Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[jillian]

Israeli Jews are starting to see the light. It's as if I wrote the article. LOL



Apartheid South Africa Israel

The non-white citizens The non-Jew citizens
The white citizens The the Jewish citizens
The non-whites of the Bantustans The non-Jews of the Occupied Territories

"Citizenship here is reminiscent of South Africa's in the past: Jews are 'white' citizens, Arabs in Israel have 'colored' (in other words, partial) citizenship; and Palestinians in the territories have 'black' citizenship, without political rights.

In international law, a situation whereby a country appropriates and settles territories outside its sovereign borders is called colonialism. Southern Lebanon was an example of military occupation; the West Bank is an example of colonialism, one that seeks to entrench itself over time while preserving the privileges of the ruling population, and incidentally creating an apartheid regime.
read more: Call apartheid in Israel by its name - Opinion


read more: Call apartheid in Israel by its name - Opinion

there is no apartheid in israel no matter how many times jew haters say it.

there is however an intentional exclusion of jews from muslim countries. if only your outrage extended to jews. but your hate doesn't permit that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Where is it that gives (inalienable means nothing in terms of execution) the right to the Hostile Arab to prevent the right of self-determination pursued by the Jewish People?

The right of self-determination is an "inalienable right of the Jewish People."

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

(COMMENT)

None of these rights were violated. The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy. While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

REMEMBER: "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy.​

The Palestinians rejected the partition of their country that they had every right to do.

While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination...​

Where does it say that colonialists have better rights than the natives?

Link?

 

[Challenger]

Jewishness is a characteristic Mothers pass to offspring through bacteria’s DNA.

You are not seriously suggesting "Jewishness" is a disease?

I can be of any religion culturally, and of any race ethnically; but whatever else I could be, if I was born of a Jewish Mother, I am Jewish by a genetically past trait.

What if the mother was a convert?

This is one reason why the Israelis have no criminal intent based on a national, ethnical, racial or religious group --- OR --- a criminal intent in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.

Then why the insistance on a "Jewish state" why not a state of all those people who want to become "Israelis" whatever their background?

Race and ethnic background are immaterial to Jewishness.

True, it's all about Judaism and Jewish supremacy.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Well, I probably did make a mistake here. Yes, it was a very bad choice of words; and I apologize to everyone.

Jewishness is a characteristic Mothers pass to offspring through bacteria’s DNA.

You are not seriously suggesting "Jewishness" is a disease?

(COMMENT)

I should have left the word "bacteria's" out, it did not convey the thought I intended. It looked much different in my mind. You are must assuredly correct. I apologize (headspace and timing was off).

I can be of any religion culturally, and of any race ethnically; but whatever else I could be, if I was born of a Jewish Mother, I am Jewish by a genetically past trait.

What if the mother was a convert?

(COMMENT)

I'm sure not qualified to speak for a Rabbinical Court of Judaism. I'm sure that issue has come up before. My thought is that it would make no difference. It is generational, with the characteristic of Jewishness in the descents determined through the female line. (I hope I said that right. But again, that question is for a rabbinical Court.)

This is one reason why the Israelis have no criminal intent based on a national, ethnical, racial or religious group --- OR --- a criminal intent in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.

Then why the insistance on a "Jewish state" why not a state of all those people who want to become "Israelis" whatever their background?

[/quote]
(COMMENT)

The distinction is no so radically different than the restriction that forbids non-Muslims in Mecca and Medina; places of pilgrimage and prayer. And for several centuries, both the Jewish and Muslim, have a religious interest in the site.

The intent of the Allied Powers was to create such a defendable place --- (a Jewish National Home) --- that the Jewish People would be forevermore, protected against the manipulation of law in order to subjugate, suppress, and prosecute Jewish People under the color of law. The Arab Palestinian would deny that protection and a safe haven and place of refuge for the Jewish in the case another deadly period of anti-semitism were to arise.

Race and ethnic background are immaterial to Jewishness.

True, it's all about Judaism and Jewish supremacy.

(COMMENT)

Your response here, does not address the implication. The characteristic of being Jewish has nothing to do with Hostile Judaism or Jewish Supremacy. The establishment of a Jewish State is an announcement to the world and the Jewish People that never again will the Jewish People be without a safe port of call.

