Hafrada is worse than Apartheid

[FireGarden]

Hafrada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafrada) is Hebrew for seperation -- eg: Geder Ha'hafrada "Seperation Fence".

Wiki's description of Hafrada:
In Israel, the term is used to refer to the concept of separation, and to the general policy of separation the Israeli government has adopted and implemented over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

To remove ambiguity, the Hafrada fence seperates Palestinians from Israelis.

This thread is in response to Wildcat:

I know, you do that a lot. This proves one of 2 things - that you don't have a clue as to what apartheid entailed in S. Africa, or you don't have a clue as to what goes on in Israel. But not to exclude the middle, I'll concede that maybe you don't have a clue about either.

So I'll quote the opinion of someone who lived under Apartheid and has spoken out:

An article by Gideon Levy, Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000976.html):

This week, 21 human rights activists from South Africa visited Israel. Among them were members of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress; at least one of them took part in the armed struggle and at least two were jailed. There were two South African Supreme Court judges, a former deputy minister, members of Parliament, attorneys, writers and journalists. Blacks and whites, about half of them Jews who today are in conflict with attitudes of the conservative Jewish community in their country.

[...] They spent most of their time in the occupied areas, where hardly any official guests go.

[...] Madlala-Routledge speaks. “It is hard for me to describe what I am feeling. What I see here is worse than what we experienced. But I am encouraged to find that there are courageous people here. We want to support you in your struggle, by every possible means. There are quite a few Jews in our delegation, and we are very proud that they are the ones who brought us here. They are demonstrating their commitment to support you. In our country we were able to unite all the forces behind one struggle, and there were courageous whites, including Jews, who joined the struggle. I hope we will see more Israeli Jews joining your struggle.”

She was deputy defense minister from 1999 to 2004; in 1987 she served time in prison. Later, I asked her in what ways the situation here is worse than apartheid. “The absolute control of people’s lives, the lack of freedom of movement, the army presence everywhere, the total separation and the extensive destruction we saw.”

[...] Equally harsh are the remarks of the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times of South Africa, Mondli Makhanya, 38. “When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. In a certain sense, it is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.

"The apartheid regime viewed the blacks as inferior; I do not think the Israelis see the Palestinians as human beings at all. How can a human brain engineer this total separation, the separate roads, the checkpoints? What we went through was terrible, terrible, terrible - and yet there is no comparison. Here it is more terrible.

Comparisons to apartheid are exactly what Israel dreads. Olmert had this to say:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and 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," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday, the day the Annapolis conference ended in an agreement to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement by the end of 2008.

"The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," Olmert said, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."

And this is why Jimmy Carter, who brokered peace between Israel and Egypt, is dismissed as anti-Semitic for describing the situation as apartheid.


There are many parallels between Apartheid and Hafrada.

South AFrica tried to have its policy and eat it by creating Bantustans and even declaring some of them to be sovereign states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan

Some of the bantustans received 'independence'. In South Africa, Transkei, Venda, Bophuthatswana, and Ciskei (the so-called TBVC states) were declared independent, while others (like KwaZulu, Lebowa, and QwaQwa), received partial autonomy, but were never granted independence. In South-West Africa, Ovamboland, Kavangoland, and East Caprivi were granted self-determination. The condition of sovereign independent states was not recognised outside of South Africa.


It was demanded that Nelson Mandela renounce violence: NYTimes (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3D91431F932A15755C0A9669582 60)

Even after he was released, he still did not renounce violence.
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mandela/1990/release.html

Our economy lies in ruins and our people are embroiled in political strife. Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement will be created soon so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.

The most diappointing parallel is the slow growth of disapproval. But, eventually, the disapproval was great enough to destroy Apartheid.

And the disapproval of Israel's conduct is growing slowing. Olmert is right. The clock is ticking. Eventually, everyone will give up on a 2-state solution which is always on the horizon. And everyone will call Hafrada what it is: Apartheid.

[Darth Rotor]

And the disapproval of Israel's conduct is growing slowing. Olmert is right. The clock is ticking. Eventually, everyone will give up on a 2-state solution which is always on the horizon. And everyone will call Hafrada what it is: Apartheid.
Let's not.

Apartheid was based on a biological factor: melanin content in skin.

What Israel is doing is based on a sociological factor: political and cultural differences.

If you'd like to call it bigotry, it's hard to argue against that. It is obvious discrimination. If you try to import an emotionally charged term from somewhere else, due to an inherent dishonesty, it won't work as well. While both policies were and are political, their basis is not. Apartheid is a subset of general discrimination. Not all discrimination is apartheid.


Let's call it what it really is, FireGarden: Semite on semite bigotry, which in that part of the world is a well established habit for millenia.

DR

[FireGarden]

Apartheid is a subset of general discrimination. Not all discrimination is apartheid.

Darth,
Hafrada and Apartheid both mean seperation.


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning "separation" or "being apart".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafrada
Hafrada (Hebrew: הפרדה‎) is the English transliteration of the Hebrew word for separation.

In Israel, the term is used to refer to the concept of separation, and to the general policy of separation the Israeli government has adopted and implemented over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.



What is the difference between Hafrada and Apartheid? Hafrada is worse. Not just my opinion. See above.

[WildCat]

This thread is in response to Wildcat:
And I see you have created this thread to prove my point.

You are comparing S. Africa's policies of vastly different legal status for its citizens based on skin color, to Israel's treating people different based on whether or not they're citizens of Israel.

If your bizarre comparison were legitimate, every country in the world is an apartheid regime. But, of course, the comparison falls flat on its face.

But no doubt you will continue with your histrionics, facts be damned.

[Darth Rotor]

Darth,
Hafrada and Apartheid both mean seperation.
You really are a surface skimmer, aren't you? In that case, all dogs are cats, since they are all four legged mammals.

Come on, man, call a dog a dog, and a cat a cat.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
[/i] Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning "separation" or "being apart". [/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafrada
[i] Hafrada (Hebrew: הפרדה‎) is the English transliteration of the Hebrew word for separation.


You read. You choose not to comprehend. That is fine. Dictionary definitions only take you so far. That is as far as you want to take it. We are speaking to one another in English, but you insist on an Afrikaans term. I use an English term, discriminiation, which correctly describes the policy, and is infact far more detailed than 'separation' as a descriptive, but no, not good enough for you.

Why is that? You want to import some baggage from South Africa, that is what you want to do. I want to use a neutral term. That way, I have no agenda to defend, nor do I broadcast one.

Read my post, again, and examine the basis. It's genetic. Importing apartheid due to it's discriminatory character is lazy on your part. This is a deliberate choice, to import emotional baggage from the other case.

Your cookie cutter is not impressive. It is also shallow.

That this discriminatory policy already has a unique name, given it by the Israelis, who aren't using Afrikaans, might be a clue to you: call it Hafrada. It has its own peculiar, and unpleasant, characteristics. (FWIW: I am not a fan of The Wall Israel has chosen to build. I think it's a mistake. )

I will advise you again: apartheid is discrimination, no all discrimination is apartheid. Hafrada as a policy is discrimination, not all discrimination is Hafrada.

DR

[FireGarden]

Israel controls the lives of Palestinians in the Gaza and the West Bank. It can collect taxes from Palestinians and withhold it from the Palestinian "government".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4729000.stm

Israel will withhold an estimated $50m (£28m) in monthly customs revenues due to the PA, as well as impose travel restrictions on Hamas members.

This happens between other nations?
No taxation without representation.




And differences between two things do not make comparisons stupid. Otherwise there would be no need for the concept "compare". We would only have the concept of things being identical or different.

[WildCat]

Israel controls the lives of Palestinians in the Gaza and the West Bank. It can collect taxes from Palestinians and withhold it from the Palestinian "government".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4729000.stm



This happens between other nations?
No taxation without representation.




And differences between two things do not make comparisons stupid. Otherwise there would be no need for the concept "compare". We would only have the concept of things being identical or different.
More fact-free histrionics.

The people in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens, and never were. The West Bank and Gaza were not carved out of Israel.

[FireGarden]

Your cookie cutter is not impressive. It is also shallow. That it already has a unique name, given it by the Israelis, who aren't using Afrikaans, might be a clue to you: Call it Hafrada. It has its own peculiar, and unpleasant, characteristics.

I do call it Hafrada. I am not claiming they are the same. Read the title: Hafrada is worse than Apartheid. How, from that title, do you get the impression that I think they are the same? I am comparing. I am saying one is worse than the other. By saying they are not equal, I admit they are not the same.

(FWIW: I am not a fan of The Wall Israel has chosen to build. I think it's a mistake. )

DR

Glad we agree on something!

[Darth Rotor]

I do call it Hafrada. I am not claiming they are the same. Read the title: Hafrada is worse than Apartheid. How, from that title, do you get the impression that I think they are the same? I am comparing. I am saying one is worse than the other. By saying they are not equal, I admit they are not the same.
Then we agree that they are not the same. What we don't agree on is the point in comparing them, which is importation of baggage. I don't think all discriminatory policies are equal. Some are more burdensome than others.

See, for example, the difference between some US laws in early 1800's that basically dictated runaway black slaves be returned to their master, slave state or no, and a policy in the Caliphate at the same time that held the Dhimi -- Christians, Jew's etc -- to be second class citizens as compared to Arabs. Extra taxes, lesser social standing.

Both discriminatory, but of a different sort. One racial, one social/cultural.

Worse or better?

When you set aside the baggage, it might be an interesting question to ponder.

Consider this: it is possible for example that a Palestinian who is Muslim or Christian could convert to Judaism, and be a Jew in Israel. (Not all that likely, and certainly distasteful to many, but a possible option.)

A black had no chance to convert to white in South Africa.

Are you comparing apples to apples?

ETA: It is also possible for a Palestinian Christian or Muslim to be a citizen in Israel, but I don't wish to derail into those areas of Israel law and custom: it would be a disservice to your thread.

DR

[Sefarst]

Israel controls the lives of Palestinians in the Gaza and the West Bank. It can collect taxes from Palestinians and withhold it from the Palestinian "government".

This happens between other nations?
No taxation without representation.

The Palestinian Authority also collects taxes for Israel (though a much smaller amount). This is the agreement both sides reached in earlier negotiations.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136484/

[FireGarden]

Then we agree that they are not the same. What we don't agree on is the point in comparing them, which is importation of baggage. I don't think all discriminatory policies are equal. Some are more burdensome than others.

[...] Are you comparing apples to apples?

If I were to compare apples to apples, it would go like this: Apples are like apples because apples are apples.

If I were to compare apples to oranges, it would go like this: Oranges are harder to eat without peeling first.

See how the second comparison implies there are differences between apples and oranges?

I have no problem at all discussing which of two bad things is worse. I have quoted testimony which I think is relevant from someone who has experienced Apartheid. She didn't mind making the comparison. I am not embarrassed to have listened to her, believed her and to have quoted her.

ETA: It is also possible for a Palestinian Christian or Muslim to be a citizen in Israel, but I don't wish to derail into those areas of Israel law and custom: it would be a disservice to your thread.

DR

That is a different topic. Thanks for mentioning it so that I can clarify that I am not talking about discrimination in Israel -- which does exist, and Israel legislates against.

[ddt]

Apartheid was based on a biological factor: melanin content in skin.

What Israel is doing is based on a sociological factor: political and cultural differences.
I'd say both are based on ethnicity. Let's note that human races don't exist - that melanin content is a very superficial difference. Moreover, South African segregation went further than distinguishing between "black" and "white": Indians were treated as second-class citizens too (something that Gandhi acted against while he lived in Durban), and we'd call those "white" too?

So, I think the basis for both is the same, and I think comparing them is fully justified.


If you'd like to call it bigotry, it's hard to argue against that. It is obvious discrimination. If you try to import an emotionally charged term from somewhere else, due to an inherent dishonesty, it won't work as well. While both policies were and are political, their basis is not. Apartheid is a subset of general discrimination. Not all discrimination is apartheid.
What set Apartheid out from other racial/ethnic/etc. discrimination is the attempt to fully segregate "races" in an entire country. Not so much the basis on which it was done.



You are comparing S. Africa's policies of vastly different legal status for its citizens based on skin color, to Israel's treating people different based on whether or not they're citizens of Israel.

If your bizarre comparison were legitimate, every country in the world is an apartheid regime. But, of course, the comparison falls flat on its face.
1) Name another state in the world that has occupied another territory for over 40 years and not allowed its residents the right of citizenship?

2) Israel willfully has settled its own citizens in big numbers in an occupied territory, the West Bank. As such, it opens the door to comparing how it treats Israeli citizens living in the West Bank and its original residents.

3) South Africa tried the trick of doing the reverse: creating the Bantustans and declaring that the black South African citizens were no longer SA citizen but citizen of one of those Bantustans. The net result is the same.

So, nothing bizarre about the comparison.

[WildCat]

1) Name another state in the world that has occupied another territory for over 40 years and not allowed its residents the right of citizenship?
The USSR.

eta: do you consider the colonization of various parts of the globe by European powers an occupation?

2) Israel willfully has settled its own citizens in big numbers in an occupied territory, the West Bank. As such, it opens the door to comparing how it treats Israeli citizens living in the West Bank and its original residents.
I don't support the settlements, but the settlers are still Israeli citizens and the Palestinians in said territories are not.

3) South Africa tried the trick of doing the reverse: creating the Bantustans and declaring that the black South African citizens were no longer SA citizen but citizen of one of those Bantustans. The net result is the same.
The West Bank and Gaza were never part of Israel. The residents of those places were never Israeli citizens.

So, nothing bizarre about the comparison.
Not if you ignore the fact that they're completely different. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

The USSR.

Why go that far?

Egypt, Jordan (partially), Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc., etc. etc. all deliberately kept the Palestinian refugees as refugees, denying them citizenship and keeping them in camps for three generations (so far), merely to use them as pawns in the "let's destroy Israel demographically" game.

Then again, Libyan, Lebanese, Egyptian, Syrian, etc. "citizenship" isn't much more than doing what the dictator-in-chief commands, so perhaps it's not much of a loss.

[Darth Rotor]

I'd say both are based on ethnicity. Let's note that human races don't exist -
Sorry, you have chosen a deliberate construct that does not apply to what we are talking about. Apartheid, the policy, was most certainly based on the basis that race not only existed, but was, for example, easily discerned by things such as cheekbones, eyes, and in that case melanin count.

That you have taken on a view a few levels down from the aggregate of person, into genetic comparisons of a different sort does not change the basis for that policy. The ethnicity term is very vague: it is used sometimes to describe race, other times culture, sometimes language, and other times a mixture. It's a stew.

You are being deliberately imprecise. Why?

That melanin count differs isn't in question. That's a genetic reality. That decisions were made on that genetic basis does matter in reference to apartheid. That many good people take the position that these external manifestations of genetic difference ought not to be used as they were for so many years is laudatory, but it does not change that race is and has been used for policy making, and in this case, was the foundation of it.

Your appeal to "there is no such thing as race" meme isn't very useful, (and it is also relatively recent) since it is not a universal agreement, save perhaps on this board. It is still used, in the US, in government policy documents. It is still used in census. It is occasionally given the fig leaf of "ethnicity" so that it encompasses social stratification like "hispanic" which is language and somewhat geographical based, and other group clusters that began as the old racial categories: see the Amerinds for an example.

Luke T pointed this out before: JREF forums are Whoville.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

If I were to compare apples to apples, it would go like this: Apples are like apples because apples are apples.
No. You would compare the flavor of a Granny Smith apple to a Red Delicious apple.
If I were to compare apples to oranges, it would go like this: Oranges are harder to eat without peeling first.
No, the point I am making is attempting to compare the flavor of a Granny Smith apple to a Mandarin Orange. Well, they are both fruit, but they are different fruits. What is the point of comparison? What is being attempted is a Mandarin Orange to Granny Smith flavor on the basis that they are both apples.
I have no problem at all discussing which of two bad things is worse. I have quoted testimony which I think is relevant from someone who has experienced Apartheid. She didn't mind making the comparison. I am not embarrassed to have listened to her, believed her and to have quoted her.
The core linkage being is the emotional baggage apartheid brings with it as an associative. That you admit to the emotional bias is fine, no problems with full disclosure. We are all human. But as to my question, based on the who can move up within the system, and Wildcat's question about one being a policy on citizens and the other a bit more complex in terms of administering a territory, why do you feel "worse" a well made judgment? Are they that comparable when you bother to look at the details?

Why juxtapose, deliberatey, apartheid with this other policy?

By the way, which do you think is worse: pissing blood or having badly brewed coffee? I mean, you don't mind comparing different worse things, do you? :cool:

That is a different topic. Thanks for mentioning it so that I can clarify that I am not talking about discrimination in Israel -- which does exist, and Israel legislates against.
Aye, not gonna derail.

ETA:

FireGarden, I'll grant you the following. If I were a Pal living in the West Bank, and I looked at apartheid rversus Hafrada and I'd probably say Hafrada is worse than apartheid -- since it is happening to me, and apartheid happened to someone else. ;)

[dudalb]

Notice how a lot of people who pile on Israel are quiet when it comes to Palestianian attacks on Israeli Citizens?
Israel can't win with these people. If Israel was to grant Citizenship to the Palestinians, they would condemn that also.

[ddt]

The USSR.
Huh?


eta: do you consider the colonization of various parts of the globe by European powers an occupation?
Yes, you're right with that example. And we stopped it and are ashamed about it, aren't we?


