Consider The Facts

[aris2chat]

Because that is the covenant on that land. Just as I cant park a van outside my house if it has a company name or logo on the sides. In other places an external TV antenna is not allowed, and I believe in the US housing projects ban the erection of boundary fences to the from of some properties..


What Abbas said mirrors what is in the Palestinian charter, that the only Jews/Israelis that would be allowed to live in a unified Palestine would be those born before the first Zionist set foot in Palestine. Why do you ignore the facts

People aren't vans.

In the US, It is illegal to discrimminate against religion, race, gender or ethnicity in housing.

.....and yet many in the US still do
US is not the middle east or the world. Just because we are not supposed, can't wipe out the feeling of people so easily. We see that everyday on this forum.

Consider that many don't want crosses hung in a building or non-christians not wanting to be in homes near churches. Consider each groups has their own day off and are offended by businesses that are open on "their" particular sabbath. No parking on certain sides of the road for jews to park and not have to move their car on Saturdays. Parks closed to non-jews on Saturday in designated areas.
Old world orthodoxies and trying to accommodate so many faiths in conflict for such a small piece of land.

For some it is discrimination, for other accommodations, for others just keeping the peace.

No matter how clean (yes, I know they can be very clean) a pig is or how beloved a pet, muslims would call it discrimination to allow pigs or dog as pets in a building. Those with pet would call it discrimination to keep them out because of their pet.
A building with christians that cook pork and bacon would be inappropriate for jews and muslims to live in.
Buildings where alcohol is permitted would be inappropriate for muslims.
Nudists have their own buildings in many cities, but others would consider it "unclean" to improper for a building to be nudist and discriminatory for those who wear clothing inside.
There are subdivisions and building where sex offenders cannot live or neighborhoods they must avoid.
Sometimes separate building and neighborhoods are required. More an more there are smoke free buildings and homes and even allergy free homes being made. Special construction of those with disabilities or special needs. If the "right" space for special requirements are rare, is it fare for able-bodied to take those spaces away? Ethnic neighborhoods should be forcibly integrated? Half the homes and apartments in black neighborhoods should be sold to right whites to integrate? Stores with higher priced merchandise in lower income areas that the people can't afford should replace thrift stores and corner bodegas? Ethnic foods should open in areas where those ethnics groups don't live? Why are there zoning regulations and neighborhood standards?

Why should all building be open to the needs of muslims/palestinians and their specific requirements instead of for jews or christians?

I understand what you you are saying, but - you criticize Palestinians for not wanting Jews living in their communities and then you turn around and say how it's ok for Jews to discrimminate against Palestinians?

You can't have it both ways.

There are enough building that each can have their own particular space. They don't all have to be in the same building or the same exact neighborhood to get along.

Israel is building for everyone. Palestinians are building for muslim only, where christians are finding it harder to stay and live in the WB. More and more christians are being forced out with no other place to go within the PA.
In Israel there are arab towns and bedouin town close to larger towns that are mixed. Some ethnic groups prefer to be among their own. Some muslims prefer not to live with jews and christians, especially where holy days and holidays are in conflict.

Israel allows for separation, it does no demand it if people are willing to abide by rules. In Israel it is a way of avoiding conflict. Other countries have minority communities and special areas for outsider workers. There are towns across the world that are more friendly to foreigners and some very closed and provincial that distrust outsiders.

In the US Mormons, Mennonites and Amish don't generally mix with the "english" if they can avoid it. There are areas where there is no electric, phones for cars. Some areas are more Catholic, some more Protestant where people can choose to live. Some more asian and some more italian. There are areas where no one even speaks english in the US. It was no all by design but where people could be closer to their own kind, with others they have a heritage in common. Why if there is any separation in Israel is it discrimination or apartheid? Why can't orthodox or muslims just prefer to be living near their own for practical reason?

Aris - I don't see any difference between Israel and Palestine in terms of exclusive communities. When you say Israel is building for all - that's not really quite true. How many new Jewish-only settlements have been constructed over the past decade? How many Arab settlements?

Choosing to live within certain com

new housing units in the east jerusalem is not a one for one. 8000 jewish homes, 2,200 arab homes, proportional to the population balance. The most recent approved include 100 buildings for arabs. Different homes and apartments for different needs. New homes for all.

