Annexing West Bank

[Coyote]

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

Maybe this is true. Maybe not.

(COMMENT)

There was not that much difference in time between the mass internment of Japanese Americans (1942-1946) during World War II. → Then, the mass displacement of various inhabitants in Palestine (1947 - 1949). Neither of which came even close to the 12 to 16 Million displaced during the 1947 Partition of India and Pakistan.

There is a world of difference when discussing morals and ethics in the academic and hypothetical → and then when it comes down to the experience of the real thing.

What many people think is "unthinkable" today -- is just the way things were done (normal) in that era.

Most Respectfully,
R

And its viewed as normal. Everywhere but Israel. Where is the demand for right of return in India and Pakistan?

Agree. Also there are refugees in refugee camps all over....and...silence.

I think you missed my point.

What was it then?

That historically in significant conflicts and war between two distinct ethnic groups population exchange was accepted as normal. The sole exception is Israel. Israel still carries a demonization for the population exchange which does not exist in any other instance. Such as India/Pakistan.

I disagree. Forced Population exchange (and that must be what we are talking about since no one cares about voluntary population exchanges) may ONCE have been the norm but is now considered a human rights violation. Ethics evolve, and just like slavery is no longer condoned, forced expulsions are not either and it certainly isn’t just Israel. Look at Myanmar’s expulsion of the Rohinga. Israel is not carrying the demonization for anything other than attempting to justify a barbaric act that is no longer condoned in the civilized world.

 

[Coyote]

To keep it clear, let’s define settlers as Israeli nationals.

Only Israeli nationals can be settlers?

And you can't see the bias in that? You can't see the lack of objective definition in that?

How broad do you wish to make it? Ok. Foreign nationals then, involved in a governmental program to create transplant it’s citizens into territory occupied by their nation, by creating settlements.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ AzogtheDefiler, et al,

Well, I see you are a student of history. But the description of slavery today and what was justified as critical from the 1800s and forwards is a bit different.

Slavery was only in the South. Built on innovation and mass immigration. You should take a history class.

(COMMENT)

America used a very large number of Chinese to build railways for the rich and powerful.

And even though White Slavery has existed for several centuries, Americans would find it odd to know that it is still a thriving business today in the need for the service of forced prostitution and sex slaves.

It was not all that long ago that there were "sweatshops" and "impress child labor" --- and indentured servitude. There were many many children forced to work in mines and factories in the North, all the way to mid-1990s. And up and until the late 1980s, there was still some wide-spread exploitation of migrant workers and illegal immigrants.

You would be correct if you were just talking about the exploitation of Black Labor. But there is so much more to the meaning of slavery.

Most Respectfully.
R

True but that is not what Coyote meant

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What was the President of this “Palestine” in 1946?

 

[Coyote]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ AzogtheDefiler, et al,

Well, I see you are a student of history. But the description of slavery today and what was justified as critical from the 1800s and forwards is a bit different.

Slavery was only in the South. Built on innovation and mass immigration. You should take a history class.

(COMMENT)

America used a very large number of Chinese to build railways for the rich and powerful.

And even though White Slavery has existed for several centuries, Americans would find it odd to know that it is still a thriving business today in the need for the service of forced prostitution and sex slaves.

It was not all that long ago that there were "sweatshops" and "impress child labor" --- and indentured servitude. There were many many children forced to work in mines and factories in the North, all the way to mid-1990s. And up and until the late 1980s, there was still some wide-spread exploitation of migrant workers and illegal immigrants.

You would be correct if you were just talking about the exploitation of Black Labor. But there is so much more to the meaning of slavery.

Most Respectfully.
R

True but that is not what Coyote meant

True...but Rocco makes an excellent point.

 

[Shusha]

A foreign national is some one not a citizen of the area in question.

The territory in question (Area A) is disputed. By definition it has no sovereignty and therefore no nationality. By definition, then, there ARE no citizens. Try again.

Either BOTH Israelis and Arab Palestinians are citizens of the territory. Or neither are. To say that one group is and one group is not is biased.

An Arab settlement would be a new town or outpost built in the occupied/disputed territories, between the start of the Israeli settlement program and now. To keep it clear, let’s define settlers as Israeli nationals.

As to who are the settlers in the Jewish Quarter? I would say neither. War and subsequent policies caused considerable population shifts.

These to paragraphs contradict each other. On the one hand, you say that, due to the rules of your game, only Israelis can be settlers. On the other hand, you claim that neither are settlers. Please resolve your own contradiction.

