Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[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"..

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.

You COULD be right. But I'm not sure this one study is all that definitive..

A third finding is that there is a lack of information about the other in each sides’ books. Fourth is that the negative depictions and omissions of the other are most pronounced in Israeli religious ultra-Orthodox books and Palestinian books. Israeli secular books are the most self-critical of the three categories.

The researchers also examined maps in the schoolbooks, and found that in 58 percent of the post-1967 maps in Palestinian schoolbooks, the polity “Palestine” is shown, with its area incorporating everything between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including present-day Israel. There is no mention of Israel.

Conversely, 76 percent of the post-1967 maps in Israeli schoolbooks show Israel as the area between the river and the sea, with no mention of the Palestinian Authority, or notation of the so-called Green Line that separates Israel from the West Bank and Gaza territories it conquered in the 1967 Six Day War.

“This type of education can create a lasting obstacle to peace,” said Wexler. “If you grow up seeing maps that seem to imply that the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is your homeland… and you are asked to give up some of that land to make two states, you would feel you are losing something that you never had to begin with.”



Read more: Palestinian Textbooks Don't Vilify Jews, New Study Reveals

REALLY? 58% of maps in Pali textbooks show no Israel? Or 78% of Israeli textbooks show no GreenLine? See -- here's a factoid with no tangible meaning.. It makes no difference HOW many textbooks a faulty map turns up in.. What matters is IF ONE textbook is used MOST of the time --- and another is hardly EVER used -- that statistic is meaningless. It's EXPOSURE to that faulty information that matters.

Maybe they aren't dissing each in the SECULAR textbooks as much as in the past. But
there IS indoctrination from the religious schools --- which are as much a part of life there.

And I'm not aware of substantial differences in legal proceedings, taxation, or participating in voting between RELIGIOUS groups in Israel. I know there are ACCOMODATIONS about military service or working in the Defense Industry. But in SUBSTANCE -- if you go to court, vote or pay your taxes -- it's no big deal..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You started out by asking "how "colonists" get better rights than the natives. Obviously when land changes governments -- there may be "natives" that don't want to abide by the new treaties. Like Mexican families that trace their ancestral roots back to the US SW and California. In their minds --- that's their "ancestral home". And thus there is a not so small movement aimed and determined to "return" and reclaim that land.

Any indigenous peoples who never asserted THEIR OWN sovereignty -- pretty much have to abide by terms of the governments that they lived under. And after 200 yrs of being rolled over and shoved around and expelled from a lot of a places --- you would THINK --- the Palis would put a higher priority on self-rule and self-determination.. Rather than being a perpetual victim class.

Even the PO'ed Mexicans that don't abide by the deal that sold out "their homeland" --- have more organization and common sense than to act as victims. They TOO -- want to "re-colonize" their "homeland"..

Is that a bit clearer now ????

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

You started out by asking "how "colonists" get better rights than the natives. Obviously when land changes governments -- there may be "natives" that don't want to abide by the new treaties. Like Mexican families that trace their ancestral roots back to the US SW and California. In their minds --- that's their "ancestral home". And thus there is a not so small movement aimed and determined to "return" and reclaim that land.

Any indigenous peoples who never asserted THEIR OWN sovereignty -- pretty much have to abide by terms of the governments that they lived under. And after 200 yrs of being rolled over and shoved around and expelled from a lot of a places --- you would THINK --- the Palis would put a higher priority on self-rule and self-determination.. Rather than being a perpetual victim class.

Even the PO'ed Mexicans that don't abide by the deal that sold out "their homeland" --- have more organization and common sense than to act as victims. They TOO -- want to "re-colonize" their "homeland"..

Is that a bit clearer now ????

Should this be transferred to the creation of Israel thread?

There are some things to look at when it comes to Israel. One of those is colonialism. Both the British and the Zionists openly discussed their colonial project during the Mandate period. The facts on the ground confirm that colonization. However, colonialism was getting a bad name. Peoples around the world were gaining independence from colonial rule. This was made evident by the UN in 1960. The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration Israel dropped its reference to colonialism and now denies what was regularly discussed. The Palestinians, however, are increasingly using the term on their side of the debate.

Then there is foreign rule and domination. Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

According to the theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base of international law, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. Israel's government was established in Palestine with the objection of the vast majority of the people.

 

[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.

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.

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.

And still no evidence of any apartheid taking place in Israel. You seem to be deliberately ignoring the relevant facts because to not do so would show that the Palestinians are the ones enforcing apartheid

There are two distinct nations with separate governments accepted and recognised by the UN, so there is no comparison with South Africa at all. Yet we still get morons demanding that Israel hands the Palestinians equal rights to the citizens of Israel contrary to the wishes of the P.A.

Where in your link does it show that ALL Israeli schools are teaching their students to kill arab's . I looked twice and could not find any mention of such things. Read your link and it tells you that the comparison was not done like for like, but on an uneven field " The new study examined 94 books from Palestinian school systems in Gaza and the West Bank, and 74 books from the Israeli secular and religious school systems." Comparing a tiny proportion of the Israeli education system with the majority of the palestinian curriculum


Then how about the truth easily verified that is in Israeli text books " Another secular Israeli book stated, “Since its establishment, the State of Israel sought to make peace with its neighbors, the Arab countries, through Israeli-Arab negotiations” but failed because of Arab refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. "



In fact all the things in the palestinian text books happen to be the same propaganda lies posted on here by team paqlestine, so now we know where their source is for the blood libels.

 

[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.

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.

