Thanks for clearing up my ignorance. I knew that it was immoral, I didn’t realize it was also illegal. But all that being said, I still see a world of difference between travel restrictions for non-citizens and internment of human beings in concentration camps. Truth be told, I really cannot comprehend how anybody could make an argument to the contrary.
That is my understanding, yes. All the sources I’ve read (that bother to actually describe the situation rather than just ranting about “apartheid policies”) note that the policy only applies in the Territories , and then, only to non-Israelis.
The justification at the time was that those of Japanese ancestry could not be trusted to be loyal, not the legal quibble that Japan considered some of them to hold citizenship.
While not all of those interned were US citizens, the majority were, and it is this fact (combined with the lack of any military justification for the order) which has created the outrage - that people, mostly US citizens, were interned for, essentially, reasons of racist hysteria, not rational military necessity. Thee was never any real incidents of US West Coast Japanese-Americans colluding with the Empire of Japan against the US.
Moreover, as you point out, the reason that some of those non-citizens were non-citizens was the very same racial discrimination that led to the internment in the first place.
To my mind, the two situations are starkly contrasting in three fundamental ways:
The US case involved a majority of persons who were US citizens. The minority, who were not citizens, were not citizens because they were prevented from becomming citizens.
The Palestinians in this case are not Israeli citizens. Moreover, they do not want to be Israeli citizens.
The US case was found, after the fact, to have no rational military objective. In fact, the measure was taken on the basis of racist hysteria, as has been pretty well determined by after the fact analysis. There were no examples of Japanese-Americans conducting sabotage etc. against the US on the West Coast.
In contrast, the relations between the Israelis and Palestinians are, to put it mildly, tense. It is not irrational or hysteria-based for Israelis to worry about security matters, as actual incidents of bombing and other attacks are not unknown [as an aside, one shudders to think what would have happened to Japanese-Americans if they had attempted an Intafada on the West Coast during WW2!]
Internment in concentration camps is a far more severe intrusion on liberty than being required to ride separate bus lines.
Well, it depends on what you consider to be Israel’s borders. Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem a long time ago so the Palestinians in East Jerusalem are “residents of Israel” even if they’re not citizens.
Beyond that, I don’t think the Israeli government has ever formally relinquished control of the West Bank and the official position of the Israeli government was that the territories were not “occupied” but were in fact “part of Israel”.
This was partly because putting settlements in occupied territories is highly illegal but as you can see from this map produced by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the position of the Israeli government seems to be that the West Bank is part of Israel.
So, actually, if you go by the official maps of the Israeli government then yes, the Palestinians in the West Bank are residents of Israel, specifically the parts labeled Judea and Samaria.
So let’s say Israel just unilaterally declares “this territory is ours” be in Green Line or Green Line plus 5 miles, or whatever, and anything that happens outside that territory is no longer a matter of their concern, except to the extent that any rockets launched will be countered with artillery fire or similar response.
Do the Palestinians have the means (even with significant foreign aid) to create a viable state (or two) that isn’t defined by perpetual struggle?
Considering the fact that this would mean they’d be forced to remove all the settlers and would no longer have access to the water and other natural resources from the West Bank, the odds of that happening is zero.
Or at least zero as long as Likud is in power.
To the second question, no I don’t see how the West Bank could possibly be made into a functioning state.
Does this accord Palestinians or other non-citizens of Israel a legal status distinct from the military law of Judea and Samaria? In the United States it would, but I’m not fully up on Israeli law.
Yes and no, right? Israeli law doesn’t apply there, even to Israeli settlements, so it hasn’t been annexed; it’s a disputed region under military law.
I’m assuming Israel declares its territorial line to be wherever is best suits Israel, i.e. incorporating the larger settlements, abandoning the lesser ones (if they feel like it) and lining up whatever resource access they see fit. I’m also assuming this will screw over the Palestinians utterly, but that’s pretty much going to happen under any scenario.
