true
Entirely false. Maybe in your narrow definitino of "modern societies", but for the vast, vast majority of the Planet Earth, even within your own country, nationalism is alive and well.

probably true.

Again: within your narrow view of the world this is true, but outside your ivory tower, where the real world is, national identity is (right or wrong) a fundamental part of self-identity and self-determination and nation-states or national alliances are still the norm.

I don't win until you retract and apologize for you completely inappropriate and ludicrous statement that I have a blind, seething hatred for Israel!

Unbelievable that you are so stubborn you refuse to do this. You got caught. You made a mistake. We all do that. But be the better man here.

Lol. You realize I explicitly said "grandfather" right? Nonetheless, that is a much more minor point than the fact that you can't convert to being French the way you can convert to judaism and be accepted that way, which was teh point.

So under this law, if my grandfather is French, then my father isn't also French (thereby making me French)?

Jesus.

So? Its a nuance. It's still no less preferential than other countries, which is the real point. But ya still get yer panties in a bunch over Israel, and happily assumed the rest of the world couldn't possibly be that discriminatory. But it is. And for perspective: in Arab countries, its virtually impossible to gain citizenship if you're not an ethnic Arab or in some cases they include Muslim.

Bzzt bzzt. He's doing the "others are worse so Israel's okay" thing again.

The problem is not giving citizenship to Jews, it's the denying it to the the people who already live under Israeli control. It's allowing Brooklyn Jews to live in the houses of Arabs you've kicked out. Ireland may give preference to returning diaspora Irish, but they don't give them the house of a Protestant, or turn their water off, or knock down a Protestant church for a parking lot, or make them late for work with road blocks. Despite all the nasty things the British did in 20th Century Ireland, and all the provocations of Catholic extremists, they never asked "why do you stay here, there are Catholic countries you could go to?" The WASPS have long dominated the US, although that is changing. The Jewish lobby would go bananas if the US were defined as an Anglo-Saxon Protestant state, and with good reason.

Saying Israel is just pursuing Jewish self-determination is captious. South Africans sought national liberation, but they did not kick out the whites and invite the African diaspora in the Americas to take their place. (Well, the PAC may have had such tendencies, but the ANC, who won, did not.)

So yes, Israeli liberation is distinct, and has become an apartheid movement.

Sigh, yet another post where Gamblor is unable to find it in himself to retract and apologize for his ridiculous post where he says I have a blind, seething hatred of Israel. So sad.
Nope, but nice try. Your parents have to actually have gained French citizenship, among other conditions. This is why the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren don't automatically get it which is what your logic would imply:
Personally, I have no problem with an immigration policy that considers family relationships, economic values (like prioritizing high skilled labour), and the like. But not religion. You should not be able to convert to just one religion to be allowed in.

Gamblor, your definition of seething hatred is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read from someone with an IQ as high as yours probably is. Are you really this immature? How old are you?

Gamblor,

Nationalism is alive and well in Sweden but its a marginalized political movement. The only nationalistic party with any power in this country is Sverigedemokraterna with about 6% of the vote. They get scrutinized about anything they say and don't even approach the type of rethoric coming from the Zionist movement. It would be political suicide here as i suspect it would be in most other first world countries. The Zionist movement is accepted and tolerated because of said historical and geopolitical reasons.

Nah nationalism is alive and well in Europe, including big mainstream parties like banning the Niqab in France and the like. And Canada, for that matter, the province of Quebec just yesterday elected a nationalist and separatist party which had run on various themes of francophone dominance, banning religious symbols like the hijab but excluding crucifixes, and the like. Of course, I don't think Israel should be modeling itself after these abhorrent displays of nationalism.

Yeah nationalism is well and alive in Europe, but its not as explicit as the Zionist movement.

The below is from a Zionist webpage http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/ar.../00000318.html

Change jewish to whatever nationality or culture you like and it will be pretty clear that this rethoric won't be tolerated in mainstream western politics or media.

A first practical, mundane problem that we have neglected is population. One of the greatest challenges posed to the Jewish people by reality is our tiny size. Grandiose visions of Greater Israel and Messianic prophecies are confronted by this reality at every turn. We can't do much without people. It won't help to bemoan the high birthrate of our neighbors either, because we do not control that. We must tailor our goals to our real place in the world, and we must never internalize the anti-Semitic myth of the all powerful Jewish conspiracy. At the same time, we must do everything in our power to avoid physical extinction by the facts of demography.

To put it simply, we have to have more Jews, many more Jews. We have to bring more of them to Israel and we have to ensure their safety. We aren't doing too well in achieving those goals. Recently a great stir was created when it was found that perhaps, by juggling the figures, it could be shown that there are 6 million or so Jews in the United States, rather than about 5 million as previously thought.

So to follow up on a point Gamblor made earlier about the omission of language in support of Jeruselem from the Democrats platform, it appears that this "oversight" has now been corrected at the DNC, although not without vocal complaints and some controversy over process:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americ...331231439.html

No, the problem is repeating the same tired accusations, of "stealing land", of "Brooklyn Jews" "kicking out" Arabs.