There might be many reason for the lack of arabs living in settlements with jews beside being excluded. Jobs, location, size of homes, price, not being with lots of other arabs, not wanting to be with so many jews, not wanting to live in the west bank.

There might be a confusion or fear that being in the west bank, when and if jews pull out that arabs might have to stay as part of a population trade like a land trade of arab neighborhoods in Israel close to palestinian land. As Israelis they don't want to part of a future palestinian state by default.

They might not want to be in conflict with palestinians because they are Israelis or in conflict with jews because they are not palestinians. For arab Israelis it is still in some cases unsteady footing. Maybe it is just easier to remain in Israel as arab israelis. Maybe they prefer to just be close to family and friends.

 

[MJB12741]

Of course the Jewish people have rights. Both the Palestinians and the Jews need to learn to accommodate each other peacefully and with tolerance - in two states. I don't support the mass expulsion of anyone.

Ever hear of a place called Jordan?

It's the second state -- the arab portion -- and comprises 77% of the original mandate of Palestine.

You bring up a valid point. Problem is Jordan will not grant their Palestinians a right of return. Nor will any other Arab nation. Palestinians want self determination without any intervention by Israel. So where can this Palestinian State be located?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Why wouldn't that allow just about any population group to declare themselves a unique cultural group and demand a country for themselves ?

My friends and I could declare ourselves a culture even though we have no cultural uniqueness outside existing established cultural groups and set up our countries with our own system of taxes ( none ) and education, fire and police. And demand a portion of the USA or China for our homeland saying we'd "hoped" for a nation of our own in that location and someone else is "occupying" our land ;--) .

I'm not disenfranchising a group of people when I say there must be a few discernible characteristics in order to qualify as a unique culture, I'm suggesting that group was never enfranchised in the first place.

Maybe some day, the United States can decide to persecute Canadians and then invent a proud people called Mainahs who have been in Main since time immortal with their proud traditions and proud sense of peoplehood and their proud desire to kill any Canadian they possibly can.

Just imagine how that big, bad Canada would look then?!!

It's so transparent that only the extremely weak minded would fall for it. It's nothing but a guise to create an entirely phony class of victim and thus elicit an emotional response from stupid people who salivate like Pavlov's pooch at the though of looking virtuous by supporting the poor victim's agenda.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So where can this Palestinian State be located?

As these Arabs envision it, I'd say right about here:

 

[Coyote]

Of course the Jewish people have rights. Both the Palestinians and the Jews need to learn to accommodate each other peacefully and with tolerance - in two states. I don't support the mass expulsion of anyone.

Ever hear of a place called Jordan?

It's the second state -- the arab portion -- and comprises 77% of the original mandate of Palestine.

Are you proposing expelling some 4.4 million people to Jordan?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Of course the Jewish people have rights. Both the Palestinians and the Jews need to learn to accommodate each other peacefully and with tolerance - in two states. I don't support the mass expulsion of anyone.

Ever hear of a place called Jordan?

It's the second state -- the arab portion -- and comprises 77% of the original mandate of Palestine.

Are you proposing expelling some 4.4 million people to Jordan?

No, I am proposing that negotiations take place to redefine the borders between Jordan and Israel in keeping with the original intent. Some modifications from the original would be necessary due to facts on the ground.

Just because you believe in relocating hoards of those who view murder of Jews to be the highest honor that can achieve in their sick society, that does not mean I advocate sending them far away.

 

[Phoenall]

Even today, the PA is not just arresting those who sell land but their families as well. Those that sell land can be executed, without trial.
What do you think will happen to the jews who bought the land when the PA is in total control? How long do you expect them to keep breathing?
Arabs can buy land in Israel, in areas of private land, but jews can't buy land in the WB?

Actually - I've said, multiple times, that there is a difference between words and likely outcome. There is so much entrenched hate on both sides that it would be hard to guarantee safety and security - or for Jews to trust that guarantee. None of that changes what Abbas actually said which you keep distorting.

Arabs can buy some land. But they are prevented from living in Jewish only settlements aren't they?

Because that is the covenant on that land. Just as I cant park a van outside my house if it has a company name or logo on the sides. In other places an external TV antenna is not allowed, and I believe in the US housing projects ban the erection of boundary fences to the from of some properties..


