reabhloideach,
et al,
(PREFACE)
For communication to take place, a message must be transmitted by a communicator and correctly received by a listener. If the message is not understood, there is no communication. There is only noise. Between the transmission and reception of a message, much can go wrong. Communication, by definition, involves at least two individuals, the sender and the receiver. There are certain filters or barriers which determine whether or not the message is actually transmitted or received.
Andrew E. Schwartz
CEO of A.E. Schwartz & Associates
Relative to any two-message concept, in its most basic definition, you already know there is a sender and a receiver
(some times called a decoder). The sender encodes a message, deciding what content and relationship to establish and impart. The receiver
(the decoder) takes the message and, in the decoding process, attempts to understand its content and relationship meaning. After decoding, the receiver then may respond, via a communication channel, to the sender with a new message based on the receiver's perception of what the message imparted in terms of information and the relationship with the sender.
i do not suggest your intent. please do not suggest mine. if you want to know my intention for a post, just ask. i have never had a problem with being direct.
(COMMENT)
I responded based on the intent you transmitted, and did it sterilely and in a way that could not be presumed to be
ad hominem in its form.
You opened with "apartheid" relative to Israeli actions in Palestine, and I responded with a line of thought from the foremost legal authority on this exact subject that differs from yours. For that, I apologize. It is what it is.
you, and others, perhaps should try to read with some kind of comprehension. were the israeli defense forces and security forces to open fire on palestinian demonstrators with automatic weapons and artillery fire and whatever, i would certainly have problems with the brutal nature of that, but i would not comment on the apartheid aspects of that enforcement provided that similar enforcement methods were used on jewish protesters involved in similar actions. this is not the case. jewish demonstrators are treated with kid gloves and the army frequently resorts to retreat when encountering stone throwing israeli jews.
(COMMENT)
I am quite sure that Jewish Protestors are treated differently from that of Palestinian Protesters, just as I am sure that the nature of the risk between the two confrontations is much different. I also suspect that that the territorial police of the Palestinian Authority have little doubt that a Jewish Protest is less of a threat than a Palestinian Protest. And I gave an example to that effect.
when one group of people is treated differently than another group of people based upon their ethnicity or religion by authorities and forces of the government, that is a sign of an apartheid state.
(COMMENT)
But they were not treated differently "based upon their ethnicity or religion." They were treated differently based on the tempo of the confrontation, the potential for escalation, the environment, and the risk of deadly force being used by the confrontationist engaged in hostile, violent and unlawful behaviors.
the only positive aspect of your post is that you do refer to the palestinians as an occupied people, which has the attendant implication that the land they inhabit is an occupied territory and the israeli government and her policing bodies are occupying forces.
(COMMENT)
Yes, I addressed it as "Occupied Territory" with the IDF as the "Occupation Force" and the Israeli Government as the "Occupation Power." But that is fact, not a positive statement. In fact, if the Palestinians actually ended their hostile activities a year ago, there would be a very strong case for the end to occupation. But the Palestinians haven't yet ended hostilities.
perhaps it would be wise to supplement your understanding of "law and order" with the concept of "equal protectin". it is a concept that is strived for and held in high regard by real democracies, but not by those peoples whomerely give lip service to democracy.
Equal Protection Of The Law definition
(COMMENT)
While I agree with Judge Richard Goldstone that there is a case to be made along those lines; which he has documented quite well; I also agree that:
Richard J. Goldstone said:
In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html?_r=0
Most Respectfully,
R