The MS St. Louis was a German ocean liner most notable for a single voyage in 1939, in which her captain, Gustav Schröder, tried to find homes for 908 Jewish refugees from Germany. After they were denied entry to Cuba and the United States, the refugees were finally accepted in various European countries, and historians have estimated that approximately a quarter of them died in death camps during World War II. The Voyage of the Damned

Exodus 1947 was a ship that carried Jewish emigrants from France to British Mandatory Palestine on July 11, 1947. Most of the emigrants were Holocaust survivors who had no legal immigration certificates for Palestine. Following wide media coverage, the BritishRoyal Navy seized the ship and deported all its passengers back to Europe.
​

Never again should the Jewish culture, Jewish People and Jewish beliefs be at the mercy of unsure Allies -- be placed in the sole hands of Powers that demonstrated during WWII that they would not come to their aid, and deny them a save haven.

The reason is not about "supremacy." It is about the safety and preservation of the Jewish People and Culture that was not respected in the past by either the US or the UK (Allied Powers).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Where is it that gives (inalienable means nothing in terms of execution) the right to the Hostile Arab to prevent the right of self-determination pursued by the Jewish People?

The right of self-determination is an "inalienable right of the Jewish People."

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

(COMMENT)

None of these rights were violated. The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy. While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

REMEMBER: "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?​

The people who came from Europe to take the country from the natives started it.

REMEMBER: "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.​

Rights are not handed out by the people with the guns. They are inherent to the people.

As the evidence shows it was the arab league who invaded in 1947 with the sole intent of wiping out the Jews and destroying any future Israel. This had been culminating from 1923 when the LoN announced the Mandate of Palestine that gave less than 1% of the former Ottoman lands to the Jews as their NATIONal home.

The people who came from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen and Pakistan started it


The only thing you get correct is that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is not handed rights because they demand them, they have to meet certain criteria. And one of those criteria was to have actual residency of the land for two years before becoming a Palestinian. This they failed as they were recent armed invaders who deserted in the face of battle. Another thing you don't understand is that rights granted in 1988 do not apply before that date, and so the Palestinians only had the rights granted by international law of that time. This meant they did not have any rights to the land granted to the Jews in 1923, and the Jews had the right to defend that land from attack. So the Jews are the people until such a time as the arab muslims remove their apartheid laws banning Jews from living in their nations, until this is done the arab muslims will get the same treatment as the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

Well, it has a meaning.

It cannot be the case that one people (ie Palestinians) have a right that is superior to any other people (ie Israelis). Whether that right is declared "inherent" (a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable) --- it cannot be the case that one people (the Palestinians) can hindrance or restraint another people (the Israelis) from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

Oo.. that's interesting, suddenly we've dumped the "Jewish people" in favour of the "Israeli people".

Well OK, the Israeli people didn't exist before 1948 and have never been indigenous to Palestine, having come from Europe. So that means the indigenous Palestinians, by default have a superior claim/right to self determination. Thanks for clarifying that.

(COMMENT)

The term Israelis includes "All citizens" or "those under the care of the Israeli government" within the territory claimed and outlined by a border maintained by Israel (Golan Heights of Golan Sub-District and East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after 1967) --- including:

• The population of Jewish 75%,
• Muslim 17.5%,
• Christian 2%,
• Druze 1.6%, and other 3.9% (2013 est.) includes atheists, and agnostics.
​

The term Jewish People refers to the Article 4 Mandate for Palestine people (willing to immigrate and establish a Jewish National Home); including the people of the Jewish Agency. OR the population of Jewish 75% of the 8 million Israelis that consider themselves Jewish.

The Jewish People are a subset of the Israeli population.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Israeli" is a nationality, not an ethnicity; there's a difference.

Says which law, as the last I heard the term Jew is legally an ethnicity, unlike muslim which is a follower of islam. Try being more open minded and less racist

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now this is interesting. You have the opportunity to teach me something!

[

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

The physical control of a territory is not the issue. It is the right to control that territory. The right to control the territory can be violated by illegal external interference. That does not negate that right.

Your post is based on false premise.