What Abbas said mirrors what is in the Palestinian charter, that the only Jews/Israelis that would be allowed to live in a unified Palestine would be those born before the first Zionist set foot in Palestine. Why do you ignore the facts

People aren't vans.

In the US, It is illegal to discrimminate against religion, race, gender or ethnicity in housing.

.....and yet many in the US still do
US is not the middle east or the world. Just because we are not supposed, can't wipe out the feeling of people so easily. We see that everyday on this forum.

Consider that many don't want crosses hung in a building or non-christians not wanting to be in homes near churches. Consider each groups has their own day off and are offended by businesses that are open on "their" particular sabbath. No parking on certain sides of the road for jews to park and not have to move their car on Saturdays. Parks closed to non-jews on Saturday in designated areas.
Old world orthodoxies and trying to accommodate so many faiths in conflict for such a small piece of land.

For some it is discrimination, for other accommodations, for others just keeping the peace.

No matter how clean (yes, I know they can be very clean) a pig is or how beloved a pet, muslims would call it discrimination to allow pigs or dog as pets in a building. Those with pet would call it discrimination to keep them out because of their pet.
A building with christians that cook pork and bacon would be inappropriate for jews and muslims to live in.
Buildings where alcohol is permitted would be inappropriate for muslims.
Nudists have their own buildings in many cities, but others would consider it "unclean" to improper for a building to be nudist and discriminatory for those who wear clothing inside.
There are subdivisions and building where sex offenders cannot live or neighborhoods they must avoid.
Sometimes separate building and neighborhoods are required. More an more there are smoke free buildings and homes and even allergy free homes being made. Special construction of those with disabilities or special needs. If the "right" space for special requirements are rare, is it fare for able-bodied to take those spaces away? Ethnic neighborhoods should be forcibly integrated? Half the homes and apartments in black neighborhoods should be sold to right whites to integrate? Stores with higher priced merchandise in lower income areas that the people can't afford should replace thrift stores and corner bodegas? Ethnic foods should open in areas where those ethnics groups don't live? Why are there zoning regulations and neighborhood standards?

Why should all building be open to the needs of muslims/palestinians and their specific requirements instead of for jews or christians?

I understand what you you are saying, but - you criticize Palestinians for not wanting Jews living in their communities and then you turn around and say how it's ok for Jews to discrimminate against Palestinians?

You can't have it both ways.

The difference is the Jews don't use violence and terrorism to impose their views, they use diplomacy and try and find some middle ground. Like the fiasco in France at the moment that has resulted in the iranians throwing a hissy fit over the French custom of serving wine at a meal. Who is wrong and showing their intolerance the French for saying that the Iranian delegates do not have to drink the wine and they can have water instead, or the Iranians making demands that would put them in charge and being able to dictate the rules for the future meetings.

 

[Coyote]

People aren't vans.

In the US, It is illegal to discrimminate against religion, race, gender or ethnicity in housing.

.....and yet many in the US still do
US is not the middle east or the world. Just because we are not supposed, can't wipe out the feeling of people so easily. We see that everyday on this forum.

Consider that many don't want crosses hung in a building or non-christians not wanting to be in homes near churches. Consider each groups has their own day off and are offended by businesses that are open on "their" particular sabbath. No parking on certain sides of the road for jews to park and not have to move their car on Saturdays. Parks closed to non-jews on Saturday in designated areas.
Old world orthodoxies and trying to accommodate so many faiths in conflict for such a small piece of land.

For some it is discrimination, for other accommodations, for others just keeping the peace.

No matter how clean (yes, I know they can be very clean) a pig is or how beloved a pet, muslims would call it discrimination to allow pigs or dog as pets in a building. Those with pet would call it discrimination to keep them out because of their pet.
A building with christians that cook pork and bacon would be inappropriate for jews and muslims to live in.
Buildings where alcohol is permitted would be inappropriate for muslims.
Nudists have their own buildings in many cities, but others would consider it "unclean" to improper for a building to be nudist and discriminatory for those who wear clothing inside.
There are subdivisions and building where sex offenders cannot live or neighborhoods they must avoid.
Sometimes separate building and neighborhoods are required. More an more there are smoke free buildings and homes and even allergy free homes being made. Special construction of those with disabilities or special needs. If the "right" space for special requirements are rare, is it fare for able-bodied to take those spaces away? Ethnic neighborhoods should be forcibly integrated? Half the homes and apartments in black neighborhoods should be sold to right whites to integrate? Stores with higher priced merchandise in lower income areas that the people can't afford should replace thrift stores and corner bodegas? Ethnic foods should open in areas where those ethnics groups don't live? Why are there zoning regulations and neighborhood standards?

