Uncognitive said:
Ah, so criticizing your "Israel should have ethnically cleansed the West Bank" and "the entire post-1920 British Mandate Palestine has been 100% Israel since 1948" take on Middle Eastern history is now "slander".
Not necessarily, but the "slander" I was referring to was the use of the term "Apartheid" to demonise Israel.
(Apartheid) can be used to criticize certain actions of the Israeli government
No it's a slander. A new age "acceptable" lefty blood libel. It is only really used to refer to Israel and not any of the other countries in the region who actually DO have apartheid-like characteristics.
Lefties don't brand Iran an apartheid state for their rank persecution of Ahwazi Arabs. But should Israel erect a wall to stop the daily terrorist attacks, then it's "an apartheid wall" (of course, Egypt's wall on the border with Gaza isn't an apartheid wall).
If Turkey & Iraq deny the Kurds a homeland - that's not apartheid, but even though Israel gave the Palestinians Gaza and are negotiating more land, Israel is an apartheid state.
Jordan is built on former British Mandate Palestine. 70% of its citizens are Palestinians, but even though they are ruled over by the foreign, ethic minority Hashemites, that's not apartheid. Israel gives full democratic rights to all its citizens but it's an apartheid state.
Israel has better rights for gay people than the US, it has no death penalty, unlike the US, it has freedom of speech unlike Syria, it allows mixed race marriage and has no segregated "blacks only" type areas, but still it's an apartheid state....if you are a fucking bigot with double standards.
UpTight said:
Forcibly removing people from the regions they've lived on for generations simply due to their ethnic origin is wrong. I can take the next few hours to list every single historical example of this and say I disapprove of them, if you want. Of course, I'm not the one endorsing ethnic cleansing, you are, so it's fucking hilarious for you to hop on your high horse now and make huffy demands of me.
strangely you never mentioned it when I brought it up earlier
sometimes (as with removing the Jews from Gaza) it is a practical necessity. Besides - they are only moving a few miles away. For the sake of peace, I think its a worthwhile sacrifice. The alternative is years more bloodshed.
Ah yes, removing some illegal settlements is exactly the same as your dream of purging Israel of those pesky Arab folks. How silly of me!
So - just to clarify - it would be "ethnic cleansing" if Arabs settlers were removed from land. Even if that land was occupied by the Arabs after Jordan & Egypt forcibly removed the Jews? But it would not be "ethnic cleansing" if Jews were removed from land previously annexed by Egypt and Jordan?
Also - with regard to ethnic cleansing - I'm not sure you appreciate the scale of the geography. Moving from the West Bank to the East Bank would be like moving from New York to New Jersey. Like moving from LA to San Francisco.
...or in many cases, like moving from Brooklyn to Manhattan .
Hardly a huge shift in distance or culture, but for the inconvenience caused the Palestinians would get a homeland and both the Palestinians and the Israelis would get peace, security and sensible lands with natural borders.
Uncognitive
Brooklyn, NY
May 2003
APR 29, 2008 08:21 AM