@Jila
It's not that Muslims are a monolith, neither are Jews btw, and "Muslim" isn't hard to define to most people. Sure, Iran and KSA aren't the same type of Muslim but they're both Muslim nonetheless.
A "Muslim country" is a country where the majority of its inhabitants are Muslim. Currently, there are 57 such countries and only 1 Jewish country. Also, Muslims
are killing each other in many places (Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, etc). How is that "propaganda"?
The argument that there is only 1 Jewish land compared to 50 (seems to be 46 according to wiki but whatevs it's irrelevant, even if the number was 100 or 7) is severe propaganda, and a low form of it too.
Firstly, it pushes the idea that Israel needs to expand. Or at least that the settlements are not a big deal. Or at least that aliyaa is a great idea. Or at the very least that it's ok that Jews can immigrate from anywhere, get paid to do so, while Palestinians can't return.
Claim of "Muslim" land is a tool used by extremist Muslims and right wingers. Watering it down to labels of religions is really just lying. Arab lands are filled with different ethnicities who live in their own regions. And when a majority is ruled by the minority (eg Bahrain), bad shit happens (under this precedent comes my support for a separate Jewish state).
Like I mentioned earlier, Iraq would make more sense if the Kurds were given their own country and Arab Iraqis would be more than happy to leave Turkey to deal with the Kurdish issue, but here, again Kirkuk is half Kurds and half Arabs, and it's a fought over city that complicates the whole situation.
Are people really happy to dismiss the reality of it all and call it "Muslim"? This seems to be used when it's an outsider talking about us. We see ourselves differently from each other. Parts of Baghdad LITERALLY have a giant wall to separate the Sunnis from the Christians and Shias.
I do remember though when my lecturer asked my class if they thought Australia was a Christian country, a majority said yes. Seems like a convo like this is about apples and oranges if we don't share the base of what defines a country's identity (religious or otherwise).
Btw @ the people who call it an apartheid state.
These are some
actual Bantu Laws from South Africa back then
An African who was born in a town and lived there...for 50 years, but has left to reside elsewhere for any period, even two weeks, is not entitled to return...unless he has obtained a permit...he is guilty of a criminal offence, punishable by a fine...or imprisonment…
The interracial sex act saw 20 000 people arrested, with a number of those people committing suicide to escape their anguish (Banerjee, 1987, p.11).
Considering that Israel regurgitates the idea that it is America's friend in the Middle East and the only democracy in a sea of retarded Muslims, it kinda invites people to examine the claims when things like this happen:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/he-impersonated-a-human-1.303359Sabbar Kashur wanted to be a person, a person like everybody else. But as luck would have it, he was born Palestinian. It happens. His chances of being accepted as a human being in Israel are nil. Married and a father of two, he wanted to work in Jerusalem, his city, and maybe also have an affair or a quickie on the side. That happens too.
He knew that he had no chance with the Jews, so he adopted another name for himself, Dudu. He didn't have curly hair, but he went by Dudu just the same. That's how everyone knew him. That's how you know a few other Arabs too: the car-wash guy you call Rafi, the stairwell cleaner who goes by Yossi, the supermarket deliveryman you know as Moshe.
What's wrong? Is it only fearsome Shin Bet interrogators like "Capt. George" and "Abu Faraj" who are allowed to adopt names from other peoples? Are only Israelis who emigrate allowed to invent new identities? Only the Yossi from Hadera who became Joe in Miami, the Avraham from Bat Yam who became Abe in Los Angeles?
No longer a youth, Sabbar/Dudu worked as a deliveryman for a lawyer's office, rode his scooter around Jerusalem and delivered documents, affidavits and sworn testimonies, swearing to everyone that he was Dudu. Two years ago he met a woman by chance. Nice to meet you, my name is Dudu. He claims that she came on to him, but let's leave the details aside. Soon enough they went where they went and what happened happened, all by consent of the parties concerned. One fine day, a month and a half after an afternoon quickie, he was summoned to the police on suspicion of rape.
His temporary lover discovered that her Dudu wasn't a Dudu after all, that the Jew is (gasp! ) an Arab, and so she filed a complaint against the impostor. Her body was violated by an Arab. From then on Kashur was placed under house arrest for two years, an electronic cuff on his ankle. This week his sentence was pronounced: 18 months in jail.
Judge Zvi Segal waxed dramatic to the point of absurdity: "It is incumbent on the court to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth, sweet-talking offenders who can mislead naive victims into paying an unbearable price: the sanctity of their bodies and souls." Sophisticated offenders? It is doubtful that Dudu even knew he was one. Sweet talk? He says that even his wife calls him Dudu.
The court relied, as usual, on precedents: the man who posed as a senior Housing Ministry official and promised his lover an apartment and an increased National Insurance pension, and the man who posed as a wealthy neurosurgeon who promised free medical care and other perks. Dudu had nothing to offer but his good name, Dudu, and still his fate was sealed, just like those who promise apartments and perks. Not only fraud, but rape, almost like the convicted serial rapist Benny Sela.
Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein had, after all, defined the test of conviction for rape on "false pretenses": "if in the view of an ordinary person this woman would have agreed to have sexual relations with a man who did not have the identity he invented."
In tune with the public, Kashur's judges assumed, rightly, that the woman would not have gotten into bed with Dudu were it not for the identity he invented. She also might not have gotten into bed with him if he had told her in vain that he was available, that he was younger than he really is or even that he is madly in love with her. But people are not prosecuted for that, certainly not on rape charges.
Now the respected judges have to be asked: If the man was really Dudu posing as Sabbar, a Jew pretending to be an Arab so he could sleep with an Arab woman, would he then be convicted of rape? And do the eminent judges understand the social and racist meaning of their florid verdict? Don't they realize that their verdict has the uncomfortable smell of racial purity, of "don't touch our daughters"? That it expresses the yearning of the extensive segments of society that would like to ban sexual relations between Arabs and Jews?
It was no coincidence that this verdict attracted the attention of foreign correspondents in Israel, temporary visitors who see every blemish. Yes, in German or Afrikaans this disgraceful verdict would have sounded much worse.
Wont even get into the whole Ethiopian issue. Things like racism stand out from people who claim to be superior.
Also, people who studies South African history would know that the pro-apartheid camp always maintained that "Africans thrived under white rule" and "South Africa is a democracy in a sea of turmoil" (the latter was true, South Africa did very well for itself while racism and censorship were rampant).
Topic: Palestine vs Israel in London