Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Yes, I understood.

I asked for CONSENT of the indigenous population not about a sovereignty change of an outside power.

(COMMENT)

But I (emphasizing "I") could not find an example of where the indigenous population was actually given the option of "consent" relative to a such issues. While I'm sure there must be an example at some time in history, it certainly doesn't appear to be the norm.

If you are not talking about the consent of a change in sovereignty, what manner of consent are you addressing?

Do you have such an example?

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, Austria annexed by Germany comes to mind, but the Austrians considered themselves Civilized Germans and spoke the same language.

 

[Kondor3]

Hmmmmm...

Native American Indians were not given an option to 'consent'...

Aboriginal Austrailians were not given an option to 'consent'...

Tibetan Chinese were not given an option to 'consent'...

And on and on and on, far back into history, stretching back about as far as one can see...

 

[pbel]

Hmmmmm...

Native American Indians were not given an option to 'consent'...

Aboriginal Austrailians were not given an option to 'consent'...

Tibetan Chinese were not given an option to 'consent'...

And on and on and on, far back into history, stretching back about as far as one can see...

That's what I've been saying, the World has changed Politically under International Law of which Israel is a Signatory and she hides nukes attacks her neighbors, all for the sake of appeasing Right Wing Politicians who lust for more Ancient Judean land and are as fanatic as any Jihadist to reach their destructive goals.

The UN did not Allow Serbia to force a marriage with them without political consent, that is the International Norm accepted world-wide today.

 

[Kondor3]

Pbel... you're a decent fellow, but your well-intentioned faith in International Law raises an eyebrow from time to time...

 

[Billo_Really]

There are two kinds of rights mentioned here.

• civil rights
  • non political in nature
  • the rights without regard to sex, race, or religion
  • rights of personal liberty that belong to an individual
• religious rights
  • free exercise thereof
  • prohibiting discrimination

The establishment of the Jewish National Home and the establishment of the Jewish State have not interfered with these rights. They are political constructs.

The Arab Palestinian was not stripped of its right to self-determination. It chose conflict over peace. It chose to reject rather than participate.

So you have no intention of addressing Lord Balfour's comment?

Because zionists did not get the permission of the indigenous, non-jewish population, to create a state of Israel, where they were living.

And to this very day, arab-Israeli's do not have the same fundamental rights, as jewish-Israeli's do.

 

[MHunterB]

Just which 'fudamental' rights don't 'arab-Israelis' have, according to you? And do you actually mean 'arab Israelis' - or do you mean 'Israelis who are not Jewish'?

After all, over half of Israeli Jews are Mizrachi or Sephardi - which is to say 'arab' Jews.....

 

[Billo_Really]

Just which 'fudamental' rights don't 'arab-Israelis' have, according to you? And do you actually mean 'arab Israelis' - or do you mean 'Israelis who are not Jewish'?

After all, over half of Israeli Jews are Mizrachi or Sephardi - which is to say 'arab' Jews.....

The Knesset has outlawed any rememberence of Nakba Day. Arab-Israeli's are not allowed to ride busses with jewish-Israeli's. There are "jew-only" roads; "jew-only" communities and about 29 other laws that have codified apartheid in that country.

 

[Kondor3]

Not really. If they massacre all the Muslim-Arab Palestinians and shovel them into the ground, that's Extermination.

"I'm sure bloodthirty, pieces of shit like you, would rather see that happen?..."

Really sucks, having your verbiage called-out as the hyperbole that it is, when correct and commonly-accepted definitions are served-up in counterpoint, eh?

If they push them off the land and send them packing to Jordan, Lebanon, et al, that's Expulsion.

"...You got serious comprehension issues!..."

In this narrow context, I was illustrating the difference between Extermination and Expulsion, rather than advocating for expulsion.

Your inability to comprehend that distinction does not bode well for your ability to judge the comprehension skills of your colleagues.

"...Did you not read the comment from Lord Balfour?..."

