Comment

New Peace Talks Imminent

338
elbruce8/21/2010 12:55:08 am PDT

re: #335 Cato the Elder

I see we have a “one-state-solutionist” here.

Hey, if you want to split it up and give the Palestinians full sovereignty over their own portion, let’s talk. Doesn’t sound so horrible to me. I was just talking about what is, not what could be.

re: #337 UNIXon

How come these days we hear about “Israeli Arabs” and no “Palestinian Jews”?
Whose “apartheid”?

I’m looking at a map of the middle east, and the region in question is called “Israel.” They’re the people in charge of that region bounded by those borders. If some of the native people living in that region aren’t considered citizens of that country, then that’s what apartheid is.

.

re: #337 UNIXon

Umm… there is a Palestinian Authority.

And they’re in charge of what exactly? Whatever Israel lets them be in charge of. Which most of the time is nothing. Certainly no bounded region of a sovereign state, which is what would be required to be a citizen of your own nation instead of a subject of apartheid living in somebody else’s nation.

.

Look people, if you have a different definition of apartheid than “lives within the contiguous boundaries of this country but is not a citizen of any country” then I’d be fascinated to hear it. But so far, I’ve heard nothing to logically differentiate the current Palestinian situation from the previous South African (native) situation. If you can explain the difference, please do.