Why should all building be open to the needs of muslims/palestinians and their specific requirements instead of for jews or christians?

I understand what you you are saying, but - you criticize Palestinians for not wanting Jews living in their communities and then you turn around and say how it's ok for Jews to discrimminate against Palestinians?

You can't have it both ways.

There are enough building that each can have their own particular space. They don't all have to be in the same building or the same exact neighborhood to get along.

Israel is building for everyone. Palestinians are building for muslim only, where christians are finding it harder to stay and live in the WB. More and more christians are being forced out with no other place to go within the PA.
In Israel there are arab towns and bedouin town close to larger towns that are mixed. Some ethnic groups prefer to be among their own. Some muslims prefer not to live with jews and christians, especially where holy days and holidays are in conflict.

Israel allows for separation, it does no demand it if people are willing to abide by rules. In Israel it is a way of avoiding conflict. Other countries have minority communities and special areas for outsider workers. There are towns across the world that are more friendly to foreigners and some very closed and provincial that distrust outsiders.

In the US Mormons, Mennonites and Amish don't generally mix with the "english" if they can avoid it. There are areas where there is no electric, phones for cars. Some areas are more Catholic, some more Protestant where people can choose to live. Some more asian and some more italian. There are areas where no one even speaks english in the US. It was no all by design but where people could be closer to their own kind, with others they have a heritage in common. Why if there is any separation in Israel is it discrimination or apartheid? Why can't orthodox or muslims just prefer to be living near their own for practical reason?

Aris - I don't see any difference between Israel and Palestine in terms of exclusive communities. When you say Israel is building for all - that's not really quite true. How many new Jewish-only settlements have been constructed over the past decade? How many Arab settlements?

Choosing to live within certain com

new housing units in the east jerusalem is not a one for one. 8000 jewish homes, 2,200 arab homes, proportional to the population balance. The most recent approved include 100 buildings for arabs. Different homes and apartments for different needs. New homes for all.

There might be many reason for the lack of arabs living in settlements with jews beside being excluded. Jobs, location, size of homes, price, not being with lots of other arabs, not wanting to be with so many jews, not wanting to live in the west bank.

There might be a confusion or fear that being in the west bank, when and if jews pull out that arabs might have to stay as part of a population trade like a land trade of arab neighborhoods in Israel close to palestinian land. As Israelis they don't want to part of a future palestinian state by default.

They might not want to be in conflict with palestinians because they are Israelis or in conflict with jews because they are not palestinians. For arab Israelis it is still in some cases unsteady footing. Maybe it is just easier to remain in Israel as arab israelis. Maybe they prefer to just be close to family and friends.

Analysis //Israel's discriminatory housing message: This is a Jewish state; Arabs out - National

Every time the issue of Arabs living in small rural Jewish communities arises, the same question arises: Would Arabs be willing to let Jews live in their small rural communities? The goal of this question is to throw the ball back into the Arabs’ court and portray them as the bad guys, who don’t want Jews in their villages, and therefore have no right to demand to live in equivalent Jewish communities.

But the people who raise this claim ignore several important facts in an attempt to justify a fundamentally racist and discriminatory policy.

First, all the Arab villages – without exception – existed even before the state was established, and the vast majority of their houses were built on privately owned land that the owners inherited from their forebears, not on land provided by the state. Most of the rural Jewish communities, in contrast, were built on state land based on terms set by the state, and according to the High Court of Justice’s precedent-setting ruling in the Kaadan case in 2000, the state cannot discriminate in allocating land on the basis of a person’s ethnic or national background.

Second, Arab citizens of Israel currently own only about five percent of the country’s land, because most of what was once Arab-owned land has been expropriated over the years since 1948 via a series of draconian laws and decisions. In contrast, the regional councils where most of the Jewish communities in question are located control about 70 percent of the country’s land.

