The Status of Jeruselum and double standards

[abi]

This particular law was designed to allow the easy confiscation of Palestinian property because the landowners were not allowed to return. It was unjust, no other word for it and it was legalized theft.

And while this law is clear, the other zionists are still here denying its existence.

 

[Shusha]

Perhaps not when it is entirely voluntary. But when it is forced, it is discrimination.

You deny this happens and deny the legal system Israelis have created which is racist itself.

I don't deny it happens in Israel. There is discrimination in Israel, as there is in most countries. The US comes specifically to mind.

 

[Shusha]

This particular law was designed to allow the easy confiscation of Palestinian property because the landowners were not allowed to return. It was unjust, no other word for it and it was legalized theft.

And while this law is clear, the other zionists are still here denying its existence.

The law is clear. It does not discriminate based on ethnicity -- but on the actions of hostile enemies trying to destroy the State of Israel.

 

[abi]

Speaking of discrimmitory laws...isn't the penalty in Palestine for selling property to Jews death?

I never heard that. I am betting that it is zionist propaganda and not fact. Why would you say that?

 

[MaryL]

Wasn't modern Palestine created in 1918 as refuge for the Jews, anyway? Even then the west could see the writing on the walls, a holocaust was coming and Jews were in for big trouble. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. What's the big deal? Dual capitals exist, so what is the problem?

 

[admonit]

What about Arab communities? Why you don't mention them? How many Jews live in Arab cities?

Its just a little bit harder to research Arab communities

Start with Nazareth.

Segregation is not discrimination.

Perhaps not when it is entirely voluntary. But when it is forced, it is discrimination.

OK. Provide facts of systematic forcible segregation in Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Speaking of discrimmitory laws...isn't the penalty in Palestine for selling property to Jews death?

I never heard that. I am betting that it is zionist propaganda and not fact. Why would you say that?

PA affirms death penalty for sale of land to Jews.

 

[Shusha]

Start with Nazareth.

Yes. I am well aware that Nazareth would be a good place to start. It is difficult to find articles which differentiate between issues having to do with the conflict and issues of discrimination. If you have something, why don't you just provide it and we can discuss?

OK. Provide facts of systematic forcible segregation in Israel.

I already did. Three very specific items.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I have seen no discriminatory Israeli laws.

You deny their existence. I will be happy to post them individually for your comments.

Go ahead.

 

[abi]

PA affirms death penalty for sale of land to Jews.

How about a link that does not post what Israel tells them to?

 

[abi]

Go ahead.

I brought this over to the appropriate thread.

Start at post 117 here:
Israel's supposed racism.

 

[Coyote]

This particular law was designed to allow the easy confiscation of Palestinian property because the landowners were not allowed to return. It was unjust, no other word for it and it was legalized theft.

The problem with statements like this is that it neglects the context and consequences of the war (a war, btw, which Israel neither started nor wanted). It was not "legalized theft". To label it as "legalized theft" is to impart a sinister and malicious act to Israel on the results of war. A defensive war at that. To label it as "unjust" is to forget that the people excluded from return were those deemed to be hostile enemies to the State of Israel.

I strongly disagree with that view. Israel won a war and wanted land. This was one easy way to get it. And there is NO question many Palestinians were prevented from returning and not because they were terrorists. Was it malicious? Yes. It deliberately and legally deprived people of their property. Simultaniously laws made it easier for Jews to reclaim property then for Palestinians who had higher hurdles to clear. These laws originated - as you say - as a means to create a temperorary lawful resolution for abandoned property. But they moved from being temporary emergency measures to being coded into law and used to deprive Palestinians of their property.

I'll use Wikipedia as a source, because it's convenient and it also provides references. It describes the role the absentee landowner laws played in providing Israel with a great deal of land, estimates ranging as low as 12% and as high as 70% of Israel, West Bank and Gaza.


Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia'

‘Absentees’ property’ laws were several laws which were first introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the war were incorporated into the laws of Israel. As examples of the first type of laws are the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948 (December) which according to article 37 of the Absentees Property Law, 5710-1950 was replaced by the latter;[25] the Emergency Regulations (Requisition of Property) Law, 5709-1949, and other related laws.[26]
...

