The Status of Jeruselum and double standards

[abi]

Yes, yes. Team P always brings up Adalah's database. I've read every single one of those 50 claims. None of them are truly discriminatory in the letter of the law. Though, as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice and there is the minor issue of the on-going conflict.

I have never seen a team bring it up and you are clearly lying. People can read. Take this for example:

1950 law about confiscation of Absentee Landlord Property. This law defines persons who were expelled, fled, or who left the country after November 29, 1947 as “absentee.” Property belonging to “absentees” was placed under the control of the State of Israel with the Custodian for Absentees’ Property. The Absentee Property Law was the main legal instrument used by Israel to take possession of the land belonging to the internal and external Palestinian refugees, and Muslim Waqf properties across the state. This law continues to be used to this day by quasi-governmental agencies in Israel to take over Palestinian properties in East Jerusalem, for example.

 

[admonit]

I am curious:

What does it mean by "Israel changes textbooks". Change what in the Israeli School textbooks?

On the textbooks...he paragraph pertaining to it is this. Both sides have controversial textbooks that marginalize or diminish the rights or existence of the other.

Each side was offered seven incentives. Some of the incentives were similar, reflecting either the same policy or a parallel item. Three items tested the same policy: making the Israeli-Palestinian agreement part of the Arab Peace Initiative; including joint Palestinian-Israeli economic ventures; and both sides were asked about the other side removing incitement from their education textbooks, as an incentive. One item was a policy area specifically favorable to one side: for Israelis – allowing the Israeli air force access to Palestinian airspace, and for the Palestinians, release of all prisoners.​

Nope. A hypothetical question in a poll cannot be used as an argument.

 

[P F Tinmore]

On the textbooks...he paragraph pertaining to it is this. Both sides have controversial textbooks that marginalize or diminish the rights or existence of the other.

If the Palestinians print a map that is geographically correct, it is called incitement.

If they teach history that is historically correct, it is called incitement.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, yes. Team P always brings up Adalah's database. I've read every single one of those 50 claims. None of them are truly discriminatory in the letter of the law. Though, as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice and there is the minor issue of the on-going conflict.

I have never seen a team bring it up and you are clearly lying. People can read. Take this for example:

1950 law about confiscation of Absentee Landlord Property. This law defines persons who were expelled, fled, or who left the country after November 29, 1947 as “absentee.” Property belonging to “absentees” was placed under the control of the State of Israel with the Custodian for Absentees’ Property. The Absentee Property Law was the main legal instrument used by Israel to take possession of the land belonging to the internal and external Palestinian refugees, and Muslim Waqf properties across the state. This law continues to be used to this day by quasi-governmental agencies in Israel to take over Palestinian properties in East Jerusalem, for example.

This particular law was designed to allow the easy confiscation of Palestinian property because the landowners were not allowed to return. It was unjust, no other word for it and it was legalized theft.

 

[Coyote]

On the textbooks...he paragraph pertaining to it is this. Both sides have controversial textbooks that marginalize or diminish the rights or existence of the other.

If the Palestinians print a map that is geographically correct, it is called incitement.

If they teach history that is historically correct, it is called incitement.

Is it correct?

 

[Coyote]

Before you claimed it was illegal to discriminate in Israel, true?

Good, then how would you explain the database with over 50 discriminatory laws?
The Adalah database of 50 discriminatory laws in Israel

Yes, yes. Team P always brings up Adalah's database. I've read every single one of those 50 claims. None of them are truly discriminatory in the letter of the law. Though, as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice and there is the minor issue of the on-going conflict.

Speaking of discrimmitory laws...isnt the penalty in Palestine for selling property to Jews death?

 

[Shusha]

Speaking of discrimmitory laws...isnt the penalty in Palestine for selling property to Jews death?

Its was recently downgraded to life imprisonment in a labour camp.

 

[Shusha]

On the textbooks...he paragraph pertaining to it is this. Both sides have controversial textbooks that marginalize or diminish the rights or existence of the other.

