"NEW: Questions As Weapons" by Charles Jacobs unmasks a little-noted rhetorical strategy often employed by the jihadists and their allies:
"Why did you kill your grandmother?” That’s what Professor Ruth Wisse said to an Arab student at Stanford who asked her, “Why is Israel an apartheid state?”The student was flummoxed and tried again, “Why is Israel an apartheid state?” Wisse again responded, “Come on now, tell us why you killed your grandmother.” A few more rounds of this and the student relented.
According to the Chabad Rabbi who invited Harvard’s Wisse to speak, Wisse then explained how some questions are not questions at all, but weapons: If she would have answered his anti-Israel accusation, she would have been trapped, and done damage to her cause.
Her “grandmother” riposte was the perfect demonstration of that point:
Having to explain why you’re not guilty as charged is a losing proposition.
Yet Jews have allowed themselves to be trapped in a meta-discourse that continuously takes the form: “Israel is bad.” “No it’s not.” Or “It’s not as bad as you say.”
Indeed, much of the history of hasbara – Israeli PR – has been defense against slanderous accusations. The classic handy reference book many students use, “Myths and Facts,” a tome fat with expanded revisions to include the evolving set of lies and half-truths hurled at the Jewish state by Arabist propaganda. The formula of the book, which is the formula for much of hasbara training, is to set out the “myth” and then answer it with the true “facts.”
Sometimes the “factual” response shows how Israeli conduct is exemplary:
“Israel is an apartheid state?” “No,” reads the formula. “Apartheid is something very different and cannot be applied to the condition of Palestinians in Israel, who are in fact treated in many ways better than they are in Arab countries.” Etc.
But even this – “We are much better than you say” doesn¹t work, because as long as the discourse focuses on Israeli behavior, we lose.
What to do? Once armed with the realization that the anti-Israel formula accuses Israel of exactly those crimes the Arab/Muslim world has committed, we can work our way out of the corner:“You say the Jews are guilty of oppression, apartheid, discrimination, expansion by land theft? Not true. What is true is that the Arab world is guilty of every one of these things.”
Here’s an enhanced “Myths, Facts, and Big Picture” approach:
The Lie: Israel is an apartheid state.
The Truth: That’s ridiculous. (See Myths and Facts on why.)
Transition: But I’m glad you brought up apartheid. Christians are fleeing Palestinian-controlled areas due to Muslim violence. Violence against women, especially “honor killings” where male relatives kill females for “improper” sexual relations, are common in Palestinian territories and throughout the Muslim world. Jews are not even permitted to set foot in Saudi Arabia.
The Big Picture: Something similar to apartheid is found in the Arab world, where women and children, gays and lesbians, and Christians and Jews, are controlled, expelled, tormented and killed. That’s what we should be protesting.
The Lie: Islam is a peaceful and tolerant Religion.....
Exactly. Others term this rhetorical tactic "the complex question" -- famous example, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Either way you answer the question, you're condemning yourself. Such "questions" should not be answered (or they should be acknowledged as illegitimate questions).
U. K. Government: Islamic Propaganda.
Statements [1] and [2] are taken from a U. K. Government document - "How journalists can contribute to community cohesion".
Section [1] basically advises journalists that any one who opposes Islamic extremists should be portrayed by the media as racist and accused of hiding behind a cloak of respectability while Section [2] advises journalists to conceal the statements and actions of Islamic extremists from the public.
The document also contains threats of criminal prosecution in the event of a media group or journalist that has been deemed not to have acted in the interests of "community cohesion".
“A journalist will be guilty of an offence if he or she intends to stir up racial hatred or, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up by what is published.”
U. K. Government: Islamic Propaganda.
[1] Expose and counter racist propaganda. Bigots who hide behind a cloak of respectability can be the most damaging. Make sure they are always drawn into the open and their words never go unchallenged.
[2] Take care in reporting extremists. Generally quote people who are representative. Be wary of those with views that might make good copy but to most people seem extreme. Though it is sometimes essential to quote such extremists, be sure to place their views in the context of the numbers they might represent. Be aware of creating negative images. Minorities carry the burden of being different. Don’t make them synonymous with the things that worry everyone, like terrorism, subjugation of women, forced marriage, illegal immigration, fraudulent benefits claims and cruel animal slaughter. Few are.
http://4symbols.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C97D2C379282BFB3!772.entry
re last post
PS there is a link to the complete pdf document.