Here's an exercise: Prosecute Israel for the crime of apartheid. Instead of simply assuming, or listening to people that you want to agree with, prosecute it as if you were a lawyer. That means establishing the law ie. a definition of apartheid. Then, with primary sources (not appeals to selected authority you like), make a case. A primary source is not the word of Marwan Barghouti or Edward Said. A primary source is a law. A Police directive. Something that shows both the actus reus (action) and mens rea (intention) of apartheid.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove the crime, not the defendant. At least, thats how it works outside Iran.

George Bush is never going to prosecuted in any court of law for being a war criminal. That does not mean, however, that he is absolved of all responsibility nor that it may not be appropriate to refer, colloquially, to the actions he presided over as war crimes.

Actually, yes, it is. We're not talking about actually going to court here. I only asked him to pretend this is a court to make his argument that Israel practices apartheid.

Not that people such as Bill Haywood will ever stop using rhetoric and propaganda to further their political goals, but it is absolutely inappropriate to assert a crime has been committed when he fails to even present an appropriate, legislated definition of the crime (i.e. what I posted earlier itt, not something he made up like "different laws for different people"), he fails to present primary-sourced proof of the crime (i.e. not random assertions about water or whatever he happens to say is the "essence" of a crime), and relies entirely on the opinions of so-called "pundits" and "experts" who are neither impartial nor expert. Without a legislated definition, interpretation, and proper factual analysis, guilt is arbitrary depending on the political goals of the accuser - which is exactly what I am saying his argument is, and is exactly how things work in places like Iran, the rest of the middle east, and in basically the entire undeveloped world.

This is why i call him a hater. He (and his "kind") starts from the conclusion that the crime has been committed and works backwards - blaming every event, incident, conflict, disagreement, stalling of the peace process on the criminal as if the assumed crime was some original sin. He views every superficial resemblance to apartheid as proof of the already assumed fact, without having actually proved the law, act, and intention to commit the crime.

So a discrepancy in water usage, instead of being the result of a million other possibilities like technological differences, or maybe even simply that Arab demand for water is lower due to lifestyle (not saying this is the case), becomes proof of apartheid (without even providing an accepted definition of what that is!). An IDF checkpoint, instead of being a security measure with minimal impairment on the rights of Palestinians (i.e. compared to curfews and lockdowns), becomes proof of apartheid. And a mutual agreement (i.e. Oslo) to divide land and sovereignty pending a final agreement suddenly become bantustans. Again, superficial similarities become ex-post proof positive of the crime.

Except even if Bush or Israel were tried, courts don't work that way. The prosecution must first establish the law by showing where it is written or precedent. It must then show that the actual fact - i.e. not the "essence" or some nonsense like that - supports violation of the law. Finally, it must show that the person either intended to commit the crime, or (in special cases, like murder) acted in full knowledge that the crime would necessarily be committed as a result of his actions (say, if he turned on the gas in his victim's house and then left and waited, which is not "directly" killing him).

That's the way accusations work in a court. And if we are going to have a fair trial of Israel, that's the way they work here.

Unless, of course, we don't want a fair trial and just want to hate on Israel.

Israel doesn't ban the niqab/hijab, provides funding for Arab islamic religious education, and grants autonomy. Its already more multicultural and tolerant of Muslims than most of Europe.

It's admittedly a tension based on the need to protect Jews from the discrimination they have faced non-stop since the time of the Romans, and the need to be respectful of multiculturalism. It's a tension. It's not perfect, it doesn't need to be. It only needs to be reasonable, and it has far surpassed that standard.

So can you elaborate on why bill is just a hater, but that I am a blind seething hater? Since you refuse to retract and apologize for this statement, perhaps you can give the same kind of elaborate post going over past claims I have made (almost none in this thread) that show I am this blind seething hater you accuse me of.

i have already told you that im not interested in this.

i apologized for initial confusion, and the substantial majority of posts youve directed at me since then have been either to delegitimize the official israeli government position, or more frequently, any post i have made. so its either me or israel, which is all i ever said. Here's what happened, again, for posterity:

I posted an article that showed Israelis and Palestinians, both living in the territories, working together to bring happiness to Arabs in the territories.

You flipped out and accused me of posting solely to show how great settlers were (in fact, my motivation was to show that there is cooperation and good work happening), and that accusation was solely to either discredit my post or to discredit settlers.

This was my response:

In both cases I gave you an out. In the first, I provided the alternative that you dont actually hate Israel and instead just hate me (reasonable, considering your unyielding dismissal of basically anything I write in this thread on the basis that I am just "hyperpartisan", apparently). In the second, I limited the scope to the possibility that you just hate israeli jews (i.e. the ones referred to in the article that you dismissed), not all jews; alternatively, I considered that you're just an idiot - an increasingly likely answer given this how this argument has progressed, but that's not my business.

In neither case did I accuse you of being anti-semitic, and I never came close.

im not addressing this again. this is already ridiculous and ignores the real question, which is why it is tolerable that the apartheid myth gets repeated over and over without Bill Haywood being called on to prove it with actual logic and analysis.

