Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[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.

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??

The West Bank did not belong to Jordan. It was not theirs to lose or give away. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan tried to annex the West Bank but the world wouldn't recognize it.

 

[wrathbone]

Beside Nazi's, Palestinians have been the terrorists of the globe......dirty pig-dogs that would and do use their children as human shields....but Israel is smart to beat the young generation into submission. They'll become adults and then Jihad....no-brainer why Israel womps on them...

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, et al,

There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching. There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood. But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted. An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.

When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions. The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up. As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.

There are (generally speaking) four different types of armed conflicts to which the term “wars of national liberation" is use. In reality there are only two different kinds of conflicts that are covered by the Rules of international armed conflicts (IACs) and Rules associated with non-international armed conflict (NIAC).
Under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), everything else is a sub-category:

(1) Those struggles of peoples fighting a foreign invader or occupant;
(2) Those that have evolved within the United Nations and identified from the practice of States and international organizations, namely colonial and alien domination (or rule or government) and racist regimes which according to Article 1, paragraph 4 of Protocol I, are armed struggles aimed at resisting the forcible imposition or maintenance of such situations to allow people subjected to them to exercise its right of self-determination;
(3) Dissident movements which take up arms to overthrow the government and the social order it stands for. Their members may consider themselves as a “liberation movement” waging a “war of national liberation” against a regime or government which masks or represents “alien domination;”
(4) Armed struggles of dissident movements representing a component people within a plural State which aims at seceding and creating a new State on part of the territory of the existing one.
​

The Arab-Israel Conflict has each kind of struggle, dispute, movement and insurgency element mentioned, and maybe more.

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.

(COMMENT)

Self-determination includes the right of a people of an existing State to choose freely their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development. Generally speaking, Generally most Islamic Radicals, Jihadists and Arabs-Palestinians terrorists have become rejectionist. And due to the close cooperative support and collaboration by the general population and grass roots community, this rejectionist ideas and philosophies have infected:

• The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.
• The Arab-Palestinian rejects Jewish Immigration and regard it as an act of aggression and invasion.
• Arabs of Palestine regard that any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression.
• The Arab-Palestinian reject all the Recommendation of the UN Special Committee on Palestine.
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects any form of partition and considered the entire territory of the former Mandate as Arab Territory (from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea).
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects recognition of Jewish State.
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects a negotiations with the Israelis.
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects any peaceful settlements of disputes.

The Arab-Palestinian rejects the notion that the Jewish People of Israel have the same rights as the Arab-Palestinians might have. But the Jewish People have been recognized as a people for nearly two centuries. The Jewish People have shared a common cultural heritage, ancestry, history, homeland, language, and religion for nearly 2000 years. It is not likely the rejection of the fundamental will make a difference.

Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Shusha, et al,

There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching. There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood. But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted. An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.

When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions. The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up. As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.

The same propaganda war is being conducted against the Palestinians...how can you miss it? How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date? That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are. That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.

Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly. And that can't be said often enough.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha, et al,

There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching. There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood. But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted. An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.

When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions. The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up. As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.

There are (generally speaking) four different types of armed conflicts to which the term “wars of national liberation" is use. In reality there are only two different kinds of conflicts that are covered by the Rules of international armed conflicts (IACs) and Rules associated with non-international armed conflict (NIAC).
Under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), everything else is a sub-category:

(1) Those struggles of peoples fighting a foreign invader or occupant;
(2) Those that have evolved within the United Nations and identified from the practice of States and international organizations, namely colonial and alien domination (or rule or government) and racist regimes which according to Article 1, paragraph 4 of Protocol I, are armed struggles aimed at resisting the forcible imposition or maintenance of such situations to allow people subjected to them to exercise its right of self-determination;
(3) Dissident movements which take up arms to overthrow the government and the social order it stands for. Their members may consider themselves as a “liberation movement” waging a “war of national liberation” against a regime or government which masks or represents “alien domination;”
(4) Armed struggles of dissident movements representing a component people within a plural State which aims at seceding and creating a new State on part of the territory of the existing one.
​

The Arab-Israel Conflict has each kind of struggle, dispute, movement and insurgency element mentioned, and maybe more.

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.