As a result, two million dunams were confiscated and given to the custodian, who later transferred the land to the development authority. This law created the novel citizenship category of "present absentees" (nifkadim nohahim), persons present at the time but considered absent for the purpose of the law. These Israeli Arabs enjoyed all civil rights-including the right to vote in the Knesset elections-except one: the right to use and dispose of their property. About 30,000-35,000 Palestinians became "present absentees".[27]​

Some of the particular laws and their effects:

The Absentees’ Property Law, 5710- 1950
This law replaced the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948. According to Sabri Jiryis (p. 84),[32] the definition of "absentee" in the law was framed in such a way as to ensure that it applied to every Palestinian or resident in Palestine who had left his usual place of residence in Palestine for any place inside or outside the country after the adoption of the partition of Palestine resolution by the UN. Article 1(b) states that "absentee" means:

According to COHRE and BADIL (p. 41), the provisions in the law made sure that the term 'person' did not apply to Jews. The law also applied to Arabs who had become citizens of the State of Israel but were not in their usual place of residence as defined by the law. In this case, they were referred to as 'present absentees' and many lost their lands.​

This particular law was originally designed to provide a Custodian for abandoned real, immovable property. It was a necessary step to create a lawful system to deal with abandoned property. The Custodian was granted broad powers to return land to its Arabs owners, or to retain it, or dispose of it. What else was to be done in the immediate aftermath of a war of destruction of the Jewish State? What other options would you suggest?

The law is effectively still in effect (supplanted by later laws essentially doing the same thing). How much was actually returned to the Arab owners?

Yes, I know, I know. You believe that just two years after an attempted war of annihilation, in the midst of on-going and continued hostilities, that the hostile enemies of Israel should be granted the right to return. The UN believed it too. That is why 194 reads:

(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Here's the problem. There is still no peace. The conflict is still on-going. While it is a lovely idealistic notion to imagine that there should be no consequences to war and that war can be made just and that things can just go back to normal -- that is not the real world. Had a right of return been immediately implemented it would only have resulted in further physical conflict. Or the destruction of Israel. Or the decimation of the Arab Palestinians.

Their property should not have been confiscated if they were not allowed to return. That's just wrong.

Why is the law still in effect and in use?

Again, I will state that Israel has shown remarkable restraint. Israel chose NOT to empty her territory of all Arabs as hostiles (in sharp contrast to not only the Arab Palestinians and Jordanians -- but the entire Arab ME).

The alternative is to give compensation to the refugees and their descendants -- ALL of them, including the nearly 1 million Jews who lost their property and businesses in ME countries despite the fact that they were not engaged in the hostilities and were citizens of those countries. Why does no one ever demand things be made right for them? THAT is unjust.

Ok - now you're deflecting. Why can't we discuss this particular issue without the "what abouts"? What occurred to Jews in other nations is between those individuals and those nations. The Palestinians had nothing to do with it and shouldn't be punished for it or should they? The other thing to keep in mind is unlike the Palestinians, the expelled Jews have been welcomed into Israel and provided with decent housing and new lives.

 

[Coyote]

Speaking of discrimmitory laws...isnt the penalty in Palestine for selling property to Jews death?

Its was recently downgraded to life imprisonment in a labour camp.

How nice. (not)

 

[Coyote]

I have seen no discriminatory Israeli laws.

You deny their existence. I will be happy to post them individually for your comments.

Don't bother. I've seen them all. Not one of them discriminates, in the wording of the law, based on ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or ability. Those things are specifically prohibited by Israeli law.

You might be able to find some which discriminate based on nationality. That is simply the standard in international law. Americans do not have the same rights in Canada that Canadians do.

I agree overall but with reservations regarding land and property laws.

 

[Coyote]

Wasn't modern Palestine created in 1918 as refuge for the Jews, anyway? Even then the west could see the writing on the walls, a holocaust was coming and Jews were in for big trouble. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. What's the big deal? Dual capitals exist, so what is the problem?

Out of curiousity...where?

 

[Shusha]

This particular law was designed to allow the easy confiscation of Palestinian property because the landowners were not allowed to return. It was unjust, no other word for it and it was legalized theft.

