..It's no accident that the plan bears a striking resemblance to the "grand apartheid" promoted by the old South African regime, in which blacks became citizens of "independent" bantustans. According to an Israeli diplomat who spent many years in Africa, Sharon paid both secret and public visits to South Africa in the 1980s. "I saw what interested him: bantustans, as if it were just an intellectual interest," the diplomat told me. "He had a fixation with bantustans that seemed out of proportion."
Hi Outlaw. Your post is based almost entirely on the supposed whispers of an anonymous diplomat, and you think my post was unsupported!!! You have not offered any evidence of why my evaluation of Arab rights in Israel is incorrect, instead you have turned attention to the 'west bank', however this territory is under Palestinian administration and would be a sovereign State of Palestine had its leadership not rejected all 9 offers of Statehood by Israel in exchange for peace. The problem is that they do not want a separate state, it is just a tactic in the long war against Israel. My points about Arabs in Israel proper PROVE that Israel is NOT practicing a racist apartheid. In the West Bank, however, things are a lot more complicated. Israel has the duty to protect Jews living there and enforcing a residents only policy on roads that go ONLY to the settlements is part of this. Likewise the security fence, which by the way is only a 'wall' for about 4% of its length, is purely about saving lives. If your country was hit by a massive wave of suicide bombing from a neigboring hostile nature, and there was no border between you to stop them getting through, I expect you would want a fence built too. The fence HAS saved MANY lives in Israel, thats why its there. Opposing it can only mean that you would rather see Jews getting blown apart in Israel's streets, cafe's and nightclubs. Would you?
they're more irrelevant than they are simple. you wanna ask those, feel free to PM me or ask in a topic where it is relevant. otherwise, quit trying to stray away from the main issues just to try to excuse Israel's occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.
so me asking you if you like Jewish people or have any jewish friends is me trying to excuse Israel's occupation and oppression?
its a simple question which you refuse to answer. fuck the topic of the thread. its just a question.
criticizing Israel does not equal being anti-semtic but you take it too far. and by your clear avoidance of my question, its apparent how you feel. even though you dont have the balls to admit it publicly.
Hi Outlaw. Your post is based almost entirely on the supposed whispers of an anonymous diplomat, and you think my post was unsupported!!! You have not offered any evidence of why my evaluation of Arab rights in Israel is incorrect, instead you have turned attention to the 'west bank'
what the hell are you talking about. did you not see that I posted this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Arabs#Recognition_of_discrimination
which refuted your suggestion that Israeli Arabs have equal rights.
some examples:
- Buying or leasing land to non-Jews religiously prohibited
- Israeli religious law does not allow Arabs to marry Israelis.
- Mixed-religious couples (such as Muslim and Jew, or Christian and Jew) not allowed marriage.
- 300,000 Israeli citizens unable to have recognized marriage in Israel due to Law of Halacha.
however this territory is under Palestinian administration and would be a sovereign State of Palestine had its leadership not rejected all 9 offers of Statehood by Israel in exchange for peace. The problem is that they do not want a separate state, it is just a tactic in the long war against Israel.
I'm sorry to say, but you're completely delusional. You clearly never give any back up to where you get this information from. It's far-fetched to say the least of it. Israel's 'offers' of statehood aren't just rejected by Palestine, they're rejected by the international community because they are completely irrational. Palestine would not be a viable state if they accepted such a terrible offer (which you never expand on, I wonder why), and Israel would certainly not help them in any way. Israel would keep the natural resources to themselves and cut off Palestine.
Palestine has called for a state along the '67 borders, something the entire international community (except for Israel and the U.S.) supports. IN FACT, EVERY YEAR... every single year... the UN General Assembly votes on this issue for Palestine and calls for a state to be made on the '67 borders. The only nations who ever vote against this are the U.S. and Israel (as well as a couple islands like Micronesia)... over 150 nations, however, vote 'yes.' This is even more legitimate than the 1947 UN Partition Plan which most Israelis look for to back up their opinion, and this has been an ongoing vote for over 10 years.
The highest judicial system in the world, the International Court of Justice, has called out Israel, and said that the Palestinians have the right to a country on the '67 borders. Most people completely ignore this, however, unsurprisingly.
In the West Bank, however, things are a lot more complicated. Israel has the duty to protect Jews living there and enforcing a residents only policy on roads that go ONLY to the settlements is part of this. Likewise the security fence, which by the way is only a 'wall' for about 4% of its length, is purely about saving lives. If your country was hit by a massive wave of suicide bombing from a neigboring hostile nature, and there was no border between you to stop them getting through, I expect you would want a fence built too. The fence HAS saved MANY lives in Israel, thats why its there. Opposing it can only mean that you would rather see Jews getting blown apart in Israel's streets, cafe's and nightclubs. Would you?