Even under the most generous unilateral terms Israel might plausibly make and with immense foreign aid, could Palestinians establish a state that is not in a perpetual condition of low-level warfare?
Then what about Jordanian annexation, with foreign aid to ease the transition as much as possible? Will that resolve anything, or will the new Jordanian muhafazah of Palestine always be more trouble than it’s worth?
Jordan does not want the WB, as its monarchy would be put in peril by the addition of so many Palestinians (Palestinians have tried to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy before, resulting in the so-called “Black September”).
Boy, they just can’t get along with anybody, can they?
Still, it’s been 40 years since Black September’s heyday. There’s still no chance of a controlled annexation/assimilation?
I honestly do not know. The problem remains though - Jordan is split between Jordainians of Palestinian descent (including refugees from the WB and elsewhere, which make up something like a third of the population) and Jordanians of trans-Jordanian descent. The king’s power base resides in the latter, or at least it did. Adding the population of the WB has the potental to upset the political stability of the kingdom, as the combined population of Jordanians of Palestinian descent would outnumber those of trans-Jordanian descent.
In a perfect world, they would democratically elect a leader, who may be the Jordanian king or may be someone else … I find it hard to believe the current monarchy would want to take that chance.
You don’t really get how comparisons work, do you? I never said they were equivalent - that’s your strawman. I said they were “in the same ballpark” - that ballpark being “things countries do because they imagine an entire group of people are dangerous because those people have loyalty to a foreign power they are at war with” not “Things people do only to non-citizens”. Note that whether the danger is real or not is irrelevant. Whether the people are citizens or not, is irrelevant. Whether both forms of discrimination are the same degree of mistreatment is irrelevant. What I mean by “ballpark” is that the motivations are the same: wartime fears. Both situations are part of that set of things. Hence not “100% different”.
“Not 100% different” =/= “the same”
“Not 100% different” =/= “equivalent”
But you didn’t, and now you’re backpedalling-by-aggression.
You’re the one who said they were discriminated on “based on ethnicity”, I was just responding to that point. But that’s not the proof of the similarity, the proof of the similarity is that both involve countries at war doing something to some people because of their wartime security fears.
Jeepers, dude - I first stepped into this shitfest to point out that the situation was not apartheid and that it isn’t helpful to drag that sort of argument-from-emotion into Israel debates. But I make one other point that’s possibly not seeing Israel “100%” in a good light, historically, and I get curb-stomped? And your lot still wonder why you get accused of irrational bias in these threads?
FWIW, I totally agree with this…and, alas, with the fact that Israel threads tend to degenerate into reeking shitfests. Emotions run high over the issue. (Can’t imagine why! I knew one guy who hated Israel so much, he refused to capitalize the name: “israel.” That’s the level of irrationality that the subject can engender!)
Not only do I, I get how bullshit works. Which is why, of course, you claimed that both examples belonged to the same class of events, and now you’re claiming that’s a “strawman” while you try to handwave your errors. What you’re arguing is equivalent to claiming that murdering people and then eating them is in the same class of things as having a cheeseburger, because they’re both based on hunger. And damned that irrational bias that makes people object to such a comparison! :rolleyes:
And now of course you’re attempting to handwave away the fact that governments have different responsibilities to citizens and non-citizens and you’re actually claiming that the degree of mistreatment is “irrelevant”. Your argument is nonsense, down to claiming that I’m “backpedaling” by “aggression” (whatever the heck you think that means), simply because I pointed out that your nitpicking was obfuscatory gamesmanship.
Anybody willing to look at the situation with intellectual honesty understands that imprisoning one’s own citizens in concentration camps is not at all comparable to travel restrictions on foreign nationals. And that attempting to compare them, especially with the disingenuous method you’re using, cheapens actual concerns about human rights.
And this is the sort of thing that typifies your argument. You were taken to task by multiple posters because you tried to equate travel restrictions on foreign nationals of a state with which you’re at war, and locking up your own citizens in concentration camps. And your response is to hop up on the cross and claim it’s because you don’t see Israel as 100% in a good light. There aren’t enough rolleyes for that, Dibble.
