Defining ourselves as "pro" or "anti"

[Phoenall]

Would you define yourself as pro- or anti- Israel and/or pro- or anti- Palestine?

What distinguishes the different designations?


I, personally, consider myself both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

There are those who support the right of return

And there are those that support a Jewish State

The two cannot coexist and is the most meaningful distinction there is no middle ground here that could feasibly be laid out. Anyone with any sense of morality supports the right of return, which is an inherently* anti zionist position.

On the contrary, Israel's "Right of Return" law for all Jews around the world, fits in well with Zionism.

And that is the only war "right of return" can be legally employed, as individual nations statute. The Palestinians want the right of return, but only for arab muslims returning to Israel but not for Jews returning to palestine

 

[Phoenall]

Would you define yourself as pro- or anti- Israel and/or pro- or anti- Palestine?

What distinguishes the different designations?


I, personally, consider myself both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

There are those who support the right of return

And there are those that support a Jewish State

The two cannot coexist and is the most meaningful distinction there is no middle ground here that could feasibly be laid out. Anyone with any sense of morality supports the right of return, which is an inherently* anti zionist position.

On the contrary, Israel's "Right of Return" law for all Jews around the world, fits in well with Zionism.

To have a Right of Return you'd have to prove that you have a right to be there in the first place. European Jews cannot do that, just saying it doesn't make it true. If I as a Brahmin marry non Indians for 20 generations my kin will have lost their claim to Dehli long ago. There are only a couple thousand Jewish families that have any right to be in Palestine. The rest were are all there illegally from British occupation or immigration after ethnic cleansing.

So the sovereign land owners extending the right to close colonise the land is not legal, as that is what the Ottomans did in the 1850's. Then the LoN did the same thing in 1920 to the Jews. The muslims were given 99.9% of the land as theirs and still it was not enough. Please use the laws in place at the time and not more recent ones, unless you want to see them backdated even further until they affect you and yours.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I consider myself pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli.

.....and in a related development, David Duke just said that he considers himself pro-black as well as pro-white.

The proof lies in the pudding, dear, and since you have made literally tens of thousands of postings across different boards with each and every one attacking Israel while defending everything about the made-up group called Palestinian, such a claim is so obviously false as to be the stuff of intentional provocation.

Those who defend the small ethnicity struggling for self determination in a sea of backwardness and hatred never pretend that they are not doing so. Why all those like yourself who are on record supporting terrorism against them try to claim they aren't taking sides is beyond me. Do you actually think you are fooling people with such drivel?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No different than Pro-Israeli shitholism: trying to classify anyone not on the "Death to Palestinian" camp as "anti-semitic".

Is there ANYTHING honest about you?

Who, here, has said they want Palestinians dead or supports their intentional murder? All I want, and I am sure I can say this for others as well, is for Palestinians to become productive human beings with civilized values instead of dedicating themselves to murder as their top priority.

What you are engaging in is a form of agitprop called turnspeak. Since you DO defend the murder of Jews as a legitimate form of Palestinian identity, and since you DO consider these acts to be heroic in nature, you are simply projecting your own pathology on to others and trying to make them look like the monsters, instead.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Would you define yourself as pro- or anti- Israel and/or pro- or anti- Palestine?

What distinguishes the different designations?


I, personally, consider myself both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

I am pro-Israel, and I do not pretend otherwise.

I support the right of a besieged minority to determine their own fate, so I support Israel against the Arabs who wish to destroy them. Since I support the right of women to become doctors and lawyers and engineers instead of mere brood mares, I support Israel instead of Arabs. Since I support the rights of gay people to live their lives free from harassment, I support the state that has gay-pride parades instead of the Arabs who would only kill them. Since I support forward-thinking green technology, I support the state that is among the world's leaders instead of those who produce nothing at all useful to anybody else. Since I support modernity instead of superstitious backwardness, I support Israel.

It's really a very easy decision to make for anybody who is actually liberal and who is intelligent enough to see through all the propaganda aimed at creating legions of cultish useful idiots who have been convinced that down is really up, backwards is really forwards and death is really life.

 

[Coyote]

Ya, I'm similar except pro-Palestinian and I firmly believe any solution must include the needs and recognition of both Israel and the Palestine as states and more importantly, individual people.

