5 ms·

> you see enough annectodatal evidence and it starts to become a pattern Pattern for what? a national conflict is not the same as an apartheid government. We m

by tety 3y ago

> you see enough annectodatal evidence and it starts to become a pattern Pattern for what? a national conflict is not the same as an apartheid government. We might need to go back to how you define apartheid, because I imagine separate bathrooms mandated by law, and it seems you imagine a national conflict in an occupied territory > thats how systematic oppression work. it has many facets and if you're pro israeli, you've only maintained that position by bot reading though the evidence Sounds a bit ad-hominem > fair, but why do palestinians go thougha. seperate miliary court? why are children as young as 10 serving time in military prisons? october 7th was horrible but lets not ignore that it was motivated by people in a desperate situation trying to gain bargaining chips to have their loved ones released. some of those children released from the prisons in exchange for the israeli hostages were as young as 10 at the time of incarceration. Military courts are how you manage a military occupied territory, I believe this is quite common in international law. Also Palestinians can appeal to the Israeli supreme court, many do and many decisions are overruled. About children as young as 10, I need specifics. Looking at Israeli human rights organizations which I don't think anyone would think are pro-government in any way, there weren't any younger than 14 for the very long while I scrolled (https://www.btselem.org/hebrew/statistics/minors_in_custody https://www.btselem.org/hebrew/statistics/minors_in_custody). The difference between hostages is these minors were trialed for real crimes, which you probably wouldn't accept in your country as well (attempted murder for example) > no its not. this proves to me you have spent no time watching any of the documentaries exploring this. you wouldn't last a day living in the west bank as a palestinian. Ive seen plenty of videos of settlers shooting down palestinians in cold blood with IDF soldiers doing nothing to stop it. they only step in when palestinians fight back. as an american who studied history, I know enough about the ku klux klan to to know ethnic cleansing when I see it. Systematic extermination can be quantified. Let's say one way you could measure it is by comparing birth rate to intentional death rates. I assure you the growth rate of the palestinian population is extremely positive. Another way you can measure it is compare it to ongoing conflicts, the Syrian civil war which is currently ongoing has 600k casualties spanning a few years. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ongoing for almost a hundred years and it hasn't reached 10% of that. It doesn't make it less tragic, but saying this is systematic extermination can minimize real cases of genocide. > I think its obvious that there is no amount of evidence that would meet the bar for you to consider whats going on an apartheid. I'm not sure. Again, apartheid is a government system that is based on systematic racism and discrimination. Although both exist in Israel, as in many other countries, this is a far cry than South Africa, or even the United States in the early 60s.

cultofmetatron 3y ago
ok so a large human rights group calling it apartheid isn't enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoFjbnvkmQ0&ab_channel=AmnestyInternational https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoFjbnvkmQ0&ab_channel=Amnes... or the case where a 13 year oldboy was raped in prison and the IDF labelle dthe group trying to document and report it a terrorist organization? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnH61RvX-VQ&ab_channel=DaizyGedeon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnH61RvX-VQ&ab_channel=Daizy... > Sounds a bit ad-hominem I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm stating that the israeli position requires being absolutely obtuse and deflective for every shred of evidence that comes their way. to be clear, no one is here to defend Hammas. I just don't think the IDF is any better. case in point, they shot the three shirtless israeli hostages because they thought they were palestinians? so its perfectly fine to shoot unarmed people basicly?
- tety 3y ago
  > ok so a large human rights group calling it apartheid isn't enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoFjbnvkmQ0&ab_channel=Amnes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoFjbnvkmQ0&ab_channel=Amnes... Although this is a common perception, just the fact a human rights group declares something doesn't make it so. I have to remind you that you live in a world where the UN Human Rights council chair is a country where they publicly hang gay people on cranes and rapes women in prisons. Case in point, Lebanon is a country where you cannot become president by law if you're not born from a specific Christian sect. This is a country where ethnic discrimination is codified into laws (and of course Palestinians don't have voting rights). This is closer to what you deem apartheid, yet Amnesty did not make a fancy video about that. > or the case where a 13 year oldboy was raped in prison and the IDF labelle dthe group trying to document and report it a terrorist organization? I'm sorry, I completely believe you it happened, however this is missing tons of context. Raped by whom? Was this case brought to a court? Do you believe the rape was state sanctioned? What were the charges which caused the IDF to declare it a terrorist organization? For example there were many situations where these organizations were money laundering fronts for Hamas. And if the answers to all these questions is 'because Israel only does evil things and nothing is ever rational or a mistake or an individual wrong', what are you trying to prove and how does that relate to being an apartheid state > I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm stating that the israeli position requires being absolutely obtuse and deflective for every shred of evidence that comes their way. I don't think this is the case any more than criticizing one side for not being compatible with your values while completely ignoring the different side of the coin. > case in point, they shot the three shirtless israeli hostages because they thought they were palestinians? so its perfectly fine to shoot unarmed people basicly? It's an obvious blunder, but I think to be fair you have to know a lot more about the situation than we both know. One explanation is these soldiers were trigger happy and wanting revenge, and another explanation is that they misidentified them as armed or there was a failure of communication. There's a reason why it's called 'the fog of war'