Actually, only 11 percent of the wall runs along Israel's internationally recognized boundary )the green line), the remainder of it cutting off some 15 percent of the West Bank, including some of it's richest land and water resources, as well as 274,000 Palestinians, who will live either in closed areas between the wall and the Green Line or in enclaves totally surrounded by the wall.
The settlements are illegal - in fact they constitute war crimes under international law.
"The Israeli government cannot use security concerns for Israeli's living in illegal settlements," Human Rights Watch observes, "to justify further encroachments into occupied territory."
"The underlying reason for the wall", B'Tselem suggests, is "not to provide maximum protection of the settlers" but rather "to establish facts on the ground that would perpetuate the existence of settlements and facilitate their future annexation into Israel."
In July 2004 the World Court handed down it's advisory opinion "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". By a vote of fourteen to one (United States), it concluded that the wall is illegal under International law, and that it needs to be dismantled immediately.
You're especially quit to defend Israel's 'security measures' (which include killing children), but you never note the fact that Israel's 'security measures' are deemed illegal by the international community.
"The blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip over a year ago has left the entire population of 1.5 million Palestinians trapped with dwindling resources and an economy in ruins. Some 80 per cent of the population now depend on the trickle of international aid that the Israeli army allows in. This humanitarian crisis is man-made and entirely avoidable."
so me asking you if you like Jewish people or have any jewish friends is me trying to excuse Israel's occupation and oppression?
no, you asking irrelevant questions, rather than discussing the main issues.
its a simple question which you refuse to answer.
it's a simple, IRRELEVANT question, which you bring up to prove one point. I told you where you can ask me. Feel free to PM me or ask it in a thread where it is relevant.
fuck the topic of the thread.
tell that to the moderators of this board.
criticizing Israel does not equal being anti-semtic but you take it too far. and by your clear avoidance of my question, its apparent how you feel. even though you dont have the balls to admit it publicly.
A) thats hilarious that you use teenage lingo. are you implying I am dancing around a certain question? I will be happy to answer any question you ask.
are you implying I am dancing around a certain question? I will be happy to answer any question you ask.
as if you could. you clearly have no interest in discussing the conflict. we're on the 3rd page of the thread, and I've been debating someone about it, and yet you've intentionally ignored any points made to ask me if I like Jews.
as if you could. you clearly have no interest in discussing the conflict. we're on the 3rd page of the thread, and I've been debating someone about it, and yet you've intentionally ignored any points made to ask me if I like Jews.
I have plenty of interest in discussing this topic. I'm ready whenever you are. and in debating this, its relevant if you hate ALL jews. but since you have no balls in answering a direct question, I'll let it slid. so what do you want to discuss? the Israeli police state? what about it?
I have plenty of interest in discussing this topic. I'm ready whenever you are. and in debating this, its relevant if you hate ALL jews. but since you have no balls in answering a direct question, I'll let it slid. so what do you want to discuss? the Israeli police state? what about it?
I like the earlier reference to 'teen lingo', followed by you saying I have 'no balls'.
anyway, feel free to comment on earlier posts with anything you may disagree with.
In the West Bank, however, things are a lot more complicated. Israel has the duty to protect Jews living there and enforcing a residents only policy on roads that go ONLY to the settlements is part of this. Likewise the security fence, which by the way is only a 'wall' for about 4% of its length, is purely about saving lives. If your country was hit by a massive wave of suicide bombing from a neigboring hostile nature, and there was no border between you to stop them getting through, I expect you would want a fence built too. The fence HAS saved MANY lives in Israel, thats why its there.
Meh, justifying the wall is as stupid as justifying suicide bombings, both are the manifestations of massive political failures. Find me an independant study showing the fence does save many lives, until then I'll keep on seeing it as a inhumane and humiliating way to treat human populations.
Opposing it can only mean that you would rather see Jews getting blown apart in Israel's streets, cafe's and nightclubs. Would you?
The "You're either with us or against us" way of thought definitely showed it's efficiency in the recent years.
what the hell are you talking about. did you not see that I posted this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Arabs#Recognition_of_discrimination
which refuted your suggestion that Israeli Arabs have equal rights.
some examples:
- Buying or leasing land to non-Jews religiously prohibited
- Israeli religious law does not allow Arabs to marry Israelis.
- Mixed-religious couples (such as Muslim and Jew, or Christian and Jew) not allowed marriage.
