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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You are missing the point. Arabs attacked the Jews of Hebron in the 1930's, committing genocide and ethnic cleansing upon a community that had been living there for thousands of years. During this same time in the 1930's, tens of thousands of Arabs invaded Hebron, and changed it's demographics. In other words, the land did not belong to Arabs, nor was it considered Arab lands. All Israel is doing is protecting a Jewish community from further persecution and terrorism (which there have been many against them), and preserving what little is left from the ancient Jewish identity of the city.How does Hebron, a city known to have a Jewish roots and presence for thousands of years, considered the second-holiest city in Judaism after Jerusalem, suddenly become "Arab", and then to top it off, they claim "apartheid" just because tens of thousands of Muslim Arabs invaded in the 1930's?
No, it's because of two different standards of rights, access, etc.
There are many "conquered lands" by that have not been returned. Especially if you want to consider Muslim invasions and forced conversions. Second, the land never belonged to the Arabs, nor was there an Arab Palestinian country, for it to be conquered or given back. The land was under Turkish Ottoman rule for 600 years and subsequently afterwards under British rule as Palestine mandate.It is conquered territory which was captured as a result of Arab aggression, which happens to also be ancient Hebrew lands. The Israelis should just annex the entire West Bank, call it by it's original name prior to 1948, Judeah (sic) and Samaria (of ancient Israel), and then accord the Arabs the same rights as those living in Israel proper.So why two seperate standards then? You can't even call it "seperate but equal".Right of conquest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAfter the attempted conquests of Napoleon and up to the attempted conquests of Hitler, the disposition of territory acquired under the principle of conquest had to, according to international law, be conducted according to the existing laws of war. This meant that there had to be military occupation followed by a peace settlement. If there was a territorial cession, then there had to be a formal peace treaty.
It is conquered territory which was captured as a result of Arab aggression, which happens to also be ancient Hebrew lands. The Israelis should just annex the entire West Bank, call it by it's original name prior to 1948, Judeah and Samaria (of ancient Israel), and then accord the Arabs the same rights as those living in Israel proper.So why two seperate standards then? You can't even call it "seperate but equal".
When the Arabs controled said Jewish lands, they certainly practiced aparthied and racism of the worst kind.You are missing the point. Arabs attacked the Jews of Hebron in the 1930's, committing genocide and ethnic cleansing upon a community that had been living there for thousands of years. During this same time in the 1930's, tens of thousands of Arabs invaded Hebron, and changed it's demographics. In other words, the land did not belong to Arabs, nor was it considered Arab lands. All Israel is doing is protecting a Jewish community from further persecution and terrorism (which there have been many against them), and preserving what little is left from the ancient Jewish identity of the city.No, it's because of two different standards of rights, access, etc.
The topic of populations is a whole 'nother topic and your argument is a distraction from the issue.
There are two different standards in regards to the treatment of the two main ethnic groups that inhabit this area. Do you think that is "ok"? If it is "ok" - then what makes it different than South Africa's system?
No, the settlers are mostly orthodox Jews who reproduce at a higher rate than rabbits. LOLIt is conquered territory which was captured as a result of Arab aggression, which happens to also be ancient Hebrew lands. The Israelis should just annex the entire West Bank, call it by it's original name prior to 1948, Judeah and Samaria (of ancient Israel), and then accord the Arabs the same rights as those living in Israel proper.So why two seperate standards then? You can't even call it "seperate but equal".
Wouldn't that be demographic suicide?
When the Arabs controled said Jewish lands, they certainly practiced aparthied and racism of the worst kind.You are missing the point. Arabs attacked the Jews of Hebron in the 1930's, committing genocide and ethnic cleansing upon a community that had been living there for thousands of years. During this same time in the 1930's, tens of thousands of Arabs invaded Hebron, and changed it's demographics. In other words, the land did not belong to Arabs, nor was it considered Arab lands. All Israel is doing is protecting a Jewish community from further persecution and terrorism (which there have been many against them), and preserving what little is left from the ancient Jewish identity of the city.
The topic of populations is a whole 'nother topic and your argument is a distraction from the issue.