They lack the intelligence to take the next step forward towards a brighter future. and as a result have failed to win any support. They rely completely on handouts and aid and have lost the impetus to work towards a better place. Stop their aid and pull the UNWRA out of Palestine and you will see a very severe case of peace break out in the M.E.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Is there big holes in your education, as Jordan was allowed to annexe the west bank. That was the basis of your post and it has been blown to pieces.

 

[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.

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.

How so when the elections were democratic and fatah lost because of their corruption

 

[Phoenall]

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.

You started out by asking "how "colonists" get better rights than the natives. Obviously when land changes governments -- there may be "natives" that don't want to abide by the new treaties. Like Mexican families that trace their ancestral roots back to the US SW and California. In their minds --- that's their "ancestral home". And thus there is a not so small movement aimed and determined to "return" and reclaim that land.

Any indigenous peoples who never asserted THEIR OWN sovereignty -- pretty much have to abide by terms of the governments that they lived under. And after 200 yrs of being rolled over and shoved around and expelled from a lot of a places --- you would THINK --- the Palis would put a higher priority on self-rule and self-determination.. Rather than being a perpetual victim class.

Even the PO'ed Mexicans that don't abide by the deal that sold out "their homeland" --- have more organization and common sense than to act as victims. They TOO -- want to "re-colonize" their "homeland"..

Is that a bit clearer now ????

Should this be transferred to the creation of Israel thread?

There are some things to look at when it comes to Israel. One of those is colonialism. Both the British and the Zionists openly discussed their colonial project during the Mandate period. The facts on the ground confirm that colonization. However, colonialism was getting a bad name. Peoples around the world were gaining independence from colonial rule. This was made evident by the UN in 1960. The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration Israel dropped its reference to colonialism and now denies what was regularly discussed. The Palestinians, however, are increasingly using the term on their side of the debate.

Then there is foreign rule and domination. Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

According to the theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base of international law, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. Israel's government was established in Palestine with the objection of the vast majority of the people.

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.

You started out by asking "how "colonists" get better rights than the natives. Obviously when land changes governments -- there may be "natives" that don't want to abide by the new treaties. Like Mexican families that trace their ancestral roots back to the US SW and California. In their minds --- that's their "ancestral home". And thus there is a not so small movement aimed and determined to "return" and reclaim that land.

Any indigenous peoples who never asserted THEIR OWN sovereignty -- pretty much have to abide by terms of the governments that they lived under. And after 200 yrs of being rolled over and shoved around and expelled from a lot of a places --- you would THINK --- the Palis would put a higher priority on self-rule and self-determination.. Rather than being a perpetual victim class.

Even the PO'ed Mexicans that don't abide by the deal that sold out "their homeland" --- have more organization and common sense than to act as victims. They TOO -- want to "re-colonize" their "homeland"..

Is that a bit clearer now ????

Should this be transferred to the creation of Israel thread?

There are some things to look at when it comes to Israel. One of those is colonialism. Both the British and the Zionists openly discussed their colonial project during the Mandate period. The facts on the ground confirm that colonization. However, colonialism was getting a bad name. Peoples around the world were gaining independence from colonial rule. This was made evident by the UN in 1960. The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration Israel dropped its reference to colonialism and now denies what was regularly discussed. The Palestinians, however, are increasingly using the term on their side of the debate.

Then there is foreign rule and domination. Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

According to the theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base of international law, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. Israel's government was established in Palestine with the objection of the vast majority of the people.

Again using recent changes to act retrospectively on the actions of 1923. It does not work unless you want them to be used against your own life. If they work for 1923 then they must also work for 1750. Now where was the colonisation in 1960 again that you are getting so hot under the collar about.

The Jews who where the citizens of Palestine declared independence, the only foreign influence was that of the arab league who invaded to wipe out the Jews. They tried to declare ownership of land that had already been claimed and the claim accepted.

WRONG AGAIN as that premise did not exist in 1948, and the arab muslims were recent invaders as shown by the demographics and the actions of the UN. Once again you fail because you rely on islamonazi LIES and propaganda

 

[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.

How so when the elections were democratic and fatah lost because of their corruption

That is correct. Fatah lost the elections.

The never answered question is how did the losers end up governing the West Bank?

 

[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.

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.

How so when the elections were democratic and fatah lost because of their corruption

That is correct. Fatah lost the elections.

The never answered question is how did the losers end up governing the West Bank?

Because fatah did not want to lose, and so created a civil war to eliminate hamas from the west bank. In doing so they also used the P.A. charter to stop any chance of elections ever again, so keeping their seats on the gravy train. All the talks of reconciliations are just smoke to hide the attacks on Israel, and to fool the morons into making mountains out of mole hills.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is called part of the self-determination process. There is a competency issue here in the Palestinian Leadership and the electorate. This is the inability of the Arab-Palestinians to control an orderly transition.

It should be considered an internal domestic concern. But as all ways, the Palestinians --- unable to accept the consequences of their actions --- blame every one but themselves. And --- of course --- the US plays the leading role as the evil villain in league with Iblīs.

That is correct. Fatah lost the elections.

The never answered question is how did the losers end up governing the West Bank?

(COMMENT)

Supernatural forces at work.

New Poll Reveals Attitude Among Palestinians
02/07/2016 Moby Menachem Rephun

A poll conducted recently by the Palestinian firm AWRAD (Arab World For Research & Development) revealed that Palestinians overwhelmingly oppose dismantling the Palestinian Authority. The poll also revealed a sharp decline in the percentage of Palestinians who support a third intifada against Israel.

