Israel continues to demolish the homes built without permits

[Boston1]

But it's "nation building" seems restricted to only one ethnic group among a citizenry composed of multiple ethnic groups.

Well, that's an interesting discussion, isn't it? Aren't we trying to build two (four) nations here based on principles of self-determination and self-identification and national ethnicity? What is the point, if we do not discriminate (as in differentiate) between on and the other?

Should nations not be permitted to build a nation based around their own ethnicity and culture?

When you have a nation with a citizenship of multiple ethnicities - should you favor one or some over others in treatment and opportunity and why?

But your Arab friends build nations on a single ethnicity, their own. And expel all others.

Isn't that the definition of apartheid

What happened to all those Israeli buildings in Gaza once the Israeli's left ?

 

[Coyote]

But it's "nation building" seems restricted to only one ethnic group among a citizenry composed of multiple ethnic groups.

Well, that's an interesting discussion, isn't it? Aren't we trying to build two (four) nations here based on principles of self-determination and self-identification and national ethnicity? What is the point, if we do not discriminate (as in differentiate) between on and the other?

Should nations not be permitted to build a nation based around their own ethnicity and culture?

When you have a nation with a citizenship of multiple ethnicities - should you favor one or some over others in treatment and opportunity and why?

But your Arab friends build nations on a single ethnicity, their own. And expel all others.

Isn't that the definition of apartheid

What happened to all those Israeli buildings in Gaza once the Israeli's left ?

So....back to the question I asked: When you have a nation with a citizenship of multiple ethnicities - should you favor one or some over others in treatment and opportunity and why?

 

[Shusha]

So....back to the question I asked: When you have a nation with a citizenship of multiple ethnicities - should you favor one or some over others in treatment and opportunity and why?

Under normal circumstances? Of course not. These aren't normal circumstances.

 

[Coyote]

So....back to the question I asked: When you have a nation with a citizenship of multiple ethnicities - should you favor one or some over others in treatment and opportunity and why?

Under normal circumstances? Of course not. These aren't normal circumstances.

In other words - you have one set of standards for one group, and another set for the other group. Isn't that how you define "anti-semitism"?

 

[Shusha]

So....back to the question I asked: When you have a nation with a citizenship of multiple ethnicities - should you favor one or some over others in treatment and opportunity and why?

Under normal circumstances? Of course not. These aren't normal circumstances.

In other words - you have one set of standards for one group, and another set for the other group. Isn't that how you define "anti-semitism"?

Um. No. I have a different set of standards for different circumstances. The safety and security of the Jewish people is absolutely one of those circumstances.

(Which is why I even encourage ethnic cleansing (heinous as it is) of the Jewish people from Palestine. Safety trumps human rights.).

You are (again) trying to make a false equivalency here both in trying to compare me with antisemites and in trying to associate Israel with inappropriate discrimination.

 

[Coyote]

So....back to the question I asked: When you have a nation with a citizenship of multiple ethnicities - should you favor one or some over others in treatment and opportunity and why?

Under normal circumstances? Of course not. These aren't normal circumstances.

In other words - you have one set of standards for one group, and another set for the other group. Isn't that how you define "anti-semitism"?

Um. No. I have a different set of standards for different circumstances. The safety and security of the Jewish people is absolutely one of those circumstances.

(Which is why I even encourage ethnic cleansing (heinous as it is) of the Jewish people from Palestine. Safety trumps human rights.).

You are (again) trying to make a false equivalency here both in trying to compare me with antisemites and in trying to associate Israel with inappropriate discrimination.

There is no false equivalency - either standards are the same for how all citizens are treated or they are not. If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination.

 

[Boston1]

So....back to the question I asked: When you have a nation with a citizenship of multiple ethnicities - should you favor one or some over others in treatment and opportunity and why?

Under normal circumstances? Of course not. These aren't normal circumstances.

In other words - you have one set of standards for one group, and another set for the other group. Isn't that how you define "anti-semitism"?

Um. No. I have a different set of standards for different circumstances. The safety and security of the Jewish people is absolutely one of those circumstances.

(Which is why I even encourage ethnic cleansing (heinous as it is) of the Jewish people from Palestine. Safety trumps human rights.).

You are (again) trying to make a false equivalency here both in trying to compare me with antisemites and in trying to associate Israel with inappropriate discrimination.

There is no false equivalency - either standards are the same for how all citizens are treated or they are not. If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination.

Wrong

You appear to be willfully refusing to acknowledge that most Arab Muslims have refused citizenship and exist as permanent residents in Israel.

Which means they DO NOT enjoy the same status right or privileges as full citizens

Regardless if you build a house without a permit its likely to be torn down

 

[Coyote]

So....back to the question I asked: When you have a nation with a citizenship of multiple ethnicities - should you favor one or some over others in treatment and opportunity and why?

Under normal circumstances? Of course not. These aren't normal circumstances.

In other words - you have one set of standards for one group, and another set for the other group. Isn't that how you define "anti-semitism"?

Um. No. I have a different set of standards for different circumstances. The safety and security of the Jewish people is absolutely one of those circumstances.

