4 ms·

Apartheid is a legal term with a precise definition in international law. It is not an emotional shorthand, or at least I’m not using it as such here. The Nakb

Apartheid is a legal term with a precise definition in international law. It is not an emotional shorthand, or at least I’m not using it as such here. The Nakba is a historical event, which took place in Palestine 1947-1948. I was using it here to describe that even (or rather as a reference point), not as an emotional shorthand. Settler Colonialism is a conduct done by a dominant power and against an indigenous population. Rhodesia was a settler colonial state, there is a historical agreement about that, and there was a contemporary agreement that that was bad, and in and of it self made Rhodesia an illegitimate state. I was using it as an emotional shorthand, but so did contemporaries, including at the UN when they encourage nations to never recognize such as state. Your claim that I threw around these terms as lazy emotionalism is unfounded, I explained how they are relevant and how one can indeed criticize Israel using these terms. Israel may not be as bad as Rhodesia, but the term Settler colonialism, and ethno-state still apply. Israel was a Settler colonial enterprise, it was funded 76 years ago by mass displacements of an indigenous population in an event known as the Nakba. Israel is an ethno-state. It maintains a supremacy and domination of a single ethno-religious group over others. It encourages immigration of that single entho-religious group, while denying any rights to the indigenous population which they displaced. I’ve argued elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40346997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40346997) that Israel is an apartheid state, citing, among other, a legal argument used before the ICJ that Israel does indeed brake international humanitarian laws, specifically relating to the legal definition of Apartheid. You however refused to engage with that argument. Claiming that I wasn’t making any coherent arguments. The thing is, I’m not making those arguments, legal experts are. I’m simply appealing to authority on the matter, and there is an overwhelming concern among experts that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. EDIT: As a case in point of how universal these criticisms of Israel are (a universality which must grant at least some legitimacy) the Wikipedia pages for both Settler Colonialism and Ethnocracy (redirected from ethno-state), have a substantial segments about how these terms can be described to Israel. Even Apartheid (South Africa) which is an article about Apartheid in South Africa (not the crime of Apartheid) has a couple of paragraphs dedicated to how Israel’s conduct against Palestinians can be described as Apartheid. Jimmy Carter even wrote a whole book about it.

rendall 2y ago
> You however refused to engage with that argument. Claiming that I wasn’t making any coherent arguments. The thing is, I’m not making those arguments, legal experts are. I’m simply appealing to authority on the matter, and there is an overwhelming concern among experts that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. You aren't making coherent arguments. For example, if you aren't aware that "the Nakba" is considered by pro-Israelis to be a myth, then you should, and you should know why. I’m not making those arguments, legal experts are "Legal experts" are as subject to bias as anyone. I’m simply appealing to authority on the matter Indeed. This is why I didn't address "your" arguments. You didn't make any. You appealed to authority, which is a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority there is an overwhelming concern among experts... One problem with appeal to authority is that you don't have to understand the argument. Just find the person arguing your preference, label them "expert" and I do the same, and then it's detached from any actual understanding. So, summarize these legal experts arguments and demonstrate that you actually understand the argument. And, frankly, you did not even understand that the document was an accusation. This fundamental error didn't give me confidence, to be honest.
- runarberg 2y ago
  How can you call the Nakba a myth? It is a historical event with historical documents. Some of the victims and perpetrators are even still alive today and do describe exactly what happened. Calling it a myth is the kind of denialism which makes it impossible for me to engage with. Climate deniers also deny that climate change is real, that doesn’t make their position correct, or even legitimate, it just makes them wrong, and impossible to engage with. Now, I’m actually not that smart, and I don’t know how to summarize arguments in a convincing manner. We have plenty of people that have done so already, Wikipedia does an excellent job for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid I guess that is also appealing to authority.
  - rendall 2y ago
    > How can you call the Nakba a myth? Not exactly what I said. I said you should understand why pro-Israelis consider it to be a myth. You don't have to agree, but at least understand the arguments. You say you're not smart, but if you're smart enough to argue one side, then you're smart enough to understand the best arguments of the other. Though "How can you call the Nakba a myth?" is in the form of a question, I have enough experience in "debates" of this sort to know it would be a mistake to treat it as a question. "How can you call the Nakba a myth?" is not actually your earnest request for an exchange of views, is it. It's more of a rhetorical device to demonstrate disagreement, even disapproval. Given that it's not an invitation to exchange views, were I to make the mistake of interpreting it as an actual question, and were then to take the time to answer, explain, link to sources, ask questions in return, would you not scoff, dismiss, divert, and not seek to absorb the actual argument, but look immediately for ways to "debunk" it? Some, worried about ideological taint, might even run off to find approved anti-Israel sources to find out how they "debunk" the argument. Invariably, the quality of the rebuttal is not as important as its existence. You (and your co-interlocutor @racional) disapprove, and you are on Team Palestine, therefore it doesn't really matter what the Nakba myth arguments actually are, nor their rebuttal, because they aren't gonna be seriously considered anyway. Again, disappointing, but unsurprising. Not sure how barking talking points at each other is helping at this point. Let us all cheerfully agree to disagree. You can continue to believe that Israel is committing genocide, and I can continue to believe that the accusation is murderously cynical, callous and morally bankrupt.