(COMMENT)

Self-determination includes the right of a people of an existing State to choose freely their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development. Generally speaking, Generally most Islamic Radicals, Jihadists and Arabs-Palestinians terrorists have become rejectionist. And due to the close cooperative support and collaboration by the general population and grass roots community, this rejectionist ideas and philosophies have infected:

• The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.
• The Arab-Palestinian rejects Jewish Immigration and regard it as an act of aggression and invasion.
• Arabs of Palestine regard that any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression.
• The Arab-Palestinian reject all the Recommendation of the UN Special Committee on Palestine.
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects any form of partition and considered the entire territory of the former Mandate as Arab Territory (from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea).
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects recognition of Jewish State.
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects a negotiations with the Israelis.
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects any peaceful settlements of disputes.

The Arab-Palestinian rejects the notion that the Jewish People of Israel have the same rights as the Arab-Palestinians might have. But the Jewish People have been recognized as a people for nearly two centuries. The Jewish People have shared a common cultural heritage, ancestry, history, homeland, language, and religion for nearly 2000 years. It is not likely the rejection of the fundamental will make a difference.

Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self-determination includes the right of a people of an existing State to choose freely their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development.​

That is what I have been saying.

That does not include foreign colonialists.

 

[Shusha]

The same propaganda war is being conducted against the Palestinians...how can you miss it? How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date? That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are. That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.

At the risk of over-using this particular phrase -- I believe you are creating a false equivalency here. There should be some measurable, objective standard by which a group of people is considered a people. Would you agree?

The issue being argued is that the anti-Israel posters have two sets of rules: one by which to judge the Jewish people and one by which to judge everyone else. That is a double standard, and therefore, discrimination. The pro-Israel posters, on the other hand, each have given an internally consistent argument, in line with objective and universally applied standards, usually with some sort of back-up of international commentary or statements.

Now you may not agree with the standards chosen by some of the pro-Israel posters, and may want to suggest a different set of standards, which I would welcome, but to say that the pro-Israel "propaganda" is equivalent to the anti-Israel propaganda is simply not correct.

 

[Coyote]

The same propaganda war is being conducted against the Palestinians...how can you miss it? How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date? That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are. That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.

At the risk of over-using this particular phrase -- I believe you are creating a false equivalency here. There should be some measurable, objective standard by which a group of people is considered a people. Would you agree?

Yes, and the Palestinians qualify. That doesn't stop the efforts to delegitimize them.

The issue being argued is that the anti-Israel posters have two sets of rules: one by which to judge the Jewish people and one by which to judge everyone else. That is a double standard, and therefore, discrimination. The pro-Israel posters, on the other hand, each have given an internally consistent argument, in line with objective and universally applied standards, usually with some sort of back-up of international commentary or statements.

I disagree. Look at your very careful choice of terms here. "Anti-Israel" and "pro-Israel" rather than "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" or anti-both. It's distinction.

I find that the pro-Israeli's offer up their own double standards and discrimination. I'll give you an example, from some of the most common Palestinian critiques:

Pro-Israeli's: Palestinians didn't exist before a certain date (therefore they have no right to the land) They should be expelled to Jordan.
The people existed, in that place, regardless of what they were called at the time.

Pro-Israeli's: Israel has the right to defend itself. When Palestinians do (attacking military) - it is terrorism.

Pro-Israeli's: Stone throwing - Israel has a right to shoot Palestinian stone throwers because those kids are raised to hate. Jewish stone throwers are disregarded as a "few rotten" apples who are justified in hating.

Pro-Israeli's: If you question Israel's justice system or system of administrative detention, you are "supporting terrorists".

Pro-Israeli's: Palestinians want Palestine to be Judenrein.
Pro-Palestinians: Israel is Apartheid.


Pro-Palestinian does not necessarily mean Anti-Israel though it is made out to be.

Now you may not agree with the standards chosen by some of the pro-Israel posters, and may want to suggest a different set of standards, which I would welcome, but to say that the pro-Israel "propaganda" is equivalent to the anti-Israel propaganda is simply not correct.

I disagree. The pro-Israel propaganda is absolutely equivalent to the pro-Palestinian propaganda, with extremes in either direction .

 

[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

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.