I don't support the settlements, but the settlers are still Israeli citizens and the Palestinians in said territories are not.
Which makes the Israeli citizens the aliens. :p


The West Bank and Gaza were never part of Israel. The residents of those places were never Israeli citizens.
Look what I wrote: "The net result is the same". South Africa designated some (infertile) patches of land as "Bantu states", and said that henceforth all South African blacks were citizen not of South Africa but of such a Bantustan. Israel has occupied the WB, and designated which areas the Palestinians may live and move in (IIRC, 55% of the WB), and the rest is for Israeli settlers (and the IDF). De facto, the other 45% of the WB is annexed by Israel. Per the article, the movement of the Palestinians in and out of their patches of land is even more restricted than the movement of the blacks in South Africa ever was.

[Pardalis]

It was demanded that Nelson Mandela renounce violence:

Who is the Palestinian Mandela in your opinion?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Why go that far?

Egypt, Jordan (partially), Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc., etc. etc. all deliberately kept the Palestinian refugees as refugees, denying them citizenship and keeping them in camps for three generations (so far), merely to use them as pawns in the "let's destroy Israel demographically" game.



Israel sets itself up on land it had no right to be on because other people were living there (and not only that it displaces those people and persecutes them for 60 years) and you are surprised that the people of the region don't want it there?

Israel reaps what it sows.

[WildCat]

Notice how a lot of people who pile on Israel are quiet when it comes to Palestianian attacks on Israeli Citizens?
Israel can't win with these people. If Israel was to grant Citizenship to the Palestinians, they would condemn that also.
Israel did grant citizenship to all those Palestinians who didn't flee Israel.

But Firegarden wants Israel to grant foreigners the same rights as Israeli citizens... the mind boggles.

[WildCat]

Huh?
So all those Warsaw Pact countries really weren't under the heel of Mother Russia all that time?

Yes, you're right with that example. And we stopped it and are ashamed about it, aren't we?
And Israel is looking for a way to withdraw. They've already withdrawn from Gaza.

Which makes the Israeli citizens the aliens. :p
Pretty much.

Look what I wrote: "The net result is the same". South Africa designated some (infertile) patches of land as "Bantu states", and said that henceforth all South African blacks were citizen not of South Africa but of such a Bantustan. Israel has occupied the WB, and designated which areas the Palestinians may live and move in (IIRC, 55% of the WB), and the rest is for Israeli settlers (and the IDF). De facto, the other 45% of the WB is annexed by Israel. Per the article, the movement of the Palestinians in and out of their patches of land is even more restricted than the movement of the blacks in South Africa ever was.
De facto parts of the West Bank may well be annexed by Israel lacking any real and lasting Palestinian cooperation on settling the issue of borders. Hard to set something free when it just turns around and bites you when you let go.

[Skeptic]

If, say, the Eskimos or the Scandinavians refused to grand citizenship to Palestinian refugees in their territory on the grounds that it's not their problem, that would be sad, but it would hardly be a surprise. But the same Arab world which claims to love the Palestinians so much it engaged in numerous attempts to destroy Israel in order to "free Palestine", mysteriously doesn't love the Palestinians enough to actually grant them citizenship.

Which goes to show that the real reason for the wars of annihilation against Israel (and before that, on the Jewish community in the British Mandate of Palestine) had nothing to do with outrage at the lot of the Palestinian refugees -- indeed, those wars caused the refugee problem -- but with the desire for a Judenrein middle east, without caring much, if at all, what will happen to the Palestinians once the Jews are expelled and killed.

With all probability, if Israel were destroyed in 1948 or 1967, the sole result would have been Syria, Jordan, Egypt killing and expelling all the Jews and dividing the spoils among themselves -- not a Palestinian state. Not one square inch of the land "liberated" in favor of their "Palestinian brothers" in 1948 by their "Arab brothers" (e.g., the Gaza strip, the west bank) was ever considered to be given to the Palestinians, for example. The land was simply annexed by Egypt and Jordan, respectively.

Ironically, the only country in the middle east to ever offer the Palestinians land, citizenship, and (at least twice) a state was Israel.

[Pardalis]

Ironically, the only country in the middle east to ever offer the Palestinians land, citizenship, and (at least twice) a state was Israel.

What boggles my mind is that they've got a Palestinian state already... Jordan! :boggled:

[Tin Foil Timothy]

What boggles my mind is that they've got a Palestinian state already... Jordan! :boggled:

Yeah that's the Zionist Agenda right there. Kick the Palestinians out of Palestine altogether so Israel can have the lot.

Is that what you want Pardalis? Do you want Israel to have the lot?

[Pardalis]

Yeah that's the Zionist Agenda right there. Kick the Palestinians out of Palestine altogether so Israel can have the lot.

Is that what you want Pardalis? Do you want Israel to have the lot?

No. As I've said in another thread, Jordan should annex the West Bank.

But this is a derail, we've had this conversation before.

[Skeptic]

Yeah that's the Zionist Agenda right there.

But it's true. Jordan is a country where a small non-Palestinian minority related to the Saudi Royal family (long story) rules over a large Palestinian population.

If that minority had been a Jewish one, related to, let's say, prominent American Jewish families, you'd be screaming your head off to end this evil foreign occupation and let the Palestinians have their country, Jordan, back, wouldn't you?

But of course, as things are, the rulers of Jordan are not Jews, so their relationship with the Palestinians is suddenly of no concern to you. No chance of blaming "the Zionists" there.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

But it's true. Jordan is a country where a small non-Palestinian minority related to the Saudi Royal family (long story) rules over a large Palestinian population.

If that minority had been a Jewish one related to, say, prominent American Jewish families, you'd be screaming your head off to end this evil occupation and letting the Palestinians have their country, Jordan, back, wouldn't you?

But of course, as things are, the rulers of Jordan are not Jews, so their relationship with the Palestinians is suddenly of no concern to you.

You're obsessed with Jews aren't you? Always making all this a 'Jewish' problem aren't you?

You can scream "Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews!" "Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! " until your throat hurts but all you are doing is becoming a laughing stock to more and more people.

I'm still laughing at your long post that childishly shouts Anti-Semitism (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4298386&postcount=17) on the basis of complete nonsense.

The situation in Jordan is nothing like the Palestine c. Israel issues anyway.

[Darth Rotor]

You're obsessed with Jews aren't you? Always making all this a 'Jewish' problem aren't you?

You can scream "Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews!" "Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite! " until your throat hurts but all you are doing is becoming a laughing stock to more and more people.

I'm still laughing at your long post that childishly shouts Anti-Semitism (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4298386&postcount=17) on the basis of complete nonsense.

The situation in Jordan is nothing like the Palestine c. Israel issues anyway.
Yeah, the events of Black September that was the name for a group who attacked Israeli Olympic Athletes in the 1972 Munich Olympics had nothing to do with Jordan either.

Oh, wait, what was Black September a reference to?
September 1970 is known as the Black September is referred to as the "era of regrettable events." It was a month when Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan moved to quash the autonomy of Palestinian organizations and restore his monarchy's rule over the country. The violence resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian. Armed conflict lasted until July 1971 with the expulsion of the PLO and thousands of Palestinian fighters to Lebanon.
This crap isn't as simple as you wish it were. It's all mish mashed together.

DR

[ddt]

Sorry, you have chosen a deliberate construct that does not apply to what we are talking about. Apartheid, the policy, was most certainly based on the basis that race not only existed, but was, for example, easily discerned by things such as cheekbones, eyes, and in that case melanin count.
If you look at the criteria of the SA Population Registration Act, you see that to distinguish "whites" from "coloureds", the first four criteria are indeed physical features, but the last five are socio-economic.


Your appeal to "there is no such thing as race" meme isn't very useful, (and it is also relatively recent) since it is not a universal agreement, save perhaps on this board. It is still used, in the US, in government policy documents. It is still used in census. It is occasionally given the fig leaf of "ethnicity" so that it encompasses social stratification like "hispanic" which is language and somewhat geographical based, and other group clusters that began as the old racial categories: see the Amerinds for an example.
The meme "there is no such thing as race" may not be explicitly agreed on by everyone, but the example you cite - US classification as "hispanic" - and the South African classification as "coloured", i.e., of mixed race, implicitly concede the fact that you cannot divide the human population into three easy boxes "white", "black" and "yellow", or whatever you'd call them.

The South African was highly subjective; see also about the Pencil Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule#The_Pencil_test):
Members of the same family who had different hair textures would find themselves in different race groups as a result of this test. This presented serious consequences for many families



That you have taken on a view a few levels down from the aggregate of person, into genetic comparisons of a different sort does not change the basis for that policy. The ethnicity term is very vague: it is used sometimes to describe race, other times culture, sometimes language, and other times a mixture. It's a stew.

You are being deliberately imprecise. Why?
Because all such categorizations are imprecise. There are no objective criteria for dividing people living in the same country in various groups. Also for "ethnicity", the best criterion there is is to ask a person him/herself to which group s/he belongs.

But whatever the shabby criterion, the fact is that in both the South African case and the West Bank case, the population there is divided in two (or more) groups that are segregated, in where they may live, move and work, to the detriment of one of those groups, intermarriage is forbidden or practically made impossible, etc. And in the practical realization of that policy, there are eerie resemblances.


Luke T pointed this out before: JREF forums are Whoville.
Sorry, I don't get this reference; would you care to explain?

[Darth Rotor]

Because all such categorizations are imprecise. There are no objective criteria for dividing people living in the same country in various groups. Also for "ethnicity", the best criterion there is is to ask a person him/herself to which group s/he belongs.
Which is fine, until

1 that person has to describe or explain why he or she belongs to what group

2 you start writing rules and laws about how one treats ...

Then you need criterion, measure, and off we go into what actually has been done.

We don't disagree, really, other than on trying to apply the idea "there is no such thing as race" to the actual and on record attempts of the past, oh, three hundred years, to use just such a categorization as the basis for making rules.

Yes, it's imperfect, and in many cases grossly unjust.

That isn't the point of t his discussion. My point was about how a method of discrimination, a policy, is different from another method of discrimination, another policy. Trying to overlay some ideal onto either after the fact doesn't take us anywhere.

DR

[BirdStrike]

Here's a history lesson from the official website of Jordan. Ignore it, read it, I don't really care at this point.

kinghussein.gov.jo (http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_palestine.html)

As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the “West Bank” territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.


If you wanna moan about "stateless refugees" the address for your complaint is the Arab League. That's straight from the horses mouth - www.kinghussein.gov.jo.

[lomiller]

Israel sets itself up on land it had no right to be on because other people were living there


The Israelis were immigrants to be sure, but the did not replace a Palestinian state because no such state existed. What is special about this region that no immigration should be allowed? Do you similarly feel that people of Middle eastern decent should not be allowed to immigrate to Europe or North America?

[ddt]

The Israelis were immigrants to be sure, but the did not replace a Palestinian state because no such state existed. What is special about this region that no immigration should be allowed? Do you similarly feel that people of Middle eastern decent should not be allowed to immigrate to Europe or North America?

Do you really want to go into that can of worms?

1) Look at the amount of those immigrants in European countries: 5-8% in each country.

2) Look up: Geert Wilders, Filip de Winter, Jean-Marie le Pen, Jörg Haider and a couple more of those names.

3) The point precisely is that the Palestinians themselves had no say in that immigration. The British ruled the place at that time.

[FireGarden]

The core linkage being is the emotional baggage apartheid brings with it as an associative. That you admit to the emotional bias is fine, no problems with full disclosure. We are all human. But as to my question, based on the who can move up within the system, and Wildcat's question about one being a policy on citizens and the other a bit more complex in terms of administering a territory, why do you feel "worse" a well made judgment? Are they that comparable when you bother to look at the details?

Why juxtapose, deliberatey, apartheid with this other policy?

There are many types of descrimination. Hafrada and Apartheid are both based upon seperation -- not just physically, but emotionally... cutting all instincts of empathy.

Check out some of the articles by Amira Hass at Haaretz (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=+site:www.haaretz.com+%22amira+hass%22+apartheid +haaretz). She often uses the word "apartheid". (Or her translator does, but I think she speaks English). I've been reading her articles, on and off, for some time now. So that's kind of where I'm coming from.

[FireGarden]

Israel did grant citizenship to all those Palestinians who didn't flee Israel.

But Firegarden wants Israel to grant foreigners the same rights as Israeli citizens... the mind boggles.

When I demand that Israel grant British people the same rights as Israeli citizens, then you will have a point. Until that very, very distant moment in fantasy land, you do not.

That Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not granted rights by Israel is the very core of the matter. It is for Israel to grant them rights. Unless you feel that they need an armed struggle to win the rights for themselves.

So which is it? Who will grant the Palestinians rights?

[FireGarden]

Why go that far?

Egypt, Jordan (partially), Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc., etc. etc. all deliberately kept the Palestinian refugees as refugees, denying them citizenship and keeping them in camps for three generations (so far), merely to use them as pawns in the "let's destroy Israel demographically" game.

Then again, Libyan, Lebanese, Egyptian, Syrian, etc. "citizenship" isn't much more than doing what the dictator-in-chief commands, so perhaps it's not much of a loss.

One difference is that when Egypt et al are criticised nobody leaps to their defence. And so the matter doesn't generate pages of debate and drops from memory.

[Alt+F4]

The most diappointing parallel is the slow growth of disapproval. But, eventually, the disapproval was great enough to destroy Apartheid.

And the disapproval of Israel's conduct is growing slowing. Olmert is right. The clock is ticking. Eventually, everyone will give up on a 2-state solution which is always on the horizon. And everyone will call Hafrada what it is: Apartheid.

Well even the South Africans aren't calling hafrada apartheid, they are saying it's worse than Apartheid.

I think the slow growth of disapproval will continue to be that....slow. Americans are never going to show the same outrage against hafrada that they did against apartheid in the 1980s. It may not be fair or reasonable but the religion of Islam has a real PR problem in the United States.

[Darth Rotor]

There are many types of descrimination.
We agree.

Hafrada and Apartheid are both based upon seperation -- not just physically, but emotionally... cutting all instincts of empathy.
What? Cutting all instincts of empathy? You lost me. We/they distinctions in that part of the world is millenia old. What Israel is doing is nothing new. Nothing novel.
Check out some of the articles by Amira Hass at Haaretz (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=+site:www.haaretz.com+%22amira+hass%22+apartheid +haaretz). She often uses the word "apartheid".
I am trying to discern why that makes any difference. I find the usage dishonest. I speak English.
Or her translator does, but I think she speaks English). I've been reading her articles, on and off, for some time now. So that's kind of where I'm coming from.
In an attempt to borrow horror ... something like the standard Hitler reference.

The we/they dynamic between Pals and Israelis is plenty bad in its own right. The Pals in this case get to play underdog. Israel is the larger dog. It does not make the policy apartheid. It makes the policy a part played in a land grab. As I understand what the Israelis are doing as a follow up to the push for West Bank settlements, they are trying to grab "X" land before they give up the remainder of the West Bank. Cynical. In the near term, the policy appears to be based on a fear of "the enemy within" that may or may not be rational.

DR

[FireGarden]

Well even the South Africans aren't calling hafrada apartheid, they are saying it's worse than Apartheid.

Ah yes!
I got caught up in my rhetoric.

There are more painful ways of being caught.

[FireGarden]

What? Cutting all instincts of empathy? You lost me. We/they distinctions in that part of the world is millenia old. What Israel is doing is nothing new. Nothing novel.

I don't see the people of the region as being like cats and dogs. Please spend more time reading Haaretz, especially writers like Amira Hass. Look up Israeli organisations like ICAHD and Arab/Israeli groups like http://www.combatantsforpeace.org/ or http://www.taayush.org/new/we.html

A story I remember includes a great Spartacus moment when some anti-'fence' (It's a wall!) demonstrators were arrested:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=511396

None of the Israelis arrested were carrying their identity cards, and when asked their names they all said, "My name is Ahmed Awad."

Here's more on Ahmad Awad:
http://exmypar.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/ahmed-awad-and-non-violent-protest/

[a_unique_person]

And I see you have created this thread to prove my point.

You are comparing S. Africa's policies of vastly different legal status for its citizens based on skin color, to Israel's treating people different based on whether or not they're citizens of Israel.

If your bizarre comparison were legitimate, every country in the world is an apartheid regime. But, of course, the comparison falls flat on its face.

But no doubt you will continue with your histrionics, facts be damned.

Sophistry of the highest order. Apartheid was used in South Africa to separate but control another group of people within it's own borders. One of the aims was to ensure those people were not citizens. The people in the Bantustans were not citizens of South Africa.

Perhaps you should read this article by an Israeli Zionist, who looks back and reflects on one the problems that they all hoped would disappear one day.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/i-dream-of-another-israel-20081229-76sc.html



Why is this happening? There are many reasons, many pretexts. We criticise — rightly — many things: the media, the education system, all our successive governments, the US President, the world. But I miss one criticism: the criticism of ourselves. My father used to tell me: if the situation is bad, the first thing to do is to ask yourself if you are right.

[BirdStrike]

A bantustan or more commonly black african homeland or simply homeland, was territory set aside for black inhabitants of South Africa and South-West Africa (now Namibia), as part of the policy of apartheid.

WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan)


Is a Bantustan like this a_unique_person?


Three generations of the Hamdallah family have lived in Lebanon. And for three generations not a single member of the family has been allowed to graduate from school, legally marry, or hold a job, or even set foot outside of the rundown camps that have been home to generations of Palestinians.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimates that more than 400,000 Palestinians live in Lebanon — refugees, their children and their children’s children — all denied many basic rights in their adopted homeland on the Mediterranean.

nytimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/world/middleeast/06lebanon.html)

[The Fool]

Israel did grant citizenship to all those Palestinians who didn't flee Israel.


what sort of citizenship? Equal?

