Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[ForeverYoung436]

Hoffstra, et al,

So, your allegation is that there are two different sets of laws in Israel for citizens.

No, South Africa is now a democracy that gives equal rights to all citizens.

Unlike Israel.

(COMMENT)

What are the two classes of citizen? And please give me an example of how the Israeli Law treats them differently. It will help me understand better.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think Hoffstra is referring to Arabs who live in the West Bank, under Israeli military rule, pending a final agreement. Arabs who live in Israel proper have full equal rights.

 

[RoccoR]

ForeverYoung436, et al,

If this is true, then the allegation doesn't make sense.

Hoffstra, et al,

So, your allegation is that there are two different sets of laws in Israel for citizens.

No, South Africa is now a democracy that gives equal rights to all citizens.

Unlike Israel.

(COMMENT)

What are the two classes of citizen? And please give me an example of how the Israeli Law treats them differently. It will help me understand better.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think Hoffstra is referring to Arabs who live in the West Bank, under Israeli military rule, pending a final agreement. Arabs who live in Israel proper have full equal rights.

(COMMENT)

Most "Arabs who live in the West Bank" are not citizens of Israel.

That's why I asked the question. Non-citizen "Arabs who live in the West Bank" would not normally be treated the same as Israeli citizens.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...Most "Arabs who live in the West Bank" are not citizens of Israel... Non-citizen "Arabs who live in the West Bank" would not normally be treated the same as Israeli citizens..."

And it was their choice, back in 1948, to be Israeli citizens, or to try to kill the new Jewish State, alongside their Arab-Muslim neighbors...

They chose poorly...

Choices have consequences...

 

[docmauser1]

Hafrada is similar to Apartheid.

If palistanians can't enjoy a piece of free apartheid - it is apartheid, of course. It's old news.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli forces were inside Palestine defending themselves?

Call it whatever you want Tinmore, but yes, they were defending themselves against the hostile Arab armies.
You have got to be the only person in the world who believes that the 5 Arab armies were on the defensive side lol. Look at the size of their countries, the size of their armies, the amount of infantry and amount of weaponry they had compared to the Jews.

Irrelevant!

Israel forces were inside Palestine.

So the question should be:

What were Israeli forces doing in Palestine?

 

[docmauser1]

So the question should be: What were Israeli forces doing in Palestine?

Protecting jews from armed major arab immigrants and other armed arabs from the hood, of course.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The IDF was, after 15 MAY 1948, defending Israeli Sovereignty against Arab Aggression and insurgent activity.

Call it whatever you want Tinmore, but yes, they were defending themselves against the hostile Arab armies.
You have got to be the only person in the world who believes that the 5 Arab armies were on the defensive side lol. Look at the size of their countries, the size of their armies, the amount of infantry and amount of weaponry they had compared to the Jews.

Irrelevant!

Israel forces were inside Palestine.

So the question should be:

What were Israeli forces doing in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

There is no question --- the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) argued that the five Arab States which contributed the Arab armed forces in 1948 were not invaders in "Palestine." The AHC claimed that the five Arab States were asked for military assistance [Arab Liberation Army (ALA)] "in the face of mounting Jewish aggression."

The key to understanding this is to understand who the AHC really is!

In November 1945, the Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee comprising twelve members as the supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine.

SOURCE:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the Palestinian and Arab leadership had not fully grasped was the shift of power during the Second World War. The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) with the totally discredited Mufti Haj Amin Al Husseini at its head but with Jamal Al Husseini actually responsible for it in Palestine.

SOURCE: Legal Fundamentalism in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Pluto, London-New York 2010, 253 p,

As you can see, there is a direct relationship between the Arab Higher Committee (claiming to represent Arab Palestinians) and the Arab League (five Arab States and their Armies). In effect the Arab League (AL), via their creation - the AHC, invited themselves and the ALA. It is a political slight of hand. Most people think the AHC was an independent representative of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). Nothing could be further from the truth.

The HAC/AL and now the HoAP, both then and now, justified their actions because they believe that the territory, under the former Mandate of Palestine (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate), is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible territorial unit that belongs to the Arab Palestinian. Thus, they claim the Jewish Agency and the immigration, under the Fiasal Agreement, under the Convention, Treaty Agreement, and the Mandate, was a foreign invasion. This position was promulgated by Arabs to justify the defiance of the (first the League of Nations) UN and the establishment of the Jewish National Home in the shadow of the Holocaust. The AL believed that a quick and decisive battle would be fought and a new Arab Kingdom would be established; with Jordan assuming control over the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The IDF was, after 15 MAY 1948, defending Israeli Sovereignty against Arab Aggression and insurgent activity.

Irrelevant!

Israel forces were inside Palestine.

So the question should be:

What were Israeli forces doing in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

There is no question --- the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) argued that the five Arab States which contributed the Arab armed forces in 1948 were not invaders in "Palestine." The AHC claimed that the five Arab States were asked for military assistance [Arab Liberation Army (ALA)] "in the face of mounting Jewish aggression."

The key to understanding this is to understand who the AHC really is!

What the Palestinian and Arab leadership had not fully grasped was the shift of power during the Second World War. The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) with the totally discredited Mufti Haj Amin Al Husseini at its head but with Jamal Al Husseini actually responsible for it in Palestine.

