Equality and Israeli Citizenship

[Coyote]

Here's another question:

Arab Israeli citizens can have their citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism or acting against the state ...but can Jewish Israeli citizens have their citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism?

Here again - citizenship categorized by ethnicity.

Only if they have dual nationality, and the law applies to all Israeli's


Here again - A RED HERRING that has no basis in reality

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.​

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?

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

What makes you think I think it's ok for Jews to lose their property when expelled? It's not.

 

[Phoenall]

Here's another question:

Arab Israeli citizens can have their citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism or acting against the state ...but can Jewish Israeli citizens have their citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism?

Here again - citizenship categorized by ethnicity.

Only if they have dual nationality, and the law applies to all Israeli's


Here again - A RED HERRING that has no basis in reality

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.​

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?

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 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.

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

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.

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

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).

A passport is not proof of citizenship, and I know Pakistani muslims with Palestinian, Jordanian and Syrian passports along with their Pakistani and British ones.
Residency cards are not citizenship either as Sting has a residency card to live in New York, but is British.
As I said the same as what happened to Jewish property in the west bank in 1949

 

[Phoenall]

If there is no discrimination why can't these Christians, who are Israeli citizens, return to their land in Israel?

As Israeli citizens, they receive the full benefit of their Israeli citizenship. So there is no discrimination in the context of this thread.

The question you are actually asking, is why can't the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of people displaced in war go back to living where their grandparents and great-grandparents used to live (even if the land was not actually privately owned by their ancestors -- some was, some wasn't).

And the answer is -- its complicated.

Its the crux of the entire conflict isn't it? Why can't people go back to living where their ancestors came from?

Yup, it sure is.

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

Keep deflecting.

No deflection just showing how the same applies to America and Australia as applies to Palestine. The only difference is the Jews already lived there and had done so for far longer than the muslims and Christians had been in existence. This gave them a minor advantage, and when the Ottomans invited them to return and make the land fertile after the arab muslims had refused this meant they were not invaders. When the offer was extended by the LoN under the mandate this meant that the Jews were in a position to migrate in large numbers.

Now what would you do if the Amerindians were to demand their lands back and reparations for the loss of use ?

 

[Phoenall]

Here's another question:

Arab Israeli citizens can have their citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism or acting against the state ...but can Jewish Israeli citizens have their citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism?

Here again - citizenship categorized by ethnicity.

Only if they have dual nationality, and the law applies to all Israeli's


Here again - A RED HERRING that has no basis in reality

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.​

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?

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

What makes you think I think it's ok for Jews to lose their property when expelled? It's not.

Yet you do going on your silence regarding the loss of Jewish property in the west bank. Property that is now being reclaimed that you call illegal settlements. So this must mean you see the theft of Jewish property as being allowed just because they are Jews.

 

[Coyote]

Here's another question:

Arab Israeli citizens can have their citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism or acting against the state ...but can Jewish Israeli citizens have their citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism?

Here again - citizenship categorized by ethnicity.

Only if they have dual nationality, and the law applies to all Israeli's


Here again - A RED HERRING that has no basis in reality

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.​

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?

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 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.

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

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.

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

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).

A passport is not proof of citizenship, and I know Pakistani muslims with Palestinian, Jordanian and Syrian passports along with their Pakistani and British ones.
Residency cards are not citizenship either as Sting has a residency card to live in New York, but is British.
As I said the same as what happened to Jewish property in the west bank in 1949

I know, that is more or less what I was saying. One, that I think you are wrong about how to obtain Palestinian citizenship and two, that these people in Jerusalem ONLY have permanent residency - no citizenship elsewhere, and they have deep roots in Jerusalem. If they are stripped of their residency - then, they are citizens of nowhere.

As to what happened to Jewish property - Israeli laws have been very liberal in allowing Jews to reclaim their property, much more so than with Palestinians.

Do you think it's right or wrong to confiscate property in these conditions - whether it's the Jews expelled or the Paletinians? I think it's wrong across the board.

 

[Coyote]

Here's another question:

Arab Israeli citizens can have their citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism or acting against the state ...but can Jewish Israeli citizens have their citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism?

Here again - citizenship categorized by ethnicity.

Only if they have dual nationality, and the law applies to all Israeli's


Here again - A RED HERRING that has no basis in reality

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.​

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?

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

What makes you think I think it's ok for Jews to lose their property when expelled? It's not.

Yet you do going on your silence regarding the loss of Jewish property in the west bank. Property that is now being reclaimed that you call illegal settlements. So this must mean you see the theft of Jewish property as being allowed just because they are Jews.

