3 ms·

This harms the credibility of Amnesty International. There are many criticisms you can lay against Israel regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but "apart

• 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 ).