(Which is why I even encourage ethnic cleansing (heinous as it is) of the Jewish people from Palestine. Safety trumps human rights.).

You are (again) trying to make a false equivalency here both in trying to compare me with antisemites and in trying to associate Israel with inappropriate discrimination.

There is no false equivalency - either standards are the same for how all citizens are treated or they are not. If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination.

Wrong

You appear to be willfully refusing to acknowledge that most Arab Muslims have refused citizenship and exist as permanent residents in Israel.

Which means they DO NOT enjoy the same status right or privileges as full citizens

Regardless if you build a house without a permit its likely to be torn down

A couple of issues here.

First, I'm talking about citizens. I've clearly identified that several times.

That means all full citizens enjoy the same rights and privileges - are we on the same page here?

The issue, that you are willfully refusing to discuss is - why, when it comes to "nation building" are some categories of citizens given preferential treatment? Is this not discrimmination?

As a side note - do you have any proof that most Arab residents have refused citizenship in Israel and exist as permanent residents? I can not find any sort of demographic evidence to support this.

 

[Shusha]

If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination.

I think people who are actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel should not be supported in their endeavors.

I think people who are able to participate in Israeli society should be welcomed and supported.

And I think it is utterly ironic that those nations which ethnically cleansed themselves of "undesirable people" simply because of their ethnicity are seen as being morally superior to Israel who decided, at a time when population transfers were relatively acceptable, to act in a morally superior way by welcoming other ethnic groups -- enemy groups -- into their communities and nations. None of this would be under discussion if Israel had actually done what all the other surrounding Muslim Arab nations had done -- rid themselves of the minority "other".

I find it ironic that Israel is accused of discrimination while Palestinians continue to insist that not a single Israeli (read: Jew) will remain on "their" land.

I find it ironic that Israel is vilified for discrimination whilst no Jew is permitted to pray on our own holy site because the Muslims find it somehow "offensive" to hear a Jew pray.

And I find it ironic that you accuse me of supporting discrimination when I provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions supporting BOTH sides of the conflict, whilst you remain silent on the most odious of remarks about Jews on this board. I find it ironic that you can't tell the difference between, "Oh, just like Jews to be sneaky and murderous" and painstakingly researching each and every village brought up on this thread to discover the actual issues for that particular community and providing commentary on it based on the specific situation.

 

[montelatici]

Either a nation treats all the people it rules over equally or it does not. That other nations may declare themselves a state of/for a particular religion, race, ethnicity or other discriminating feature and treats those "different" inhabitants it rules over with a different set of laws does not give Israel a pass for that treatment of the "different" inhabitants. Using the South African excuse, i.e. the claim that most non-whites were citizens of independent territories, that nevertheless South Africa had full control over (Bantustans) does not cut it.

 

[Boston1]

Either a nation treats all the people it rules over equally or it does not. That other nations may declare themselves a state of/for a particular religion, race, ethnicity or other discriminating feature and treats those "different" inhabitants it rules over with a different set of laws does not give Israel a pass for that treatment of the "different" inhabitants. Using the South African excuse, i.e. the claim that most non-whites were citizens of independent territories, that nevertheless South Africa had full control over (Bantustans) does not cut it.

You've lost all sense of reality.

No nation is expected to treat an enemy combatant in the same manor as a peaceful citizen.

The Geneva Conventions make it clear that enemy combatants not only can be segregated from the population at large, but can be detained indefinitely as well as placed on trial, convicted and have sentences passed and carried out. They may also be, no, in fact MUST BE repatriated outside the host nation regardless of any agreement or lack thereof between the host nation and any other cobelligerents.

If you payed attention a little better you'd know this already. I've certainly pointed it out enough times.

This also includes the construction of illegal housing.

Not only would any other nation expect persons protected or not to follow the established procedures when constructing just about any structure bigger than a doghouse, but every other nation can and does tear down structures built illegally.

The fact that the Israeli's are using home demolitions as a form of judicial punishment is perfectly legal.

 

[Phoenall]

.....

Thats OK Flag boy I don't find your posts sufficiently entertaining or even just relevant enough to bother wasting my time on the minutia.

Actually I was just noticing that your apparently incapable of addressing the subject and would prefer to switch and bait. Not very bright as that kinda thing may be standard in grade school debates, but not among adults.

The simple fact is that much of the areas in Israel inhabited by Arab Muslims are actually controlled by Arab Muslims in so far as building is concerned. They issue their own permits. Israel has nothing to do with it other than playing the typical scape goat for Arab incompetence.

Gaza is completely independent, among other things proving that statehood has nothing to do with the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mindset. Gaza could be a state anytime it wants to if the Arab Muslims ever decided to quit focussing on the hatred and start focussing on improving their own standard of living.

Again Gaza is in complete control of its own building permits. Again a false claim that Arabs can't get permits.

Even in the heart of Israel, Jerusalem, about 10% of building permits are granted to Arabs who make up about 20% of Israel's population. So whats the problem ? Seems obvious that the Arabs don't hold a candle to the Judaic people when it comes to economic strength; so why shouldn't their incompetency in financial matters be reflected in their lower likelihood of being able to afford a building permit ?

