An Appropriate Thread

[Shusha]

You say you agree with many of these principles. Perhaps this could be a basis for discussion.

Oh for the love of ....

The very first sentence in that video is this:

Section 5 in the law of political parties and section 7A of the Basic Law stipulates that any party platform that calls for full and complete equality between Jews and non-Jews can be disqualified from any political post...

Yeah. No. That is SO not what these sections say. There is nothing there about equality or equal treatment under the law. Let's take a look at what Basic Law Section 7A actually says:

a. A candidates' list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:

1. negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
2. incitement to racism;
3. support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel.

....


3. Ya can't be elected part of the government of Israel if your intent is to support armed struggle against the State of which you are part of the government. In other words, you can't support anyone who is violently hostile toward your own government. Well, no shit. This says nothing about equality or equal treatment of citizens. Its the simple avoidance of treason within your own government. Well, duh.

2. Ya can't be part of the government and incite racism. Well, duh again.

1. You can't negate the purpose of Israel as being the State formed for the preservation and celebration of the culture and ethnicity of the Jewish people. If you are having a hard time understanding why this concept is okay, substitute France and French, or Spain and Spanish or Japan and Japanese -- as in "negation of the existence of the State of Japan as a Japanese state".

In other words, the only conditions under which you would be able to support such an idea is by negating the concept of nations centered around groups of homogeneous ethnic groups or cultures.

Again, I have no problem if you do this. As long as you apply it equally. So France is a fundamentally unequal society because its French. And Japan is a fundamentally unequal society because its Japanese. If you apply it only to Israel I will point out that you are inconsistent in your argument and discriminatory.

 

[Shusha]

You keep forgetting that the Zionists that went to Palestine and took over were Europeans, who had no right to expel and subjugate the native Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine.

Okay, sure. If the "rule" is that people from elsewhere have no right to expel and subjugate the natives, then the Christians and Muslims had no right to expel and subjugate the native Jewish inhabitants of Israel.

You are essentially saying the the Jewish people, having been expelled and subjugated have no right to return to the land which was stolen from them. In other words, that successful invasion, conquest, expulsion and subjugated creates ownership.

Again, it is fine to believe that. Again, as long as you apply that equally. If you see it as permissible that the Christians and Muslims can successfully invade, conquer, expel and subjugate and become rightful owners, then you can not quarrel when the Jewish people successfully invade, conquer, expel and subjugate. Fair's fair.

 

[montelatici]

The Christians did not expel the Jews, native Palestinian Jews converted to Christianity like all inhabitants of the Roman Empire when Christianity became the state religion.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Section 5 in the law of political parties and section 7A of the Basic Law stipulates that any party platform that calls for full and complete equality between Jews and non-Jews can be disqualified from any political post...

negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;

Isn't this two ways of saying the same thing?

 

[P F Tinmore]

incitement to racism;

Isn't Jewish supremacy racism?

Don't quit now. we are on a roll.

 

[montelatici]

Shusha, you just can't get it through your head that many (if not a majority) of the ancestors of the Palestinian Muslims and Christians once practiced Judaism. Once you understand this basic fact, maybe you will be able to understand why many people believe that the European invasion of Palestine and its effect on the native Muslim and Christian population was a crime. Who were the first Christians, after all, Shuhsa?

 

[Hollie]

Shusha, you just can't get it through your head that many (if not a majority) of the ancestors of the Palestinian Muslims and Christians once practiced Judaism. Once you understand this basic fact, maybe you will be able to understand why many people believe that the European invasion of Palestine and its effect on the native Muslim and Christian population was a crime. Who were the first Christians, after all, Shuhsa?

What crime was committed when there was no invasion of your mythical "country of Pal'istan"... except perhaps by the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese land grabbers.

 

[montelatici]

Of course there was a crime committed. People from Europe invaded Palestine and took over the land. Where do you think the Zionists came from?

 

[Shusha]

Section 5 in the law of political parties and section 7A of the Basic Law stipulates that any party platform that calls for full and complete equality between Jews and non-Jews can be disqualified from any political post...

negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;

Isn't this two ways of saying the same thing?

No.

 

[Shusha]

Section 5 in the law of political parties and section 7A of the Basic Law stipulates that any party platform that calls for full and complete equality between Jews and non-Jews can be disqualified from any political post...

negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;

Isn't this two ways of saying the same thing?