- 300,000 Israeli citizens unable to have recognized marriage in Israel due to Law of Halacha.
If this is really youe evidence of Apartheid in Israel, I think you have already lost your case. Yes there are tensions between Israel's definition as a 'Jewish state', and a 'State of all its citizens', however these examples are not about Imperialistic dominance or racial superiority, they are about survival. If you know anything about Jewish history you will see why the Jews, more than any other people, need to have a State that is Jewish. There are 53 Islamic dominated States in the World, it is not too much for the Jews to have one (tiny) peice of land on there ancestral homeland. The biggest threat to Jewish survival has always been intermarriage, because it wipes out Jewishness in two or three generations. Modern rabbi's are simply being obedient to the Bible by refusing to sanction intermarriage. The Jews tried to be accepted as equal citizens of europe, and see there future there, but the Holocaust convinced most Jews that they NEED a Jewish homeland. Is this really too much to ask? especially after all they have been through. Yes the Arab birthrate, Intermarriage, Arab land ownership, and other factors are a threat to Israel's existence as a Jewish State, and many Jews in Israel do not like the Israeli Arabs. However, Israeli Arabs DO have full legal rights in Israel, in fact Israel is the only country in the Midlle east where Arab women can vote. If you read a little further in your wickipedia link, you will see that most Israeli arabs are quite happy with what they have in Israel. Let me quote it for you:
On April 29, 2007 Haaretz reported that an Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI) poll of 507 people showed that 75% of "Israeli Arabs would support a constitution that maintained Israel's status as a Jewish and democratic state while guaranteeing equal rights for minorities, while 23% said they would oppose such a definition."[188]
A poll published in the Nazareth-based Arabic newspaper A-Sinara in 2007, reported that the majority (78%) of Arab citizens of Israel would prefer to remain under Israeli rule rather than move to a future State of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.[citation needed] Similarly, a 2008 poll on intercommunal relations by a Harvard Kennedy School associate found that 77% of Arab citizens of Israel would rather remain in their native land, as Israeli citizens, than in any other country in the world.[189] The poll also found that "Arab citizens and Jewish citizens both underestimate their communities’ liking of the 'other.'"[190]
I'm sorry to say, but you're completely delusional. You clearly never give any back up to where you get this information from. It's far-fetched to say the least of it. Israel's 'offers' of statehood aren't just rejected by Palestine, they're rejected by the international community because they are completely irrational. Palestine would not be a viable state if they accepted such a terrible offer (which you never expand on, I wonder why), and Israel would certainly not help them in any way. Israel would keep the natural resources to themselves and cut off Palestine.
Ok. Well firstly the Palestinian Arabs WERE given their own State in Palestine and it included 77% of mandatory Palestine. It is called Jordan.
Regarding a second Arab State on the 23% that the Jews were left with, they were offered a state in 1947 on MORE land than the State you are proposing. They rejected it. Many other offers have taken place, most recently Barak offered 100% of Gaza and 98% of the West Bank to Arafat at Camp david. This was more than most Israeli's were comfortable with but Arafat turned it down without a single counter-offer and went home to lauch the intifada. Bill Clinton was amazed at Barak's offer and placed the blame entirely on Arafat for missing thae chance.
The settlements are illegal - in fact they constitute war crimes under international law.
This is a lie. The mandate for Palestine called for 'close settlement' of Jews on these areas. This remains international law, it has never been revoked.
"The underlying reason for the wall", B'Tselem suggests, is "not to provide maximum protection of the settlers" but rather "to establish facts on the ground that would perpetuate the existence of settlements and facilitate their future annexation into Israel."
Yes there are people who give it this kind of spin, but this is a subjective interpretation of reality and is really an opportunist polemic against Israel to paint a picture of Israelis as cruel, racist, oppressors. In truth Israel just wants to protect its citizens, Israel has clearly stated that the fence can be moved at any time to comply with any future peace deal. The sole purpose is to protect Israelis where they are now. Of course, what Israelis say will have no meaning for you if you have already decided that they are inherantly evil or deceitfull, it will confirm your belief.
If this is really youe evidence of Apartheid in Israel, I think you have already lost your case.
Actually, those were examples of Arabs not having equal rights. You ignored my post about apartheid and the link with Desmond Tutu talking about it. If you want more examples of racism: http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0999/9909019.html
'...the apartheid label should not be restricted to the post-1967 occupation. There is a more fundamental form of apartheid, of which the occupation is but a manifestation.