Thinking about it myself, an approach like, "You've got the countries reversed - it's the PA/Iran/Saudi Arabia/Egypt/Pakistan... that follows a policy of discrimination that dwarfs anything that was practiced by the former Pretoria regime." That's a partial turn-around, but how would one keep the conversation focussed on the ummah, and keep Israel, or for that matter other infidel countries, from becoming the (distracting) subject of the conversation?
From the TurnSpeak we endure to the ReTurnSpeak we're not allowed to practice in public.
Has Chabad Rabbi since been terminated from Stanford for having the gall to invite Prof. Ruth Wisse to give a guest lecture on how eager young students can pursue the Truth?
I would think so. Pssst, President Hennessy, Mike Nifong, Esq. just came available to file complaints. I hear he's very aggressive.
Don't give an inch, don't implicitly accept the tendentious lexicon that is deliberately inflicted upon you. When someone refers airily to a non-existent state called "Palestine" do not ignore it but go out of your way to make sure you are both talking about "historic Palestine," that is to say, "Israel." Avoiding the term "West Bank" is harder, and one feels self-conscious about using the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" but if you remain calm and sure of yourself, and note that if the toponym "Gaza" is to be employed, then why not the terms of equal age, "Judea" and "Samaria" -- for they are all in the Bible, all were used by, inter alios, Jesus, and of course by everyone in the Western world until the Jordanian Arabs came along in 1948 and concocted this absurd "West Bank."
Above all, never accept nor use the designation, by local Arabs, of the term "Palestinian." Whenever you are introduced to someone who, you are told, by the person introducing you, or by the person to whom you are being introduced, that "so-and-so is a 'Palestinian'" then ask, just as sweetly as you can, if you are a woman in the voice of an antebellum Southern belle, and if a man, then with the earnest curiosity of, say, Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith Going to Washington, and if younger, in the spirit of Youth Wants to Know, and in reply to the information that someone is a "Palestinian," ignore that, ask "so are you a Muslim Arab or a Christian Arab" which will already disingenuously set your interlocutor's teeth on edge, and go from there.
Don't give an inch, anytime or anywhere, on this matter of words, because words matter.
J.S., "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" isn't a good example, because it has relevance to any Muslim who adheres to Koranic advice on marital life. "My wife? Which one of them?" ;-)
But seriously... it's about time. When I set up my blog during the Lebanon War last summer, I knew there were already many fact-correcters, far better than me; though I do post refutations of factual errors on occasion, my approach is more one of striking at the ideological roots of this conflict. For example, to "Israel is stealing Palestinian land", my answer is, "Israel is stealing nothing - you can steal what belongs to you; and the Palestinians are not a real nation at all, they're a fraud cooked up recently in order to frame the Islamic jihad against Israel as a nationalistic struggle".
"Palestinians, Palestinians, Palestinians..." But there's a "Palestinian"-type problem in Kashmir, in the south of Thailand and now even in London, Paris and Oslo. Wrap it all up under a Grand Unified Theory fitting the facts: Islamic imperialism!
"The Big Picture: Something similar to apartheid is found in the Arab world, where women and children, gays and lesbians, and Christians and Jews, are controlled, expelled, tormented and killed. That’s what we should be protesting."
Correct. I will say it again the way to attack is by turning the argument back on them. If someone from their side calls you Islamophobic call them sexist. After they get over their shock then explain why?
Two can play the game becuase Islamic Nations and groups have so many gaping holes you can drive a truck through it.
Remember we are not pro-Israel or Islamophobic....we are women's rights or freedom of speech activists.
We are freedom fighters! Fighting to save non-muslims all over the world from muslim violance. We morn for our Thailand and Indian non-muslim brothers and sisters who suffer Jihadi violance.
Save the non-muslims!!!!!