(COMMENT)

I have heard of all kinds of "rights" brought-up by the Palestinians. I have heard of the:

• right of self-determination,
• rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
• right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant,
• right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence,
• right to liberty and security of person,
• victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
• right to be presumed innocent,
​

And I've heard of the rights that some "rights:"

• shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
• to hold opinions without interference.
• to acquire a nationality.
• and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.


BUT, I've never heard of the "right to control that territory." IT MUST BE REMEMBERED that many of the above-mentioned rights are not enforceable. That they are NOT subject to restrictions; EXCEPT THOSE which the Israelis (or any other country) find necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. Every Israeli has the right to the protection of the Israeli Defense and Security Forces against such unwarranted interference or attacks by hostile Arab Palestinians. (Article 17 CCPR)

• Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
​

So, where is this right to control articulated?

Finally, the Stimson Doctrine, affirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and UN General Assembly in the Charter, is a prohibition base on acts of aggression. It was not based on the defense of the West Bank when Jordan opened fire on Israeli in June 1967. The territory was lost in the course of the successful defense of Israel. The West Bank was abandon on 31 July 1988 to the Government of Israel; which had effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R​

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

And Jewish Palestine was not under foreign control, as the LoN mandate shows, but arab muslim Palestine was due to the invasion force of the arab league. So the parts of Jewish Palestine not taken up in 1948 were under foreign arab league interference.

The arab muslims gave away their right to independence and soveriengty when they allowed Egypt and Jordan to annexe the land and withdraw their rights to govern it.

They also gave up territorial integrity when they accepted rule from afar, in this case Egypt and Jordan.

So as you can see the rights of the Palestinians have been withheld by the arab league foreign interference and occupation.

 

[Phoenall]

Jewishness is a characteristic Mothers pass to offspring through bacteria’s DNA.

You are not seriously suggesting "Jewishness" is a disease?

I can be of any religion culturally, and of any race ethnically; but whatever else I could be, if I was born of a Jewish Mother, I am Jewish by a genetically past trait.

What if the mother was a convert?

This is one reason why the Israelis have no criminal intent based on a national, ethnical, racial or religious group --- OR --- a criminal intent in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.

Then why the insistance on a "Jewish state" why not a state of all those people who want to become "Israelis" whatever their background?

Race and ethnic background are immaterial to Jewishness.

True, it's all about Judaism and Jewish supremacy.

No but in the main a genetic inheritance.

Then they are not racial Jews

Because that is how it is seen under international laws, and it is only the Jew haters that want to change the laws that are in favour of the Jews

That you fail to prove every time you are asked for a link that is unbiased and non partisan, yet still you spew it out with so much Jew hatred. The hard evidence shows that it muslims that are peddling islam and muslim supremacy, just look at the recent events in Europe.

 

[Shusha]

What if the mother was a convert?

Generally, if a child is born after a mother's conversion (ie after she is Jewish), the child is considered fully Jewish. The act of conversion makes one Jewish. Its like an adoption into the family.

 

[Shusha]

While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

P F Tinmore and Challenger are more than aware that Arab rights do not include denying rights to other groups of people. That's why they work so hard to deny that the Jewish people ARE a people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now this is interesting. You have the opportunity to teach me something!

[

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

The physical control of a territory is not the issue. It is the right to control that territory. The right to control the territory can be violated by illegal external interference. That does not negate that right.

Your post is based on false premise.

(COMMENT)

I have heard of all kinds of "rights" brought-up by the Palestinians. I have heard of the:

• right of self-determination,
• rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
• right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant,
• right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence,
• right to liberty and security of person,
• victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
• right to be presumed innocent,
​

And I've heard of the rights that some "rights:"

• shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
• to hold opinions without interference.
• to acquire a nationality.
• and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.


BUT, I've never heard of the "right to control that territory." IT MUST BE REMEMBERED that many of the above-mentioned rights are not enforceable. That they are NOT subject to restrictions; EXCEPT THOSE which the Israelis (or any other country) find necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. Every Israeli has the right to the protection of the Israeli Defense and Security Forces against such unwarranted interference or attacks by hostile Arab Palestinians. (Article 17 CCPR)

• Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
​

So, where is this right to control articulated?