But since you bring it up... Balfour's Declaration, which included an 'Arab consent' provision, was tantamount to saying:

"You Jews can have a piece of your old spiritual homeland back again for the first time in 1900 years, but only if your chief elder stands on one foot on top of a hilltop in Jerusalem on the second Tuesday after the Winter Solstice and hops up and down and can touch the moon in a clear sky at least six times out of ten tries."

So the Jews cherry-picked the Declaration and stripped-out the Arab Consent provision and made it real rather than a meaningless 'tease' that otherwise had zero chance of being realized. Sensible of them.

 

[Kondor3]

Call it pay-back for the Muslims forcing-out the Jews in many of their countries in the period 1948-1975.

"...No one should be punished for a crime they didn't commit..."

The 1,000,000 Jews expelled from Muslim countries during that timeframe would probably agree.

I believe the entire macro-level struggle is BOTH political AND religious in nature; beginning (in the mid-to-late 19th, and re-initializing again in 1947-1949), as a purely secular, political and land-ownership dispute, and quickly degenerating into an clouded-over hybrid which includes a strong religious component; deeply ingrained and long established.

"...The 'stuggle' started when zionists imported their racism and apartheid policies into Palestine. Before that, indigenous jews and indigenous arabs got along without any major eruption of violence..."

Prior to the advent of strong Zionist influences, the long-browbeaten and tamed and docile Jews of Palaestine made excellent second-class citizens, so long as they kept their heads bowed and down. After centuries, they grew weary of playing Dhimmi to Neanderthals.

But that wasn't the point being made at the time; the point being made was that the struggle began as a mixture of secular issues and morphed into a hybrid that contained a substantive religious component. But that's a little too complex and overlapping and interdependent for blinkered black-and-white one-trick-pony types to appreciate and comprehend.

 

[Kondor3]

People use 'Jews' and 'Israelis' interchangeably in an Israeli-Palestinian Conflict context, just as they use 'Arabs' and 'Palestinians' or 'Muslims and Palestinians' interchangeably in that same context; a slip in accuracy but commonplace enough and not likely to be based on insidious attempts at masking and deflection.

"...And zionists use 'the jews', like a woman uses a tampon..."

My, my, my... such juvenile, bitter, vulgar, misogynistic language and imagery.

Most, if not all, inconsistencies in the treatment of Arab-Muslim citizens of Israel have been resolved at-law in recent years, based on my modest second-hand understanding of events as they have unfolded there.

"...Bullshit, they're treated as 2nd class citizens..."

If true, then, it's no worse than the Dhimmitude which the Jews of Palestine have been subjected to for centuries, and, in all likelihood, it's a damned sight better than that, but, as I disclosed at the onset, my own understanding of this leaves much to be desired.

Arab-Muslim residents of the West Bank and Gaza, on the other hand, are NOT citizens of Israel;

"...That's because it's not Israel, you fucking asshole!..."

I was merely drawing a distinction between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs.

As to Palestine not being part of Israel, well... not yet... but it's coming... soon.

in large part, this was a choice that they made by choosing the wrong side

"...This has nothing to do with sides..."

It has everything to do with 'sides'. And bad choices.

"...They are a population under the occupation of a foreign force..."

Jordan forcibly and illegally occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948 and annexed them in 1950 and made Jordanian Citizens of the Palestinians therein.

In 1967, despite Israeli pleas for Jordan to remain neutral, Jordan attacked Israel on Day 2 of the 1967 War and promptly proceeded to lose their illegally-annexed territory to the Israelis, who merely took from Jordan what the Jordanians had illegally appropriated for themselves.

Rather than abandoning their fellow Jordanian Citizens (the Palestinians of the West Bank and East Jerusalem), perhaps the Jordanians should have cared better for their own people and arranged for those multitudes of fellow citizens to be transfered to Jordanian soil.