Approximately 1200 Palestinians were questioned for the poll, with a three percent margin of error. According to the poll, 36% of Palestinians questioned stated they would vote for Abbas, with 22% supporting Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas. 56% of the Palestinians polled said support the creation of the post of deputy president of the PA, while 30% said they do not.

The poll revealed a jump from 32% to 38% regarding dissatisfaction with Haniyeh. In the Gaza Strip, 46% said they support Abbas, while only 20% expressed support for Haniyeh. In Gaza, the popularity of Fatah increased to 46%, with only 34% support in the West Bank.

79% of polled Palestinians stated that they opposed dissolving the PA, while 80% said they support holding immediate presidential/parliamentary elections.

In a 2006 video released by Hamas, a Hamas terrorist declares that ““We will not leave you [the Jews] alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children’s thirst with your blood.”

“We know that there is no better blood than the blood of Jews.”
​

Do we really care what internal problem the Hostile Arab Palestinians are having?

v/r
R

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You started out by asking "how "colonists" get better rights than the natives. Obviously when land changes governments -- there may be "natives" that don't want to abide by the new treaties. Like Mexican families that trace their ancestral roots back to the US SW and California. In their minds --- that's their "ancestral home". And thus there is a not so small movement aimed and determined to "return" and reclaim that land.

Any indigenous peoples who never asserted THEIR OWN sovereignty -- pretty much have to abide by terms of the governments that they lived under. And after 200 yrs of being rolled over and shoved around and expelled from a lot of a places --- you would THINK --- the Palis would put a higher priority on self-rule and self-determination.. Rather than being a perpetual victim class.

Even the PO'ed Mexicans that don't abide by the deal that sold out "their homeland" --- have more organization and common sense than to act as victims. They TOO -- want to "re-colonize" their "homeland"..

Is that a bit clearer now ????

Should this be transferred to the creation of Israel thread?

There are some things to look at when it comes to Israel. One of those is colonialism. Both the British and the Zionists openly discussed their colonial project during the Mandate period. The facts on the ground confirm that colonization. However, colonialism was getting a bad name. Peoples around the world were gaining independence from colonial rule. This was made evident by the UN in 1960. The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration Israel dropped its reference to colonialism and now denies what was regularly discussed. The Palestinians, however, are increasingly using the term on their side of the debate.

Then there is foreign rule and domination. Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

According to the theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base of international law, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. Israel's government was established in Palestine with the objection of the vast majority of the people.

The topic is APARTHEID -- not colonialism. YOU brought the colonialism into the thread. I provided a parallel between the Palis and Mexicans who STILL don't accept the transfer of THEIR homeland to another entity. They don't believe there is such a thing as an Illegal Mexican in the US SW or California. And they constantly whine about the lack of rights and legal access and shafting of paychecks. To them -- THIS situation is also "apartheid".

Thread is pretty dead anyways. Because the "rights" problems of the Palestinians is simple NOT Apartheid. Doesn't even match the meaning of the word.. The Palestinian "rights" problem is a failure to pursue self-rule and Nationalism.

 

[flacaltenn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is called part of the self-determination process. There is a competency issue here in the Palestinian Leadership and the electorate. This is the inability of the Arab-Palestinians to control an orderly transition.

It should be considered an internal domestic concern. But as all ways, the Palestinians --- unable to accept the consequences of their actions --- blame every one but themselves. And --- of course --- the US plays the leading role as the evil villain in league with Iblīs.

That is correct. Fatah lost the elections.

The never answered question is how did the losers end up governing the West Bank?

(COMMENT)

Supernatural forces at work.

New Poll Reveals Attitude Among Palestinians
02/07/2016 Moby Menachem Rephun

A poll conducted recently by the Palestinian firm AWRAD (Arab World For Research & Development) revealed that Palestinians overwhelmingly oppose dismantling the Palestinian Authority. The poll also revealed a sharp decline in the percentage of Palestinians who support a third intifada against Israel.

Approximately 1200 Palestinians were questioned for the poll, with a three percent margin of error. According to the poll, 36% of Palestinians questioned stated they would vote for Abbas, with 22% supporting Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas. 56% of the Palestinians polled said support the creation of the post of deputy president of the PA, while 30% said they do not.

The poll revealed a jump from 32% to 38% regarding dissatisfaction with Haniyeh. In the Gaza Strip, 46% said they support Abbas, while only 20% expressed support for Haniyeh. In Gaza, the popularity of Fatah increased to 46%, with only 34% support in the West Bank.

79% of polled Palestinians stated that they opposed dissolving the PA, while 80% said they support holding immediate presidential/parliamentary elections.

In a 2006 video released by Hamas, a Hamas terrorist declares that ““We will not leave you [the Jews] alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children’s thirst with your blood.”

“We know that there is no better blood than the blood of Jews.”
​

Do we really care what internal problem the Hostile Arab Palestinians are having?

v/r
R

I THINK I care about internal Pali problems Rocco. Otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time in this forum. But I'm never certain I understand them or even have access to information that MIGHT help. So POLLS like that one are golden.

If 80% of the Palis DO want to rebuild the PA -- that would be a great sign of progress. But we all know that any great leader with visions of future peace -- would be dead in a week. So lower expectations are in order.

“We know that there is no better blood than the blood of Jews.”

"Arab blood is BAD blood. So bad in fact -- you do a great job of pouring it for yourselves"

 

[Coyote]

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).

