Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[Coyote]

Shusha, et al,

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

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

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

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

Most Respectfully,
R

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it - leadership is everything.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Answered in full, just that you are unable to see it being semi literate

 

[Coyote]

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

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.

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.

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 ?

None of the articles I posted indicate that.

 

[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

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

How about some examples then ?

 

[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.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it - leadership is everything.

And if the leadership is illiterate how does that help the populous ?

 

[Coyote]

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

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.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it - leadership is everything.

And if the leadership is illiterate how does that help the populous ?

Prove that they are illiterate.

 

[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.

How about some examples then ?

Examples of the inequalities that resemble apartheid?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

The ultimate goal of the Zionist project has always been all of Palestine without the Palestinians. When it comes to things like occupation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, they are all part of an integrated system used to that end.

None of those are stand alone entities.

 

[RoccoR]

flacaltenn, et al,

It is probably that you are much more kind at heart than I.

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.

(COMMENT)

I sure hope I'm wrong; but my experience tells me that given the opportunity, the Arab Palestinians will commence hostilities operations against Israel.

GIVEN THE THREAT:

∆∆ If the 2009 Naval Blockade is lifted, it is not reasonable to believe that the Arab Palestinian will alter the goals.

• HAMAS and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) will attempt to import more Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW). Using more reliable SALW, the regional and internaltional public awareness will be raised by launching more deadly strikes against Israeli soft targets.
• The lifting of the block will allow the smuggling SALW into the Gaza Strip and the blackmarket will increase its activities. Criminal interests include those of Iran – the arms dealers, small time operators selling intelligence to the Palestinian.
• This will allow the additional anti-Aircraft Missiles to enter into the mix.
• This would allow the Islamic Resistance and Islamic Jihad to launch seaborne attacks against the natural gas platforms in the Levant Basin, and even take the platform hostage or destroy them.
​

∆∆ Opening border crossing points into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank:

• Just as HAMAS and the PIJ prepared following Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012 --- so it is already starting to re-arm after Operation Protective edge (2014).
• Iranian officials have already communicated with HAMAS that Tehran is willing to re-arm them.
• Posting in Hebrew, Hamas warned Israelis to "wait for suicide attacks on every bus, café and street."

"Start counting the number of coffins you'll need," it warned, accompanied by several Hebrew-language videos depicting stabbings and suicide bombings.

"Zionists, wait and see terror attacks, stabbing everywhere. Wait for suicide attacks on every bus, café and street. Wait for the rage and for revenge for Gaza, wait for the flames of the West Bank [Judea and Samaria] inside you."

Another Fatah post promised, "Death will reach you from the south and the north…the KN-103 rocket is on its way [to] you."

The late PLO chairman Yasser Arafat often said one thing in English and another in Arabic. It seems the tradition lives on in the Palestinian Authority unity government.
​

While I see potential in many cooperative ways, I don't see the the possibility that the Arab Palestinian is motivated to take long-term productive project. I don't think the Arab Palestinian has a democratic government, or a people that really want peace.

MostRespectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Inequalities in Israel

Social and cultural attitudes:

Racism in Israel on the rise

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

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

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

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it - leadership is everything.

And if the leadership is illiterate how does that help the populous ?

Prove that they are illiterate.

I give you the many illegal attacks using illegal weapons that they have been sent letters regarding

 

[Phoenall]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How about some examples then ?

Examples of the inequalities that resemble apartheid?

Exactly as you will find it hard to produce any

 

[Phoenall]

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.

The ultimate goal of the Zionist project has always been all of Palestine without the Palestinians. When it comes to things like occupation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, they are all part of an integrated system used to that end.

None of those are stand alone entities.

EVIDENCE AS YOUR WORD IS NOT ENOUGH

 

[Coyote]

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.



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.


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.
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.

How about some examples then ?

Examples of the inequalities that resemble apartheid?

