Annexing West Bank

[Shusha]

RE: West Bank
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

Yeah, I thought I would get some pushback here.

]

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

(COMMENT)

I totally understand what you are saying. I was addressing the "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People → 1 — Basic principles:

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.
B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.
C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.​

It goes out of its way to specifically state "Jewish People;" not Israeli People and not inhabitance of a non-Jewish status.

This is what some people are afraid of.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is what the conflict is all about. It is a territorial dispute.

• The Arab Palestinians say that Judea belongs to them.

• So when the Israelis extend Israeli Basic Law to cover that territory, it is a case of "Annexation" by sovereign extention by other means.​

It should be noted that many Arab Palestinians argue that the same territory is their territory and constitutes part of their state.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

(COMMENT)

This is only one perspective. The State of Israel, pre-1948 did not exist. I know that both sides have claims of history in depth of time; but neither claim is any more valid then if the Shawnee, the Chippewas, or the Ojibwa natives, attempt some claim to territory in Ohio. Ancient history simply does not figure into the matter. If Israel expects to defend itself in any legal confrontation → here → in the 21st Century it can not expect to win using 21 BC history.

(NOTE)

I support Israel on the basis of the need for such a state as having such sovereign laws that would insure the protection and preservation of the Jewish people and their culture from further abuse under the color of law.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am not in any way arguing for ancient history. I'm arguing for legal claims built post WWI.

 

[Coyote]

Hone

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

“The challenge,” says Efroni, “is maintaining the status quo while guarding the interests of civilians in the area.”

Without saying it, I believe that MG Efroni may be eluding to the recently passed "Nation-State Law," which in my opinion does not do anything to clarify the status of the (non-Jewish) inhabitants in territory subject to Annexation.

I think this does little (at least as I see it) to clarify the concept of "defensive annexation." And although the law does not specifically deny the (non-Jewish) inhabitants their "right to self-determination," in the absence of expressions to the contrary, it certainly circumvented the question of their autonomous destiny.

Whether or not annexing works depends on how it is handled in terms of citizenship and rights.

Israel has laws governing those things.

What laws specifically?

(COMMENT)

The answer I usually get when I ask this question is that the Act of Annexation extends the Basic Laws of Israel into the territory annexed. And the inhabitants that become subject to the law are de facto citizens to that law.

It will be very important as to how the nation of Israel applies those laws. The answer is nowhere near obvious.

Most Respectfully,
R
ANNEX (As I understand it from The Time of Israel)
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

Liberation forward.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

Honestly I think you are just playing with words here trying to make it sound righteous.

It was first occupied territory. Then it was white washed into “disputed” territory. Now the final phase....”it is rightfully ours”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

 

[Coyote]

RE: West Bank
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

Yeah, I thought I would get some pushback here.

]

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

(COMMENT)

I totally understand what you are saying. I was addressing the "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People → 1 — Basic principles:

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.
B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.
C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.​

It goes out of its way to specifically state "Jewish People;" not Israeli People and not inhabitance of a non-Jewish status.

This is what some people are afraid of.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is what the conflict is all about. It is a territorial dispute.

• The Arab Palestinians say that Judea belongs to them.

• So when the Israelis extend Israeli Basic Law to cover that territory, it is a case of "Annexation" by sovereign extention by other means.​

It should be noted that many Arab Palestinians argue that the same territory is their territory and constitutes part of their state.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

(COMMENT)

This is only one perspective. The State of Israel, pre-1948 did not exist. I know that both sides have claims of history in depth of time; but neither claim is any more valid then if the Shawnee, the Chippewas, or the Ojibwa natives, attempt some claim to territory in Ohio. Ancient history simply does not figure into the matter. If Israel expects to defend itself in any legal confrontation → here → in the 21st Century it can not expect to win using 21 BC history.

(NOTE)

I support Israel on the basis of the need for such a state as having such sovereign laws that would insure the protection and preservation of the Jewish people and their culture from further abuse under the color of law.