That’s not what I said is the strawman - try reading for comprehension. I repeated it several times, it starts with “equi” and ends with “valent”.
Once again: “Not 100% different” =/= “equivalent”
They are in the same class of things for particular classes. Just ask any PETA member.
It is irrelevant to the point I made. I never said “This is as bad as interning the Japanese”, which is how you seem to be reading it.
I mean how you’re trying to step away from the fact that you brought up ethnicity by claiming that you meant all the other things like religion and race all along, you just didn’t say it and any notice of the fact that you brought it up is “obfuscatory nitpicking”. Fridge logic, more like.
It’s not “gamesmanship” to, you know, respond to the words you actually wrote rather than the Treppenwitz you’d prefer.
Of course they’re comparable. What they are not, is equivalent in any way.
There’s nothing disingenuous about my point, which I’ve since restated multiple times - they are comparable in that they are responses by people in armed conflict to perceived threats.
I’m not, nor have I ever, said that they are remotely the same in terms of severity, morality, expected outcomes, whatever. But they are not, and never were, “100%” different - looking at the mindset of WWII US could give us some small insight into 2013 Israeli bus restrictions.
I was “taken to task” by you alone, and politely disagreed with by Malthus and Noone Special (both of whom made perfectly valid points). It’s only your response I address when I say “curb-stomped”. But your debate style in Israel threads is not unknown to me from past experience, and tends to take over the whole thread.
Anyway, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, but I’m sure you know that.
Irrationality however would include wishful thinking about the situation. For example the belief that a Palestinian State would end what you have referred to as the “refugee crisis.”
By the way, there is nothing stopping Hamas from opening up Gaza to the descendants of Arabs who fled Gaza in 1967.
Try posting for accuracy.
Yes yes, I know, you were beaten on the logic and won’t admit it, so you decided to post a whole bunch of angry bullshit rather than admitting that, yeah, it was pretty foolish of you to try to equate * imprisoning one’s own citizens in concentration camps* with having foreign nationals that one is at war with, ride different buses. Oh, I know, I know, you’d say you’re not claiming anything is equivalent and, why, they can totally fit in the same class and it was right and proper for you to bring it up because both involve humans, or, at least, carbon based life forms, and…
Just give up the game, Dibble. You posted something stupid. Just retract it and move on. Or keep digging and angrily try to tell us how comparing bus routes for foreign nationals with concentration camps your own citizens is a great comparison because of how very [del]analagous[/del] [del]similar[/del] [del]alike[/del] [del] equivalent[/del], [del]comparable[/del]… not 100% different they are. Eh? Eh?
Yes yes, so is beating someone to death with a tire iron and kissing them sweetly on the mouth, because both involve humans and motion. Very good Dibble.
Yes, I mentioned ethnicity and didn’t count on the sheer willful disingenuousness and obfuscation that it would require for someone to obsessively nitpick and claim that because I didn’t, also, state that discrimination could occur based on skin color, hair color, eye color, tribal affiliation, musical preferences and whether or not one butters their bread, that obviously there are gaps in my argument. Good show Dibble. Par for the course.
Yes, this is the error in your argument that keeps getting pointed out to you and that you are either incapable of or unwilling to rectify. No two things in all of reality are “100% different”. Death and life aren’t even “100% different”, as they’re both states of being. Your argument is intellectually dishonest and emotionally manipulative. You tried to equate bus restrictions with foreign nationals with * imprisoning one’s own citizens in concentration camps*. And rather than realizing, yeah, it was pretty absurd for you to do so, you just keep digging. And digging. And digging. Obviously that’s the best way to get out of a hole. And of course you’re claiming that it was just a comparison, no agenda behind it at all. But, you bemoan, you’re also being taken to task by multiple posters for your errors because you don’t say Israel is 100% good. But, my oh my, here you’re claiming that this isn’t about an equivalence between valid security protocols and a crime against humanity, and why, you were just wondering aloud since they’re in the same class of ‘things carbon based entities sometimes do, maybe’.