Do you believe that the arab muslims should have taken up residence in the land granted to them by the LoN and not try to take the Jewish portion by violent means. Set the border of Palestine and Israel as those delineated in the mandate of Palestine.

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

Why do you always just assume the Palestinians are wrong and the Israeli's are right?

Because the evidence, historical records, first hand experiences and reality show that this is generally the case in 99.9% of the situation.

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

 

[aris2chat]

Might be a few similarities as their are between neighbor cultures, but the jews, from reform to orthodox, are very unique.

The ultra orthodox are almost a separate culture even within Israel.

Even secular jews for the most part carry their culture with them, whether in Israel, the US or europe.

 

[Boston1]

Do you believe that the arab muslims should have taken up residence in the land granted to them by the LoN and not try to take the Jewish portion by violent means. Set the border of Palestine and Israel as those delineated in the mandate of Palestine.

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

Why do you always just assume the Palestinians are wrong and the Israeli's are right?

Because the evidence, historical records, first hand experiences and reality show that this is generally the case in 99.9% of the situation.

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

I've not investigated this one. But it doesn't feel right. If you are talking about land prior to independence in 48, the Zionists were careful to purchase all land. There was no theft.

If you are talking post 48 then the Israeli's won land through a defensive war. Perfectly legal at the time. It was still legal in 67 actually and then that ever so unbiassed organization the UN with its 25% Muslim voting block voted down the 0.5% Judaic voting block and retroactively made land gained even through defensive action illegal. Of course it didn't stand up to international law but yeah. Nice try.

So what land are you talking about ?

and I'd describe myself as pro Israeli.

 

[Phoenall]

Do you believe that the arab muslims should have taken up residence in the land granted to them by the LoN and not try to take the Jewish portion by violent means. Set the border of Palestine and Israel as those delineated in the mandate of Palestine.

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

Why do you always just assume the Palestinians are wrong and the Israeli's are right?

Because the evidence, historical records, first hand experiences and reality show that this is generally the case in 99.9% of the situation.

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

Here you go again with the claim that it was Palestinian land, when what you mean is arab muslim land. How many of these alleged loses of land have produced pictures of buildings built in the 1990's as their homes that they lived in. Pointing to a kitchen pantry window and proclaiming this was my bedroom. What gets me is how in 1949 the numbers of "Palestinians" increased by 100% when they were beaten by the Jews, and they all owned land in Israel. Never the mud huts that the arab muslims who stayed lived in, but the new Jewish built housing. What treaty granted them the land in the first place as I cant find one signed by either the Ottomans or the LoN

 

[Boston1]

Um, actually if you want to get specific it was all British mandate land ceded to the Brits by the Ottomans. It was never Arab Muslim land because the term palestinian didn't refer to Arab Muslims until Assafat came along. The Brits divided the mandate into Jordan ( Arab mandated territory ) and that west of the Jordan open to the creation of a national Jewish homeland )

Think of it this way. The term palaestina or any of its derivatives could ONLY have referred to the Judaic people because there WERE NO ARAB MUSLIMS in Hadrian's time.

Arab Muslims didn't hit the scene until 1000 years later and they were colonists in Judea FROM ARABIA.

So we know that the term could not have been in reference to Arab Muslims when it was created.

So when did that change ?

Looks like right about when the Arab Muslims lost their third conflict with the Israeli's in about 1968. Although the term does seem to muddy from about the mandate period on.

Ergo at no point in the modern era when the term began to be applied to Arab Muslims did those Arab Muslims have any legal claim to anything west of the Jordan, within the mandate area.

Boom

 

[Shusha]

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

You are confusing privately owned land with sovereign territory. ~1.5 million people in the Israel/Arab conflict lost privately owned land. Its one thing to say that they should all be compensated for their loss, but quite another to say that all lost privately owned land becomes the sovereign territory of the State the private owner associates himself with.

 

[Coyote]

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

You are confusing privately owned land with sovereign territory. ~1.5 million people in the Israel/Arab conflict lost privately owned land. Its one thing to say that they should all be compensated for their loss, but quite another to say that all lost privately owned land becomes the sovereign territory of the State the private owner associates himself with.

