Apartheid? Really?

[louie888]

A picture is worth 1000 words...

Israel and the A-Word

 

[Hollie]

A picture is worth 1000 words...

Israel and the A-Word

I agree. Islamic terrorism is an extraordinary threat requiring extraordinary measures.

 

[louie888]

A picture is worth 1000 words...

Israel and the A-Word

I agree. Islamic terrorism is an extraordinary threat requiring extraordinary measures.

More dumb shit, it never stops I guess.

An extraordinary threat that never existed... Lmao.

"A land with out a people for a people without a land."

 

[Hollie]

A picture is worth 1000 words...

Israel and the A-Word

I agree. Islamic terrorism is an extraordinary threat requiring extraordinary measures.

More dumb shit, it never stops I guess.

An extraordinary threat that never existed... Lmao.

"A land with out a people for a people without a land."

A threat that never existed? Your ignorance is of your own making.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not even CLOSE to apartheid... Apartheid requires the refusal to grant CITZENSHIP rights to inhabitants. To call it APARTHEID -- you'd need to find a majority of Pali residents who WANT TO BE Israeli..

Good luck with that. The desire to share national identity and rights with Jews is somehow suspiciously MISSING from the Hamas charter or the Fatah Charter for that matter.. Isn't it Louie??

The number of Palestinians who want to be Israelis is not the point. According to the rule of state succession, all of the people who normally reside in a territory that becomes a new state will become citizens of that state. That was also one of the articles in UN Resolution 181. Accordingly, all of the Palestinians who left (for any reason) are Israeli citizens and cannot be denied their right to go back to their homes. This is not a matter of immigration. It is a matter of citizenship.

Also, Israel has two systems of rights. There are citizens rights that apply to everyone. Then there nationality rights. Their ID cards designate everyone's nationality. There is Jewish nationality with full rights. Then there are other nationalities who do not have those rights. Of course there is more than that.

Here is a critique of the UN report on Israeli apartheid.

 

[Shusha]

The number of Palestinians who want to be Israelis is not the point. According to the rule of state succession, all of the people who normally reside in a territory that becomes a new state will become citizens of that state. That was also one of the articles in UN Resolution 181. Accordingly, all of the Palestinians who left (for any reason) are Israeli citizens and cannot be denied their right to go back to their homes. This is not a matter of immigration. It is a matter of citizenship.

For someone who argues constantly that the residents of Palestine became citizens of Palestine in 1925, and as a result the entire territory is "Palestine" it sure is odd that you change your tune when it suits you to demonize Israel. Its all Palestine, oh, well, until you want to charge Israel with apartheid -- then suddenly its all Israel. Which ever way the wind blows, huh?

There is the simple way out of your dilemma here: In 1925 the residents of the Mandate for Palestine became Palestinian. Then in 1948 the Jewish citizens and some of the Arab citizens of Palestine renounced their Palestinian citizenship and became Israeli. The remainder are still Palestinian and as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.

Alternatively, if you want to claim that it is all Israel (which is legally correct) and thereby deny Arab Palestinians their right to self-determination and to any of the territory, then the Arab Palestinians who refused allegiance to Israel in fact, renounced their Israeli citizenship. And as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.


Either way your claim is a bogus picking and choosing of application of law as it suits you for the purpose of demonizing Israel and rejecting Jewish self-determination and self-government.

 

[montelatici]

The number of Palestinians who want to be Israelis is not the point. According to the rule of state succession, all of the people who normally reside in a territory that becomes a new state will become citizens of that state. That was also one of the articles in UN Resolution 181. Accordingly, all of the Palestinians who left (for any reason) are Israeli citizens and cannot be denied their right to go back to their homes. This is not a matter of immigration. It is a matter of citizenship.

For someone who argues constantly that the residents of Palestine became citizens of Palestine in 1925, and as a result the entire territory is "Palestine" it sure is odd that you change your tune when it suits you to demonize Israel. Its all Palestine, oh, well, until you want to charge Israel with apartheid -- then suddenly its all Israel. Which ever way the wind blows, huh?

