And, I agree, the settlements are a real and pressing issue, even while we know that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah do use settlements as a pretext. The actions of radicals shouldn’t distract us from the fact that we should strive for compromise and a two state solution with equitable water, agricultural, etc… rights for both states, and that that will require negotiation and territorial agreements.
The problem is that it prejudices the discussion. It is, in a very real way, memetic combat in the same way that the “death tax” or “marriage equality” are. I’m fine with calling them “a very serious issue that must be resolved through honest negotiations”, or something of the sort. But “an obstacle to peace” is often used an attempt by some to shift to debate-via-redefinition so that, if the settlements are an obstacle to peace, obviously the Palestinians have no responsibility to sue for peace, since it’s Israel that’s blocking peace, and that just goes to show how belligerent Israel is.
Beyond the things he already pointed out that you didn’t respond to? Probably his additional evidence will be based on the fact that he reads and analyzes data instead of deciding what he wants to be true and dreaming up things to justify his beliefs. You might also want to readup on the UN recognition of Israel. Nations only agreed to it because Israel certified that it would be completely responsible for its own defense and no nation would lift a finger if there was a War of Independence, let alone that any of them would help enforce a peaceful partition in order to avoid violence .
But you keep thinking that Israel uses the UN to do its bidding. Good luck with that.
I already presented evidence. Beyond that, what you’re asking for is common knowledge.
That said, I think this is the third time you’ve been asked to present evidence to support your claim that Israel “uses” the UN and the third time you’ve refused to provide any evidence.
It seems to me that most reasonable people would have to conclude if when asked to present the evidence and you can’t present any that it most likely doesn’t exist.
Turkey was effectively being run by the military when they invaded Cyprus although they’re now heading towards what could be called a democracy. Are you seriously claiming that Armenia is a democracy? And yes, governments like Britain did bad things in colonial times. I’m talking about today, today’s standards of human rights and respect for international law.
Turkey isn’t “heading towards what could be called a democracy”, it is a democracy and has been for decades during which it has continued to occupy Northern Cyprus.
To argue it’s not a democracy is to deny reality.
How isn’t it?
I’m hardly an expert on Armenian but they are a parliamentary Republic with elected leaders.
You’re desperately trying to handwave away the idea that there are other democracies besides Israel which have invaded and occupied countries.
Turkey is a country that has regular elections and popularly elected governments. But when a government that the army doesn’t like gets elected they stage a coup. Any government that they do allow in power knows it’s on a very short leash and so doesn’t stray very far from the preferred policies of the army. Armenia has elections but they’re not exactly free and fair :
It seems democracy is in the eye of the beholder. Egypt has elections and a democratically-elected government but Israel calls it “a terrible dictatorship” amongst other things. Iraq is a similar situation. Israel is heading down the apartheid road (most Israelis think it’s already there) and most people would consider apartheid, not to mention the endless illegalities of the occupation, incompatible with democracy.
Or, as shown to you already, the question that “showed” that was nonsensical to the point of absurdity and incompatible with the actual definition of apartheid. But I believe that’s your cue to put reality up to popular referendum, yes?
So, no definition just snide innuendo about how you’ve already proven yourself and your opponents are so silly, despite the fact that you haven’t actually provided any proof, at all, that there’s a definition of “Apartheid” compatible with a country having “some” or “a bit” or “a touch” of Apartheid?
Have you considered just automating your responses via bot?
Yeah, our side of the argument produced facts, numbers and evidence and you produced a couple of opinion pieces. So I’m happy to let those repective arguments stand for themselves, no need to keep bashing you over the head with it.
Fictional.
First of all, just to drag you back to reality here, I was the one who first cited the poll. Second, I was the one who cited its methodology and question phrasing. Y’all were the ones who, still, cannot explain how there can be “just a touch of Apartheid, here and there” in a nation. But of course, unable to provide any evidence, at all, for any accepted definition of “Apartheid” which allows there to be only “some Apartheid” in a nation, you just claim victory. And, of course, third, I didn’t cite an opinion piece, I cited the facts in it, facts which you cannot dispute but you can feebly attempt to handwave by implying they’re opinions.
“So… you can’t show how that’s an actually valid question, as it relies on Jabberwockian nonsense and makes absolutely no sense in context?”
“You’re silly!”
“Yeah, so no definition?”
“I’m right!”
"In other words, you really can’t explain how the question was at all valid, or how we can draw any valid conclusions from it? In fact, you have no answer at all for how there can be “Apartheid in only some sphere in a country.”
“I win. I win! U R so dum! U R so dum!”
Surely coding a bot for your argument wouldn’t be terribly difficult, Dick.
Your information is grossly outdated. This isn’t the 80s anymore.
The current government is despised by the army, actively pursues policies the army doesn’t like yet they haven’t been kicked out and they aren’t going to.
Tuesday 25 September 2012
The jailing of hundreds of army officers accused of plotting a coup against the government of prime minister Tayyip Erdogan marks a low-point for Turkey’s military, which for decades exercised shadowy control over the country with scant regard for democratic values. But the outcome of the so-called Sledgehammer (Balyoz) case highlights a new worry: that Erdogan, in power since 2002 and with his eye on a revamped, executive presidency, is becoming just as authoritarian and over-bearing as the generals once were.
It is possible to view the Sledgehammer trial, and two similar plot investigations (known as Ergenekon and KCK) also involving hundreds of suspects, as an overdue, even praiseworthy attempt to clean house. Turkey endured three outright military coups between 1960 and 1980, and a moderate Islamist government, a forerunner to the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), was forced from office in 1997…
