Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This does nothing to help us differentiate between Occupation and Fenced-off Separation, in an Israeli-Palestinian context, but, since you mentioned it again...I knew it was a only a matter of time before you saw things my way.For clarification's sake, I am, indeed, a prick; however, I do my best to be an agreeable prick rather than a disgusting one...
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.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.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 first is factually completely incorrect: the government simply allowed local municipalities, etc, to choose to NOT FUND such 'remembrance' from their budgets. Basicaly, your 'statement' is an outright falsehood, a lie.
So is the second, so far as I am aware.
As to the third, I believe that is also a mis-statement.
Some list of those alleged '29 other laws' would be helpful - from some reliable source. So far, you're totally in error and have presented nothing to document those 'facts' which have ben your excuse for so much obscenity, name-calling and outright demonization directed at other posters.
It makes you appear very uninformed and extremely ill-equipped to actually *discuss* the topic.
Thread cleaned
The Administration and the Moderation Team are serious in their efforts to have a civil discourse as it pertains to the OP and any further posts which violate Zone 2 rules will be viewed in a more serious manner where infractions will be administered on a case by case basis.
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No negative repping. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.
"Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.
"Zone 3": Main Forums: Normal Site Wide Rules apply. This includes PM's (Private Messaging), Visitor Messages, Reputation Comments, and Publicly Viewed Social Groups (Though Lightly Moderated).
"Zone 4": Flame Zone/Badlands/Rubber Room: The least moderated forum on the site. Not viewed by non members. Site wide rules still apply, but are more loosely enforced. Extreme flaming threads and posts belong here. If the OP (Opening Post) of Your Thread is focused on Mocking or Ridicule, It belongs here.
Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay
October 24, 2012
By David Solway
---
For it is almost inconceivable that a few million citizens of a newly established nation could successfully resist the military onslaught of vastly larger armies time and again. It must also contend against the enmity of its nominal allies in the West, the propaganda campaigns of the worlds major NGOs and opinion-forming bodies, the lies and slanders of the political and media elites, the ignorance of multitudes, and the specter of daily terror. It is equally inconceivable that this same beleaguered nation could at the same time become one of the worlds leading innovators in science, technology, medicine and agriculture, offering benefits to mankind out of all proportion to its numbers and circumstanceswhile reaping, for the most part, resentment, envy and violence.
For some, the continued existence of Israel is a sign of divine solicitude; for others, of human fortitude, hope and commitment at its most incandescent. But whatever the reason for this rarest of phenomena, the emergence of the theoretically impossible, it is a safe bet that Israel will still be around when its adversaries and detractors have succumbed to their own contradictions and dilemmas. Get used to it. Israel is here to stay.
Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay
The OP
Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay
October 24, 2012
By David Solway
---
For it is almost inconceivable that a few million citizens of a newly established nation could successfully resist the military onslaught of vastly larger armies time and again. It must also contend against the enmity of its nominal allies in the West, the propaganda campaigns of the worlds major NGOs and opinion-forming bodies, the lies and slanders of the political and media elites, the ignorance of multitudes, and the specter of daily terror. It is equally inconceivable that this same beleaguered nation could at the same time become one of the worlds leading innovators in science, technology, medicine and agriculture, offering benefits to mankind out of all proportion to its numbers and circumstanceswhile reaping, for the most part, resentment, envy and violence.
For some, the continued existence of Israel is a sign of divine solicitude; for others, of human fortitude, hope and commitment at its most incandescent. But whatever the reason for this rarest of phenomena, the emergence of the theoretically impossible, it is a safe bet that Israel will still be around when its adversaries and detractors have succumbed to their own contradictions and dilemmas. Get used to it. Israel is here to stay.
Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay
(COMMENT)Obamas Leaks & Sabotaging Israels Defense
November 4, 2013 By Joseph Klein
Obama?s Leaks & Sabotaging Israel?s Defense | FrontPage Magazine
FrontPage Magazine said:DEBKAfile, citing its Washington sources, explained that because the administration is immersed in a complicated joint diplomatic maneuver with Moscow on Syria, it cant afford to leave the impression of US involvement in the Israeli attack or its approval.
FrontPage Magazine said:The leaks appear to be part of the Obama administrations strategy to put Netanyahu in his place by telling him, in effect, that the U.S. has the capacity to monitor every move the Israelis make, including preparations for a military strike to halt Irans nuclear program, and to expose Israels plans preemptively, if the Obama administration deems necessary, to protect its ongoing negotiations with Iran.
FrontPage Magazine said:The DEBKAfile report went on to say that Israeli government and military insiders consider the Obama administrations leaks to be in breach of the understandings and agreements reached between Israel and the White House on Syria.
