One State

[montelatici]

20% of its citizens are muslims with a democratic right to vote...

That 20% is "restricted" to certain areas (see post #131) this means that their "collective vote" has no possibility of influencing the Zionist regime. Israeli Arabs' political power is non existant, much like turkeys been given the power to vote for Christmas.

That is silly. The one man one vote principle is what "restricts" a minorities vote in any democracy. They are able to ensure representation in the "zionist" government in fact, unlike South African blacks who were not represented in the tricameral parliament at all.

A small minority of non-whites had parliamentary representation in Apartheid South Africa, just as a small minority of non-Jews have parliamentary representation in Israel. The bulk of the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa were deemed citizens of Bantustans which were under the control of South Africa in terms of borders, air space and territorial sea. The exact same ploy used by Israel to claim, like Apartheid South Africa, that it is a democracy. It's bullshit propaganda, Israel has control over a population of non-Jews as large as the population of Jews, non-Jews who are disenfranchised, just like the bulk of the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa.

 

[Challenger]

This map is correct for the years 1920-22:

No it isn't.

The Emirate of Transjordania was established in March 1921, before that, and after July 1920 it was considered a no-man's land. the British siezed the opportunity provided by Abdullah ibn al-Hussein's declaration of sovereignty to add it to the British sphere as an autonomous emirate under the "protection" of the mandate authorities across the river in Palestine. We made several such arrangements in India during the Raj, there was nothing new or untoward about it.

And it too was in Palestine. In 1922 Churchill wrote in the White Paper, about the part of Palestine west of the river:

"The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge."

One sentance taken out of context and spun to fit an argument is a typical hasbara tactic. By 1922 the Emirate of Transjordania was already established, this sentance refers to the McMahon-Hussein correspondance/agreement of 1915-16 in which the whole area was promised to the Arabs as part of their post war state; an agreement the British reneged on because of the Sykes-Picot arrangement referred to here,

"But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge." The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

Transjodania was never part of the British Mandate, it was conveniently "tacked on" to stop the French from getting it.

James Barr's "A line in the Sand" covers the whole Anglo-French rivalry in the region rather well and is well worth a read if you want an objective view.

 

[Challenger]

There are judges, doctors and muslims in government.

You could have phrased that better, but I still get what you mean. If you look closely I suspect you'll find that most of them are from the Druze community, the Palestinian equivalent of "Uncle Toms"

Not just the Druze. You should look into the the Arab society with a an Arab outlook.
Depends on the leaders of the hamullah. Their word on the ground can turn whole towns and villages towards Israel, economically speaking. And the Bedouins serve in the IDF as well.
The Druze, they're just respectful people overall, and the Arabs tend to keep away from them.

The Druze are almost universally hated in the region because they changed sides in 1948, thats why most Palestinians keep away from them; that and the fact that they tend to be more brutal than even the Zionist Israelis are.

As for Bedouins, yes they do, there's about 1,600 serving members out of an Israeli-Bedouin population of 260,000, serving manly as trackers, much like the Native Americans who served in the U.S.Army. You didn't mention Circassians either, and thanks but I'm reasonably well informed about "Arab society".

 

[Roudy]

20% of its citizens are muslims with a democratic right to vote...

That 20% is "restricted" to certain areas (see post #131) this means that their "collective vote" has no possibility of influencing the Zionist regime. Israeli Arabs' political power is non existant, much like turkeys been given the power to vote for Christmas.

That is silly. The one man one vote principle is what "restricts" a minorities vote in any democracy. They are able to ensure representation in the "zionist" government in fact, unlike South African blacks who were not represented in the tricameral parliament at all.

A small minority of non-whites had parliamentary representation in Apartheid South Africa, just as a small minority of non-Jews have parliamentary representation in Israel. The bulk of the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa were deemed citizens of Bantustans which were under the control of South Africa in terms of borders, air space and territorial sea. The exact same ploy used by Israel to claim, like Apartheid South Africa, that it is a democracy. It's bullshit propaganda, Israel has control over a population of non-Jews as large as the population of Jews, non-Jews who are disenfranchised, just like the bulk of the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa.

That's a funny warped way of not being able to say that Israel is the only Democracy among an ocean of Muslim dictatorial and theocratic terrorist regimes, including the so called Palestinians, who openly practice apartheid on their non Muslim populations, or what's left of them.

 

[montelatici]

20% of its citizens are muslims with a democratic right to vote...

That 20% is "restricted" to certain areas (see post #131) this means that their "collective vote" has no possibility of influencing the Zionist regime. Israeli Arabs' political power is non existant, much like turkeys been given the power to vote for Christmas.