Nope. They were assigned 2nd class citizenship. Something you would find disgusting in your own country but ok in Israel.

[BirdStrike]

what sort of citizenship? Equal?

Nope. They were assigned 2nd class citizenship. Something you would find disgusting in your own country but ok in Israel.


If 2nd-class citizenship is bad, how do you feel about no-class citizenship the fool?


Three generations of the Hamdallah family have lived in Lebanon. And for three generations not a single member of the family has been allowed to graduate from school, legally marry, or hold a job, or even set foot outside of the rundown camps that have been home to generations of Palestinians.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimates that more than 400,000 Palestinians live in Lebanon — refugees, their children and their children’s children — all denied many basic rights in their adopted homeland on the Mediterranean.

nytimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/world/middleeast/06lebanon.html)


I mean if you're really all about citizenship and such, maybe you should help out the no-class citizens first... they need help way more.... and then work your way up to the second-class citizens. ;)

[ddt]

Is a Bantustan like this a_unique_person?
Ah, the tired old tactic of the Israel-apologist-through-thick-and-thin. "Look there, there are also people suffering".

[BirdStrike]

Ah, the tired old tactic of the Israel-apologist-through-thick-and-thin. "Look there, there are also people suffering".

Who's apologizing? I am helping you by revealing the no-class citizens.

I mean that's what you are all about right? Righting the wrongs in the world. So here are some no-class citizens for you to help first... on your way to helping the 2nd-class citizens in Israel.

[The Fool]

If 2nd-class citizenship is bad, how do you feel about no-class citizenship the fool?





I mean if you're really all about citizenship and such, maybe you should help out the no-class citizens first... and then work your way up to the second-class citizens. ;)
ok I'll help them out. They are all going to go back where they came from....ok with you?

How do you rationalise it to yourself? Do you ever look at yourself in the mirror and wonder how you came to the point of arguing for racial discrimination to be condoned?

[BirdStrike]

ok I'll help them out. They are all going to go back where they came from....ok with you?

So these 3 generations of people should just go back to where they came from? Sounds like ethnic cleansing to me.

How do you rationalise it to yourself? Do you ever look at yourself in the mirror and wonder how you came to the point of arguing for racial discrimination to be condoned?

Hey, you're the one who wants to cleanse Lebanon of 400,000 people. Remember the "go back where they came from" part? Don't freak out at me.

[ddt]

Who's apologizing? I am helping you by revealing the no-class citizens.

I mean that's what you are all about right? Righting the wrongs in the world. So here are some no-class citizens for you to help first... on your way to helping the 2nd-class citizens in Israel.

May I remind you that this thread is about the no-class citizens in the West Bank - not about the 2nd-class citizens in Israel.

If you are concerned about the Palestinians in the refugee camps in Lebanon, you could start another thread about it. I'm not holding my breath though.

BTW, underlining words is not smart - it resembles a link. Unless, of course, you actually want people to get tired of looking whether that underline may be a link.

[BirdStrike]

May I remind you that this thread is about the no-class citizens in the West Bank - not about the 2nd-class citizens in Israel.

So you want people living in the West Bank to be citizens of Israel? I don't think they would like that idea. And they certainly can't be citizens of Palestine, because it has yet to be.

If you are concerned about the Palestinians in the refugee camps in Lebanon, you could start another thread about it. I'm not holding my breath though.

Point me to your JREF thread about the 3 generations of no-class citizens in Lebanon, I'd be happy to join it. What's the link?

[The Fool]

So these 3 generations of people should just go back to where they came from? Sounds like ethnic cleansing to me.

I'm sure it does. I'm sure you can make pretty much anything sound like pretty much anything else when you have to live with yourself.



Hey, you're the one who wants to cleanse Lebanon of 400,000 people. Remember the "go back where they came from" part? Don't freak out at me.

Lol...returning refugees is ethnic cleansing.....you make me giggle. well, its obvious how you live with your support of racial discrimination isn't it. You make it vanish with hand waving and diversions :)

[parky76]

I don't know if Hafrada is worse then Apartheid. But it is a close second.

Israel not only refuses to allow back any refugees to Israel..but they even forbid them from returning to the West Bank!! (Israeli logic there)

In the West Bank, Israel has one standard for Arabs..another standard for Jews.

As far as Jews are concerned, the land is "Disputed" and Israel has every right to build homes, roads, schools, towns, etc. Acts of violence, vandalism, arson, and theft, are lent a blind eye.

As far as Arabs are concerned, the land is "Occupied" and Israel has no ability to repair or build new infrastructure for the Arabs. Israel also has no right to approve new building permits, so they immediately destroy any and all Arab structures built without a permit.

Nice to have your cake and eat it too huh?

Yes, Hafrada is pretty @#$%&%$ bad.

[BirdStrike]

I'm sure it does. I'm sure you can make pretty much anything sound like pretty much anything else when you have to live with yourself.


Yup. I'm simply horrible.


Lol...returning refugees is ethnic cleansing.....you make me giggle.


Huh? You're the one who is considering descendants of refugees to be refugees themselves. And on top of that you want to send these refugees and the descendants of refugees back where they came from.


well, its obvious how you live with your support of racial discrimination isn't it. You make it vanish with hand waving and diversions :)


Me? Racial discrimination? You're the one who is considering Lebanese-born descendants of refugees to be stateless refugees. Entirely based upon their background. Talk about discrimination.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Israel sets itself up on land it had no right to be on because other people were living there (and not only that it displaces those people and persecutes them for 60 years) and you are surprised that the people of the region don't want it there?

Israel reaps what it sows.

The Israelis were immigrants to be sure, but the did not replace a Palestinian state because no such state existed. What is special about this region that no immigration should be allowed?

Not only do you completely miss the point you create a straw man at the same time.

Palestine existed as a land whether it was officially a state or not. But you miss the point it's not about being a state for the individuals who lost their land they individually owned.

The argument about Palestine not being a state is a tired now as most people recognize the real human issues, not issues of what the country is officially called on paper

And now onto your strawman ...

Do you similarly feel that people of Middle eastern decent should not be allowed to immigrate to Europe or North America?

Well I've never complained about any immigration to Palestine so I'm not sure how you arrive at that question. I don't have a problem with Jewish people, or even Martian people settling in Palestine.

What I object to is a people being thrown off their land and losing their livelihoods because another group of people decided they were going to set up a country there which gave more rights to one ethno group.

Not to mention the 60 year apartheid and persecution of people based upon their race.

FWIW I think people should be allowed to settle wherever they like as long as it's done legally and morally

[parky76]

[quote=lomiller;4302882]


The Israelis were immigrants to be sure,

A good 40% of the Israeli-Jewish people are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from Arab and Muslim countries. These people are NOT welcome back, and if they did go back they would be most likely harrassed and/or killed.

What should be done with these 2.5 million Israeli Jews? Send them to Long Island?

[WildCat]

Here's a history lesson from the official website of Jordan. Ignore it, read it, I don't really care at this point.
Jewish-occupied Palestine
If you wanna moan about "stateless refugees" the address for your complaint is the Arab League. That's straight from the horses mouth - www.kinghussein.gov.jo (http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo).
Uh-oh, King Hussein forgot to substitute the word "Zionist" for "Jewish" and thus cover his butt against charges of anti-semitism! I guess when you're the King you don't have to worry about such things.

[WildCat]

Point me to your JREF thread about the 3 generations of no-class citizens in Lebanon, I'd be happy to join it. What's the link?
BirdStrike, it's only an outrage when it's perpetrated by Jews Zionists, get with the pogrom program!

[BirdStrike]

Uh-oh, King Hussein forgot to substitute the word "Zionist" for "Jewish" and thus cover his butt against charges of anti-semitism! I guess when you're the King you don't have to worry about such things.


It's good to be the King! :D

http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/world/images/goodkng2.jpg

[WildCat]

FWIW I think people should be allowed to settle wherever they like as long as it's done legally and morally
Unless the laws are made by Israelis, right? :rolleyes:

[The Fool]

you kids finished with the diversions and hand waving yet?

I condemn discrimination on the grounds of race color or religion wherever it happens. So do you......well, nearly.....

[WildCat]

what sort of citizenship? Equal?

Nope. They were assigned 2nd class citizenship. Something you would find disgusting in your own country but ok in Israel.
Oh really?

Legal and Political Status:

Arab Israelis are citizens of the Israel with equal rights. In 1948, Israel's Declaration of Independence called upon the Arab inhabitants of Israel to "participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions".

The political involvement of the Arab sector is manifested through both national and municipal elections. Arab citizens run the political and administrative affairs of their own municipalities and advance Arab interests through their elected representatives in the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Arab Israelis have also held various government positions, including that of deputy minister. At present a member of the Druze community is serving as a government minister.

The Declaration also promises that Israel will "ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex" and guarantees "freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture".

Israel has extensive anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, since the founding of the State, the status of Arab Israeli women has been significantly improved by legislation stipulating equal rights for women and prohibition of polygamy and child marriage. Israel remains one of the few countries in the Middle East where women enjoy equality in rights and personal freedoms, including the right to vote and be elected to local and national office.

The only legal distinction between Arab and Jewish citizens is not one of rights, but rather of civic duty. Since Israel's establishment, Arab citizens have been exempted from compulsory service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). This exemption was made out of consideration for their family, religious and cultural affiliations with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, given the on-going conflict. Still, volunteer military service is encouraged and IDF service was made mandatory for Druze and Circassian men at the request of their community leaders.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/arabs2.html

Just like in apartheid S. Africa!

The Fool, I guess when the facts don't support you lies is all you have left... :rolleyes:

[BirdStrike]

I condemn discrimination on the grounds of race color or religion wherever it happens. So do you......well, nearly.....

There isn't a country on earth that doesn't suffer from discrimination issues. The worst offenders are Arab countries, see Darfur, Shiite vs Sunni in Iraq, women in Saudia Arabia, Palestinians in Lebanon.... Israel is not special by any means.

[The Fool]

Oh really?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/arabs2.html

Just like in apartheid S. Africa!

The Fool, I guess when the facts don't support you lies is all you have left... :rolleyes:
Oh dear....you are going to try to deny it again? will you disappear again too? after you have the fact that non jews do not have full and equal citizenship of Israel.
Can I have your commitment to hang around before I bother to demonstrate it again?


but let me just confirm this.......Jews and non jews both have full and equal citizenship in the Jewish nation. The laws of the land and the rights and responsibilities of thier citizenship are the same? I just want to confirm that because its so blatantly obviously incorrect that I wonder how a seemingly intelligent person could try to breath life into it.

ready? would you like to start a new thread so your usual vanishing act is more obvious?


step one. If they are full and equal there would be no need to record which they have....agreed?

[The Fool]

There isn't a country on earth that doesn't suffer from discrimination issues. The worst offenders are Arab countries, see Darfur, Shiite vs Sunni in Iraq, women in Saudia Arabia, Palestinians in Lebanon.... Israel is not special by any means.

Nobody is saying Israel is the only one that does it or that it is the worst.....but you should hang around. Wildcat hasn't recieved the news that its no point denying it anymore and its better to handwave and divert. He's still going to try to deny it...

[WildCat]

Oh dear....you are going to try to deny it again? will you disappear again too? after you have the fact that non jews do not have full and equal citizenship of Israel.
Can I have your commitment to hang around before I bother to demonstrate it again?


but let me just confirm this.......Jews and non jews both have full and equal citizenship in the Jewish nation. The laws of the land and the rights and responsibilities of thier citizenship are the same? I just want to confirm that because its so blatantly obviously incorrect that I wonder how a seemingly intelligent person could try to breath life into it.

ready? would you like to start a new thread so your usual vanishing act is more obvious?


step one. If they are full and equal there would be no need to record which they have....agreed?
A typical evidence-free post from The Fool!

Feel free to point out the laws in Israel that discriminate against Arab-Israelis... ready, set, go!

[quarky]

I wish Utah could be Israel. That would be more fun.

Its hard to see this problem resolving nicely. Maybe in time, with more inter-marriages with kids that don't define themselves rigidly, and, in fact, can't be defined by the old standards.

Atheist Jews that live on Long Island are still Jews, because they choose to identify as such. Albino Negroes in S. Africa were still black.

Humans seem to have a need for a despised race, or tribe, or religion. It elevates them. Even the victims would gladly become the perpetrators.

By the time we're all homonginized, we'll likely have other criteria besides race, religion, etc.

[parky76]

A typical evidence-free post from The Fool!

Feel free to point out the laws in Israel that discriminate against Arab-Israelis... ready, set, go!

It is legal for a Israeli school to not allow in Arab students.

Arab students recieve about 50% the amount of education funds as Jewish students.

Israel has yet to build one...single...new Arab town or city. They have built hundreds of Jewish towns.

It is legal to not sell land to someone because they are an Arab or a Muslim.

It is illegal for an Israeli political party to call Israel anything but..."The Jewish State". Yet, it is legal for a political party to call for the forced expulsion of Arabs and Muslims.

The government of Israel only recognizes marriage between Jews.

Only Jews...or those with 1/4th Jewish blood..can come to Israel under the Law of Return. There are tons of financial benefits that are ONLY eligible to folks who came under the Law of Return.

Israel, my friend, is filled with de-facto and de-sure examples of racism and discrimination.

Open your eyes.

I am a Jew. I love Israel. But the state must be fixed or it will kill itself.

[The Fool]

A typical evidence-free post from The Fool!

Feel free to point out the laws in Israel that discriminate against Arab-Israelis... ready, set, go!

Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) 5763-2003


I was going to provide them one by one so I can see the one that was current when you disappeared but it looks like Parky has spilled the beans on a whole list.



are you sure you want to go on....you are going to look rather silly trying not to see the elephant in the room. Denial is soooooo last week, its diversion thats all the go now, get with the program.

[WildCat]

It is legal for a Israeli school to not allow in Arab students.
Are these public schools?

Arab students recieve about 50% the amount of education funds as Jewish students.
Evidence?

Israel has yet to build one...single...new Arab town or city. They have built hundreds of Jewish towns.
Were these towns built for new immigrants, all of which are Jewish?

It is legal to not sell land to someone because they are an Arab or a Muslim.
Evidence? Or is this just about the JNF, a matter which is currently in the courts?

It is illegal for an Israeli political party to call Israel anything but..."The Jewish State".
So? Isn't it?

Yet, it is legal for a political party to call for the forced expulsion of Arabs and Muslims.
And political parties in the US are free to call for the forced expulsion of blacks, Mexicans, Irish, etc... your point?

The government of Israel only recognizes marriage between Jews.
Actually, it only recognizes Orthodox Jewish marriages, which means they also discriminate against most of the Jewish population of Israel.

Only Jews...or those with 1/4th Jewish blood..can come to Israel under the Law of Return. There are tons of financial benefits that are ONLY eligible to folks who came under the Law of Return.
That's why it's called the "Jewish State". Can't say I hold this against them, seeing as how welcomed they are in the rest of the world.

Israel, my friend, is filled with de-facto and de-sure examples of racism and discrimination.
Of which you've provided almost no evidence.

Open your eyes.

I am a Jew. I love Israel. But the state must be fixed or it will kill itself.
How would you "fix" it?

[parky76]

Are these public schools?


Evidence?
Were these towns built for new immigrants, all of which are Jewish?
Evidence? Or is this just about the JNF, a matter which is currently in the courts?
So? Isn't it?
And political parties in the US are free to call for the forced expulsion of blacks, Mexicans, Irish, etc... your point?
Actually, it only recognizes Orthodox Jewish marriages, which means they also discriminate against most of the Jewish population of Israel.
That's why it's called the "Jewish State". Can't say I hold this against them, seeing as how welcomed they are in the rest of the world.
Of which you've provided almost no evidence.
How would you "fix" it?

So, you deny when you can.

And when you can't deny, you make excuses.

And when you can't make excuses, you accept and justify.

Nice man. Really nice. Im sure they had lots of excuses and justifications for Apartheid and Segregation too.

Racism is racism. And its all bad.

And considering the pain and suffering we have gone through for 2,000 years...the fact that you as a Jew would make excuses and justifications for racism...is a horrible tragedy.

[WildCat]

So, you deny when you can.

And when you can't deny, you make excuses.

And when you can't make excuses, you accept and justify.

Nice man. Really nice. Im sure they had lots of excuses and justifications for Apartheid and Segregation too.

Racism is racism. And its all bad.

And considering the pain and suffering we have gone through for 2,000 years...the fact that you as a Jew would make excuses and justifications for racism...is a horrible tragedy.
I see you have yet to supply evidences for your claims.

And I really do know what you'd do to "fix" Israel if you were suddenly declared Emperor of Israel.

[parky76]

I
And I really do know what you'd do to "fix" Israel if you were suddenly declared Emperor of Israel.

And what exactly do you mean by that? Spell it out.

http://www.acri.org.il/eng/

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_en.html

http://www.meretzusa.org/

read up boyo

There is nothing more Jewish then standing up for the rights of your fellow man.

[WildCat]

And what exactly do you mean by that? Spell it out.

http://www.acri.org.il/eng/

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_en.html

http://www.meretzusa.org/

read up boyo

There is nothing more Jewish then standing up for the rights of your fellow man.
Can you be more specific and link directly to the Israeli policies that are "worse than apartheid"?

eta: oh, and how would parky76 fix Israel?

[Texas]

1) Name another state in the world that has occupied another territory for over 40 years and not allowed its residents the right of citizenship?

.