I find it funny that Israel is too pussy to stop the Russian's.What the article does do is take the spotlight off the fact that Russia is providing material support to either the Assad Regime or Hezbollah Terrorists; or both. The article redirects the focus on US-Israeli relations. The leaks shift the center of the story away from nature and scope of the Russian involvement all together.
I don't think there is any country in the ME that can match Israel's military might.This is the kind of bravado of invincibility that lulls its claimants to defeat...No empire has lasted forever, and I simply doubt Israel will last beyond a couple of hundred years if she stays on a war footing with Islam, especially when the entire ME is armed to the teeth with Nukes.
Armament Parity has been the great neutralizer in History. Stay tuned.
No I'm not, the message is clear.I think you tend to stretch the meaning and interpretation way out of shape.
Tell that to the residents of Deir Yassin.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."
You don't call wiping out an entire village for political reasons, "prejudicing" their "civil and religious" rights?One of the most notorious cases of the terrorizing of civilian population occurred, according to Palestinian and other sources, in April 1948 at Deir Yassin, a village near Jerusalem, situated in territory assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution. A former Israeli military governor of Jerusalem writes:
"We suffered a reverse of a different nature on April 9 when combined Etzel and Stern Gang units mounted a deliberate and unprovoked attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin on the western edge of Jerusalem. There was no reason for the attack. It was a quiet village, which had denied entry to the volunteer Arab units from across the frontier and which had not been involved in any attacks on Jewish areas. The dissident groups chose it for strictly political reasons. It was a deliberate act of terrorism ...
Yes it does. If the indigenous arabs have the right to self-determination, how is that "right" not abridged, without their consent for the state of Israel?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.
Why you keep referring to the "passage" of 181, a non-binding resolution, is beyond me.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).
The UNSC never ruled on it's passage.The United Nations partition resolution did not provide a solution to the Palestine problem
The resolution just fizzled out and never went anywhere.The Security Council could not take any effective decision after discussing General Assembly resolution 181 (II) (the partition resolution) in December 1947. In March 1948 the United States draft proposal to enable the Council to act on the partition resolution failed, and the Council only called for an end to the violence in Palestine.
But the Security Council did pass resolutions 242 and 338 reaffirming the Palestinian's right to self-determination and the illegality of the occupation.The United Nations Commission on Palestine, established by resolution 181 (II), could not move to Jerusalem, and only could hold consultations in New York. The formation of the armed militia, intended to assist the Commission in its functions in Palestine, became impracticable in the face of the accelerated British withdrawal in a deteriorating situation where the casualty toll in the first three months after the approval of the partition resolution was 869 dead and 1,909 injured
A "right" Israel took from them in 1948.Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as we reaffirmed on 29 June 1977, as well as on the following fundamental principles: first, acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable; secondly, Israel must end its occupation of territories it has held since the 1967 war; thirdly, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of each State in the region must be respected, as well as the right of each State in the region to live in peace with secure and recognized borders; fourthly, the establishment of a just and lasting peace must give due consideration to the rights of the Palestinians.
Unlike 181, 242 and 338, are binding resolutions.The Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity, meeting at Libreville in July 1977, declared: "... that a just and lasting peace can be attained only on the basis of total Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories and recognition of the national legitimate right of the Palestinian people to their territory, sovereignty and national independence and their right to self-determination and the creation of an independent State on their national territory."
Do you consider former leaders of Israel and members of the Knesset, informed enough to speak about this subject?The first is factually completely incorrect: the government simply allowed local municipalities, etc, to choose to NOT FUND such 'remembrance' from their budgets. Basicaly, your 'statement' is an outright falsehood, a lie.
So is the second, so far as I am aware.
As to the third, I believe that is also a mis-statement.
Some list of those alleged '29 other laws' would be helpful - from some reliable source. So far, you're totally in error and have presented nothing to document those 'facts' which have ben your excuse for so much obscenity, name-calling and outright demonization directed at other posters.
It makes you appear very uninformed and extremely ill-equipped to actually *discuss* the topic.
Or are they now part of the un-informed legions?Avraham Burg, Israels Knesset Speaker from 1999 to 2003 and former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, has long determined that Israel must shed its illusions and choose between racist oppression and democracy, insisting the only way to maintain total Jewish control over all of historic Palestine would be to abandon democracy and institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages. He has also called Israel the last colonial occupier in the Western world.
Yossi Sarid, who served as a member of the Knesset between 1974 and 2006, has written of Israels segregation policy that what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck it is apartheid.
Yossi Paritzky, former Knesset and Cabinet minister, writing about the systematic institutionalization and legalization of racial and religious discrimination in Israel, stated that Israel does not act like a democracy in which all citizens regardless of race, religious, gender or origin are entitled to equality. Rather, by implementing more and more discriminatory laws that treat Palestinians as second-class citizens, Israel decided to be like apartheid‑era South Africa, and some will say even worse countries that no longer exist.