What specific Jewish property is being reclaimed by illegal settlements? Thus far, the settlements are on either state-owned land (thus ILLEGAL by ISRAELI LAW) or privately owned land, which in some cases belongs to Palestinians.

So what specific Jewish property is being reclaimed?

 

[Coyote]

If there is no discrimination why can't these Christians, who are Israeli citizens, return to their land in Israel?

As Israeli citizens, they receive the full benefit of their Israeli citizenship. So there is no discrimination in the context of this thread.

The question you are actually asking, is why can't the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of people displaced in war go back to living where their grandparents and great-grandparents used to live (even if the land was not actually privately owned by their ancestors -- some was, some wasn't).

And the answer is -- its complicated.

Its the crux of the entire conflict isn't it? Why can't people go back to living where their ancestors came from?

Yup, it sure is.

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

Keep deflecting.

No deflection just showing how the same applies to America and Australia as applies to Palestine. The only difference is the Jews already lived there and had done so for far longer than the muslims and Christians had been in existence. This gave them a minor advantage, and when the Ottomans invited them to return and make the land fertile after the arab muslims had refused this meant they were not invaders. When the offer was extended by the LoN under the mandate this meant that the Jews were in a position to migrate in large numbers.

Now what would you do if the Amerindians were to demand their lands back and reparations for the loss of use ?

No, you are constantly deflecting by bringing in other countries and events that transpired several hundred years ago. You can make comparisons - but, the ethics of 200 years ago or more are quite different then now.

 

[Coyote]

So - citizenship and equality.

Citizenship is important because it's the only guarantor of rights, isn't it? A stateless person has no rights and no protections. It's also an important component of one's identity.

So this raises an interesting questions. My opinions on this are evolving.

1. Should citizenship EVER be revoked?
Yes.

2. If yes, under what conditions?
If the person has committed a crime and holds dual citizenship.

3. If a person committed no crime, is it ethical to revoke their citizenship?
No.

I'm thinking in particular of landswaps should there be a two-state solution.

Landswaps would mean, potentially, that Israeli citizens (both Arab and Jewish) could be on the wrong side of the border. This was ethically acceptable 70 years ago...is it still?

In this case, I think it's the only realistic solution to the conflict, so yes - if people are treated fairly.

Should Israeli citizens be stripped of their citizenship and forced take on a new citizenship?
No.

Should they be all be given a choice and if so what choice?
Three possibilities occur to me. They could be given the choice of dual citizenship, or to keep the one they have and have permanent residency, or take on a new citizenship in the new state.

I'm giving my answers in blue.

 

[Phoenall]

Only if they have dual nationality, and the law applies to all Israeli's


Here again - A RED HERRING that has no basis in reality

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.​

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?

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 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.

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

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.

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

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).

A passport is not proof of citizenship, and I know Pakistani muslims with Palestinian, Jordanian and Syrian passports along with their Pakistani and British ones.
Residency cards are not citizenship either as Sting has a residency card to live in New York, but is British.
As I said the same as what happened to Jewish property in the west bank in 1949

I know, that is more or less what I was saying. One, that I think you are wrong about how to obtain Palestinian citizenship and two, that these people in Jerusalem ONLY have permanent residency - no citizenship elsewhere, and they have deep roots in Jerusalem. If they are stripped of their residency - then, they are citizens of nowhere.

As to what happened to Jewish property - Israeli laws have been very liberal in allowing Jews to reclaim their property, much more so than with Palestinians.

Do you think it's right or wrong to confiscate property in these conditions - whether it's the Jews expelled or the Paletinians? I think it's wrong across the board.

They are citizens of Palestine , or they are already stateless because of Jordan's actions. If they are Palestinian then they can be moved to any part of Palestine and live of their welfare. Or they can stay where they are and be covered by no welfare system. They are not being evicted or having their citizenship removed, just their residency status, so nothing will change other than who looks after them in international matters

Irrelevant under the circumstances the Palestinians forcibly evicted the Jews from the west bank and gaza in 1949, taking their property in the process. They Jews were beaten every step of their journeys into Israel and many died on the long march. It is not Israeli laws allowing Jews to reclaim their land it is international laws that make it possible for the Jews to reclaim the land stolen from them.

It is wrong to steal land by force when the owners have done nothing wrong, it is not wrong to reclaim that land. Nor is it wrong to demolish buildings that have been built illegally or on stolen land. If the people squatting on the land have no legal claims then they have no rights to protection.