Well let's see, Kuwait has been a "nation" for about 60 years, Saudi Arabia became an established nation in 1933 or so, Iraq since about 1940, Libya since 1951, all with the exception of Saudi Arabia having borders drawn for them by either Great Britain, France or Italy. In every state mentioned immigration is nil or severely restricted to Muslim populations and none of them grant citizenship to the many thousands of Palestinian workers they import for domestic work. If we are to apply the Apartheid standard, as posited in the OP, to Israel then the entire Middle East plus the entire African continent, and the Indian Sub-Continent must be included.

[a_unique_person]

Well let's see, Kuwait has been a "nation" for about 60 years, Saudi Arabia became an established nation in 1933 or so, Iraq since about 1940, Libya since 1951, all with the exception of Saudi Arabia having borders drawn for them by either Great Britain, France or Italy. In every state mentioned immigration is nil or severely restricted to Muslim populations and none of them grant citizenship to the many thousands of Palestinian workers they import for domestic work. If we are to apply the Apartheid standard, as posited in the OP, to Israel then the entire Middle East plus the entire African continent, and the Indian Sub-Continent must be included.

The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are living in their own country.

[Texas]

The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are living in their own country.Absolutly so why is it "Apartheid" when Israel does not grant the citizenship as the OP has asserted When the entire Middle East and Africa tightly control their borders and tightly control their immigration policies?

There is no blockade of the West Bank so why, in your opinion, has there been one in Gaza? There are no air raids in the West bank so why, in your opinion, are they being conducted in Gaza? There are no rockets being launched from the Fatah controlled West Bank into Israel so why, in your opinion have 3000 rockets been launched from Gaza at Israel in 2008 alone?

[WildCat]

Absolutly so why is it "Apartheid" when Israel does not grant the citizenship as the OP has asserted
Jew Derangement Syndrome.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

FWIW I think people should be allowed to settle wherever they like as long as it's done legally and morally
Unless the laws are made by Israelis, right? :rolleyes:

I disagree. I don't think Israel should be exempt at all. Why shouldn't people settle in Israel as long as they are not forcing someone else of the plot of land in the process.

Unfortunately Israel discriminates on immigration based upon race. I don't like that at all.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Absolutly so why is it "Apartheid" when Israel does not grant the citizenship as the OP has asserted When the entire Middle East and Africa tightly control their borders and tightly control their immigration policies?

There is no blockade of the West Bank so why, in your opinion, has there been one in Gaza? There are no air raids in the West bank so why, in your opinion, are they being conducted in Gaza? There are no rockets being launched from the Fatah controlled West Bank into Israel so why, in your opinion have 3000 rockets been launched from Gaza at Israel in 2008 alone?

The west bank is full of 30 foot concrete walls, checkpoints, Israeli only roads, and various other apartheid measures. These walls and checkpoints are nowhere near the Israeli borders.

[Texas]

Jew Derangement Syndrome.
Here is what I don't understand about the Lefts obsession with Israel. The entire Middle East is a patchwork of countries 90% of which are less than a hundred years old and whose borders were drawn for them by European nations. Before that Egypt, Iran, and Turkey are the only ancient countries in the region and even those are shadows of their former selves. Before now the Middle East was a hodgepodge of Bedouin tribes continuously at war with each other and living anywhere and everywhere. It took mainly the British to pull those tribes together and then the discovery of oil to allow for "nations" in the region to even be feasible. Should oil disappear then most Middle Eastern "nations" would crumble and revert to their Bedouin roots.

[WildCat]

I disagree. I don't think Israel should be exempt at all. Why shouldn't people settle in Israel as long as they are not forcing someone else of the plot of land in the process.
Because as a soverign nation Israel has the right to control its borders, just like every other sovereign nation does. Or at least the ones that haven't decided to start a war with a much stronger country and finds themselves on the stupid end of a blockade.

Unfortunately Israel discriminates on immigration based upon race. I don't like that at all.
Nope, just religion. That's why it's called the Jewish State. It's kind of the reason it exists. But you'll note there's over 1 million Israeli Arabs.

That's what's legal in Israel.

Anyone care to point out the Israeli laws that are "worse than apartheid"? parky76 and The Fool seem to have vanished...

[WildCat]

Here is what I don't understand about the Lefts obsession with Israel. The entire Middle East is a patchwork of countries 90% of which are less than a hundred years old and whose borders were drawn for them by European nations. Before that Egypt, Iran, and Turkey are the only ancient countries in the region and even those are shadows of their former selves. Before now the Middle East was a hodgepodge of Bedouin tribes continuously at war with each other and living anywhere and everywhere. It took mainly the British to pull those tribes together and then the discovery of oil to allow for "nations" in the region to even be feasible. Should oil disappear then most Middle Eastern "nations" would crumble and revert to their Bedouin roots.
Yes, but only one of those countries is run by Jews.

[a_unique_person]

Yes, but only one of those countries is run by Jews.

He says in a topic that was started by a Jew. :confused:

[Texas]

The west bank is full of 30 foot concrete walls, checkpoints, Israeli only roads, and various other apartheid measures. These walls and checkpoints are nowhere near the Israeli borders.

Well let's see, did Israel just decide to build walls for a place to paint graffiti or was there another reason? Are those checkpoints in place just to give soldiers a day job or are there other reasons?
Tell me, why does Egypt have a concrete wall on its border with Gaza? Is that an Apartheid" measure or could they have another reason? Why is it than Palestinians are ALWAYS placed in segregated camps when and wherever they happen to be in every Muslim nation in the Middle East? Is it simply "Apartheid "measures or is there something about the Palestinian mindset that makes them not welcomed even amongst their own?

[a_unique_person]

Absolutly so why is it "Apartheid" when Israel does not grant the citizenship as the OP has asserted When the entire Middle East and Africa tightly control their borders and tightly control their immigration policies?



I thought I just said, because they were already living there, they weren't immigrants.


There is no blockade of the West Bank so why, in your opinion, has there been one in Gaza? There are no air raids in the West bank so why, in your opinion, are they being conducted in Gaza? There are no rockets being launched from the Fatah controlled West Bank into Israel so why, in your opinion have 3000 rockets been launched from Gaza at Israel in 2008 alone?

There is no blockade, but there are roadblocks and checkpoints that server no purpose, there is a fence going up to create a Bantustan. No blockade, but Israel controls the borders. The proposed solution of Israel amounts to a servile city council. Behave yourself, take what you are given, and you'll be left alone, except land may be arbitrarily taken. No US citizen would ever accept a deal like that.

[Texas]

Yes, but only one of those countries is run by Jews.
Here is "Apartheid" Egyptian style

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/77508/Egyptians-open-fire-on-Palestinians


Egyptian border guards have opened fire on Palestinians who breached the border to escape Israel's assault on Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

An Egyptian security official said there were at least five breaches along the nine-mile border and hundreds of Palestinian residents were pouring in.

At least 300 Egyptian border guards have been rushed to the area to reseal the border, the official added on condition on anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the press.

A resident of the Gaza Strip side of the border, Fida Kishta, said that Egyptian border guards opened fire to drive back the Palestinians.

Residents have also commandeered a bulldozer to open new breaches.

Palestinians reported several people were wounded by the gunfire.

Israeli aircraft earlier bombed the border area in an apparent attempt to destroy cross border tunnels used to smuggle weapons and contraband into the Gaza Strip.

Dr Abdel Qader Higazi, a representative of the Egyptian Doctor's Syndicate in Rafah said Egyptian authorities closed the border crossing after allowing several trucks of medical s

[WildCat]

He says in a topic that was started by a Jew. :confused:
One living nearly 6,000 miles beyond Hamas missile range, I note.

[Texas]

I thought I just said, because they were already living there, they weren't immigrants.


There is no blockade, but there are roadblocks and checkpoints that server no purpose, there is a fence going up to create a Bantustan. No blockade, but Israel controls the borders. The proposed solution of Israel amounts to a servile city council. Behave yourself, take what you are given, and you'll be left alone, except land may be arbitrarily taken. No US citizen would ever accept a deal like that. What is wrong with Israel controlling its own borders? Also, if the barriers, roadblocks and fences serve no purpose then why has there been NO suicide bombers in all of 2008 within Israel when prior to those measures they were almost a daily occurance??

[Texas]

He says in a topic that was started by a Jew. :confused: Is that an appeal to authority?

[a_unique_person]

Is that an appeal to authority?

It was a response to a comment by Wildcat on the type of person who disagrees with him.

[ddt]

Israel has yet to build one...single...new Arab town or city. They have built hundreds of Jewish towns.
often built on the very same sites where once Arab villages stood. But why the choice between Jewish or Arab towns - why not mixed ones?


It is legal to not sell land to someone because they are an Arab or a Muslim.

Evidence? Or is this just about the JNF, a matter which is currently in the courts?
As you admit yourself, the state still discriminates against Arabs in this respect, as the state agency ILA administers the JNF lands.

But also for proper state lands, that battle is very recent. There's the case of an Israeli Arab Kaadan, who wanted to lease ILA land in a Jewish neighbourhood (http://haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEngPE.jhtml?itemNo=1041696&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&title='Of%20little%20people%20and%20landmark%20dec isions%20'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5):
Kaadan told the story to his coworkers at the hospital, and Jewish friends told him to contact the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI). Attorneys Neta Ziv and Dan Yakir, who eventually became close family friends, petitioned the High Court of Justice. The petition filed in 1995 was heard by an expanded panel of five justices, but it took the president of the court, Aharon Barak, until 2000 to declare that even in a state founded on Jewish values, equality must be sacrosanct. Describing the decision as one of the most difficult he had ever made, Barak ruled that in the name of equality, ILA lands must also be accessible to non-Jews. Nevertheless, the court decided that the specific decision on the Kaadans would have to be made by the ILA, which was asked to reconsider the couple's application to lease land in Katzir.
And when he got back to the local ILA board, they tried to weasel out of it with various other pretexts, and in 2006, they awarded him the lease just before a court proceeding (so that there is no jurisprudence about that part).


It is illegal for an Israeli political party to call Israel anything but..."The Jewish State". Yet, it is legal for a political party to call for the forced expulsion of Arabs and Muslims.

So? Isn't it?
Israeli Arab political parties have been banned for having as one of their goals that they wanted to abolish that Israel be "the state of the Jewish people". Only the other day you rallied against European countries that would ban political parties (without providing evidence). Now you endorse it?


The government of Israel only recognizes marriage between Jews.
I'm still amazed that a country that is on the one hand so forward thinking it allows adoption by gay couples, on the other hand still has no (secular) civil marriage. The existence of only religious marriages also hinders the integration of the Jewish and Arab communities.

(btw, how do Israeli atheists marry? Do they have to go abroad?)

[a_unique_person]

What is wrong with Israel controlling its own borders? Also, if the barriers, roadblocks and fences serve no purpose then why has there been NO suicide bombers in all of 2008 within Israel when prior to those measures they were almost a daily occurance??

Quite, the West Bank is within Israel's borders, but the people who live within it's borders, who are natives to the country, are not citizens for that country. You might also want to check with the Israeli government if what they control are actually it's borders.

[Texas]

al parties (without providing evidence). Now you endorse it?


I'm still amazed that a country that is on the one hand so forward thinking it allows adoption by gay couples, on the other hand still has no (secular) civil marriage. The existence of only religious marriages also hinders the integration of the Jewish and Arab communities.

(btw, how do Israeli atheists marry? Do they have to go abroad?)

Be honest, how long would a Muslim live that married a Jew anywhere in the Middle East?

[TriskettheKid]

Be honest, how long would a Muslim live that married a Jew anywhere in the Middle East?

I assume we're not counting Israel?

Or Turkey, though that's not really Middle East.....

[Texas]

Quite, the West Bank is within Israel's borders, but the people who live within it's borders, who are natives to the country, are not citizens for that country. You might also want to check with the Israeli government if what they control are actually it's borders. I think you are a bit confused. The West Bank is only considered "disputed territories" since Israel actually came into control of it due to a war the Arab nations started and lost. Israel has repeatedly agreed to cede control of the West Bank as a part of the 2 state solution. All the Palestinian leadership, be it Fatah or Hamas, has to do is to unconditionally recognize Israel's right to exist and to cease allowing attacks on Israel from either Gaza or the WB. Abbas appears ready and willing to do just that, Hamas on the other hand wants no part of it hence the actions presently being taken..

[Texas]

I assume we're not counting Israel?

Or Turkey, though that's not really Middle East..... I would say that the Muslim may be safer in Israel but not by much since Israeli Arabs still have instances of "honor killings" along with the far right wing Israelis who would not be at all happy.

[Texas]

Quite, the West Bank is within Israel's borders, but the people who live within it's borders, who are natives to the country, are not citizens for that country. You might also want to check with the Israeli government if what they control are actually it's borders.

One other point, prior to the war those "natives" were living in Jordan. Once the war ended Israel held the West Bank and the "natives" were left stateless due to the actions of their former country, Jordan, and the rest of the Arab League.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Because as a soverign nation Israel has the right to control its borders, just like every other sovereign nation does. Or at least the ones that haven't decided to start a war with a much stronger country and finds themselves on the stupid end of a blockade.


Nope, just religion. That's why it's called the Jewish State. It's kind of the reason it exists. But you'll note there's over 1 million Israeli Arabs.

That's what's legal in Israel.

Anyone care to point out the Israeli laws that are "worse than apartheid"? parky76 and The Fool seem to have vanished...

The definition of Jewish is not just religion. Or are Atheist Jews banned from being Israeli citizens then?

[ddt]

Be honest, how long would a Muslim live that married a Jew anywhere in the Middle East?

:confused:
What's your point?

But let's get back on track; this was about Hafrada, the segregation policy Israel institutes in the West Bank.

Once upon a time, there was a Jewish girl named Jasmine from Jerusalem, and an Arab boy named Osama from Ramallah. They met and fell in love. And they married (in Cyprus). Then they wanted to live together, as other married couples. Israeli law forbade Osama to enter Israel, so they couldn't live together at Jasmin's place. Conversely, Jasmine only got a temporary permit to enter Ramallah, the place where Osama lived.

In the end, they emigrated to Berlin, Germany.

Sources: here (http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/09/lol.02.html), here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=695962), here (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1872307.htm), here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article719785.ece), here (http://www.nrc.nl/buitenland/article1803924.ece/Geen_land_meer,_alleen_elkaar), and numerous other places.

[Texas]

:confused:
What's your point?

But let's get back on track; this was about Hafrada, the segregation policy Israel institutes in the West Bank.

Once upon a time, there was a Jewish girl named Jasmine from Jerusalem, and an Arab boy named Osama from Ramallah. They met and fell in love. And they married (in Cyprus). Then they wanted to live together, as other married couples. Israeli law forbade Osama to enter Israel, so they couldn't live together at Jasmin's place. Conversely, Jasmine only got a temporary permit to enter Ramallah, the place where Osama lived.

In the end, they emigrated to Berlin, Germany.

Sources: here (http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/09/lol.02.html), here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=695962), here (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1872307.htm), here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article719785.ece), here (http://www.nrc.nl/buitenland/article1803924.ece/Geen_land_meer,_alleen_elkaar), and numerous other places.


First of all, there is absolutely NO Israeli segregation in the West Bank. There are only former Jordanians living on land lost by Jordan to Israel in the 6 day war. Israel is ready and willing to cede control to the former Jordanians when they are willing to grow the hell up. As to your Romeo and Juliet scenario, Osama from Ramallah and his Jewish bride wouldn't live 24 hours in the West Bank.

[a_unique_person]

I think you are a bit confused. The West Bank is only considered "disputed territories" since Israel actually came into control of it due to a war the Arab nations started and lost. Israel has repeatedly agreed to cede control of the West Bank as a part of the 2 state solution.

Not according to Olmert. He only recently stated that he had realised now that the dream of greater Israel is dead. Oslo was never accepted by many Israeli's.

[Texas]

Not according to Olmert. He only recently stated that he had realised now that the dream of greater Israel is dead. Oslo was never accepted by many Israeli's. It was accepted by the Israeli government that is all that matters. Israel gave Arafat every thing he wanted and yet he still turned it down. Arafat and the Hamas leadership is just like any other race or poverty pimp. The last thing they want is to have their demands met since that would mean they would have to actually follow up their rhetoric with actions and without the "cause"they have no one to blame for failure.

[ddt]

First of all, there is absolutely NO Israeli segregation in the West Bank. There are only former Jordanians living on land lost by Jordan to Israel in the 6 day war. Israel is ready and willing to cede control to the former Jordanians when they are willing to grow the hell up. As to your Romeo and Juliet scenario, Osama from Ramallah and his Jewish bride wouldn't live 24 hours in the West Bank.

Your sophistry is well noted. The Jordanian claim on the West Bank has never been internationally recognized - only by Israel and the UK. In 1988, Jordan renounced its claims on the West Bank in favour of the PLO.

Furthermore, it's obvious you haven't read the links I gave. Osama and Jasmin did live in Ramallah for a couple of months, until she got tired of seeing her fellow countrymen, as soldiers, harass daily the Palestinians - see also this interview (http://www.taz.de/nc/1/archiv/print-archiv/printressorts/digi-artikel/?ressort=do&dig=2008%2F05%2F10%2Fa0062&src=GI&cHash=04544e1359) (in German).

[Texas]

Your sophistry is well noted. The Jordanian claim on the West Bank has never been internationally recognized - only by Israel and the UK. In 1988, Jordan renounced its claims on the West Bank in favour of the PLO.