:)
"can steal" -> "can't steal" on my comment above. Preview is my friend...
jw GUYS
OT here but
I dont know if you have been keeping up with the Russian radioactive poisoning case of a Mr Litvinenko
but this blog
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3266
has shown that the police now Know that this crazy Rusco was actually SMUGGLING the stuff into London.
and so:
"
Alexander Litvinenko had close links to Chechen fundamentalists. A year or so before his death he converted to Islam. The ‘poisoning’ theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real story."
With his Islamic connections the real story here is "where is the radioactive material now?.
Just who has it ?
and are the police on its trail?
The premise to this entire article is moronic: if you don't like the question, just don't respond. There is a such thing as truth and dialogue, and if Israelis aren't comfortable with defending their actions, maybe it's because there is really something to be uncomfortable about.
I have been to Israel, and I can say as a Christian that it does fall under the definition of an apartheit state. Non-Jews have different rights (or lack thereof) than Jews. A friend of mine who is an Israeli citizen but Palestinian Christian has recently been told the government is taking away his citizenship because he has been living in the US (outside Israel) for the past 5 years...even though he pays his taxes to Israel yearly, has served in the military and was born in Jerusalem. Jews do not have to go through this, so Israel does indeed practice apartheit.
Seen on the site
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1045
As Voegelin noted, nothing works with ideologues (in our case, Muslims and their PC apologists) if you don't also have an encyclopedic possession of all the pertinent facts at your fingertips. For most of us, this is simply not possible for the complex problem of the Islamic-Israeli conflict which amounts to thousands of discrete facts and the necessity to remember their interlocking connections, let alone are most of us brilliant enough to marshall the necessary mountain of facts for all the other problems of Islam.
If I were to try to have an argument with a typical Muslim or PC apologist and hope to win at the end of a hundred different meandering threads of legitimate derivations coupled with dancing, distractions and rerouting and pulling back from dancing and distractions, I would have to have a thousand index cards at hand, or a multiplex Power Point presentation at the ready, or a team of on-call Googlers as my staff -- since I am not a genius with a photographic memory.
And as Voegelin experienced often, even having an encyclopedic possession of the facts at your fingertips (which he always did, being a genius with a photographic memory) in face-to-face encounters does not guarantee that you will win: more often than not, Voegelin's command of the facts proved ineffective to pierce the tegument of his interlocutor's doxic ideology, and at that point Voegelin would just fall silent and refuse to attempt debate any further.
Another way of stating this is that apologetics (for Christianity, western civilization, whatever) is only to be invoked for people seeking honest answers. Its time for those in the path of the Islamists to stop acting like the deer in the headlights, and turn the highbeams on the enemy's own unsustainable position(s).
Clive, excellent point. 100% agreed. Rather than taking some parlor-trick tactic of responding with an inane question as this article suggests, we should approach the response head-on, armed with facts and NOT play into emotions from either side. And from the responses and dialogue we can usually tell very quickly if the other side is truly willing to seek information or "honest answers" as you put it.
If a policeman asks us "Why were you speeding?" and we respond "Why did you hammer the duckling?" the outcome would be neither effective nor appropriate to the situation.
Why did you kill your grandmother?” “Why is Israel an apartheid state?”
These are, of course, questions that presuppose the truth-fact of a conclusion buried in the question. It is a clever tactic. It's like asking: Why is Soviet Communism so more benign than capitalism? Or... Are you still beating your wife?
These are trickster questions because once they are answered the validity of the premise is subtly acknowledged by the person tricked into answering the question as if the premise is valid. Professor Ruth Wisse ignores the false premise of the question (“Why is Israel an apartheid state?”) and unmasks the trick nature of the question by asking: Why did you kill your grandmother? Very good.
(I think: Are you still beating your wife? is a good question to ask a Muslim who asks such a trick question. But if Professor Wisse asked that question the CAIR decievers would have accused her of "Islamaphobia".)
QR.
It is an old police trick to ask, "Do you know how fast you were going?" and have the chump confess to speeding just a little. The police do this because they don't know, have no proof, and are hoping you confess.
I guarantee you if you respond with, "Why did you hammer the duck?" you won't be getting a speeding ticket.
OT God bless the Pres and the VP. As long the Islamofascists hate them, I love them.
I also think that at a certain point (as remote_control points out), you just can't waste your time with die-hard ideologues. Usually you can tell if a person is genuinely puzzled, curious and is looking for information -- vs the one who's hostile and out to cast an aspersion, but cloaked as a "question." (reminds me of the passover questions/answers).
