4 ms·

You're right that the border states may not be theoretic ethno states but they are confessionalist states. Palestinian refuges have less political representatio

You're right that the border states may not be theoretic ethno states but they are confessionalist states. Palestinian refuges have less political representation and rights on these border states than Israel as well. They're literally barred from naturalization in Syria and Lebanon. Israel's actions according to AI aren't actions based in the context of reality. That's the problem. The characterization of apartheid is absurd. Nearby nations treat Palestinians as a lesser class of human. Israel doesn't at all. If the driving concern of the report was the well being of Palestinians, there are numerous facts they could have addressed in the region that wouldn't have required manufactured falsehoods, contextual manipulation, or ignoring terrorism. As time goes on, more and more point by point callouts of the blatant falsehoods proclaimed throughout the report will occur, but the NGO-Monitor one is a great place to start. https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-apartheid-analysis/ https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-apartheid-analys...

sndman 5y ago
It's not just Amnesty calling out apartheid Israel: Amnesty's report came out after Israeli human rights advocacy organizations published their reports: 1. 18 months after Yesh Din's "The Occupation of the West Bank and the Crime of Apartheid: Legal Opinion," 2. A year after B'tselem's "A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This Is Apartheid." 3. Eight months after Human Rights Watch published "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution." 4. Five years after experts commissioned by the UN's Economic and Social Commission of West Asia had authored "Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid" We can even count Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu calling out Israeli apartheid. None of these criticisms were related to Judaism. Are they all antisemitic?
wbsss4412 5y ago
Do you have any sources that attempt to be unbiased rather than unabashedly pro Israel? I can’t take this seriously otherwise.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  Do you have any that attempt to be unbiased, or hell, objective, that accuse Israel of being apartheid? I don't even care if they're biased if they're objective. The NGO monitor is point by point, sourced, objective rebuttals. If that's not good enough for you, that's a personal problem with objectivity that you can sort out yourself. Amnesty International is neither unbiased nor objective. They've long been staunchly anti Israel with no objective basis. It shouldn't be a surprise that it's pro Israel sources providing objectively sourced rebuttals to the report. AI can be anti Israel all they want if their accusations stand up to even the most basic scrutiny or historical fact, but they don't. They're laughably and blatantly manipulative, deceitful, lies by omission, or just plain lies. There's nothing wrong with bias if you utilize verifiable facts in your arguments. Do you dismiss the arguments and points of black BLM supporters because you don't take black unabashedly pro black people seriously?
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    > The NGO monitor is point by point, sourced, objective rebuttals. Sourced, objective rebuttals you say. Let’s take a look at their issues under “methodology”: “Amnesty’s methodology section is opaque and inconsistent with internationally recognized fact-finding standards.” [0] The source in that passage leads to a book * Best Practices for Human Rights and Humanitarian NGO Fact-Finding (Nijhoff Law Specials) by Gerald M. Steinberg, Anne Herzberg, Jordan Berman (2012) Paperback* Who is the lead author, Gerald Steinberg? It would appear to be the president of NGO monitor. (Ann herzberg is also on their staff) [1] Unfortunately I don’t have the ability to exhaustively research all of their sources, but this is hardly credible. [0] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Practices-Humanitarian-Fact-Finding-Steinberg-Paperback/dp/B011DB7PGG https://www.amazon.co.uk/Practices-Humanitarian-Fact-Finding... [1] https://www.ngo-monitor.org/about/staff/ https://www.ngo-monitor.org/about/staff/
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      What objections do you have to the evidence presented and logic used? Again I'll ask, do you dismiss black BLM supporters on the basis that because they're unabashedly pro-black, they can't present objective, unbiased evidence and arguments for their support?

sndman 5y ago

It's not just Amnesty calling out apartheid Israel: Amnesty's report came out after Israeli human rights advocacy organizations published their reports: 1. 18 months after Yesh Din's "The Occupation of the West Bank and the Crime of Apartheid: Legal Opinion," 2. A year after B'tselem's "A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This Is Apartheid." 3. Eight months after Human Rights Watch published "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution." 4. Five years after experts commissioned by the UN's Economic and Social Commission of West Asia had authored "Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid" We can even count Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu calling out Israeli apartheid. None of these criticisms were related to Judaism. Are they all antisemitic?

wbsss4412 5y ago

Do you have any sources that attempt to be unbiased rather than unabashedly pro Israel? I can’t take this seriously otherwise.

defaultprimate 5y ago
Do you have any that attempt to be unbiased, or hell, objective, that accuse Israel of being apartheid? I don't even care if they're biased if they're objective. The NGO monitor is point by point, sourced, objective rebuttals. If that's not good enough for you, that's a personal problem with objectivity that you can sort out yourself. Amnesty International is neither unbiased nor objective. They've long been staunchly anti Israel with no objective basis. It shouldn't be a surprise that it's pro Israel sources providing objectively sourced rebuttals to the report. AI can be anti Israel all they want if their accusations stand up to even the most basic scrutiny or historical fact, but they don't. They're laughably and blatantly manipulative, deceitful, lies by omission, or just plain lies. There's nothing wrong with bias if you utilize verifiable facts in your arguments. Do you dismiss the arguments and points of black BLM supporters because you don't take black unabashedly pro black people seriously?
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  > The NGO monitor is point by point, sourced, objective rebuttals. Sourced, objective rebuttals you say. Let’s take a look at their issues under “methodology”: “Amnesty’s methodology section is opaque and inconsistent with internationally recognized fact-finding standards.” [0] The source in that passage leads to a book * Best Practices for Human Rights and Humanitarian NGO Fact-Finding (Nijhoff Law Specials) by Gerald M. Steinberg, Anne Herzberg, Jordan Berman (2012) Paperback* Who is the lead author, Gerald Steinberg? It would appear to be the president of NGO monitor. (Ann herzberg is also on their staff) [1] Unfortunately I don’t have the ability to exhaustively research all of their sources, but this is hardly credible. [0] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Practices-Humanitarian-Fact-Finding-Steinberg-Paperback/dp/B011DB7PGG https://www.amazon.co.uk/Practices-Humanitarian-Fact-Finding... [1] https://www.ngo-monitor.org/about/staff/ https://www.ngo-monitor.org/about/staff/
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    What objections do you have to the evidence presented and logic used? Again I'll ask, do you dismiss black BLM supporters on the basis that because they're unabashedly pro-black, they can't present objective, unbiased evidence and arguments for their support?