I didn't say that. However, there was a deliberate effort to engineer the laws in such away as to gain control of a lot of privately owned Palestinian land - enough so that later court rulings restricted the practice.

 

[Coyote]

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

Why do you always just assume the Palestinians are wrong and the Israeli's are right?

Because the evidence, historical records, first hand experiences and reality show that this is generally the case in 99.9% of the situation.

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

I've not investigated this one. But it doesn't feel right. If you are talking about land prior to independence in 48, the Zionists were careful to purchase all land. There was no theft.

If you are talking post 48 then the Israeli's won land through a defensive war. Perfectly legal at the time. It was still legal in 67 actually and then that ever so unbiassed organization the UN with its 25% Muslim voting block voted down the 0.5% Judaic voting block and retroactively made land gained even through defensive action illegal. Of course it didn't stand up to international law but yeah. Nice try.

So what land are you talking about ?

and I'd describe myself as pro Israeli.

I posted it here: Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

 

[Boston1]

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

Why do you always just assume the Palestinians are wrong and the Israeli's are right?

Because the evidence, historical records, first hand experiences and reality show that this is generally the case in 99.9% of the situation.

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

I've not investigated this one. But it doesn't feel right. If you are talking about land prior to independence in 48, the Zionists were careful to purchase all land. There was no theft.

If you are talking post 48 then the Israeli's won land through a defensive war. Perfectly legal at the time. It was still legal in 67 actually and then that ever so unbiassed organization the UN with its 25% Muslim voting block voted down the 0.5% Judaic voting block and retroactively made land gained even through defensive action illegal. Of course it didn't stand up to international law but yeah. Nice try.

So what land are you talking about ?

and I'd describe myself as pro Israeli.

I posted it here: Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

Why do you always just assume the Palestinians are wrong and the Israeli's are right?

Because the evidence, historical records, first hand experiences and reality show that this is generally the case in 99.9% of the situation.

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

I've not investigated this one. But it doesn't feel right. If you are talking about land prior to independence in 48, the Zionists were careful to purchase all land. There was no theft.

If you are talking post 48 then the Israeli's won land through a defensive war. Perfectly legal at the time. It was still legal in 67 actually and then that ever so unbiassed organization the UN with its 25% Muslim voting block voted down the 0.5% Judaic voting block and retroactively made land gained even through defensive action illegal. Of course it didn't stand up to international law but yeah. Nice try.

So what land are you talking about ?

and I'd describe myself as pro Israeli.

I posted it here: Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

Interesting twist. I'll confine my comments to the Israel thread. But maybe we should lose the accusation of apartheid given its been thoroughly debunked.

Cheers

 

[Juicin]

Would you define yourself as pro- or anti- Israel and/or pro- or anti- Palestine?

What distinguishes the different designations?


I, personally, consider myself both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

There are those who support the right of return

And there are those that support a Jewish State

The two cannot coexist and is the most meaningful distinction there is no middle ground here that could feasibly be laid out. Anyone with any sense of morality supports the right of return, which is an inherently* anti zionist position.

On the contrary, Israel's "Right of Return" law for all Jews around the world, fits in well with Zionism.

To have a Right of Return you'd have to prove that you have a right to be there in the first place. European Jews cannot do that, just saying it doesn't make it true. If I as a Brahmin marry non Indians for 20 generations my kin will have lost their claim to Dehli long ago. There are only a couple thousand Jewish families that have any right to be in Palestine. The rest were are all there illegally from British occupation or immigration after ethnic cleansing.

So the sovereign land owners extending the right to close colonise the land is not legal, as that is what the Ottomans did in the 1850's. Then the LoN did the same thing in 1920 to the Jews. The muslims were given 99.9% of the land as theirs and still it was not enough. Please use the laws in place at the time and not more recent ones, unless you want to see them backdated even further until they affect you and yours.

That is totally separate from right of return

And again those people have no right to a state or even democratic representation. It was an illegal colonization. White men saying it was legal doesn't make it so.

Comparing the Ottoman's treatment of Jerusalem to British colonization of Palestine is laughable. Find better talking points you ethno fascist. This ideology won't last long here

 

[Coyote]

What I AM saying is that it is a reasonable point of discussion and that opinions arguing one way or another are not necessarily anti-semitic because the argument is reasonable.