Apartheid in historic Palestine originated, and has persisted, in the ideology of creating a state in which Jews would be separated from non-Jews in terms of their stake in the political community. It was an apartheid mentality that nourished the desire of establishing and maintaining a state with a Jewish demographic majority and character. The well-planned ethnic cleansing, in 1948, of 750000 indigenous people was apartheid practice par excellence. It is apartheid which prevents the expelled and their descendants from returning: this apartheid denies residence to expellees from my former home district, the Galilee, but grants it, not just to Israeli-born Jews like me, but to Jews all over the world. It is apartheid law that creates a wall of discrimination between Jewish and Arab citizens of the Israeli state. It is an Apartheid mentality that prompts some Israeli Jews to view their Arab fellow-citizens as a "demographic threat".
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were to completely ignore all of this... :rolleyes:
Earlier you said there aren't equal rights, and now you're saying:
Yes there are tensions between Israel's definition as a 'Jewish state', and a 'State of all its citizens', however these examples are not about Imperialistic dominance or racial superiority, they are about survival.
as a means of justifying it? please... don't give me bullshit like this. Back in the early 1900s, Arabs were reluctant to sell land to the Jewish people because of the strong Zionist movement that wanted to take control of Palestine. The Jews were upset and said this isn't 'fair' or 'equal treatment'.... yet, now it's about 'survival' because it's the other way around. bullshit.
If you know anything about Jewish history you will see why the Jews, more than any other people, need to have a State that is Jewish. There are 53 Islamic dominated States in the World, it is not too much for the Jews to have one (tiny) peice of land on there ancestral homeland.
this is all sidestepping the actual issue. if the Jewish people had discovered this land with no one inhabiting it, I really could care less. But to think that you think it's ok for them to displace a people, kill, raze villages, etc, all just because they 'need a homeland' is pure insanity.
The biggest threat to Jewish survival has always been intermarriage, because it wipes out Jewishness in two or three generations. Modern rabbi's are simply being obedient to the Bible by refusing to sanction intermarriage.
once again, you're justifying something that really can't be justified. you're telling me a Jewish person shouldn't be allowed to marry who he wants just because he's Jewish? If Israel is really supposed to be a democracy, if it were really supposed to be a Jewish homeland, then they should have real equality and freedom...
The Jews tried to be accepted as equal citizens of europe, and see there future there, but the Holocaust convinced most Jews that they NEED a Jewish homeland.
wrong. the zionist movement began DECADES before the holocaust. again, this is just someone trying to justify israel's occupation by bringing up the holocaust.
On April 29, 2007 Haaretz reported that an Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI) poll of 507 people showed that 75% of "Israeli Arabs would support a constitution that maintained Israel's status as a Jewish and democratic state while guaranteeing equal rights for minorities, while 23% said they would oppose such a definition."[188]
..."while guaranteeing equal rights for minorities"... let me see them actually GET equal rights, then this would support your idea.
Ok. Well firstly the Palestinian Arabs WERE given their own State in Palestine and it included 77% of mandatory Palestine. It is called Jordan.
what? Jordan declared its own independence which is (SURPRISE) INDEPENDENT OF PALESTINE...
Regarding a second Arab State on the 23% that the Jews were left with, they were offered a state in 1947 on MORE land than the State you are proposing. They rejected it.
yes, why in the hell should they accept it? they had the right to the land. the Jewish people only owned 6% of the land, to end up with 55%?! you think the Palestinians should be forced to give up 49% of the land they have? the Palestinians, unlike the Israelis now, were not guilty of crimes of occupation, genocide, human rights violations, etc...
Many other offers have taken place, most recently Barak offered 100% of Gaza and 98% of the West Bank to Arafat at Camp david. This was more than most Israeli's were comfortable with but Arafat turned it down without a single counter-offer and went home to lauch the intifada. Bill Clinton was amazed at Barak's offer and placed the blame entirely on Arafat for missing thae chance.
This is a lie.
Noam Chomsky: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm
'The Barak proposal in Camp David...Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.
So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.
This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.
Solomon: All right, but let me just say, Arafat didn't even bother putting a counter-proposal on the table.
Chomsky: Oh, that's not true.
Solomon: They negotiated that afterwards.
Chomsky: That's not true.
Solomon: I guess my question is, if they don't continue to negotiate -
Chomsky: They did. That's false.
Solomon: That's false?
Chomsky: Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That's a media fabrication . . .
Solomon: That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal . .
Chomsky: Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States.
This is a lie. The mandate for Palestine called for 'close settlement' of Jews on these areas. This remains international law, it has never been revoked.
This is complete bullshit. The mandate for Palestine was trampled on with Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign and land grab in 1948 and never included Gaza or the West Bank. The Occupation is illegal under International law and constitutes a war crime.
