4 ms·

Lots of news about Israel today. Amnesty International just released a new report condemning Israel as an apartheid state.[1] 1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/lat

Lots of news about Israel today. Amnesty International just released a new report condemning Israel as an apartheid state.[1] 1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...

yuvalr1 5y ago
What a great way to start an off topic flame war... By the way, you could have shown Israel's response to this report as well: https://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-attacks-delusional-amnesty-uk-ahead-of-report-accusing-israel-of-apartheid/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-attacks-delusional-amnes...
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Hopefully people here can do better than get into a flame war when provided with context for weapons technology news and if they can't then they should be down-voted and possibly flagged.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    I believe he was complaining about the lack of context you provided. The dropping of the typical (and false) apartheid accusation without providing the response.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      Another comment responded to that: _"Do you also post Russian or North Korean responses when discussions involving these countries occur?"_ I'd extend that to America or basically any country. I can't imagine it being considered the start to a flame war if some one presents a report by a large organization with some level of reputation without providing the state's response. If there is a report by Amnesty condemning a major issue like the amount of cronyism in all higher levels of the West and America. Or of how lobbying in the US is effectively legalized corruption. Or how [Super] PACs hurt the sanctity of democracy...for any of these things, the official US response or response from any high level of the US government is not that important. I have a hard time imagining being told not including the official western state response is a great way to start a flame war.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  Do you also post Russian or North Korean responses when discussions involving these countries occur? Israel is currently governed by a bunch of corrupt jerks motivated by a racist ideology, their officials response don't deserve more credit than Kim Jong-Un's. It's not a problem with Israel or the Israeli people (most of whom just wish they could live their life in peace in the country they are born in, bearing no responsibility for the troubled times during and following the creation of Israel), but there is a big problem with those politicians benefiting the state of permanent war they are themselves creating to push a colonialist agenda.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Israel was attacked pretty quickly after its founding.
    - littlestymaar 5y ago
      It's way more complicated than that, but anyway for the past 30 years Israel has been at peace with their neighboring countries and isn't realistically being threatened (yes I know Iran talks a lot, but in practice they are completely unable to strike Israel, while the opposite isn't true, so it's not really as if the threat was meaningful). All that remains is a colonial war against Palestinian people to put hold on the entire region, based on a supremacist vision of what Zionism should be (and it's not what the founders of Israel had in mind when the country was formed). The Palestinians from the West bank are completely unable to defend themselves from the rampant colonization and Gaza is conveniently left unchecked in the hands of a terror group, who albeit causing little practical damage[1] exert enough terror[2] to keep the Israeli population in a mind-state of perpetual war. This is 1984 taken as an instruction manual. Honestly, it deeply saddens me that the Jewish people, after suffering two crimes against humanity in the twentieth century (the holocaust, then the mass deportation of Jewish people living in the Arab world, after the creation of Israel) are now involved a third time, now as the tormentor. [1]: a war in which you lose no military, nor infrastructure and only a handful of civilians isn't a war. [2]: hundreds of flying rockets that can blow up your house and will kill a dozen of your citizen is a powerful terror attack.
nsxwolf 5y ago
This harms the credibility of Amnesty International. There are many criticisms you can lay against Israel regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but "apartheid" doesn't pass the laugh test.
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  They've destroyed their own credibility long ago.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  This isn't true. There have been numerous organizations of all ranges reporting similar views. This illogical pattern of assuming a word or concept does not evolve is far too common. The world and people learn from history. Apartheids now and in the future will usually not be the way America was 70 years ago or South Africa 35 years ago. Apartheid may be too serious and specific of a word. We don't have another word to go to besides apartheid. Were the Jim Crow laws and behavior of America from Reconstruction through 1960s not apartheid? Technically not. They didn't go far enough. However, it's reductionist to say it's not apartheid but then not provide a label to practices that are cruel and inhumane and overlap with a majority of apartheid. If Amnesty International or another organization referred to it as analogous or incredibly similar to Jim Crow Law days. That's hard to do. I don't know expect any one outside the US to know what that is. "apartheid" on the other hand is a world wide known term. So, yeah, this all feels reductionist. Similarly, tech companies learned from IBM and Microsoft's bullying and monopolistic practices of the 80s and 90s. All the same underlying principles of bullying, EEE, and so much more have been able to evolve and become more subtle with the new current tech giants (including Microsoft ).
flyinglizard 5y ago
Sad to see Amnesty weaponized like that.
skinnymuch 5y ago
I saw this post was marked dead/flagged. I "vouched" for it. Something i haven't done in so long I can only remember commenting about it. I hope it worked. I do agree with the other comments that a bit more writing on your end could have helped. However if we are having a good faith discussion, coupled with your reply to yuvalr, I do not see how your comment can be seen as bad faith.

