1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
If it's being "antesemitic" to see a resemblance to apartheid in the current Israel-Palestine situation, then antisemitism is a thoroughly good thing.

Apartheid separated people by race. Although I keep reading such analogies by people who accuse "the white suppressors" of discriminating ... population there, then of course it's anti-Semetic. Anybody who says that anti-Semitism is a good thing is anti-Semetic. It's tautologous.

You're equivocating his statement "Antisemitism ((falsely defined by certain people) as dislike of israel policy) is a good thing" with your accusation of him saying "Antisemitism (as hatred of Jews) is a good thing"
Linz typed thus:

Well, if you wish, next time we boink in Manchester ... persuaded to blow a raspberry or two in your direction.

That's not rude, that's cute.

Not with a mouthful of porridge it's not.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Well, if you wish, next time we boink in Manchester ... persuaded to blow a raspberry or two in your direction.

That would be delightful (the raspberry, I mean) but Manchester is not on the itinerary for rest of this year (Liverpool, Phoenix, Key West and Nottingham are, though). YB may well be old enough to be really rude by the time we meet.

There's always a possibility we'll be down south sometime.
Apartheid separated people by race.

Like the "White" Japanese, and the "Colored" Chinese? (as much as these may be able to be considered separate ethnicities, most who would make this distinction would agree there's more in common with each other than with other "White" and "Colored" groups.)
Although I keep reading such analogies by people who accuse "the white suppressors" of discriminating against "the brown skinned Arabs," ... Jews have European features. Many do not. Israel has always allowed Arabs to live freely within its borders as citizens.

On the same basis as, and with all the same rights as, Jewish citizens? I'd heard not, and that was what I always thought of as why it's compared with Apartheid. I could have heard wrong, though.
Yes, at least in theory. In reality, Arabs are subjected to unfair treatment just as blacks in America are. It's not because of law or policy, but nations with those sorts of tension have racism on both sides.

When modern Israel was founded, Arab residents were welcome to stay. Most did not, and many of those took up violent opposition to Israel's existence and are still opposed. Jews in neighboring countries were kicked out, and most refugees at the time were Jews. Israel resettled the Jewish refugees, while its Arab neighbors did not resettle Arab refugees. Those Arabs who stayed became Israeli citizens.
If you want to talk about apartheid, look at the way Jews are treated in virtually every Arab nation. Jews do not have equal rights there under the law. Jews there come from families that have been there for countless generations. They have had their land taken away, are persecuted regularly for the handful who stayed in their homeland, and lost everything when they left for those who left, either by force or due to the intolerable conditions that were created.
There's no question that there's a problem with the way Arabs are treated in Israel by many. But there are also many Arabs who speak perfect Hebrew, have lived there all their lives, and look no different from many Jews. If they make a point of talking about their heritage, they would likely face more discrimination, just as a Jew in France would who was not quiet about it. (Indeed if they even mention that it's a problem for them, they would face discrimination and angry cries from the government.) The situation is not likely to change until there is peace, and hopefully it will happen some day.
I'm not sure if any of this would fall under the heading of apartheid, but what's going on in Arab countries is certainly closer.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Like the "White" Japanese, and the "Colored" Chinese? (as much ... it's compared with Apartheid. I could have heard wrong, though.

Yes, at least in theory. In reality, Arabs are subjected to unfair treatment just as blacks in America are. It's ... any of this would fall under the heading of apartheid, but what's going on in Arab countries is certainly closer.

And it's a shame to see happening. The Moorish societies in southern Spain were an excellent example of Muslim, Jew, and Christian existing together in relative harmony. Once the Christians retook Spain, came the Inquisition.

dg (domain=ccwebster)
And it's a shame to see happening. The Moorish societies in southern Spain were an excellent example of Muslim, Jew, and Christian existing together in relative harmony.

Though, to be fair, relative harmony as seen through the lens of the period (both the period's Muslim world, and the period's Europe). Their status would not be considered "equal" by today's standards.
And it's a shame to see happening. The Moorish societies ... of Muslim, Jew, and Christian existing together in relative harmony.

Though, to be fair, relative harmony as seen through the lens of the period (both the period's Muslim world, and the period's Europe). Their status would not be considered "equal" by today's standards.

True in part. I believe non-Moors were charged an extra tax in Spain. But once paid, they were encouraged to start businesses, practice their crafts, and live in accordance with their religions. So, they could be considered more equal than today's standards in parts of the world.

dg (domain=ccwebster)
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Matthew Huntbach wrote on 21 Oct 2004:
And now Bush & Co. are attempting to justify their ... throughout it's history and calling them "our rotten lousy dictators".

No, this is a nonsensical argument. What you are saying is that if someone has a range of good acts ... perform only a subset of those good acts then those good acts which they do perform are no longer good.

Okay, I agree that if I were saying what you say I'm saying, that I'd be denying the goodness of of a good act. I don't mean to say that. I mean to say that the US is substituting, ex post facto, a different argument for invading Iraq, and an unbelievable one given its history of not unseating any other dictators just because they were murderous tyrants but rather installing dozens of dictators because the US could control them.
I do not think it changes the goodness of an act if it happens that other good acts are not performed.

You're right. But it does argue that the actor (a government, in this case) is attempting to characterize itself as a good and altruistic actor because it performed a good act for the wrong reason.
If a good act is performed which happens to have benefits to the performer does that reduce the instrinsic goodness of the act? I don't think so.

That's a trickier question, I think. Must we look only at the act performed without looking at the consequences of having performed that act in order to arrive at that judgment? Can we look at the motives of the actor for performing that act, how it benefits the actor, and the effect on those whom the actor alleges it was intended to benefit? I'll agree that it is pointless to look at the character of the actor (whether the actor is essentially a bad or good person or entity) when evaluating the act. Maybe it boils down to something like this: "Can a deliberately self-serving act ever be considered good, regardless of its consequences?"
For some people, no matter what the consequences of invading Iraq, starting a war is inherently bad, and the idea that a good end justifies bad means is fallacious.
Must we analyze an act, divide it into its constituent parts, and then say that only if all the parts pass the "goodness test" is the act good? If not, then can we say that if a specific percentage of the consitutent parts are good, then the act is good?
Finally, though, after thinking about this on and off for a few weeks, it seems to me that a single act that can be characterized as good in isolation cannot be judged good or not good for the same reasons in the context in which it was performed. And the act consists of a great deal more than ridding Iraq of a brutal dictator. It consists of the entirety of the war, the deaths of all the American, British, and other Coalition soldiers, of the Iraq soldiers and civilians, of the beheaded hostages, of the subsequent insurgency, of the consequent acts of terror in Iraq and Spain and everywhere else in the world since the USA and UK marched into Iraq.

That Saddam is gone is only one of a related series of myriad consequences that cannot be individually judged as good or bad on any absolute scale of goodness/badness. Life is not as simple as the idea that deposing Saddam was a good act. That idea is absurd because that is not all that happened.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.