On a different note, about that policeman asking how fast you were going. Someone in N.York was recently (ahem!) going slightly over the limit, got pulled over. State trooper asks, "Do you know how fast you were going?" Reply (realizing that honesty is the best response), "Yeah, I guess it was 150." The State trooper, stunned, yells "What?!! A 150?!!" Speedster replies: "Hey, I'm Canadian, I was talking kilometers!!"
Jaime
'cho gusto : )
God bless all people of good will. And God bless the president of the US.
"Islamofascism/fascists" is really an inane term unfortunately invented by this current administration in order to be able to say "Islam is a religion of peace" to the public while denouncing terrorism on the other. Islam is Islam. There is no such thing as Islamofascism. True Islam is totalitarian in nature as true "good" Muslims aspire to bring about the Khalifia (Caliphate) which will rule the world under the Shari'a. Any Muslim who does not aspire to this is simply not a true/good Muslim.
The conclusion buried in the question “Why is Israel an apartheid state?” also hides the premise that Israel is a racist state. The question is at its core deceptive.
In normal conversation folks don't generally engage in this kind of trickery at the dinner table. But in politics, it is often standard operating procedure. Politicians often subtly make assertions re people who oppose their point of view by using words that imply ("Fairness Doctrine", "choice", "Islamophobia" etc.)some narrowness and bigotry on the part of a person presenting facts which contradict or question their positions on an issue. It's a diversion tactic away from the logic of the argument. It is a subtle appeal to emotion.
Good logicians know how to get at the truth and also how to hide it. However, the tricksters generally don't like debate with folks who have the facts. Even clever-logician tricksters are often unmaked when some ordinary guy has the facts on his side.
Frank, good points. Rather than asking, "Why is Israel an apartheit state?" which is clearly playing to emotions, it would be better to ask, "Given the fact that Israel has separate laws for Jews and non-Jews, is it not a logical assessment to classify Israel as an apartheit state?" This shows fact and conclusion based upon that reasoning.
I'm not a fan of conversational trickery and games of evasion. So, if someone were to try that "why did you smother your mongoose?" tactic with me, I would take is as a clear sign that this person is masking the fact that they either do not have the answer to my question, or DO have the answer, but it is infact unpalatable.
Frank,
Yes, the deceit is there. I was also going to briefly mention another problem -- if someone claims "Israel is an apartheid state" -- this also trivializes what took place in South Africa. Sometimes, I think the best response would be to force a person to read a real history book on Apartheid South Africa. Familiarize yourself with that era. That alone (if you're honest) should do the trick and forever dispel any notion that Israel comes close to "racism" on a South African level.
But, of course, this requires actual study; a commitment and a discipline in terms of time and effort. Ditto for logic...that's why I believe Arabs use rhetorical tricks and deceit over and over and over again -- it's sooo easy, it's sooo un-thinking, but, hey, it "feels good." (perhaps also why today's youth seems to be so easily deceived (?)).
There's another thing -- just the other day -- really made me angry -- that was about Saddam's hanging. It was on CNN. (I've got to find the transcript). Anyway, they falsified history...they made it prettier, and Saddam less evil. It was about the day Saddam took over -- remember that? It's been recounted countless times (how he coolly and maliciously pointed out people to be led away and SHOT -- and f00000g CNN -- what did they claim? O! No! they weren't led away and shot...they were later tried and executed. Lying bastards at the CNN. That so minimizes and misses the point of how Saddam attained his power -- it was through the use of terrorism. Terrorism -- yes, dang it -- that's how he attained his power. One account alleges that people were so shaken by this event (seeing their buddies led away, and HEARING THEM SHOT), that they were screaming out their undying loyalty to Saddam over, hysterically. Now how do you get that -- except through TERRORISM. And that's what Saddam excelled at -- and for CNN and other MSM to Miss this?? Yah! like it's an accident. I think it's to minimize the brutality of these dictators (just what CNN also does regarding Fidel Castro -- same crap... same minimizing, lying appeasement.)
Maybe grandmother left the house without her burqa and a male escort. Maybe she deserved it.