No. No, its not. There is absolutely no reasonable argument to be made that the Jewish people do not have a distinct culture.

I'm not arguing they have "no culture" - what I'm saying is it is perfectly reasonable to argue whether one culture unifies them all - or whether it's a religion unifying them...or both. It's a RATIONAL OBJECTIVE argument that doesn't imply antisemitism merely differing interpretations what what is a "culture".

Again. No. Its not a rational, objective argument. Go ahead. Try it. Give me a definition of "culture", a rational, objective definition of "culture' and we'll test it.

Ok. First let me state my position. I'm not arguing that there is no such thing as a Jewish culture - I'm arguing that a rational objective can be made, and making it does not mean it's anti-semitism any more than arguing for or against any other culture.

There are multiple, objective definitions of "culture" - here is just one.

What is Culture? | Definition of Culture
Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts.

Language: Hebrew is the language, though (until modern times) it was not a living language, but used for religious purposes.
Religion: they all share the Jewish religion, though it can be argued there are diverse sects.
Cuisine: I would say there is no such thing as a single Jewish cuisine that unites all varied Jewish groups from around the world.

From Wikipedia: Jewish cuisine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jewish cuisine is a diverse collection of the different cooking traditions of the Jewish diaspora worldwide. It is a diverse cuisine that has evolved over many centuries, shaped by Jewish dietary laws (kashrut), Jewish Festival, and Shabbat (Sabbath) traditions. Jewish cuisine is influenced by the economics, agriculture, and culinary traditions of the many countries where Jewish communities have settled and varies widely throughout the world.


Broadly speaking, the distinctive styles or cuisines in their own right that may be discerned in Jewish cuisine are Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Persian, Yemenite, Indian, and Latin-American. There are also distinctive dishes from Jewish communities ranging from Ethiopia to Central Asia.​

Social habits - not sure about this one, what would you consider distinctive social habits uniting all Jews? Wedding traditions? Even that has considerable variation:
Yemenite Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jewish wedding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Music: This one is also like cuisine, there doesn't seem to be one distinctive style that covers all Jews. What is considered "Jewish music" - klezmer - is considered distinctively Jewish, but is actually from the Ashkanazi/Eastern Europe tradition and is not common to all Jewish groups. Jewish music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arts: Similar to music and cuisine - is there a uniquely identifiable Jewish art that unites them all as a culture?

I think the arguments are objective and logical, and one can argue either way without being anti-semitic.

 

[Coyote]

Then, surely the Palestinians have the right of return don't they?

Surely, they do. To a homeland of their own, with consideration given to both the Palestinians and the Jewish people in determining where that homeland is.

ok, that's reasonable.

But to answer your question, if there was an unlimited right of "return" - where would you draw the line. My ancestors came from Norway and Wales, among other places. Does that give me and my descendents an open ended right to return there?

Sure. As individuals whose national group already has a national homeland, why shouldn't you receive priority when immigrating there? My ancestors came to Canada from Ireland and Scotland in the early 1800's. Why shouldn't I get preference if I choose to return to my homeland? (This is entirely a different right than to return to a specific house which was privately owned and sold or what-have-you.)

I disagree. I don't believe in any "right of return" unless it's refugees evicted from their homeland (not their descendents). I don't believe a person should get any special priority or consideration when immigrating unless that state specifically legislates it - then it's a matter of what the state wants, not of "rights". You can always choose to return to where your ancestors came from - and that's your choice, but it's not a special "right" imo, that doesn't give you special priorities.

Before the Jews were there, there were other people....what about them?

Sadly, they no longer exist as peoples. If they did -- I would be all over granting them some territory for self-determination.

Based on your argument - much of America MUST cede it's territorial claims to the First Nations. So...where does this end?

While I wouldn't say "much" of America (or Canada), I fully and wholeheartedly support First Nations territorial claims. In spades. Yes, please. And with a side of fries and a double scoop of ice cream.

We're on the same page there. Their treatment is an enduring badge of shame.

But, to flip the coin, as it were, are you arguing that the First Nations peoples should NOT be able to have national self-determination? What is your reasoning? How might this reasoning apply to other peoples and situations?

No, I'm not arguing that.