Shulamit Aloni, another former Knesset and Cabinet member, has written that the state of Israel practices its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.
In 2008, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel released its annual human rights report which found that the dynamic between settlers, soldiers and native Palestinians in the occupied West Bank was reminiscent, in many and increasing ways, of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Ehud Olmert, when he was Prime Minister, told a Knesset committee meeting, For sixty years there has been discrimination against Arabs in Israel. This discrimination is deep‑seated and intolerable and repeatedly warned that if we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.
Ehud Barak has admitted that [a]s long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of *Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.
(COMMENT)No I'm not, the message is clear.I think you tend to stretch the meaning and interpretation way out of shape.
The indigenous arabs had (and have) the right to self-determination.
That "right", was stripped from them the moment the "jewish state" was declared.
Tell that to the residents of Deir Yassin.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."
You don't call wiping out an entire village for political reasons, "prejudicing" their "civil and religious" rights?
Yes it does. If the indigenous arabs have the right to self-determination, how is that "right" not abridged, without their consent for the state of Israel?
(COMMENT)Why you keep referring to the "passage" of 181, a non-binding resolution, is beyond me.
The UNSC never ruled on it's passage.
The resolution just fizzled out and never went anywhere.
(COMMENT)But the Security Council did pass resolutions 242 and 338 reaffirming the Palestinian's right to self-determination and the illegality of the occupation.
A "right" Israel took from them in 1948.Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as we reaffirmed on 29 June 1977, as well as on the following fundamental principles: first, acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable; secondly, Israel must end its occupation of territories it has held since the 1967 war; thirdly, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of each State in the region must be respected, as well as the right of each State in the region to live in peace with secure and recognized borders; fourthly, the establishment of a just and lasting peace must give due consideration to the rights of the Palestinians.
(COMMENT)At the time, heads of state of the African Unity put it this way...
Unlike 181, 242 and 338, are binding resolutions.The Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity, meeting at Libreville in July 1977, declared: "... that a just and lasting peace can be attained only on the basis of total Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories and recognition of the national legitimate right of the Palestinian people to their territory, sovereignty and national independence and their right to self-determination and the creation of an independent State on their national territory."
Broadly and metaphorically speaking (and conceding 'unfair-ness' or some modest inaccuracy in a few scattered areas [of effort and geography] here and there)...The fact remains Israel is the only first world nation in the middle of a whole bunch of third world shit holes, why is that?
I guess it is not strange to find all this stuff on several sites, and the anti-Semites seem to know just where to find what Leftist Jews say. Meanwhile, of course, they never take into consideration what Blacks from South Africa who have visited Israel say -- that there is no apartheid in Israel. I wonder if Loinboy will ever go to Israel like these Blacks did to find out for himself. I also wonder if it would disturb Loinboy to know that in his own county when someone would order a preliminary title report for the sale of a home that it stated No Blacks and No Chinese allowed.Do you consider former leaders of Israel and members of the Knesset, informed enough to speak about this subject?The first is factually completely incorrect: the government simply allowed local municipalities, etc, to choose to NOT FUND such 'remembrance' from their budgets. Basicaly, your 'statement' is an outright falsehood, a lie.
So is the second, so far as I am aware.
As to the third, I believe that is also a mis-statement.
Some list of those alleged '29 other laws' would be helpful - from some reliable source. So far, you're totally in error and have presented nothing to document those 'facts' which have ben your excuse for so much obscenity, name-calling and outright demonization directed at other posters.
It makes you appear very uninformed and extremely ill-equipped to actually *discuss* the topic.
Or are they now part of the un-informed legions?Avraham Burg, Israels Knesset Speaker from 1999 to 2003 and former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, has long determined that Israel must shed its illusions and choose between racist oppression and democracy, insisting the only way to maintain total Jewish control over all of historic Palestine would be to abandon democracy and institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages. He has also called Israel the last colonial occupier in the Western world.
Yossi Sarid, who served as a member of the Knesset between 1974 and 2006, has written of Israels segregation policy that what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck it is apartheid.
Yossi Paritzky, former Knesset and Cabinet minister, writing about the systematic institutionalization and legalization of racial and religious discrimination in Israel, stated that Israel does not act like a democracy in which all citizens regardless of race, religious, gender or origin are entitled to equality. Rather, by implementing more and more discriminatory laws that treat Palestinians as second-class citizens, Israel decided to be like apartheid‑era South Africa, and some will say even worse countries that no longer exist.
Shulamit Aloni, another former Knesset and Cabinet member, has written that the state of Israel practices its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.