OH thank you! Thank you for giving me an out. I might not have a blind seething hatred for Israel after all, I might just have a blind seething hatred of you. Or I might just be a blithering idiot not a blind seething hater! Oh thank goodness you did not come anywhere close at all to implying I was the slightest bit anti-Semitic, how could ANYONE get such a horrible wrong idea when you said I had a blind seething hatred of Israel or you.

Btw, in your digging back through the quotes you forgot to quote your inane strawman of JUST the one side that accompanied your posting of the article and makes your claims it was all about the cooperation seem gratingly disingenuous. But no matter, how any of this gets you to blind seething hatred I have zero idea even if we interpret everything in the best possible light for you.

At the very, very least, can you admit that calling someone a blind seething hater of Israel (or your "out") could very easily be considered to be a claim of anti-semitism? Just the same way that saying you have a blind seething hatred of Palestinian Arabs could very easily be consided as a claim of racism? Of course the statement is completely ridiculous and inappropriate which ever way you meant it and you should surely retract it and apologize, but you refuse.

You should be embarrassed.

Btw, I don't have a problem with people trolling on the Internet. You want to go around implying horrible things about me, go right ahead. If in the heat of debate you drop out a few blind seething haters well great. However, if you want to be taken seriously, if you want to pretend to be anything but a...uh....blind, seething hater yourself, then when it is pointed out that you said this egregiously and ridiculous things you should man the **** up and retract them.

However you have not done this. You have repeatedly doubled down, and refuse to acknowledge that your statement was even the slightest bit ridiculous, even the slightest bit insinuating truly horrible things on a sensitive topic that the rest of us are try to address seriously.

I'm sure you are not suggesting that diaspora Jews cannot emigrate to Israel. And I know you do not support the right of return for Palestinians who hold deeds to land they are barred from returning to.

So there are no issues of fact in dispute. You just do not want to call it apartheid and instead want to bury the discussion in legalistic sophistry.

Israeli law allows diaspora Jews to live in homes that Palestinians are barred from returning to. That's a fact and that's apartheid. A word does not require a legal ruling to be a word, except in Gamblor world.

Gamblor always does this to excuse indefensible Israeli policies. It's very ostrich-like.

"The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. Israel has also been accused of committing the crime of apartheid. Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including Jewish-only settlements, separate roads, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law."

[wiki]

So Bill Haywood feels the written, ascertainable law is not important. Got it.

Again, the entire argument is based on unsubstantiated assertions of fact, a complete disrespect for the rule of law, and he-said she-said. If Jimmy Carter says it, it must be true! I don't even have to think for myself anymore! he's an ostrich! Israel policies (whatever they are, I can't be bothered with that detail) are indefensible (because I don't like them!)

"Israel doesn't allow Palestinians to return to their homes" is not a fact; Its a conclusion.

Show me a law that says "Palestinians may not return to their homes."

Show me a law that says "Arabs do not have civil rights"

Show me the actual policies. Written down as law.

Facts don't matter when we have emotion and rhetoric! Not allowing a foreigner to move into a house he vacated 60+ years ago? Apartheid! Setting up a roadblock to stop violent murderers? Apartheid! Preferential immigration for members of a national group? Apartheid! Everything is apartheid!

You can't even give me a definition of apartheid. You can't even give me a fact.

To you, none of that is even required, when you can just accuse me of "legal sophistry" when I demand adherence to the rule of law. You simply make up the law as you go to fit whatever Israel does. You determine policies by superficial and assumed ancillary effects, not their substance. You make up that Israel segregates citizens by race, in the most desperate attempt to paint Israel as some sort of force of evil. You pick and choose whose arguments to believe based on what you want to believe. Justice Goldstone was a saint when he criticized the Gaza war, and the devil when he said Israel is not an apartheid state. You simply hope that by repeating it enough, people will just believe it.

And worst of all, you claim to do so from some moral pedestal. That's the sick, twisted joke. Your arguments are the antithesis human rights, civil rights, and justice.

The rule of law requires more than witch hunts and accusations that don't require any proof. It requires more than superficial similarities to something make it substantially the same thing.

If we can just make apartheid mean any policy that has a remotely ethnic-based effect, well what about Puerto Rico? The only latino majority state does not have full states' rights. The United States is an apartheid country! Falklands? Apartheid. Your governments are evil and corrupt and blah blah blah.

Here's the facts:

Israel is not an apartheid state. It bears only the most superficial similarities, but none of the substantial, fundamentals that are consistent with the crime of apartheid.

Anyone who does think that its an apartheid state is on a witch hunt to achieve political goals, has no respect or understanding of the rule of law, simply doesn't know the facts, or at best.

Ladies and gentlemen, for posterity, the logic of the haters. They are not intelligent or knowledgeable, they are not moral. They know nothing about the dynamic, the attitudes, and the relationship between Jews and Arabs there.

They are simply haters.

G. I'm concerned you may blow a blood vessel in your other eye. Hence forth, I will write your responses for you.

To be honest,I'm really curious if you really believe what you wrote.

I am sure he does. Remember, he had the audacity to say I was a blind seething hater when I thought this quote of his was ridiculous.