A foreigner is some one who was not a resident there (or the progeny of) at the time it was occupied.

And this is yet another entirely different objective definition. Please resolve your own contradiction.

If you choose to define it broadly than Palestinians in refugee camps would have equal right to enter and settle those areas as well as Israel.

Well, I have no idea what refugee camps have to do with anything. But I agree in principle that Arab Palestinians have just as much right to build in Area C as Israelis. They just don't have the infrastructure and government and economy to do it. Largely because they can't focus on the right things. And since they created a security problem for Israel, well, Israel has to address it.

 

[Shusha]

How broad do you wish to make it?

I want to make it broad enough to include BOTH parties to the dispute. Limiting wrong-doing to only one party is biased.

 

[Slyhunter]

A foreign national is some one not a citizen of the area in question.

The territory in question (Area A) is disputed. By definition it has no sovereignty and therefore no nationality. By definition, then, there ARE no citizens. Try again.

Either BOTH Israelis and Arab Palestinians are citizens of the territory. Or neither are. To say that one group is and one group is not is biased.

An Arab settlement would be a new town or outpost built in the occupied/disputed territories, between the start of the Israeli settlement program and now. To keep it clear, let’s define settlers as Israeli nationals.

As to who are the settlers in the Jewish Quarter? I would say neither. War and subsequent policies caused considerable population shifts.

These to paragraphs contradict each other. On the one hand, you say that, due to the rules of your game, only Israelis can be settlers. On the other hand, you claim that neither are settlers. Please resolve your own contradiction.

A foreigner is some one who was not a resident there (or the progeny of) at the time it was occupied.

And this is yet another entirely different objective definition. Please resolve your own contradiction.

If you choose to define it broadly than Palestinians in refugee camps would have equal right to enter and settle those areas as well as Israel.

Well, I have no idea what refugee camps have to do with anything. But I agree in principle that Arab Palestinians have just as much right to build in Area C as Israelis. They just don't have the infrastructure and government and economy to do it. Largely because they can't focus on the right things. And since they created a security problem for Israel, well, Israel has to address it.

The group that can take and hold it.

 

[Coyote]

A foreign national is some one not a citizen of the area in question.

The territory in question (Area A) is disputed. By definition it has no sovereignty and therefore no nationality. By definition, then, there ARE no citizens. Try again.

Either BOTH Israelis and Arab Palestinians are citizens of the territory. Or neither are. To say that one group is and one group is not is biased.

An Arab settlement would be a new town or outpost built in the occupied/disputed territories, between the start of the Israeli settlement program and now. To keep it clear, let’s define settlers as Israeli nationals.

As to who are the settlers in the Jewish Quarter? I would say neither. War and subsequent policies caused considerable population shifts.

These to paragraphs contradict each other. On the one hand, you say that, due to the rules of your game, only Israelis can be settlers. On the other hand, you claim that neither are settlers. Please resolve your own contradiction.

A foreigner is some one who was not a resident there (or the progeny of) at the time it was occupied.

And this is yet another entirely different objective definition. Please resolve your own contradiction.

If you choose to define it broadly than Palestinians in refugee camps would have equal right to enter and settle those areas as well as Israel.

Well, I have no idea what refugee camps have to do with anything. But I agree in principle that Arab Palestinians have just as much right to build in Area C as Israelis. They just don't have the infrastructure and government and economy to do it. Largely because they can't focus on the right things. And since they created a security problem for Israel, well, Israel has to address it.

If both Israeli’s and Palestinians are “citizens” of the disputed areathat has no sovereignty then why are Arabs barred from creating new settlements?

Why are Jewish settlements funded and supported by the political apparatus of Israel but not Arab settlements?

How many Arab settlements have been created in Area C?

And I don’t just mean Arab Palestinians, but Arab Israeli citizens.

 

[Shusha]

I disagree. Forced Population exchange (and that must be what we are talking about since no one cares about voluntary population exchanges) may ONCE have been the norm but is now considered a human rights violation. Ethics evolve, and just like slavery is no longer condoned, forced expulsions are not either and it certainly isn’t just Israel. Look at Myanmar’s expulsion of the Rohinga. Israel is not carrying the demonization for anything other than attempting to justify a barbaric act that is no longer condoned in the civilized world.

Again you missed my point. The population exchange which happened between Israel/Jewish people and the Arab Palestinians WAS the norm at the time.

To demonize Israel NOW and on a continued basis for something that happened to literally MILLIONS of people at that same time and with that same moral structure in place is just wrong.