Finally, the Stimson Doctrine, affirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and UN General Assembly in the Charter, is a prohibition base on acts of aggression. It was not based on the defense of the West Bank when Jordan opened fire on Israeli in June 1967. The territory was lost in the course of the successful defense of Israel. The West Bank was abandon on 31 July 1988 to the Government of Israel; which had effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R​

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

And Jewish Palestine was not under foreign control, as the LoN mandate shows, but arab muslim Palestine was due to the invasion force of the arab league. So the parts of Jewish Palestine not taken up in 1948 were under foreign arab league interference.

The arab muslims gave away their right to independence and soveriengty when they allowed Egypt and Jordan to annexe the land and withdraw their rights to govern it.

They also gave up territorial integrity when they accepted rule from afar, in this case Egypt and Jordan.

So as you can see the rights of the Palestinians have been withheld by the arab league foreign interference and occupation.

Links?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now this is interesting. You have the opportunity to teach me something!

[

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

The physical control of a territory is not the issue. It is the right to control that territory. The right to control the territory can be violated by illegal external interference. That does not negate that right.

Your post is based on false premise.

(COMMENT)

I have heard of all kinds of "rights" brought-up by the Palestinians. I have heard of the:

• right of self-determination,
• rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
• right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant,
• right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence,
• right to liberty and security of person,
• victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
• right to be presumed innocent,
​

And I've heard of the rights that some "rights:"

• shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
• to hold opinions without interference.
• to acquire a nationality.
• and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.


BUT, I've never heard of the "right to control that territory." IT MUST BE REMEMBERED that many of the above-mentioned rights are not enforceable. That they are NOT subject to restrictions; EXCEPT THOSE which the Israelis (or any other country) find necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. Every Israeli has the right to the protection of the Israeli Defense and Security Forces against such unwarranted interference or attacks by hostile Arab Palestinians. (Article 17 CCPR)

• Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
​

So, where is this right to control articulated?

Finally, the Stimson Doctrine, affirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and UN General Assembly in the Charter, is a prohibition base on acts of aggression. It was not based on the defense of the West Bank when Jordan opened fire on Israeli in June 1967. The territory was lost in the course of the successful defense of Israel. The West Bank was abandon on 31 July 1988 to the Government of Israel; which had effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R​

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

And Jewish Palestine was not under foreign control, as the LoN mandate shows, but arab muslim Palestine was due to the invasion force of the arab league. So the parts of Jewish Palestine not taken up in 1948 were under foreign arab league interference.

The arab muslims gave away their right to independence and soveriengty when they allowed Egypt and Jordan to annexe the land and withdraw their rights to govern it.

They also gave up territorial integrity when they accepted rule from afar, in this case Egypt and Jordan.

So as you can see the rights of the Palestinians have been withheld by the arab league foreign interference and occupation.

Links?

Read your own posts as you have said the same things

 

[Challenger]

What if the mother was a convert?

Generally, if a child is born after a mother's conversion (ie after she is Jewish), the child is considered fully Jewish. The act of conversion makes one Jewish. Its like an adoption into the family.

There we have it, thanks. It's all to do with religion, not ethnicity. That's why modern adherents to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine, nor are they an ethnic group. Oh, and it's not hard work, it's self-evident.

 

[Shusha]

There we have it, thanks. It's all to do with religion, not ethnicity. That's why modern adherents to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine, nor are they an ethnic group. Oh, and it's not hard work, it's self-evident.

So you are saying that one can't join an ethnic group? That an ethnic group is determined solely by genetics or physical descendency? (I most strongly disagree.)

How do you determine who is Palestinian then? How do you know who is "pure" Palestinian? What test do you apply?

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, Challenger, et al,

While it is true, that an "ethnic group" can have similar genetics, that is not a necessary means of membership.

There we have it, thanks. It's all to do with religion, not ethnicity. That's why modern adherents to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine, nor are they an ethnic group. Oh, and it's not hard work, it's self-evident.

So you are saying that one can't join an ethnic group? That an ethnic group is determined solely by genetics or physical descendency? (I most strongly disagree.)

How do you determine who is Palestinian then? How do you know who is "pure" Palestinian? What test do you apply?