Then they should have tried talking in 1999 when they had the chance. they could have always reneged on the treaty and blamed it on the Jews, something they are getting very good at these days.

 

[Phoenall]

The same propaganda war is being conducted against the Palestinians...how can you miss it? How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date? That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are. That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.

At the risk of over-using this particular phrase -- I believe you are creating a false equivalency here. There should be some measurable, objective standard by which a group of people is considered a people. Would you agree?

Yes, and the Palestinians qualify. That doesn't stop the efforts to delegitimize them.

The issue being argued is that the anti-Israel posters have two sets of rules: one by which to judge the Jewish people and one by which to judge everyone else. That is a double standard, and therefore, discrimination. The pro-Israel posters, on the other hand, each have given an internally consistent argument, in line with objective and universally applied standards, usually with some sort of back-up of international commentary or statements.

I disagree. Look at your very careful choice of terms here. "Anti-Israel" and "pro-Israel" rather than "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" or anti-both. It's distinction.

I find that the pro-Israeli's offer up their own double standards and discrimination. I'll give you an example, from some of the most common Palestinian critiques:

Pro-Israeli's: Palestinians didn't exist before a certain date (therefore they have no right to the land) They should be expelled to Jordan.
The people existed, in that place, regardless of what they were called at the time.

Pro-Israeli's: Israel has the right to defend itself. When Palestinians do (attacking military) - it is terrorism.

Pro-Israeli's: Stone throwing - Israel has a right to shoot Palestinian stone throwers because those kids are raised to hate. Jewish stone throwers are disregarded as a "few rotten" apples who are justified in hating.

Pro-Israeli's: If you question Israel's justice system or system of administrative detention, you are "supporting terrorists".

Pro-Israeli's: Palestinians want Palestine to be Judenrein.
Pro-Palestinians: Israel is Apartheid.


Pro-Palestinian does not necessarily mean Anti-Israel though it is made out to be.

Now you may not agree with the standards chosen by some of the pro-Israel posters, and may want to suggest a different set of standards, which I would welcome, but to say that the pro-Israel "propaganda" is equivalent to the anti-Israel propaganda is simply not correct.

I disagree. The pro-Israel propaganda is absolutely equivalent to the pro-Palestinian propaganda, with extremes in either direction .

Here we go again with the same old islamonazi propaganda

Where is the proof that the arab muslims existed there before 1917, or even 1949.

Since when has firing illegal weapons at children in Israel been defence, it is blatant terrorism. But you cant see the difference because your thoughts are clouded

Still you cant understand that two sets of laws apply, and the Palestinians are policed under 1967 Jordanian laws. A clear example of Israel working within the boundaries of International law

What is there to question as the legal system in Israel has nothing to do with you, they make their own laws and these include no capital punishment. Complaining about International laws and demanding that the laws of Jordan should apply in Israel is crass stupidity and again having your thoughts clouded.


Proven by the terms of all of their charters that say the same thing. NO JEWS ALLOWED.

Which not one of you pro palis has ever proven to be the case


I would say your only pro Palestinian statement clearly shows that they are anti Israel and anti Jew if they are prepared to LIE openly in such a manner

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?

(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?


(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??

The West Bank did not belong to Jordan. It was not theirs to lose or give away. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan tried to annex the West Bank but the world wouldn't recognize it.

WRONG AGAIN as Palestine did not exist until 1988. From 1948 till 1967 the west bank was annexed by Jordan and the native population accepted their rule. They went so far as to vote in Jordans elections and to have representatives in the Jordan government. A clear example of Palestinian free determination in practise, just as the next example showed they were stupid and would throw it all away so they could engage in violence. You really need to start reading some proper history books about the west bank and gaza, and how the natives were treated.


Try this



Jordan Formally Annexes the West Bank | History Today

 

[Phoenall]

Shusha, et al,

There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching. There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood. But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted. An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.

When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions. The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up. As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.