The fact that Arabs are barred from living in these areas due to their ethnicity, while almost any Jewish citizen who meets the relevant socioeconomic criteria can live there, means that Jews have considerably more options than Arabs when it comes to choosing a place to live.​

Apartheid Housing: Israeli Court Upholds 'Discriminatory' Laws

“Jewish State” to Evict 1000s of Arab-Israelis - The New Observer

The Jewish state is to forcibly evict thousands of Arab-Israeli citizens from their homes in the Negev desert region of Israel to make way for a large number of Jews-only settlements, it has been revealed...​

People on these threads over and over express outrage over Palestinians not wanting Jews to live in a Palestinian state, yet their own house is not exactly in good order at all. Why this double standard?

 

[Phoenall]

Lets put it in modern terms, if for some reason the US were to kick out all illegal and Mexico refused to take them but created refugee camps instead where they were told they were the true indigenous of the US for the next 70 years and they would only get their country back by killing all americans, would you feel the same about "right of return" to the US?

It's not comparable because those Mexicans were not indigninous to the area. The Palestinians - many of whom have roots going back over a thousand years, and even as long as the Jews - are.

A better comparison would be if the US were annex Sonora and decide to kick out the native Mexicans.

They say they were and have more evidence to support their claims than the Palestinians ever had. So how could many have roots going back over 1000 years when they have no lineage prior to 1948 when they arrived with the invading arab armies.

A better comparison would be if the Americans annexed Texas and decided to kick out the Mexicans. Hold on didn't that already do that ?

 

[Coyote]

Of course the Jewish people have rights. Both the Palestinians and the Jews need to learn to accommodate each other peacefully and with tolerance - in two states. I don't support the mass expulsion of anyone.

Ever hear of a place called Jordan?

It's the second state -- the arab portion -- and comprises 77% of the original mandate of Palestine.

Are you proposing expelling some 4.4 million people to Jordan?

No, I am proposing that negotiations take place to redefine the borders between Jordan and Israel in keeping with the original intent. Some modifications from the original would be necessary due to facts on the ground.

Just because you believe in relocating hoards of those who view murder of Jews to be the highest honor that can achieve in their sick society, that does not mean I advocate sending them far away.

Let's stick to facts here - I oppose any forced expulsion of any group of civilians period. What you propose or support is not entirely clear in this thread. There is a thread on "What if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan" that discusses that as an option - maybe a good option.

 

[Phoenall]

I have and the muslims are deemed to be illegal immigrants

By what law?

Try the mandate of Palestine and its findings over the years. Winston Churchill stood up in the house of commons and stated that the arabs had flooded into Palestine once the word went out that the Jews were to have their own homeland and the muslims would not be in control. Is that good enough for you the future Prime Minister of Britain declaring the arab illegal migration in parliament

No. You aren't citing any law. What law "deems" them all "illegal immigrants"?

What law deems the Israelis to be illegal immigrants as well, or that they are illegal settlers. All you have for them is islamonazi propaganda that seems to take more jurisprudence than actual law

Two different things here.

First - who's claiming that Israeli's are illegal immigrants? I sure haven't. Nice strawman though.

Second - illegal settlers. That's based on international law in regards to how occupied territories are administered. Here's an "islamonazi propaganda" source for you: ICRC service

And you forget that the Oslo accords overrule that fantasy international law as it is an actual international law in itself. The Oslo accords make it legal for the Jews to build on land they hold title to, as does the UN charter and resolutions in regards to right of return. The Palestinians cant claim that they now own the land because they evicted the Jews in 1949 and passed a law making the Jews ownership illegal.

Most of team Palestine at one time or another have stated that the Jews are illegal immigrants on the land granted to them as their NATIONal home. And this includes the west bank and Golan heights, forget gaza as Israel has no intentions of becoming embroiled in that cess pit ever again.

 

[Coyote]

Lets put it in modern terms, if for some reason the US were to kick out all illegal and Mexico refused to take them but created refugee camps instead where they were told they were the true indigenous of the US for the next 70 years and they would only get their country back by killing all americans, would you feel the same about "right of return" to the US?