There is the simple way out of your dilemma here: In 1925 the residents of the Mandate for Palestine became Palestinian. Then in 1948 the Jewish citizens and some of the Arab citizens of Palestine renounced their Palestinian citizenship and became Israeli. The remainder are still Palestinian and as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.

Alternatively, if you want to claim that it is all Israel (which is legally correct) and thereby deny Arab Palestinians their right to self-determination and to any of the territory, then the Arab Palestinians who refused allegiance to Israel in fact, renounced their Israeli citizenship. And as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.


Either way your claim is a bogus picking and choosing of application of law as it suits you for the purpose of demonizing Israel and rejecting Jewish self-determination and self-government.

The vast majority of the non-Jews within the sector assigned to the Europeans were ethnically cleansed from their homes and land. They and their descendants have the legal right to return, as per numerous UNSC resolutions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The number of Palestinians who want to be Israelis is not the point. According to the rule of state succession, all of the people who normally reside in a territory that becomes a new state will become citizens of that state. That was also one of the articles in UN Resolution 181. Accordingly, all of the Palestinians who left (for any reason) are Israeli citizens and cannot be denied their right to go back to their homes. This is not a matter of immigration. It is a matter of citizenship.

For someone who argues constantly that the residents of Palestine became citizens of Palestine in 1925, and as a result the entire territory is "Palestine" it sure is odd that you change your tune when it suits you to demonize Israel. Its all Palestine, oh, well, until you want to charge Israel with apartheid -- then suddenly its all Israel. Which ever way the wind blows, huh?

There is the simple way out of your dilemma here: In 1925 the residents of the Mandate for Palestine became Palestinian. Then in 1948 the Jewish citizens and some of the Arab citizens of Palestine renounced their Palestinian citizenship and became Israeli. The remainder are still Palestinian and as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.

Alternatively, if you want to claim that it is all Israel (which is legally correct) and thereby deny Arab Palestinians their right to self-determination and to any of the territory, then the Arab Palestinians who refused allegiance to Israel in fact, renounced their Israeli citizenship. And as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.


Either way your claim is a bogus picking and choosing of application of law as it suits you for the purpose of demonizing Israel and rejecting Jewish self-determination and self-government.

It doesn't make that much difference.

If Israel is not legitimate, which I think history clearly states, then Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine and the Palestinians are citizens of Palestine and have the right to return to their homes.

If Israel is the legal successor state to Palestine, which I think is an Israeli say so thing, then all of the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel would be Israeli citizens and have the right to return to their homes.

 

[Shusha]

If Israel is not legitimate, which I think history clearly states, then Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine and the Palestinians are citizens of Palestine and have the right to return to their homes.

There is absolutely no cause to consider Israel illegitimate. No existing nation in the world has ever been retroactively considered illegitimate or having no right to exist. All the legal documentation and treaties support the right of the Jewish people to form one of the successor States of the dissolved Ottoman Empire. But that is off-topic for this thread.


If Palestinians are Palestinians over a sovereign Palestinian State as you ALWAYS argue -- then Palestinians have no claim to the rights of Israeli citizenship. They have no claim to the rights of equality under Israeli law. None. They are Palestinians. Thus, by definition, they can not possibly be under an apartheid Israeli State. It would be like saying that Americans live in an apartheid State because Canadian citizens have universal, subsidized health care and Americans do not.

 

[Hollie]

The number of Palestinians who want to be Israelis is not the point. According to the rule of state succession, all of the people who normally reside in a territory that becomes a new state will become citizens of that state. That was also one of the articles in UN Resolution 181. Accordingly, all of the Palestinians who left (for any reason) are Israeli citizens and cannot be denied their right to go back to their homes. This is not a matter of immigration. It is a matter of citizenship.

For someone who argues constantly that the residents of Palestine became citizens of Palestine in 1925, and as a result the entire territory is "Palestine" it sure is odd that you change your tune when it suits you to demonize Israel. Its all Palestine, oh, well, until you want to charge Israel with apartheid -- then suddenly its all Israel. Which ever way the wind blows, huh?