That is silly. The one man one vote principle is what "restricts" a minorities vote in any democracy. They are able to ensure representation in the "zionist" government in fact, unlike South African blacks who were not represented in the tricameral parliament at all.

A small minority of non-whites had parliamentary representation in Apartheid South Africa, just as a small minority of non-Jews have parliamentary representation in Israel. The bulk of the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa were deemed citizens of Bantustans which were under the control of South Africa in terms of borders, air space and territorial sea. The exact same ploy used by Israel to claim, like Apartheid South Africa, that it is a democracy. It's bullshit propaganda, Israel has control over a population of non-Jews as large as the population of Jews, non-Jews who are disenfranchised, just like the bulk of the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa.

That's a funny warped way of not being able to say that Israel is the only Democracy among an ocean of Muslim dictatorial and theocratic terrorist regimes, including the so called Palestinians, who openly practice apartheid on their non Muslim populations, or what's left of them.

How is Israel a "democracy"? It is no more a democracy than Apartheid South Africa. Israel is fundamentally an undemocratic state, having been established after the Zionists rejected the Arabs' proposed democratic solution in favor of ethnically cleansing more than 700,000 Arabs from their homes in order to establish their demographically "Jewish state".

 

[Hollie]

20% of its citizens are muslims with a democratic right to vote...

That 20% is "restricted" to certain areas (see post #131) this means that their "collective vote" has no possibility of influencing the Zionist regime. Israeli Arabs' political power is non existant, much like turkeys been given the power to vote for Christmas.

That is silly. The one man one vote principle is what "restricts" a minorities vote in any democracy. They are able to ensure representation in the "zionist" government in fact, unlike South African blacks who were not represented in the tricameral parliament at all.

A small minority of non-whites had parliamentary representation in Apartheid South Africa, just as a small minority of non-Jews have parliamentary representation in Israel. The bulk of the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa were deemed citizens of Bantustans which were under the control of South Africa in terms of borders, air space and territorial sea. The exact same ploy used by Israel to claim, like Apartheid South Africa, that it is a democracy. It's bullshit propaganda, Israel has control over a population of non-Jews as large as the population of Jews, non-Jews who are disenfranchised, just like the bulk of the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa.

That's a funny warped way of not being able to say that Israel is the only Democracy among an ocean of Muslim dictatorial and theocratic terrorist regimes, including the so called Palestinians, who openly practice apartheid on their non Muslim populations, or what's left of them.

How is Israel a "democracy"? It is no more a democracy than Apartheid South Africa. Israel is fundamentally an undemocratic state, having been established after the Zionists rejected the Arabs' proposed democratic solution in favor of ethnically cleansing more than 700,000 Arabs from their homes in order to establish their demographically "Jewish state".

Israel is not strictly a democracy. The governing system is parliamentary, more of a democratic republic.

In a strict democratic system, "majority rules" and abuses can occur. Maybe take some time to learn the definitions before you rattle on with more irrelevancies.

Some other definitions you should learn would include "apartheid" which finds its way into your usual cut and paste slogans, another term you don't understand.

 

[Linkiloo]

20% of its citizens are muslims with a democratic right to vote...

That 20% is "restricted" to certain areas (see post #131) this means that their "collective vote" has no possibility of influencing the Zionist regime. Israeli Arabs' political power is non existant, much like turkeys been given the power to vote for Christmas.

That is silly. The one man one vote principle is what "restricts" a minorities vote in any democracy. They are able to ensure representation in the "zionist" government in fact, unlike South African blacks who were not represented in the tricameral parliament at all.

A small minority of non-whites had parliamentary representation in Apartheid South Africa, just as a small minority of non-Jews have parliamentary representation in Israel. The bulk of the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa were deemed citizens of Bantustans which were under the control of South Africa in terms of borders, air space and territorial sea. The exact same ploy used by Israel to claim, like Apartheid South Africa, that it is a democracy. It's bullshit propaganda, Israel has control over a population of non-Jews as large as the population of Jews, non-Jews who are disenfranchised, just like the bulk of the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa.

Black South Africans were not represented in parliament in SA - not even one. All of South Africans blacks were excluded. Read here: Tricameral Parliament - Wikipedia
Furthermore the bantustans were the only areas where black south africans could vote. "The Black Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, formally designated all black South Africans as citizens of the homelands, even if they lived in "white South Africa", and cancelled their South African citizenship " Bantustan - Wikipedia

Again, this is nothing like Israel where there is no racially entrenched apartheid and citizens of all colours and religions are free to vote.

I'd prefer if you explained with reference to specifics where you see parallels rather than use terms like "propaganda". As I have shown the systems are very different.