There are (generally speaking) four different types of armed conflicts to which the term “wars of national liberation" is use. In reality there are only two different kinds of conflicts that are covered by the Rules of international armed conflicts (IACs) and Rules associated with non-international armed conflict (NIAC).
Under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), everything else is a sub-category:

(1) Those struggles of peoples fighting a foreign invader or occupant;
(2) Those that have evolved within the United Nations and identified from the practice of States and international organizations, namely colonial and alien domination (or rule or government) and racist regimes which according to Article 1, paragraph 4 of Protocol I, are armed struggles aimed at resisting the forcible imposition or maintenance of such situations to allow people subjected to them to exercise its right of self-determination;
(3) Dissident movements which take up arms to overthrow the government and the social order it stands for. Their members may consider themselves as a “liberation movement” waging a “war of national liberation” against a regime or government which masks or represents “alien domination;”
(4) Armed struggles of dissident movements representing a component people within a plural State which aims at seceding and creating a new State on part of the territory of the existing one.
​

The Arab-Israel Conflict has each kind of struggle, dispute, movement and insurgency element mentioned, and maybe more.

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.

(COMMENT)

Self-determination includes the right of a people of an existing State to choose freely their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development. Generally speaking, Generally most Islamic Radicals, Jihadists and Arabs-Palestinians terrorists have become rejectionist. And due to the close cooperative support and collaboration by the general population and grass roots community, this rejectionist ideas and philosophies have infected:

• The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.
• The Arab-Palestinian rejects Jewish Immigration and regard it as an act of aggression and invasion.
• Arabs of Palestine regard that any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression.
• The Arab-Palestinian reject all the Recommendation of the UN Special Committee on Palestine.
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects any form of partition and considered the entire territory of the former Mandate as Arab Territory (from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea).
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects recognition of Jewish State.
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects a negotiations with the Israelis.
• The Arab-Palestinians rejects any peaceful settlements of disputes.

The Arab-Palestinian rejects the notion that the Jewish People of Israel have the same rights as the Arab-Palestinians might have. But the Jewish People have been recognized as a people for nearly two centuries. The Jewish People have shared a common cultural heritage, ancestry, history, homeland, language, and religion for nearly 2000 years. It is not likely the rejection of the fundamental will make a difference.

Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self-determination includes the right of a people of an existing State to choose freely their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development.​

That is what I have been saying.

That does not include foreign colonialists.

And the native arab muslims of the west bank chose to go in with Jordan

 

[flacaltenn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?

(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?


(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??

The West Bank did not belong to Jordan. It was not theirs to lose or give away. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan tried to annex the West Bank but the world wouldn't recognize it.

REALLY??? Were they sanctioned for Annexing it?? Did they ABUSE IT??

Right now Jordan practices OPEN discrimination against the NEWER Palestinians that live there. And for the most part CONFINES THEM TO CAMPS.. Is THAT apartheid also??

It's not apartheid if the discriminated class DOES NOT WANT to be citizens or obtain equal access to laws of the land.. It's an insurgency or a rock-throwing mob.. Not even a Nationalist Movement.

It's basic to this discussion..

 

[flacaltenn]

Shusha, et al,

There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching. There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood. But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted. An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.

When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions. The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up. As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.

The same propaganda war is being conducted against the Palestinians...how can you miss it? How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date? That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are. That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.

Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly. And that can't be said often enough.

Those allegations are unfortunate. But the fact remains, because they have no credible representation of their own, and refuse to organize a coherent Nationalistic effort ---- they have no CURRENT identity.. Other than indigenous people or rock-tossing missile-firing mob.. And that's been the situation for way too long.

They are NOT victims of apartheid. Because their aim is not acheive equal status with the title holders. THEY need to figure out what kind of future they want. And quit blaming the long list of "occupiers" for their failure to assert their claim..

Leaderless mobs just don't get handed nations in this day and age..

 

[flacaltenn]

Shusha, et al,

There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching. There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood. But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted. An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.

When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions. The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up. As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.

The same propaganda war is being conducted against the Palestinians...how can you miss it? How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date? That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are. That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.

Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly. And that can't be said often enough.

There are universal rights. I'll sign up for that. But CITIZENSHIP is a privilege bestowed people. Since Palestinians are NOT asking for CITIZENSHIP rights --- (for the most part) --- the current default stand-off is NOT "apartheid"..

Without CITIZENSHIP ---- the rights you naturally possess are not redeemable without representation and negotiation. SELF-RULE cures all that if you don't want to be a citizen..

