Isreal for a multitude of reasons, a major one being our Judeo-Christian heritage. I do not expect this to change.

[_JS]

Anyway, we support Isreal for a multitude of reasons, a major one being our Judeo-Christian heritage. I do not expect this to change.

Christianity sprang from Judaism over two millenia ago. Neither religion is very similar to what it was at the time. Though we have a shared history, it was rather brief and not altogether very appreciated by either side.

Is that honestly a reason for ignoring modern apartheid policies today?

[The_Professor]

Yes.

[_JS]

At least you're honest Professor.

Alarming, and sad, but honest.

[domer]

In my view, probably unique in history, Israel is sui generis among the nations of the world. Despite historic ties and perennial aspirations, it was founded in the wake, the survivors' spasm, of the Shoah, a unique event in history where genocide of a whole "race" of people became palpably close. In any honest assessment of the situation that has now developed, that FACT must be given prominence.

The idea of the State of Israel was to establish a JEWISH STATE as a bulwark against extinction and also as the fulfillment of milennia of yearning. These TRUTHS cannot be lost, as much as they must be critically examined.

The conception of this state, and the entire West's complicity in its cause through tolerating in its civilization (virulent) anti-Semitism that metastacized into a genocidal mania, requires concessions to the very purpose of its existence: establishing a JEWISH STATE, almost as God  and history have dictated.

The treatment of indigenous Arabs, indeed all non-Jews, can best be understood in the context of a "process" as Professor, I believe, mentioned. As I can attest as an active Judaeophile, Jewish values are as fine as the world has ever produced. But they are threatened with a second round of extinction. Any rationally-based, though onerous, laws and mores and practices they have to establish to pursue their goal MUST be seen against the backdrop I've just painted.

We look on and we tolerate because we know Israeli values in the pure state of their being, and allow for the excesses of a survivalist culture as much as anything caused by the West's historical enmity, speaking broadly.

[_JS]

True, they are a Jewish state and no one should deny the horrible duplicity of the holocaust. Yet, for that very reason, should we tolerate very anti-democratic policies of the Israeli state?

The English are often credited with using the first concentration camps when they fought the Boers in South Africa. Should their harsh treatment of the Boer people be used to legitimize the apartheid policies of South Africa that took place later?

[domer]

In my honest view, JS, with the respect I always have for you, that is a callow response. There are many ways to illustrate the point I've made, but I'll select only one: the fog of war often creates its own mandates.

[_JS]

Let me respond another way then.

Why should Israel keep such policies? Why have ritzy suburbs that only have Jewish denizens? Why deny Arab citizens the right to live in those areas?

There are Israelis who clearly agree that such policies are outdated. Barak, for example, attempted to remove some of these restrictions and also invest heavily in the poor Arab regions of Israel during his very short term. So clearly, there is a sentiment there for social justice and equality.

It wouldn't take much pressure from the nation that provides most of the aid to Israel to get more done in that direction. That is my point. Why not make that extra effort? Would it not make sense to show the Arab world that there is more to Israel than segregation and restrictions?