I agree, it is a good standard. But they also have their own distinct dialect (and I think dialect is as objective a standard as language), distinct attributes of dress, and cultural history.

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.

I disagree that the pro-Israel posters do not have a double standard.

One example of an argument that is not internally consistent (if I understand the term correctly) is in the issue of indigenous and the argument that being indigenous confers greater rights.

Evidence is provided via historical analysis and genetics, that the Palestinians are the product of the same peoples the Jews, mixed with various waves of conquest and religious/cultural conversions.

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

This is the same argument used by the Pro-Palestinians I might add and the same terminology: invaders, squatters, illegal inhabitants, colonists etc. Do you see the double standard at play?

Another example of the double standard in play: Palestinians honor and name streets after their "martyrs", often those involved in attacks on civilians including children. Yet, in the founding of Israel - the Jewish fighters did the same thing. Irgun was implicated in many attacks on civilian targets, including children, and streets, squares and schools were named after Irgun fighters some of whom were directly responsible for these atrocities. Double standard?

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.

I'll make several arguments here. One - do you honestly believe the majority of "pro-Israel" posters are "pro-Israel" more than "anti-Palestinian"? I go by the type of arguments they most frequently make:
Palestinians have no inherent rights.
Palestinians are animals.
All Palestinians are terrorists (children killed being referred to as "one less terrorist").
All Palestinians are raised to hate, teach their children to hate in schools.
Palestinians should be expelled to Jordan.
Their main thrust in every argument is that the Palestinians need to be elsewhere.

Each of those arguments demonizes an entire group of people, ignoring the complexities of the issue, and seeks to convince the world that their cause has no legitimacy. Are these sorts of statements encouraging dialogue that is beneficial to Israel or a solution to the current impasse or to they just encourage hate? Is this "pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian"?

The other argument is this. You may disagree with their position, but the argument is sound and consistent - at least in some cases. I do agree there are those who's sole motive is "anti-Israel" and the Palestinians are merely the fodder to legitimize their views which are often expressed in a frequent fallback to conspiracy theory for vindication of their anti-Jewish beliefs.

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.

Food for thought...

I would offer up this thought in return. There are those who can fight for freedom and there are those who can govern. Very seldom do both those traits exist in the same individual. Quite often fighters do not make good governors or peace makers or nation builders. The Palestinians are in a unique situation where they have to both fight an oppressor (and we can argue that term, but that is how they see it) and build a nation. It's easier to convince people to violence I think than non violence.

"that they have not coalesced into a cultural identity on their own terms, rather than as an opposition to Israel." - you have a very good point there...I need to perecolate on this. I think I might agree. Do you think though, there might be a difference between Gaza and WB Palestinians on this?

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.)

What Hamas is doing is not in any way helpful to the Gazans. They came in to power promising something in opposition to the corruption that defined Fatah, and promised improved economy etc etc. They also took control illegally. I do not think Hamas has the Palestinians best interests in mind so much as opposition to Israel.

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.

I agree and, I feel I am both pro as well (and know there are those here who will crap on this) - I believe Israel has a right to exist, regardless of whatever historical events occurred in the making of Israel - it's flourishing, it's been there for multiple generations, and it has proved itself a capable state. It has a right to defend itself against attack - no state should have to tolerate rocket fire into it's civilian areas. I strongly believe both have rights to the territory in question, and like you the goal is two states. The question as always - how will we get there? I also strongly believe that neither side is fairly characterized as "animals" or "barbarians" or "racists" - they are composed of millions of diverse, different people who's views cover a spectrum. It's easy to forget that and portray them as two-dimensional figures of good and evil.

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.)

Residence alone is only part of the standard. But in this argument - the Anti-Palestinians (I'm choosing to use this term) are denying Palestinian legitimacy while using the same standard to affirm Jewish legitimacy. This strikes me as a double standard.

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.

IMO - terrorism is directed at civilians and civilian targets. I think that is one of the definitions of terrorism. Attacks directed against military or government targets are not terrorism in assymetrical warfare. This argument could go into it's own topic though.

As far as military objectives - I don't know, but I can pull up examples of Irgun terrorism in the founding of Israel and ask the same question. I think the answer is the object is not a neutralization but a spreading of terror and uncertainty in the enemy you are fighting with the chief distinction between that and terrorism being the choice of target.

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.

Assuming that, I think they will be permitted to stay. The real question though is will any government be strong enough and stable enough to make sure they are both welcome and safe.

Your question is really too hypothetical because you are asking for a comparison of a conjecture with a reality and we just don't know that.

We do know this though - Israel has been very careful of it's demographics - this has affected family reunification, the ability of residents who marry spouses outside of Israel to bring them back (unless they are Jewish) and the residency system in Jeruselum in which boundaries have been deliberately altered in order to exclude former Arab residents who are now considered outside Jeruselum, and the expansion and granting of new (Jewish only) settlements in contested areas. Israel doesn't rely on violence for this - it has legal and state mechanism for accomplishing these objectives and I do believe they are objectives.

Pro-Palestinians:

Israel is Apartheid.

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

Yes, as is the Judenrein one. Double standards.

 

[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.

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.

And still no evidence of any apartheid taking place in Israel. You seem to be deliberately ignoring the relevant facts because to not do so would show that the Palestinians are the ones enforcing apartheid

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact I have not called Israel apartheid.

There are two distinct nations with separate governments accepted and recognised by the UN, so there is no comparison with South Africa at all. Yet we still get morons demanding that Israel hands the Palestinians equal rights to the citizens of Israel contrary to the wishes of the P.A.\

See above.