It's not comparable because those Mexicans were not indigninous to the area. The Palestinians - many of whom have roots going back over a thousand years, and even as long as the Jews - are.

A better comparison would be if the US were annex Sonora and decide to kick out the native Mexicans.

They say they were and have more evidence to support their claims than the Palestinians ever had. So how could many have roots going back over 1000 years when they have no lineage prior to 1948 when they arrived with the invading arab armies.

A better comparison would be if the Americans annexed Texas and decided to kick out the Mexicans. Hold on didn't that already do that ?

They both go back centuries and even thousands of years. They are brothers. The "who was there first" really doesn't mean much when you are talking about those spans of time.

 

[Coyote]

By what law?

Try the mandate of Palestine and its findings over the years. Winston Churchill stood up in the house of commons and stated that the arabs had flooded into Palestine once the word went out that the Jews were to have their own homeland and the muslims would not be in control. Is that good enough for you the future Prime Minister of Britain declaring the arab illegal migration in parliament

No. You aren't citing any law. What law "deems" them all "illegal immigrants"?

What law deems the Israelis to be illegal immigrants as well, or that they are illegal settlers. All you have for them is islamonazi propaganda that seems to take more jurisprudence than actual law

Two different things here.

First - who's claiming that Israeli's are illegal immigrants? I sure haven't. Nice strawman though.

Second - illegal settlers. That's based on international law in regards to how occupied territories are administered. Here's an "islamonazi propaganda" source for you: ICRC service

And you forget that the Oslo accords overrule that fantasy international law as it is an actual international law in itself. The Oslo accords make it legal for the Jews to build on land they hold title to, as does the UN charter and resolutions in regards to right of return. The Palestinians cant claim that they now own the land because they evicted the Jews in 1949 and passed a law making the Jews ownership illegal.

Most of team Palestine at one time or another have stated that the Jews are illegal immigrants on the land granted to them as their NATIONal home. And this includes the west bank and Golan heights, forget gaza as Israel has no intentions of becoming embroiled in that cess pit ever again.

I suggest you speak for yourself and not others. I have never stated either Jews or Palestinians are illegal immigrants. There was nothing with any force of law granting Jews (or Arabs) specific lands.

 

[Coyote]

There's no false equivalency - only one poster attempting to disenfranchise a people.

actually there were numerous posters who lent facts to the conversation which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the palestinian people are an invention of the mid 20th century

Of course you could say the same about the Israeli's except for the fact that their culture, language, foods, style of dress, so on, dates back to the mid bronze age. The Arab Muslims of the mandated areas culture is identical to Arab culture anywhere else in the middle east and particularly of the Jordanians.

Its one of the facts we should be considering.

Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time. People have suddenly decided that some people are "invented" and thus have no rights even if their ancestors have occupied the same space for hundreds or thousands of years. What better way to disenfranchise them that claim they don't exist.

Sure but at what point are they considered a separate people ? One must bear in mind that the first use of the term palestinian in reference to these particular people appears to be in 1967.

previous to that they were Jordanians.

So what differentiates Jordanians from palestinians. Is there a single distinguishable characteristic of culture that separates the palestiinians from any other of the middle east Arabs?

At this point, they can be considered a people. They've formed their own identity. They don't HAVE to be substantially different from Jordanians.

Why wouldn't that allow just about any population group to declare themselves a unique cultural group and demand a country for themselves ?

My friends and I could declare ourselves a culture even though we have no cultural uniqueness outside existing established cultural groups and set up our countries with our own system of taxes ( none ) and education, fire and police. And demand a portion of the USA or China for our homeland saying we'd "hoped" for a nation of our own in that location and someone else is "occupying" our land ;--) .

I'm not disenfranchising a group of people when I say there must be a few discernible characteristics in order to qualify as a unique culture, I'm suggesting that group was never enfranchised in the first place.

If they weren't in the first place, they are now. And unlike your examples - they have lived there as long as the Jews and whether they are a unique people or not, they are people. The pro-Israel camp propoganda aim is to do as much as possible to eliminate those rights. We have two sets of people, with extensive roots to the same land, who are made up of indiginous people and immigrants and who need to figure out a way to share the land.

 

[Coyote]

Actually - I've said, multiple times, that there is a difference between words and likely outcome. There is so much entrenched hate on both sides that it would be hard to guarantee safety and security - or for Jews to trust that guarantee. None of that changes what Abbas actually said which you keep distorting.