 

[Phoenall]

Um, actually if you want to get specific it was all British mandate land ceded to the Brits by the Ottomans. It was never Arab Muslim land because the term palestinian didn't refer to Arab Muslims until Assafat came along. The Brits divided the mandate into Jordan ( Arab mandated territory ) and that west of the Jordan open to the creation of a national Jewish homeland )

Think of it this way. The term palaestina or any of its derivatives could ONLY have referred to the Judaic people because there WERE NO ARAB MUSLIMS in Hadrian's time.

Arab Muslims didn't hit the scene until 1000 years later and they were colonists in Judea FROM ARABIA.

So we know that the term could not have been in reference to Arab Muslims when it was created.

So when did that change ?

Looks like right about when the Arab Muslims lost their third conflict with the Israeli's in about 1968. Although the term does seem to muddy from about the mandate period on.

Ergo at no point in the modern era when the term began to be applied to Arab Muslims did those Arab Muslims have any legal claim to anything west of the Jordan, within the mandate area.

Boom

The land was never ceded to the Brits, they were given the task of being the caretaker government until such a time as the Jews declared their readiness to become a nation. It was the LoN that partitioned the mandate into Jewish and arab parts because of concerns about it becoming wholly arab or wholly Jewish. The arab's saw their hopes of a fully muslim caliphate slipping away from them so they started the violence and terrorism. They lost every war they started and in the process lost any hopes of gaining support for their fights so Arafat went to the Russians for help. They told him to find an old name for their cause so he chose Palestine even though the arab muslims saw this as a term of disrespect.Because like everything else they do they did this half heartedly it did not have the impact it should have.

 

[Coyote]

Why do you always just assume the Palestinians are wrong and the Israeli's are right?

Because the evidence, historical records, first hand experiences and reality show that this is generally the case in 99.9% of the situation.

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

I've not investigated this one. But it doesn't feel right. If you are talking about land prior to independence in 48, the Zionists were careful to purchase all land. There was no theft.

If you are talking post 48 then the Israeli's won land through a defensive war. Perfectly legal at the time. It was still legal in 67 actually and then that ever so unbiassed organization the UN with its 25% Muslim voting block voted down the 0.5% Judaic voting block and retroactively made land gained even through defensive action illegal. Of course it didn't stand up to international law but yeah. Nice try.

So what land are you talking about ?

and I'd describe myself as pro Israeli.

I posted it here: Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

Why do you always just assume the Palestinians are wrong and the Israeli's are right?

Because the evidence, historical records, first hand experiences and reality show that this is generally the case in 99.9% of the situation.

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

I've not investigated this one. But it doesn't feel right. If you are talking about land prior to independence in 48, the Zionists were careful to purchase all land. There was no theft.

If you are talking post 48 then the Israeli's won land through a defensive war. Perfectly legal at the time. It was still legal in 67 actually and then that ever so unbiassed organization the UN with its 25% Muslim voting block voted down the 0.5% Judaic voting block and retroactively made land gained even through defensive action illegal. Of course it didn't stand up to international law but yeah. Nice try.

So what land are you talking about ?

and I'd describe myself as pro Israeli.

I posted it here: Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

Interesting twist. I'll confine my comments to the Israel thread. But maybe we should lose the accusation of apartheid given its been thoroughly debunked.

Cheers

Agree, using the term apartheid is inaccurate, but that doesn't absolve Israel of real and serious inequities.

 

[Phoenall]

Not when it came to the large scale confiscation of Palestinian land under the absentee landowner laws.

You are confusing privately owned land with sovereign territory. ~1.5 million people in the Israel/Arab conflict lost privately owned land. Its one thing to say that they should all be compensated for their loss, but quite another to say that all lost privately owned land becomes the sovereign territory of the State the private owner associates himself with.

I didn't say that. However, there was a deliberate effort to engineer the laws in such away as to gain control of a lot of privately owned Palestinian land - enough so that later court rulings restricted the practice.

Yet when it is done by the Palestinians to the Jews it is of little concern to you, so much so you ignore the references to the mass land thefts in 1949 and the land laws passed by the Jordanians regarding Jewish land. Where do you think the Israeli's got their ideas from if they did not have the Palestinians practice to base them on.