Where in your link does it show that ALL Israeli schools are teaching their students to kill arab's . I looked twice and could not find any mention of such things. Read your link and it tells you that the comparison was not done like for like, but on an uneven field " The new study examined 94 books from Palestinian school systems in Gaza and the West Bank, and 74 books from the Israeli secular and religious school systems." Comparing a tiny proportion of the Israeli education system with the majority of the palestinian curriculum

It doesn't. Neither does it show ALL Palestinian schools are teaching their students to kill Jews. What's your point here?

How do you know it's the majority of the Palestinian curriculum and a tiny proportion of the Israeli education system? Do you have data (non-Zionazi biased sources to use references you are familiar with) to show this?

Then how about the truth easily verified that is in Israeli text books " Another secular Israeli book stated, “Since its establishment, the State of Israel sought to make peace with its neighbors, the Arab countries, through Israeli-Arab negotiations” but failed because of Arab refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. "

And? Are you trying to say some of the article (the parts you agree with) are "truth" but he parts you disagree with are not?

In fact all the things in the palestinian text books happen to be the same propaganda lies posted on here by team paqlestine, so now we know where their source is for the blood libels.

I think there is a lot of propoganda out there and it's not just from the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is called part of the self-determination process. There is a competency issue here in the Palestinian Leadership and the electorate. This is the inability of the Arab-Palestinians to control an orderly transition.

It should be considered an internal domestic concern. But as all ways, the Palestinians --- unable to accept the consequences of their actions --- blame every one but themselves. And --- of course --- the US plays the leading role as the evil villain in league with Iblīs.

That is correct. Fatah lost the elections.

The never answered question is how did the losers end up governing the West Bank?

(COMMENT)

Supernatural forces at work.

New Poll Reveals Attitude Among Palestinians
02/07/2016 Moby Menachem Rephun

A poll conducted recently by the Palestinian firm AWRAD (Arab World For Research & Development) revealed that Palestinians overwhelmingly oppose dismantling the Palestinian Authority. The poll also revealed a sharp decline in the percentage of Palestinians who support a third intifada against Israel.

Approximately 1200 Palestinians were questioned for the poll, with a three percent margin of error. According to the poll, 36% of Palestinians questioned stated they would vote for Abbas, with 22% supporting Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas. 56% of the Palestinians polled said support the creation of the post of deputy president of the PA, while 30% said they do not.

The poll revealed a jump from 32% to 38% regarding dissatisfaction with Haniyeh. In the Gaza Strip, 46% said they support Abbas, while only 20% expressed support for Haniyeh. In Gaza, the popularity of Fatah increased to 46%, with only 34% support in the West Bank.

79% of polled Palestinians stated that they opposed dissolving the PA, while 80% said they support holding immediate presidential/parliamentary elections.

In a 2006 video released by Hamas, a Hamas terrorist declares that ““We will not leave you [the Jews] alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children’s thirst with your blood.”

“We know that there is no better blood than the blood of Jews.”
​

Do we really care what internal problem the Hostile Arab Palestinians are having?

v/r
R

Ducked the question again, I see.

 

[Phoenall]

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).

I agree, it is a good standard. But they also have their own distinct dialect (and I think dialect is as objective a standard as language), distinct attributes of dress, and cultural history.

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.

I disagree that the pro-Israel posters do not have a double standard.

One example of an argument that is not internally consistent (if I understand the term correctly) is in the issue of indigenous and the argument that being indigenous confers greater rights.

Evidence is provided via historical analysis and genetics, that the Palestinians are the product of the same peoples the Jews, mixed with various waves of conquest and religious/cultural conversions.

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

This is the same argument used by the Pro-Palestinians I might add and the same terminology: invaders, squatters, illegal inhabitants, colonists etc. Do you see the double standard at play?

Another example of the double standard in play: Palestinians honor and name streets after their "martyrs", often those involved in attacks on civilians including children. Yet, in the founding of Israel - the Jewish fighters did the same thing. Irgun was implicated in many attacks on civilian targets, including children, and streets, squares and schools were named after Irgun fighters some of whom were directly responsible for these atrocities. Double standard?

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.

I'll make several arguments here. One - do you honestly believe the majority of "pro-Israel" posters are "pro-Israel" more than "anti-Palestinian"? I go by the type of arguments they most frequently make:
Palestinians have no inherent rights.
Palestinians are animals.
All Palestinians are terrorists (children killed being referred to as "one less terrorist").
All Palestinians are raised to hate, teach their children to hate in schools.
Palestinians should be expelled to Jordan.
Their main thrust in every argument is that the Palestinians need to be elsewhere.

Each of those arguments demonizes an entire group of people, ignoring the complexities of the issue, and seeks to convince the world that their cause has no legitimacy. Are these sorts of statements encouraging dialogue that is beneficial to Israel or a solution to the current impasse or to they just encourage hate? Is this "pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian"?

The other argument is this. You may disagree with their position, but the argument is sound and consistent - at least in some cases. I do agree there are those who's sole motive is "anti-Israel" and the Palestinians are merely the fodder to legitimize their views which are often expressed in a frequent fallback to conspiracy theory for vindication of their anti-Jewish beliefs.

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.

Food for thought...

I would offer up this thought in return. There are those who can fight for freedom and there are those who can govern. Very seldom do both those traits exist in the same individual. Quite often fighters do not make good governors or peace makers or nation builders. The Palestinians are in a unique situation where they have to both fight an oppressor (and we can argue that term, but that is how they see it) and build a nation. It's easier to convince people to violence I think than non violence.