Furthermore, it's obvious you haven't read the links I gave. Osama and Jasmin did live in Ramallah for a couple of months, until she got tired of seeing her fellow countrymen, as soldiers, harass daily the Palestinians - see also this interview (http://www.taz.de/nc/1/archiv/print-archiv/printressorts/digi-artikel/?ressort=do&dig=2008%2F05%2F10%2Fa0062&src=GI&cHash=04544e1359) (in German). Yet Jordan granted full citizenship to the "Palestinians". As to renouncing its claim that came after the slaughter of 20,000 "palestinians" by Jordanian troops. See Black September. Your Romeo and Juliet of the WB is a nice story but if an Arab Girl can be stoned for having sex with an Arab boy then your story of the reasons for their departure rings hollow.

[ddt]

Yet Jordan granted full citizenship to the "Palestinians". As to renouncing its claim that came after the slaughter of 20,000 "palestinians" by Jordanian troops. See Black September. Your Romeo and Juliet of the WB is a nice story but if an Arab Girl can be stoned for having sex with an Arab boy then your story of the reasons for their departure rings hollow.

That's all a big non-sequitur. Your last comment is ludicrous. If Arab girls would be stoned for having sex with Arab boys, there would be no Arabs anymore.

ETA: you're obviously still ignoring the many links I gave about the story.

[Texas]

That's all a big non-sequitur. Your last comment is ludicrous. If Arab girls would be stoned for having sex with Arab boys, there would be no Arabs anymore.

ETA: you're obviously still ignoring the many links I gave about the story. Really then why was the 13 year old hanged last month in Iran? I realize she was Persian but Pick any Arab country you like.

[ddt]

Really then why was the 13 year old hanged last month in Iran? I realize she was Persian but Pick any Arab country you like.

You invalidate your own argument with the Persian/Iranian thing. But what in the hell has this to do with two 25 year olds who are married?

[Texas]

That's all a big non-sequitur. Your last comment is ludicrous. If Arab girls would be stoned for having sex with Arab boys, there would be no Arabs anymore.

ETA: you're obviously still ignoring the many links I gave about the story. There is only one way for an Arab girl to escape stoning and that is marriage to a Muslim man. Have you never heard of honor killings. Good lord man. You have given a case of a Muslim man marrying a Jewish woman. While Islam allows for the Jewish woman to marry a Muslim man she MUST renounce her Jewish faith and embrace Islam for the marriage to be sanctioned. There can be NO mixed marriage. On the other hand Islamic law strictly forbids the marriage of a Muslim woman to any non-Muslim man.

[Texas]

You invalidate your own argument with the Persian/Iranian thing. But what in the hell has this to do with two 25 year olds who are married? Tell me, did she embrace Islam to avoid having a "Jewish" child?

[DC]

There is only one way for an Arab girl to escape stoning and that is marriage to a Muslim man. Have you never heard of honor killings. Good lord man. You have given a case of a Muslim man marrying a Jewish woman. While Islam allows for the Jewish woman to marry a Muslim man she MUST renounce her Jewish faith and embrace Islam for the marriage to be sanctioned. There can be NO mixed marriage. On the other hand Islamic law strictly forbids the marriage of a Muslim woman to any non-Muslim man.

There can be NO mixed marriage
?
LOL you are so clueless.

[Texas]

There can be NO mixed marriage
?
LOL you are so clueless. Really I can provide the Islamic law if you like. If you have something to contradict that then please provide it.

[FireGarden]

I'm still amazed that a country that is on the one hand so forward thinking it allows adoption by gay couples, on the other hand still has no (secular) civil marriage. The existence of only religious marriages also hinders the integration of the Jewish and Arab communities.

(btw, how do Israeli atheists marry? Do they have to go abroad?)

There are mixed marriages in Israel. People mostly go to Cyprus. The topic was discussed in this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124658

Syria, Lebanon and Jordan have similar rules. It seems strange to me. And it must stop some people who are too poor to travel from having their marriages recognised.

[DC]

Really I can provide the Islamic law if you like. If you have something to contradict that then please provide it.

you mean religious or civil marriage?

religious is indeed problematic. Both religions are very conservative in that regard.

[a_unique_person]

First of all, there is absolutely NO Israeli segregation in the West Bank. There are only former Jordanians living on land lost by Jordan to Israel in the 6 day war. Israel is ready and willing to cede control to the former Jordanians when they are willing to grow the hell up. As to your Romeo and Juliet scenario, Osama from Ramallah and his Jewish bride wouldn't live 24 hours in the West Bank.


On the morrow of the 1948 war, when some of us said that there exists a Palestinian people and that we must make peace with them, we were a tiny handful here and in the whole world. We were laughed at. There are no Palestinians, we were told. "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people!" Golda Meir was still asserting much later.
Is there anyone today who denies the existence of the Palestinian people? We argued that in order to achieve peace, a Palestinian state must come into being. They laughed at us: Why? There is Jordan. There is Egypt. There are 22 Arab states. That's enough! But today it is a worldwide consensus: two states for two peoples.
We said that we must talk with the enemy, and the enemy was then the PLO. Four cabinet ministers demanded that I should be put on trial for high treason when I met Yasser Arafat in Beirut during the siege. All four of them later met Arafat, and the state of Israel signed official treaties with the PLO.
True, the treaties were not implemented and did not lead to peace. But the mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO, between Israel and the Palestinian people, became a fact. That was a revolution, and it cannot be reversed.


http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/i-dream-of-another-israel-20081229-76sc.html

[Texas]

you mean religious or civil marriage?

religious is indeed problematic. Both religions are very conservative in that regard.
There are NO non-religious Muslims. There may be Non-religious Arabs But that is a totally different subject. You can be Jewish and atheist but never Muslim and atheist

[Texas]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/i-dream-of-another-israel-20081229-76sc.htmlNice article but so what? Hell Ramsey Clark is an American that held high office in the Carter administration and he defended Saddam Hussein at his trial. I'll tell you what you dig up a comparable article from a member of Hamas that has those same sentiments towards Israel we can have hope for a solution to the I/P disaster.

[ddt]

Your Romeo and Juliet of the WB is a nice story but if an Arab Girl can be stoned for having sex with an Arab boy then your story of the reasons for their departure rings hollow.

Really then why was the 13 year old hanged last month in Iran? I realize she was Persian but Pick any Arab country you like.

There is only one way for an Arab girl to escape stoning and that is marriage to a Muslim man. Have you never heard of honor killings. Good lord man. You have given a case of a Muslim man marrying a Jewish woman. While Islam allows for the Jewish woman to marry a Muslim man she MUST renounce her Jewish faith and embrace Islam for the marriage to be sanctioned. There can be NO mixed marriage. On the other hand Islamic law strictly forbids the marriage of a Muslim woman to any non-Muslim man.

There are NO non-religious Muslims. There may be Non-religious Arabs But that is a totally different subject. You can be Jewish and atheist but never Muslim and atheist

All boldings are mine. So have you at last decided whether you wanted to discuss Arabs, Iranians or Muslims? No, you don't have to answer. You've already made enough of a fool of yourself, and you've earned a place on my ignore list.

[Texas]

. You've already made enough of a fool of yourself, and you've earned a place on my ignore list. See that wasn't hard at all.

[DC]

There are NO non-religious Muslims. There may be Non-religious Arabs But that is a totally different subject. You can be Jewish and atheist but never Muslim and atheist

you can be of Jewish religion and be an Atheist at the same time?
interesting.

could a muslim muslim marry a atheist woman?
i know a couple. he is a moslem, preaching 5 times a day, doing ramadan and the whole circus. she, she is an atheist and openly says she does not belive in any God. they are married and have 2 children.

[Texas]

you can be of Jewish religion and be an Atheist at the same time?
interesting.

could a muslim muslim marry a atheist woman?
i know a couple. he is a moslem, preaching 5 times a day, doing ramadan and the whole circus. she, she is an atheist and openly says she does not belive in any God. they are married and have 2 children. No, if your mother is Jewish you are a Jew no religious requirement at all. You can convert to Judaism but that is a religious act .As to your friend, I assume they are in Germany? Were they married in by a Muslim cleric or a civil servant? If she is an avowed Atheist I can guarantee no Muslim Cleric performed the ceremony.

[FireGarden]

See that wasn't hard at all.

You have a natural gift.

[Texas]

You have a natural gift.
Yeah but I'm modest about it.

[DC]

No, if your mother is Jewish you are a Jew no religious requirement at all. You can convert to Judaism but that is a religious act .As to your friend, I assume they are in Germany? Were they married in by a Muslim cleric or a civil servant? If she is an avowed Atheist I can guarantee no Muslim Cleric performed the ceremony.

why Germany? why do you always come up with Germany?
no its not Germany.
and it was oc a civil marriage.

when we lived in Belgium i got a Katholic Baptism, because if i didnt have it, i would later not be allowed to marry in a katholic Church, and most belgian Girls want to marry in church.

so Islam not marry people of diffrent religion is nothing special.

[DC]

will a rabbi marry a Jewish woman to a moslem man? or a muslem woman to a jewish man?

[ddt]

There are mixed marriages in Israel. People mostly go to Cyprus. The topic was discussed in this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124658
Thanks for that link. BTW, the "Jasmin and Osama" story I told also said they first were married by an Israeli muslim cleric. Her ID then mentioned that her marital status was "under investigation", and a year later they went to Cyprus, just to be sure.


Syria, Lebanon and Jordan have similar rules. It seems strange to me. And it must stop some people who are too poor to travel from having their marriages recognised.
I agree.

About Texas:
You have a natural gift.
I agree too, but stating for what would be a breach of the MA.

[Texas]

will a rabbi marry a Jewish woman to a moslem man? or a muslem woman to a jewish man? First of all the Muslim woman is strictly prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim man under Islamic law. I am not sure about a Rabbi performing a mixed marriage between an observant Jew and a non-Jew of any religion or lack there-of.

[DC]

First of all the Muslim woman is strictly prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim man under Islamic law. I am not sure about a Rabbi performing a mixed marriage between an observant Jew and a non-Jew of any religion or lack there-of.

oh dear

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/397376/index.do?from=simarchiv

that Imam is violating Islam law. Look at that blaspemic man. he, together with a Katholic priest is marrieng a Katholic Woman to a Mulsim man !!

[DC]

First of all the Muslim woman is strictly prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim man under Islamic law. I am not sure about a Rabbi performing a mixed marriage between an observant Jew and a non-Jew of any religion or lack there-of.

according to Rabbi Chajim Halevy Donin, is a marriage between a jew and a non jew not in agreement with jewish law.

http://www.inforel.ch/i20e101.html (Only in German, but not from Germany)

[Skeptic]

Look, Texas, to answer your question: the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 annoyed the left since it deprived it of its designated "victim group" -- the Jews. Since the average left-winger progressive must have a victim group to "support" (by talking), the search for a new victim group started, and, as a revenge on the Jews for daring to attept to not be victims, the Palestinians were chosen. If tomorrow the Palestinians destroy Israel, well, they'll too lose the coveted victim status and some new group -- Muslims in general? Tall people? Urdu speakers? Who knows... -- will be the new-and-improved designated "victim group".

But one thing's for sure: once they can no longer be portrayed as "victims of racism", the Palestinians will hold no further interest to the left and will be ignored. Note how, for instance, the left cares not at all about any outrages done to Palestinians by other Palestinians or by other Arabs. That doesn't fit the "victim of Imperialism" script, you see, so the leftist gets no feeling-outraged brownie points for concerning himself with that.

[DC]

Look, Texas, to answer your question: the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 annoyed the left since it deprived it of its designated "victim group" -- the Jews. Since the average left-winger progressive must have a victim group to "support" (by talking), the search for a new victim group started, and, as a revenge on the Jews for daring to attept to not be victims, the Palestinians were chosen. If tomorrow the Palestinians destroy Israel, well, they'll too lose the coveted victim status and some new group -- Muslims in general? Tall people? Urdu speakers? Who knows... -- will be the new-and-improved designated "victim group".

But one thing's for sure: once they can no longer be portrayed as "victims of racism", the Palestinians will hold no further interest to the left and will be ignored. Note how, for instance, the left cares not at all about any outrages done to Palestinians by other Palestinians or by other Arabs. That doesn't fit the "victim of Imperialism" script, you see, so the leftist gets no feeling-outraged brownie points for concerning himself with that.


mmh ok now i agree.

you are indeed paranoid. seek for help.

[FireGarden]

Note how, for instance, the left cares not at all about any outrages done to Palestinians by other Palestinians or by other Arabs. That doesn't fit the "victim of Imperialism" script, you see, so the leftist gets no feeling-outraged brownie points for concerning himself with that.

A few things.

1) you are painting a lot of people as leftists.

2) there is outrage when Arabs treat the Palestinians badly. And condemnation of the fighting between Hamas/Fatah.

You just don't recognise the second, because you measure outrage by the number of posts that are made in response.

Egypt's complicity in blockading Gaza has been condemned. There are demonstrations outside Egyptian embassies. Egypt has been condemned for shooting at refugees from a warzone by myself and others on JREF. But these condemnations aren't followed by explanations and justifications. So they don't generate the posts by which you measure outrage. And the shortness of the conversation does not lead to countless analogies and counter-analogies. It barely has time to build up a strong vocabulary.

Try defending Egypt's treatment of the Palestinians and see if I am wrong. Defend an army shooting at people fleeing a warzone? I don't think you will. So the opportunities to discuss the matter dwindle.

[ddt]

Look, Texas, to answer your question: the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 annoyed the left since it deprived it of its designated "victim group" -- the Jews.
Nonsense. You're rewriting history. The Left looked very favourable on the creation of the Jewish state. Remember, Israel was founded by Labour Zionists. Kibbutzim were idealized as the perfect communes. Only much and much later did people in the West, left or right, realize there were Palestinian refugees - the 1973 oil crisis, the various plane hijackings, Arafat's speech in the UN - but then we're speaking about the 1970s. In general, a critical stance of Western governments towards Israel didn't develop before the First Intifada.


Since the average left-winger progressive must have a victim group to "support" (by talking), the search for a new victim group started, and, as a revenge on the Jews for daring to attept to not be victims, the Palestinians were chosen. If tomorrow the Palestinians destroy Israel, well, they'll too lose the coveted victim status and some new group -- Muslims in general? Tall people? Urdu speakers? Who knows... -- will be the new-and-improved designated "victim group".
As if there aren't "victim groups" enough to find in the world. :rolleyes:
And well, your "If tomorrow the Palestinians destroy Israel", I find that a highly hypothetical scenario. Israel still has the fourth or so army in the world, supported by some $2 bn military aid annually by the US, and still the unrelenting support of the US government.


But one thing's for sure: once they can no longer be portrayed as "victims of racism", the Palestinians will hold no further interest to the left and will be ignored. Note how, for instance, the left cares not at all about any outrages done to Palestinians by other Palestinians or by other Arabs. That doesn't fit the "victim of Imperialism" script, you see, so the leftist gets no feeling-outraged brownie points for concerning himself with that.
Firegarden said it more eloquently than I can put it.

[Darth Rotor]

A few things.

1) you are painting a lot of people as leftists.

2) there is outrage when Arabs treat the Palestinians badly. And condemnation of the fighting between Hamas/Fatah.

You just don't recognise the second, because you measure outrage by the number of posts that are made in response.

Egypt's complicity in blockading Gaza has been condemned. There are demonstrations outside Egyptian embassies. Egypt has been condemned for shooting at refugees from a warzone by myself and others on JREF. But these condemnations aren't followed by explanations and justifications. So they don't generate the posts by which you measure outrage. And the shortness of the conversation does not lead to countless analogies and counter-analogies. It barely has time to build up a strong vocabulary.

Try defending Egypt's treatment of the Palestinians and see if I am wrong. Defend an army shooting at people fleeing a warzone? I don't think you will. So the opportunities to discuss the matter dwindle.
Hi

I will defend Egypt.

Egypt did the right thing. See the Rwanda/Congo border in the aftermath of the Rwanda war of 1994 to understand why. They do not wish the war and its shrapnel to spread into Egypt. See also Lebanon from 1970-1982. Egypt is well aware of the recent history of the region, and how the Palestinians pollute, politically, anyplace they "refugee flow" into. Egypt does not want its territory to be used for attack on Israel, which is what establishing Palestinian refugee camps leads to. See the regional history since 1970, please, to understand why that is inevitable. The term used sometimes is "fig leaf."

Egypt have a right to defend their borders from incursion. They did. They have a right to prevent the kind of crap Lebanon had to put up with for over a decade with a displaced population of thousands of Pals in refugee camps, be they UN sponsored or otherwise.

The people who are desperate and want to run need an incentive to not run to Egypt. Small arms fire was the disincentive that worked. Egypt must first look out after Egypt's interests. It has done so.

End of story.

DR

[FireGarden]

Hi

I will defend Egypt.

Egypt did the right thing. See the Rwanda/Congo border in the aftermath of the Rwanda war of 1994 to understand why. They do not wish the war and its shrapnel to spread into Egypt. See also Lebanon from 1970-1982. Egypt is well aware of the recent history of the region, and how the Palestinians pollute, politically, anyplace they "refugee flow" into. Egypt does not want its territory to be used for attack on Israel, which is what establishing Palestinian refugee camps leads to. See the regional history since 1970, please, to understand why that is inevitable. The term used sometimes is "fig leaf."

Of course, this is just a bigger symptom of the same problem. If you want the history of the region, Egypt specifically, take a look at Canada Camp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Camp

Palestinians were kept there from 1982, unable to get work in Gaza or Egypt. Unable to move to either location.

They began to return in 1989. The last families were moved into Gaza in 2000. Oh, Just in time! I bet they regret that move.

Egypt have a right to defend their borders from incursion. They did.

And a responsibility to look after refugees fleeing a warzone. They did not.

They have a right to prevent the kind of crap Lebanon had to put up with for over a decade with a displaced population of thousands of Pals in refugee camps, be they UN sponsored or otherwise.