Most Respectfully,
R

And there is good reason to be afraid.

 

[Shusha]

Hone

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

“The challenge,” says Efroni, “is maintaining the status quo while guarding the interests of civilians in the area.”

Without saying it, I believe that MG Efroni may be eluding to the recently passed "Nation-State Law," which in my opinion does not do anything to clarify the status of the (non-Jewish) inhabitants in territory subject to Annexation.

I think this does little (at least as I see it) to clarify the concept of "defensive annexation." And although the law does not specifically deny the (non-Jewish) inhabitants their "right to self-determination," in the absence of expressions to the contrary, it certainly circumvented the question of their autonomous destiny.

Israel has laws governing those things.

What laws specifically?

(COMMENT)

The answer I usually get when I ask this question is that the Act of Annexation extends the Basic Laws of Israel into the territory annexed. And the inhabitants that become subject to the law are de facto citizens to that law.

It will be very important as to how the nation of Israel applies those laws. The answer is nowhere near obvious.

Most Respectfully,
R
ANNEX (As I understand it from The Time of Israel)
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

Liberation forward.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

Honestly I think you are just playing with words here trying to make it sound righteous.

It was first occupied territory. Then it was white washed into “disputed” territory. Now the final phase....”it is rightfully ours”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Hone

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

“The challenge,” says Efroni, “is maintaining the status quo while guarding the interests of civilians in the area.”

Without saying it, I believe that MG Efroni may be eluding to the recently passed "Nation-State Law," which in my opinion does not do anything to clarify the status of the (non-Jewish) inhabitants in territory subject to Annexation.

I think this does little (at least as I see it) to clarify the concept of "defensive annexation." And although the law does not specifically deny the (non-Jewish) inhabitants their "right to self-determination," in the absence of expressions to the contrary, it certainly circumvented the question of their autonomous destiny.

What laws specifically?

(COMMENT)

The answer I usually get when I ask this question is that the Act of Annexation extends the Basic Laws of Israel into the territory annexed. And the inhabitants that become subject to the law are de facto citizens to that law.

It will be very important as to how the nation of Israel applies those laws. The answer is nowhere near obvious.

Most Respectfully,
R
ANNEX (As I understand it from The Time of Israel)
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

Liberation forward.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

Honestly I think you are just playing with words here trying to make it sound righteous.

It was first occupied territory. Then it was white washed into “disputed” territory. Now the final phase....”it is rightfully ours”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

I don't know what you find so funny, Tinmore. It was you and your Palestinian friends continuously refusing every peace deal that led us to this. So now all of Eretz Israel will become the State of Israel. Gd's plan, perhaps?

 

[Coyote]

Hone

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

“The challenge,” says Efroni, “is maintaining the status quo while guarding the interests of civilians in the area.”

Without saying it, I believe that MG Efroni may be eluding to the recently passed "Nation-State Law," which in my opinion does not do anything to clarify the status of the (non-Jewish) inhabitants in territory subject to Annexation.

I think this does little (at least as I see it) to clarify the concept of "defensive annexation." And although the law does not specifically deny the (non-Jewish) inhabitants their "right to self-determination," in the absence of expressions to the contrary, it certainly circumvented the question of their autonomous destiny.

What laws specifically?

(COMMENT)

The answer I usually get when I ask this question is that the Act of Annexation extends the Basic Laws of Israel into the territory annexed. And the inhabitants that become subject to the law are de facto citizens to that law.

It will be very important as to how the nation of Israel applies those laws. The answer is nowhere near obvious.

Most Respectfully,
R
ANNEX (As I understand it from The Time of Israel)
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

Liberation forward.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

Honestly I think you are just playing with words here trying to make it sound righteous.