"that they have not coalesced into a cultural identity on their own terms, rather than as an opposition to Israel." - you have a very good point there...I need to perecolate on this. I think I might agree. Do you think though, there might be a difference between Gaza and WB Palestinians on this?

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.)

What Hamas is doing is not in any way helpful to the Gazans. They came in to power promising something in opposition to the corruption that defined Fatah, and promised improved economy etc etc. They also took control illegally. I do not think Hamas has the Palestinians best interests in mind so much as opposition to Israel.

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.

I agree and, I feel I am both pro as well (and know there are those here who will crap on this) - I believe Israel has a right to exist, regardless of whatever historical events occurred in the making of Israel - it's flourishing, it's been there for multiple generations, and it has proved itself a capable state. It has a right to defend itself against attack - no state should have to tolerate rocket fire into it's civilian areas. I strongly believe both have rights to the territory in question, and like you the goal is two states. The question as always - how will we get there? I also strongly believe that neither side is fairly characterized as "animals" or "barbarians" or "racists" - they are composed of millions of diverse, different people who's views cover a spectrum. It's easy to forget that and portray them as two-dimensional figures of good and evil.

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.)

Residence alone is only part of the standard. But in this argument - the Anti-Palestinians (I'm choosing to use this term) are denying Palestinian legitimacy while using the same standard to affirm Jewish legitimacy. This strikes me as a double standard.

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.

IMO - terrorism is directed at civilians and civilian targets. I think that is one of the definitions of terrorism. Attacks directed against military or government targets are not terrorism in assymetrical warfare. This argument could go into it's own topic though.

As far as military objectives - I don't know, but I can pull up examples of Irgun terrorism in the founding of Israel and ask the same question. I think the answer is the object is not a neutralization but a spreading of terror and uncertainty in the enemy you are fighting with the chief distinction between that and terrorism being the choice of target.

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.

Assuming that, I think they will be permitted to stay. The real question though is will any government be strong enough and stable enough to make sure they are both welcome and safe.

Your question is really too hypothetical because you are asking for a comparison of a conjecture with a reality and we just don't know that.

We do know this though - Israel has been very careful of it's demographics - this has affected family reunification, the ability of residents who marry spouses outside of Israel to bring them back (unless they are Jewish) and the residency system in Jeruselum in which boundaries have been deliberately altered in order to exclude former Arab residents who are now considered outside Jeruselum, and the expansion and granting of new (Jewish only) settlements in contested areas. Israel doesn't rely on violence for this - it has legal and state mechanism for accomplishing these objectives and I do believe they are objectives.

Pro-Palestinians:

Israel is Apartheid.

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

Yes, as is the Judenrein one. Double standards.

Even though the concept of Judenrein is expressly stated in every Palestinian charter

 

[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.

You COULD be right. But I'm not sure this one study is all that definitive..

A third finding is that there is a lack of information about the other in each sides’ books. Fourth is that the negative depictions and omissions of the other are most pronounced in Israeli religious ultra-Orthodox books and Palestinian books. Israeli secular books are the most self-critical of the three categories.

The researchers also examined maps in the schoolbooks, and found that in 58 percent of the post-1967 maps in Palestinian schoolbooks, the polity “Palestine” is shown, with its area incorporating everything between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including present-day Israel. There is no mention of Israel.

Conversely, 76 percent of the post-1967 maps in Israeli schoolbooks show Israel as the area between the river and the sea, with no mention of the Palestinian Authority, or notation of the so-called Green Line that separates Israel from the West Bank and Gaza territories it conquered in the 1967 Six Day War.

“This type of education can create a lasting obstacle to peace,” said Wexler. “If you grow up seeing maps that seem to imply that the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is your homeland… and you are asked to give up some of that land to make two states, you would feel you are losing something that you never had to begin with.”



Read more: Palestinian Textbooks Don't Vilify Jews, New Study Reveals

REALLY? 58% of maps in Pali textbooks show no Israel? Or 78% of Israeli textbooks show no GreenLine? See -- here's a factoid with no tangible meaning.. It makes no difference HOW many textbooks a faulty map turns up in.. What matters is IF ONE textbook is used MOST of the time --- and another is hardly EVER used -- that statistic is meaningless. It's EXPOSURE to that faulty information that matters.

Maybe they aren't dissing each in the SECULAR textbooks as much as in the past. But
there IS indoctrination from the religious schools --- which are as much a part of life there.

And I'm not aware of substantial differences in legal proceedings, taxation, or participating in voting between RELIGIOUS groups in Israel. I know there are ACCOMODATIONS about military service or working in the Defense Industry. But in SUBSTANCE -- if you go to court, vote or pay your taxes -- it's no big deal..