Exactly as you will find it hard to produce any

Post #170

 

[Phoenall]

Inequalities in Israel

Social and cultural attitudes:

Racism in Israel on the rise

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

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Coyote]

Inequalities in Israel

Social and cultural attitudes:

Racism in Israel on the rise

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

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Shusha]

Coyote , SO much to respond to here and so much going off onto tangents not applicable to this thread (though still interesting to talk about). So I'm just going to respond to various things and if I miss something important that you want me to address -- just give me a heads up.

Let's look at some observable facts concerning the Judenrein argument:

1. There are no Jews in Gaza.
2. There are no Jews in Areas A and B. (near as I can determine).
3. There are only tiny numbers of Jews in remaining in some ME Arab Muslim nations and most are entirely Judenrein.
4. There are laws in place in Palestine-controlled Areas A and B which make it illegal to sell land to Jews/Israelis/"the enemy"/"infidels"/non-Muslims/foreigners. This is punishable by death.
5. Statements made by various leaders in the West Bank and (especially) Gaza make it clear that this the desired outcome.
6. Peace negotiation is denied as long as there are "settlers" in Area C, or any area that the Palestinians consider "theirs".

In contrast:
1. Arab Muslims make up ~20% of the population of Israel.
2. There are no laws in Israel which uses language to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion or place of orgin


The idea that Palestine and Gaza (both of which have one of the more extremist ideology held by its population) will suddenly become a bastion of equality and non-discrimination when it comes to incorporating a minority into their midst. Indeed, every observable fact leads one to believe that an ethnically diverse Palestine and Gaza is opposed by the Palestinians. While an ethnically diverse Israel is welcomed by Israelis. Further, the Palestinians require an ethnically diverse Israel while at the same time rejecting an ethnically diverse Palestine. Double standard.

 

[Shusha]

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

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

 

[Shusha]

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

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

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

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

Which is the definition of terrorism, imo.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote , SO much to respond to here and so much going off onto tangents not applicable to this thread (though still interesting to talk about). So I'm just going to respond to various things and if I miss something important that you want me to address -- just give me a heads up.

Let's look at some observable facts concerning the Judenrein argument:

1. There are no Jews in Gaza.

By whose choice?

2. There are no Jews in Areas A and B. (near as I can determine).

By whose choice?

3. There are only tiny numbers of Jews in remaining in some ME Arab Muslim nations and most are entirely Judenrein.

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

4. There are laws in place in Palestine-controlled Areas A and B which make it illegal to sell land to Jews/Israelis/"the enemy"/"infidels"/non-Muslims/foreigners. This is punishable by death.

What specific laws?

5. Statements made by various leaders in the West Bank and (especially) Gaza make it clear that this the desired outcome.

Statements made by Israeli elected officials wanting to push non-Jews out (paying them to leave). Desired outcome?

6. Peace negotiation is denied as long as there are "settlers" in Area C, or any area that the Palestinians consider "theirs".

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

In contrast:
1. Arab Muslims make up ~20% of the population of Israel.
2. There are no laws in Israel which uses language to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion or place of orgin

There are "laws" and then there are accepted practices. What is the difference? There are laws allowing settlements to designate themselves Jewish only. That is discrimmination isn't it? There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. Discrimmination? There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses. Discrimmination?

The idea that Palestine and Gaza (both of which have one of the more extremist ideology held by its population) will suddenly become a bastion of equality and non-discrimination when it comes to incorporating a minority into their midst. Indeed, every observable fact leads one to believe that an ethnically diverse Palestine and Gaza is opposed by the Palestinians. While an ethnically diverse Israel is welcomed by Israelis. Further, the Palestinians require an ethnically diverse Israel while at the same time rejecting an ethnically diverse Palestine. Double standard.

Do they reject an ethnically diverse Palestine?

There is what is outwardly said (Gaza/Hamas).
And there is accepted practice (Israel).

What is the difference in the end?