Template talk:Segregation

message: Hence, it deserves inclusion in the template.--Kirby♥time 03:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it be noted that Israeli apartheid is a redirect. The actual article is named Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Is is customary to include redirects in templates?? Andyvphil 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. Allegations of Israeli apartheid is only politics. Segregation is racism. Adding this category is a mockery of segregation, which is when African Americans were discriminated against in the hands of the racists of America. This does not compare to anything Israel did. Segregation is racism, and adding this category is like saying it is just politics.--Sefringle 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: thats not racism, its retaliation. For all the suicide bombings of Hamas and Hizbollah, and those other Palestinians preform against Israel, and for nothing other than some building they call the Dome of the Rock, it is almost justified. There should almost be an article called Palestinian apartheid, because it is very similar. This is not racism, it is war. War alone is not racism. --Sefringle 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But war alone is not racism. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a war of racism, or if it is, it can easily be argued that calling the actions of Israel  "apartheid" is an act of antisemitism.--Sefringle 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arab-Israeli conflict is not being included in this template; Israeli apartheid is. There is a difference between racism by Israeli legislators towards Palestinians versus the terrorist actions of the IDF.--Kirby♥time 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Israeli apartheid is just labeling the actions of Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict as a form of racism, and completely ignoring the actions of the Palestinians. Casualties during war are not necessarily racist in nature. Unlike the actions of Palestinian terrorists, where they are clearly targeting Jews.--Sefringle 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Jews" they are targeting are part of the Israeli armed forces. Since when is it racist to kill members of a country's armed forces? And don't try to say that they are "civilians". Every single Israeli citizen is required to join the IDF, so evey single one is a potential murderer/terrorist and the killing is justified, not racist.--Kirby♥time 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh really!? So the Haifa bus 37 massacre, the Jerusalem bus 20 massacre, the Matza restaurant massacre, Passover massacre, Ben Yehuda Street Bombing etc. were all attacks on armed forces. Is that what you are saying? Your arguement that there are no Israeli civilians goes both ways. Every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber, and their killings are not justified; they outright border on antisemitism.--Sefringle 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are all legitimate attacks on military personnel. And wrong, not all Palestinians aren't potential suicide bombers, because they aren't required by law, unlike Israelis. --Kirby♥time 05:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All Israelies are not soldiers. This is getting really stupid and offensive, so I'm done debating this.--Sefringle 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Kirby, thats a new one from you. After you denied the holocuast saying its "alledged" to have happenned, you are now saying that suicide attacks are justified.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli apartheid is a form of segregation 

message: It's too US-centric.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.228.186 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable 

message: The white Australia policy was not racial segregation, according to the definition given by the page on racial segregation. If there is a template for racist policy you might include it there, but since it's not technically racial segregation it shouldn't be here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.207.7.118 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Australia Policy 

message: I mean there is a lot of racism in the UK, help me develop that section.Mangokeylime (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The UK 

message: I belive artical should be changed to apaethide on south africia because this is the main focoyse of the articial 
I belive that the aparthide articial should include information on sout africia definition of an aparthide as well as information on other apathides across the world such as atempted assimilition of canidian natives by europians  Jibbyp (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I say keep the original name, but add the information. Mangokeylime (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  changing title of artical 

message: Many Moslem led states discriminate against Christians, Jews and arguably women. 
 One is not allowed to build churches, synagogues or other religions'places of worship, 
 for example: Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, various Gulf states, Afghanistan and others.
 As for discrimination against Jews, many Moslem states openly allow anti-semitic diatribes 
 on public media (see MEMRI videos), openly praise and base their socio-political policies 
 on the infamous anti-semitic Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion, viz., Hamas's constitution 
 includes such references.  
 Another overlooked source of discrimination has been the UN. The UN's Human Rights committee 
 is comprised of openly racist, anti-semitic and dictatorial states. FOr many years the number 
 of resolutions passed by this body against Israel has always exceeded those referring to the 
 other 190+ UN members.    
 If this template is going to reference and identify places and policies of discrimination 
 then it must make this list twice as long.Diffrntd (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:    Moslem State Discrimination