'Dubai hit squad stole my identity': British man's name used by assassins who execute

I wonder who would blame all Jews based on that logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People like you but not jewish

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At present, we do not know which - if any - countries were involved in that.

 

Barak and Olmert: Extremist, or ignorant? It's your standard.

Not directly. They are, however, using the word, invoking South Africa, and creeping rhetorically toward the obvious. And for a while, in one case.

Israel's prime minister issued a rare warning yesterday that his nation risked being compared to apartheid-era South Africa if it failed to agree an independent state for the Palestinians. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Ehud Olmert said Israel was "finished" if it forced the Palestinians into a struggle for equal rights.

If the two-state solution collapsed, he said, Israel would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished". Israel's supporters abroad would quickly turn against such a state, he said ....

.... Israel has a 20% Arab minority who are citizens and can vote, although they are frequently discriminated against and are described by some as a "demographic threat". Within a few years the number of Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories is expected to equal, and then exceed, the number of Jews in Israel and the settlements. Some Palestinians argue that they should campaign for a so-called one-state solution: equal voting and citizenship rights within a larger country that includes Israel and the occupied territories and in which Palestinians will soon have a majority.

It is not the first time that Olmert has risked the South African comparison. Four years ago, in another interview with Ha'aretz, he gave a similar warning. But that was a time when, as deputy to the then prime minister Ariel Sharon, he argued that Israel should unilaterally draw up a border with the Palestinians, withdrawing from Gaza and holding on to the major Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank ....

.... Israeli historian Tom Segev wrote in yesterday's Ha'aretz: "It is not easy to understand why so many Israelis still believe that a large Israel without peace is better than a small Israel with peace." Israel had most to lose, he said. "With every settler who moves to the territories and with every Palestinian child who is killed by Israel Defence Forces fire, Israel loses some of the moral justification that led to the decision on the November 29 60 years ago. The Palestinians have already lost almost everything they had."

Gerald Steinberg, chairman of the political science department at Israel's Bar-Ilan University, said Olmert's comments reflected a long-held belief. "The logic is precisely the same as the logic pursued by all Israeli governments since 1967: the realisation that you can't have a Jewish, democratic state and still control the lives of millions of Palestinians," he said.

(McCarthy)​

Olmert has been warning of apartheid at least since 2003. Barak raised the issue last month:

Israel's defense minister warned Tuesday that if Israel does not achieve a peace deal with the Palestinians, it will be either a binational state or an undemocratic apartheid state.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak's comments came in an address to a security conference north of Tel Aviv.

Israeli leaders rarely use the term "apartheid" in connection to the Palestinians. The term, however, has been used by Israel's harshest critics to accuse it of using apartheid tactics against the Palestinians.

"The simple truth is, if there is one state" including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, "it will have to be either binational or undemocratic. ... if this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

(Lavie)​

Two former Israeli Prime Ministers can face up to the prospects their nation's policies have created. There are not many ways around it at this point, and what options there are do not seem palatable. Israel is fast approaching a point at which the only real question is crow or venom.

So, are Barak and Olmert extremist, or simply ignorant? It's your standard, after all.
____________________

Notes:

McCarthy, Rory. "Israel risks apartheid-like struggle if two-state solution fails, says Olmert". The Guardian. November 30, 2007. Guardian.co.uk. March 5, 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/30/israel

Lavie, Mark. "Barak: Peace with Palestinians or apartheid". Associated Press. February 2, 2010. brietbart.com. March 5, 2010. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DK82A00

 

I agree with both of them almost entirely. That 3-4 decades down the road there might be a hypothetical situation where there might be an undemocratic reality. My standard refers to those who refer to Israel of today as having apartheid policies. That is very extremist and detached from reality, and ignorant. Or cynical abuse of the term used by anti-Zionist extremists for whom Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens is irrelevant, because they aren't willing to accept an independent Israel in principle, which is why when you show them many many different examples of equality in Israel they just brush it off.

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=170346

 

I don't think its all that similar. Was there ever an Operation Cast Lead [Summer Rains, Autumn Clouds, Moonlight Sonata] against the bantustans? Was food, fuel, water or medical service ever blocked so that people were receiving 9 trucks in 14 days rather than 500 a day? Were blue babies born in the bantustans from chemical poisoning?

 

Seems like a perfectly ordinary description of an obvious situation, to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

In comparison with, say, South Africa, the principal and critical difference seems to be the lack of a defined territory or homeland for the oppressed group - unlike S Africa, Israel has been unwilling to draw boundaries mutually defining both itself and some kind of Palestinian bantustan. Unlike S Africa, Israel continues to expand and encroach.

 

Sort of disingenuous. They already can vote.

 

You're quite right; I apologize and retract as it applies to the West Bank specifically.

 

This is the craziest and most extreme post I've ever seen you post.

 

:shrug: Mea culpa. That's almost four times I've been wrong so far. Sheesh.

No. But I support Israel's right to exist, and I'm well aware of what the consequences of a one-state (Final) solution would be.

 

On the (seeming, anyway) present course? No. The settlements need to come down, the progression to stop.

 

What right to exist its a completely bull shit thing. The sole reason its pushed is to give legitimacy to the crimes used to create the state. No country has a right to exist. nations have a right to exist and a country can only legitimately through self determination(defined as the people of a territory choosing their own political status). Not to mention the reaffirmed principles of the Montevideo convention prohibits the gaining of sovereignty through force.

 

bells it seems to me you don't recognize its "right" to exist but merely feel they have gotten away with too many crimes to undo them all. also what would be wrong with recognizing the the country has no basic right to keep on going? While I recognize that i does exist and that the will to get rid of it through force will never be but that doesn't mean we should act as if existence is a moral thing. They(Israeli government) will keep stealing land so long as people validate what they have done through recognizing its "right"to exist. By recognizing that it has no "right" to exist and acknowledging that the creation was based on crimes we can force them to the negotiating table and actually deal with their victims in an honest manner. Maybe even getting an actual concession out of them though I doubt that will ever happen.