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
'The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to the entire City of Jerusalem, in order to protect the Palestinians living there. The Palestinian People living in this Palestinian Land are “protected persons” within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of their rights are sacred under international law.
There are 149 substantive articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that protect the rights of every one of these Palestinians living in occupied Palestine. The Israeli Government is currently violating, and has since 1967 been violating, almost each and every one of these sacred rights of the Palestinian People recognized by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Indeed, violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are war crimes.'
Yes there are people who give it this kind of spin, but this is a subjective interpretation of reality and is really an opportunist polemic against Israel to paint a picture of Israelis as cruel, racist, oppressors. In truth Israel just wants to protect its citizens, Israel has clearly stated that the fence can be moved at any time to comply with any future peace deal. The sole purpose is to protect Israelis where they are now. Of course, what Israelis say will have no meaning for you if you have already decided that they are inherantly evil or deceitfull, it will confirm your belief.
'...most of the fence/wall is not being constructed on the Green Line between Israel and the West Bank. Close to 90% of the route of the fence/wall is on Palestinian land inside the West Bank, encircling Palestinian towns and villages and cutting off communities and families from each other, separating farmers from their land and Palestinians from their places of work, education and health care facilities and other essential services.The total route of the fence/wall runs for more than 650 kilometres, more than double the length of the Green Line, and has an average width of 60 to 80 meters, including barbed wire, ditches, large trace paths and tank patrol lanes on each sides of the fence/wall, as well as additional buffer zones/no-go areas of varying depths...
When completed, the fence/wall will cut off more than 15% of the West Bank land from the rest of the West Bank and some 270,000 Palestinians living in these areas will be trapped in closed military areas between the fence/wall and the Green Line or in enclaves encircled by the fence/wall.10 More than 200,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem will also be cut off from the West Bank and hundreds of thousands of other Palestinians living in towns and villages to the east of the fence/wall will also be affected as they need access to the areas on the other side of the fence/wall to reach their land and their workplaces, schools and health care facilities and other services, and to visit their relatives.
The route of the fence/wall has been designed so as to encompass a large number of Israeli settlements inside the Occupied Territories, which have been built and continue to be expanded in violation of international law.11 Some 54 Israeli settlements in the West Bank and 12 in East Jerusalem are located on Palestinian land which is being cut off from the rest of the West Bank by the fence/wall. 12 In total, more than 320,000 Israeli settlers, that is approximately 80% of the settlers living in the Occupied Territories, will be living on the
western side of the fence/wall, thereby enjoying more direct territorial contiguity with Israel.'
When their enemies come onto their hard won land and prevent their pre-organised event from taking place by turning up for a protest 'prayer' event,
pre-organized event? that's an interesting way of saying ethnic cleansing, occupation, and oppression. how dare people turn up to protest?
they have every right to escort them off
...the face of the earth.
or do you mean this?
The Palestinian refugees are not to be justified as having had to be escorted from the land. It is ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. Near 1,000,000 Palestinians had to flee or were kicked out of their homes in 1948 due to Israeli oppression, and you actually think the Israelis had the right to do that? This is really the first time I heard of 'the right to oppress'.
Uruknet's report alledges Israeli violence and Palestinian pacifism, hmmm, that would be a first.
no no no no no no. the palestinians are NOT peaceful people. they are EXTREMELY VIOLENT
I'd like to see some evidence, not just hollow, one sided, slander.
This part is just especially hilarious. your entire post offers absolutely no evidence whatsoever. literally, everything you wrote in this post is contradicted by this last line. thanks for the laugh, and I await the 'evidence' you wish to present to prove me otherwise.
you are just a kid. you havent opened your mind yet. facts and history show lots of things. you only look at one side of it
I'll wait until you actually discuss the issues. unless, of course, I'm asking too much of you... you know, to discuss the israel-palestine conflict in an israel-palestine thread.