 

[montelatici]

Non-whites were represented in parliament in Apartheid South Africa, however, like non-Jews in Israel, they have no power as the bulk of the non-whites were not allowed to be citizens. Like the bulk of the non-Jews who are citizens of the Israeli Bantustans, the occupied territories. All Apartheid systems have subtle differences, Rhodesia was different from South Africa and Israel has its own Apartheid system. The Russell Tribunal sessions in South Africa same up with the same conclusion as the banned UN Report. There is no doubt that any neutral observer will come up with the same conclusion. Especially the South Africans who came up with a comparison chart.

 

[Hollie]

Non-whites were represented in parliament in Apartheid South Africa, however, like non-Jews in Israel, they have no power as the bulk of the non-whites were not allowed to be citizens. Like the bulk of the non-Jews who are citizens of the Israeli Bantustans, the occupied territories. All Apartheid systems have subtle differences, Rhodesia was different from South Africa and Israel has its own Apartheid system. The Russell Tribunal sessions in South Africa same up with the same conclusion as the banned UN Report. There is no doubt that any neutral observer will come up with the same conclusion. Especially the South Africans who came up with a comparison chart.
View attachment 145756

View attachment 145757
View attachment 145758

It really is remarkably inept to equate the bantustans of South Africa with the Islamic terrorist enclaves of Gaza'istan and Fatah'istan.

I would suggest you actually take a moment to understand some terms and definitions you use. Simply cutting and pasting slogans you find on the web makes you little more than an accomplice to ignorant cutting and pasting.

 

[Challenger]

Says the mistress of ineptitude herself, asserting these "bantustans" were not considered "hotbeds of ANC terrorism" by the white colonists at the time. Both Black South Africans and Palestinians fought and, in the case of the Palestinians, are still fighting for their freedom from oppressive regimes. Their oppressors, call them "terrorists", just like the Nazis called European resistance movements "terrorists".

 

[Hollie]

Says the mistress of ineptitude herself, asserting these "bantustans" were not considered "hotbeds of ANC terrorism" by the white colonists at the time. Both Black South Africans and Palestinians fought and, in the case of the Palestinians, are still fighting for their freedom from oppressive regimes. Their oppressors, call them "terrorists", just like the Nazis called European resistance movements "terrorists".

The Mullah of Incompetence has issued his fatwa. It's comical how the islamic terrorist Pom-Pom flailers use the label "freedom fighters" to describe Arabs-Moslems who have no conception of personal or societal freedoms.

 

[Challenger]

Says the mistress of ineptitude herself, asserting these "bantustans" were not considered "hotbeds of ANC terrorism" by the white colonists at the time. Both Black South Africans and Palestinians fought and, in the case of the Palestinians, are still fighting for their freedom from oppressive regimes. Their oppressors, call them "terrorists", just like the Nazis called European resistance movements "terrorists".

The Mullah of Incompetence has issued his fatwa. It's comical how the islamic terrorist Pom-Pom flailers use the label "freedom fighters" to describe Arabs-Moslems who have no conception of personal or societal freedoms.

...that's nothing then. Another hollow post from Hollie, as expected.

 

[Hollie]

Says the mistress of ineptitude herself, asserting these "bantustans" were not considered "hotbeds of ANC terrorism" by the white colonists at the time. Both Black South Africans and Palestinians fought and, in the case of the Palestinians, are still fighting for their freedom from oppressive regimes. Their oppressors, call them "terrorists", just like the Nazis called European resistance movements "terrorists".

The Mullah of Incompetence has issued his fatwa. It's comical how the islamic terrorist Pom-Pom flailers use the label "freedom fighters" to describe Arabs-Moslems who have no conception of personal or societal freedoms.

...that's nothing then. Another hollow post from Hollie, as expected.

As usual, you raise the flag of surrender.

 

[Challenger]

Says the mistress of ineptitude herself, asserting these "bantustans" were not considered "hotbeds of ANC terrorism" by the white colonists at the time. Both Black South Africans and Palestinians fought and, in the case of the Palestinians, are still fighting for their freedom from oppressive regimes. Their oppressors, call them "terrorists", just like the Nazis called European resistance movements "terrorists".

The Mullah of Incompetence has issued his fatwa. It's comical how the islamic terrorist Pom-Pom flailers use the label "freedom fighters" to describe Arabs-Moslems who have no conception of personal or societal freedoms.

...that's nothing then. Another hollow post from Hollie, as expected.

As usual, you raise the flag of surrender.

Yes, I surrender to your vacuous idiocy and hollow posting. Back on "ignore" you go, goodbye.

