Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[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

There is no definition of terrorism that goes like that.

Why Defining Terrorism Matters - The Monkey Cage

Academics have their own set of rules for defining terrorism. Despite intra-field debate, most North American scholars adopt the three-prong definition of terrorism: it is politically motivated, perpetrated by non-state actors like lone wolves or organizations, and targets civilians rather than the military. This means that when a government attacks civilians like in Assad’s Syria, when the perpetrators are motivated by pecuniary gain like on the streets of Detroit, or when they target military assets like the USS Cole, academic purists would distinguish such acts of violence from terrorism.


When it comes to defining terrorism, motives therefore matter. Mass shootings—like the one in Tucson by Jared Loughner, the one in the Aurora movie theater by James Holmes, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza, or the New Orleans Mother’s Day shooting—would be treated as something else. Some scholars provide no distinction between rampage violence and terrorist acts. But in reality, there is an important difference—rampage shooters are not politically motivated.


Another important criterion is target selection. Guerilla attacks on military targets are often distinguished from terrorist attacks, which are directed against civilian targets. Critics of the Obama administration have hammered him for his hesitancy to label Benghazi as a terrorist attack. In fact, Benghazi was not a terrorist attack. It was a guerilla attack against high-level U.S. diplomats, hardly a case of indiscriminate violence. When most academics think about a terrorist attacks, we recall 9/11 and the Boston marathon because ordinary citizens were targeted, rather than agents of the state.​

There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.[3]

During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[4]

As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective,

Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So how does this defeat the argument that the Palestinians are proven to be terrorists, and have been placed on the list by many nations. Even arab muslim nations have stated they are terrorists.

 

[Phoenall]

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

Meaning ALL Israelis are viable military targets and are "fair game" for the killing. What a vile belief system you have.

Thing is ask him to justify his clams and he will ignore you, or deflect away from the request because he cant

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

ICRC service

See deflection because you cant answer the argument

 

[Phoenall]

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

Meaning ALL Israelis are viable military targets and are "fair game" for the killing. What a vile belief system you have.

Thing is ask him to justify his clams and he will ignore you, or deflect away from the request because he cant

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

ICRC service

Don't give me all this legal crap. Tell me -- do you think it is morally acceptable or justifiable to kill Israeli people because they are Israeli and not "protected persons"? Including children? Yes or no?

If you think it is, I stand by my assessment that you have a vile ideology.

If you think it is not, then what purpose does it serve to post a comment like "Israelis are not considered "civilians"?

If you think it is not, then what purpose does it serve to post a comment like "Israelis are not considered "civilians"?​

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

And who are you to say Israel has a terrorist propaganda campaign, what authority do you have other than that you have given yourself.

 

[Phoenall]

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

I don't understand what this means. And you didn't answer my question. Yes or no.

Israel has a long standing terrorist propaganda campaign against Palestinians. It is a bunch of lies.

SAYS WHO as you aren't authorised to give such a decision

 

[Phoenall]

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

I don't understand what this means. And you didn't answer my question. Yes or no.

Israel has a long standing terrorist propaganda campaign against Palestinians. It is a bunch of lies.

Palestinians aren't really shooting rockets at Israel and stabbing them in the streets?

"At Israel" is an interesting term considering the is no border there.

So that means that Palestine does not have a border either, so they will have to negotiate one.

This still means that the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing illegal weapons from their controlled land into Israel's controlled land. This is contrary to the UN charter and they are guilty of unprecedented attacks on another sovereign nation of the UN.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

I don't understand what this means. And you didn't answer my question. Yes or no.

Israel has a long standing terrorist propaganda campaign against Palestinians. It is a bunch of lies.

Palestinians aren't really shooting rockets at Israel and stabbing them in the streets?

"At Israel" is an interesting term considering the is no border there.

So that means that Palestine does not have a border either, so they will have to negotiate one.

This still means that the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing illegal weapons from their controlled land into Israel's controlled land. This is contrary to the UN charter and they are guilty of unprecedented attacks on another sovereign nation of the UN.

Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

 

[Shusha]

Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

What you deem to be "Palestine" has TWO peoples who each want self-determination. They most certainly do need to negotiate borders between themselves.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Meaning ALL Israelis are viable military targets and are "fair game" for the killing. What a vile belief system you have.

Thing is ask him to justify his clams and he will ignore you, or deflect away from the request because he cant

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

ICRC service

Don't give me all this legal crap. Tell me -- do you think it is morally acceptable or justifiable to kill Israeli people because they are Israeli and not "protected persons"? Including children? Yes or no?

If you think it is, I stand by my assessment that you have a vile ideology.

If you think it is not, then what purpose does it serve to post a comment like "Israelis are not considered "civilians"?

If you think it is not, then what purpose does it serve to post a comment like "Israelis are not considered "civilians"?​

I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

And who are you to say Israel has a terrorist propaganda campaign, what authority do you have other than that you have given yourself.

It is obvious. Israel cries terrorist even when troops or other non protected people are attacked. Israel cannot go through a day without playing a deck of terrorist cards. Like they are selling something.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

What you deem to be "Palestine" has TWO peoples who each want self-determination. They most certainly do need to negotiate borders between themselves.

Indeed, the natives and the colonists.

 

[Boston1]

I don't understand what this means. And you didn't answer my question. Yes or no.

Israel has a long standing terrorist propaganda campaign against Palestinians. It is a bunch of lies.

Palestinians aren't really shooting rockets at Israel and stabbing them in the streets?

"At Israel" is an interesting term considering the is no border there.

So that means that Palestine does not have a border either, so they will have to negotiate one.

This still means that the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing illegal weapons from their controlled land into Israel's controlled land. This is contrary to the UN charter and they are guilty of unprecedented attacks on another sovereign nation of the UN.

Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

LMAO go for it, define those borders LOL

The simple truth is the only real name we can call the phony charge of apartheid in Israel is bullshit.

The restrictions placed on the Arab Muslim population in Israel is are there BECAUSE of the outragiously violent behavior of the Arab Muslims.

Apartheid is instead, not a result of the victims behavior.

 

[Shusha]

Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

What you deem to be "Palestine" has TWO peoples who each want self-determination. They most certainly do need to negotiate borders between themselves.

Indeed, the natives and the colonists.

You have reversed which is which. But even if we accept that both are colonists (a stretch, but I'll go with it) -- it still leaves us the problem that there are, in point of fact, TWO peoples. Denying one or the other serves no purpose in solving the problem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel has a long standing terrorist propaganda campaign against Palestinians. It is a bunch of lies.

Palestinians aren't really shooting rockets at Israel and stabbing them in the streets?

"At Israel" is an interesting term considering the is no border there.

So that means that Palestine does not have a border either, so they will have to negotiate one.

This still means that the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing illegal weapons from their controlled land into Israel's controlled land. This is contrary to the UN charter and they are guilty of unprecedented attacks on another sovereign nation of the UN.

Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

LMAO go for it, define those borders LOL

The simple truth is the only real name we can call the phony charge of apartheid in Israel is bullshit.

The restrictions placed on the Arab Muslim population in Israel is are there BECAUSE of the outragiously violent behavior of the Arab Muslims.

Apartheid is instead, not a result of the victims behavior.

Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.

 

[Shusha]

Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.

There are two groups who want to create two (actually three) new states. They need to negotiate a treaty. And um, Oslo.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

What you deem to be "Palestine" has TWO peoples who each want self-determination. They most certainly do need to negotiate borders between themselves.

Indeed, the natives and the colonists.

You have reversed which is which. But even if we accept that both are colonists (a stretch, but I'll go with it) -- it still leaves us the problem that there are, in point of fact, TWO peoples. Denying one or the other serves no purpose in solving the problem.

There were the Palestinians who normally lived there and the self proclaimed colonists from Europe.

Look it up. The documents are available on the net.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.