Comments
Hi Outlaw. Your post is based almost entirely on the supposed whispers of an anonymous diplomat, and you think my post was unsupported!!! You have not offered any evidence of why my evaluation of Arab rights in Israel is incorrect, instead you have turned attention to the 'west bank', however this territory is under Palestinian administration and would be a sovereign State of Palestine had its leadership not rejected all 9 offers of Statehood by Israel in exchange for peace. The problem is that they do not want a separate state, it is just a tactic in the long war against Israel. My points about Arabs in Israel proper PROVE that Israel is NOT practicing a racist apartheid. In the West Bank, however, things are a lot more complicated. Israel has the duty to protect Jews living there and enforcing a residents only policy on roads that go ONLY to the settlements is part of this. Likewise the security fence, which by the way is only a 'wall' for about 4% of its length, is purely about saving lives. If your country was hit by a massive wave of suicide bombing from a neigboring hostile nature, and there was no border between you to stop them getting through, I expect you would want a fence built too. The fence HAS saved MANY lives in Israel, thats why its there. Opposing it can only mean that you would rather see Jews getting blown apart in Israel's streets, cafe's and nightclubs. Would you?
so me asking you if you like Jewish people or have any jewish friends is me trying to excuse Israel's occupation and oppression?
its a simple question which you refuse to answer. fuck the topic of the thread. its just a question.
criticizing Israel does not equal being anti-semtic but you take it too far. and by your clear avoidance of my question, its apparent how you feel. even though you dont have the balls to admit it publicly.
which refuted your suggestion that Israeli Arabs have equal rights.
some examples:
- Buying or leasing land to non-Jews religiously prohibited
- Israeli religious law does not allow Arabs to marry Israelis.
- Mixed-religious couples (such as Muslim and Jew, or Christian and Jew) not allowed marriage.
- 300,000 Israeli citizens unable to have recognized marriage in Israel due to Law of Halacha.
More on apartheid: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm I'm sorry to say, but you're completely delusional. You clearly never give any back up to where you get this information from. It's far-fetched to say the least of it. Israel's 'offers' of statehood aren't just rejected by Palestine, they're rejected by the international community because they are completely irrational. Palestine would not be a viable state if they accepted such a terrible offer (which you never expand on, I wonder why), and Israel would certainly not help them in any way. Israel would keep the natural resources to themselves and cut off Palestine.
Palestine has called for a state along the '67 borders, something the entire international community (except for Israel and the U.S.) supports. IN FACT, EVERY YEAR... every single year... the UN General Assembly votes on this issue for Palestine and calls for a state to be made on the '67 borders. The only nations who ever vote against this are the U.S. and Israel (as well as a couple islands like Micronesia)... over 150 nations, however, vote 'yes.' This is even more legitimate than the 1947 UN Partition Plan which most Israelis look for to back up their opinion, and this has been an ongoing vote for over 10 years.
The highest judicial system in the world, the International Court of Justice, has called out Israel, and said that the Palestinians have the right to a country on the '67 borders. Most people completely ignore this, however, unsurprisingly. Actually, only 11 percent of the wall runs along Israel's internationally recognized boundary )the green line), the remainder of it cutting off some 15 percent of the West Bank, including some of it's richest land and water resources, as well as 274,000 Palestinians, who will live either in closed areas between the wall and the Green Line or in enclaves totally surrounded by the wall.
The settlements are illegal - in fact they constitute war crimes under international law.
"The Israeli government cannot use security concerns for Israeli's living in illegal settlements," Human Rights Watch observes, "to justify further encroachments into occupied territory."
"The underlying reason for the wall", B'Tselem suggests, is "not to provide maximum protection of the settlers" but rather "to establish facts on the ground that would perpetuate the existence of settlements and facilitate their future annexation into Israel."
In July 2004 the World Court handed down it's advisory opinion "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". By a vote of fourteen to one (United States), it concluded that the wall is illegal under International law, and that it needs to be dismantled immediately.
You're especially quit to defend Israel's 'security measures' (which include killing children), but you never note the fact that Israel's 'security measures' are deemed illegal by the international community.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/trapped-collective-punishment-gaza-20080812
ha.
A) thats hilarious that you use teenage lingo.
I have plenty of interest in discussing this topic. I'm ready whenever you are. and in debating this, its relevant if you hate ALL jews. but since you have no balls in answering a direct question, I'll let it slid. so what do you want to discuss? the Israeli police state? what about it?
anyway, feel free to comment on earlier posts with anything you may disagree with.
what do u want me to respond to? intelligent posts like this?
Exactly.