Blame blame blame is all you people do. Ever thought of taking responsibility for your own condition and making something of yourself in life ?

Quit whining about building permits and focus on improving yourself and maybe someday you can afford a house like the rest of us civilized people.

The issue of permits is not in Gaza, but in areas controlled by Israel.

Palestinian building permits 'political', admits Israel

In practice, almost all Palestinian applications for a building permit are rejected, with the Civil Administration granting only a handful of permits...

...In 2014, the Civil Administration granted just one Palestinian building permit, according to Israeli planning NGO Bimkom.

In the same period, Israel carried 493 demolitions, displacing 969 people, UN figures show.

Unable to get "legal" permission, Palestinians are faced with either leaving or building illegally.

Israel regularly sends bulldozers to demolish hundreds of homes and other structures every year in a move sharply condemned by rights groups and the international community.​

Compare that to illegal Jewish settlements. Some (very few) are demolished. Many illegally built on government land have been provided with government-subsidized infrastructure (even while illegal) or retroactively legalized.

Israeli government challenges the law to embrace illegal settler outposts

Strategically located on a hill like most outposts, Migron’s residents have lived in illegal structures since 2002. The Israeli Ministry of Housing and Construction generously funded them with more than US$1 million, according to the so-called Sasson report.
​

Israel intends to authorize West Bank outpost bloc containing hundreds of illegal buildings - Diplomacy and Defense

Israel intends to authorize a bloc of five West Bank outposts east of Shilo that covers six square kilometers and includes hundreds of illegal structures.

The state submitted the announcement to the High Court of Justice in response a petition filed last year by the human rights group Yesh Din and the owners of the lands in question. The petition calls for immediate evacuation of the Adei Ad outpost because it was built without any building permits on private lands, and because outpost residents have been involved in violent acts threatening local security. ​

So what would you do if a plot of land was earmarked as a new hospital and school for the community and some violent gang bangers moved in and built a new clubhouse, garage and housing for their gang members. Would you do as Israel is and demolish the buildings, or do what you want Israel to do and allow them to deprive the community of much needed medical facilities and schools.

There is no indication that is the case. Let's stick to reality or, provide a source indicating that is the reason for refusal to give permits.

I am, and the facts have been presented on this and many boards regarding illegal buildings being erected on sites destined for schools and hospitals. Once the evidence has been produced to show that Israel acted within the law we get one of two reactions

1) Then the law should be altered so that Israel cant act as any other nation does

2) The subject is dropped for a few weeks or months before being reborn

Again: provide a source indicating that is the reason for refusal to give permits.

A source to what exactly, something that is common knowledge and has been proven to be true many times over ?

 

[Phoenall]

I'm sure it's just another slanderous remark against the Judaic people

You should look stuff up before making yourself look like an idiot AGAIN!

It's a Hebrew word used by the Israeli government!

Which word are you talking about? I can translate.

הַסְבָּרָה‎

A slanderous remark apparently...

There really are some crazies out there in cyberland!

Fortunately, those educated among us can carry out a little translation in Hebrew!

Hasbara means "public relations". When I was in Bar-Ilan from 1982-1983, I would get together with 4 or 5 friends once a week for an informal Hasbara class. At that time the biggest stain on Israel's image was the Sabra and Shatilla massacre. We wanted to get the word out that Jews should not be blamed when Gentiles kill Gentiles. It was only later, when I entered this Board, that I learned that Hasbara was, somehow, a dirty word.

I am fully aware of what the word means, you don't need to be Jewish to understand Hebrew!

"Hasbara classes"...Yes indeed... Indoctrination of how best to try and 'present' to the rest of the world how Israel is a poor, innocent, bullied state...

Which clearly Israel ISN'T and it needs hasbara to maintain this fallacy...

Misinformation is ALWAYS a "dirty word"...

Did you attend kithman and taqiya classes then alongside your disinformation/misinformation classes. Is that how you were indoctrinated into being an islamonazi propagandist and defender of pallywood productions. Are you once again denying the widespread Jew hate and Racist anti Semitism that is prevelant in every one of your posts. Just the constant use of Zionist out of context and hasbara to silence the truth shows that you will stoop to anything to demonise the Jews

 

[Phoenall]

Either a nation treats all the people it rules over equally or it does not. That other nations may declare themselves a state of/for a particular religion, race, ethnicity or other discriminating feature and treats those "different" inhabitants it rules over with a different set of laws does not give Israel a pass for that treatment of the "different" inhabitants. Using the South African excuse, i.e. the claim that most non-whites were citizens of independent territories, that nevertheless South Africa had full control over (Bantustans) does not cut it.

So who does Israel not treat all of its citizens equally, you cant use Palestine as that is ruled over by the P.A. The UN recognised the P.A. as the government of Palestine and it makes the laws as well as issueing passports and currency.

 

[Phoenall]

You've lost it if you think i'm saying the Israeli's aren't selling enough building permits to the Arabs. If anything they are giving away as well as selling far to many, and should put a stop to all Arab building until the violence stops.

As far as I'm concerned they should stop pandering to Arab sniveling and employ the Geneva Conventions to the letter. Would eliminate the vast majority of the problem by removing all Arab combatants and their descendants from the equation.