There are two different standards in regards to the treatment of the two main ethnic groups that inhabit this area. Do you think that is "ok"? If it is "ok" - then what makes it different than South Africa's system?
No, the settlers are mostly orthodox Jews who reproduce at a higher rate than rabbits. LOLIt is conquered territory which was captured as a result of Arab aggression, which happens to also be ancient Hebrew lands. The Israelis should just annex the entire West Bank, call it by it's original name prior to 1948, Judeah and Samaria (of ancient Israel), and then accord the Arabs the same rights as those living in Israel proper.
Wouldn't that be demographic suicide?
Third, this is Israel making a wrong committed by Muslims, right. Only to be accused of apartheid.When the Arabs controled said Jewish lands, they certainly practiced aparthied and racism of the worst kind.The topic of populations is a whole 'nother topic and your argument is a distraction from the issue.
There are two different standards in regards to the treatment of the two main ethnic groups that inhabit this area. Do you think that is "ok"? If it is "ok" - then what makes it different than South Africa's system?
First - two wrongs don't make a right.
Second - that was how long ago?
Should Israel be seeking to follow that example and practice apartheid? I think it's better than that.
Never understood these types that think like that, regardless of their religion. Personally I'm not a big fan of the Orthodox. I think they broadcast their Judaism in public too much, and unfortunately make it look like the rest of us are like that. However, they mind their own business and aren't going around killing people in the name of their ideology, or forcing it upon others, like Muslims are.No, the settlers are mostly orthodox Jews who reproduce at a higher rate than rabbits. LOLWouldn't that be demographic suicide?
What is it about fundamentalists and being fruitful and multiplying? Doesn't matter which religion....get out and begat!
There are many "conquered lands" by that have not been returned. Especially if you want to consider Muslim invasions and forced conversions. Second, the land never belonged to the Arabs, nor was there an Arab Palestinian country, for it to be conquered or given back. The land was under Turkish Ottoman rule for 600 years and subsequently afterwards under British rule as Palestine mandate.It is conquered territory which was captured as a result of Arab aggression, which happens to also be ancient Hebrew lands. The Israelis should just annex the entire West Bank, call it by it's original name prior to 1948, Judeah (sic) and Samaria (of ancient Israel), and then accord the Arabs the same rights as those living in Israel proper.Right of conquest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAfter the attempted conquests of Napoleon and up to the attempted conquests of Hitler, the disposition of territory acquired under the principle of conquest had to, according to international law, be conducted according to the existing laws of war. This meant that there had to be military occupation followed by a peace settlement. If there was a territorial cession, then there had to be a formal peace treaty.
So your post isn't worth the pixel it was posted on. LOL
1920 / 30's map shows Jewish Palestine being all of Israel and Jordan, and later it was divided into Arab Palestine as Jordan, and Jewish Palestine as Israel. I've posted the 1920's league of nations agreed upon maps before, and can post it again.There are many "conquered lands" by that have not been returned. Especially if you want to consider Muslim invasions and forced conversions. Second, the land never belonged to the Arabs, nor was there an Arab Palestinian country, for it to be conquered or given back. The land was under Turkish Ottoman rule for 600 years and subsequently afterwards under British rule as Palestine mandate.
So your post isn't worth the pixel it was posted on. LOL
it is nice to see you become a strong proponent of "the right to return". let's wind the clock back to this 1930s that you have so frequently mentioned mention.
or we could go back to the original topic of seperate but not equal...historically, seperate has never been equal.
How does Hebron, a city known to have a Jewish roots and presence for thousands of years, considered the second-holiest city in Judaism after Jerusalem, suddenly become "Arab", and then to top it off, they claim "apartheid" just because tens of thousands of Muslim Arabs invaded in the 1930's?So, how is this not de-facto apartheid?
Separation not only on buses, but also on streets of Hebron
6 Mar 2013
...The separation principle is an official policy of the Israeli military separating Jews and Moslems in the city of Hebron. The policy is implemented primarily through severe restrictions on Palestinian travel and movement in downtown Hebron, where most Israeli settlement outposts are located. Some of the main roads in the area are completely off limits to Palestinians, and many roads bar any and all Palestinian vehicles. Israels strict restrictions have made the lives of Palestinians in downtown Hebron intolerable, forcing many to leave their homes and jobs.