If this is really youe evidence of Apartheid in Israel, I think you have already lost your case. Yes there are tensions between Israel's definition as a 'Jewish state', and a 'State of all its citizens', however these examples are not about Imperialistic dominance or racial superiority, they are about survival. If you know anything about Jewish history you will see why the Jews, more than any other people, need to have a State that is Jewish. There are 53 Islamic dominated States in the World, it is not too much for the Jews to have one (tiny) peice of land on there ancestral homeland. The biggest threat to Jewish survival has always been intermarriage, because it wipes out Jewishness in two or three generations. Modern rabbi's are simply being obedient to the Bible by refusing to sanction intermarriage. The Jews tried to be accepted as equal citizens of europe, and see there future there, but the Holocaust convinced most Jews that they NEED a Jewish homeland. Is this really too much to ask? especially after all they have been through. Yes the Arab birthrate, Intermarriage, Arab land ownership, and other factors are a threat to Israel's existence as a Jewish State, and many Jews in Israel do not like the Israeli Arabs. However, Israeli Arabs DO have full legal rights in Israel, in fact Israel is the only country in the Midlle east where Arab women can vote. If you read a little further in your wickipedia link, you will see that most Israeli arabs are quite happy with what they have in Israel. Let me quote it for you:
On April 29, 2007 Haaretz reported that an Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI) poll of 507 people showed that 75% of "Israeli Arabs would support a constitution that maintained Israel's status as a Jewish and democratic state while guaranteeing equal rights for minorities, while 23% said they would oppose such a definition."[188]
A poll published in the Nazareth-based Arabic newspaper A-Sinara in 2007, reported that the majority (78%) of Arab citizens of Israel would prefer to remain under Israeli rule rather than move to a future State of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.[citation needed] Similarly, a 2008 poll on intercommunal relations by a Harvard Kennedy School associate found that 77% of Arab citizens of Israel would rather remain in their native land, as Israeli citizens, than in any other country in the world.[189] The poll also found that "Arab citizens and Jewish citizens both underestimate their communities’ liking of the 'other.'"[190]
Peace.
Ok. Well firstly the Palestinian Arabs WERE given their own State in Palestine and it included 77% of mandatory Palestine. It is called Jordan.
Regarding a second Arab State on the 23% that the Jews were left with, they were offered a state in 1947 on MORE land than the State you are proposing. They rejected it. Many other offers have taken place, most recently Barak offered 100% of Gaza and 98% of the West Bank to Arafat at Camp david. This was more than most Israeli's were comfortable with but Arafat turned it down without a single counter-offer and went home to lauch the intifada. Bill Clinton was amazed at Barak's offer and placed the blame entirely on Arafat for missing thae chance.
This is a lie. The mandate for Palestine called for 'close settlement' of Jews on these areas. This remains international law, it has never been revoked.
Yes there are people who give it this kind of spin, but this is a subjective interpretation of reality and is really an opportunist polemic against Israel to paint a picture of Israelis as cruel, racist, oppressors. In truth Israel just wants to protect its citizens, Israel has clearly stated that the fence can be moved at any time to comply with any future peace deal. The sole purpose is to protect Israelis where they are now. Of course, what Israelis say will have no meaning for you if you have already decided that they are inherantly evil or deceitfull, it will confirm your belief.
its just difficult to have an adult discussion with a child. sorry. tim has taken care of you in this thread anyway.
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0999/9909019.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7136068.stm
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story2289.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009168.html
http://www.rense.com/general14/itisabsurd.htm
Apartheid:
http://www.counterpunch.org/bendor06232007.html
'...the apartheid label should not be restricted to the post-1967 occupation. There is a more fundamental form of apartheid, of which the occupation is but a manifestation.
Apartheid in historic Palestine originated, and has persisted, in the ideology of creating a state in which Jews would be separated from non-Jews in terms of their stake in the political community. It was an apartheid mentality that nourished the desire of establishing and maintaining a state with a Jewish demographic majority and character. The well-planned ethnic cleansing, in 1948, of 750000 indigenous people was apartheid practice par excellence. It is apartheid which prevents the expelled and their descendants from returning: this apartheid denies residence to expellees from my former home district, the Galilee, but grants it, not just to Israeli-born Jews like me, but to Jews all over the world. It is apartheid law that creates a wall of discrimination between Jewish and Arab citizens of the Israeli state. It is an Apartheid mentality that prompts some Israeli Jews to view their Arab fellow-citizens as a "demographic threat".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4111915.stm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/tutu
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9697
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were to completely ignore all of this... :rolleyes:
Earlier you said there aren't equal rights, and now you're saying: as a means of justifying it? please... don't give me bullshit like this. Back in the early 1900s, Arabs were reluctant to sell land to the Jewish people because of the strong Zionist movement that wanted to take control of Palestine. The Jews were upset and said this isn't 'fair' or 'equal treatment'.... yet, now it's about 'survival' because it's the other way around. bullshit. this is all sidestepping the actual issue. if the Jewish people had discovered this land with no one inhabiting it, I really could care less. But to think that you think it's ok for them to displace a people, kill, raze villages, etc, all just because they 'need a homeland' is pure insanity. once again, you're justifying something that really can't be justified. you're telling me a Jewish person shouldn't be allowed to marry who he wants just because he's Jewish? If Israel is really supposed to be a democracy, if it were really supposed to be a Jewish homeland, then they should have real equality and freedom... wrong. the zionist movement began DECADES before the holocaust. again, this is just someone trying to justify israel's occupation by bringing up the holocaust. ..."while guaranteeing equal rights for minorities"... let me see them actually GET equal rights, then this would support your idea.