 

[Hollie]

Says the mistress of ineptitude herself, asserting these "bantustans" were not considered "hotbeds of ANC terrorism" by the white colonists at the time. Both Black South Africans and Palestinians fought and, in the case of the Palestinians, are still fighting for their freedom from oppressive regimes. Their oppressors, call them "terrorists", just like the Nazis called European resistance movements "terrorists".

The Mullah of Incompetence has issued his fatwa. It's comical how the islamic terrorist Pom-Pom flailers use the label "freedom fighters" to describe Arabs-Moslems who have no conception of personal or societal freedoms.

...that's nothing then. Another hollow post from Hollie, as expected.

As usual, you raise the flag of surrender.

Yes, I surrender to your vacuous idiocy and hollow posting. Back on "ignore" you go, goodbye.

Run along, now. Your cutting and asking from wiki was a waste of time.

Scoot.

 

[Linkiloo]

Non-whites were represented in parliament in Apartheid South Africa, however, like non-Jews in Israel, they have no power as the bulk of the non-whites were not allowed to be citizens. Like the bulk of the non-Jews who are citizens of the Israeli Bantustans, the occupied territories. All Apartheid systems have subtle differences, Rhodesia was different from South Africa and Israel has its own Apartheid system. The Russell Tribunal sessions in South Africa same up with the same conclusion as the banned UN Report. There is no doubt that any neutral observer will come up with the same conclusion. Especially the South Africans who came up with a comparison chart.
View attachment 145756

View attachment 145757
View attachment 145758

Your table above indicates the differences between the systems rather than the similarities.
1st issue:
Alone the first point that apartheid was openly legalised in SA and in Israel it apparently isn't but is "practised in occupied terrorities" indicates a massive difference. South African apartheid was legally entrenched in mainland SA. It was not practised in certain cities or terrorities only. It was open and legal. Your claims that it is difficult to source in Israel indicates you're looking but not finding and indicates another huge distinction

It is incorrect to claim that non-whites were represented in the tricameral system in SA. As I indicated blacks were not represented (my wikipedia source confirmed that). Indians and "coloured" were, on a "lower level" namely not in the same house of parliament. Israel has no such distinctions between religious groups.

2nd issue: There were no black citizens of South Africa unlike in Israel where 20% of the population are arab citizens. The percentages of land disputed therefore doesn't matter. You have failed to note a major distinction

3rd issue: racial distinctions in SA: the tricameral system accepted minimal rights of representation for indians and coloureds. Blacks were totally excluded. Whites enjoyed full representation. Your table fails to recognise these thre "non-white" groups. For each of these groups there were different voting rights, or in the case of black South Africans, none. In Israel the "racial groupings" you delineate, have zero voting distinctions attached to their "race".

Should I continue to work through this table? Kindly provide me with a link. I'll confront the writer who obviously knows little about Apartheid.

 

[Linkiloo]

Non-whites were represented in parliament in Apartheid South Africa, however, like non-Jews in Israel, they have no power as the bulk of the non-whites were not allowed to be citizens. Like the bulk of the non-Jews who are citizens of the Israeli Bantustans, the occupied territories. All Apartheid systems have subtle differences, Rhodesia was different from South Africa and Israel has its own Apartheid system. The Russell Tribunal sessions in South Africa same up with the same conclusion as the banned UN Report. There is no doubt that any neutral observer will come up with the same conclusion. Especially the South Africans who came up with a comparison chart.
View attachment 145756

View attachment 145757
View attachment 145758

It really is remarkably inept to equate the bantustans of South Africa with the Islamic terrorist enclaves of Gaza'istan and Fatah'istan.

I would suggest you actually take a moment to understand some terms and definitions you use. Simply cutting and pasting slogans you find on the web makes you little more than an accomplice to ignorant cutting and pasting.

The table above is wrong and if it is being used as a source, I'm not surprised that certain posters here are misunderstanding Apartheid.

 

[K9Buck]

How would one state protect minority rights?

Palestine has a very good constitution. It was written with the assistance of a US constitutional scholar. In some cases it is more comprehensive the the one in the US.

All Palestinians are equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex or color.

There are checks and balances through three independent branches of government.

There is a bill of rights guaranteeing the freedom of speech, press, religion, etc..

Search, seizure, and arrest require court issued warrants.

That explains why communities governed by the PA or Hamas are such shitholes.

 

[montelatici]

 

[Coyote]

How would one state protect minority rights?

Palestine has a very good constitution. It was written with the assistance of a US constitutional scholar. In some cases it is more comprehensive the the one in the US.

All Palestinians are equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex or color.

There are checks and balances through three independent branches of government.

There is a bill of rights guaranteeing the freedom of speech, press, religion, etc..

Search, seizure, and arrest require court issued warrants.

That explains why communities governed by the PA or Hamas are such shitholes.

Not really.