One of the roads prohibited to Palestinian vehicles runs through the neighborhood of a-Salaimeh and leads to the Tomb of the Patriarchs. The road is about 70 meters long and has a checkpoint at either end: the Bakery Checkpoint at the northern end of the road and the Bench Checkpoint at its southern end. Until recently, Israeli security forces permitted Palestinian pedestrians and cyclists on the street. In order to transport supplies through the street, Palestinians were forced to use a horse-drawn wagon or a hand-cart. Settlers and Israeli civilians are permitted to walk and drive cars on the street.
On 23 September 2012 Israeli security forces laid out a chain-link fence, dividing the road lengthwise. On one side of the fence is a paved road and on the other, a narrow pedestrian passageway. Since the fence was erected, Israeli security forces have not allowed Palestinians to walk on the road. Instead they direct Palestinians to the narrow passageway, which is unpaved, rough and ends in a small staircase. The passage is completely impassible by wheelchair and is very difficult to navigate with a baby carriage, pushcart or bicycle...
There's a down side, and an upside - but the real question is, can anything who's incorporates into it's purpose a seperation of races - be a good thing? I don't think so. Especially since commutes for Palestinian workers are substantially longer, and there is also an effort now to prevent them from using the bus' that would shorten their commute.
Israel introduces 'Palestinian only' bus lines, following complaints from Jewish settlers
...Transportation Ministry officials are not officially calling them segregated buses, but rather bus lines intended to relieve the distress of the Palestinian workers.
The Transportation Ministrys pilot program was conceived in sin: Settlers complained that Palestinians were riding the bus from Tel Aviv back to the West Bank with them. Some used security grounds to justify their complaints; others were simply motivated by racism. The settlers' mayors screamed to high heaven, and the Transportation Ministry responded.
At the same time, the activity on the ground Monday morning highlighted the upside to the reform: Thousands of workers who had been exploited by "pirate" vehicle drivers finally got good-quality, well-organized service from the state.
...At least on its first day, the reform's more problematic side wasn't evident. The point, as has been mentioned, is to prevent Palestinians from returning home through Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Samer, from a small West Bank village, goes to the Eyal crossing point every day, returns on Bus 286 from the Tel Aviv Central Bus Station to Ariel and travels on Route 5, the major highway to the settlements. He gets off the bus at the Gitti Avissar interchange, and walks to his village. From time to time, police officers would take Palestinians off the buses and send them on their way on foot.
Now there is an even greater effort to remove them from the buses supposedly because they are not allowed to travel on Route 5 without undergoing an inspection. But the real reason is that this way they will return directly to the Eyal crossing point. Samer, for his part, said he would still try to return via Route 5 this evening, since it significantly shortens his travel time.
Entire articles - pro & con, at the links.
1920 / 30's map shows Jewish Palestine being all of Israel and Jordan, and later it was divided into Arab Palestine as Jordan, and Jewish Palestine as Israel. I've posted the 1920's league of nations agreed upon maps before, and can post it again.There are many "conquered lands" by that have not been returned. Especially if you want to consider Muslim invasions and forced conversions. Second, the land never belonged to the Arabs, nor was there an Arab Palestinian country, for it to be conquered or given back. The land was under Turkish Ottoman rule for 600 years and subsequently afterwards under British rule as Palestine mandate.
So your post isn't worth the pixel it was posted on. LOL
it is nice to see you become a strong proponent of "the right to return". let's wind the clock back to this 1930s that you have so frequently mentioned mention.
or we could go back to the original topic of seperate but not equal...historically, seperate has never been equal.
Arabs didn't accept and we are where we are. At some point the Arabs will have to face the reality and consequences of their actions and intolerance, or not. Who really cares.
Israel will keep marching forward into the bright future while Arabs keep marching backwards into misery, religious radicalism, and darkness of Middle Ages.
