Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[Coyote]

What I have said is it has apartheid-like attributes and one of the most distinctive is that Arabs can be legally forbidden from living in certain areas and prevented from purchasing land that is only allocated to Jews.

To my knowledge, untrue. The JNF bill never passed -- because it was deemed discriminatory.

That is good that it never passed but, there is again the difference between stated law and practice.

Are you saying there are no Jewish-only communities?

 

[Coyote]

Given that, you would think the argument - the consistent argument - would be both people qualify as indigenous, so therefore if one has greater rights than another (assuming they continue that claim) then it can't be because one is indigenous.

Yes, but you are making "long-term residence" equivalent to "indigenous". The pro-Israel posters do not make that equivalence. They define "indigenous" as the "culture originating in that place pre-invasion and pre-colonization by another culture". So the pro-Israel argument is consistent.

The anti-Israel posters claim that invasion and colonization of a culture maintains the condition of indigeneity and that the invading and colonizing culture becomes part of the indigenous group. But they apply that to Asseryian, Babylonian, Roman and Arab cultures and reject it with Jewish culture (despite the fact that the Jewish people are returning and not invading or colonizing). That is the double standard.

I think the answer is the object is not a neutralization but a spreading of terror and uncertainty in the enemy you are fighting ...

Which is the definition of terrorism, imo.

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

 

[Shusha]

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

 

[Shusha]

There are no Jews in Gaza.

By whose choice?

There are no Jews in Areas A and B.

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

Inequalities in Israel

Social and cultural attitudes:

Racism in Israel on the rise

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel's (ACRI) report on civil rights in Israel paints a bleak picture: Increasing racism, restriction of personal freedoms and discrimination even within the Knesset walls – and that's just scratching the surface.

Published Saturday, the report reveled that Israeli youths are bombarded with stereotypic, racist imagery, and their opinions have developed accordingly: Over two-thirds Israeli teen believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together.

The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March of 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes.

Fifty percent of those polled also said they believed Israel should encourage its Arab citizens to emigrate.
Racism in Israel is on the rise, said the report: in 2006 there was a 26% increase in racist incidents towards Arabs and the general sense of hatred towards them has doubled. ​

From the same article - inequalities in the allocation of resources:

Furthermore, in the Second Lebanon War, some 40% of the citizens killed were Israeli-Arabs, mostly due to a severe lack of shelters, but still – the rehabilitation and fortification of Arab towns remains, according to the report, ridiculously low.​

And

The report devotes a special section to the recently approves JNF bill, which allows Jewish National Fund land – which make up 13% of all State owned land – to be allocated to Jews only.

Laws which allow communities to deny Arab Israeli's residence and denying the Arab Israeli's the ability to commemerate their history: Israel Knesset: New Israel laws discriminate against Israeli Arabs, critics say
One law legalizes the practice of using "admissions committees" in small towns in the Negev and Galilee to reject would-be residents based on their social "suitability," a vague term opponents fear could be used to bar gays, black Israelis, single women, Christians, Muslims and secular families as well as Arabs.

The second law is aimed at imposing fines on Arab towns, local authorities and state-funded organizations that commemorate Nakba Day, which falls near Israel's Independence Day. Some Arab Israelis refer to the day Israel gained statehood as a nakba, or catastrophe, because it resulted in the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians.​

Discrimination: Arab citizens of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and none are examples of apartheid, but of overt racism and a means of suppressing violence. Just as America bans certain groups from holding similar festivals.

Again - I have not said Israel IS apartheid, which implies a specific legal and governmental structure in place. What I have said is it has apartheid-like attributes and one of the most distinctive is that Arabs can be legally forbidden from living in certain areas and prevented from purchasing land that is only allocated to Jews. The other troubling aspect is Israel's weird system of citizenship that enforces a concept of seperateness among it's citizens - rather than all embracing an Israeli identity they are divided into Jews, Arab-Israeli's, and I believe there is a move to create a new category further dividing them by seperating the Arabs into Christian and Muslim.

It seems to me this divisive form of citizenship (which are not all equal) is destabilizing. Rather than all embracing an Israeli identity, they are embracing sub identities that legislated.

Let me see if I have this right

You want only Israel to pass laws making it illegal to bar people from living in an area so that it creates intolerance and violence. When you see the results first hand you will be the first to demand the arab muslims be segregated to protect the rest of society. You turn a blind eye to this being done in your own nation and arab muslim nations and single out the Jews once again.
What about the US way that segregates its citizens according to ethnicity, culture and nation of origin, Why not compare that to what is happening in Israel, and see why they are no different. It is your Jew hatred that makes you see Israel as a racist and intolerant nation when in fact it is one of the most tolerant and least racist ones. It accepts all ethnicities and cultures as equals, but you pick up on the small number of Jews that are intolerant as if they are the norm.
The minorities are now embracing Israel and are clamouring to join the IDF so they can protect their nation from attack. And the Jews are very grateful and accept them as true Israeli citizens. Strange how the biggest draft dodgers happen to be the ultra orthodox who are against non Jews in the first place, yet are seen by team Palestine as the real Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

HA! Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are no Jews in Gaza.