There is the simple way out of your dilemma here: In 1925 the residents of the Mandate for Palestine became Palestinian. Then in 1948 the Jewish citizens and some of the Arab citizens of Palestine renounced their Palestinian citizenship and became Israeli. The remainder are still Palestinian and as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.

Alternatively, if you want to claim that it is all Israel (which is legally correct) and thereby deny Arab Palestinians their right to self-determination and to any of the territory, then the Arab Palestinians who refused allegiance to Israel in fact, renounced their Israeli citizenship. And as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.


Either way your claim is a bogus picking and choosing of application of law as it suits you for the purpose of demonizing Israel and rejecting Jewish self-determination and self-government.

It doesn't make that much difference.

If Israel is not legitimate, which I think history clearly states, then Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine and the Palestinians are citizens of Palestine and have the right to return to their homes.

If Israel is the legal successor state to Palestine, which I think is an Israeli say so thing, then all of the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel would be Israeli citizens and have the right to return to their homes.

Where does history state that Israel is not legitimate?

That may be the history you are taught at your madrassah but your skewed versions of history tend to be remarkably twisted.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The number of Palestinians who want to be Israelis is not the point. According to the rule of state succession, all of the people who normally reside in a territory that becomes a new state will become citizens of that state. That was also one of the articles in UN Resolution 181. Accordingly, all of the Palestinians who left (for any reason) are Israeli citizens and cannot be denied their right to go back to their homes. This is not a matter of immigration. It is a matter of citizenship.

For someone who argues constantly that the residents of Palestine became citizens of Palestine in 1925, and as a result the entire territory is "Palestine" it sure is odd that you change your tune when it suits you to demonize Israel. Its all Palestine, oh, well, until you want to charge Israel with apartheid -- then suddenly its all Israel. Which ever way the wind blows, huh?

There is the simple way out of your dilemma here: In 1925 the residents of the Mandate for Palestine became Palestinian. Then in 1948 the Jewish citizens and some of the Arab citizens of Palestine renounced their Palestinian citizenship and became Israeli. The remainder are still Palestinian and as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.

Alternatively, if you want to claim that it is all Israel (which is legally correct) and thereby deny Arab Palestinians their right to self-determination and to any of the territory, then the Arab Palestinians who refused allegiance to Israel in fact, renounced their Israeli citizenship. And as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.


Either way your claim is a bogus picking and choosing of application of law as it suits you for the purpose of demonizing Israel and rejecting Jewish self-determination and self-government.

It doesn't make that much difference.

If Israel is not legitimate, which I think history clearly states, then Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine and the Palestinians are citizens of Palestine and have the right to return to their homes.

If Israel is the legal successor state to Palestine, which I think is an Israeli say so thing, then all of the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel would be Israeli citizens and have the right to return to their homes.

Where does history state that Israel is not legitimate?

That may be the history you are taught at your madrassah but your skewed versions of history tend to be remarkably twisted.

Israel has political recognition out the ass. I would say because almost nobody has looked into the history. They just go by what they have heard a gazillion times with nothing to back it up.

The glaring problem is that Israel has never legally acquired any Palestinian land. That would make it an occupation of Palestine. The Palestinians have been saying this since the beginning. Other states do not recognize Israel for this reason.

Even the UN's official map of Israel has a disclaimer on Israel's legitimacy.

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this
map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the
part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.​

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

Whenever I ask anyone to prove otherwise, all I get is a song and dance.

 

[Hollie]

The number of Palestinians who want to be Israelis is not the point. According to the rule of state succession, all of the people who normally reside in a territory that becomes a new state will become citizens of that state. That was also one of the articles in UN Resolution 181. Accordingly, all of the Palestinians who left (for any reason) are Israeli citizens and cannot be denied their right to go back to their homes. This is not a matter of immigration. It is a matter of citizenship.

For someone who argues constantly that the residents of Palestine became citizens of Palestine in 1925, and as a result the entire territory is "Palestine" it sure is odd that you change your tune when it suits you to demonize Israel. Its all Palestine, oh, well, until you want to charge Israel with apartheid -- then suddenly its all Israel. Which ever way the wind blows, huh?

