171–180 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that. Jewish people are not the only Semites. Arabs are Semites too. The word anti-semitic has totally lost all of its literal meaning, much like the word hacker.
This is -- pardon my french -- either the most dishonest or the most uninformed argument that has been made on this topic so far.
It's a common failure among the half-educated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is -- pardon my french -- either the most dishonest or the most uninformed argument that has been made on this topic so far.
I don't think it's either, just a rant about how natural languages need to MAKE SENSE DAMMIT! It's a common failure among the half-educated.
If usage trumps correctness then English with an Indian accent is the canonical accent. After all there are more who use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are just reciting the typical myths about racism/Israel. For example you mentioned road use discrimination, instead of that being any sort of discrimination based on race/religion, it is separation based on citizenship of PA or Israel. Arabs and anyone else who are Israeli can use these roads. To say that restriction from use based on different citizenship is discrimination is just laughable. As far as "marriage…
After a quick search: Israel's High Court has narrowly upheld a law denying Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza married to Israeli citizens the right to live in the country with their spouses. -- The Independent Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth." -- U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Ri…
Legal discrimination is systematized discrimination, it does not imply that every law in the country is racist, but since you're accusing the country of legal discrimination I just referred to what you said it as "systematized racism" instead of "legal [race based] discrimination." I may have misquoted the degree of your criticism but you are still arguing that relatively small issues are in fact serious racial discrimination issues (small in the sense that they don't contribute to racial discrimination, not that the issues themselves aren't serious.) I don't even deny that there is racial discrimination from a small portion of individuals but to say that there is strong legal action taken to discriminate in the country is just flatly wrong.
>> Regardless of your efforts at justifying it with excuses, it stands up to the definition of discrimination, whatever the excuse or the path to that may be. No racist person or entity in history has ever suffered from lack of excuses.
No, the country isn't perfect or entirely fair but each of these criticisms has plausible non racist explanations. For example the building permits there are issued just like in the US: you have to pass many different rigorous legal and technical tests before you can build, and it is not entirely impossible that the legwork isn't being done by these Arab communities in the first place. The building-permit process in Israel is widely criticized as unusually slow for any country even in Jewish communities and I believe the OECD just released an evaluation that it takes 3 times as long in Israel as other OECD countries to issue building permits.
And another example: the criticism of education funding is no different than what happens in the US, where some people argue that a community's funding for education should be directly from what that community can extract from taxes. It's not automatically a racist policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After a quick search: Israel's High Court has narrowly upheld a law denying Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza married to Israeli citizens the right to live in the country with their spouses. -- The Independent Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth." -- U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Ri…
>> I have never claimed that whole of Israel has systemized racism, you are putting words into my mouth. I would have more respect for you if you said for instance yes we have these well documented problems but not everyone in Israel is like that. Legal discrimination is systematized discrimination, it does not imply that every law in the country is racist, but since you're accusing the country of legal discriminatio…
i) constitutional declaration of rights, Israel does not
ii) I can drive on any road that an American civillian can drive on. I dont need to be a citizen or a resident or convert my religion.
iii) It is accepted that several inequities in US have their roots in racism and US has taken great strides to elliminate them, have open discussions on them. From what I read about Israel I dont see an environment (yet) were a corresponding national holiday to comemorate Martin Luther King is possible.
iv) If I were to be naturalized in US no law states that I cannot unless I convert my religion.
I detect a certain change in your tone after I called you out. But given your previous tone I do not have reasons to take what you say about building permits at its face value. I found too many documents from individuals and institutions that have earned my respect claiming otherwise.
Besides when you try to give an impression that you are quoting me, it is considered bad practice to remove words. Just basic honesty and propriety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The draft doesn't apply to non-Jews because Israel doesn't want to force its Arab citizens to fight other Arabs. However, Arabs, Muslims, and Christians are encouraged to join the military or civil service and they serve alongside Israeli Jews or in their own units. In fact Druze men have mandatory conscription. Check the law again. The draft applies to all Israelis but exemptions can be granted. And in fact have bee…
> Check the law again. The draft applies to all Israelis but exemptions can be granted. And in fact have been granted to Arabs. The conscription of Druze men is a consequence of their not having been granted a special exemption. True but this doesn't mean non-Jewish Israelis are barred from serving in the military or civil service. > I was not saying it was good or bad. I was citing it as evidence that different race…
True. But there are parts of the military that non-Jewish Israelis are barred from.
Right but if this is practiced in hundreds of countries around the world, it's a moot point.
The fact that many countries discriminate by race doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, discrimination by race.
Incidentally I strongly doubt that we're talking about hundreds of countries. As of 2006 the UN had 192 member countries. And I know that many of them (eg Canada, England and France) do not have anything resembling the Jewish Right of Return.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So all news sources are equally truthy? There's no such thing as perfect objectivity, but there are shades of gray.
You need to look for a news source that is financially incentivized to do "just the facts". Organization such as Reuters, AP, AFP etc sell "raw news" to TV stations and newspapers, which then put their own editorial on it. The same Reuters feed goes into the BBC as goes into Sky News. So if you really care, just read Reuters and make up your own mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's either, just a rant about how natural languages need to MAKE SENSE DAMMIT! It's a common failure among the half-educated.
Heh! I had so far restrained myself from adding to the thread. But it tickles me a great deal to see how just an observation can fuel nay-saying and name calling. I never made a moral judgment and neither am I ignorant of the typical use of the word. But was not aware that such usage ruled out making observations that the well used and common rule of "anti-blah" does not apply in this case. Then I added another examp…
I know it's tongue in cheek and all, but I've heard this repeated a few too many times recently, so for the record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_languages_by_num...
Summary: 226 million "native" speakers of English, plus 90 million with English as a second language. I'd suggest that the canonical English accent is actually American. And whilst it is true that India will probably overtake the US in this regard in the not too distant future, they too will probably be eclipsed by the Chinese (http://www.economist.com/node/6803197?story_id=6803197) before that happens.
Regardless, the traditional anglo-saxon countries will hold sway as the main proponents of English for a long time, as aside from the US there is also the UK (60-odd million), Canada(35 million), Australia(20-odd million), New Zealand (5 million), and South Africa (50 million) to throw into the mix, giving a total of somewhere around 500 million native speakers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to look for a news source that is financially incentivized to do "just the facts". Organization such as Reuters, AP, AFP etc sell "raw news" to TV stations and newspapers, which then put their own editorial on it. The same Reuters feed goes into the BBC as goes into Sky News. So if you really care, just read Reuters and make up your own mind.
After all, Reuters would never doctor a photo, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controve...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh! I had so far restrained myself from adding to the thread. But it tickles me a great deal to see how just an observation can fuel nay-saying and name calling. I never made a moral judgment and neither am I ignorant of the typical use of the word. But was not aware that such usage ruled out making observations that the well used and common rule of "anti-blah" does not apply in this case. Then I added another examp…
* If usage trumps correctness then English with an Indian accent is the canonical accent. After all there are more who use it.* I know it's tongue in cheek and all, but I've heard this repeated a few too many times recently, so for the record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_languages_by_num... Summary: 226 million "native" speakers of English, plus 90 million with English as a second language. I'd sugges…
but I've heard this repeated a few too many times recently