By whose choice?

There are no Jews in Areas A and B.

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

[Phoenall]

What I have said is it has apartheid-like attributes and one of the most distinctive is that Arabs can be legally forbidden from living in certain areas and prevented from purchasing land that is only allocated to Jews.

To my knowledge, untrue. The JNF bill never passed -- because it was deemed discriminatory.

That is good that it never passed but, there is again the difference between stated law and practice.

Are you saying there are no Jewish-only communities?

Are you saying that only Israel and the Jews operate such actions ?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

There are no Jews in Gaza.

By whose choice?

There are no Jews in Areas A and B.

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

So. according to the 4th Geneva convention, a 3-year-old's throat can be slit? No wonder you identify with the Palestinians. You're one of them, through and through. Yet you will not go to live there, or even visit.

 

[Phoenall]

Given that, you would think the argument - the consistent argument - would be both people qualify as indigenous, so therefore if one has greater rights than another (assuming they continue that claim) then it can't be because one is indigenous.

Yes, but you are making "long-term residence" equivalent to "indigenous". The pro-Israel posters do not make that equivalence. They define "indigenous" as the "culture originating in that place pre-invasion and pre-colonization by another culture". So the pro-Israel argument is consistent.

The anti-Israel posters claim that invasion and colonization of a culture maintains the condition of indigeneity and that the invading and colonizing culture becomes part of the indigenous group. But they apply that to Asseryian, Babylonian, Roman and Arab cultures and reject it with Jewish culture (despite the fact that the Jewish people are returning and not invading or colonizing). That is the double standard.

I think the answer is the object is not a neutralization but a spreading of terror and uncertainty in the enemy you are fighting ...

Which is the definition of terrorism, imo.

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And where did you get that from as terrorism is the forcing of one group to submit to another groups religion, politics, culture by use of violence. Which is what the Palestinians are doing

 

[Phoenall]

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

HA! Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

So what is it when the majority of the world calls the Palestinians terrorists, including other arab muslim nations ?

 

[Phoenall]

There are no Jews in Gaza.

By whose choice?

There are no Jews in Areas A and B.

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

Who are the settlers and who are the citizens, what differentiates a Jew who owns land in the west bank and an Egyptian left behind when his unit was beaten in a pitched battle. What are the rules for saying who is a Palestinian again that were put in place by the UN ?

 

[Phoenall]

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

EVIDENCE and in full. As the settlers after 2 years residency become Palestinian citizens, and as they are living on their own lands they are civilians. You have been shown that your interpretation of the Geneva conventions is false and based on lies

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are no Jews in Gaza.

By whose choice?

There are no Jews in Areas A and B.

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

So. according to the 4th Geneva convention, a 3-year-old's throat can be slit? No wonder you identify with the Palestinians. You're one of them, through and through. Yet you will not go to live there, or even visit.

Deflection.

If US troops took their families to Afghanistan, who would be responsible for their safety?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are no Jews in Gaza.

By whose choice?

There are no Jews in Areas A and B.

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

Who are the settlers and who are the citizens, what differentiates a Jew who owns land in the west bank and an Egyptian left behind when his unit was beaten in a pitched battle. What are the rules for saying who is a Palestinian again that were put in place by the UN ?

When a Jew moves to Palestine he takes Israel with him. Nobody else does that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

HA! Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

So what is it when the majority of the world calls the Palestinians terrorists, including other arab muslim nations ?

Political name calling. All occupying or colonial powers call their opposition terrorists. It is just part of their shtick.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

EVIDENCE and in full. As the settlers after 2 years residency become Palestinian citizens, and as they are living on their own lands they are civilians. You have been shown that your interpretation of the Geneva conventions is false and based on lies

I just post what they say. Take it up with them.

 

[Phoenall]

There are no Jews in Gaza.

By whose choice?

There are no Jews in Areas A and B.

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

So. according to the 4th Geneva convention, a 3-year-old's throat can be slit? No wonder you identify with the Palestinians. You're one of them, through and through. Yet you will not go to live there, or even visit.

Deflection.

If US troops took their families to Afghanistan, who would be responsible for their safety?

Themselves, unless they were afghani's that had been forced to relocate in the US. Then the Geneva conventions would be on their side fully.

 

[P F Tinmore]

By whose choice?

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

So. according to the 4th Geneva convention, a 3-year-old's throat can be slit? No wonder you identify with the Palestinians. You're one of them, through and through. Yet you will not go to live there, or even visit.

Deflection.

If US troops took their families to Afghanistan, who would be responsible for their safety?

Themselves, unless they were afghani's that had been forced to relocate in the US. Then the Geneva conventions would be on their side fully.

Indeed, and the Israelis are responsible for their families when they decide to live in Israel's war zone.