P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,454
- 4,684
- 1,815
Equality and Israeli Citizenship
- Thread starter Coyote
- Start date
ForeverYoung436
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 6,050
- 1,228
- 245
Ramallah is totally under PA control. The PA headquarters are there.
Ramallah is totally under PA control. The PA headquarters are there.
So once again tinny gets it wrong and blames the Jews for the work of the Palestinians. What reason does the narrator in the video give for not being allowed back to their homeland ?
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 15,075
- 3,083
- 290
P F Tinmore
You haven't answered my questions. Is the criteria for ownership of land just having a family tree? Does that only apply to Palestinians?
You haven't answered my questions. Is the criteria for ownership of land just having a family tree? Does that only apply to Palestinians?
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,127
- 280
Ramallah is totally under PA control. The PA headquarters are there.
LOL. Here is Ramallah.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,454
- 4,684
- 1,815
I don't think that anyone has more of less rights than anyone else.
Good question. Palestine is older than borders, states, and land deeds.
As far as I can tell the written histories of Palestinian villages started in the 1500s. At that time the villages already existed for some unknown period of time. These villages existed for hundreds of years before the 20th century. During these hundreds of years I have not seen one incident where the ownership of these lands were contested.
I conclude that whatever land ownership the Palestinians claim is valid.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 15,075
- 3,083
- 290
Do you intentionally write yourself into corners?
Israel is older than borders, states and land deeds.
As far as I can tell the written histories of the Israeli villages started more nearly three thousand years ago. The villages already existed for some unknown period of time. These villages existed for thousands of years before the 20th century.
I conclude that whatever land ownership the Jewish people claim is valid.
Oh, but I don't think anyone has more or less rights than anyone else.
So, you will accept the "say-so" of Palestinians as valid claim to land and sovereignty. Will you also take the "say-so" of the Jewish people as valid claim to land and sovereignty? Say, in Hebron?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,454
- 4,684
- 1,815
OK, I can almost agree to that. There were Jews there who had lived there, like, forever. And there were some who came in 1492, for example, along with some Muslims from Spain. As far as I can tell there were no land disputes for hundreds of years before the Zionist colonial project. These Jews opposed the creation of a Jewish state.
The Zionist colonial project was/is the problem. Virtually none of them had any ancestors from Palestine and therefor had zero claim to any land. All of the problems stem from the Zionist project. That is why the Jews lost land (and lives) in Hebron, East Jerusalem, and even in Gaza. The Palestinians, including the Jews, wanted a single state where everyone had equal rights like they had been living for generations.
I hope this will put the problem in the proper perspective.
And you are out by 1500 years at least as the written history of what we call Palestine started under the Roman conquest of the land. They christened the area Palestine as an insult to the Jews and it was written into the Bible.
I conclude that after losing all rights to the land in 1917 they were given 78% of the former Palestine as their homeland, the rest going to the Jews. This was the population split in 1923.
The reason there were no land disputes is because of the pact of Umar and the dhimmi laws, the non muslims were virtual slaves in their own country. They were beaten, abused, robbed and raped by the muslim overlords almost daily until they became a downtrodden race living in abject fear and poverty.
Over 80% of the Jews in Israel were either born there or came from surrounding nations like Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iran and they did not want to live under muslim control ever again. This is why the Jewish defence forces were created as far back as 1925 to protect Jewish communities from muslim violence and theft. The muslims suddenly realised they had lost their goose that laid the Golden Egg and so instigated the Hebron massacre and the 1930's civil wars.
Your proper perspective is nothing short of being islamonazi propaganda and is a pack of lies. The written histories tell the truth as I have posted above if you bother to have a look at them, and stop being blinkered to only reading islamonazi accounts.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 15,075
- 3,083
- 290
Okay, so far we agree that there were people there -- both Jews and Palestinians -- who had either "lived there forever" or had immigrated so long ago as to give them some sort of claim to the land, yes? And we agree that those who have "lived there forever" or for a really long time have, equally, a valid claim to the land.
I hope you would also agree to the fact that there are people -- both Jews and Palestinians -- who immigrated more recently. And that, applied equally, would have to be treated in the same manner.
So what does all this mean in terms of a solution? Moving forward, what do we DO with all these different groups of people?
More-or-less agreed. But its important to understand the REASONS why this is so and how it changed over time. neither group had national political aspirations under the Ottoman Empire; the one because it never occurred to them and the other because it wasn't thought possible; the villages were small and scattered and it didn't really matter if there was a Jewish village or a Palestinian village over the hill because one did not have much contact with the other; there was plenty of land to go around and one could set up a village far enough away from the next one so as not to encroach upon each village's cultivatable land. And there was limited "otherness" between the Jews living in the villages and towns and the Arab Muslims. They had different religious faiths, but they lived the same lives.
And, let's be honest, there were disputes between Arab Muslims and Jews intermittently. I wouldn't go as far as Phoneall, but they certainly existed. Dhimmis did pay a jizya or maktu tax up until 1856 in the Ottoman Empire, and the "military substitution tax" after that. (and as an aside to that, imagine the outcry at modern Arab Israelis having to pay a tax to avoid the military requirement in Israel!). Jews were not equal citizens, but had restrictions on where they could live, how they could dress, etc. There were pogroms and even outright massacres in Arab lands, especially in the 1800's.
But that is narrative. And very simplified narrative, at that. One that absolves one side from responsibility and colors them as the sole victim.
Now, I don't have a problem with narrative. Narrative is important. Each side's stories are important. And in this conflict, each side excludes the other from the narrative and refuses to acknowledge that even though the two narratives are in conflict with each other, they are both true.
