5 months ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
35 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 5 months ago
    • 5 months ago

      @enzilag I allowed him to speak for a long time during his opening statement. So this idea that I didn't hear him out I disagree.

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 hey thanks for the debate mate. I'd like to do round 2 sometime and talk more about the West Bank....

    • 5 months ago

      @bookman Sure we can do that, it had no place being brought up in our debate of Israel though and I addressed that during the debate. Could have pressed a bit more aggressively but at least you agree it had no place being brought up.

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 er, I don't agree it had no place being brought up, quite the contrary in fact.

    • 5 months ago

      @bookman You said " don't agree it had no place being brought up"

      So that's your argument you don't agree original meaning and definition of words should be preserved and not redefined. Honest intellectuals don't play with words, because they understand words have meaning, and any loose effort to justify redefinition of words doesn't give them a solid case, but rather exposes the lengths there willing to go to confuse the issue. I am curious as to why you won't admit the context and definition of the original meaning of the word Apartheid?

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 I really don't know what on earth you're talking about. Note my punctuation (where there is a comma and where there is not a comma). Let me say it again in a different way: You said that I agreed that it (The West Bank) had no place being brought up. I say. I disagree: it had every place in being brought up. I hope that is clear now. So.....I look forward to our next debate.

  • 5 months ago

    It seems to me that being as SA is the one state recognized as actually being an Apartheid state, both internationally and by the regime itself, it would be perfectly reasonable to compare Israel today to Apartheid SA then to see if Israel resembles SA rather than a subjective and recent definition of what apartheid is. And it seems doing so does invalidate the claim at least somewhat.

    • 5 months ago

      @nellyj didn't you agree with me that's just a silly answer that avoids the question in our debate?

    • 5 months ago

      @julian I thought it was a silly comparison because it looks nothing like SA, but thats the point both I and Sebastian made. SA is the one place that is recognized by everybody as an actual apartheid state so any other state that is apartheid ought to resembler closely SA. I didn't agree with any internationally recognized term as being necessarily legitimate

    • 5 months ago

      @nellyj that is for the International Lawmakers to debate. And they HAVE. Which is why we have an International agreed convention called The Apartheid Convention (as I pointed out). There is also one that applies to Genocide. The debate was not entitled: "How should apartheid be defined" , it has already been defined. The fact that you don't agree with it is your prerogative. It IS however, legitimate. Sorry mate.

    • 5 months ago

      @nellyj I love the fact you understand what I was trying to address.

    • 5 months ago

      @julian How is that a silly answer? You have to explain what's so silly about providing an analysis on those original terms of the definition and application of the word Apartheid. Perhaps you mean Apartheid is a silly policy, but to say that my comments are silly really is a cop-out so you don't have to be forced to intellectually think through your rationale. Would you apply the term Jim Crow in the context of an entirely different country without providing an analysis of where this original word was used nd how it was used? Or would you find sources that redefine Jim crow and apply a new definition to a term that originated in the 1950's? Words have meaning and to redefine and confuse words doesn't communicate your making a strong case but rather your omitted to confusing the issue and will be willing to ignore original application to accomplish that end. That is not honest.

    • 5 months ago

      @nellyj Thank you. What Julian doesn't want to admit and rationally examine is that just because you toss the definition and application of a word to a vote doesn't change what that original word meant.

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 like I told both of you already, the dividing of the territory into different areas where Palestinians have different rights is a direct comparison. But that doesn't matter. We say apartheid because that's how it's defined under international law through the Rome Statue and the Apartheid Convention. Apartied just means one racial group dominates another. Which is what is clearly going here. You are just talking around that. The rules being applied are under the 2nd Geneva Convention and are actually in response to the holocaust. It's the same reason I need to have clear documentation of authentication of ownership if a museum ask me to transport a painting across international borders. Because yes it's confusing. It's split into different territories and bodies with different authorities. That's all you have going for your argument. You're using an equivocation fallacy.

    • 5 months ago

      @bookman What you are refusing to acknowledge my friend is that just because you toss the definition and application of a word to a vote doesn't change what that original word meant. You claim it has already been defined in the 1970's by UN like the root of the word came from the UN. It's an African word of the 1940's hijacked and redefined by the UN. Why won't you acknowledge this? What's internal hindering your ability to comprehend this? I question your sincerity to honest debate.

    • 5 months ago

      @julian You said "like I told both of you already, the dividing of the territory into different areas where Palestinians have different rights is a direct comparison"

      What territory are you talking about Israel and Palestine correct? What right do Jews have in Israel that the Arabs don't? That's clearly the foundation I want to address elaborate further on this point? Can you?

