Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, Moderators, protect
28,059
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,855:
Line 1,855: − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Israel Apartheid slur (view source)
Revision as of 01:54, February 5, 2023
, 01:54, February 5, 2023no edit summary
==Haaretz exposed==
==Haaretz exposed==
Per Haaretz' Amos Shocken (2008), there is no need for there to be any identity between the regime in Israel and the regime in South Africa called by that name. Suffice it to say that the use of the word constitutes, in Schocken's opinion, "an absorbing and understandable media headline in large parts of the world, and is therefore useful for conveying the message."<ref>[https://mafyahu.wordpress.com/2017/04/20/%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A5-2-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%93%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F/ Antisemitism in Haaretz (2): Is it enough to show a "family resemblance" to Der Stürmer ("The Assailant")? of course not].
Per [[Haaretz]]' Amos Shocken (2008), there is no need for there to be any identity between the regime in Israel and the regime in South Africa called by that name. Suffice it to say that the use of the word constitutes, in Schocken's opinion, "an absorbing and understandable media headline in large parts of the world, and is therefore useful for conveying the message."<ref>[https://mafyahu.wordpress.com/2017/04/20/%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A5-2-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%93%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F/ Antisemitism in Haaretz (2): Is it enough to show a "family resemblance" to Der Stürmer ("The Assailant")? of course not].
Apr 20, 2017.<blockquote>And when there were allegations against the generous use of this propaganda term, Schocken had an explanation. Here is an article he published in his newspaper back in July 2008: "Among circles..." That is: to use the insult of "apartheid" against Israel, there is no need for there to be any identity between the regime in Israel and the regime in South Africa called by that name. Suffice it to say that the use of the word constitutes, in Schocken's opinion, "an absorbing and understandable media headline in large parts of the world, and is therefore useful for conveying the message."</blockquote></ref>
Apr 20, 2017.<blockquote>And when there were allegations against the generous use of this propaganda term, Schocken had an explanation. Here is an article he published in his newspaper back in July 2008: "Among circles..." That is: to use the insult of "apartheid" against Israel, there is no need for there to be any identity between the regime in Israel and the regime in South Africa called by that name. Suffice it to say that the use of the word constitutes, in Schocken's opinion, "an absorbing and understandable media headline in large parts of the world, and is therefore useful for conveying the message."</blockquote></ref> He knows there is no “apartheid” there, so he plays around with facts. He explains that it’s a catchy phrase.<ref>[https://www.e-mago.co.il/Editor/actual-2356.htm Haaretz newspaper incites again], Israel Bar-Nir, Maraah Magazine, 07/02/2008.<blockquote><font size=1>
The "Haaretz" newspaper, in its last weekend edition, returned and incited against the State of Israel. An editorial signed by, no less and no more, Amos Shocken, the editor of the newspaper, bears the title Israel the Apartheid[sic] State.
Although this is not new, it is important to emphasize again and again that this title is false and the whole thing is not intended except for the purpose of incitement for its own sake. In choosing the title of the article, Shocken imitates a well-known "Israeli fan", former US President Jimmy Carter. Shocken knows very well that Israel is not an apartheid state and that there is no similarity between the legal system in the State of Israel and the apartheid regime that prevailed in South Africa and that to claim otherwise is a blatant lie. So, How does he nevertheless justify his devious statement? He expresses the justification for the baseless accusation in this way: "There should not be an identicalness between the characteristics of apartheid in South Africa and the practices of discrimination concerning civil rights practiced in Israel, so that it is possible to call Israel an apartheid state." This is an excuse not so original. He learned this excuse from Carter, who responded in a similar way to the sharp criticisms he received about his latest literary work. And really, why would there be an identicalness? If there is no need to be an identicalness, it gives an opening to any tongue-twister to freely lash out as he sees fit, to facilitate those who do not understand on their own (after all, despite the arrogance expressed in the motto "a newspaper for thinking people", it is not at all certain that the vast majority of Haaretz newspaper readers are indeed composed of people who are capable of thinking), the editor of the Haaretz newspaper explains himself what was the motive that caused him to issue The literal reflection he chose "The word apartheid is the title of a catchy and understandable line in large parts of the world." This is a really good reason. It really suits a person who claims to be the editor of a newspaper for thinking people. It is worth noting here that Carter also used an almost identical wording to justify the name he chose for his literary work.
Is there discrimination against minorities in Israel? Who has he ever claimed not to be? Is there one of the approximately 200 member states of the United Nations in which one degree or another of discrimination against the minorities living there is not practiced? Sometimes the discrimination is enshrined in law and sometimes, to borrow from Shoken's statement, it is just a practice of discrimination, but discrimination always exists because it is its nature of man. With the exception of a few exceptions whose number does not exceed the fingers of one hand, in none of these countries are the minorities in question hostile minorities, let alone minorities that deny the very existence of the state. It is a bit difficult to say that about the Arabs of Israel.
There is no similarity between the legal system in the State of Israel and the apartheid regime that prevailed in South Africa and to claim otherwise is a blatant lie.