No.

Let me elaborate.

IF you believe that no country should be based on a homogeneous culture or ethnicity, then you are consistent in saying that no country should be based on a homogeneous culture or ethnicity and that such a nation would be unequal.

IF you believe that it is permissible to have nations based on homogeneous cultures or ethnicities, then a Jewish State is no more problematic than a French State, or a Spanish State or a Japanese State or a Palestinian State.

 

[Shusha]

incitement to racism;

Isn't Jewish supremacy racism?

Don't quit now. we are on a roll.

The idea of Jewish supremacy is an anti-semitic canard hundreds, if not thousands of years old.

No one is arguing for Jewish supremacy. Only for Jewish equality.

If the Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination, then the Jewish people, the Jewish Palestinians, have a right to self-determination.

 

[Shusha]

Shusha, you just can't get it through your head that many (if not a majority) of the ancestors of the Palestinian Muslims and Christians once practiced Judaism. Once you understand this basic fact, maybe you will be able to understand why many people believe that the European invasion of Palestine and its effect on the native Muslim and Christian population was a crime. Who were the first Christians, after all, Shuhsa?

Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people. The Jewish people were invaded, ethnically cleansed, murdered and conquered by successive waves of foreigners. The Jewish culture was erased, replaced and irrevocably changed by those foreign invaders. (Though the Jewish people were not entirely erased and some managed to maintain both the culture and retain their place in the territory). The Jewish people who were displaced from the land went on to maintain and preserve that culture, always yearning to return to their homeland from which they were forcibly displaced.

None of this is disputed by rational people.

The crux of the problem is who has rights to sovereignty over the land? Is it the people who are a mixture of the indigenous peoples (the Jewish people) and the foreign invaders? Or is it the people of the original culture and those who would return from forced exile to join them?

There are morally correct answers and arguments for both of these ideas.

Here's the problem for you. IF you go for door #1 (and you consistently argue for door #1) -- then you MUST accept that the "people of the place" are those who are a mixture of those who lived in the land and foreign invaders. You argue that foreign invaders who move to the place, change the culture of the place, introduce a new language, a new religion, a new set of rules BECOME the owners of the place -- the people of the place -- the native inhabitants. I have no problem with that. Like I said there is a morally (and legally) correct argument for this.

BUT that means that the Jewish people, as "foreign invaders" (and please understand I don't believe this -- I am making an argument) have the RIGHT, under your rules, to become "the people of the place". And if you deny them this right, while permitting it for the Christians and Muslims then you are revealing your discriminatory bias.

 

[Onyx]

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

No

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

No

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

Not by force

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

It is okay to create defensive positions to protect others, within reason. Those things are unacceptable if they are used to control movement as opposed to responding to clear immediate threats.

 

[Challenger]

... Ruby Bridges and the palestinian people share a common humanity, a common set of universal rights.

Of course. As do the Jewish people.

Which they already had in their countries of origin, but those rights do not carry over into a settler colonial project in someone else's homeland.

 

[Challenger]

Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people. The Jewish people were invaded, ethnically cleansed, murdered and conquered by successive waves of foreigners. The Jewish culture was erased, replaced and irrevocably changed by those foreign invaders. (Though the Jewish people were not entirely erased and some managed to maintain both the culture and retain their place in the territory). The Jewish people who were displaced from the land went on to maintain and preserve that culture, always yearning to return to their homeland from which they were forcibly displaced.

None of this is disputed by rational people.

This canard again.

There is no credible historical evidence that the population of Judea/Palestine were ever ethnically cleansed. The only people that the Romans exterminated/sold into slavery were the religious fanatics whose cult centre was in Jerusalem. Those who did not rebel were left alone and carried on living in Palestine/Judea, most eventually converting to Christianity and ultimately Islam. The oldest surviving people of the place are those we now call the Palestinians. Judaism only survived because of communities of converts scattered around the Mediterranean basin, Arabia and Persia and of those very few had any yearning to "return to their homeland" because they were already living in their respective homelands. Jewish people had 600 years of no travel restricions placed on them (in fact many were even expelled from their homelands (i.e. Spain)) and yet virtualy none of them settled in Palestine.

Jewish Palestinians were themselves opposed to the Zionist project, until they were intimidated/indoctrinated into submission or murdered by the foreign Zionist settlers.