The only conclusion I come up with is that a) you can't prove there is no discrimmination or inequality and b) you have no problem with discrimmination and inequality as long as it's only directed at certain groups of people.

How exactly, in a democratic society, would halt all construction for Arab Israeli citizens but allow construction for Jewish Israeli citizens while maintaining a democratic system?

You are desperate to redirect this discussion away from your claim that there is a racial bias in the issuance of building permits.

Uh, no. I'm sticking to my topic and not getting derailed into yours. The topic is building permits and you keep trying to deflect away from it.

You've refused again and again to prove it by showing us on a building application where it asks for race

And you refuse to answer the question on what qualifies as racism, despite my giving examples of how racism isn't simply a designation on a document.

So have you come up with the proof that permits are denied on the basis of economic conditions?

Looks like your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on and when confronted with the economic realities. That the Arab Muslims can't afford building permits you adamantly refuse to even consider it.

But this imaginary race card you just can't let go of

And your proof is.......?

Odd how that works isn't it ?

You are completely confused.

Please show us where I said permits are denied based on income.

;--)

What I said was the Arab Muslims can't afford the permits. So they build without and next thing you know just like anywhere else they end up either having to buy permits and pass inspections or tear down their homes.

When I said "income" I meant "affordability". What you are saying is that those that can't afford it (and, I suspect that includes many Jews as well) simply build illegally. They can't afford the permit, so they don't apply for it, and there is no permit to deny.

There's no discrimination involved, which was your claim. So I asked if you could show us where it asked for race on the application.

At which point you started the backflips and subterfuge

Except some of us aren't so easily distracted

You have yet to prove there is no discrimination, or that permits were denied based on affordability. You make a reasonable case that cost could be a factor, but it is by no means conclusive, particularly across Israel and the Occupied Territories.

You might be able to make a case for cost in Jeruselum, but, even that is not as clear cut as it would appear. Jeruselum has unique problems - cost is one factor, as is a very complicated planning system, and inequities in how it is handled and especially how it is funded. Not even many of Jeruselem's original Jewish inhabitants can afford to live there anymore. However, unlike

Only 7% of Jerusalem Building Permits Go to Palestinian Neighborhoods

...Data given to Jerusalem City Councilor Laura Wharton (Meretz) points to a sharp drop in the number of permits issued to Palestinians. Her data, provided by the NGO Bimkom-Planners for Planning Rights, based on the municipality’s own figures, show that before 2010, an average of 400 housing units were approved annually for eastern Jerusalem, while over the past five years an average of 200 permits have been issued for those neighborhoods, with no specific numbers cited, according to an official statement by the city.

Most homes in East Jerusalem are built without permits – that is, illegally – since the neighborhoods have no master plans on which building permits can be based. When he became mayor seven years ago, Mayor Nir Barkat declared that one of his primary missions with regard to East Jerusalem would be to deal with the illegal construction there. As part of this new policy, home demolitions were reduced, and the municipality began to advance plans to retroactively legalize buildings that had already been built. But these plans encountered various technical obstacles and to date only a few East Jerusalem residents have been able to get their homes legalized retroactively.

To understand the problem one must compare how construction is handled in Jewish Jerusalem (including areas over the Green Line) with the Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem, usually referred to as “East Jerusalem” even though many of these neighborhoods are in the northern and southern parts of the city.

In Jewish Jerusalem most construction is initiated by the government; either the Israel Lands Authority or the Construction and Housing Ministry prepare plans, invest money in environmental development and infrastructure, and publish tenders. The homes, mostly multi-unit high-rises, are built and sold by contractors supervised by the state.

In East Jerusalem, however, there are no government construction initiatives; all the construction is private and generally involves a small number of housing units built on family-owned land. In addition, in most cases, East Jerusalem residents cannot get mortgages because of problems with registering their properties in the Land Registry. Even if they can build their homes legally, they must pay very large sums in levies and taxes, sums that in Jewish Jerusalem are shared by the state, the contractor and the home buyer, who can also get a mortgage.

“Many people apply for building permits but can’t get them because when it comes to the levy stage it’s millions,” says attorney Sami Arshid, an expert in planning and construction in East Jerusalem. “In the Jewish sector the levies are paid by the state or the contractors, who then roll them over to [many] buyers, while the Arabs are building for themselves. Just last week I had a family from Jabal Mukkaber [near East Talpiot] who built seven housing units and were charged a betterment levy of 960,000 shekels [$249,000] and another 300,000 shekels [$78,000] as a road levy. People just give up,” he said. This is another reason that few people in East Jerusalem can get a building permit and end up threatened with criminal proceedings because they build illegally.

Building plans in East Jerusalem have also faced opposition from right-wing representatives on the city council. For example, a large building plan in the neighborhood of Sawaharah, which the municipality promoted as its flagship plan for reducing the gaps between west and east, was held up for years by right-wing city councilors and by former Interior Minister Eli Yishai... ​

So in this case, here are the questions:
1. Why were the number of permits issued to Palestinians cut in half? Did their income suddenly drop in half?
2. Why does the government cover much of the cost in permits, levies and taxes for Jews and not for Palestinians?
3. Why are building plans for East Jerusalem opposed by the city council and Interior Ministry and held up for years but not in West Jerusalem??