If the Palestinians print a map that is geographically correct, it is called incitement.

If they teach history that is historically correct, it is called incitement.

Is it correct?

Of course not.

 

[rylah]

On the textbooks...he paragraph pertaining to it is this. Both sides have controversial textbooks that marginalize or diminish the rights or existence of the other.

If the Palestinians print a map that is geographically correct, it is called incitement.

If they teach history that is historically correct, it is called incitement.

What remains after Palestinian "lessons of history":

 

[Shusha]

This particular law was designed to allow the easy confiscation of Palestinian property because the landowners were not allowed to return. It was unjust, no other word for it and it was legalized theft.

The problem with statements like this is that it neglects the context and consequences of the war (a war, btw, which Israel neither started nor wanted). It was not "legalized theft". To label it as "legalized theft" is to impart a sinister and malicious act to Israel on the results of war. A defensive war at that. To label it as "unjust" is to forget that the people excluded from return were those deemed to be hostile enemies to the State of Israel.

This particular law was originally designed to provide a Custodian for abandoned real, immovable property. It was a necessary step to create a lawful system to deal with abandoned property. The Custodian was granted broad powers to return land to its Arabs owners, or to retain it, or dispose of it. What else was to be done in the immediate aftermath of a war of destruction of the Jewish State? What other options would you suggest?

Yes, I know, I know. You believe that just two years after an attempted war of annihilation, in the midst of on-going and continued hostilities, that the hostile enemies of Israel should be granted the right to return. The UN believed it too. That is why 194 reads:

(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Here's the problem. There is still no peace. The conflict is still on-going. While it is a lovely idealistic notion to imagine that there should be no consequences to war and that war can be made just and that things can just go back to normal -- that is not the real world. Had a right of return been immediately implemented it would only have resulted in further physical conflict. Or the destruction of Israel. Or the decimation of the Arab Palestinians.

Again, I will state that Israel has shown remarkable restraint. Israel chose NOT to empty her territory of all Arabs as hostiles (in sharp contrast to not only the Arab Palestinians and Jordanians -- but the entire Arab ME).

The alternative is to give compensation to the refugees and their descendants -- ALL of them, including the nearly 1 million Jews who lost their property and businesses in ME countries despite the fact that they were not engaged in the hostilities and were citizens of those countries. Why does no one ever demand things be made right for them? THAT is unjust.

 

[P F Tinmore]

On the textbooks...he paragraph pertaining to it is this. Both sides have controversial textbooks that marginalize or diminish the rights or existence of the other.

If the Palestinians print a map that is geographically correct, it is called incitement.

If they teach history that is historically correct, it is called incitement.

Is it correct?

Sure.

 

[rylah]

On the textbooks...he paragraph pertaining to it is this. Both sides have controversial textbooks that marginalize or diminish the rights or existence of the other.

If the Palestinians print a map that is geographically correct, it is called incitement.

If they teach history that is historically correct, it is called incitement.

Is it correct?

Sure.

Palestinian Arabs have made a career out of inventing new history and identity. Each decade something new.

 

[admonit]

as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice

Such serious accusation should be supported by serious facts of systematic discrimination of Arabs in Israel. Neither you nor Coyote provided them. Also Coyote disagree with you and insists that there are discriminatory laws in Israel.

 

[USAF 2023]

So...over and over we are told that recognition and borders must be done through negotiation between the parties.

In 2012, the Palestinians sought to be upgraded to "non-member observer state" status - a move widely condemned by the US and Israel and a few others.

Diplomatic recognition - Wikipedia

On Thursday, 29 November 2012, in a 138–9 vote (with 41 abstaining) General Assembly resolution 67/19 passed, upgrading Palestine to "non-member observer state" status in the United Nations.[76][77] The new status equates Palestine's with that of the Holy See. The change in status was described by The Independent as "de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine".[78] Voting "no" were Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama and the United States of America.