Noam Chomsky:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm
'The Barak proposal in Camp David...Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.
So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.
This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.
Solomon: All right, but let me just say, Arafat didn't even bother putting a counter-proposal on the table.
Chomsky: Oh, that's not true.
Solomon: They negotiated that afterwards.
Chomsky: That's not true.
Solomon: I guess my question is, if they don't continue to negotiate -
Chomsky: They did. That's false.
Solomon: That's false?
Chomsky: Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That's a media fabrication . . .
Solomon: That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal . .
Chomsky: Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States. This is complete bullshit. The mandate for Palestine was trampled on with Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign and land grab in 1948 and never included Gaza or the West Bank. The Occupation is illegal under International law and constitutes a war crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242
Resolution 242:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/boyle.html
'The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to the entire City of Jerusalem, in order to protect the Palestinians living there. The Palestinian People living in this Palestinian Land are “protected persons” within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of their rights are sacred under international law.
There are 149 substantive articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that protect the rights of every one of these Palestinians living in occupied Palestine. The Israeli Government is currently violating, and has since 1967 been violating, almost each and every one of these sacred rights of the Palestinian People recognized by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Indeed, violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are war crimes.' justifying the illegal fence really is weak.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/016/2004/en/dom-MDE150162004en.pdf
'...most of the fence/wall is not being constructed on the Green Line between Israel and the West Bank. Close to 90% of the route of the fence/wall is on Palestinian land inside the West Bank, encircling Palestinian towns and villages and cutting off communities and families from each other, separating farmers from their land and Palestinians from their places of work, education and health care facilities and other essential services.The total route of the fence/wall runs for more than 650 kilometres, more than double the length of the Green Line, and has an average width of 60 to 80 meters, including barbed wire, ditches, large trace paths and tank patrol lanes on each sides of the fence/wall, as well as additional buffer zones/no-go areas of varying depths...
When completed, the fence/wall will cut off more than 15% of the West Bank land from the rest of the West Bank and some 270,000 Palestinians living in these areas will be trapped in closed military areas between the fence/wall and the Green Line or in enclaves encircled by the fence/wall.10 More than 200,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem will also be cut off from the West Bank and hundreds of thousands of other Palestinians living in towns and villages to the east of the fence/wall will also be affected as they need access to the areas on the other side of the fence/wall to reach their land and their workplaces, schools and health care facilities and other services, and to visit their relatives.
The route of the fence/wall has been designed so as to encompass a large number of Israeli settlements inside the Occupied Territories, which have been built and continue to be expanded in violation of international law.11 Some 54 Israeli settlements in the West Bank and 12 in East Jerusalem are located on Palestinian land which is being cut off from the rest of the West Bank by the fence/wall. 12 In total, more than 320,000 Israeli settlers, that is approximately 80% of the settlers living in the Occupied Territories, will be living on the
western side of the fence/wall, thereby enjoying more direct territorial contiguity with Israel.'
I'm really not sure why you bother. you mind isn't open enough to see all sides of this problem.
or do you mean this?
The Palestinian refugees are not to be justified as having had to be escorted from the land. It is ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. Near 1,000,000 Palestinians had to flee or were kicked out of their homes in 1948 due to Israeli oppression, and you actually think the Israelis had the right to do that? This is really the first time I heard of 'the right to oppress'. no no no no no no. the palestinians are NOT peaceful people. they are EXTREMELY VIOLENT This part is just especially hilarious. your entire post offers absolutely no evidence whatsoever. literally, everything you wrote in this post is contradicted by this last line. thanks for the laugh, and I await the 'evidence' you wish to present to prove me otherwise.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901.pdf
'Israeli Discrimination Against Non-Jews Is Carefully Codified in State of Israel's Laws'
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0198/9801088.html
'For Israel's Arab Citizens, Isolation and Exclusion'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902681_pf.html
its impossible to debate with someone who only believes there is only one bad guy in "this problem"
I, on the other hand, like facts and history.
both sides...see..
http://w3.castup.net/mfa/presentations/Children%20and%20Terror.htm
what a wonderful way to raise childen
you are just a kid. you havent opened your mind yet. facts and history show lots of things. you only look at one side of it