Wikipedia has an article on it that includes other studies (though none as large as the 2013 study): Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2000 CMIP report
An analysis of Israeli textbooks in 2000 by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) found that there was no indoctrination against the Arabs as a nation, nor a negative presentation of Islam. Islam, Arab culture and the Arabs' contribution to human civilization were presented in a positive light. No book called for violence or war, and many books reportedly expressed the yearning for peace between Israel and the Arab countries.[17] However, some textbooks within the Orthodox Jewish community were found to contain prejudices towards Palestinians and the Arabs were often held responsible for Israel's wars.[18]

2002 and 2004 Firer-Adwan comparisons
Ruth Firer of the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Sami Adwan, a professor of education at Bethlehem University in Bethlehem compared Palestinian and Israeli textbooks in 2002. Of the Palestinian textbooks they found "According to the everyday experience of Palestinians, modern-day Israelis are presented as occupiers. The texts include examples of Israelis killing and imprisoning Palestinians, demolishing their homes, uprooting fruit trees, and confiscating their lands and building settlements on them. The texts also talk about the right of return for the 1948 Palestinian refugees when describing how those refugees live in camps." The Israeli textbooks, are generally presented without the national-political debate."[19] Their 2004 study of 13 Israeli textbooks and 9 Palestinian textbooks found that "neither side's books tell the story of the conflict from the other's viewpoint, both ignore the other side's suffering and each counts only its only victims."[20]

2002 review and 2004 follow-up report by IPCRI
In 2002, the United States Congress requested the United States Department of State to commission a reputable non-governmental organization (NGO) to conduct a review of the new Palestinian curriculum. The Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI) was thereby commissioned by the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and the US Consul General in Jerusalem to review the Palestinian Authority's textbooks. Its report, completed in March 2003, stated the "overall orientation of the curriculum is peaceful despite the harsh and violent realities on the ground. It does not openly incite against Israel and the Jews. It does not openly incite hatred and violence. Religious and political tolerance is emphasized in a good number of textbooks and in multiple contexts."

However, its June 2004 follow-up report stated that "the practice of "appropriating" sites, areas, localities, geographic regions, etc. inside the territory of the State of Israel as Palestine/Palestinian observed in our previous review, remains a feature of the newly published textbooks (4th and 9th Grade) laying substantive grounds to the contention that the Palestinian Authority did not in fact recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people."

Regarding maps, it noted that "a good number... show Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one geographic entity (without demarcation lines or differentiated colorings). Historically Palestinian cities (e.g., Akka, Yafa, Haifa, Safad, al-Lid, Ar-Ramla, Beer As-sabe') are included in some maps that lump together the areas controlled by the PA with those inside the State of Israel. No map of the region bears the name of "Israel" in its pre-1967 borders. In addition, Israeli towns with a predominantly Jewish population are not represented on these maps."

The Summary also stated that the curriculum asserts a historically contentious ancient Arab presence in the region, while reflecting an inadequate and imbalanced representation of the Jewish connection: "The Jewish connection to the region, in general, and the Holy Land, in particular, is virtually missing. This lack of reference is perceived as tantamount to a denial of such a connection, although no direct evidence is found for such a denial." ... "terms and passages used to describe some historical events are sometimes offensive in nature and could be construed as reflecting hatred of and discrimination against Jews and Judaism."[21]

According to Roger Avenstrup, writing in The New York Times, the 2003 report from IPCRI concludes that overall the curriculum is peaceful and does not contain hatred or violence against Israel or the Jews, whilst the 2004 report states that there are 'no signs of promoting hatred toward Israel, Judaism or Zionism, nor toward the Western Judeo-Christian tradition or values.'[22]

2002 George Eckert Institute comparison
The George Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research compared Palestinian and Israeli textbooks in December 2002. According to Jonathan Kriener of the institute, "The crucial difference between both sets of textbooks lies in the overall unanimity of the Palestinian textbooks which conveys a constant underlying message of delegitimization versus the broad spectrum of different approaches in Israel, ranging from Ultra-orthodox school books, to books in which highly controversial political issues are discussed quite openly."​

Multiple studies come up with the same basic conclusion: both sides tend to present their own historical narrative of events, while minimizing the other's, and neither calls for violence or hatred towards the other. Both are weak in presenting the other side's narrative.

Looking at that - I think it's important to question the often repeated "meme" that Palestinian textbooks teach hate and violence towards Jews and call it what it is - propoganda designed to demonize.

 

[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.

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.

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.

And still no evidence of any apartheid taking place in Israel. You seem to be deliberately ignoring the relevant facts because to not do so would show that the Palestinians are the ones enforcing apartheid

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact I have not called Israel apartheid.

There are two distinct nations with separate governments accepted and recognised by the UN, so there is no comparison with South Africa at all. Yet we still get morons demanding that Israel hands the Palestinians equal rights to the citizens of Israel contrary to the wishes of the P.A.\

See above.

Where in your link does it show that ALL Israeli schools are teaching their students to kill arab's . I looked twice and could not find any mention of such things. Read your link and it tells you that the comparison was not done like for like, but on an uneven field " The new study examined 94 books from Palestinian school systems in Gaza and the West Bank, and 74 books from the Israeli secular and religious school systems." Comparing a tiny proportion of the Israeli education system with the majority of the palestinian curriculum

It doesn't. Neither does it show ALL Palestinian schools are teaching their students to kill Jews. What's your point here?

How do you know it's the majority of the Palestinian curriculum and a tiny proportion of the Israeli education system? Do you have data (non-Zionazi biased sources to use references you are familiar with) to show this?

Then how about the truth easily verified that is in Israeli text books " Another secular Israeli book stated, “Since its establishment, the State of Israel sought to make peace with its neighbors, the Arab countries, through Israeli-Arab negotiations” but failed because of Arab refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. "

And? Are you trying to say some of the article (the parts you agree with) are "truth" but he parts you disagree with are not?

In fact all the things in the palestinian text books happen to be the same propaganda lies posted on here by team paqlestine, so now we know where their source is for the blood libels.

I think there is a lot of propoganda out there and it's not just from the Palestinians.