The problem with statements like this is that it neglects the context and consequences of the war (a war, btw, which Israel neither started nor wanted). It was not "legalized theft". To label it as "legalized theft" is to impart a sinister and malicious act to Israel on the results of war. A defensive war at that. To label it as "unjust" is to forget that the people excluded from return were those deemed to be hostile enemies to the State of Israel.

I strongly disagree with that view. Israel won a war and wanted land. This was one easy way to get it. And there is NO question many Palestinians were prevented from returning and not because they were terrorists. Was it malicious? Yes. It deliberately and legally deprived people of their property. Simultaniously laws made it easier for Jews to reclaim property then for Palestinians who had higher hurdles to clear. These laws originated - as you say - as a means to create a temperorary lawful resolution for abandoned property. But they moved from being temporary emergency measures to being coded into law and used to deprive Palestinians of their property.

I'll use Wikipedia as a source, because it's convenient and it also provides references. It describes the role the absentee landowner laws played in providing Israel with a great deal of land, estimates ranging as low as 12% and as high as 70% of Israel, West Bank and Gaza.


Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia'

‘Absentees’ property’ laws were several laws which were first introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the war were incorporated into the laws of Israel. As examples of the first type of laws are the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948 (December) which according to article 37 of the Absentees Property Law, 5710-1950 was replaced by the latter;[25] the Emergency Regulations (Requisition of Property) Law, 5709-1949, and other related laws.[26]
...

As a result, two million dunams were confiscated and given to the custodian, who later transferred the land to the development authority. This law created the novel citizenship category of "present absentees" (nifkadim nohahim), persons present at the time but considered absent for the purpose of the law. These Israeli Arabs enjoyed all civil rights-including the right to vote in the Knesset elections-except one: the right to use and dispose of their property. About 30,000-35,000 Palestinians became "present absentees".[27]​

Some of the particular laws and their effects:

The Absentees’ Property Law, 5710- 1950
This law replaced the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948. According to Sabri Jiryis (p. 84),[32] the definition of "absentee" in the law was framed in such a way as to ensure that it applied to every Palestinian or resident in Palestine who had left his usual place of residence in Palestine for any place inside or outside the country after the adoption of the partition of Palestine resolution by the UN. Article 1(b) states that "absentee" means:

According to COHRE and BADIL (p. 41), the provisions in the law made sure that the term 'person' did not apply to Jews. The law also applied to Arabs who had become citizens of the State of Israel but were not in their usual place of residence as defined by the law. In this case, they were referred to as 'present absentees' and many lost their lands.​

This particular law was originally designed to provide a Custodian for abandoned real, immovable property. It was a necessary step to create a lawful system to deal with abandoned property. The Custodian was granted broad powers to return land to its Arabs owners, or to retain it, or dispose of it. What else was to be done in the immediate aftermath of a war of destruction of the Jewish State? What other options would you suggest?

The law is effectively still in effect (supplanted by later laws essentially doing the same thing). How much was actually returned to the Arab owners?

Yes, I know, I know. You believe that just two years after an attempted war of annihilation, in the midst of on-going and continued hostilities, that the hostile enemies of Israel should be granted the right to return. The UN believed it too. That is why 194 reads:

(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Here's the problem. There is still no peace. The conflict is still on-going. While it is a lovely idealistic notion to imagine that there should be no consequences to war and that war can be made just and that things can just go back to normal -- that is not the real world. Had a right of return been immediately implemented it would only have resulted in further physical conflict. Or the destruction of Israel. Or the decimation of the Arab Palestinians.

Their property should not have been confiscated if they were not allowed to return. That's just wrong.

Why is the law still in effect and in use?

Again, I will state that Israel has shown remarkable restraint. Israel chose NOT to empty her territory of all Arabs as hostiles (in sharp contrast to not only the Arab Palestinians and Jordanians -- but the entire Arab ME).

The alternative is to give compensation to the refugees and their descendants -- ALL of them, including the nearly 1 million Jews who lost their property and businesses in ME countries despite the fact that they were not engaged in the hostilities and were citizens of those countries. Why does no one ever demand things be made right for them? THAT is unjust.