What is that "practice of discrimination" that turns Israel into an apartheid state in Shocken's eyes? What bothers him is a section in the citizenship law that prohibits Arabs from the territories of the Palestinian Authority who have married Arab residents of Israel to come and live with their spouses in the State of Israel. When the law was enacted in 2003, as Shocken knows how to tell us, it was based on security arguments, when he adds in a tongue-in-cheek tone "at the risk of introducing terrorists into Israel through marriage ties" as if this claim really has no and never had any basis. With the arrogance characteristic of an "enlightened" liberal, Shokan continues and states decisively that "the security reasoning is eye catching". A simple calculation can illustrate that if there is eye contact here it is all in Shocken's "court". There are approximately 110,000 Arabs living in the territories of the Palestinian Authority who wish to join their spouses in the State of Israel (I am not an Arab for the exact number, but this is what I saw from Uri Avneri the last time he wrote on the subject). If we assume that only 1 percent of them support terrorism (this is a very conservative estimate, because in reality the percentage is much higher), this means that among these brides/grooms there are at least 1,100 who support terrorism. If we assume that only one percent of these supporters of terrorism are willing to translate their support into practical measures (this is also a very conservative estimate, because in reality the percentage is much higher), this means that among these brides/grooms there are at least 11 who are willing to commit terrorist acts, including suicide attacks (And things have happened before - we know of at least one case in which this actually happened).
In the opinion of the genius from the newspaper "Haaretz", the section in the law designed to prevent the almost certain entry of 11 (most likely many more) active terrorists into the territory of the State of Israel turns the State of Israel into an apartheid state, and the possibility, in fact almost a certainty, of this happening he defines as " Deception". But exemption for nothing is impossible. Our Shokan has an original idea of how the State of Israel should deal with a risk which, in his opinion, is just an eye catch. "Examining the security risk in allowing the entry of a Palestinian man or woman into Israel is an individual action" (I am not clear what exactly "individual action" is, although I assume it is intended to refer to one or another individual) and the responsibility of the security forces. Even if I suspected that these words of Shokan were said in good faith, this approach is only eye catching. I cherish and respect the principle of innocence, according to which every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but to this day I have not come across a lawyer or a judge who could give me a satisfactory explanation of how the guilt of a suicide bomber could be proven.
After all the swans about blindfolding and whether or not there were security considerations that led to the introduction of this section into the law, Shocken finally gets to what really bothers him in the citizenship law. To prevent the Arabs from changing the demographic structure of the State of Israel, something they are trying to achieve by exercising the right of return under the guise of "family reunification". What's wrong with that? Which country in the world does not use immigration and citizenship laws to determine who can and who cannot live in its territory? Why does the honorable gentleman from the editors of the newspaper "Haaretz" think that what is allowed to other countries and peoples is apartheid when it is done by the Israeli government? And again, with the exception of a few exceptions whose number does not exceed the fingers of one hand, none of the countries of the world is in a situation where the minorities living in it They see its very existence as a "Tragedy.." and strive to destroy it from the inside. It's a bit hard to say that about the Arabs of Israel.
The main mantra in the brainwashing we receive from the left side of the political spectrum is how important it is for them to maintain the Jewish character, or image, of the State of Israel. It is a bit hard to believe that in the concept of "Jewish character", any of these guys refers to the religion and/or the tradition of Israel. On all the occasions when the topic comes up in conversations and discussions on forums that I have with friends and acquaintances from the enlightened left circles, they talk about a Jewish "majority" (in most cases the exact phrase is "solid majority", or "clear majority", or "clear majority", or another expression has a similar meaning). Since I am not one of the public that regularly reads "Haaretz" newspaper, I probably do not belong to what is called in the circles of the enlightened elite people think, but it seems to me that there is a connection between demographics and the demand for a Jewish "majority". The question of exactly how many percentages is a "majority" (or "solid Jewish majority", or "clear Jewish majority" - decide for yourself), never gets an answer (these guys from the enlightened elite are weak in the calculation). Also to the question of how to guarantee that this situation (a situation of a Jewish majority, or of a solid Jewish majority, or of a clear Jewish majority - decide for yourself) will remain this way for a long time, I never received an answer. The section in the Citizenship Law, against which the editor of the "Haaretz" newspaper is so indignant, is intended precisely to give the answer to these questions -- this section is intended to prevent the Arabs from exercising their right of return through the back door. This is Shocken's real time. He opposes the idea that the State of Israel will have a Jewish character. This, of course, does not prevent him from hiding behind the demand for "Jewish character" when he writes articles justifying the intention to destroy the enterprise of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no clause in the Palestinian Authority's citizenship laws that prohibits Arab residents of Israel from participating in their elections/elections in the territories of the Palestinian Authority. If they move there they will enjoy all the same rights that the State of Israel denies them and no one will prevent them from living together a long life happily and richly. If it is really so important for them to live together, there is nothing preventing them from exercising the right to family reunification in the territories of the Palestinian Authority. Is it just a case that there are no "buyers" for this idea among the Arabs?
In conclusion, it is worth noting that in Egypt, our neighbor, as well as in Saudi Arabia, there are laws that prevent any Palestinian married to a citizen of that country from receiving the country's citizenship. These laws apply to every Palestinian regardless of where he lives and what his status is, not only to those living in the territories of the Palestinian Authority, as well as to the descendants of such marriages. To the best of my knowledge, similar laws are also found in the law books of other Arab countries. Even there (at least in Lebanon and Jordan), the reasoning is - lo and behold - demographic. Furthermore, there is no red carpet waiting for those who just want to come and live in one of those countries.</font></blockquote></ref>
==Ben White - typical user==
==Ben White - typical user==