Minorities carry the burden of being different. Don’t make them synonymous with the things that worry everyone, like terrorism, subjugation of women, forced marriage, illegal immigration, fraudulent benefits claims and cruel animal slaughter. Few are.
http://4symbols.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C97D2C379282BFB3!772.entry
Posted by: DP111
reading this hair-raising stuff:
Is George Orwell still alive?
Islam knows apartheid quite well-it imposes it on all infidels living in the beloved ummah even more forcefully than white South Africans could have ever dreamed about.
Good application of Aikido with that example.
OT God bless the Pres and the VP. As long the Islamofascists hate them, I love them.
Posted by: JaimeZepeda
You are a delusional fool. They hate all of us. They just engage us differently. They PAY the Pres and the VP. They play the "white colonialist guilt" card with the Libs. It's called playing both ends against the Middle.
The Middle is US.
We, the Middle are bereft of both adequate voice and representation.
Ergo democracy as we presently experience it is a sham.
Human weakness exploited by the jihadists. Democracy at this time is ill-equipped to withstand the presnt threat.
We can call this the second Weimar Republic.
The Nzis marched all over Germany proclaiming their intent to remove domocracy and establish a totalitarian state.
The parallels are becoming increasingly obvious.
Problem is: What do we do now?
PS. UN = League of Nations
J.S. Wrote "if someone claims "Israel is an apartheid state" -- this also trivializes what took place in South Africa.
Actually, it doesn't. The dictionary definition of Apartheid is any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc." As I said before, BY DEFINITION, Israel is an apartheid state, whether you care to acknowledge this or not. OF COURSE the South African model was more cruel, blatant and strict. And it is a FACT that the same apartheid system exists in MUSLIM countries as well. But your argument is like saying "acknowledging the Armenian holocaust trivializes what took place during the Jewish Holocaust".
Qualis Rex,
No, it's not about not liking the question. It's about a world that takes every apology from Israel as admission of the rightness of its being wiped off the map (G-d forbid). For any other state and nation, apologizing would be almost cost-free; for Israel and the Jews, apologizing carries a death-sentence with it. This isn't paranoia, we know this from experience. So, owing to the lack of charity of the world toward us, we have decided to adopt a policy of not apologizing.
Qualis Rex,
There is no doubt that Israel discriminates against non-Jews. What must be judged and criticized is the nature of that double-standard. Discriminating against one's enemies is justified and moral. That Muslims wish to destroy Jews means that Israel has a right to deny them rights.
However, Israel should be loudly criticized for not distinguishing between Muslims and Christians. Unlike the Muslims, but like the the Jews, the Palestinian Christians are indigenous to the land. In fact most Palestinian Christians descend from those Jews who converted to Christianity at the time of the apostles.
A second legitimate criticism is practical. By simply lumping all the Christian Palestinians in with the Muslims as if they were all just "Arabs" the Israelis forced the Christians to accept this false self-identification. This was foolish. Why take a potential ally and turn them into an enemy? Also, unlike Muslims, Jews and Christians share a common moral and ethical base.
That is why Israel must change her policies toward the Palestinian Christians: for moral reasons as well as for her own security. Apartheid is simply not the issue. It is survival! What happens to Christians today will happen to Jews tommorow. Israel must end all discrimination against indigenous Christians and recognize them as a separate community from the Muslims. Only then can both Jews and Christians have security in the land of their origins.
Qualis Rex:
Please cite me the laws that Israel has that establish it as an apartheid state -- one that forces separation based on ethnicity or religion.
Such separation as it exists is not a question of ethnicity or faith, but on the physical security of its citizens based on decades of savage, homicidal attacks and also based on a decision on the part of some of its Arab citizens not to integrate.
And then there's the tissue of lies propagated by Arabists in academe and such organizations as the PSM/ISM and other supposed NGOs and reiterated by the media.
And here's something else for you and other Carterites to ponder. Unfortunately, I don't have the cites/source, but a recent poll of Israel's Arab citizens conducted by an Arab think tank found that a large majority were more than happy with their status of citizens of Israel and acknowledged that they cannot state their views publicly for obvious reasons. I would further point out that a the Christian populations fleeing the PA territories are taking up residence in Israel as do Arab homosexuals, from both the PA areas and other Muslim countries. Could these folks all be useful idiots for the "Zionist entity" or could it be that Israeli society in reality isn't quite what its detractors like to paint it as being?