    • 5 months ago

      @julian And it does matter Julian. You have to defend the rights differences or at claim to Apartheid cannot be taken as valid.

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 that's exactly what I'm talking about, you're using the confusion of division of territory and Arab authorities as a tool to avoid the question. Ironically, you do not realize the same thing, division of territory and minority authority is true of Apartheid SA.

      I'm not taking about any particular territory, I'm talking about the whole sum of land from river to sea in that passage. By suggesting I'm taking about a specific territory and then generalizing the whole thing as a specific territory you are making a plea to ignorance.

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 "claim the rights differences or at a claim to apartheid" I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm sorry.

      Michael and I both already told there are 4 domains to this case:
      1) refugees right of return
      2)permanent refugee status in East Jerusalem.
      3)Ethnic majority written into law within proper borders.
      4)occupation of W. Bank, Gaza, and Golan.

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 and the right that Jews have is a right to return. That means I can live there, but a Palestinian can't once expelled.

    • 5 months ago

      @julian well explained Julian (though it's hard work!!)

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 hmm....ok. Well let me give you an example of how words become defined in Law and Common Usage. the word Holocaust for instance. I have a Jewish Encylopedia here in my shop dated 1967. I look up the word "holocaust" (little h by the way) holocaust = burnt offering. What does it mean nowadays? Now it has a capital H and we all know what it means. Would I be dumb enough to say "there was no holocaust cos that's just a burnt offering".? No, of course I wouldn't. Why? Because I'm not so f***ing stupid!

  • 5 months ago
    • 5 months ago

      @jcosta5 hey thanks for commenting. Only trouble is your mic is out somehow and we can barely here a word. Any chance of re recording or typing your transcript? cheers

  • 5 months ago

    Wow. @bookman really nailed it. The term apartheid is applied under international law through the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention. You can talk around it but it doesn't change anything.

    • 5 months ago

      @julian hey, thanks Julian. I was pretty tired that night as it was very late for me, and then i went away for a couple of days with my boys on friday so please forgive my lateness. I really wanted to talk more about the details and felt frustrated (and somewhat worn down by the constant SA thing). I'm hoping for a round 2 in which I want to talk about Israel's Colonization of the West Bank and how apartheid is REALLY (i.e. even more so) practiced there. cheers.

    • 5 months ago

      @julian And Julian what year did h mention the term was applied?

    • 5 months ago

      @bookman Since you love the UN so much and expressed a lot of international law arguments. What are the two criteria's that must be met before a country can no longer legally retain military occupations of a specific area?

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 the 70s. That's when the Apartheid Convention was. Can't remember exact year right now.

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 Lol.

    • 5 months ago

      @julian Now what year was the word Apartheid first used? Which groups of people first used this word defining it's meaning and application?

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 It really doesnt matter. Michael already explained that to you. Because none of what you're saying has anything to do with violations of 2nd Geneva, what they are, and if they are occurring or not. It's equivocation.

    • 5 months ago

      @bashee7 you asked: "What are the two criteria's that must be met before a country can no longer legally retain military occupations of a specific area?" I don't know mate. I think one has to apply common sense sometimes. (probably not 50 f***ing years!). What I do know for an absolute fact though is that the Geneva Convention expressly forbids any movement of one's own population into occupied territory BECAUSE THAT IS SETTLER COLONIALISM. There is also a whole bunch of dos and don'ts that an occupying power must observe (which, by the way, Israel ignores almost all of), like NOT stealing that land's resources for instance...

  • 3 months ago

    What I observed was two debaters, each doing a good job making their case on their own definitional ground. Pro established that Palestinians are treated in a manner commensurate with the UN definition. Bashee established that the Israeli state does not match up the historical example of South African Apartheid, the context under which the term was coined for modern purposes.

    So it really comes down to which definition I was most persuaded by. Bookman made the most direct appeal and citing international law is a pretty solid start. Bashee was a little less forceful in standing by his definition.

    I would have liked to see more argumentation on why we should accept one definition over another. Why is the UN an authority on this, why is an original definition better than a subsequent one? Which definition is more useful in protecting human rights? There wasn't much effort to find some common ground to argue the point, just two flat competing claims. In such case, it falls to my own judgment on which I find more persuasive for my own reasons.

    I think that a legal UN definition offers greater protection for human rights than to use a single country's experience as the measuring stick. Otherwise any situation could fall short and thus no one could ever be protected from future Aphartied.

    So in summary, both debaters won the debate on their own grounds, but I had to pick which ground I thought was the best and on that ground I chose Pro because I favored their definition.