Arabs can buy some land. But they are prevented from living in Jewish only settlements aren't they?

Because that is the covenant on that land. Just as I cant park a van outside my house if it has a company name or logo on the sides. In other places an external TV antenna is not allowed, and I believe in the US housing projects ban the erection of boundary fences to the from of some properties..


What Abbas said mirrors what is in the Palestinian charter, that the only Jews/Israelis that would be allowed to live in a unified Palestine would be those born before the first Zionist set foot in Palestine. Why do you ignore the facts

People aren't vans.

In the US, It is illegal to discrimminate against religion, race, gender or ethnicity in housing.

.....and yet many in the US still do
US is not the middle east or the world. Just because we are not supposed, can't wipe out the feeling of people so easily. We see that everyday on this forum.

Consider that many don't want crosses hung in a building or non-christians not wanting to be in homes near churches. Consider each groups has their own day off and are offended by businesses that are open on "their" particular sabbath. No parking on certain sides of the road for jews to park and not have to move their car on Saturdays. Parks closed to non-jews on Saturday in designated areas.
Old world orthodoxies and trying to accommodate so many faiths in conflict for such a small piece of land.

For some it is discrimination, for other accommodations, for others just keeping the peace.

No matter how clean (yes, I know they can be very clean) a pig is or how beloved a pet, muslims would call it discrimination to allow pigs or dog as pets in a building. Those with pet would call it discrimination to keep them out because of their pet.
A building with christians that cook pork and bacon would be inappropriate for jews and muslims to live in.
Buildings where alcohol is permitted would be inappropriate for muslims.
Nudists have their own buildings in many cities, but others would consider it "unclean" to improper for a building to be nudist and discriminatory for those who wear clothing inside.
There are subdivisions and building where sex offenders cannot live or neighborhoods they must avoid.
Sometimes separate building and neighborhoods are required. More an more there are smoke free buildings and homes and even allergy free homes being made. Special construction of those with disabilities or special needs. If the "right" space for special requirements are rare, is it fare for able-bodied to take those spaces away? Ethnic neighborhoods should be forcibly integrated? Half the homes and apartments in black neighborhoods should be sold to right whites to integrate? Stores with higher priced merchandise in lower income areas that the people can't afford should replace thrift stores and corner bodegas? Ethnic foods should open in areas where those ethnics groups don't live? Why are there zoning regulations and neighborhood standards?

Why should all building be open to the needs of muslims/palestinians and their specific requirements instead of for jews or christians?

I understand what you you are saying, but - you criticize Palestinians for not wanting Jews living in their communities and then you turn around and say how it's ok for Jews to discrimminate against Palestinians?

You can't have it both ways.

The difference is the Jews don't use violence and terrorism to impose their views, they use diplomacy and try and find some middle ground. Like the fiasco in France at the moment that has resulted in the iranians throwing a hissy fit over the French custom of serving wine at a meal. Who is wrong and showing their intolerance the French for saying that the Iranian delegates do not have to drink the wine and they can have water instead, or the Iranians making demands that would put them in charge and being able to dictate the rules for the future meetings.

Actually - no, they don't always use "diplomacy". They have the power of a state behind them to force their way when they want.

 

[Coyote]

Lets put it in modern terms, if for some reason the US were to kick out all illegal and Mexico refused to take them but created refugee camps instead where they were told they were the true indigenous of the US for the next 70 years and they would only get their country back by killing all americans, would you feel the same about "right of return" to the US?

It's not comparable because those Mexicans were not indigninous to the area. The Palestinians - many of whom have roots going back over a thousand years, and even as long as the Jews - are.

A better comparison would be if the US were annex Sonora and decide to kick out the native Mexicans.

They say they were and have more evidence to support their claims than the Palestinians ever had. So how could many have roots going back over 1000 years when they have no lineage prior to 1948 when they arrived with the invading arab armies.

That's the looniest claim I've ever heard. There were no Palestininas (except Jews) prior to 1948? History and genetics contradict you.

 

[Phoenall]

Because that is the covenant on that land. Just as I cant park a van outside my house if it has a company name or logo on the sides. In other places an external TV antenna is not allowed, and I believe in the US housing projects ban the erection of boundary fences to the from of some properties..