There are two groups who want to create two (actually three) new states. They need to negotiate a treaty. And um, Oslo.

The Palestinians are not asking to create a state.

 

[Boston1]

Palestinians aren't really shooting rockets at Israel and stabbing them in the streets?

"At Israel" is an interesting term considering the is no border there.

So that means that Palestine does not have a border either, so they will have to negotiate one.

This still means that the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing illegal weapons from their controlled land into Israel's controlled land. This is contrary to the UN charter and they are guilty of unprecedented attacks on another sovereign nation of the UN.

Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

LMAO go for it, define those borders LOL

The simple truth is the only real name we can call the phony charge of apartheid in Israel is bullshit.

The restrictions placed on the Arab Muslim population in Israel is are there BECAUSE of the outragiously violent behavior of the Arab Muslims.

Apartheid is instead, not a result of the victims behavior.

Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.

Nonsense, palestine was never "incepted" ;--)

Ergo than can be no occupation.

and the only name for the accusation of apartheid in Israel is bullshit. Unless that is you are referring to the Arab Muslim exclusion of Judaic people in areas under Arab Muslim influence

 

[P F Tinmore]

"At Israel" is an interesting term considering the is no border there.

So that means that Palestine does not have a border either, so they will have to negotiate one.

This still means that the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing illegal weapons from their controlled land into Israel's controlled land. This is contrary to the UN charter and they are guilty of unprecedented attacks on another sovereign nation of the UN.

Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

LMAO go for it, define those borders LOL

The simple truth is the only real name we can call the phony charge of apartheid in Israel is bullshit.

The restrictions placed on the Arab Muslim population in Israel is are there BECAUSE of the outragiously violent behavior of the Arab Muslims.

Apartheid is instead, not a result of the victims behavior.

Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.

Nonsense, palestine was never "incepted" ;--)

Ergo than can be no occupation.

and the only name for the accusation of apartheid in Israel is bullshit. Unless that is you are referring to the Arab Muslim exclusion of Judaic people in areas under Arab Muslim influence

Nonsense, before the Mandate could be assigned to Palestine there had to be a Palestine.

 

[docmauser1]

Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.

For that contention to hold water we need to establish who was that sultan, pasha, emir, shakh, effendi, president, prime-minister of that "state of palestine" with "international borders", of course. So, names, please. And don't play dumb tricks - we're tired of your clowning.

 

[docmauser1]

There were the Palestinians who normally lived there and the self proclaimed colonists from Europe.

All people living in that area were regarded as “palestinians” without any ethnic connotations. Funny, only jews were palestinians, arabs preferred to be "just arabs". And don't tell us tales that, the Palestine Symphony Orchestra were arab settlers from the hood, who brought their violins with them.

 

[Boston1]

So that means that Palestine does not have a border either, so they will have to negotiate one.

This still means that the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing illegal weapons from their controlled land into Israel's controlled land. This is contrary to the UN charter and they are guilty of unprecedented attacks on another sovereign nation of the UN.

Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

LMAO go for it, define those borders LOL

The simple truth is the only real name we can call the phony charge of apartheid in Israel is bullshit.

The restrictions placed on the Arab Muslim population in Israel is are there BECAUSE of the outragiously violent behavior of the Arab Muslims.

Apartheid is instead, not a result of the victims behavior.

Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.

Nonsense, palestine was never "incepted" ;--)

Ergo than can be no occupation.

and the only name for the accusation of apartheid in Israel is bullshit. Unless that is you are referring to the Arab Muslim exclusion of Judaic people in areas under Arab Muslim influence

Nonsense, before the Mandate could be assigned to Palestine there had to be a Palestine.

Yikes.

I don't normally respond to your posts for a reason but this one is just too funny not to respond to.

Before the mandate there were three provinces of Ottoman Southern Syria.

Gaza, Acre and Tripoli

Prior to that the area was referred to as

In Byzantine Times it was just Syria

The term palaestina only shows up rarely in history.

The mandate for palestine woudl have been more accurately termed the mandate for southern syria.