681–690 of 735 posts
It's certainly interesting how an oppressed people became the oppressor.
In my opinion what is interesting is that the oppressed people have preserved democracy in the face of constant war and even provided full right to the partly that 5 times attacked them, current coalition consists of Arab parties.
From the article: « Proponents say the law helps ensure Israel's security and maintains its "Jewish character". » Which is eerily similar to the arguments in favor of the 1935 "Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour" (Nurenberg laws) in Germany, which forbade marriage between Germans and Jews.
A lot of it is the same European culture. If the Nazis hadn't cared about Jews and only went after Roma, communists, and homosexuals, they would have been as likely to enthusiastically participate as any other German.
>Some Knesset members said it was intended to prevent a gradual right of return for Palestinian refugees who were driven from their homes or fled during the 1948 war surrounding Israel's creation absolutely disgusting
So, 21% of Israel's population has restrictions on who they could marry all so that they can maintain a majority of the favored demographic. This is apartheid.
Terrible title. >Israel’s parliament on Thursday passed a law denying naturalization to Palestinians from the occupied West Bank or Gaza married to Israeli citizens, forcing thousands of Palestinian families to either emigrate or live apart. The actual law is bad enough as is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a better analogy to compare the situation to? Language is about communicating ideas efficiently. Apartheid is a good word for what is happening, and our response should be the same as it was in South Africa.
My understanding is that, once you're a citizen of Israel, you have the same rights as other Israeli citizens, regardless of race or religion. Under apartheid, rights were infringed based on race.
We have a government over a people that determines the rights of each person based on who their parents were. That's the core concept that I, for one, am opposed to.
It's certainly interesting how an oppressed people became the oppressor.
Isn't this the dream of every revolution? Sure, to gain power, but also you give it back to who they hate. Also, all the people using the phrase "reverse racism" are wondering the same. It looks to me like the powerful oppress the powerless, but power fluctuates among groups/nations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not what cherry-picking means. The previous comment made a claim. I gave a what I considered a valid counter example undermining that claim. That’s an entirely reasonable response. Somewhat ironically, that Wikipedia article is cherry picking. It gives lots of examples that support its thesis and fails to mention or downplays counter examples, of which there are very many.
Of which you - contrary to the other commenter in the thread - failed to provide sources of. You cherry pick one example and talk about there being many, many more. Yet it is the other side shows sources that you with few words "argue" are not valid - also without providing arguments, sources, anything. You are not discussing in good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Emigrating into your own country. That's a new one. Opinions here are laughable.
That's a disingenuous way of putting it. The Palestinians who stayed in Israel during the Israeli war of independence became citizens. The ones who left, did not. They were also not part of Israel for almost 30 years, they were refugees of other countries, who then attacked Israel. They have never been Israeli citizens, and were not even in Israel for many years before they became Israeli refugees. (Whether they shou…
I tried reading about the history of Palestinian nationality on wikipedia, and I have as many questions as answers. Are they Jordanian, Egyptian, Palestinian, or Israeli? Are some Palestinians stateless?
What does "territory" really mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that, once you're a citizen of Israel, you have the same rights as other Israeli citizens, regardless of race or religion. Under apartheid, rights were infringed based on race.
But is it really so different if we replace race with religion? Israel doesn't recognize people who join the religion- it's effectively based on birth just as much as race. We have a government over a people that determines the rights of each person based on who their parents were. That's the core concept that I, for one, am opposed to.
They aren't completely replacing race with religion, many Palestinians are black and my understanding is Israel is quite racist towards its black Jewish population as well. European Settler colonialism has historically been quite racist.