The idea that Israel is a racist, apartheid state along the lines of South Africa, with its highly restrictive laws that prohibited mixed marriages and consigned persons of certain "races" to living in certain areas and barring them from attending certain schools is a complete and utter lie.
Proslovani:
I think Brigitte Gabriel would beg to differ with you must a little on how badly Israel treats non-Jews, and would do so from first hand experience during the Lebanese civil war of the 70s-80s and as a journalist covering the region from inside and outside of Israel.
If relations between Israel and "Arab Christians" have been sullied by anything, I would suggest it is less a function of bigotry on the part of Israelis and more on the part of such leading lights of the Christian community including Hanan Ashrawi, the late Ed Said, Naim Attick, Michael Saba, the head of the Greek Orthodox church whose name escapes me at the moment, George Habash of ISM/PSM fame, and, of course, the convert to Islam and French fashion-hound Suha Arafat.
Qualis Rex,
Hey, MORON. Quess what? by your own so-called "definition" -- using a dictionary are you? As i laugh. The Vatican is an apartheid state -- hate to break it to you! Yeah, let's dismantle the Vatican, since it's such a racist state!
Provoslavni wrote: However, Israel should be loudly criticized for not distinguishing between Muslims and Christians.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Waterdragon52 wrote: "The idea that Israel is a racist, apartheid state along the lines of South Africa, with its highly restrictive laws that prohibited mixed marriages and consigned persons of certain "races" to living in certain areas and barring them from attending certain schools is a complete and utter lie."
This is what is called a "strawman argument", since pretty much everyone here (myself included) stated clearly that Israel is by no degree close to the magnitude of South Africa's apartheid system. So, you are simply bellowing a lot of hot-air. I already stated one example of Israeli citizenship laws (Arabs, Christian or Muslim can have theirs stripped from them if living outside Israel for more than 5 years while Jews do not). All lands NOT owned by Jews are on the books as "unredeemed". When citizenship is stripped from a non-Jew, his lands become available (since non-citizens cannot purchase Israeli land) so it can be confiscated and sold to Jews and thus "redeemed". It is also nearly impossible for a Jew to marry a non-Jew or convert from Judaism (the state has to recognize and record such occurances, and there are several cases which are over 10 years old and still have not been resolved). This is all a matter of public record and only requires the smalles amounnt of research.
Qualis Rex, the King of Liars or just a moron?:
Oh, so now you're claiming that you "stated clearly that Israel is by no degree close to the magnitude of South Africa's apartheid system." Well, I don't think so. You wrote previously: "that it [Israel] does fall under the definition of an apartheid state. Non-Jews have different rights (or lack thereof) than Jews."
You know you haven't answered my question. Given your elastic definition (based on a dictionary) of what's required for you to call as state an "apartheid state" -- then, explain to me why the Vatican is not an apartheid state, and why the Vatican (hey, try to live there as a non Catholic, see how far ya get) should not be dismantled. And, if the Vatican doesn't suit you, how about Malta, eh? Why not criticize Malta? Think you can get far as a Muslim living in Malta? yeah, try to go open up a Muslim school in Malta -- i dare you to try it. you'll have your head served on a platter.
Next, there are (believe it or not) different kinds of definitions. And, guess what? You can't just take a definition of a word from a dictionary and then think you can apply it whenever or wherever you choose. Doesn't work that way.
If you use a definition found in a dictionary, this is called a lexical definition. Got that?
If you speak about Apartheid -- what comes to mind for the ordinary citizen? My dictionary reads: "Apartheid: (In the Republic of South Africa) racial segregation and discrimination against Negroes." Ok, got that? Now you might want to s-t-r-e-t-c-h that definition to fit every conceivable instance of any form of separation of peoples based on not only race, but religion, ethnicity, place of birth, etc., etc. But if you are serious about going down this route, then I'd suggest you take a good long look at whatever country you're living in and think about what citizens of your little nation state are entitled to and what non-citizens are entitled to...If you think seriously about this topic, you'll soon discover ALL sorts of (gasp!!) differentiations being made based on such factors as national origins, place of birth, residency, occupations, IQ, gender, you name it-- hey, you'll find it!! But, you know, because Federal Civil Service in Canada requires people to speak French and English, I'm not going to go around and start holler' about the Apartheid State we live in up here in Canada.