SOURCE: Legal Fundamentalism in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Pluto, London-New York 2010, 253 p,

As you can see, there is a direct relationship between the Arab Higher Committee (claiming to represent Arab Palestinians) and the Arab League (five Arab States and their Armies). In effect the Arab League (AL), via their creation - the AHC, invited themselves and the ALA. It is a political slight of hand. Most people think the AHC was an independent representative of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). Nothing could be further from the truth.

The HAC/AL and now the HoAP, both then and now, justified their actions because they believe that the territory, under the former Mandate of Palestine (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate), is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible territorial unit that belongs to the Arab Palestinian. Thus, they claim the Jewish Agency and the immigration, under the Fiasal Agreement, under the Convention, Treaty Agreement, and the Mandate, was a foreign invasion. This position was promulgated by Arabs to justify the defiance of the (first the League of Nations) UN and the establishment of the Jewish National Home in the shadow of the Holocaust. The AL believed that a quick and decisive battle would be fought and a new Arab Kingdom would be established; with Jordan assuming control over the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Most Respectfully,
R

So in other words, the AL, without checking, climbed onto the back of a tiger and wound up with clawed balls.

 

[georgephillip]

No, South Africa is now a democracy that gives equal rights to all citizens.

Unlike Israel.

True...

Israel gave equal rights to everyone who was willing to live in peace under the Israeli government...

Israel gave short shrift and exile to those who sided with their Arab-Muslim neighbor countries in multiple failed attempts to drown the Jews in the Mediterranean and to suicide-bomb and rocket-attack innocent Israeli civilians...

An understandable and logical distinction...

What's the distinction between citizenship and nationality in Israel?

"Israel's Apartheid Laws


"1. Identity and Citizenship

"Law of Return (1950)Grants right of immigration to Jews born anywhere in the world. Amended in 1970 to extend this right to 'a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew.'

"A “Jew” is defined as 'a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.'

"Non-Jewish native-born Palestinians – most importantly those who fled during the Zionist massacres in 1947 and 1948 – are in most cases prevented from returning."

What kind of democracy divides its citizens into two unequal classes?
The same kind Chicago enjoyed in the 1950s?

Israel's Apartheid Laws

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)

Do you have a link to that?

 

[toastman]

Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)

Do you have a link to that?

A link to what Tinmore ? What are you even asking him ?????

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no question --- the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) argued that the five Arab States which contributed the Arab armed forces in 1948 were not invaders in "Palestine."

Did they enter Palestine to attack the Palestinians?

If not, "invaders" would not be an applicable term.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)

Do you have a link to that?

A link to what Tinmore ? What are you even asking him ?????

The source of that term.

 

[docmauser1]

"Non-Jewish native-born Palestinians – most importantly those who fled during the Zionist massacres in 1947 and 1948 – are in most cases prevented from returning."

They are in "Palestine", as their palistan is being called, so, no worries about returning, they're home. Bth., Zionist massacres, is it fresh drivel, or an old one?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The HAC/AL and now the HoAP, both then and now, justified their actions because they believe that the territory, under the former Mandate of Palestine (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate), is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible territorial unit that belongs to the Arab Palestinian.

A country belongs to the people who normally live there

WOW, what a bizarre concept!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Thus, they claim the Jewish Agency and the immigration, under the Fiasal Agreement, under the Convention, Treaty Agreement, and the Mandate, was a foreign invasion.

How many of those were Palestinian and how many were foreigners?

 

[docmauser1]

Thus, they claim the Jewish Agency and the immigration, under the Fiasal Agreement, under the Convention, Treaty Agreement, and the Mandate, was a foreign invasion.

How many of those were Palestinian and how many were foreigners?

"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill knew the answer.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No!

There is no question --- the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) argued that the five Arab States which contributed the Arab armed forces in 1948 were not invaders in "Palestine."

Did they enter Palestine to attack the Palestinians?

If not, "invaders" would not be an applicable term.

(COMMENT)

They (ALAs) entered the newly declared State of Israel to attack the Jewish People.

The ALA demonstrated the "first use of force" (first evidence of prima facie aggressors) and crossed into the boundaries accepted by the Jewish Agency out of GA/RES/181(II) (second evidence of prima facie aggressors).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No!

There is no question --- the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) argued that the five Arab States which contributed the Arab armed forces in 1948 were not invaders in "Palestine."

Did they enter Palestine to attack the Palestinians?

If not, "invaders" would not be an applicable term.

(COMMENT)

They (ALAs) entered the newly declared State of Israel to attack the Jewish People.

The ALA demonstrated the "first use of force" (first evidence of prima facie aggressors) and crossed into the boundaries accepted by the Jewish Agency out of GA/RES/181(II) (second evidence of prima facie aggressors).

Most Respectfully,
R

No they didn't.

 

[Hoffstra]

They (ALAs) entered the newly declared State of Israel to attack the Jewish People.,..

The Arabs entered Israel because their goal was to attack Jewish people?

they were hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Arab world. If they wanted to kill Jews they didn't have to look any further than their neighbors.

Clearly, "attacking the Jews" wasn't their motive.