The vote was an important benchmark for the partially recognized State of Palestine and its citizens, while it was a diplomatic setback for Israel and the United States. Status as an observer state in the UN will allow the State of Palestine to join treaties and specialized UN agencies,[79] the Law of the Seas treaty, and the International Criminal Court. It will permit Palestine to pursue legal rights over its territorial waters and air space as a sovereign state recognized by the UN, and allow the Palestinian people the right to sue for sovereignty over their territory in the International Court of Justice and to bring "crimes against humanity" and war-crimes charges, including that of unlawfully occupying the territory of State of Palestine, against Israel in the International Criminal Court.[80][81]


The UN has, after the resolution was passed, permitted Palestine to title its representative office to the UN as "The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations",[82] seen by many as a reflexion of the UN's de facto position of recognizing the State of Palestine's sovereignty under international law,[76] and Palestine has started to re-title its name accordingly on postal stamps, official documents and passports.[77][83] The Palestinian authorities have also instructed its diplomats to officially represent the "State of Palestine", as opposed to the "Palestine National Authority".[77] Additionally, on 17 December 2012, UN Chief of Protocol Yeocheol Yoon decided that "the designation of "State of Palestine" shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents",[34] recognizing the "State of Palestine" as the official name of the Palestinian nation.


On Thursday 26 September 2013 at the United Nations, Mahmoud Abbas was given the right to sit in the General Assembly's beige chair which is reserved for heads of state waiting to take the podium and address the General Assembly.[84]​

Israel's reaction

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the debate, in particular Abbas' speech, in saying: "The world watched a defamatory and venomous speech that was full of mendacious propaganda against the Israel Defense Forces and the citizens of Israel. Someone who wants peace does not talk in such a manner.[5] The way to peace between Jerusalem and Ramallah [sic] is in direct negotiations, without preconditions, and not in one-sided U.N. decisions. By going to the U.N., the Palestinians have violated the agreements with Israel and Israel will act accordingly."[46] Israeli critics[vague] of the resolution, said it enshrined the principle of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, a position rejected by the Israeli government, while upholding the Palestinian claim for refugees' right of return. An unnamed official said: "They got a state without end of conflict. This sets new terms of reference that will never allow negotiations to start.[47] "[48] Ynetnews suggested Netanyahu and Israel would accept the resolution in return for U.S. support in regards to joint opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme.[49]


In response to the Palestinian move at the UN, Israel authorised the construction of 3,000 more housing units in a Palestinian area of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, In addition, planning will be furthered for the area, known administratively as the E1 Plan.[50][51] Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz stated that the tax payments collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority that month would be used to offset what he said was Palestinian debt to the Israel Electric Corporation.[52] In protest at Israeli settlement development, Spain, the United Kingdom, France, Sweden and Denmark summoned the Israeli ambassador and Germany, Italy and Russia criticised the move; meanwhile Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, and U.S. President Barack Obama's former chief of staff, described the behaviour of Benjamin Netanyahu as "unfathomable".[51][53][54] MKs Michael Ben-Ari and Aryeh Eldad called for the public burnings of Palestinian flags in response to the passage of the resolution, but were prevented from doing so by the Israeli police.[48][55]


Former UN ambassador Yoram Ettinger called the resolution a "violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords", and that Israel should embrace the former Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy's Levy Report, which asserted that the West Bank was not "occupied territory" since no foreign entity was sovereign in the area in 1967.[56]


Netanyahu visited Prague, Czech Republic where he told his counterpart Petr Nečas: "Thank you for your country’s opposition to the one-sided resolution at the United Nations; thank you for your friendship; thank you for your courage.[57] On 2 December 2012, Netanyahu also thanked Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying that he had "thanked Canada for its friendship and principled position this week at the UN."[58]​

So essentially Israel's reaction was a form of collective punishment (taking the the tax money and amping up settlement building in East Jerusalem.