Ditto for your stretched definition of "rights." Does your little nation state require separate washroom facilities based on gender, hmmm?? O my g-d, don't tell me -- You're living in an Apartheid STATE, quick call the cops, no, phone the UN!!! Boycott Em!!
Next, there is another kind of definition -- this one's called (I'm sure you must be familiar with this one) -- a stipulative definition. Do you know what a stipulative definition is? Can you guess? Go look it up. No, wait, you won't find it in a dictionary. A stipulative definition is one which makes intentional innovations in meanings. Sounds familiar, eh?
One form of a stipulative definition is the persuasive definition. As a logic text notes, "The idea is to redefine a word that has strong emotional associations, either positive or negative, so that these associations are transferred to the objects or conditions mentioned." And, this is precisely what YOU are doing when you attempt to smear Israel as an "apartheid" state. Which makes you just another Carter. And, if you want to know what I think about JimBoy, you can read my other posts.
J.S.-
The premise that Israel is an apartheid state because it is a Jewish State is absurd. The roughly 50% of the Jewish people in Israel whose ancestors came from Mideast countries lived in apartheid states in the Mideast that set Jews apart. That's one of the reasons for the existence of the Jewish state. Jews don't want to live in an apartheid state.
Racism is the assertion that one group is superior to another by reason of ethnicity and the Jewish state was in part set up to reject that from Arabs or anyone else. Jews want to live in a Jewish state, not as they did in Arab countries: that's why so many fled to Israel from Arab countries.
(As we know, Saudi Arabia is a good example of an apartheid state. Filipinos etc. who have worked there know that.)
Frank,
Indeed...You know what also bothers me -- these people become ever so finicky, ever so particular, and ever so picky with respect to laws in Israel -- but what doesn't seem to bother them in the least is whenever Muslim suicide bombers blow themselves up -- where are they then? They're suddenly silent.
If they were such grand humanitarians, as they seem to wish to present themselves as -- O so anxious to defend what they claim are "human rights" -- then why don't they take issue with mass murderers and people who are advocating genocide (such as the prez of Iran)?
It's this whole FAKE veneer of "righteousness" -- it turns my stomach. They make mountains out of mole hills ("Israel is an apartheid state!!")-- while simultaneously ignoring (or minimizing) everything truly vicious and awful (such as Islamists sawing off the heads of infidels). Their "vision" is so horridly flawed, so messed up.
Re the "Myths and Facts" book cited in the article, here is the link for the online book.
waterdragon52,
Re-read what I wrote. Israel's mistake was a failure to distinguish, i.e "discriminate" between Christians and Muslims. In fact, the Israeli authorities often favoured the poor uneducated Muslims over the Christian middle class because they thought the Muslims would be easy to control. How wrong they were!
Anyway, As wrong as apartheid was, under the Boer government, Blacks in South Africa had a higher standard of living than blacks in every independent state in the rest of Africa. Since the fall of apartheid, the standard of living of all South Africans has fallen over 30% and the crime rate is out of control. Does this mean I support apartheid? Of course not! But facts are facts.
Yes Israel should change its policies toward the Christian Palestinians. Not simply because it's right, but also out of self-interest. A Christian Palestinian state on the "West Bank" will be a peaceful ally with Israel. A Muslim state never will be. Therefore, I favour a three-state solution. A Jewish Israel federated with a Christian Palestine in Judea, Samaria and Nazareth, while the Muslims, who are not real Palestinians anyway, would be humanely transfered to their own state of Jordan.
J.S.
They are not interested in the truth. Hypocrisy-deception (and self-deception) is the name of the game with them. It's politics.
Gandhi once said that there are "truth seekers or power seekers". They are not interested in any truth that will prove their premise wrong. In fact, they would probably like to wipe you from the face of he earth if you proved them wrong. (It's about domination-not about truth.) The Jewish state exists (50% of the Jews in Israel are descendants of Jews from the Mideast) partly because of Arab apartheid.