Ok - now you're deflecting. Why can't we discuss this particular issue without the "what abouts"? What occurred to Jews in other nations is between those individuals and those nations. The Palestinians had nothing to do with it and shouldn't be punished for it or should they? The other thing to keep in mind is unlike the Palestinians, the expelled Jews have been welcomed into Israel and provided with decent housing and new lives.

I'm going to write a longer response to this post a bit later when I have time. (Making gingerbread granola for my family for Xmas morninG breakfast. Yes. We celebrate Xmas. Some of us also celebrate Hanukkah. It's complicated.)

But the short response is this:

So, the Jews were malicious and deceitful land thieves for not permitting a hostile enemy population who wanted to destroy Israel back into the territory while the conflict was still ongoing but the Arabs are to be absolved of cleansing their lands of the Jews?

 

[Coyote]

This particular law was designed to allow the easy confiscation of Palestinian property because the landowners were not allowed to return. It was unjust, no other word for it and it was legalized theft.

The problem with statements like this is that it neglects the context and consequences of the war (a war, btw, which Israel neither started nor wanted). It was not "legalized theft". To label it as "legalized theft" is to impart a sinister and malicious act to Israel on the results of war. A defensive war at that. To label it as "unjust" is to forget that the people excluded from return were those deemed to be hostile enemies to the State of Israel.

I strongly disagree with that view. Israel won a war and wanted land. This was one easy way to get it. And there is NO question many Palestinians were prevented from returning and not because they were terrorists. Was it malicious? Yes. It deliberately and legally deprived people of their property. Simultaniously laws made it easier for Jews to reclaim property then for Palestinians who had higher hurdles to clear. These laws originated - as you say - as a means to create a temperorary lawful resolution for abandoned property. But they moved from being temporary emergency measures to being coded into law and used to deprive Palestinians of their property.

I'll use Wikipedia as a source, because it's convenient and it also provides references. It describes the role the absentee landowner laws played in providing Israel with a great deal of land, estimates ranging as low as 12% and as high as 70% of Israel, West Bank and Gaza.


Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia'

‘Absentees’ property’ laws were several laws which were first introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the war were incorporated into the laws of Israel. As examples of the first type of laws are the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948 (December) which according to article 37 of the Absentees Property Law, 5710-1950 was replaced by the latter;[25] the Emergency Regulations (Requisition of Property) Law, 5709-1949, and other related laws.[26]
...

As a result, two million dunams were confiscated and given to the custodian, who later transferred the land to the development authority. This law created the novel citizenship category of "present absentees" (nifkadim nohahim), persons present at the time but considered absent for the purpose of the law. These Israeli Arabs enjoyed all civil rights-including the right to vote in the Knesset elections-except one: the right to use and dispose of their property. About 30,000-35,000 Palestinians became "present absentees".[27]​

Some of the particular laws and their effects:

The Absentees’ Property Law, 5710- 1950
This law replaced the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948. According to Sabri Jiryis (p. 84),[32] the definition of "absentee" in the law was framed in such a way as to ensure that it applied to every Palestinian or resident in Palestine who had left his usual place of residence in Palestine for any place inside or outside the country after the adoption of the partition of Palestine resolution by the UN. Article 1(b) states that "absentee" means:

According to COHRE and BADIL (p. 41), the provisions in the law made sure that the term 'person' did not apply to Jews. The law also applied to Arabs who had become citizens of the State of Israel but were not in their usual place of residence as defined by the law. In this case, they were referred to as 'present absentees' and many lost their lands.​

This particular law was originally designed to provide a Custodian for abandoned real, immovable property. It was a necessary step to create a lawful system to deal with abandoned property. The Custodian was granted broad powers to return land to its Arabs owners, or to retain it, or dispose of it. What else was to be done in the immediate aftermath of a war of destruction of the Jewish State? What other options would you suggest?

The law is effectively still in effect (supplanted by later laws essentially doing the same thing). How much was actually returned to the Arab owners?

Yes, I know, I know. You believe that just two years after an attempted war of annihilation, in the midst of on-going and continued hostilities, that the hostile enemies of Israel should be granted the right to return. The UN believed it too. That is why 194 reads:

(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Here's the problem. There is still no peace. The conflict is still on-going. While it is a lovely idealistic notion to imagine that there should be no consequences to war and that war can be made just and that things can just go back to normal -- that is not the real world. Had a right of return been immediately implemented it would only have resulted in further physical conflict. Or the destruction of Israel. Or the decimation of the Arab Palestinians.