The way to solve the conflict is to stop creating or supporting narratives which identify unsolvable problems or assign the problems as an irreparable, inherent feature of the other group.
For example, one could as easily argue that it was Arab Muslim nationalism that was the problem, rather than Zionism. Why was it not possible to trade one overlord (Ottoman Empire) for another (the Jewish State)? The Arabs from that area never wanted an independent state and national sovereignty before. The Arabs never had a problem living next to Jews before. Why was it suddenly a problem to live under Jewish rule rather than Ottoman rule? Especially when lives were improving under that rule?
No. The Arab Muslims wanted a continuation of the status quo -- a world where rights belonged with the Arab Muslims and the Jews were mostly tolerated as long as they quietly paid their taxes and stayed out of the way. Everyone was equal, but some were more equal than others. (The Arab Muslims continue to want this -- witness the Temple Mount.)
The real problem is that the national aspirations of both groups, which grew and developed parallel to each other and in response to the other became essentially incompatible. They are currently incompatible. They may not be that way forever, but for now, they are. Thus, regardless of whatever narrative one wants to tell, whatever victimization one wants to assert, whatever injustices one wants to highlight -- the solution must be two states. (Two more states).
So, again, I ask you where do we go from here? What is the solution? I know you seek a one state solution (well, two, since I assume you don't want to dissolve Jordan). What do you want that one state solution to look like? How would it be different than it is now? What would bring about equality, as you claim to want, which is not there currently? How would you convince each side to give up national self-determination? How would you convince me that the Arab Muslims are capable of treating the Jewish people equally?
- Thread starter
- #93
No, it's not a red herring unless I am misunderstanding the articles.
1. In possible future 2-state solution:Israeli FM: Strip Arabs of citizenship for peace
Speaking to reporters at parliament, Lieberman reiterated his stance that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to involve redrawing Israel's borders to put some Arab communities under Palestinian sovereignty. In return, Israel would receive West Bank territory.
"Any future agreement with the Palestinians must address the matter of Israeli Arabs in the formula of territory and population exchanges," Lieberman said. "Any other arrangement is simply collective suicide. This has to be clear and I think it is time to say these things out loud."
Lieberman has pushed a series of legislative proposals that critics say are anti-Arab, including a failed attempt to require Israelis to sign a loyalty oath or have their citizenship revoked.
"Any future agreement with the Palestinians must address the matter of Israeli Arabs in the formula of territory and population exchanges," Lieberman said. "Any other arrangement is simply collective suicide. This has to be clear and I think it is time to say these things out loud."
Lieberman has pushed a series of legislative proposals that critics say are anti-Arab, including a failed attempt to require Israelis to sign a loyalty oath or have their citizenship revoked.
2. Revoke Citizenship of Terrorist Families: Jerusalem mayor: Revoke citizenship of terrorists' families - National (does this revokation include Jewish terrorists?)
3. Jerusalem:PM said to consider revoking East Jerusalemites’ residency status
(these people carry permenent residency in occupied East Jerusalem, and have neither Israeli nor Palestinian citizenship) - this particular one, leads to a question - what happens to their property?
- Thread starter
- #94
btw - I agree with the bolded part.
- Thread starter
- #95
Yup, it sure is.
And if you read it properly you see that it is swapping land for land and all that would happen is arab muslims with Israeli nationality could either change nationality or change address. It is not forced on them. Just as conscription is forced on Jewish Israeli's but not on non Jewish Israeli's
If they declare themselves Palestinian, which I believe is all that is needed to be naturalised if you are born of a Palestinian family, then you have dual nationality and so are liable to be deported. They can also be refugee's and be kept by UNWRA, and be outside of the Israeli welfare system. Hit them in their pockets and they cant do a thing as it is not illegal. We are looking at something similar in the UK that will remove the immigrants and refugees from the welfare purse
This is also legal as it just means they no longer have a green card as you Americans put it, they keep their nationality just not their right to exist as a legal alien. The same as what would happen to the Jews property if the roles were reversed, making anything you say appear anti Jew
And that is the law as introduced in the International courts. Just as refugees can be evicted if they have passed through a safe country to get to one that suits their greed more. And Europe is starting to use this to turn around millions of muslims hell bent on taking over.
Think long and hard about your own situation, and see if you can apply it to Israel. You are a foreign invader that stole the natives land and then placed them in camps to die. So all your rhetoric about the Palestinians treatment by the Jews is hypocrisy as you are no better until you start handing back the property you have stolen
- Thread starter
- #99
If they have a choice (and that isn't clear in the article) - then I don't see an issue. If there are landswaps for peace (which I agree is needed) citizens should have the choice of whether to keep their citizenship, or change it. They should not be forced to lose their property.
That's not at all clear: Palestinian Authority passport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At the moment there is no such thing as Palestinian citizenship. You can apply for a PA passport (not citizenship) if you were born in PA controlled territory...that is the limit of it it seems.
They have a permanent residency card because they are residing in a part of Jerusalem under Israeli occupation - but no other citizenship. Stripping them of this leaves them with no citizenship whatsoever. And, if they are expelled (to where?) - what then happens to their property? (absentee landowner laws).
- Thread starter
- #100
Keep deflecting.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
How to prosecute the worst crime in Israel’s history?- Started by ShahdagMountains
- Replies: 0
-
-
As Republicans Pass Tax Cuts, Democrats Propose ‘Disability Reproductive Equity Day’- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 3
-