 

[Kondor3]

...who are geographically constrained and kept separate from Israelis in order to enhance the safety of Jewish Israeli citizens. Civilizations great and small have been keeping Barbarians outside the gates and on the other side of The Wall for thousands of years; a time-honored and largely successful survival tactic.

"...You're just an inhuman piece of shit, who's country probably should be bombed back to the stoneage?..."

Nope. Kill our people with suicide bombs and rockets, and we close the gates on you.

No doubt. Fifth-columnists, traitors and those who would offer their backsides to The Enemy are usually held in great contempt and treated as potentially dangerous weakeners of a strong collective will to see a thing through. No surprise there. Probably deserved in some cases, and undeserved in others.

"...You're outlawing dissent..."

Nope. But Arab Butt-Boys get short shrift in most non-Arab circles, especially Israel. Entirely understandable.

In order to make omelettes, ya gotta break a few eggs. This is grown-up stuff, not the kiddie matinee, with the existence of Israel at-stake. No room for surrender-monkeys, half-measures, or silly, simpering kumbaya-my-lord sentiments in the realm of operative thought.

"...You don't deserve a country!..."

Non sequitur.

They chose poorly. Repeatedly. Poor choices have consequences. If they don't like them, they had best pack-up and leave, and go live someplace else that (a) wants them and (b) offers a prospect for a peaceful, happy life amongst their own kind.

"...Go fuck yourself, asshole!..."

Non sequitur.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

I will, if you can give me an example of the substantive difference between the rights of a Jewish-Israeli and a Arab-Israel.

There are two kinds of rights mentioned here.

• civil rights
  • non political in nature
  • the rights without regard to sex, race, or religion
  • rights of personal liberty that belong to an individual
• religious rights
  • free exercise thereof
  • prohibiting discrimination

The establishment of the Jewish National Home and the establishment of the Jewish State have not interfered with these rights. They are political constructs.

The Arab Palestinian was not stripped of its right to self-determination. It chose conflict over peace. It chose to reject rather than participate.

So you have no intention of addressing Lord Balfour's comment?

Because zionists did not get the permission of the indigenous, non-jewish population, to create a state of Israel, where they were living.

And to this very day, arab-Israeli's do not have the same fundamental rights, as jewish-Israeli's do.

Just which 'fudamental' rights don't 'arab-Israelis' have, according to you? And do you actually mean 'arab Israelis' - or do you mean 'Israelis who are not Jewish'?

After all, over half of Israeli Jews are Mizrachi or Sephardi - which is to say 'arab' Jews.....

(COMMENT)

Where did Lord Balfour say that consent was required by the Arab People?

I guess --- I don't understand the differences that make-up the complaint. You have to be a little more specific for me.

I see no difference between the "civil rights" or "religious rights" of an Jewish-Israeli and a Arab-Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

I'm still confused.

That's what I've been saying, the World has changed Politically under International Law of which Israel is a Signatory and she hides nukes attacks her neighbors, all for the sake of appeasing Right Wing Politicians who lust for more Ancient Judean land and are as fanatic as any Jihadist to reach their destructive goals.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the nuclear capability of Israel (which I am hard pressed to make a connection to the topic under discussion), Israel is not in violation of any International Law. All the law on nuclear weaponization is based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), for which Israel is not a signatory. Israel has the very same policy on nuclear weaponization as the US had pre-NPT (neither confirm nor deny - a policy of “ambiguity”). There is no evidence that the State of Israel transferred to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly to any other state. There is no evidence that the State of Israel has, in any way, assisted, encouraged, or induced any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. There is no evidence that the State of Israel has allowed any other state control over such weapons or explosive devices. In many respects, the fundamental aspects of the NPT are adhered to by the State of Israel.

• Who are the complainant in the case against Israel?
  • Middle Eastern Arab/Persian Nations.
• Has Israel made a nuclear threat against any nation?
  • No
• Has Israel been threatened to by wiped-out by any of the complainant?
  • Yes - the entire Arab League.
• Has Israel Israel been attacked by any of the complainants in the Middle East?
  • Yes - all of them.
• Does Israel have the right of self-defense in the face of hostile Middle Eastern nations?
  • Yes.