 

[Phoenall]

Only if they have dual nationality, and the law applies to all Israeli's


Here again - A RED HERRING that has no basis in reality

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.​

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?

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

What makes you think I think it's ok for Jews to lose their property when expelled? It's not.

Yet you do going on your silence regarding the loss of Jewish property in the west bank. Property that is now being reclaimed that you call illegal settlements. So this must mean you see the theft of Jewish property as being allowed just because they are Jews.

What specific Jewish property is being reclaimed by illegal settlements? Thus far, the settlements are on either state-owned land (thus ILLEGAL by ISRAELI LAW) or privately owned land, which in some cases belongs to Palestinians.

So what specific Jewish property is being reclaimed?

You need to go back to 1948 and look at even the links used by team Palestine that show the land owned by Jews at the time. In the case of area C the vast majority of that land was owned by Jews who held legal title to it. In 1949 the Palestinians forcibly evited the Jews from east Jerusalem, west bank and gaza, then the new lords of the land passed laws that were illegal under the UN charter and the Geneva convention that stole the Jews rights to that land with no compensation for the loss of any property. In 1967 the Palestinians decided to try for more Jewish land and were beaten back to the now green line. The Jews decided to reclaim their lands and property only to find Palestinian squatters living there, so they forcibly evicted the Palestinians and that is how the settlements came about. They were never arab muslim in the first place, but as soon as the muslims saw the properties they wanted them because they only had mud huts and tents

 

[Phoenall]

As Israeli citizens, they receive the full benefit of their Israeli citizenship. So there is no discrimination in the context of this thread.

The question you are actually asking, is why can't the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of people displaced in war go back to living where their grandparents and great-grandparents used to live (even if the land was not actually privately owned by their ancestors -- some was, some wasn't).

And the answer is -- its complicated.

Its the crux of the entire conflict isn't it? Why can't people go back to living where their ancestors came from?

Yup, it sure is.

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

Keep deflecting.

No deflection just showing how the same applies to America and Australia as applies to Palestine. The only difference is the Jews already lived there and had done so for far longer than the muslims and Christians had been in existence. This gave them a minor advantage, and when the Ottomans invited them to return and make the land fertile after the arab muslims had refused this meant they were not invaders. When the offer was extended by the LoN under the mandate this meant that the Jews were in a position to migrate in large numbers.

Now what would you do if the Amerindians were to demand their lands back and reparations for the loss of use ?

No, you are constantly deflecting by bringing in other countries and events that transpired several hundred years ago. You can make comparisons - but, the ethics of 200 years ago or more are quite different then now.

No it is comparing what you did in the 1700 to what is happening now in Palestine. You were invaders with the idea of colonising the new world. The Jews were invited to migrate and settle by the sovereign owners.

And the ethics of 1917, 1924, 1948 and 1967 are different to what they are now. So decide on your cut off date for retrospective action under 1995 international laws and apply it across the board in all nations it applies to, including yours. Or work within the legal obligations and say that law did not exist until December 1949 so cant be used for something that happened in November 1949.
Once you under stand this than you will stop being head cheerleader for the islamonazi terrorist cause

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

I agree here, but I would like to stress that Israelis have to decide this. It is there country.

So - citizenship and equality.

Citizenship is important because it's the only guarantor of rights, isn't it? A stateless person has no rights and no protections. It's also an important component of one's identity.

So this raises an interesting questions. My opinions on this are evolving.

1. Should citizenship EVER be revoked?
Yes.

2. If yes, under what conditions?
If the person has committed a crime and holds dual citizenship.

3. If a person committed no crime, is it ethical to revoke their citizenship?
No.

I'm thinking in particular of landswaps should there be a two-state solution.

Landswaps would mean, potentially, that Israeli citizens (both Arab and Jewish) could be on the wrong side of the border. This was ethically acceptable 70 years ago...is it still?

In this case, I think it's the only realistic solution to the conflict, so yes - if people are treated fairly.

Should Israeli citizens be stripped of their citizenship and forced take on a new citizenship?
No.

Should they be all be given a choice and if so what choice?
Three possibilities occur to me. They could be given the choice of dual citizenship, or to keep the one they have and have permanent residency, or take on a new citizenship in the new state.

I'm giving my answers in blue.

(COMMENT)

I think it is important that non-Israelis temper their voice when it comes to these issues.


R

 

[Phoenall]

So - citizenship and equality.

Citizenship is important because it's the only guarantor of rights, isn't it? A stateless person has no rights and no protections. It's also an important component of one's identity.

So this raises an interesting questions. My opinions on this are evolving.