The Palis should be teaching all that in their schools. Rather than training toddlers to hate and conduct futile token resistance..

 

[Coyote]

Shusha, et al,

There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching. There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood. But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted. An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.

When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions. The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up. As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.

The same propaganda war is being conducted against the Palestinians...how can you miss it? How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date? That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are. That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.

Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly. And that can't be said often enough.

There are universal rights. I'll sign up for that. But CITIZENSHIP is a privilege bestowed people. Since Palestinians are NOT asking for CITIZENSHIP rights --- (for the most part) --- the current default stand-off is NOT "apartheid"..

I agree, the current stand off is not apartheid, but there are some very real inequalities in the Israeli system that resemble apartheid, for example the fact that there is no "Israeli citizenship" - there are Arab Israeli's, Jewish Israeli's, and an attempt to add another seperate citizenship category - Palestinian Christians. And despite claims otherwise, rights aren't really equal in practice.

Without CITIZENSHIP ---- the rights you naturally possess are not redeemable without representation and negotiation. SELF-RULE cures all that if you don't want to be a citizen..

The Palis should be teaching all that in their schools. Rather than training toddlers to hate and conduct futile token resistance..

Yes, they should... But the Israeli's are no better (or worse0 in what they teach in their schools.

I'm beginning to think that the oft repeated claim that the Paletinians teach hatred of Jews in their schools to resemble propoganda more than reality.

 

[Coyote]

Shusha, et al,

There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching. There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood. But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted. An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.

When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions. The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up. As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.

The same propaganda war is being conducted against the Palestinians...how can you miss it? How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date? That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are. That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.

Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly. And that can't be said often enough.

Those allegations are unfortunate. But the fact remains, because they have no credible representation of their own, and refuse to organize a coherent Nationalistic effort ---- they have no CURRENT identity.. Other than indigenous people or rock-tossing missile-firing mob.. And that's been the situation for way too long.

They are NOT victims of apartheid. Because their aim is not acheive equal status with the title holders. THEY need to figure out what kind of future they want. And quit blaming the long list of "occupiers" for their failure to assert their claim..

Leaderless mobs just don't get handed nations in this day and age..

They have a current identity, they just lack coherent leadership to forge a future.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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??

The West Bank did not belong to Jordan. It was not theirs to lose or give away. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan tried to annex the West Bank but the world wouldn't recognize it.

REALLY??? Were they sanctioned for Annexing it?? Did they ABUSE IT??

Right now Jordan practices OPEN discrimination against the NEWER Palestinians that live there. And for the most part CONFINES THEM TO CAMPS.. Is THAT apartheid also??

It's not apartheid if the discriminated class DOES NOT WANT to be citizens or obtain equal access to laws of the land.. It's an insurgency or a rock-throwing mob.. Not even a Nationalist Movement.

It's basic to this discussion..

I am curious as to how your response relates to my post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha, et al,

There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching. There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood. But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted. An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.

When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions. The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up. As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.

The same propaganda war is being conducted against the Palestinians...how can you miss it? How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date? That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are. That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.

Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly. And that can't be said often enough.

Those allegations are unfortunate. But the fact remains, because they have no credible representation of their own, and refuse to organize a coherent Nationalistic effort ---- they have no CURRENT identity.. Other than indigenous people or rock-tossing missile-firing mob.. And that's been the situation for way too long.

They are NOT victims of apartheid. Because their aim is not acheive equal status with the title holders. THEY need to figure out what kind of future they want. And quit blaming the long list of "occupiers" for their failure to assert their claim..

Leaderless mobs just don't get handed nations in this day and age..

They have a current identity, they just lack coherent leadership to forge a future.

Indeed, the US backed coup in 2007 destroyed the most democratic government in the ME.

 

[MaryL]

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

Jews aren't any more "white" that are Palestinians. Palestine was a creation of the brits, no more (or less real) than Israel. The OP is being very misleading. IF the Palestinians would be more civilized and less territorial and violent, this wouldn't be an issue, now, would it?

 

[Shusha]

Yes, and the Palestinians qualify.

They qualify by what objective standard? The only objective standard I have ever seen used by which they qualify (and I use it myself) is that they self-identify as a distinct culture (and you are the only other person who uses that standard). Its a perfectly good standard. And personally, I think more people should use it. (Of course, the people who will not use it are those opposed to Israel).