But how they prevent this speaks volumes about them. They decided to fire on people fleeing a warzone.

[BirdStrike]

Egypt must first look out after Egypt's interests. It has done so.

End of story.

DR


Mubarak: We'll open Gaza crossing only if PA takes control (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051238.html)

But Egypt resists dealing with the Islamic militant Hamas because it opposes the militant group's 2007 takeover of the Gaza Strip and insists Abbas is the legitimate Palestinian leader.


...more...


Mubarak: We'll open Gaza crossing only if PA takes control (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051238.html)

Yemeni protesters angered by Cairo's cooperation with Israel in imposing a blockade on Gaza stormed the Egyptian consulate in the southern city of Aden on Tuesday, witnesses said.

One witness said the protesters burned the Egyptian flag and hoisted a Palestinian banner on top of building.

"Some of the protesters were able to enter the consulate and destroyed some property and papers," another witness said, adding that some of the protestors were Egyptian.

See how readily "they" are to resort to violence, even against Egypt. A lesson for FireGarden.

[WildCat]

As you admit yourself, the state still discriminates against Arabs in this respect, as the state agency ILA administers the JNF lands.

But also for proper state lands, that battle is very recent. There's the case of an Israeli Arab Kaadan, who wanted to lease ILA land in a Jewish neighbourhood (http://haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEngPE.jhtml?itemNo=1041696&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&title='Of%20little%20people%20and%20landmark%20dec isions%20'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5):

And when he got back to the local ILA board, they tried to weasel out of it with various other pretexts, and in 2006, they awarded him the lease just before a court proceeding (so that there is no jurisprudence about that part).
And this is worse than apartheid? There is another case currently before the Israeli Supreme Court regarding the JNF. Hardly a situation similar to apartheid.

Israeli Arab political parties have been banned for having as one of their goals that they wanted to abolish that Israel be "the state of the Jewish people".
Which it is. Just like Ireland is the state of the Irish people. I have a friend whose grandfather is from Ireland. He got Irish citizenship merely by spending 2 weeks in Ireland, the only time he ever set foot in the place. Will there be threads started about how Ireland is worse than apartheid because their immigration laws greatly favor only ethnic Irish people?

Only the other day you rallied against European countries that would ban political parties (without providing evidence).
In Germany the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands has been banned since 1956. There are no banned parties in the US.

Now you endorse it?
I don't endorse this, but this is hardly apartheid and certainly not "worse than apartheid".

I'm still amazed that a country that is on the one hand so forward thinking it allows adoption by gay couples, on the other hand still has no (secular) civil marriage. The existence of only religious marriages also hinders the integration of the Jewish and Arab communities.

(btw, how do Israeli atheists marry? Do they have to go abroad?)
Reformed Jewish couples cannot even marry in Israel! Only Orthodox marriages are recognized by the state.

I think this is stupid, but hardly apartheid. Non-Orthodox Jews and non-Jews can marry, there is no prohibition of it. The marriage just won't be recognized by the state, thus it is common to have a contract between couples which basically gives all the legal rights of marriage without calling it marriage. I've seen many people here advocate that the US states get out of the marriage business with no one accusing them of calling for apartheid.

[ddt]

And this is worse than apartheid? There is another case currently before the Israeli Supreme Court regarding the JNF. Hardly a situation similar to apartheid.
To be clear: the OP is about the situation in the West Bank, not the situation in Israel itself w.r.t. to the Israeli Arabs. Nor the OP (Firegarden), nor me have ever compared the latter to Apartheid. It is discrimination, though, clearly.


Which it is. Just like Ireland is the state of the Irish people.
And Israel is the state of the Jewish people. Do you see the difference? You'd be completely right if we'd argue about Israel being the state of the Israeli people - well, I wouldn't argue about that because that's a tautology. The point of the Israeli Arabs is that they're not Jews, but they are Israelis. By saying that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, they're already second-class citizens.


I have a friend whose grandfather is from Ireland. He got Irish citizenship merely by spending 2 weeks in Ireland, the only time he ever set foot in the place. Will there be threads started about how Ireland is worse than apartheid because their immigration laws greatly favor only ethnic Irish people?
No, but people would rightly argue about Irish immigration laws if adherence to a Druidic religion would entitle to Irish citizenship.


In Germany the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands has been banned since 1956.
Bravo. That's the only example I could think of too. (and they were allowed to reconstitute as Deutsche Kommunistische Partei in 1968).


I don't endorse this, but this is hardly apartheid and certainly not "worse than apartheid".
We agree!


Reformed Jewish couples cannot even marry in Israel! Only Orthodox marriages are recognized by the state.

I think this is stupid, but hardly apartheid. Non-Orthodox Jews and non-Jews can marry, there is no prohibition of it. The marriage just won't be recognized by the state, thus it is common to have a contract between couples which basically gives all the legal rights of marriage without calling it marriage. I've seen many people here advocate that the US states get out of the marriage business with no one accusing them of calling for apartheid.
We agree again!

[WildCat]

To be clear: the OP is about the situation in the West Bank, not the situation in Israel itself w.r.t. to the Israeli Arabs. Nor the OP (Firegarden), nor me have ever compared the latter to Apartheid. It is discrimination, though, clearly.
Which is why the comparison to apartheid makes no sense. Apartheid laws were made to marginalize actual citizens of S. Africa.

And Israel is the state of the Jewish people. Do you see the difference? You'd be completely right if we'd argue about Israel being the state of the Israeli people - well, I wouldn't argue about that because that's a tautology. The point of the Israeli Arabs is that they're not Jews, but they are Israelis. By saying that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, they're already second-class citizens.
Not by law.

No, but people would rightly argue about Irish immigration laws if adherence to a Druidic religion would entitle to Irish citizenship.
Practicing the Jewish religion (of any flavor) is not a requirement for Israeli immigration or citizenship.

Bravo. That's the only example I could think of too. (and they were allowed to reconstitute as Deutsche Kommunistische Partei in 1968).
Of course, there's also the Nazis.

We agree!


We agree again!
In that case I will have to re-think my position... ;)

[FireGarden]

...more...


See how readily "they" are to resort to violence, even against Egypt. A lesson for FireGarden.

Surely a lesson for you and Skeptic, who maintain that Israel is the only one to be criticised; that Arab nations get no flak for mistreating Palestinians.

Egypt is getting plenty of flak.

And why do you put "they" in inverted commas? Do you want to leave yourself an out so that you can't be accused of talking about all Arabs?

[FireGarden]

Which is why the comparison to apartheid makes no sense. Apartheid laws were made to marginalize actual citizens of S. Africa.

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
--- Silly Billy! Day is an artifact of the Earth's rotation. I'm a Human being!

[a_unique_person]

Which is why the comparison to apartheid makes no sense. Apartheid laws were made to marginalize actual citizens of S. Africa.




The claim is Hafrada is worse. Maybe you are agreeing.

[WildCat]

The claim is Hafrada is worse. Maybe you are agreeing.
No, it's not even comparable.

[Pardalis]

No, it's not even comparable.

It's also futile, kind of like those threads about pirates and ninjas.

poster 1: Ninjas are much deadlier than pirates man!

poster 2: No way, pirates rule man, Arrrrrh!

poster 3 : Who gives a ****?

[a_unique_person]

No, it's not even comparable.

It's that much worse?

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/i-dream-of-another-israel-20081229-76sc.html

[parky76]

#1. The Israeli govt. basically rules the West Bank. They expand settlements, destroy Arab homes, and confiscate land at will. The Palestinians, though they live in the West Bank and are the one's who's homes are destroyed and land is confiscated, CANNOT vote in Israeli elections. That is Apartheid.

#2. Israel refuses to approve ANY building permits for Palestinians. Therefore, they legally cannot build a thing, and anything they do build, can be immediately destroyed by Israel. Not only does Israel approve any and all Israeli building permits, but they allow Israeli structures without a permit to exist for years on end. Again, even though they are directly affected by this policy, they have no ability to change it, since they cant vote in Israeli elections. This is Apartheid.

#3. Israel regularly builds and updates roads, sewers, water lines, power lines, cable lines, etc...for Israeli citizens in the West Bank. They do NONE of this..for Palestinians. Again, the Palestinians have no control over this, since they cant vote. This is Apartheid.

#4. Israel has built and is building huge walls and fences that completely separate Palestinians from their farms and lands. The route of these fences and walls ONLY inconvenience Palestinians...never Israelis. This is Apartheid.

These are facts that CANNOT be denied or refuted. Only can only make excuses or justify them.

Hafrada...... is Seperation...is Apartheid.


p.s...the next time someone is stupid enough to call me a right-wing Zionist..I'm gonna &%$# his #$%.

[parky76]

will a rabbi marry a Jewish woman to a moslem man? or a muslem woman to a jewish man?

I think if an Imman tried to marry a Muslim and a Jew in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or Libya, he would be shot dead.

[DC]

I think if an Imman tried to marry a Muslim and a Jew in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or Libya, he would be shot dead.

also Iraq?

[Slayhamlet]

I think if an Imman tried to marry a Muslim and a Jew in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or Libya, he would be shot dead.

Islamic law permits a Muslim man to marry a female Jew or Christian, but not vice-versa. The Jewish or Christian woman also has to be an actual adherent to her religion, in accordance with her status as a "Person of the Book", not just culturally affiliated, and she can't have previously converted from Islam (which in itself is haraam). The implications of this are pretty obvious.

I'm not sure to what extent Sharia is codified into the civil laws of each of those countries, however. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and the fully Muslim-controlled half of Sudan certainly enforce this restriction, but I'm not sure of the others. Syria and Lebanon in particular have quite secular governments, and there are liberal segments of those societies where intermarriages often occur, even in violation of Sharia. This might also be true of parts of Egypt and Jordan and even Iraq (such as Kurdistan).

[Texas]

#1. The Israeli govt. basically rules the West Bank. They expand settlements, destroy Arab homes, and confiscate land at will. The Palestinians, though they live in the West Bank and are the one's who's homes are destroyed and land is confiscated, CANNOT vote in Israeli elections. That is Apartheid.

#2. Israel refuses to approve ANY building permits for Palestinians. Therefore, they legally cannot build a thing, and anything they do build, can be immediately destroyed by Israel. Not only does Israel approve any and all Israeli building permits, but they allow Israeli structures without a permit to exist for years on end. Again, even though they are directly affected by this policy, they have no ability to change it, since they cant vote in Israeli elections. This is Apartheid.

#3. Israel regularly builds and updates roads, sewers, water lines, power lines, cable lines, etc...for Israeli citizens in the West Bank. They do NONE of this..for Palestinians. Again, the Palestinians have no control over this, since they cant vote. This is Apartheid.

#4. Israel has built and is building huge walls and fences that completely separate Palestinians from their farms and lands. The route of these fences and walls ONLY inconvenience Palestinians...never Israelis. This is Apartheid.

These are facts that CANNOT be denied or refuted. Only can only make excuses or justify them.

Hafrada...... is Seperation...is Apartheid.


p.s...the next time someone is stupid enough to call me a right-wing Zionist..I'm gonna &%$# his #$%. You miss one important point. Israel has never ever annexed the West Bank as a part of Israel. That fact alone makes your "lack of voting rights" a moot point. West Bank Palestinians have full suffrage within their OWN elected government. So the fences are there just for the hell of it and to "inconvenience the Palestinians? Is that what you really feel?

[Skeptic]

It may not be fair or reasonable but the religion of Islam has a real PR problem in the United States.

I can't imagine why...

[Skeptic]

Unless the laws are made by Israelis, right? :rolleyes:

...and unless those who want to settle are Jews. Oh wait, if the Jews settle somewhere, it is automatically "illegal and immoral". Problem solved!

[DC]

...and unless those who want to settle are Jews. Oh wait, if the Jews settle somewhere, it is automatically "illegal and immoral". Problem solved!

when it is outside of theyr country, yes it is illegal and immoral.
i guess you would also dislike Iranian settlements inside Israel. or not?

[a_unique_person]

You miss one important point. Israel has never ever annexed the West Bank as a part of Israel. That fact alone makes your "lack of voting rights" a moot point. West Bank Palestinians have full suffrage within their OWN elected government. So the fences are there just for the hell of it and to "inconvenience the Palestinians? Is that what you really feel?

If the West Bank is not part of Israel, then what are all the settlements doing their, the checkpoints, and the why were the settlements subsidised by the Israeli Govt?

[Texas]

If the West Bank is not part of Israel, then what are all the settlements doing their, the checkpoints, and the why were the settlements subsidised by the Israeli Govt? Spoils of war. Take it up with Jordan and the Arab League.

[Skeptic]

Oh, but spoils of war are not allowed to Jews. They're only allowed to Arabs when they ethnically cleanse Jews, as they did in the Old City of Jerusalem or in Hebron, to name a few places, in 1948. AUP & co. constantly point out that these are, ever since the ethnic cleansing of the Jews, "Arab Cities", and, therefore, Jews living there is "illegal occupation".

They talk a lot about the "right" of people to live where they want. But for them that "right" is completely one-directional: Arabs may live anywhere they wish, but Jews must only live where the Arabs (temporarily) allow them. That is why they support, not a Palestinian state per se, but a Judenrein one. No "illegal" Jewish presence would be tolerated.

[Texas]

Oh, but spoils of war are not allowed to Jews. They're only allowed to Arabs when they ethnically cleanse Jews, as they did in the Old City of Jerusalem or in Hebron, to name a few places, in 1948. AUP & co. constantly point out that these are, ever since the ethnic cleansing of the Jews, "Arab Cities", and, therefore, Jews living there is "illegal occupation".

They talk a lot about the "right" of people to live where they want. But for them that "right" is completely one-directional: Arabs may live anywhere they wish, but Jews must only live where the Arabs (temporarily) allow them. That is why they support, not a Palestinian state per se, but a Judenrein one. No "illegal" Jewish presence would be tolerated.
Do Israeli settlers have voting rights in PA elections? If not that is a clear cut case of Apartheid.

[DC]

Oh, but spoils of war are not allowed to Jews. They're only allowed to Arabs when they ethnically cleanse Jews, as they did in the Old City of Jerusalem or in Hebron, to name a few places, in 1948. AUP & co. constantly point out that these are, ever since the ethnic cleansing of the Jews, "Arab Cities", and, therefore, Jews living there is "illegal occupation".

They talk a lot about the "right" of people to live where they want. But for them that "right" is completely one-directional: Arabs may live anywhere they wish, but Jews must only live where the Arabs (temporarily) allow them. That is why they support, not a Palestinian state per se, but a Judenrein one. No "illegal" Jewish presence would be tolerated.

ones the palestinian state is created, will the settlers outside Israel accpet their new Palestinian Passports?

[DC]

Oh, but spoils of war are not allowed to Jews. They're only allowed to Arabs when they ethnically cleanse Jews, as they did in the Old City of Jerusalem or in Hebron, to name a few places, in 1948. AUP & co. constantly point out that these are, ever since the ethnic cleansing of the Jews, "Arab Cities", and, therefore, Jews living there is "illegal occupation".

They talk a lot about the "right" of people to live where they want. But for them that "right" is completely one-directional: Arabs may live anywhere they wish, but Jews must only live where the Arabs (temporarily) allow them. That is why they support, not a Palestinian state per se, but a Judenrein one. No "illegal" Jewish presence would be tolerated.

to get it Judenrein also no legal jewish presence would be tolerated.

[FireGarden]

Spoils of war. Take it up with Jordan and the Arab League.

Spoils of war. In the sense that Israel has chosen to take the land but not the people on the land. And this makes sense to Texas.

[FireGarden]

Do Israeli settlers have voting rights in PA elections? If not that is a clear cut case of Apartheid.

This just gets crazier.

ETA: I would like to be more constructive, really I would. But I can think of nothing to say to the above comment. So please take the above as an indication of my inability to understand your point of view and a request for clarification.

[gtc]

Why shouldn't people settle in Israel as long as they are not forcing someone else of the plot of land in the process.

I know of no country in the world that doesn't have some restrictions on immigration.

[gtc]

Spoils of war. In the sense that Israel has chosen to take the land but not the people on the land. And this makes sense to Texas.

That's not at all unusual - look at the way Germans were moved out of Czechoslovakia and Poland after WWII.

The creation of Israel represents just one of the population movements that took place following World War II.

[FireGarden]

That's not at all unusual - look at the way Germans were moved out of Czechoslovakia and Poland after WWII.

The creation of Israel represents just one of the population movements that took place following World War II.

We're talking about the West Bank, settlements, etc.

Yes, it's after WW2. But I don't see the relevance.

[parky76]

That's not at all unusual - look at the way Germans were moved out of Czechoslovakia and Poland after WWII.

The creation of Israel represents just one of the population movements that took place following World War II.

The forced ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel had NOTHING to do with WW2. Attempting to make some sort of contextual connection, and thereby justifying it, is disgusting.

In that perspective, the expulsion of Jews fro Arab and Muslim lands was ALSO justified and okee dokee.

Is that now your argument?

[Skeptic]

The forced ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel had NOTHING to do with WW2.

True. It has, however, some slight connection to the Arab world's declaration of a war of annihilation on the Jewish state the very day it was established.

[parky76]

True. It has, however, some slight connection to the Arab world's declaration of a war of annihilation on the Jewish state the very day it was established.

The Arab states declare war...and the Palestinians pay the price. Nice.

I guess since Israel declared war in 1967...that makes the Jews of the Arab states paying the price....a fair result?