And, one further question left over from an earlier post:
1. Why does the Israeli government fund illegal Jewish settlements and provide them with infrastructure but does not do that with Arab villages who often lack the necessary infrastructure? Illegal, in this case, as defined by Israeli law.

Do the answers to these questions fulfill the claim of inequities and discrimmination in the permit process and the whole building and expansion process?

And I ask again what says that settlements built on Jewish owned land are illegal. Does this mean that setlements built on arab muslim owned land are also illegal. Only a rabid Jew hater would constantly repeat the same tired mantra that Israeli settlements are illegal without first looking at the facts and seeing if they are in fact illegal or if this was just another BLOOD LIBEL.

I ask you to look at the many links provided by team Palestine that show the Jews owned most of the land in and around Jerusalem pre 1948. Then look at the actions of the arab muslims who illegally annexed that land in 1949 and passed laws to get round the UN charter and resolutions regarding land theft. Then say why you believe that the land has been built on illegally by the very people who have title to that land.

 

[Coyote]

If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination.

I think people who are actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel should not be supported in their endeavors.

I think people who are able to participate in Israeli society should be welcomed and supported.

You are the one who has made a point about internally consistent arguments and this one doesn't seem so to me because you keep having to add conditions to your argument. Are you stating that all Arab Israeli citizens are "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel" and that is a reason why Arab Israeli citizens should be discrimminated against?

Ok. Then do you feel it is ok for Palestinians to discriminate against Jews in a future state of Palestine since it they may "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel"?

How is this NOT discrimmination when it is favoring one ethnic group over others solely because of ethnicity of the entire group- not eliminating individuals because of what those individuals may have done.

Keep in mind that overcrowding, lack of permits for expansion etc is a huge problem for Arab Israeli communities and they don't seem to be offered chances at new settlements in Area C.

I saw one quote repeated often, that Arab Israeli's, who make up 20% of the population, occupy only 2.5% of the land. That could be misleading because I don't see where it states whether that is 2.5% of all Israel's occupied land, or all Israel's land period. But if it is true that they only live on 2.5% of Israel's occupied land, then it seems to me that is a pretty big discrepency.

And I think it is utterly ironic that those nations which ethnically cleansed themselves of "undesirable people" simply because of their ethnicity are seen as being morally superior to Israel who decided, at a time when population transfers were relatively acceptable, to act in a morally superior way by welcoming other ethnic groups -- enemy groups -- into their communities and nations. None of this would be under discussion if Israel had actually done what all the other surrounding Muslim Arab nations had done -- rid themselves of the minority "other".

Ok, so you are now insisting that Israel is not discrimminating or should not be criticized of discrimminating against certain ethnic groups because:

1. Other nations did so in prior times (implied - therefore Israel shouldn't be criticized for it). That's the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
2. Because nations USED to do this years, even centuries ago, nations (particularly Israel) should be allowed or not criticized for doing it now.
3. You are making a justification for Israel to commit the same humanitarian crimes (ethnic cleansing) on others that you condemned when they were commited on the Jews who were, in other times and places regarded as "undesirables". For example, you condemn the Palestinians for wanting the settlements out for that reason.

How is this internally consistent???

I find it ironic that Israel is accused of discrimination while Palestinians continue to insist that not a single Israeli (read: Jew) will remain on "their" land.

Because Abbas did not say a single Jew - he said a single Israeli (national). And that meant no pockets of Israel, no Israeli military presence. If we're going to deal in dishonest quotes - then I'm sure we can dig up the predictable contextless cherry picked quotes from Israeli officials calling for ethnic cleansing etc etc.

I find it ironic that Israel is vilified for discrimination whilst no Jew is permitted to pray on our own holy site because the Muslims find it somehow "offensive" to hear a Jew pray.

And that is a seperate argument - just because a misjustice is occuring here doesn't mean misjustices occuring elsewhere should be ignored or overlooked. Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree Jews should be permitted and Muslims must practice greater tolerance. It's a shared holy place.

And I find it ironic that you accuse me of supporting discrimination when I provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions supporting BOTH sides of the conflict, whilst you remain silent on the most odious of remarks about Jews on this board. I find it ironic that you can't tell the difference between, "Oh, just like Jews to be sneaky and murderous" and painstakingly researching each and every village brought up on this thread to discover the actual issues for that particular community and providing commentary on it based on the specific situation.

First of all, when it comes to the argument of discrimmination - I'm making the same sort of arguments that you made to me, when we talked about culture and anti-semitism - and that is of internal consistency. What I said was: "If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination." You pointed out to me that if I have to create special categories to exempt Jews from having a unique culture, then that is not a rational argument, and that is anti-semitism. So that made me think about consistency and also to examine my position. Same with the argument on whether it was right to expel the settlers if settlements became part of a Palestinian nation. It forced me to examine my position.

I agree you provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions. I feel likewise about my own positions.