Now how would you know that, Tinnie? It's a shame that we don't have the Israeli posting on this forum direct from Israel, Some of the readers might remember him with the screen name of Moshav77. Izaak stated that his family was living there even before Columbus started on his journey, and he didn't have any problem with the European Zionists moving there to be with the rest of the Jews. No doubt the Arabs who flooded into the country from their impoverished surrounding countries when the European Zionists had work available for them didn't mind it at all.How does Hebron, a city known to have a Jewish roots and presence for thousands of years, considered the second-holiest city in Judaism after Jerusalem, suddenly become "Arab", and then to top it off, they claim "apartheid" just because tens of thousands of Muslim Arabs invaded in the 1930's?So, how is this not de-facto apartheid?
Separation not only on buses, but also on streets of Hebron
6 Mar 2013
There's a down side, and an upside - but the real question is, can anything who's incorporates into it's purpose a seperation of races - be a good thing? I don't think so. Especially since commutes for Palestinian workers are substantially longer, and there is also an effort now to prevent them from using the bus' that would shorten their commute.
Israel introduces 'Palestinian only' bus lines, following complaints from Jewish settlers
Entire articles - pro & con, at the links.
Indeed, many Jews lost their homes in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. because of the Zionist invasion. They could still be living in their homes.
How does Hebron, a city known to have a Jewish roots and presence for thousands of years, considered the second-holiest city in Judaism after Jerusalem, suddenly become "Arab", and then to top it off, they claim "apartheid" just because tens of thousands of Muslim Arabs invaded in the 1930's?So, how is this not de-facto apartheid?
Separation not only on buses, but also on streets of Hebron
6 Mar 2013
There's a down side, and an upside - but the real question is, can anything who's incorporates into it's purpose a seperation of races - be a good thing? I don't think so. Especially since commutes for Palestinian workers are substantially longer, and there is also an effort now to prevent them from using the bus' that would shorten their commute.
Israel introduces 'Palestinian only' bus lines, following complaints from Jewish settlers
Entire articles - pro & con, at the links.
Indeed, many Jews lost their homes in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. because of the Zionist invasion. They could still be living in their homes.
How does Hebron, a city known to have a Jewish roots and presence for thousands of years, considered the second-holiest city in Judaism after Jerusalem, suddenly become "Arab", and then to top it off, they claim "apartheid" just because tens of thousands of Muslim Arabs invaded in the 1930's?
Indeed, many Jews lost their homes in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. because of the Zionist invasion. They could still be living in their homes.
Tinmore, this isn't some mosque where you can lie to a bunch of nodding Islamic zombies.
It was Muslims who were practicing apartheid on Jews, and committed genocide in the ancient Jewish community of Hebron and subsequent ethnic cleansing thereof. That much, there is no dispute.
The fact that you keep justifying and blaming others for Muslim savagery and intolerance is typical of your ilk.
1920 / 30's map shows Jewish Palestine being all of Israel and Jordan, and later it was divided into Arab Palestine as Jordan, and Jewish Palestine as Israel. I've posted the 1920's league of nations agreed upon maps before, and can post it again.it is nice to see you become a strong proponent of "the right to return". let's wind the clock back to this 1930s that you have so frequently mentioned mention.
or we could go back to the original topic of seperate but not equal...historically, seperate has never been equal.
Arabs didn't accept and we are where we are. At some point the Arabs will have to face the reality and consequences of their actions and intolerance, or not. Who really cares.
Israel will keep marching forward into the bright future while Arabs keep marching backwards into misery, religious radicalism, and darkness of Middle Ages.
maps really don't tell the whole story, but feel free to post them.
please though, don't use a propaganda site. toastman seems to be in major opposition to such sites and i would hate to see the wonderful relationship you two have fall apart over such a silly matter.
also, the maps do not negate the right of those with the legal status of refugees to return to the lands they fled to escape conflict or war.
Are you talking about yourself?Indeed, many Jews lost their homes in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. because of the Zionist invasion. They could still be living in their homes.
Tinmore, this isn't some mosque where you can lie to a bunch of nodding Islamic zombies.
It was Muslims who were practicing apartheid on Jews, and committed genocide in the ancient Jewish community of Hebron and subsequent ethnic cleansing thereof. That much, there is no dispute.
The fact that you keep justifying and blaming others for Muslim savagery and intolerance is typical of your ilk.
Nice dodge.