yuvalr1 5y ago

What a great way to start an off topic flame war... By the way, you could have shown Israel's response to this report as well: https://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-attacks-delusional-amnesty-uk-ahead-of-report-accusing-israel-of-apartheid/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-attacks-delusional-amnes...

guerrilla 5y ago
Hopefully people here can do better than get into a flame war when provided with context for weapons technology news and if they can't then they should be down-voted and possibly flagged.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  I believe he was complaining about the lack of context you provided. The dropping of the typical (and false) apartheid accusation without providing the response.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    Another comment responded to that: _"Do you also post Russian or North Korean responses when discussions involving these countries occur?"_ I'd extend that to America or basically any country. I can't imagine it being considered the start to a flame war if some one presents a report by a large organization with some level of reputation without providing the state's response. If there is a report by Amnesty condemning a major issue like the amount of cronyism in all higher levels of the West and America. Or of how lobbying in the US is effectively legalized corruption. Or how [Super] PACs hurt the sanctity of democracy...for any of these things, the official US response or response from any high level of the US government is not that important. I have a hard time imagining being told not including the official western state response is a great way to start a flame war.
littlestymaar 5y ago
Do you also post Russian or North Korean responses when discussions involving these countries occur? Israel is currently governed by a bunch of corrupt jerks motivated by a racist ideology, their officials response don't deserve more credit than Kim Jong-Un's. It's not a problem with Israel or the Israeli people (most of whom just wish they could live their life in peace in the country they are born in, bearing no responsibility for the troubled times during and following the creation of Israel), but there is a big problem with those politicians benefiting the state of permanent war they are themselves creating to push a colonialist agenda.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Israel was attacked pretty quickly after its founding.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    It's way more complicated than that, but anyway for the past 30 years Israel has been at peace with their neighboring countries and isn't realistically being threatened (yes I know Iran talks a lot, but in practice they are completely unable to strike Israel, while the opposite isn't true, so it's not really as if the threat was meaningful). All that remains is a colonial war against Palestinian people to put hold on the entire region, based on a supremacist vision of what Zionism should be (and it's not what the founders of Israel had in mind when the country was formed). The Palestinians from the West bank are completely unable to defend themselves from the rampant colonization and Gaza is conveniently left unchecked in the hands of a terror group, who albeit causing little practical damage[1] exert enough terror[2] to keep the Israeli population in a mind-state of perpetual war. This is 1984 taken as an instruction manual. Honestly, it deeply saddens me that the Jewish people, after suffering two crimes against humanity in the twentieth century (the holocaust, then the mass deportation of Jewish people living in the Arab world, after the creation of Israel) are now involved a third time, now as the tormentor. [1]: a war in which you lose no military, nor infrastructure and only a handful of civilians isn't a war. [2]: hundreds of flying rockets that can blow up your house and will kill a dozen of your citizen is a powerful terror attack.

nsxwolf 5y ago

This harms the credibility of Amnesty International. There are many criticisms you can lay against Israel regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but "apartheid" doesn't pass the laugh test.

LorenPechtel 5y ago
They've destroyed their own credibility long ago.
skinnymuch 5y ago
This isn't true. There have been numerous organizations of all ranges reporting similar views. This illogical pattern of assuming a word or concept does not evolve is far too common. The world and people learn from history. Apartheids now and in the future will usually not be the way America was 70 years ago or South Africa 35 years ago. Apartheid may be too serious and specific of a word. We don't have another word to go to besides apartheid. Were the Jim Crow laws and behavior of America from Reconstruction through 1960s not apartheid? Technically not. They didn't go far enough. However, it's reductionist to say it's not apartheid but then not provide a label to practices that are cruel and inhumane and overlap with a majority of apartheid. If Amnesty International or another organization referred to it as analogous or incredibly similar to Jim Crow Law days. That's hard to do. I don't know expect any one outside the US to know what that is. "apartheid" on the other hand is a world wide known term. So, yeah, this all feels reductionist. Similarly, tech companies learned from IBM and Microsoft's bullying and monopolistic practices of the 80s and 90s. All the same underlying principles of bullying, EEE, and so much more have been able to evolve and become more subtle with the new current tech giants (including Microsoft ).

flyinglizard 5y ago

Sad to see Amnesty weaponized like that.

skinnymuch 5y ago

I saw this post was marked dead/flagged. I "vouched" for it. Something i haven't done in so long I can only remember commenting about it. I hope it worked. I do agree with the other comments that a bit more writing on your end could have helped. However if we are having a good faith discussion, coupled with your reply to yuvalr, I do not see how your comment can be seen as bad faith.