rendall 2y ago

> You however refused to engage with that argument. Claiming that I wasn’t making any coherent arguments. The thing is, I’m not making those arguments, legal experts are. I’m simply appealing to authority on the matter, and there is an overwhelming concern among experts that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. You aren't making coherent arguments. For example, if you aren't aware that "the Nakba" is considered by pro-Israelis to be a myth, then you should, and you should know why. I’m not making those arguments, legal experts are "Legal experts" are as subject to bias as anyone. I’m simply appealing to authority on the matter Indeed. This is why I didn't address "your" arguments. You didn't make any. You appealed to authority, which is a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority there is an overwhelming concern among experts... One problem with appeal to authority is that you don't have to understand the argument. Just find the person arguing your preference, label them "expert" and I do the same, and then it's detached from any actual understanding. So, summarize these legal experts arguments and demonstrate that you actually understand the argument. And, frankly, you did not even understand that the document was an accusation. This fundamental error didn't give me confidence, to be honest.

runarberg 2y ago
How can you call the Nakba a myth? It is a historical event with historical documents. Some of the victims and perpetrators are even still alive today and do describe exactly what happened. Calling it a myth is the kind of denialism which makes it impossible for me to engage with. Climate deniers also deny that climate change is real, that doesn’t make their position correct, or even legitimate, it just makes them wrong, and impossible to engage with. Now, I’m actually not that smart, and I don’t know how to summarize arguments in a convincing manner. We have plenty of people that have done so already, Wikipedia does an excellent job for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid I guess that is also appealing to authority.
- rendall 2y ago
  > How can you call the Nakba a myth? Not exactly what I said. I said you should understand why pro-Israelis consider it to be a myth. You don't have to agree, but at least understand the arguments. You say you're not smart, but if you're smart enough to argue one side, then you're smart enough to understand the best arguments of the other. Though "How can you call the Nakba a myth?" is in the form of a question, I have enough experience in "debates" of this sort to know it would be a mistake to treat it as a question. "How can you call the Nakba a myth?" is not actually your earnest request for an exchange of views, is it. It's more of a rhetorical device to demonstrate disagreement, even disapproval. Given that it's not an invitation to exchange views, were I to make the mistake of interpreting it as an actual question, and were then to take the time to answer, explain, link to sources, ask questions in return, would you not scoff, dismiss, divert, and not seek to absorb the actual argument, but look immediately for ways to "debunk" it? Some, worried about ideological taint, might even run off to find approved anti-Israel sources to find out how they "debunk" the argument. Invariably, the quality of the rebuttal is not as important as its existence. You (and your co-interlocutor @racional) disapprove, and you are on Team Palestine, therefore it doesn't really matter what the Nakba myth arguments actually are, nor their rebuttal, because they aren't gonna be seriously considered anyway. Again, disappointing, but unsurprising. Not sure how barking talking points at each other is helping at this point. Let us all cheerfully agree to disagree. You can continue to believe that Israel is committing genocide, and I can continue to believe that the accusation is murderously cynical, callous and morally bankrupt.