[RandFan]

Not impressed. There are no good guys or bad guys in this whole mess. The "apartheid" label or (Hafrada) is an attempt to create a dichotomy of good and bad. It doesn't exist and trying to shoe horn this mess into a South African model doesn't solve any problems but to justify the atrocity carried out by the side you pick.

If it helps you sleep better at night then have at it but don't think it has any validity for those who are intellectually honest.

[parky76]

Hafrada is bad. Apartheid was bad. Jim Crow was bad. Only one still exists though..and shows no signs of letting up.

[RandFan]

Hafrada is bad. Apartheid was bad. Jim Crow was bad. Only one still exists though..and shows no signs of letting up.Oddly enough, suicide bombing is bad. Terrorism is bad. It's easy to identify bad. You haven't really told anyone anything they didn't already know.

[RandFan]

Hafrada is bad. Apartheid was bad. Jim Crow was bad. Only one still exists though..and shows no signs of letting up.One more thing, there are some very significant differences between Apartheid, Jim Crow and so called "Hafrada". Still, dealing with all of the variables of this complex dynamic are hard and don't lend to myopic world views. Easier to go with pre-packaged rhetoric and overly simplistic models.

Yes, thinking and honesty can be difficult.

[parky76]

Using lots of fancy words doesn't change the fact that the Israeli rule of the West Bank is not unlike the Apartheid regime of South Africa...and the Jim Crow state in the American South.

Racism is racism. There are no two ways around it.

[RandFan]

Using lots of fancy words doesn't change the fact that the Israeli rule of the West Bank is not unlike the Apartheid regime of South Africa...and the Jim Crow state in the American South.

Racism is racism. There are no two ways around it.
Ad hominem. Your tautology doesn't rebut my argument. Gainsaying isn’t just poor form it’s wrong.

FTR: They are not "fancy words". They are means to communicate ideas and arguments. Attacking the words I use is simply fallacy. Here's a hint, focus on the arguments and not the words. If you can figure out neither just ask and I'll try and help you out. Or, you could try Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/), or Google, or www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/).

You never know, you just might learn something.

[parky76]

Hafrada is a racist regime. Its that simple. One rule for Jews..and another for Arabs..is racism.

[RandFan]

Hafrada is a racist regime. Its that simple. One rule for Jews..and another for Arabs..is racism.Yeah, you are still not getting it. Is it intentional or are you really unable to understand my argument?

[parky76]

Yeah, you are still not getting it. Is it intentional or are you really unable to understand my argument?

why don't you spell it out in laymans terms?

obviously you read the Wall St. Journal more then I. I am more of a Daily News man.

[RandFan]

Hafrada is a racist regime.BTW: To the degree that Hafrada is a "racist regime", Hamas and other Palestinian groups are also racist. Those facts won't do much to resolve the problems but it makes for great rhetoric. So pick your side and the black and white world view will tell you who to denounce and who to support. It's circular reasoning but hey, why should valid logic be employed when our egos are on the line?

[UserGoogol]

And I see you have created this thread to prove my point.

You are comparing S. Africa's policies of vastly different legal status for its citizens based on skin color, to Israel's treating people different based on whether or not they're citizens of Israel.

If your bizarre comparison were legitimate, every country in the world is an apartheid regime. But, of course, the comparison falls flat on its face.

But no doubt you will continue with your histrionics, facts be damned.

I try to be as ambivalent as possible about the whole Israel-Palestine thing, (for a number of reasons) but that seems like a really really stupid argument. Citizenship is an entirely artificial legal construct. If South Africa had decided to say "whatever, you darkies aren't citizens anymore" that would've made things worse, not better. All that matters is that some people have rights that other people don't. To say that Hafrada and Apartheid are totally different because of the nature of these differences in rights is fine, but "citizenship" is just a word.

[RandFan]

why don't you spell it out in laymans terms? There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. There are only two sides that hate each other. The Palestinians, unlike the African Americans and unlike Native South African's are not at all willing to work with Israel to find a solution.

Simply identifying Israel as the bad guy is dishonest and won't solve any problems.

[parky76]

Israel, for all intensive purposes, governs the land, water, and air of the West Bank. Israel has all sorts of rules that apply differently between the Arab and Jewish residence of the West Bank, along with Arab and Jewish Israeli citizens.

-Arab Israelis...are NOT allowed to move into the Israeli settlements.
-Israel does not approve any building permits for Arabs...as would be the correct interpretation of the "occuping power" status in the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
-Israel DOES approve building permits for Jews...which is the the exact opposite interepretation, and shows a severe bias based on citizenship and ethnicity.
-Israel does not update or build any new civilian infrastructure for the Arabs in the West Bank, yet they do for Jews.
-Israel routinely demolishes Arab structures built without a permit, but it takes an arm and a leg..and a Supreme Court decision, to get them to demolish an Israeli structure built without a permit.

I mean, give me a break. This is racism and discrimination. This is Hafrada.

[parky76]

There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. There are only two sides that hate each other. The Palestinians, unlike the African Americans and unlike Native South African's are not at all willing to work with Israel to find a solution.



Not only has Saudi Arabia initiated a peace agreemant, calling for full withdrawal for full peace, and not only has the Arab League fully accepted this proposal, and not only has the PLO accepted this, but even Hamas has accepted such a concept (with reservations of course).

Before 1967...it was the three "No's": No peace, no talks, no recognition.

Now its full peace for full withdrawal. I think we are getting somewhere.

Not willing to work with Israel? BS.

[RandFan]

I mean, give me a break. This is racism and discrimination. This is Hafrada.
You can't be intellectually honest AND continue to stick your fingers in your ears. I condemn the policies of Israel. That doesn't excuse the racism and atrocity carried out by the Palestinians and in the end there are not a lot of options for Israel so long as the Palestinians demand that Israel simply cease to exist. Minorities in America might just as well demand that America stop existing. Hell, Native Americans might be justified in such a demand but it’s not going to happen.

The sooner folks figure that out the better it will be for everyone.

[RandFan]

Not willing to work with Israel? Oh please, how many times has Israel made concessions and offers only to be rebuffed? You cherry pick your facts.

[parky76]

You can't be intellectually honest AND continue to stick your fingers in your ears. I condemn the policies of Israel. That doesn't excuse the racism and atrocity carried out by the Palestinians and in the end there are not a lot of options for Israel so long as the Palestinians demand that Israel simply cease to exist. Minorities in America might just as well demand that America stop existing. Hell, Native Americans might be justified in such a demand but it’s not going to happen.

The sooner folks figure that out the better it will be for everyone.

useless

[parky76]

Oh please, how many times has Israel made concessions and offers only to be rebuffed? You cherry pick your facts.

Well, now 500 million Arabs are making an offer..and Israeli isn't even willing to sit down and talk about.

Oh...how the tables have turned.

[RandFan]

uselessNo. Truth. Sorry if it hurts.

[RandFan]

Well, now 500 million Arabs are making an offer..and Israeli isn't even willing to sit down and talk about.I don't speak for Israel. I'm happy to condemn them for their errors. Given that the leaders of Palestine are shooting rockets into Israel and they are calling for the destruction of Israel then I'm not sure what hope their is in this but fine, I'm happy to call on Israel to sit down and discuss and work toward a peace settlement.

None of that changes any of my points though and it is a canard as far as the discussion at hand.

[parky76]

I don't speak for Israel. I'm happy to condemn them for their errors. Given that the leaders of Palestine are shooting rockets into Israel and they are calling for the destruction of Israel then I'm not sure what hope their is in this but fine, I'm happy to call on Israel to sit down and discuss and work toward a peace settlement.

None of that changes any of my points though and it is a canard as far as the discussion at hand.

Funny how you ignore the fact that Abbas has condemned the rocket attacks..and even blaims Hamas for the current crisis.

Let alone the fact that NO rockets are being fired from the much larger West Bank.

How convenient..for you.

[parky76]

I don't speak for Israel.

But you do apologize for them. Again and again.

If you are a rational and fair person, you will eventually have to hold Israel accountable for what they do.

That is...if.

[RandFan]

But you do apologize for them. Again and again. This is dishonest. I'm willing to concede to the attoricty and crime of Israel which is far more than you are willing to do against Palestinians.

If you are a rational and fair person, you will eventually have to hold Israel accountable for what they do. But I allready do. I have time and again condemned their actions. I condem their crimes. I condem their attrocity and to be sure, I concede that they have and do commit crimes and attrocity.

If you are a rational, fair and honest person you will eventually have to hold Palestinans accountable for what THEY do.

That is "if"...

[RandFan]

Funny how you ignore the fact that Abbas has condemned the rocket attacks..and even blaims Hamas for the current crisis.Again, dishonest. I'm happy to acknowledge these facts. Doesn't change anything I've said.

Let alone the fact that NO rockets are being fired from the much larger West Bank.I'm happy to concede this fact. Still doesn't change anything I've said.

How convenient..for you.How convenient for you that you can claim anything you want regardless of whether it is true or not.

[parky76]

Hamas attacks against Israeli civilians is a war crime. Both the rocket attacks and the suicide bombings. I have always stated this.

They do, however, have the legal right to kill combatants.

When the time comes, there should be war crimes trials for Hamas...and Israel.

[RandFan]

Hamas attacks against Israeli civilians is a war crime. Both the rocket attacks and the suicide bombings. I have always stated this.

They do, however, have the legal right to kill combatants. I think war is immoral. I think the notion of legality is at best sketchy. However I'm willing to accept certain practical realities. That said, Israel reserves the same legal rights to kill compatants.

When the time comes, there should be war crimes trials for Hamas...and Israel.I don't disagree.

[parky76]

I think war is immoral. I think the notion of legality is at best sketchy. However I'm willing to accept certain practical realities. That said, Israel reserves the same legal rights to kill compatants.

I don't disagree.


thank God.

[volatile]

One living nearly 6,000 miles beyond Hamas missile range, I note.

In the current conflict, the Palestinian death-toll stands, currently, at 402, with over 2,000 injured. The number of Israeli casualties? FOUR.

It seems as if the real threat isn't from being in the path of Hamas rockets. It's being under the flightpath of the Israeli air force.

[parky76]

yeah...but 4 dead Israelis equals 400 dead Palestinians.

Didnt you know?

[ddt]

yeah...but 4 dead Israelis equals 400 dead Palestinians.

Didnt you know?

It's eerie indeed how that 1:100 ratio keeps cropping up...

[parky76]

It's eerie indeed how that 1:100 ratio keeps cropping up...

I find it very pathetic and very sad that many of my fellow Jews that I have talked to..think there is some sort of similarity between the death toll and the constant danger the Palestinians now face in Gaza..and the death toll and the danger Israelis face in southern Israel.

It does smack of a concept that..."1 dead Jew is as bad as 100 dead Arabs".

:(

[TriskettheKid]

I find it very pathetic and very sad that many of my fellow Jews that I have talked to..think there is some sort of similarity between the death toll and the constant danger the Palestinians now face in Gaza..and the death toll and the danger Israelis face in southern Israel.

It does smack of a concept that..."1 dead Jew is as bad as 100 dead Arabs".

:(

Yes or no:

The US should have stopped once they had retaliated against the Japanese with as much destruction as the Japanese had inflicted upon the US.

Seriously, I have no problem with the idea that Israel's done some pretty stupid **** over the years. I say this as a Jew. I say this as someone who knows quite a few people who have made aliyah. I say this as someone with ties to Israel.

But at some point, you've got to wake up to the reality of war. I don't care if 1 person dies, or if 100 do. If you are attacked, you respond. End of story.

Indiscriminate violence is unacceptable, and deserves a response.

[parky76]

I am only talking about the reaction I have heard from some of my fellow Jews. They talk about the rockets on S'derot as if it is a 2nd Holocaust.

[volatile]

I don't care if 1 person dies, or if 100 do.

I do.

[TriskettheKid]

I am only talking about the reaction I have heard from some of my fellow Jews. They talk about the rockets on S'derot as if it is a 2nd Holocaust.

I don't agree.

There is some hyperbole, and quite a bit of rhetoric.

However, a sovereign nation being attacked, regardless of amount of fatalities, has a right to defend itself. This is a concept going as far back as John Locke.

I may not agree with the way things have been going over there. To be sure, the Palestinians haven't exactly pushed enough to rid themselves of the scum among them that are hampering attempts at a solution. There are also Israelis who, for some reason, we cannot shake. Seriously, why the **** did one of those scumbags have to kill someone like Rabin?

But that's besides the point.

A sovereign nation was attacked. That nation has a right to defend itself.

[TriskettheKid]

I do.

I'm sorry, was it too much trouble to keep that quote in context?

[volatile]

I'm sorry, was it too much trouble to keep that quote in context?

What do you mean? You expressed that sentiment. I wholeheartedly disagree, whatever the context.

If you hate indiscriminate violence so much, do you think the puny Hamas rockets deserve such an indiscriminate response?

Of course the militants should be hunted down and punished. Bombing schools and mosques full of civilians is not the way to do it, though. It matters that over 400 Palestinians are dead due to the actions of a few of their neighbours. It matters a great deal.

[volatile]

A sovereign nation was attacked. That nation has a right to defend itself.

When Britain was bombed by the IRA, would it have been within its rights to strafe bombers over Catholic churches?

What Israel is doing is far above and beyond "defending itself". The manner and extent of the response is testament to that.

[parky76]

Yeah. Imagine the international outcry if the British Army of the Ulster Royal Constables destroyed Roman Catholic churches in order to attack the IRA.

But when Israel destroys Mosques..its okee dokee.

[a_unique_person]

I don't agree.

There is some hyperbole, and quite a bit of rhetoric.

However, a sovereign nation being attacked, regardless of amount of fatalities, has a right to defend itself. This is a concept going as far back as John Locke.

I may not agree with the way things have been going over there. To be sure, the Palestinians haven't exactly pushed enough to rid themselves of the scum among them that are hampering attempts at a solution. There are also Israelis who, for some reason, we cannot shake. Seriously, why the **** did one of those scumbags have to kill someone like Rabin?

But that's besides the point.

A sovereign nation was attacked. That nation has a right to defend itself.

An adverse military occupation of the Palestinians, such as they have endured for 40 years now, is of itself an act of war. Every year, many more Palestinians died. Every year, Palestinian children died. That is an act of war, and it hasn't stopped for 40 years.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article394547.ece


TO DEFEND Israel today is to be either callous or wilfully ignorant. Had Julie Burchill bothered during her visit there to cross the few miles from Israel to Gaza or the West Bank, she would have seen such human suffering as to disturb even her frenetic adulation of Israel. She might have seen the daily lot of nearly three million Palestinians as they battle with army checkpoints, curfews, random shootings, arbitrary arrests and air raids. She might have found that the “superJews” she so admires humiliate and oppress Palestinians at a whim: last year, at the Nablus checkpoint, a middle-aged man was made to strip, get down on all fours and bark like a dog before he could enter his city. Women in labour routinely wait at checkpoints until some give birth there and see their babies die. Those that survive live a blighted childhood. Since September 2000, Israel has killed more than 660 Palestinian children and wounded 9,000 — such as little Iman, sprayed with bullets when walking to school in Rafah last month, even after she died. Thousands of children are traumatised by the daily horrors they witness. For a Palestinian child, life under Israeli occupation means turning 15 and seeing the army come to arrest you if you are male, or seeing your friends bleed to death because no ambulance is allowed to rescue them.

[parky76]

I have to agree. Every day that goes by I am finding it harder and harder to defend Israel.

They sure know how to over-react.

[volatile]

Yeah. Imagine the international outcry if the British Army of the Ulster Royal Constables destroyed Roman Catholic churches in order to attack the IRA.

But when Israel destroys Mosques..its okee dokee.

The parallels are quite apparent. Lots of people in Northern Ireland even voted for Sinn Fein.

I draw my conclusions to the Israel/Palestine conflict based on a level of empathy for the civilians caught in the crossfire... and based on the parallels with how I'd have felt had the terrorist situation in my own country been dealt with similarly.

Israel has the right to defend itself. Of course it does. And Hamas need to be stopped. But the way to do that must not involve killing civilians, or destroying civilian lives and livelihoods. Of course the Middle East is hardly analogous to Northern Ireland, but it does give one some sense of perspective to imagine how an Israeli-type response may have been greeted in Britain.

[RandFan]

In the current conflict, the Palestinian death-toll stands, currently, at 402, with over 2,000 injured. The number of Israeli casualties? FOUR.

It seems as if the real threat isn't from being in the path of Hamas rockets. It's being under the flightpath of the Israeli air force. Recrimination and escalation. It's the language of war. Diplomacy by other means.

[RandFan]

Yeah. Imagine the international outcry if the British Army of the Ulster Royal Constables destroyed Roman Catholic churches in order to attack the IRA.

But when Israel destroys Mosques..its okee dokee.So why do the Palestinians put weapons in Mosques? Who ultimatly bears responsibilty?

[volatile]

So why do the Palestinians put weapons in Mosques? Who ultimatly bears responsibilty?

There have long been suspicions of links between some churchmen and the IRA (eg http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/21/1040174437915.html) -- does that justify the bombing of churches?

No.

Punish the guilty, not their neighbours.

Imagine if someone dropped missiles on your house because your next-door neighbour was up to no good... It's unthinkable, shameful and horrific. Have some empathy for the dead civilians and children. Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine living their lives. Imagine how you'd feel.

[volatile]

Recrimination and escalation. It's the language of war. Diplomacy by other means.

So 402 dead is an appropriate, proportional and measured response to the death of 4 people?

[TriskettheKid]

So 402 dead is an appropriate, proportional and measured response to the death of 4 people?

There's a shocking lack of nuance in your post.