I think if you look it will say just that
Very simple read the section I copied that says just this


No I am saying as distasteful as you find it the Palestinians are teaching racism and apartheid in their schools. And most of what they teach ends up on boards like this one as propaganda. I gave you examples of these from your own link

Like what for instance, that has been proven to be wrong or false ?

 

[Coyote]

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).

I agree, it is a good standard. But they also have their own distinct dialect (and I think dialect is as objective a standard as language), distinct attributes of dress, and cultural history.

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.

I disagree that the pro-Israel posters do not have a double standard.

One example of an argument that is not internally consistent (if I understand the term correctly) is in the issue of indigenous and the argument that being indigenous confers greater rights.

Evidence is provided via historical analysis and genetics, that the Palestinians are the product of the same peoples the Jews, mixed with various waves of conquest and religious/cultural conversions.

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

This is the same argument used by the Pro-Palestinians I might add and the same terminology: invaders, squatters, illegal inhabitants, colonists etc. Do you see the double standard at play?

Another example of the double standard in play: Palestinians honor and name streets after their "martyrs", often those involved in attacks on civilians including children. Yet, in the founding of Israel - the Jewish fighters did the same thing. Irgun was implicated in many attacks on civilian targets, including children, and streets, squares and schools were named after Irgun fighters some of whom were directly responsible for these atrocities. Double standard?

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.

I'll make several arguments here. One - do you honestly believe the majority of "pro-Israel" posters are "pro-Israel" more than "anti-Palestinian"? I go by the type of arguments they most frequently make:
Palestinians have no inherent rights.
Palestinians are animals.
All Palestinians are terrorists (children killed being referred to as "one less terrorist").
All Palestinians are raised to hate, teach their children to hate in schools.
Palestinians should be expelled to Jordan.
Their main thrust in every argument is that the Palestinians need to be elsewhere.

Each of those arguments demonizes an entire group of people, ignoring the complexities of the issue, and seeks to convince the world that their cause has no legitimacy. Are these sorts of statements encouraging dialogue that is beneficial to Israel or a solution to the current impasse or to they just encourage hate? Is this "pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian"?

The other argument is this. You may disagree with their position, but the argument is sound and consistent - at least in some cases. I do agree there are those who's sole motive is "anti-Israel" and the Palestinians are merely the fodder to legitimize their views which are often expressed in a frequent fallback to conspiracy theory for vindication of their anti-Jewish beliefs.

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.

Food for thought...

I would offer up this thought in return. There are those who can fight for freedom and there are those who can govern. Very seldom do both those traits exist in the same individual. Quite often fighters do not make good governors or peace makers or nation builders. The Palestinians are in a unique situation where they have to both fight an oppressor (and we can argue that term, but that is how they see it) and build a nation. It's easier to convince people to violence I think than non violence.

"that they have not coalesced into a cultural identity on their own terms, rather than as an opposition to Israel." - you have a very good point there...I need to perecolate on this. I think I might agree. Do you think though, there might be a difference between Gaza and WB Palestinians on this?

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.)

What Hamas is doing is not in any way helpful to the Gazans. They came in to power promising something in opposition to the corruption that defined Fatah, and promised improved economy etc etc. They also took control illegally. I do not think Hamas has the Palestinians best interests in mind so much as opposition to Israel.

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.

I agree and, I feel I am both pro as well (and know there are those here who will crap on this) - I believe Israel has a right to exist, regardless of whatever historical events occurred in the making of Israel - it's flourishing, it's been there for multiple generations, and it has proved itself a capable state. It has a right to defend itself against attack - no state should have to tolerate rocket fire into it's civilian areas. I strongly believe both have rights to the territory in question, and like you the goal is two states. The question as always - how will we get there? I also strongly believe that neither side is fairly characterized as "animals" or "barbarians" or "racists" - they are composed of millions of diverse, different people who's views cover a spectrum. It's easy to forget that and portray them as two-dimensional figures of good and evil.

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.)

Residence alone is only part of the standard. But in this argument - the Anti-Palestinians (I'm choosing to use this term) are denying Palestinian legitimacy while using the same standard to affirm Jewish legitimacy. This strikes me as a double standard.

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.

IMO - terrorism is directed at civilians and civilian targets. I think that is one of the definitions of terrorism. Attacks directed against military or government targets are not terrorism in assymetrical warfare. This argument could go into it's own topic though.

As far as military objectives - I don't know, but I can pull up examples of Irgun terrorism in the founding of Israel and ask the same question. I think the answer is the object is not a neutralization but a spreading of terror and uncertainty in the enemy you are fighting with the chief distinction between that and terrorism being the choice of target.

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.

Assuming that, I think they will be permitted to stay. The real question though is will any government be strong enough and stable enough to make sure they are both welcome and safe.

Your question is really too hypothetical because you are asking for a comparison of a conjecture with a reality and we just don't know that.

We do know this though - Israel has been very careful of it's demographics - this has affected family reunification, the ability of residents who marry spouses outside of Israel to bring them back (unless they are Jewish) and the residency system in Jeruselum in which boundaries have been deliberately altered in order to exclude former Arab residents who are now considered outside Jeruselum, and the expansion and granting of new (Jewish only) settlements in contested areas. Israel doesn't rely on violence for this - it has legal and state mechanism for accomplishing these objectives and I do believe they are objectives.

Pro-Palestinians:

Israel is Apartheid.

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

Yes, as is the Judenrein one. Double standards.

Even though the concept of Judenrein is expressly stated in every Palestinian charter

Yes. And even though the concept of apartheid is reflected in the inequalities of Israel's society, it is not Apartheid.