You do remain largely silent on the most odious remarks about Jews and Muslims. Why? I find most of the time it is NOT WORTH IT to engage in rehashing the same old canards and it adds little to the conversation to acknowledge those remarks, in fact it usually derails.
If you are going to get personal on it - why do you ignore the odius remarks made against Palestinians and Muslims?

 

[Boston1]

If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination.

I think people who are actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel should not be supported in their endeavors.

I think people who are able to participate in Israeli society should be welcomed and supported.

You are the one who has made a point about internally consistent arguments and this one doesn't seem so to me because you keep having to add conditions to your argument. Are you stating that all Arab Israeli citizens are "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel" and that is a reason why Arab Israeli citizens should be discrimminated against?

Ok. Then do you feel it is ok for Palestinians to discriminate against Jews in a future state of Palestine since it they may "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel"?

How is this NOT discrimmination when it is favoring one ethnic group over others solely because of ethnicity of the entire group- not eliminating individuals because of what those individuals may have done.

Keep in mind that overcrowding, lack of permits for expansion etc is a huge problem for Arab Israeli communities and they don't seem to be offered chances at new settlements in Area C.

I saw one quote repeated often, that Arab Israeli's, who make up 20% of the population, occupy only 2.5% of the land. That could be misleading because I don't see where it states whether that is 2.5% of all Israel's occupied land, or all Israel's land period. But if it is true that they only live on 2.5% of Israel's occupied land, then it seems to me that is a pretty big discrepency.

And I think it is utterly ironic that those nations which ethnically cleansed themselves of "undesirable people" simply because of their ethnicity are seen as being morally superior to Israel who decided, at a time when population transfers were relatively acceptable, to act in a morally superior way by welcoming other ethnic groups -- enemy groups -- into their communities and nations. None of this would be under discussion if Israel had actually done what all the other surrounding Muslim Arab nations had done -- rid themselves of the minority "other".

Ok, so you are now insisting that Israel is not discrimminating or should not be criticized of discrimminating against certain ethnic groups because:

1. Other nations did so in prior times (implied - therefore Israel shouldn't be criticized for it). That's the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
2. Because nations USED to do this years, even centuries ago, nations (particularly Israel) should be allowed or not criticized for doing it now.
3. You are making a justification for Israel to commit the same humanitarian crimes (ethnic cleansing) on others that you condemned when they were commited on the Jews who were, in other times and places regarded as "undesirables". For example, you condemn the Palestinians for wanting the settlements out for that reason.

How is this internally consistent???

I find it ironic that Israel is accused of discrimination while Palestinians continue to insist that not a single Israeli (read: Jew) will remain on "their" land.

Because Abbas did not say a single Jew - he said a single Israeli (national). And that meant no pockets of Israel, no Israeli military presence. If we're going to deal in dishonest quotes - then I'm sure we can dig up the predictable contextless cherry picked quotes from Israeli officials calling for ethnic cleansing etc etc.

I find it ironic that Israel is vilified for discrimination whilst no Jew is permitted to pray on our own holy site because the Muslims find it somehow "offensive" to hear a Jew pray.

And that is a seperate argument - just because a misjustice is occuring here doesn't mean misjustices occuring elsewhere should be ignored or overlooked. Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree Jews should be permitted and Muslims must practice greater tolerance. It's a shared holy place.

And I find it ironic that you accuse me of supporting discrimination when I provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions supporting BOTH sides of the conflict, whilst you remain silent on the most odious of remarks about Jews on this board. I find it ironic that you can't tell the difference between, "Oh, just like Jews to be sneaky and murderous" and painstakingly researching each and every village brought up on this thread to discover the actual issues for that particular community and providing commentary on it based on the specific situation.

First of all, when it comes to the argument of discrimmination - I'm making the same sort of arguments that you made to me, when we talked about culture and anti-semitism - and that is of internal consistency. What I said was: "If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination." You pointed out to me that if I have to create special categories to exempt Jews from having a unique culture, then that is not a rational argument, and that is anti-semitism. So that made me think about consistency and also to examine my position. Same with the argument on whether it was right to expel the settlers if settlements became part of a Palestinian nation. It forced me to examine my position.

I agree you provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions. I feel likewise about my own positions.

You do remain largely silent on the most odious remarks about Jews and Muslims. Why? I find most of the time it is NOT WORTH IT to engage in rehashing the same old canards and it adds little to the conversation to acknowledge those remarks, in fact it usually derails.
If you are going to get personal on it - why do you ignore the odius remarks made against Palestinians and Muslims?

There can be absolutely no doubt that Arab Muslims will discriminate against Jews in any future additional Arab Muslim state.

Every Arab Muslim state in the region discriminates against them now, why whould one more Arab muslim state be any different ?

And why wouldn't Israel demolish the homes illegally built on Israel soil ? and why isn't everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area Israeli in the first place.

Just because someone would like to have a home somewhere doesn't mean they are going to get one. Hell I'd love to build a place right smack on the rim of the Grand Canyon but that doesn't mean the state or feds would ever allow me to.

 

[Coyote]

If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination.

I think people who are actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel should not be supported in their endeavors.

I think people who are able to participate in Israeli society should be welcomed and supported.