The issue being argued is that the anti-Israel posters have two sets of rules: one by which to judge the Jewish people and one by which to judge everyone else. That is a double standard, and therefore, discrimination. The pro-Israel posters, on the other hand, each have given an internally consistent argument, in line with objective and universally applied standards, usually with some sort of back-up of international commentary or statements.

I disagree. Look at your very careful choice of terms here. "Anti-Israel" and "pro-Israel" rather than "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" or anti-both. It's distinction.

You disagree that there is a double standard? Or you disagree that the pro-Israeli posters have an internally consistent argument with respect to determining whether or not both parties have rights to self-determination on the territory in question? If you have any evidence of a pro-Israel argument which is inconsistent -- please outline it.

And yes, there is a distinction between anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. And I very deliberately use those terms. Why? Because I don't believe the majority of the anti-Israel posters are pro-Palestinian. Meaning, I don't believe they are encouraging dialogue and actions which are beneficial to the improvement of the conditions for the Palestinians nor self-determination for the Palestinians.

Frankly, I believe a decent number of Palestinians are not "pro-Palestinian" either in that they are not actually interested in furthering and reaching their own goals as much as they are in defeating Israel's. I think this is key to understanding the fact that they still are not building nations (let's be honest Gaza and Palestine) and I think it is rooted in the fact that they have not coalesced into a cultural identity on their own terms, rather than as an opposition to Israel.

I believe this is crystal clear with the disengagement from Gaza. What possible benefit does importing weapons and indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel serve? What possible benefit for the Gazan people does diverting 800 million tons of concrete from essential services like water sanitation, sewers, homes, hospitals and schools into building tunnels serve? How is this ultimately helpful to the Gazan people? Do you see alot of Hamas government officials talk about rebuilding Gaza, getting the government functioning, establishing trade with Israel and other nations, building a tourist industry? I don't. I see alot of talk about destroying Israel. (and opposition to "occupation" is NOT a cultural identity -- its not enough.)

And btw, I do consider myself to be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. I defend this statement by saying that I believe they BOTH have rights on the territory in question and that ultimately the goal is two independent, fully-functioning, self-determining States.

find that the pro-Israeli's offer up their own double standards and discrimination. I'll give you an example, from some of the most common Palestinian critiques:

Pro-Israeli's: Palestinians didn't exist before a certain date (therefore they have no right to the land) They should be expelled to Jordan.The people existed, in that place, regardless of what they were called at the time.

Sure, so the objective standard for sovereign self-determination you are using here is residence -- residing in a place is enough for one to be considered a "people". I think that standard has relatively little value in that it applies universally -- all people live in a place and exist. Additionally, by that standard the Jewish people moving into the disputed territory are creating the conditions of sovereignty by the act of residing in that place. (Now, I'm NOT saying they are or they should -- I'm saying that is the standard YOU have just set up.)

Pro-Israeli's

: Israel has the right to defend itself. When Palestinians do (attacking military) - it is terrorism.

Both Israel and Palestine have the right to defend themselves. Palestine is NOT being attacked. Wanna-be-Palestine is being controlled as a measure of defense. NOT the same thing.

Secondarily, please acknowledge that a great deal of Palestine's "defense" IS terrorism.

Third, please acknowledge that using or encouraging non-combat personnel in combat roles (especially children, a war crime!) is inappropriate.

Finally, please pick a few examples of attacks on Israeli military and point out the military objective of those missions, explaining how that military objective will be neutralized by the actions of the combatants involved.

Pro-Israeli's

: Palestinians want Palestine to be Judenrein.

Demonstrably, objectively true. How many Jews live in Gaza? How many Jews live in Area B? (For that matter how many Jews live in any of the Arab Muslim countries?)

How many Jews living in what becomes Palestinian territory will be permitted to stay (assuming they renounce Israeli citizenship and adopt Palestinian citizenship)?

Now contrast that with how many Arab Muslims live in Israel. Which would be the appropriate correlation.

Pro-Palestinians:

Israel is Apartheid.

And haven't you already said, on this thread, that this is a false accusation (demonstrably not true)?