There is the simple way out of your dilemma here: In 1925 the residents of the Mandate for Palestine became Palestinian. Then in 1948 the Jewish citizens and some of the Arab citizens of Palestine renounced their Palestinian citizenship and became Israeli. The remainder are still Palestinian and as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.

Alternatively, if you want to claim that it is all Israel (which is legally correct) and thereby deny Arab Palestinians their right to self-determination and to any of the territory, then the Arab Palestinians who refused allegiance to Israel in fact, renounced their Israeli citizenship. And as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.


Either way your claim is a bogus picking and choosing of application of law as it suits you for the purpose of demonizing Israel and rejecting Jewish self-determination and self-government.

It doesn't make that much difference.

If Israel is not legitimate, which I think history clearly states, then Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine and the Palestinians are citizens of Palestine and have the right to return to their homes.

If Israel is the legal successor state to Palestine, which I think is an Israeli say so thing, then all of the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel would be Israeli citizens and have the right to return to their homes.

Where does history state that Israel is not legitimate?

That may be the history you are taught at your madrassah but your skewed versions of history tend to be remarkably twisted.

Israel has political recognition out the ass. I would say because almost nobody has looked into the history. They just go by what they have heard a gazillion times with nothing to back it up.

The glaring problem is that Israel has never legally acquired any Palestinian land. That would make it an occupation of Palestine. The Palestinians have been saying this since the beginning. Other states do not recognize Israel for this reason.

Even the UN's official map of Israel has a disclaimer on Israel's legitimacy.

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this
map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the
part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.​

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

Whenever I ask anyone to prove otherwise, all I get is a song and dance.

Another of your song and dance conspiracy theories.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The number of Palestinians who want to be Israelis is not the point. According to the rule of state succession, all of the people who normally reside in a territory that becomes a new state will become citizens of that state. That was also one of the articles in UN Resolution 181. Accordingly, all of the Palestinians who left (for any reason) are Israeli citizens and cannot be denied their right to go back to their homes. This is not a matter of immigration. It is a matter of citizenship.

For someone who argues constantly that the residents of Palestine became citizens of Palestine in 1925, and as a result the entire territory is "Palestine" it sure is odd that you change your tune when it suits you to demonize Israel. Its all Palestine, oh, well, until you want to charge Israel with apartheid -- then suddenly its all Israel. Which ever way the wind blows, huh?

There is the simple way out of your dilemma here: In 1925 the residents of the Mandate for Palestine became Palestinian. Then in 1948 the Jewish citizens and some of the Arab citizens of Palestine renounced their Palestinian citizenship and became Israeli. The remainder are still Palestinian and as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.

Alternatively, if you want to claim that it is all Israel (which is legally correct) and thereby deny Arab Palestinians their right to self-determination and to any of the territory, then the Arab Palestinians who refused allegiance to Israel in fact, renounced their Israeli citizenship. And as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.


Either way your claim is a bogus picking and choosing of application of law as it suits you for the purpose of demonizing Israel and rejecting Jewish self-determination and self-government.

It doesn't make that much difference.

If Israel is not legitimate, which I think history clearly states, then Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine and the Palestinians are citizens of Palestine and have the right to return to their homes.

If Israel is the legal successor state to Palestine, which I think is an Israeli say so thing, then all of the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel would be Israeli citizens and have the right to return to their homes.

Where does history state that Israel is not legitimate?

That may be the history you are taught at your madrassah but your skewed versions of history tend to be remarkably twisted.

Israel has political recognition out the ass. I would say because almost nobody has looked into the history. They just go by what they have heard a gazillion times with nothing to back it up.

The glaring problem is that Israel has never legally acquired any Palestinian land. That would make it an occupation of Palestine. The Palestinians have been saying this since the beginning. Other states do not recognize Israel for this reason.

Even the UN's official map of Israel has a disclaimer on Israel's legitimacy.