The UN did not Allow Serbia to force a marriage with them without political consent, that is the International Norm accepted world-wide today.

(QUESTION)

Again, I'm confused.

• What authority are you citing for "political consent?"
• What "political consent" has the State of Israel denied to its citizens?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

In truth, they're not 'occupied' so much as 'walled-off' and 'walled-out' where they can do less harm and damage to Jewish Israel.

No, they're occupied, you disgusting prick!

Temper, temper... I used the phrase 'not occupied so much as'. I was not denying Occupation Status in all respects, merely that their situation more closely resembled a walling-off or fencing-off and separating rather than the classical definition of an occupation.

As to your personal insults, well... I would not have treated you thusly, but, since you've chosen this approach, that's fine by me. For clarification's sake, I am, indeed, a prick; however, I do my best to be an agreeable prick rather than a disgusting one, such as you seem well along the road to achieving at this late juncture in your descent towards irrelevance.

If, by that, you mean that Netanyahu has been obliged to make even more unpleasant and unpalatable choices in order to protect Jewish Israelis, than Sharron was obliged to do, then, there may be a ring of truth to the observation, although we disagree on the sort of verbiage that should be applied to such choices and their outcomes.

"...Can you get anymore arrogant, insensitive and narcissitic?..."

I do not see how counterpointing your highly biased verbiage regarding a comparison between Netanyahu and Sharron constitutes arrogance, insensitivity or narcissism, but, then again, I don't have your 'special' filters for processing such information.

But to answer your question: "Can you get anymore...?" - the answer is: Yes. Absolutely. No problem. Haven't even scratched that surface yet. But I choose not to.

Perhaps, then, they should have made different choices while they still could. Looks like Intifada I and II ended-up backfiring on the Palestinians after all, eh? They'd be a far happier lot today if they had not conducted long-term suicide-bombing campaigns and rocket-barrage campaigns. Too late, now.

As I said before, the violence didn't start, until you fuckers showed up!

I have no idea whom you mean by 'you fuckers'.

The analysis, however, is quite clear and simple:

Even after the 1967 conquest by Israel of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in response to Jordanian aggression, the Israelis did not see fit to build The Wall.

After Intifada I and Intifada II and a sustained multi-year -long rocket barrage campaign, The Wall now separates the Israelis and Palestinians.

Proving beyond any reasonable doubt the accuracy of the observation.

"...I can't go on responding to your bullshit post!..."

Whatever made you believe that you had even begun?

"...You don't deserve a country!..."

I already have one, and earned my place in it by serving in its Armed Forces in wartime.

"...You're a worthless human, with no redeeming qualities..."

That's odd. Your mother thought differently.

"...You get everything you deserve and you caused it all..."

I have no idea what this means, but, given my standing as an American Citizen and non-Jew, I am comforted by the idea that you have no idea what this means in this context, either.

"...You're not an honest person, you're just an arrogant piece of shit!"

Oh, I'm honest enough, alright; it's just that my own honest positions collide with yours. Your inability to differentiate between Honesty and Opposition is your cross to bear, not mine.

That's merely a modest degree of confidence, not arrogance, and, again, your inability to differentiate between such things is your cross to bear, not mine.

Your vulgar, lowbrow opinions in such matters and your abusive behaviors in dealing with so many of your colleagues are more flattering than damning to your targets.

 

[georgephillip]

Early Zionists were far less presupposed to propaganda in their pursuit of the Promised Land than the current Goyim in support of Greater Israel are:

"There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting 'Palestine' from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority."

Jabotinsky knew instinctively, just as Cortez and Pizzaro understood, that every native population regards its lands as its national home and a majority of patriots within that indigenous population will never endorse new masters.