It was first occupied territory. Then it was white washed into “disputed” territory. Now the final phase....”it is rightfully ours”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

Israel seems to be the only one with that peculiar definition of occupied.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ et al,

Yeah, I don't think those that promote any portion of the West Bank have thought this out very well. Although it would be a BONANZA for the Arab Palestinians, they will not appreciate it and they will become Israel's worse security problem ever.

[I don't know what you find so funny, Tinmore. It was you and your Palestinian friends continuously refusing every peace deal that led us to this. So now all of Eretz Israel will become the State of Israel. Gd's plan, perhaps?

(COMMENT)

Right now, Israel can cordon-off the West Bank (Jerusalem included) and Gaza Strip because it is not part of Israeli Sovereignty. But once you annex, the cordon effectively stops and barriers must come down.

Right now, only the Arab Palestinians can make a case for apartheid relative to settlements in Area "C." But even the barriers around the Area "C" settlements will have to come down. Right now, the settlements are like little Forts in hostile Indian country, or Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo (90+% Muslim).

But, it is up to them, the Israelis. But in the end, it would be much better if the Israelis did something spectacular: (Just for starters!)

◈ Build the Mother of all Water Purification Plants and just pump like hell into the West Bank so that Arab Palestinian can have FREE water.

◈ Build a supter-series of small modular reactors alone the inside of the Israeli sovereign boundry, but providing FREE electricity to the Arab Palestinians.

◈ Setup a huge B2B ComercialTrading Center so that the Arab Palestinians can become a productive member of the global community.

◈ Works Progress Administration (WPA) to completely reoganize the public utlities and thoroughfares → tooth to tail. Put everyone to work.

✦ Speicalized training -
✦ Career tracking -
✦ Business oportunity center -​

◈ Finally, Set-up free education center program (totally secular) putting every teach on the job, new schools from scratch. Start in Jerusalem and fan-out in every direction.​

But I'm not the PM's Chief of Staff. But someone needs to get a plan together before it is too late.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

Hone

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

​

Without saying it, I believe that MG Efroni may be eluding to the recently passed "Nation-State Law," which in my opinion does not do anything to clarify the status of the (non-Jewish) inhabitants in territory subject to Annexation.

I think this does little (at least as I see it) to clarify the concept of "defensive annexation." And although the law does not specifically deny the (non-Jewish) inhabitants their "right to self-determination," in the absence of expressions to the contrary, it certainly circumvented the question of their autonomous destiny.

(COMMENT)

The answer I usually get when I ask this question is that the Act of Annexation extends the Basic Laws of Israel into the territory annexed. And the inhabitants that become subject to the law are de facto citizens to that law.

It will be very important as to how the nation of Israel applies those laws. The answer is nowhere near obvious.

Most Respectfully,
R
ANNEX (As I understand it from The Time of Israel)
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

Liberation forward.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

Honestly I think you are just playing with words here trying to make it sound righteous.

It was first occupied territory. Then it was white washed into “disputed” territory. Now the final phase....”it is rightfully ours”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

Israel seems to be the only one with that peculiar definition of occupied.

Israel has the correct definition. Why Jordan would not give the Arabs in the "West Bank" "their" land? Because it never belonged to them, and they have no claim to it.

The Jewish People were given the legal right to build their own State in ALL of the Mandate of Palestine, but as we know, 78% was immediately given by the British, for a reason, to the Arab Hashemites and NOT the Arab Palestinians and their leader Al Husseini. Think about it.

Why did Jordan want to enter the 1967 war with the other Arab states? Not to help them, or the Arab Palestinians but to take even more land from Israel if not all of it. It was a second attempt to destroy Israel. They lost.
Attacking a country and losing a war have consequences, especially when one loses the land one did not have any rights to according to International Law.

It was Jewish Land, it is Jewish land. Israel was ready to give it up for a peace treaty, as it had done with Sinai. The Arab Leaders said, NO DEAL.

Actions have consequences, and the consequences of TOO MANY rejections of peace, is that enough is enough.
Israel gave what it could, even what it should not have given away, part of Gaza.