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this
map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the
part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.​

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

Whenever I ask anyone to prove otherwise, all I get is a song and dance.

Another of your song and dance conspiracy theories.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Hollie]

For someone who argues constantly that the residents of Palestine became citizens of Palestine in 1925, and as a result the entire territory is "Palestine" it sure is odd that you change your tune when it suits you to demonize Israel. Its all Palestine, oh, well, until you want to charge Israel with apartheid -- then suddenly its all Israel. Which ever way the wind blows, huh?

There is the simple way out of your dilemma here: In 1925 the residents of the Mandate for Palestine became Palestinian. Then in 1948 the Jewish citizens and some of the Arab citizens of Palestine renounced their Palestinian citizenship and became Israeli. The remainder are still Palestinian and as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.

Alternatively, if you want to claim that it is all Israel (which is legally correct) and thereby deny Arab Palestinians their right to self-determination and to any of the territory, then the Arab Palestinians who refused allegiance to Israel in fact, renounced their Israeli citizenship. And as such have no claim to the rights of citizens of Israel.


Either way your claim is a bogus picking and choosing of application of law as it suits you for the purpose of demonizing Israel and rejecting Jewish self-determination and self-government.

It doesn't make that much difference.

If Israel is not legitimate, which I think history clearly states, then Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine and the Palestinians are citizens of Palestine and have the right to return to their homes.

If Israel is the legal successor state to Palestine, which I think is an Israeli say so thing, then all of the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel would be Israeli citizens and have the right to return to their homes.

Where does history state that Israel is not legitimate?

That may be the history you are taught at your madrassah but your skewed versions of history tend to be remarkably twisted.

Israel has political recognition out the ass. I would say because almost nobody has looked into the history. They just go by what they have heard a gazillion times with nothing to back it up.

The glaring problem is that Israel has never legally acquired any Palestinian land. That would make it an occupation of Palestine. The Palestinians have been saying this since the beginning. Other states do not recognize Israel for this reason.

Even the UN's official map of Israel has a disclaimer on Israel's legitimacy.

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this
map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the
part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.​

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

Whenever I ask anyone to prove otherwise, all I get is a song and dance.

Another of your song and dance conspiracy theories.

Thank you for proving my point.

You're welcome. I proved you have no point.

 

[Lipush]

A picture is worth 1000 words...

Israel and the A-Word

It's touching when they dream of being free.

It's touching when my little cousins dream of going on a bus without exploding, or walking down the southern playground without "Code Red" siren.

It's nice to have dreams.

I guess that was your point, right?

 

[P F Tinmore]

A picture is worth 1000 words...

Israel and the A-Word

It's touching when they dream of being free.

It's touching when my little cousins dream of going on a bus without exploding, or walking down the southern playground without "Code Red" siren.

It's nice to have dreams.

I guess that was your point, right?

That day will come.

 

[montelatici]

A picture is worth 1000 words...

Israel and the A-Word

It's touching when they dream of being free.

It's touching when my little cousins dream of going on a bus without exploding, or walking down the southern playground without "Code Red" siren.

It's nice to have dreams.

I guess that was your point, right?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[montelatici]

Everyone knows Israel is an Apartheid state, it's just that officials are not allowed to say so or they are sacked.

UN official quits after 'pressure to withdraw' report accusing Israel of apartheid
Co-author says she had a 'duty' to stand by 'well researched document of human suffering'

• Rachel Roberts
• 2 days ago

UN official 'pressured to withdraw report accusing Israel of apartheid by bosses'

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Everyone knows Israel is an Apartheid state, it's just that officials are not allowed to say so or they are sacked.

UN official quits after 'pressure to withdraw' report accusing Israel of apartheid
Co-author says she had a 'duty' to stand by 'well researched document of human suffering'

• Rachel Roberts
• 2 days ago

UN official 'pressured to withdraw report accusing Israel of apartheid by bosses'

Only antisemites use such a term.

Reasonable and fair-minded people realize that Arab propagandists have simply co-opted the term and applied it to Israel to appeal to those with sub-standard intelligence.