You are the one who has made a point about internally consistent arguments and this one doesn't seem so to me because you keep having to add conditions to your argument. Are you stating that all Arab Israeli citizens are "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel" and that is a reason why Arab Israeli citizens should be discrimminated against?

Ok. Then do you feel it is ok for Palestinians to discriminate against Jews in a future state of Palestine since it they may "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel"?

How is this NOT discrimmination when it is favoring one ethnic group over others solely because of ethnicity of the entire group- not eliminating individuals because of what those individuals may have done.

Keep in mind that overcrowding, lack of permits for expansion etc is a huge problem for Arab Israeli communities and they don't seem to be offered chances at new settlements in Area C.

I saw one quote repeated often, that Arab Israeli's, who make up 20% of the population, occupy only 2.5% of the land. That could be misleading because I don't see where it states whether that is 2.5% of all Israel's occupied land, or all Israel's land period. But if it is true that they only live on 2.5% of Israel's occupied land, then it seems to me that is a pretty big discrepency.

And I think it is utterly ironic that those nations which ethnically cleansed themselves of "undesirable people" simply because of their ethnicity are seen as being morally superior to Israel who decided, at a time when population transfers were relatively acceptable, to act in a morally superior way by welcoming other ethnic groups -- enemy groups -- into their communities and nations. None of this would be under discussion if Israel had actually done what all the other surrounding Muslim Arab nations had done -- rid themselves of the minority "other".

Ok, so you are now insisting that Israel is not discrimminating or should not be criticized of discrimminating against certain ethnic groups because:

1. Other nations did so in prior times (implied - therefore Israel shouldn't be criticized for it). That's the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
2. Because nations USED to do this years, even centuries ago, nations (particularly Israel) should be allowed or not criticized for doing it now.
3. You are making a justification for Israel to commit the same humanitarian crimes (ethnic cleansing) on others that you condemned when they were commited on the Jews who were, in other times and places regarded as "undesirables". For example, you condemn the Palestinians for wanting the settlements out for that reason.

How is this internally consistent???

I find it ironic that Israel is accused of discrimination while Palestinians continue to insist that not a single Israeli (read: Jew) will remain on "their" land.

Because Abbas did not say a single Jew - he said a single Israeli (national). And that meant no pockets of Israel, no Israeli military presence. If we're going to deal in dishonest quotes - then I'm sure we can dig up the predictable contextless cherry picked quotes from Israeli officials calling for ethnic cleansing etc etc.

I find it ironic that Israel is vilified for discrimination whilst no Jew is permitted to pray on our own holy site because the Muslims find it somehow "offensive" to hear a Jew pray.

And that is a seperate argument - just because a misjustice is occuring here doesn't mean misjustices occuring elsewhere should be ignored or overlooked. Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree Jews should be permitted and Muslims must practice greater tolerance. It's a shared holy place.

And I find it ironic that you accuse me of supporting discrimination when I provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions supporting BOTH sides of the conflict, whilst you remain silent on the most odious of remarks about Jews on this board. I find it ironic that you can't tell the difference between, "Oh, just like Jews to be sneaky and murderous" and painstakingly researching each and every village brought up on this thread to discover the actual issues for that particular community and providing commentary on it based on the specific situation.

First of all, when it comes to the argument of discrimmination - I'm making the same sort of arguments that you made to me, when we talked about culture and anti-semitism - and that is of internal consistency. What I said was: "If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination." You pointed out to me that if I have to create special categories to exempt Jews from having a unique culture, then that is not a rational argument, and that is anti-semitism. So that made me think about consistency and also to examine my position. Same with the argument on whether it was right to expel the settlers if settlements became part of a Palestinian nation. It forced me to examine my position.

I agree you provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions. I feel likewise about my own positions.

You do remain largely silent on the most odious remarks about Jews and Muslims. Why? I find most of the time it is NOT WORTH IT to engage in rehashing the same old canards and it adds little to the conversation to acknowledge those remarks, in fact it usually derails.
If you are going to get personal on it - why do you ignore the odius remarks made against Palestinians and Muslims?

There can be absolutely no doubt that Arab Muslims will discriminate against Jews in any future additional Arab Muslim state.

Every Arab Muslim state in the region discriminates against them now, why whould one more Arab muslim state be any different ?

And why wouldn't Israel demolish the homes illegally built on Israel soil ? and why isn't everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area Israeli in the first place.

Just because someone would like to have a home somewhere doesn't mean they are going to get one. Hell I'd love to build a place right smack on the rim of the Grand Canyon but that doesn't mean the state or feds would ever allow me to.

That's a good question - why don't they? Why do they provide infrastructure, funding and legal help in the courts to illegal construction?

 

[Shusha]

Because Abbas did not say a single Jew - he said a single Israeli (national). And that meant no pockets of Israel ...

I'm heading out for my workout soon and throwing some stew stuff in the crockpot, so I will address the larger post when I get back. But meantime, questions for you:

Is it morally acceptable for Abbas to demand a nation without Israeli nationals? Is it morally acceptable for Abbas to demand that Israelis not build in areas which are expected to become part of Palestine? Is it morally acceptable for Abbas to refuse to provide financial assistance to Israelis in order for them to build in Palestine?