The land is Jewish Land. It is being returned to its rightful owners, if indeed parts of Judea and Samaria are ever incorporated , annexed, call it what one will.........

 

[Taz]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

He said he would annex the "illegal" Jewish settlements. He did it.

 

[Sixties Fan]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

He said he would annex the "illegal" Jewish settlements. He did it.

He did not at all say "illegal", and it has not yet happened.

Wrong on all accounts.

 

[Taz]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

He said he would annex the "illegal" Jewish settlements. He did it.

He did not at all say "illegal", and it has not yet happened.

Wrong on all accounts.

Bibi doesn't like brown people.

 

[Sixties Fan]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

He said he would annex the "illegal" Jewish settlements. He did it.

He did not at all say "illegal", and it has not yet happened.

Wrong on all accounts.

Bibi doesn't like brown people.

You do not like Jews. And you know nothing about Jews.
Your words and posts are worthless to the discussion on this thread.

 

[rylah]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

He said he would annex the "illegal" Jewish settlements. He did it.

He did not at all say "illegal", and it has not yet happened.

Wrong on all accounts.

Bibi doesn't like brown people.

Netanyahu doesn't like the majority of his voters?

 

[Taz]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

He said he would annex the "illegal" Jewish settlements. He did it.

He did not at all say "illegal", and it has not yet happened.

Wrong on all accounts.

Bibi doesn't like brown people.

You do not like Jews. And you know nothing about Jews.
Your words and posts are worthless to the discussion on this thread.

Some of my best friends are Jews!

 

[Taz]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

He said he would annex the "illegal" Jewish settlements. He did it.

He did not at all say "illegal", and it has not yet happened.

Wrong on all accounts.

Bibi doesn't like brown people.

Netanyahu doesn't like the majority of his voters?

I meant arabs. Jews aren't brown.

 

[xyz]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

He would have to give all the Palestinians there Israeli citizenship and full rights.

I think eventually Israel will have to do it if they want to keep that territory, not that I think they will under Netanyahu.

 

[Sixties Fan]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

He said he would annex the "illegal" Jewish settlements. He did it.

He did not at all say "illegal", and it has not yet happened.

Wrong on all accounts.

Bibi doesn't like brown people.

Netanyahu doesn't like the majority of his voters?

I meant arabs. Jews aren't brown.

Here !!!

Educate yourself:

Sephardic, Ashkenazic, Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews | My Jewish Learning





Now you can rest

 

[Taz]

He said he would annex the "illegal" Jewish settlements. He did it.

He did not at all say "illegal", and it has not yet happened.

Wrong on all accounts.

Bibi doesn't like brown people.

Netanyahu doesn't like the majority of his voters?

I meant arabs. Jews aren't brown.

Here !!!

Educate yourself:

Sephardic, Ashkenazic, Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews | My Jewish Learning





Now you can rest

Those are the exception. They become Jews because they’re hungry.

 

[Sixties Fan]

He did not at all say "illegal", and it has not yet happened.

Wrong on all accounts.

Bibi doesn't like brown people.

Netanyahu doesn't like the majority of his voters?

I meant arabs. Jews aren't brown.

Here !!!

Educate yourself:

Sephardic, Ashkenazic, Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews | My Jewish Learning





Now you can rest

Those are the exception. They become Jews because they’re hungry.

Those are not exceptions. And your prejudice towards Jews ends here.

Take a nice vacation.....to Israel

 

[Taz]

Bibi doesn't like brown people.

Netanyahu doesn't like the majority of his voters?

I meant arabs. Jews aren't brown.

Here !!!

Educate yourself:

Sephardic, Ashkenazic, Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews | My Jewish Learning





Now you can rest

Those are the exception. They become Jews because they’re hungry.

Those are not exceptions. And your prejudice towards Jews ends here.

Take a nice vacation.....to Israel

I like Israel actually, they fuck up Muslims on a daily basis, so what's not to like?