1. Should citizenship EVER be revoked?
Yes.

2. If yes, under what conditions?
If the person has committed a crime and holds dual citizenship.

3. If a person committed no crime, is it ethical to revoke their citizenship?
No.

I'm thinking in particular of landswaps should there be a two-state solution.

Landswaps would mean, potentially, that Israeli citizens (both Arab and Jewish) could be on the wrong side of the border. This was ethically acceptable 70 years ago...is it still?

In this case, I think it's the only realistic solution to the conflict, so yes - if people are treated fairly.

Should Israeli citizens be stripped of their citizenship and forced take on a new citizenship?
No.

Should they be all be given a choice and if so what choice?
Three possibilities occur to me. They could be given the choice of dual citizenship, or to keep the one they have and have permanent residency, or take on a new citizenship in the new state.

I'm giving my answers in blue.

I only have one answer, why when it suits do you want people with dual nationality, when to all intents and purpose it is illegal under most nations laws. Dual nationality is one of the criteria for having citizenship revoked, unless it was due to a fickle finger of fate. A child born to say Israeli parents on holiday in the US would have US citizenship and Israeli citizenship.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

I agree here, but I would like to stress that Israelis have to decide this. It is there country.

So - citizenship and equality.

Citizenship is important because it's the only guarantor of rights, isn't it? A stateless person has no rights and no protections. It's also an important component of one's identity.

So this raises an interesting questions. My opinions on this are evolving.

1. Should citizenship EVER be revoked?
Yes.

2. If yes, under what conditions?
If the person has committed a crime and holds dual citizenship.

3. If a person committed no crime, is it ethical to revoke their citizenship?
No.

I'm thinking in particular of landswaps should there be a two-state solution.

Landswaps would mean, potentially, that Israeli citizens (both Arab and Jewish) could be on the wrong side of the border. This was ethically acceptable 70 years ago...is it still?

In this case, I think it's the only realistic solution to the conflict, so yes - if people are treated fairly.

Should Israeli citizens be stripped of their citizenship and forced take on a new citizenship?
No.

Should they be all be given a choice and if so what choice?
Three possibilities occur to me. They could be given the choice of dual citizenship, or to keep the one they have and have permanent residency, or take on a new citizenship in the new state.

I'm giving my answers in blue.

(COMMENT)

I think it is important that non-Israelis temper their voice when it comes to these issues.


R

I think the same needs to apply to a future Palestinian state as well - people should be given a choice. Citizens who are citizens of Israel, should not be forceably stripped of citizenship, or property. Whether they remain in Palestine or Israel. IMO.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

What are we talking about here?

I think the same needs to apply to a future Palestinian state as well - people should be given a choice. Citizens who are citizens of Israel, should not be forceably stripped of citizenship, or property. Whether they remain in Palestine or Israel. IMO.

(COMMENT)

Can you give me an example scenario?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

I agree here, but I would like to stress that Israelis have to decide this. It is there country.

So - citizenship and equality.

Citizenship is important because it's the only guarantor of rights, isn't it? A stateless person has no rights and no protections. It's also an important component of one's identity.

So this raises an interesting questions. My opinions on this are evolving.

1. Should citizenship EVER be revoked?
Yes.

2. If yes, under what conditions?
If the person has committed a crime and holds dual citizenship.

3. If a person committed no crime, is it ethical to revoke their citizenship?
No.

I'm thinking in particular of landswaps should there be a two-state solution.

Landswaps would mean, potentially, that Israeli citizens (both Arab and Jewish) could be on the wrong side of the border. This was ethically acceptable 70 years ago...is it still?

In this case, I think it's the only realistic solution to the conflict, so yes - if people are treated fairly.

Should Israeli citizens be stripped of their citizenship and forced take on a new citizenship?
No.

Should they be all be given a choice and if so what choice?
Three possibilities occur to me. They could be given the choice of dual citizenship, or to keep the one they have and have permanent residency, or take on a new citizenship in the new state.

I'm giving my answers in blue.

(COMMENT)

I think it is important that non-Israelis temper their voice when it comes to these issues.


R

I think the same needs to apply to a future Palestinian state as well - people should be given a choice. Citizens who are citizens of Israel, should not be forceably stripped of citizenship, or property. Whether they remain in Palestine or Israel. IMO.