 

[Boston1]

If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination.

I think people who are actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel should not be supported in their endeavors.

I think people who are able to participate in Israeli society should be welcomed and supported.

You are the one who has made a point about internally consistent arguments and this one doesn't seem so to me because you keep having to add conditions to your argument. Are you stating that all Arab Israeli citizens are "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel" and that is a reason why Arab Israeli citizens should be discrimminated against?

Ok. Then do you feel it is ok for Palestinians to discriminate against Jews in a future state of Palestine since it they may "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel"?

How is this NOT discrimmination when it is favoring one ethnic group over others solely because of ethnicity of the entire group- not eliminating individuals because of what those individuals may have done.

Keep in mind that overcrowding, lack of permits for expansion etc is a huge problem for Arab Israeli communities and they don't seem to be offered chances at new settlements in Area C.

I saw one quote repeated often, that Arab Israeli's, who make up 20% of the population, occupy only 2.5% of the land. That could be misleading because I don't see where it states whether that is 2.5% of all Israel's occupied land, or all Israel's land period. But if it is true that they only live on 2.5% of Israel's occupied land, then it seems to me that is a pretty big discrepency.

And I think it is utterly ironic that those nations which ethnically cleansed themselves of "undesirable people" simply because of their ethnicity are seen as being morally superior to Israel who decided, at a time when population transfers were relatively acceptable, to act in a morally superior way by welcoming other ethnic groups -- enemy groups -- into their communities and nations. None of this would be under discussion if Israel had actually done what all the other surrounding Muslim Arab nations had done -- rid themselves of the minority "other".

Ok, so you are now insisting that Israel is not discrimminating or should not be criticized of discrimminating against certain ethnic groups because:

1. Other nations did so in prior times (implied - therefore Israel shouldn't be criticized for it). That's the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
2. Because nations USED to do this years, even centuries ago, nations (particularly Israel) should be allowed or not criticized for doing it now.
3. You are making a justification for Israel to commit the same humanitarian crimes (ethnic cleansing) on others that you condemned when they were commited on the Jews who were, in other times and places regarded as "undesirables". For example, you condemn the Palestinians for wanting the settlements out for that reason.

How is this internally consistent???

I find it ironic that Israel is accused of discrimination while Palestinians continue to insist that not a single Israeli (read: Jew) will remain on "their" land.

Because Abbas did not say a single Jew - he said a single Israeli (national). And that meant no pockets of Israel, no Israeli military presence. If we're going to deal in dishonest quotes - then I'm sure we can dig up the predictable contextless cherry picked quotes from Israeli officials calling for ethnic cleansing etc etc.

I find it ironic that Israel is vilified for discrimination whilst no Jew is permitted to pray on our own holy site because the Muslims find it somehow "offensive" to hear a Jew pray.

And that is a seperate argument - just because a misjustice is occuring here doesn't mean misjustices occuring elsewhere should be ignored or overlooked. Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree Jews should be permitted and Muslims must practice greater tolerance. It's a shared holy place.

And I find it ironic that you accuse me of supporting discrimination when I provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions supporting BOTH sides of the conflict, whilst you remain silent on the most odious of remarks about Jews on this board. I find it ironic that you can't tell the difference between, "Oh, just like Jews to be sneaky and murderous" and painstakingly researching each and every village brought up on this thread to discover the actual issues for that particular community and providing commentary on it based on the specific situation.

First of all, when it comes to the argument of discrimmination - I'm making the same sort of arguments that you made to me, when we talked about culture and anti-semitism - and that is of internal consistency. What I said was: "If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination." You pointed out to me that if I have to create special categories to exempt Jews from having a unique culture, then that is not a rational argument, and that is anti-semitism. So that made me think about consistency and also to examine my position. Same with the argument on whether it was right to expel the settlers if settlements became part of a Palestinian nation. It forced me to examine my position.

I agree you provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions. I feel likewise about my own positions.

You do remain largely silent on the most odious remarks about Jews and Muslims. Why? I find most of the time it is NOT WORTH IT to engage in rehashing the same old canards and it adds little to the conversation to acknowledge those remarks, in fact it usually derails.
If you are going to get personal on it - why do you ignore the odius remarks made against Palestinians and Muslims?

There can be absolutely no doubt that Arab Muslims will discriminate against Jews in any future additional Arab Muslim state.

Every Arab Muslim state in the region discriminates against them now, why whould one more Arab muslim state be any different ?

And why wouldn't Israel demolish the homes illegally built on Israel soil ? and why isn't everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area Israeli in the first place.

Just because someone would like to have a home somewhere doesn't mean they are going to get one. Hell I'd love to build a place right smack on the rim of the Grand Canyon but that doesn't mean the state or feds would ever allow me to.

That's a good question - why don't they? Why do they provide infrastructure, funding and legal help in the courts to illegal construction?

You still seem to be under the illusion that Israel building west of the Jordan is illegal.

Might I remind you that the mandate is very clear on what land is available for the development of a national Jewish homeland. And that it is the last legally binding instrument concerning the use of this land.

EVERYTHING west of the Jordan within the mandate area.