(COMMENT)

Members of ethnic groups:
• share certain beliefs, values, habits, customs and norms because of their common backgroud
• Define them selves as different and special because of cultural features
• Viewed and treated as if features are biological

Ethnic Groups: (not all inclusive)
• Distinguished by cultural similarities (shared among members of that group)
• Shared Beliefs, Values, Habits, Customs and Norms
• Common Language, Religion, History, Genetic traits, Race

It is possible (in some cases) to move from one ethnic group to another; or be a member of multiple ethnic group.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Thanks, RoccoR We agree with regard to definitions of "ethnic groups".

Here's my concern. People who argue against the Jewish people being a "people" or an "ethnic group" or whatever terms we want to use which gives them some sort of moral rights to a homeland or national self-determination, appear to use different standards when evaluating the rights (or lack) or the Jewish people compared to other groups of people.

So, for example, they readily agree that colonizing, invading cultures can be incorporated into a "people" or "ethnic group" (for example the Arabs who moved to Palestine over the past several hundred years), but then turn around and claim that the entire Jewish people are ineligible for any rights because they have had people incorporated as converts into their group. Its seems very much like a double standard used to ensure one group has rights while the other does not.

 

[flacaltenn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Where is it that gives (inalienable means nothing in terms of execution) the right to the Hostile Arab to prevent the right of self-determination pursued by the Jewish People?

The right of self-determination is an "inalienable right of the Jewish People."

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

(COMMENT)

None of these rights were violated. The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy. While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

REMEMBER: "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy.​

The Palestinians rejected the partition of their country that they had every right to do.

While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination...​

Where does it say that colonialists have better rights than the natives?

Link?

Well The Re-Conquistador Movement and La Raza probably agree with you.. To THEM California IS Mexico..
And they are not satisfied with just immigration amnesty. They want to RUN the place..

 

[Phoenall]

What if the mother was a convert?

Generally, if a child is born after a mother's conversion (ie after she is Jewish), the child is considered fully Jewish. The act of conversion makes one Jewish. Its like an adoption into the family.

There we have it, thanks. It's all to do with religion, not ethnicity. That's why modern adherents to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine, nor are they an ethnic group. Oh, and it's not hard work, it's self-evident.

So one case out of a thousand proves your LIE does it. So lets apply this to 100 cases of Palestinians that came from Egypt in 1948, and see if it still holds water. It must according to you show that not one Palestinian has the right to exist in any part of Palestine.

Get your mysoginist head around a Matriarchal society, and stop thinking like an islamonazi terrorist for once.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Where is it that gives (inalienable means nothing in terms of execution) the right to the Hostile Arab to prevent the right of self-determination pursued by the Jewish People?

The right of self-determination is an "inalienable right of the Jewish People."

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

(COMMENT)

None of these rights were violated. The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy. While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

REMEMBER: "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy.​

The Palestinians rejected the partition of their country that they had every right to do.

While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination...​

Where does it say that colonialists have better rights than the natives?

Link?

Well The Re-Conquistador Movement and La Raza probably agree with you.. To THEM California IS Mexico..
And they are not satisfied with just immigration amnesty. They want to RUN the place..

There is a major difference. There is a peace agreement between the US and Mexico which included the purchase of some land.

There is no such thing in Palestine.

 

[flacaltenn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Where is it that gives (inalienable means nothing in terms of execution) the right to the Hostile Arab to prevent the right of self-determination pursued by the Jewish People?

The right of self-determination is an "inalienable right of the Jewish People."

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

(COMMENT)

None of these rights were violated. The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy. While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

REMEMBER: "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy.​

The Palestinians rejected the partition of their country that they had every right to do.

While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination...​

Where does it say that colonialists have better rights than the natives?

Link?

Well The Re-Conquistador Movement and La Raza probably agree with you.. To THEM California IS Mexico..
And they are not satisfied with just immigration amnesty. They want to RUN the place..

There is a major difference. There is a peace agreement between the US and Mexico which included the purchase of some land.

There is no such thing in Palestine.

But that doesn't stop the radical Re-Conquistardors from claiming "right of return" to the SW and California now does it? And THERE the title to that land clearly DOES go back to a former landholder which was a legitimate government..

The West Bank was CEDED by Jordan --- peacefully.. Without any claims or assertions that it belonged to "palestinians".. Why would Jordan do such a thing??