What Abbas said mirrors what is in the Palestinian charter, that the only Jews/Israelis that would be allowed to live in a unified Palestine would be those born before the first Zionist set foot in Palestine. Why do you ignore the facts

People aren't vans.

In the US, It is illegal to discrimminate against religion, race, gender or ethnicity in housing.

So why are so many blacks homeless, and getting shot by your police ?

It is showing what a covenant on housing is, I read a case about a month ago where a Vet was evicted from his home for erecting a small antenna so he could operate his amateur radio transmitter because his housing project did not allow even a retractable antenna as found on many portable radios to be seen in the grounds of the project. He owned the property and paid for it outright and he was still evicted without force of law.



By the way Palestinians drive vans so the same covenant would apply to them because of the van.

Human beings aren't retractable antennas either.

It's against US law to discrimminate in housing - you won't find any covenants saying "no blacks in this housing development".

Are you sure as it is being shown that racism is alive and well in the states, and it might not be written down but it is still practised.

No one is claiming racism is gone. But in terms of the law it's illegal to have housing denied on the basis of race and when it is done, they can sue.

But you miss the point, or is that the extremely large grey elephant in the room, that even the US has problems with human rights and civil rights. But all you want to do is concentrate on Israeli breaches based on US laws when those laws have no jurisdiction outside of the US. You may have a license to carry a concealed weapon in your home town it does not mean that it applies if you come to Europe.

You're simply deflecting. Of course the US has problems - like any other country. What does that have to do with the price of fish in Gaza? You complain about Palestinians not wanting Jews in their neighborhoods yet here you have the same thing going on in Israel where there are many Jewish only settlements and communities.

If they can prove that it exists, if they cant then they have done themselves no favours. All that would happen is the owners would just turn them down on other reasons.

Big difference is the Palestinians enforce it through violence, terrorism and rape. The Jews do it through covenants and courts that decide for the future generations. The Jews don't have it as official government policy to wipe out the Palestinians and to destroy their country. The Palestinians have it as their charter that they will not rest until the Jews have been wiped out and there will never be peace with Jews

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Let's stick to facts here - I oppose any forced expulsion of any group of civilians period. What you propose or support is not entirely clear in this thread. There is a thread on "What if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan" that discusses that as an option - maybe a good option.

I have said nothing that is not factual, and I was very clear in what I proposed. If you support the flooding of Israel with Arabs who were not even alive in 1948, however, or if you propose Israel allow entry to Arabs who moved into the region in the years before the establishment, you are the one not dealing in fact here.

My proposal involves no expulsion at all.

 

[Coyote]

Let's stick to facts here - I oppose any forced expulsion of any group of civilians period. What you propose or support is not entirely clear in this thread. There is a thread on "What if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan" that discusses that as an option - maybe a good option.

I have said nothing that is not factual, and I was very clear in what I proposed. If you support the flooding of Israel with Arabs who were not even alive in 1948, however, or if you propose Israel allow entry to Arabs who moved into the region in the years before the establishment, you are the one not dealing in fact here.

My proposal involves no expulsion at all.

No. The "Right of Return" is not going to happen, that demand is going to have to be given up. What I'm talking about is the status of the Occupied Territories.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Let's stick to facts here - I oppose any forced expulsion of any group of civilians period. What you propose or support is not entirely clear in this thread. There is a thread on "What if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan" that discusses that as an option - maybe a good option.

I have said nothing that is not factual, and I was very clear in what I proposed. If you support the flooding of Israel with Arabs who were not even alive in 1948, however, or if you propose Israel allow entry to Arabs who moved into the region in the years before the establishment, you are the one not dealing in fact here.

My proposal involves no expulsion at all.

No. The "Right of Return" is not going to happen, that demand is going to have to be given up. What I'm talking about is the status of the Occupied Territories.

I think Gaza should be administered by Egypt, and the west bank on east by Jordan.

Failing that, a three state solution would be better than a two state solution. A two state solution is not tenable due to geography.

This would require finding Arabs who were actually interested in forming a state and not just killing Jews, though As is, you might as well approach a badger's den and ask them to negotiate whether or not you can sit down and have a picnic.