Their property should not have been confiscated if they were not allowed to return. That's just wrong.

Why is the law still in effect and in use?

Again, I will state that Israel has shown remarkable restraint. Israel chose NOT to empty her territory of all Arabs as hostiles (in sharp contrast to not only the Arab Palestinians and Jordanians -- but the entire Arab ME).

The alternative is to give compensation to the refugees and their descendants -- ALL of them, including the nearly 1 million Jews who lost their property and businesses in ME countries despite the fact that they were not engaged in the hostilities and were citizens of those countries. Why does no one ever demand things be made right for them? THAT is unjust.

Ok - now you're deflecting. Why can't we discuss this particular issue without the "what abouts"? What occurred to Jews in other nations is between those individuals and those nations. The Palestinians had nothing to do with it and shouldn't be punished for it or should they? The other thing to keep in mind is unlike the Palestinians, the expelled Jews have been welcomed into Israel and provided with decent housing and new lives.

I'm going to write a longer response to this post a bit later when I have time. (Making gingerbread granola for my family for Xmas morninG breakfast. Yes. We celebrate Xmas. Some of us also celebrate Hanukkah. It's complicated.)

But the short response is this:

So, the Jews were malicious and deceitful land thieves for not permitting a hostile enemy population who wanted to destroy Israel back into the territory while the conflict was still ongoing but the Arabs are to be absolved of cleansing their lands of the Jews?

Enjoy! My mother puts up a menorah, she is kind of all inclusive, and she has a cute one with cats holding the candles

Short response is - no, not as broad as that. But the laws were also quite clearly designed to gain land (which was needed) and make it difficult for Palestinians to reclaim land whether or not they were hostile. Do you really think intentions were so angelic?) No one said Arabs were to be absolved, but are the Palistinians responsible and to be punished for what other Arab nations did?

 

[Sixties Fan]

This particular law was designed to allow the easy confiscation of Palestinian property because the landowners were not allowed to return. It was unjust, no other word for it and it was legalized theft.

The problem with statements like this is that it neglects the context and consequences of the war (a war, btw, which Israel neither started nor wanted). It was not "legalized theft". To label it as "legalized theft" is to impart a sinister and malicious act to Israel on the results of war. A defensive war at that. To label it as "unjust" is to forget that the people excluded from return were those deemed to be hostile enemies to the State of Israel.

I strongly disagree with that view. Israel won a war and wanted land. This was one easy way to get it. And there is NO question many Palestinians were prevented from returning and not because they were terrorists. Was it malicious? Yes. It deliberately and legally deprived people of their property. Simultaniously laws made it easier for Jews to reclaim property then for Palestinians who had higher hurdles to clear. These laws originated - as you say - as a means to create a temperorary lawful resolution for abandoned property. But they moved from being temporary emergency measures to being coded into law and used to deprive Palestinians of their property.

I'll use Wikipedia as a source, because it's convenient and it also provides references. It describes the role the absentee landowner laws played in providing Israel with a great deal of land, estimates ranging as low as 12% and as high as 70% of Israel, West Bank and Gaza.


Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia'

‘Absentees’ property’ laws were several laws which were first introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the war were incorporated into the laws of Israel. As examples of the first type of laws are the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948 (December) which according to article 37 of the Absentees Property Law, 5710-1950 was replaced by the latter;[25] the Emergency Regulations (Requisition of Property) Law, 5709-1949, and other related laws.[26]
...