by tety 3y ago

cultofmetatron 3y ago

ok so a large human rights group calling it apartheid isn't enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoFjbnvkmQ0&ab_channel=AmnestyInternational https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoFjbnvkmQ0&ab_channel=Amnes... or the case where a 13 year oldboy was raped in prison and the IDF labelle dthe group trying to document and report it a terrorist organization? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnH61RvX-VQ&ab_channel=DaizyGedeon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnH61RvX-VQ&ab_channel=Daizy... > Sounds a bit ad-hominem I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm stating that the israeli position requires being absolutely obtuse and deflective for every shred of evidence that comes their way. to be clear, no one is here to defend Hammas. I just don't think the IDF is any better. case in point, they shot the three shirtless israeli hostages because they thought they were palestinians? so its perfectly fine to shoot unarmed people basicly?

tety 3y ago
> ok so a large human rights group calling it apartheid isn't enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoFjbnvkmQ0&ab_channel=Amnes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoFjbnvkmQ0&ab_channel=Amnes... Although this is a common perception, just the fact a human rights group declares something doesn't make it so. I have to remind you that you live in a world where the UN Human Rights council chair is a country where they publicly hang gay people on cranes and rapes women in prisons. Case in point, Lebanon is a country where you cannot become president by law if you're not born from a specific Christian sect. This is a country where ethnic discrimination is codified into laws (and of course Palestinians don't have voting rights). This is closer to what you deem apartheid, yet Amnesty did not make a fancy video about that. > or the case where a 13 year oldboy was raped in prison and the IDF labelle dthe group trying to document and report it a terrorist organization? I'm sorry, I completely believe you it happened, however this is missing tons of context. Raped by whom? Was this case brought to a court? Do you believe the rape was state sanctioned? What were the charges which caused the IDF to declare it a terrorist organization? For example there were many situations where these organizations were money laundering fronts for Hamas. And if the answers to all these questions is 'because Israel only does evil things and nothing is ever rational or a mistake or an individual wrong', what are you trying to prove and how does that relate to being an apartheid state > I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm stating that the israeli position requires being absolutely obtuse and deflective for every shred of evidence that comes their way. I don't think this is the case any more than criticizing one side for not being compatible with your values while completely ignoring the different side of the coin. > case in point, they shot the three shirtless israeli hostages because they thought they were palestinians? so its perfectly fine to shoot unarmed people basicly? It's an obvious blunder, but I think to be fair you have to know a lot more about the situation than we both know. One explanation is these soldiers were trigger happy and wanting revenge, and another explanation is that they misidentified them as armed or there was a failure of communication. There's a reason why it's called 'the fog of war'