Now fast forward to the UNILATERAL decision by the US to recognize Jerusalem (in entirety) as the capital of Israel and then it's use of the bully pulpit in an attempt to punish those who push back on said unilateral decision.

So much for the idea that these things should be negotiated - that does not seem to be applied even handedly at all. Israel is rewarded. Palestine is punished. The requirement for these things to be negotiated only seems to apply to the Palestinians.

Tell us please what your definition is of “ negotiate” lol Abbas has stated over and over again he does not recognize ANY Jewish presence or Jewish History in E. Jerusalem. Prior to ‘67 the Israelis couldn’t even visit their Holy Sites. Israel has offered many times MOST of what they want which has been rejected. Tell us please, what have the Palestinians proposed that Israel rejected? There will be no response

The Palestinians are told they can not unilaterally go directly to the UN, that any resolutions must be "negotiated" with Israel. Israel punished them for that. Yet Israel with the US can unilaterally claim all of Jerusalem for it's capital.

You're trying to change the subject.

You’re avoiding the subject. Tell me ONE thing the Palestinians have done to “ negotiate” lol

 

[Shusha]

as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice

Such serious accusation should be supported by serious facts of systematic discrimination of Arabs in Israel. Neither you nor Coyote provided them. Also Coyote disagree with you and insists that there are discriminatory laws in Israel.

I have seen no discriminatory Israeli laws.

But you do know how hard it is for A

as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice

Such serious accusation should be supported by serious facts of systematic discrimination of Arabs in Israel. Neither you nor Coyote provided them. Also Coyote disagree with you and insists that there are discriminatory laws in Israel.

I have never seen an Israeli law that is discriminatory based on ethnicity, race, religion, gender or ability. There are laws based on nationality (perfectly moral and legal).

But you are fooling yourself if you think that there is not some deliberate and discriminatory segregation in Israel.

Community councils who demand that new residents "be suitable to the community's social-cultural fabric".

Special Haredi communities.

Lack of city planning in certain primarily Arab communities.


These things are outside the conflict because they concern Israeli citizens -- all of whom should be treated without discrimination.

 

[admonit]

as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice

Such serious accusation should be supported by serious facts of systematic discrimination of Arabs in Israel. Neither you nor Coyote provided them. Also Coyote disagree with you and insists that there are discriminatory laws in Israel.

But you are fooling yourself if you think that there is not some deliberate and discriminatory segregation in Israel.

Community councils who demand that new residents "be suitable to the community's social-cultural fabric".

Special Haredi communities.

Lack of city planning in certain primarily Arab communities.


These things are outside the conflict because they concern Israeli citizens -- all of whom should be treated without discrimination.

What about Arab communities? Why you don't mention them? How many Jews live in Arab cities?
Segregation is not discrimination.The Arabs want to live in Arab cities and the Jews want to live in Jewish communities. The Arabs learn in Arab schools, the Jews - in Jewish ones.

 

[abi]

I have seen no discriminatory Israeli laws.

You deny their existence. I will be happy to post them individually for your comments.

 

[Shusha]

What about Arab communities? Why you don't mention them? How many Jews live in Arab cities?

Its just a little bit harder to research Arab communities and separate them from the conflict. I'm sure it exists there as well.

Segregation is not discrimination.

Perhaps not when it is entirely voluntary. But when it is forced, it is discrimination.

 

[abi]

Perhaps not when it is entirely voluntary. But when it is forced, it is discrimination.

You deny this happens and deny the legal system Israelis have created which is racist itself.

 

[Shusha]

I have seen no discriminatory Israeli laws.

You deny their existence. I will be happy to post them individually for your comments.

Don't bother. I've seen them all. Not one of them discriminates, in the wording of the law, based on ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or ability. Those things are specifically prohibited by Israeli law.

You might be able to find some which discriminate based on nationality. That is simply the standard in international law. Americans do not have the same rights in Canada that Canadians do.