More of the same obfuscatory gamesmanship that characterizes the rest of your argument. Three people all pointed out the same error in your claims, but hey look over there!!!
Naturally, now you’re invented an argumentum ad populum. Good show. Care to ramp your argument up while you’re at it? Maybe you’d like to tell us how Israel delivering mail to the Palestinians is in the “same ballpark” as the Nazis’ extermination of 12 million human beings, because mail is written on paper and the Nazis kept records on paper, and so of course they’re not 100% dissimilar. I can understand why you’re making up fallacious arguments and claiming I said them. Of course, you can’t quite me saying, anywhere, that you’re wrong because multiple people took you to task instead of you’re wrong, here’s why, and oh yeah, multiple people took you to task for it.. By the way? Malthus and Noone said the same thing I did. But of course their points are valid… and mine isn’t. According to you. So three of the same things are different, in your mind. But the death camps and letter carriers are good things to compare in a discussion, because both work with paper and they are not 100% different.
And all this could’ve been solved by you simply saying “Yeah, it was pretty ridiculous of me to claim that busing and concentration camps are in the same ballpark. What the fuck was I even thinking? Sorry, I’ll stop posting about that now.”
P.S. While you’re coming up with fallacies to imagine I’m using, you might want to realize that “take to task” means to point out shortcomings. And don’t say I’ve never done nuthin’ for ya.
Keep piling up that straw - it’ll be person-shaped any day now
You have done “nuthin’” since your link doesn’t work.*My *dictionaries say it means “to scold or reprimand someone” or “to criticize someone angrily for something that they have done” or just “to criticize someone” (my emphasis), and also “reprimand or criticize someone severely for a fault or mistake”. I’ll stand by what I said, thanks.
You’re right Dibble. I have magical powers that allow me to invent text and put it in a quote box, and it then not only shows up as your own words, but goes back in time and changes your posts so that they now mirror exactly what I fauxquoted you as saying.
Good call.
Go to the link I gave you (if you really can’t figure out how to fix it, ask nicely and I’m sure someone will help you). Merriam-Webster makes it quite clear. But, okay, if you really want to quibble, Malthus and Noone pointed out that your argument was both stupid and absurd, but they didn’t scold you for it. Yay, yet another round of obfuscatory semantic nitpicking achieved, you totally win this thread and you’ve proven that your point wasn’t utter absurdity to begin with, and how!
Now tell us more about how the Nazi death camps administration and writing your girlfriend a love letter are both in the same ballpark, since they both involve writing things down on paper.
For my part, I would class them as sufficiently distinct. Not 100% distinct, but, rather, “apples and oranges” distinct. (Heck, apples and oranges aren’t 100% different…)
I’d say that the imprisonment of U.S. citizens by the U.S. is sufficiently different from travel restrictions on foreign nationals by a given nation. They really don’t belong in the same context; I think the comparison isn’t helpful.
(e.g., I would never accept a straight-up comparison of the internment of Japanese-Americans in 1942 and the laws denying legal employment to illegal immigrants in the U.S. today. They simply aren’t comparable.)
FWIW, while I disagree with you, I think you have been receiving more sarcasm, snark, and sneering than is justified. A fellow can say “I disagree” and that ought to be enough.
You do realize that you’re arguing with someone who grew up in Apartheid South Africa where all the blacks were under all sorts of extreme “travel restrictions” known as “the pass laws” and the justification for these laws and regulations was that they were “foreign nationals” who were citizens of other countries.
Beyond that, based on the logic you’re using, the interning of the nearly 40% who lacked US citizenship was somehow more justifiable than that of those who were US citizens.
Edit: I didn’t mean for the first paragraph to come across as snarky as it did. Apologies if it came across wrong.
I knew one guy who hated Israel so much, he refused to capitalize the name: “israel.” That’s the level of irrationality that the subject can engender!)