Why do they pretend that the Jews of Israel are there entirely because of the holocaust? Why did the psychotic-in-Iran not mention the Jews in Israel that are from the Mideast in his attack on Israel's right to exist? We know why.
It's about power. "Islam must dominate" as per the perfect man and the perfect nut in Iran.
Frank,
Again, I agree with the power and domination thing going on with Islam. I think it was yesterday (or the day before) when I read an article (the "news" section) of the paper in which the Islamic Congress -- the largest Muslim group here in Canada -- their leader declared that Muslims would not be voting for the Conservative Party of Canada. It was worded as a threat. It was words spoken by a bully -- the threat was that because the Conservatives support Israel, therefore they won't vote Conservative. This is what happens when you get too many Muslims into Canada -- they think of themselves as a single voter bloc (voting the way the Imam tells them to), and then they think they can threaten politicians. And will Canadians stand up to this bullying threat? I really don't think Canadians have the guts (I think Americans would be outraged and offended, but not Canadians...maybe one or two Canadians, but most will, I believe, be frightened into submission -- "yeah, yeah, we'll stop supporting Israel!" -- which, of course, the Muslims realize and will take advantage of...but the concessions won't stop with Israel...and, speaking of concessions, Arar was awarded 10 million dollars today...)
Since this whole thread began with a question, I have a question for Muslims: Why did the Jews of the Mideast flee to Israel? (Try not to divert the issue to the Holocaust. Only speak of the Jews in Israel who fled to Israel from other Mideast countries.) Why did the Jews from the Mideast flee to Israel?
J.S.-
Times are changing. As more people understand the dishonesty of these morally superior Muslim people, these proponents of "family values", the worse their image gets. The truth tarnishes their image.
Can you imagine Muslims claiming that Islam requires honesty with all people, that it's a religion based on the Golden Rule? ("Islam is a religion based on the Universal practice of the Golden Rule"-LOL) A few years ago, many would have bought such horseshit. Today people would laugh at such preposterous nonsense.
Stay the course. Times are changing and the deceptions are not working anymore.
Bottom Line:
1) It is PC to consider "apartheid" as ipso facto immoral.
2) With the PC premise of #1 firmly ensconced in our sociopolitical lexicon, whenever we use "apartheid" as a label, we obfuscate the legitimacy of that premise, and render all rational distinctions off-limits -- even before we get to the nitty gritty of examining data by which to even try to prove that "Israel is not an 'apartheid' state".
The better tack to take is to proudly declare that Israel is an "apartheid" state, but a good one; and PC be damned. Indeed, it seems that South Africa under its form of "apartheid" was better than South Africa now "liberated" from it.
remote-
If you go that route one might say: "Yes, Israel is an apartheid state as Saudi Arabia is an apartheid state, with Arabs and non-Muslims having citizenship and rights in Israel and non-Arabs and non-Muslims having no rights and no hope of citizenship in Saudi Arabia".
It's all such deceptive crap. Don't these clowns ever get tired of deception?
Hear, Hear, Prof. Wisse! Her work on Yiddish literature remains tops, and now we see she has other talents! May she enjoy a long, healthy, and productive life!
Remote-
The truth is that Israel is a Jewish State as Saudi Arabia is a Muslim state, but Israel is ethnically diverse, whereas Saudi Arabia (the Muslim State) only has Arabs as citizens.
Kepha-
Dittos.
Remote_,
I agree that you can't argue with these people -- I read the other day (on a slightly different issue regarding speaking with racists), that it's basically equivalent to talking about the evils of prostitution to a pimp or talking about the evils of crack cocaine to a drug pusher; pimps and drug pushers will never "get it." It's pretty much useless.
But I would never claim to be "proud" of someone claiming a State is akin to an "apartheid" regime. I would never characterize Israel in such a manner...and even with a country as notorious as Saudi Arabia, I don't think I'd use the term "apartheid" when attacking the Saudis' hideously discriminatory and unfair system (discrinatory in terms not only of gender but freedom of religion, including respect for religions other than Islam, ethnic minorities, etc). It's a term of abuse and doesn't get anyone very far.