These are all facts known to rational people and only disputed by Zionist apologists and Hasbara trolls.

 

[Phoenall]

There ya go José

Here's the questions again:

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to drive people out of their homes and shoot them if they try to return?

You mean like the arab muslims have done to the Jews for the last 1400 years ?

For the hundreds of years that Palestine was under Ottoman rule, I have not seen one incident of a Jew claiming his land.

For the hundreds of years that palestine was under Ottoman rule I have not seen one incident of an arab muslims his land.

So what was your point in posting this and using up bandwidth ?

 

[Phoenall]

José

A few comments:

I find your use of racial terms (white, black, asian) to be abhorrent. I find your description of the US as a "white European" nation to be abhorrent. I find the idea of ethnic supremacism to be repulsive, including the accusation that one particular ethnic group believes themselves to be superior to others (you are aware that is an old anti-semitic canard, yes?)

We agree that it is permissible, even encouraged, to have nations which represent a homogeneous ethnicity or culture, based on the principle of self-determination and the preservation of that culture. (Although I hope we also agree that the rights of minority ethnic groups or cultures within that nation must be safe-guarded and protected.) We agree that it is permissible to have borders between these nations and that each nation has the right to control who passes those borders. We even agree that it is permissible for nations, in order to preserve their ethnic and cultural integrity, to control immigration. (Although, I would suggest that this be expressed in positive terms where immigration by those of the nation's ethnicity and culture is encouraged and never expressed in terms of refusing people of a certain ethnicity, race or religion. And I would also suggest that not all nations are founded on the principle of homogeneity and for these nations diversity is to be embraced. Canada and the US are examples.)

Where you go sideways is with Israel and wanna-be Palestine. Your case is built around the idea that Israel and Palestine are not yet "real" nations and therefore there should be no segregation. But you also say that people should have freedom of association and the right to build nations based on ethnic homogeneity.

Now, if you are going to argue, in principle, that until a treaty is signed and a boundary is created between two "real" nations (Israel and Palestine) that there can be no segregation and all peoples should have freedom of movement within the territory, I'm not going to argue with you. Unless you apply that principle only to Arabs and not to Jews. Then I will remind you that your argument is inconsistent and discriminatory.

Let me give you some examples: You will agree that Jewish people can buy property and build a house, a town, or anything else they want anywhere in the territory in question, say, in the middle of Ramallah, or Gaza City. You will agree that all laws which forbid the sale of property to Jews are immoral and illegal and will be abolished. You will agree that Jews are permitted to use any of the gates to access the Temple Mount and be permitted to hold any type of service, religious practice or worship there. You agree that pilgrimages of Jewish people in large numbers to places which are Holy to them must be allowed on religiously appropriate times and dates.

Of course, if you DO argue for this principle, you will have to explain to me what practical steps you believe to be morally correct and appropriate to prevent, reduce and respond to the inevitable violence which will occur between the two groups who are currently quite antagonistic towards one another.

You say you agree with many of these principles. Perhaps this could be a basis for discussion.

All you have is a whining islamonazi spreading intolerance and islamonazi talking points dubbed onto a collage of heavily manipulated pictures from some pallywood productions media outlet. Showing that you have no interest in the truth just in anti semitic Jew bashing

 

[Phoenall]

... Ruby Bridges and the palestinian people share a common humanity, a common set of universal rights.

Of course. As do the Jewish people.

Which they already had in their countries of origin, but those rights do not carry over into a settler colonial project in someone else's homeland.

So which nation sent these settler colonists then in defiance of the Ottoman and LoN invatation to the Jews of the world to migrate and work the land ?

 

[Phoenall]

The Christians did not expel the Jews, native Palestinian Jews converted to Christianity like all inhabitants of the Roman Empire when Christianity became the state religion.

LIES as the history books of the time show the Jews were still living in Israel right up until the present day. They were not expelled or evicted, and many faked conversion to safeguard their families. You know this and still you peddle the Nazi lies like a good little islamocatholic stooge should.

 

[Phoenall]

incitement to racism;

Isn't Jewish supremacy racism?

Don't quit now. we are on a roll.

Only if you can prove it exists, as in the hamas charter or the fatah charter that states the arab muslims are superior to all other races and religions. And you have been given the links to these many times so just read them and find the relevant sections