 

[Slyhunter]

A foreign national is some one not a citizen of the area in question.

The territory in question (Area A) is disputed. By definition it has no sovereignty and therefore no nationality. By definition, then, there ARE no citizens. Try again.

Either BOTH Israelis and Arab Palestinians are citizens of the territory. Or neither are. To say that one group is and one group is not is biased.

An Arab settlement would be a new town or outpost built in the occupied/disputed territories, between the start of the Israeli settlement program and now. To keep it clear, let’s define settlers as Israeli nationals.

As to who are the settlers in the Jewish Quarter? I would say neither. War and subsequent policies caused considerable population shifts.

These to paragraphs contradict each other. On the one hand, you say that, due to the rules of your game, only Israelis can be settlers. On the other hand, you claim that neither are settlers. Please resolve your own contradiction.

A foreigner is some one who was not a resident there (or the progeny of) at the time it was occupied.

And this is yet another entirely different objective definition. Please resolve your own contradiction.

If you choose to define it broadly than Palestinians in refugee camps would have equal right to enter and settle those areas as well as Israel.

Well, I have no idea what refugee camps have to do with anything. But I agree in principle that Arab Palestinians have just as much right to build in Area C as Israelis. They just don't have the infrastructure and government and economy to do it. Largely because they can't focus on the right things. And since they created a security problem for Israel, well, Israel has to address it.

If both Israeli’s and Palestinians are “citizens” of the disputed areathat has no sovereignty then why are Arabs barred from creating new settlements?

Why are Jewish settlements funded and supported by the political apparatus of Israel but not Arab settlements?

How many Arab settlements have been created in Area C?

And I don’t just mean Arab Palestinians, but Arab Israeli citizens.

I don't see the problem.

 

[Shusha]

If both Israeli’s and Palestinians are “citizens” of the disputed area that has no sovereignty then why are Arabs barred from creating new settlements?

And THAT is why I want you to resolve your contradictions. Are both Israeli nationals and Arab Palestinian nationals permitted to build and live in Area C? Or are neither?

Those are your two choices. Choosing one and not the other is biased. Resolve your contradiction.

 

[Coyote]

A foreign national is some one not a citizen of the area in question.

The territory in question (Area A) is disputed. By definition it has no sovereignty and therefore no nationality. By definition, then, there ARE no citizens. Try again.

Either BOTH Israelis and Arab Palestinians are citizens of the territory. Or neither are. To say that one group is and one group is not is biased.

An Arab settlement would be a new town or outpost built in the occupied/disputed territories, between the start of the Israeli settlement program and now. To keep it clear, let’s define settlers as Israeli nationals.

As to who are the settlers in the Jewish Quarter? I would say neither. War and subsequent policies caused considerable population shifts.

These to paragraphs contradict each other. On the one hand, you say that, due to the rules of your game, only Israelis can be settlers. On the other hand, you claim that neither are settlers. Please resolve your own contradiction.

A foreigner is some one who was not a resident there (or the progeny of) at the time it was occupied.

And this is yet another entirely different objective definition. Please resolve your own contradiction.

If you choose to define it broadly than Palestinians in refugee camps would have equal right to enter and settle those areas as well as Israel.

Well, I have no idea what refugee camps have to do with anything. But I agree in principle that Arab Palestinians have just as much right to build in Area C as Israelis. They just don't have the infrastructure and government and economy to do it. Largely because they can't focus on the right things. And since they created a security problem for Israel, well, Israel has to address it.

You keep asking me for a different definition. It is not my contradiction, it is your unwillingness to accept the definitions.

 

[Coyote]

If both Israeli’s and Palestinians are “citizens” of the disputed area that has no sovereignty then why are Arabs barred from creating new settlements?

And THAT is why I want you to resolve your contradictions. Are both Israeli nationals and Arab Palestinian nationals permitted to build and live in Area C? Or are neither?

Those are your two choices. Choosing one and not the other is biased. Resolve your contradiction.

In my opinion, and I have stated this before, until the sovereignty is decided, either no one who was not already resident there at the time of occupation should enter and build or ALL should be allowed to with out ethnic bias and if it comes to government funding it should be equatable, not giving preferences to one group.

Now how many Arab settlements have been constructed?

 

[Shusha]

Why are Jewish settlements funded and supported by the political apparatus of Israel but not Arab settlements?

Two reasons. 1. Israel has the ability to do it because they've invested in government and infrastructure and economy and peace for 100 years. 2. Israel has legal control over the territory by treaty.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ AzogtheDefiler, et al,

Well, I see you are a student of history. But the description of slavery today and what was justified as critical from the 1800s and forwards is a bit different.