And again you ignore international treaties and international laws when they apply to the Jews. The arab Palestine lane is what is now Jordan, and that is where they are meant to be. What would you say if the Israelis declared that the Jewish refugees are still refugees along with their offspring and need to be given the same rights as the arab refugees. Do you think that is fair and honest, if not why is it fair and honest for the Palestinians. You are aware that Palestinians living in the US still class themselves as refugees and see their home as what ever land in Israel takes their fancy. If the arab's ever manage to gain full control you can expect modern day Israel to be destroyed within 3 years and all the Jews ethnically cleansed. The only solution is the one agreed by the LoN that saw the peaceful muslims allowed to stay in Israel and the extremists given two chances, move willingly to Jordan with a small compensation package ( about $100 at the time ) or be forcibly relocated by the armed forces of the LoN

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

I agree here, but I would like to stress that Israelis have to decide this. It is there country.

So - citizenship and equality.

Citizenship is important because it's the only guarantor of rights, isn't it? A stateless person has no rights and no protections. It's also an important component of one's identity.

So this raises an interesting questions. My opinions on this are evolving.

1. Should citizenship EVER be revoked?
Yes.

2. If yes, under what conditions?
If the person has committed a crime and holds dual citizenship.

3. If a person committed no crime, is it ethical to revoke their citizenship?
No.

I'm thinking in particular of landswaps should there be a two-state solution.

Landswaps would mean, potentially, that Israeli citizens (both Arab and Jewish) could be on the wrong side of the border. This was ethically acceptable 70 years ago...is it still?

In this case, I think it's the only realistic solution to the conflict, so yes - if people are treated fairly.

Should Israeli citizens be stripped of their citizenship and forced take on a new citizenship?
No.

Should they be all be given a choice and if so what choice?
Three possibilities occur to me. They could be given the choice of dual citizenship, or to keep the one they have and have permanent residency, or take on a new citizenship in the new state.

I'm giving my answers in blue.

(COMMENT)

I think it is important that non-Israelis temper their voice when it comes to these issues.


R

I think the same needs to apply to a future Palestinian state as well - people should be given a choice. Citizens who are citizens of Israel, should not be forceably stripped of citizenship, or property. Whether they remain in Palestine or Israel. IMO.

And again you ignore international treaties and international laws when they apply to the Jews. The arab Palestine lane is what is now Jordan, and that is where they are meant to be. What would you say if the Israelis declared that the Jewish refugees are still refugees along with their offspring and need to be given the same rights as the arab refugees. Do you think that is fair and honest, if not why is it fair and honest for the Palestinians. You are aware that Palestinians living in the US still class themselves as refugees and see their home as what ever land in Israel takes their fancy. If the arab's ever manage to gain full control you can expect modern day Israel to be destroyed within 3 years and all the Jews ethnically cleansed. The only solution is the one agreed by the LoN that saw the peaceful muslims allowed to stay in Israel and the extremists given two chances, move willingly to Jordan with a small compensation package ( about $100 at the time ) or be forcibly relocated by the armed forces of the LoN

How does any of that relate to what I am saying in regards to a two state solution and citizenship?

Are you suggesting that Arab Israeli's should be stripped of citizenship and sent to Jordan?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

What are we talking about here?

I think the same needs to apply to a future Palestinian state as well - people should be given a choice. Citizens who are citizens of Israel, should not be forceably stripped of citizenship, or property. Whether they remain in Palestine or Israel. IMO.

(COMMENT)

Can you give me an example scenario?

Most Respectfully,
R

It's all hypothetical since there is no Palestinian state and we don't know what form it will take or how it's view towards citizenship will end up in reality but, for example:

Assuming there are landswaps, and Israel retains the larger more established settlements, but will likely have to give up on other settlements.

Should those settlers be forced to leave against their will?

Should they be stripped of their Israeli citizenship if they choose to stay?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

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?

As far as I can tell there were no land disputes for hundreds of years before the Zionist colonial project.

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.

The Zionist colonial project was/is the problem...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.

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?

The Palestinians, including the Jews, wanted a single state where everyone had equal rights like they had been living for generations.

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?

I don't think there will ever be a negotiated solution. I don't see it happening. There will be no peace until the world finally decides to enforce international law.

The Palestinians have consistently requested a solution based on international law. Of course Israel and its lackeys in the US government reject this concept.

Recently the Palestinians have brought this concept into public discourse internationally through its call for BDS. I don't see anyone else working on a solution.

 

[Shusha]

I don't think there will ever be a negotiated solution. I don't see it happening. There will be no peace until the world finally decides to enforce international law.

The Palestinians have consistently requested a solution based on international law. Of course Israel and its lackeys in the US government reject this concept.

Recently the Palestinians have brought this concept into public discourse internationally through its call for BDS. I don't see anyone else working on a solution.

Okay, but what do you think the solution would look like?