No.
(Okay, we’re done here!)
Happy? 
Claiming it would be an “apartheid policy” makes little sense.
South Africa had separate buses for “whites” and “natives” long before South Africa instituted Apartheid.
Seriously, don’t the kids ever read Cry, The Beloved Country anymore?
That hardly means the policy is defensible, though.
I think there’s a distinction to be made between Apartheid, the government policy, and apartheid, the synonym for racial segregation.
Although this looks like neither. It’s definitely segregation, and that’s kinda sucky, but on national lines, from what I can tell i.e. Israeli Arabs are fine to ride on Israeli-only buses.
This is the kind of rationalization I was referring to. It’s brilliant.
So, according to your fine observation, let me see if I understand.
Rosa Parks should’ve shut her mouth and go sit in the freakin’ back of the bus – as told and expected – because, the argument goes, there were certainly Blacks in, say, New York were able to sit in the front of the bus.
Got it! She had no case.
It seems the only way that this could be considered an apartheid policy is if every single Palestinian was subjected to it and since it’s only a few here and there then it’s just not.
Oh, man… if I didn’t read it I wouldn’t believe it :rolleyes:
Are you suggesting – in your usual brilliance – that if SA never instituted “official” apartheid policy nobody would notice? Imagine if KKK argued “we never had OFFICIAL policy” of burning crosses and since it was localized and kinda spontaneous – what’s the problem?
What I really like about debating Palestinian-Israel occupation and apartheid is that - unlike other cases in the World – you will always find some of the best and well-thought out apologia ever conceived.
It would work great if only humans did not posses ability to look back in history experience and find matching framework – this ability commonly referred to as memory. It seems that there are some who imagine people have less memory than a foam mattress.
I daresay there’s a distinction to be made between not having Palestinians on the buses because they are perceived to be icky and not having Palestinians on the buses because they are perceived to occasionally blow themselves and everyone else on the bus to bits.
I think you have completely misunderstood what I was saying and what Mr.Dibble and I were talking about.
South Africa always had an “official policy” of segregation which is why there were separate buses and separate carriages on trains for “whites” and “natives”.
This was chronicled quite powerfully in the book Cry, The Beloved Country.
Apartheid refers to a series of policies that took place in the 50s when the Nationalist Party, led by Daniel Malan IIRC, took over, kicked out Smuts unionist party and put in place a number of policies which they classified as “apartheid.”
“Apartheid” isn’t Jim Crow. It refers to a specific set of policies that goes well beyond that.
People who think Apartheid merely refers to racial segregation don’t know what they’re talking about because South Africa had official policies of racial segregation long before they instituted “Apartheid.”
So then if tomorrow the City of New York started requiring blacks to ride “blacks only” subway cars or buses using the justification that people were afraid of being robbed or beaten by blacks, you’d object if people compared that to Jim Crow?
Are you familiar with the Rosa Parks case?
I ask because Rosa Parks was an American citizen living in the US who was arrested for not going to the back of the bus in a part of America.
She was an American citizen asking to be treated like other Americans citizens within the US.
The Palestinians are not Israeli citizens nor do they want to be treated as such and those in East Jerusalem who’ve been offered Israeli citizenship have, almost without exception, rejected it.
Furthermore this policy isn’t about bus lines in Israel, but within the occupied territories.
That doesn’t mean this policy isn’t horrible(I think it is), but comparisons to Rosa Parks are unhelpful.
Now, were Israel to institute this within Israel and apply it to Israeli citizens who are Arabs, you’d have a point.
The dstinction from what I understand is that non-Israelis aren’t to ride certain busses.
In racial terms, it is like allowing New York Blacks to ride the bus into New York just fine, but not Blacks from Jamaca, who happen to want to drive into New York by bus (presumably, amphibious long-distance bus 
) - because those Jamacans have to go through more rigourous customs checking.
This is the second time in recent memory you’ve tried to suggest via slippery-slope argument that I’m a racist, I note for the heck of it, with no further reply.