In 2008, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel released its annual human rights report which found that the dynamic between settlers, soldiers and native Palestinians in the occupied West Bank was reminiscent, in many and increasing ways, of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Ehud Olmert, when he was Prime Minister, told a Knesset committee meeting, For sixty years there has been discrimination against Arabs in Israel. This discrimination is deep‑seated and intolerable and repeatedly warned that if we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.
Ehud Barak has admitted that [a]s long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of *Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.
WTF are you talking about?I guess it is not strange to find all this stuff on several sites, and the anti-Semites seem to know just where to find what Leftist Jews say. Meanwhile, of course, they never take into consideration what Blacks from South Africa who have visited Israel say -- that there is no apartheid in Israel. I wonder if Loinboy will ever go to Israel like these Blacks did to find out for himself. I also wonder if it would disturb Loinboy to know that in his own county when someone would order a preliminary title report for the sale of a home that it stated No Blacks and No Chinese allowed.
Yes it was. In Lord Balfour's statement.No where was that said or implied.
Where does it say the "Jewish People" had the right to deny the Palestinian's their right?Where does it say, anywhere, that the Palestinian had the right to deny the Jewish People their right to self determination?
Spare me the history lesson on semantics.I think you are confusing "civil and religious" rights with the "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" - (A/RES/66/142 30 March 2012) a very common mistake. Many debaters on the topic believe that these rights are ancient; but, in point of fact, were only adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2011 (A/RES/66/142). Contemporary thinkers have been kicking around this notion of "all people have rights" since the time of the American-Indian War and the French Revolution (but not much before then - and certainly not with any vigor). The preponderance of thought, prior to WWI, was the concept of the "Ruling Elite;" which is still today, that which dominates the thinking in the Middle East especially in the Religious Cast, Principalities, and Kingdoms. The idea that Palestine is an "Islamic Waqf" finds it roots in the concept of the "Ruling Elite." Oddly enough, the emergence of "religious rights" came first, then individual "civil rights;" and then, only recently did come the consensus on "indigenous rights." And it is these "indigenous rights" of which you speak; putting yourself way ahead of most other people. The articulation of these rights in GA/61/295 are less than a decade old, and the concept is not very well know.
That is neither a "civil right" or a "religious right" were abridged (your words); but something new in the way humanity thinks: "indigenous rights." (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - 13 September 2007)(See the Annex, it is very important.)
The "Jewish population" did not have veto rights over the indigenous arab population.The indigenous Arab population did not have veto rights over the Jewish population to exercise their right of self-determination. Not in 1948, not in 1967, and not in 1973.
Screw the history lesson! This is about international law.The recent Articles on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples do not come about in history until the 21st Century, more than a half century after the outbreak of hostilities. While you are a forward thinker, it is impossible to turn back the clock and retroactively apply 21st Century logic to a set of conditions with origins nearly a century before (the Zionist concept of a Jewish National Home Theodor Herzl's "Der Judenstaat" published in 1896).
181 was non-binding and un-enforceable.That is your opinion. While it was not a binding resolution, it was partly implemented in 1948, with the recommendation of the UNSC (S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949), and UNGA A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949. The original UNGA (A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947) in the sense that neither the Arab party or the Jewish party was required to accept. But if either party accepted the terms and conditions, the UN would give "sympathetic consideration" "to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations."
You got that right!first, acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable;
Oh yes they did!The State of Israel did not annex (acquire by force) any territory.
Oh yes they do!secondly, Israel must end its occupation of territories it has held since the 1967 war;
Oh yes they have!Correct, because the Hostile Arab Palestinian never termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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;
Who could be against that?thirdly, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of each State in the region must be respected, as well as the right of each State in the region to live in peace with secure and recognized borders;
It doesn't matter if there was no formal "State of Palestine". Indigenous arabs have the right to self-determination and there's no derogation from that.Correct, because in 1967, there was no State of Palestine. Palestine did not come into being until 1988 with the Declaration of Independence;
Absolutely!the establishment of a just and lasting peace must give due consideration to the rights of the Palestinians.
How can they, when they are under the occupation of a foreign force?The fulfilment of Charter principles requiring the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East was dependent on both parties (Israeli and Palestinian) making an effort; which the Palestinian never did.
Cut the crap! Oh yes they did. Did Zionists ask the indigenous arabs if they could create the State of Israel where they have been living for generations? The answer is "no", they didn't. As a consequence, their rights were denied.The State of Israel never denied the Palestinian the "right of self-determination."
Not while their under the occupation of a foreign force. The "occupation", is the cause of all the violence in the area. Get that through your fucking head!In fact, the PLO did declare independence in 1988 during "occupation." However, the Palestinian, not withstanding the Arafat-Clinton Letter of 1998 was never acted upon by the Executive Committee of the PLO, never termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
Wrong! A population under occupation, does not share responsibility for the illegality of the occupation itself.In this case, if the State of Israel is in violation, then so is the State of Palestine equally in violation.