More from Jabotinsky:

"We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say 'non' and withdraw from Zionism.

"Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else pive population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.

"That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible.

"And we are all of us ,without any exception, demanding day after day that this outside Power, should carry out this task vigorously and with determination.

"In this matter there is no difference between our 'militarists' and our 'vegetarians'. Except that the first prefer that the iron wall should consist of Jewish soldiers, and the others are content that they should be British."

States than can thrive and prosper only under the protection of an imperial power independent of the collective will of the indigenous majority are born dead and all attempts at life support constitute the ultimate non-sequitur.

"The Iron Wall" | Jewish Virtual Library

 

[Billo_Really]

Pbel... you're a decent fellow, but your well-intentioned faith in International Law raises an eyebrow from time to time...

"You don't know the meaning of the word 'decent'".

Oh, I dunno... your mother used to think I was pretty 'decent' in that 'special way'...

Sounds like you needed to sleep one off by the time you had gotten to this point.

Lighten up, Francis.

You better watch it, people are getting banned by talking about family members.

You're just lucky I (as a policy) never report anyone. The logic being, I'm probably far worse than any post I'm responding to.

 

[Billo_Really]

For clarification's sake, I am, indeed, a prick; however, I do my best to be an agreeable prick rather than a disgusting one...

I knew it was a only a matter of time before you saw things my way.

 

[Billo_Really]

I will, if you can give me an example of the substantive difference between the rights of a Jewish-Israeli and a Arab-Israel.

Where did Lord Balfour say that consent was required by the Arab People?

I guess --- I don't understand the differences that make-up the complaint. You have to be a little more specific for me.

I see no difference between the "civil rights" or "religious rights" of an Jewish-Israeli and a Arab-Israel.

I cannot believe you could read Lord Balfour's comment and no know what that means?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Oh I do understand.

I will, if you can give me an example of the substantive difference between the rights of a Jewish-Israeli and a Arab-Israel.

Where did Lord Balfour say that consent was required by the Arab People?

I guess --- I don't understand the differences that make-up the complaint. You have to be a little more specific for me.

I see no difference between the "civil rights" or "religious rights" of an Jewish-Israeli and a Arab-Israel.

I cannot believe you could read Lord Balfour's comment and no know what that means?

(COMMENT)

I think you tend to stretch the meaning and interpretation way out of shape. As I said, there are two kinds of rights mentioned here.

• civil rights
  • non political in nature
  • the rights without regard to sex, race, or religion
  • rights of personal liberty that belong to an individual
• religious rights
  • free exercise thereof
  • prohibiting discrimination

Other than what might be expected in any other Middle Eastern society, I do not see any significant action, by the Israeli that "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." But nothing in this calls for the consent of the existing non-Jewish communities in the establishment of either the Jewish National Home or the Jewish State.

I see nothing, on the part of the Israeli, that retracts, restricts or hampers the right to liberty and security, freedom of conscience, worship any religion, expression, press, assembly and association, speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment and due process and the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to life. On the contrary, the exact opposite was noted. It was the Arab Palestinian that said: “The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out – man women and child." It was the Arab-Palestinian that created the Black Hand. It was the Arab-Palestinian that opened up conflict on the passage of General Assembly Resolution 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...You better watch it, people are getting banned by talking about family members..."

My post to Pbel and reply to you included on-topic content re: International Law in an Israel-Palestine context.

I also do not believe that it violated family- focused guidelines; taking some care not to cross that threshold.

The rules prohibit attacking family members.

The rules say nothing about merely mentioning family members outside of an attack-like framework, in which nothing derogatory is being said about the person.

If I am outside the boundaries of the Zone Guidelines or overall Site Rules in this context, I'm sure the Admins and Mods will let me know.

"...You're just lucky I (as a policy) never report anyone..."

You will do what you will do.

"...The logic being, I'm probably far worse than any post I'm responding to."

We share a common vision in this narrow context.