Pray tell:

Using your metric, what should the US have done in retaliation for the Japanese attack on the fleet at Pearl Harbor? Should they have stopped once they had inflicted a proportional number of fatalities on the Japanese?

[IDB87]

Punish the guilty, not their neighbours.



How should they be punished? Should the IDF march into Gaza to arrest Hamas militants?

So 402 dead is an appropriate, proportional and measured response to the death of 4 people?

Out of those 402 dead, how many of those are Hamas militants?

[RandFan]

So 402 dead is an appropriate, proportional and measured response to the death of 4 people?I cannot justify Israels actions. I've not tried to and nothing in my post should lead you to that conclusion.

A harms B.
B in turn harms A and escalates the violence.
A in turn harms B and escalates the violence.

That was my point. It was my only point. I don't state who is A and who is B. That's been lost to history and it wouldn't solve anything.

Given the last conflict, from a military perspective, the response would make sense.

[volatile]

There's a shocking lack of nuance in your post.

Pray tell:

Using your metric, what should the US have done in retaliation for the Japanese attack on the fleet at Pearl Harbor? Should they have stopped once they had inflicted a proportional number of fatalities on the Japanese?

If anything "lacks nuance", it is strafing mosques, refugee camps and schools with bombers.

What has Pearl Harbour got to do with anything? The situation is, as I explained, more analogous to the situation in Northern Ireland. Would the British have been justified in dropping bombs on Catholic churches?

Bloody Sunday was called "bloody" for a reason, and only 13 people died there. It's an outrage that has haunted the British for 30 years, and rightly so. There can never be justification for the indiscriminate killing of civilians.

And yet Israel carry out dozens of "Bloody Sundays" every single day. How can you stand behind that with a straight face? If anything similar was happening anywhere else in the world, you'd be outraged. Why not now?

[parky76]

i think what we are trying to say is...if Hamas had better aim and was able to kill more Israelis, we may be a little more comfortable with Israel's current actions.

its not Israel's fault that Hamas can't triangulate proper trajectory for their mortars. those things can be very precise...if you do it right.

but what they are doing now..seems waaaaay overboard.

they may kill Hamas leaders and destroy weapons..but the next generation of Hamas terrorists is now a sure thing.

[volatile]

How should they be punished? Should the IDF march into Gaza to arrest Hamas militants?

Yes.

Out of those 402 dead, how many of those are Hamas militants?

62 women and children, and an unknown number of men.

Four Israelis.

[IDB87]

Yes.

Like these airstrikes, would arresting them cease the rocket attacks? No.



unknown number of men.

Four Israelis.

How many of these men were fighters?

[volatile]

Like these airstrikes, would arresting them cease the rocket attacks? No.

Why wouldn't it?

The British marched into Northern Ireland and arrested the terrorists. Why can't Israel? Why do they need to (relish?) act in a way that guarantees civilian deaths?

Collective punishment is inhuman. How would you feel if someone dropped bombs on your house because your next-door neighbour was a (suspected, even) terrorist?

Get some empathy.

How many of these men were fighters?

Did you see the word "unknown" there? That means the number is unknown.

[gtc]

It matters that over 400 Palestinians are dead due to the actions of a few of their neighbours. It matters a great deal.

Have 400 civillians died?

[RandFan]

they may kill Hamas leaders and destroy weapons..but the next generation of Hamas terrorists is now a sure thing.Given the history I see no reason to think it wasn't a sure thing already.

[parky76]

I think the number is like 70.

One could only wonder if Hamas would have been firing rockets if it was not for the blockade.

=(

[Darth Rotor]

Why wouldn't it?

The British marched into Northern Ireland and arrested the terrorists. Why can't Israel?
Maybe because the two situations aren't as identical as you wish they were.
Why do they need to (relish?) act in a way that guarantees civilian deaths?
I see, another subscriber to the "Nits Make Lice" theory of Israeli decisions on Gaza. Thank you for sharing.
Collective punishment is inhuman.
Using civilians for shields for the political purpose of making the enemy look bad is, dare I say it, inhuman.

Let's call this one a wash. No good guys here.
How would you feel if someone dropped bombs on your house because your next-door neighbour was a (suspected, even) terrorist?
I'd be dead. Past feeling. This would suck.
Get some empathy.
Get a clue: this is a war, and has been for some time. A state of belligerency exists, which is all that need be present for a war to exist. That it's an unorthodox form of war, a state versus a non state, is certainly a problem in how to deal with it. I note the UN's impotence. Disappointing, again. Bordering on depressing.

This isn't your father's war, nor your grandfather's. And no, it ain't Northern Ireland.
Did you see the word "unknown" there? That means the number is unknown.
Yeah. The butcher's bill will be tallied in due course, but somehow that gives me no comfort at all.

The cycle continues. Come back next year, we'll be remarking on another chapter of this quarrel.

DR

[volatile]

Have 400 civillians died?

At least 62 (women and children) -- and the fact that every dead adult male is being counted amongst the "militant" dead doesn't help matters.

What's an acceptable ratio, G? How many civilians need to die before this becomes outrageous to you?

If your wife and child were killed in an missile attack on your terrorist neighbours, I guess that would be OK with you? Because the bad guys bought it? Does the manner in which Israel is going about "solving" their problems - a manner, incidentally, which is guaranteed to cause massive civilian death - not matter to you at all? The end justifies the means?

[gtc]

And yet Israel carry out dozens of "Bloody Sundays" every single day.

That is an enormous lie.

Firstly, 'Bloody Sunday' involved police shooting civil rights protestors who are believed to have been unarmed. Israel is targetting Hamas militants.

Secondly, 13 people died on Bloody Sunday. Israel does not kill more than 312 Palestinians (2*12*13) daily. That would mean 114 thousand dead Palestinians a year

How can you stand behind that with a straight face?

How can you say that with a straight face?

[volatile]

Maybe because the two situations aren't as identical as you wish they were.

Terrorists in a "disputed" territory attacking targets from within civilian areas, whilst receiving considerable local popular support.

Sounds quite similar to me. Why would the British not have been justified in bombing West Belfast? They would have killed plenty of IRA men, after all.

Using civilians for shields for the political purpose of making the enemy look bad is, dare I say it, inhuman.

Yep, you're right.

That's the thing here, isn't it. Those of us conemning the Israelis are quite content to condemn Hamas equally. Those defending the Isrealis, not so much.

Two wrongs don't make a right - particularly when one of those wrongs is wrought on one of the poorest populations on earth with some of the world's most sophisticated military killing technology.

Let's call this one a wash. No good guys here.

There are good guys. The civilians caught in the crossfire. Never, ever forget that.

I'd be dead. Past feeling. This would suck.

Get a clue: this is a war, and has been for some time. A state of belligerency exists, which is all that need be present for a war to exist. That it's an unorthodox form of war, a state versus a non state, is certainly a problem in how to deal with it. I note the UN's impotence. Disappointing, again. Bordering on depressing.

This isn't your father's war, nor your grandfather's. And no, it ain't Northern Ireland.

Funny; "A state of belligerency exists, which is all that need be present for a war to exist. That it's an unorthodox form of war, a state versus a non state, is certainly a problem in how to deal with it" sounds precisely like Northern Ireland in the 1970s.

The cycle continues. Come back next year, we'll be remarking on another chapter of this quarrel.



With this, I have no argument. It's entirely depressing.

[gtc]

The British marched into Northern Ireland and arrested the terrorists. Why can't Israel?

Because Gaza isn't Northern Ireland and because Northern Ireland was British territory and Gaza isn't Israeli territory.


Why do they need to (relish?) act in a way that guarantees civilian deaths?

You obviously don't have evidence that Israel relishes the death of civillians, otherwise you wouldn't have shared your disgusting views in the manner of a question. Your suggestion that Israelis relish the death of Palestinian civillians sounds just like the blood libels that pepper Hamas' TV shows.

[volatile]

That is an enormous lie.

Firstly, 'Bloody Sunday' involved police shooting civil rights protestors who are believed to have been unarmed. Israel is targetting Hamas militants.

And missing with alarming regularity.

The British police were targeting IRA men. What's the difference? Why are Irish civilian casualties so horrifying, but Palestinian dalliance casualties all fair in love and war?

Secondly, 13 people died on Bloody Sunday. Israel does not kill more than 312 Palestinians (2*12*13) daily.

Oh, well that's all right then. Carry on.

[WildCat]

Terrorists in a "disputed" territory attacking targets from within civilian areas, whilst receiving considerable local popular support.

Sounds quite similar to me. Why would the British not have been justified in bombing West Belfast? They would have killed plenty of IRA men, after all.



Yep, you're right.

That's the thing here, isn't it. Those of us conemning the Israelis are quite content to condemn Hamas equally. Those defending the Isrealis, not so much.

Two wrongs don't make a right - particularly when one of those wrongs is wrought on one of the poorest populations on earth with some of the world's most sophisticated military killing technology.



There are good guys. The civilians caught in the crossfire. Never, ever forget that.

I'd be dead. Past feeling. This would suck.



Funny; "A state of belligerency exists, which is all that need be present for a war to exist. That it's an unorthodox form of war, a state versus a non state, is certainly a problem in how to deal with it" sounds precisely like Northern Ireland in the 1970s.



With this, I have no argument. It's entirely depressing.
I could have sworn that NI was actually a part of the UK...

[gtc]

At least 62 (women and children) -- and the fact that every dead adult male is being counted amongst the "militant" dead doesn't help matters.

So 400 civillians haven't died.

If your wife and child were killed in an missile attack on your terrorist neighbours, I guess that would be OK with you? Because the bad guys bought it?

Its a war. Government's are supposed to value the lives of their own civillians over the lives of the civillians of countries that are attacking them.

[volatile]

You obviously don't have evidence that Israel relishes the death of civillians, otherwise you wouldn't have shared your disgusting views in the manner of a question. Your suggestion that Israelis relish the death of Palestinian civillians sounds just like the blood libels that pepper Hamas' TV shows.

Does it?

What do these quotes sound like to you, then, if not relishment?

"Israel's decision to launch its devastating attack on Gaza on a Saturday was a "stroke of brilliance", the country's biggest selling paper Yediot Aharonot crowed: "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". The daily Ma'ariv agreed: "We left them in shock and awe"." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/30/israel-and-the-palestinians-middle-east)

Describing the death of hundreds of people as "a stroke of brilliance" is hardly the actions of a media concerned about the real damage their country's military is inflicting on real human beings. I find it rather depressing that you can on the one hand accuse me of "blood libel" and on the other callously dismiss the deaths of women and children.

Shame on you.

[gtc]

The British police were targeting IRA men.

Were they? That is, genuinely, news to me.


Why are Irish civilian casualties so horrifying, but Palestinian dalliance casualties all fair in love and war?

I never said that.



Oh, well that's all right then. Carry on.

Again, I never said that. If you want to be disgusted about the actions of Israel then you should confine your disgust to Israel's actual actions. There is no need to invent the annual deaths of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

[volatile]

Its a war. Government's are supposed to value the lives of their own civillians over the lives of the civillians of countries that are attacking them.

So then Hamas are equally justified in firing their rockets?

No - violence and killing are never to be justified. Dividing this into "them" and "us" is what is at the root of this bloody mess in the first place. All human life is valuable. If you think otherwise, then I suggest this discussion halt right now.

[volatile]

I could have sworn that NI was actually a part of the UK...

So "Palestine" is a separate state from Israel, then?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

So why do the Palestinians put weapons in Mosques? Who ultimatly bears responsibilty?

Who says there were weapons in mosques?

[gtc]

Does it?

What do these quotes sound like to you, then, if not relishment?

"Israel's decision to launch its devastating attack on Gaza on a Saturday was a "stroke of brilliance", the country's biggest selling paper Yediot Aharonot crowed: "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". The daily Ma'ariv agreed: "We left them in shock and awe"." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/30/israel-and-the-palestinians-middle-east)

Please provide evidence that they were talking about the deaths of civillians and then we can discuss whether they were relishing those deaths.

Describing the death of hundreds of people as "a stroke of brilliance" is hardly the actions of a media concerned about the real damage their country's military is inflicting on real human beings.

Now you are equating a lack of concern for civillian casualties that result from attacks on military targets with relishing the death of civillians.


I find it rather depressing that you can on the one hand accuse me of "blood libel" and on the other callously dismiss the deaths of women and children.

Where have I done that?

Shame on you.

I'm a terrible, terrible person.

[volatile]

I never said that.

Will you, then, condemn the actions of Israel - actions which are guaranteed to cause civilian deaths? If you disagree that Palestinian civilian deaths are justifiable and that the Israeli methods of punishing / mitigating terrorism are entirely appropriate, please say so. Now's your chance.

For the record: I wholeheartedly condemn Hamas' actions, and the philosophy they embody.

[WildCat]

So "Palestine" is a separate state from Israel, then?
I'm not going to be drawn into a semantics debate over the meaning of the word "state".

Gaza is not part of Israel. That's a critical distinction.

[volatile]

Now you are equating a lack of concern for civillian casualties that result from attacks on military targets with relishing the death of civillians.

That is a distinction without a difference, particularly when accompanied by the phrase "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". Brilliant. Brilliant! More people dead. Good work, Israel.

[WildCat]

Who says there were weapons in mosques?
The secondary explosions:

LCVr7MBhgj0

But, of course, you know this already.

[gtc]

So then Hamas are equally justified in firing their rockets?

They may think so but what they think is not the sole determinant of morality.

Israel is not deliberately targetting civillians - it is attacking military targets with the knowledge that this may lead to civillian deaths. For the most part, Hamas is attacking civillian targets with the hope of killing civillians. That is an important difference.

No - violence and killing are never to be justified. Dividing this into "them" and "us" is what is at the root of this bloody mess in the first place.

Dividing people into us and them is at the root of every conflict. It is also part and parcel of every responsible government's actions - we elect government's to look after the interests of our fellow countrymen and women before looking out for the interests of other country's people.

All human life is valuable. If you think otherwise, then I suggest this discussion halt right now.

Of course all human life is valuable.

[WildCat]

That is a distinction without a difference, particularly when accompanied by the phrase "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". Brilliant. Brilliant! More people dead. Good work, Israel.
Well, these guys were sure as hell surprised!

qG0CzM_Frvc

And yes, good work Israel!

:ISRAEL:

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Its a war. Government's are supposed to value the lives of their own civillians over the lives of the civillians of countries that are attacking them.

A war??

Let's look at the more closely shall we?

One side has weapons only consisting of a few mortars and some privitive rockets.

The other side has one the most powerful and modern military capabilities in the world.

[RandFan]

Who says there were weapons in mosques?It's really not in the best interest of Israel to blow up houses of worship if there is no reason to. There might not be weapons but Israel had gathered intelligence before hand. If Israel simply wanted to kill civilians there would be thousands if not tens of thousands dead and there were would be hundreds of Mosques destroyed.

I'm not saying that it is beyond Israel to make a mistake or to target a mosque on the pretense of destroying weapons but I rather doubt it.

[volatile]

I'm not going to be drawn into a semantics debate over the meaning of the word "state".

Gaza is not part of Israel. That's a critical distinction.

How fortunate that you refuse to be drawn on precisely the matter where your argument collapses, huh?

Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. So what? What does that have to do with the appropriateness of the response.

Why would the British government not have been justified in ordering missile strikes on West Belfast? After all, the IRA operated out of civilian areas, and mustered considerable local support. So what's the functional difference here? If Israel is justified in acting in a manner guaranteed to cause massive civilian death because those actions will kill terrorists, why wouldn't the British have been justified in acting in the same way?

I grew up in Britain in the 80s. This is my frame of reference. So explain to me why the two situations aren't analogous from the point of view of the civilians on the ground -- because from where I'm standing, they're all too similar. Innocent men, women and children brutally killed because of the actions (and, occasionally, simply the beliefs) of their neighbours.

That cannot be justified.

The same goes for Hamas too, of course - their attacks on civilians are equally heinous. The key word being "equally".

[gtc]

Will you, then, condemn the actions of Israel - actions which are guaranteed to cause civilian deaths? If you disagree that Palestinian civilian deaths are justifiable and that the Israeli methods of punishing / mitigating terrorism are entirely appropriate, please say so. Now's your chance.

For the record: I wholeheartedly condemn Hamas' actions, and the philosophy they embody.

Of course some level of civillian casualtiesd has to be justifiable, otherwise military activities would be practically impossible and civillian policing would be greatly hindered as well.

The question is whether the level of civillian casualties can be justified and that involves looking at the tactics of both sides and the military goals pursued. Which involves actual research and the consideration of actual evidence rather than simple black and white moralising.

[parky76]

It is a war. Highly unbalanced...but still a war.

Like when the Americans fought the Indians....guns vs. bows and arrows. It was still a war.

and btw..when buses start blowing up in Tel Aviv (and they will soon)..will this war seem a little more balanced?

yes it will.

"meow"

[volatile]

They may think so but what they think is not the sole determinant of morality.

Israel is not deliberately targetting civillians - it is attacking military targets with the knowledge that this may lead to civillian deaths. For the most part, Hamas is attacking civillian targets with the hope of killing civillians. That is an important difference.

No, it is not an important difference. Not if you're the dead civilian.

Try and humanise this, Gtc. Imagine your wife being killed because your next-door neighbour is a terrorist. Empathise.

Also, need I repeat -- two wrongs do not make a right. If Israel wants to stop the violence, there are better, more precise ways of going about it.


Dividing people into us and them is at the root of every conflict. It is also part and parcel of every responsible government's actions - we elect government's to look after the interests of our fellow countrymen and women before looking out for the interests of other country's people.

Of course all human life is valuable.

These two sentences do not follow from each other.