Slavery was only in the South. Built on innovation and mass immigration. You should take a history class.

(COMMENT)

America used a very large number of Chinese to build railways for the rich and powerful.

And even though White Slavery has existed for several centuries, Americans would find it odd to know that it is still a thriving business today in the need for the service of forced prostitution and sex slaves.

It was not all that long ago that there were "sweatshops" and "impress child labor" --- and indentured servitude. There were many many children forced to work in mines and factories in the North, all the way to mid-1990s. And up and until the late 1980s, there was still some wide-spread exploitation of migrant workers and illegal immigrants.

You would be correct if you were just talking about the exploitation of Black Labor. But there is so much more to the meaning of slavery.

Most Respectfully.
R

True but that is not what Coyote meant

True...but Rocco makes an excellent point.

That was true worldwide back then. Rich exploiting the poor. Not just in America. Hence mass immigration to the land of opportunity.

 

[Indeependent]

Because the majority of the pop consists of filthy Jews...Coyote and Tinmore won’t say it but IMO they think it.

What a stupid thing to say.

Yet several people agree. Just my opinion based on your and Tinmores posts.

Link to a post of mine then.

Stupid people tend to agree with stupid posts. Yet they never seem to be able to support their claims.

We agree on this one. The tendency to pile on with agreement when nobody is supporting their opinions is a sad fact on message boards. You and I can disagree on Palestine and Israel, but the fact that you sympathize with the Palestinians in no may means that you hate the Jews as has been suggested. I find that extrapolation to be ridiculous.

And the fact that I think the Palestinians have refused myriad opportunities to compromise on a peace plan and/or have violated agreements and they have pretty well forfeited their claim to that land does not mean I hate the Palestinians.

The best solution now is for the UN to find and buy a nice piece of land approximately the size of Israel and move the Palestinians there. Islam will never agree to that, however, as it would remove their ability to use the Palestinians for political purposes in their ultimate goal which is to destroy Israel and the Jews.

Foxie, you can not forceably move millians of people who have roots, families and ties to that region going back hundreds if not thousands of years. It isnt a question of whether Islam would accept but it but whether any decent human being could accept it.

Link?

 

[Shusha]

A foreign national is some one not a citizen of the area in question.

The territory in question (Area A) is disputed. By definition it has no sovereignty and therefore no nationality. By definition, then, there ARE no citizens. Try again.

Either BOTH Israelis and Arab Palestinians are citizens of the territory. Or neither are. To say that one group is and one group is not is biased.

An Arab settlement would be a new town or outpost built in the occupied/disputed territories, between the start of the Israeli settlement program and now. To keep it clear, let’s define settlers as Israeli nationals.

As to who are the settlers in the Jewish Quarter? I would say neither. War and subsequent policies caused considerable population shifts.

These to paragraphs contradict each other. On the one hand, you say that, due to the rules of your game, only Israelis can be settlers. On the other hand, you claim that neither are settlers. Please resolve your own contradiction.

A foreigner is some one who was not a resident there (or the progeny of) at the time it was occupied.

And this is yet another entirely different objective definition. Please resolve your own contradiction.

If you choose to define it broadly than Palestinians in refugee camps would have equal right to enter and settle those areas as well as Israel.

Well, I have no idea what refugee camps have to do with anything. But I agree in principle that Arab Palestinians have just as much right to build in Area C as Israelis. They just don't have the infrastructure and government and economy to do it. Largely because they can't focus on the right things. And since they created a security problem for Israel, well, Israel has to address it.

You keep asking me for a different definition. It is not my contradiction, it is your unwillingness to accept the definitions.

No. It is because your definitions contain internal contradictions. You need to resolve those internal contradictions first.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why are Jewish settlements funded and supported by the political apparatus of Israel but not Arab settlements?

Two reasons. 1. Israel has the ability to do it because they've invested in government and infrastructure and economy and peace for 100 years. 2. Israel has legal control over the territory by treaty.

Every mostly Muslim country is an utter humanitarian nightmare. Israel is far from it. Only country in the ME that holds fair elections.

 

[Coyote]

Why are Jewish settlements funded and supported by the political apparatus of Israel but not Arab settlements?

Two reasons. 1. Israel has the ability to do it because they've invested in government and infrastructure and economy and peace for 100 years. 2. Israel has legal control over the territory by treaty.

So Arab Israeli’s are actively discriminated against when it comes to building settlements?