Well, perhaps one could dispense with the racial angle and analogize to bus lines that cross the U.S./Canada border, with bus companies based in the U.S. being required to reserve some buses to only U.S. citizens, limiting Canadians to smaller (and apparently more expensive) buses.
A silly idea on its face, because there hasn’t been a history of violence between Canada and the U.S., unlike some places I could mention.
No, I didn’t suggest you were a racist.
You said that you thought that forbidding Palestinians from riding buses because of fears of the Palestinians engaging in violence shouldn’t be compared to Jim Crow bus laws because those were done out of a belief that blacks were “icky.”
I then asked the perfectly logical followup which was if the City of New York forbid blacks to ride the same buses or subway cars as whites because they were worried about blacks engaging in violence, would you object to comparing them to Jim Crow laws.
Using the logic you displayed earlier your answer should be
“Yes, I don’t think you can compare forbidding blacks from riding buses because you’re worried about them mugging people to forbidding blacks from riding buses because you’re worried they’r 'icky”.
To accept that a viable comparison, I await evidence that blacks in New York were (or are) in a situation similar to the Palestinians, with New York blacks blowing up buses and such. As an incidental note, I was not under the impression the Jim Crow laws were in place because whites feared black would rob them - rather that whites just didn’t want to share amenities (or rights) with blacks. Hence, the invoking of Jim Crow is not something that impresses me as relevant.
That said, I could buy that this particular Israeli action is little more than security theater, as the phrase is commonly used - making a show of doing something to increase security, while actually accomplishing very little except being a nuisance.
Well, feel to make up any response you like on my behalf.
For rather obvious reasons armed robbery rates are vastly higher amongst African-American New Yorkers than non-hispanic white New Yorkers.
So yes, based on the logic you described, it would be invalid to compare the city of New York discriminating against blacks to Jim Crow laws because the former would be due to fear of crime while the latter was based the idea that blacks are “icky”.
I never said you did. In fact I quoted you saying you thought that Jim Crow laws were due to the fear that blacks were “icky.”
No, I didn’t “make up any response” on your behalf.
I simply pointed out the logical conclusion of your argument, that it would be wrong to compare laws discriminating against blacks out of fear of blacks being criminals to laws discriminating against blacks out of fear of them being “icky.”
You also displayed horrible reading comprehension by claiming that I called you a racist which I didn’t.
I merely pointed out you made a rather ill-thought out argument.
Anyway, it’s not my fault that you make terrible arguments and don’t think out the conclusions.
Next time think through your arguments before posting them and you won’t have to worry about them getting shredded.
Even if true, I can buy that a crime problem is distinct from a terrorism problem.
I can’t tease out the point you’re trying to make with this or anything else in your post, so as far as we’re concerned, I’ll call it a day.
Then your reading comprehension skills need a lot of work.
I’d also recommend once again thinking through your arguments before hitting the “submit reply” button.
I’d join the chorus if this was an issue of discrimination against Israeli Arabs, but it’s not. Whether or not these measures are effective at their stated purpose is another issue, but policies that discriminate based on nations-one-is-at-war-with don’t strike me as particularly unsavory or indefensible at all. We’re not talking about interning Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII, or Jim Crow, or anything similar. And unless there’s been some development that I’m aware of, similar policies targeted at Israeli Arabs would be illegal and/or struck down by the SCOI.
Tricky, since in this case, the words “nation” and “war” (and probably you could find someone who’d argue about “with”) are in a convenient gray zone.
Heck, I’m kind of curious what would happen if the West Bank residents just declared themselves to be a state and attacks on Israel continued. What does (or should) happen when a small state picks a fight with a larger one that it can’t possibly win? Invasion, annexation, the leadership put on trial for war crimes?
Point. I think the last time I said something like that, I phrased it as “citizens of a quasi-state that you are at war with”, or something. But yah, IMO the principle remains identical.