As a result, two million dunams were confiscated and given to the custodian, who later transferred the land to the development authority. This law created the novel citizenship category of "present absentees" (nifkadim nohahim), persons present at the time but considered absent for the purpose of the law. These Israeli Arabs enjoyed all civil rights-including the right to vote in the Knesset elections-except one: the right to use and dispose of their property. About 30,000-35,000 Palestinians became "present absentees".[27]​

Some of the particular laws and their effects:

The Absentees’ Property Law, 5710- 1950
This law replaced the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948. According to Sabri Jiryis (p. 84),[32] the definition of "absentee" in the law was framed in such a way as to ensure that it applied to every Palestinian or resident in Palestine who had left his usual place of residence in Palestine for any place inside or outside the country after the adoption of the partition of Palestine resolution by the UN. Article 1(b) states that "absentee" means:

According to COHRE and BADIL (p. 41), the provisions in the law made sure that the term 'person' did not apply to Jews. The law also applied to Arabs who had become citizens of the State of Israel but were not in their usual place of residence as defined by the law. In this case, they were referred to as 'present absentees' and many lost their lands.​

This particular law was originally designed to provide a Custodian for abandoned real, immovable property. It was a necessary step to create a lawful system to deal with abandoned property. The Custodian was granted broad powers to return land to its Arabs owners, or to retain it, or dispose of it. What else was to be done in the immediate aftermath of a war of destruction of the Jewish State? What other options would you suggest?

The law is effectively still in effect (supplanted by later laws essentially doing the same thing). How much was actually returned to the Arab owners?

Yes, I know, I know. You believe that just two years after an attempted war of annihilation, in the midst of on-going and continued hostilities, that the hostile enemies of Israel should be granted the right to return. The UN believed it too. That is why 194 reads:

(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Here's the problem. There is still no peace. The conflict is still on-going. While it is a lovely idealistic notion to imagine that there should be no consequences to war and that war can be made just and that things can just go back to normal -- that is not the real world. Had a right of return been immediately implemented it would only have resulted in further physical conflict. Or the destruction of Israel. Or the decimation of the Arab Palestinians.

Their property should not have been confiscated if they were not allowed to return. That's just wrong.

Why is the law still in effect and in use?

Again, I will state that Israel has shown remarkable restraint. Israel chose NOT to empty her territory of all Arabs as hostiles (in sharp contrast to not only the Arab Palestinians and Jordanians -- but the entire Arab ME).

The alternative is to give compensation to the refugees and their descendants -- ALL of them, including the nearly 1 million Jews who lost their property and businesses in ME countries despite the fact that they were not engaged in the hostilities and were citizens of those countries. Why does no one ever demand things be made right for them? THAT is unjust.

Ok - now you're deflecting. Why can't we discuss this particular issue without the "what abouts"? What occurred to Jews in other nations is between those individuals and those nations. The Palestinians had nothing to do with it and shouldn't be punished for it or should they? The other thing to keep in mind is unlike the Palestinians, the expelled Jews have been welcomed into Israel and provided with decent housing and new lives.

I'm going to write a longer response to this post a bit later when I have time. (Making gingerbread granola for my family for Xmas morninG breakfast. Yes. We celebrate Xmas. Some of us also celebrate Hanukkah. It's complicated.)

But the short response is this:

So, the Jews were malicious and deceitful land thieves for not permitting a hostile enemy population who wanted to destroy Israel back into the territory while the conflict was still ongoing but the Arabs are to be absolved of cleansing their lands of the Jews?

Enjoy! My mother puts up a menorah, she is kind of all inclusive, and she has a cute one with cats holding the candles

Short response is - no, not as broad as that. But the laws were also quite clearly designed to gain land (which was needed) and make it difficult for Palestinians to reclaim land whether or not they were hostile. Do you really think intentions were so angelic?) No one said Arabs were to be absolved, but are the Palistinians responsible and to be punished for what other Arab nations did?

Do you believe that the Palestinians were not aggressive towards the Jews from 1920 until 1948?

Who started the attacks against Jews post 1947 UN partitions?
The Palestinians or the Arab Nations?

That only the five to seven Arab Nations were responsible for what happened?

 

[P F Tinmore]

as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice

Such serious accusation should be supported by serious facts of systematic discrimination of Arabs in Israel. Neither you nor Coyote provided them. Also Coyote disagree with you and insists that there are discriminatory laws in Israel.

I have seen no discriminatory Israeli laws.

But you do know how hard it is for A

as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice

Such serious accusation should be supported by serious facts of systematic discrimination of Arabs in Israel. Neither you nor Coyote provided them. Also Coyote disagree with you and insists that there are discriminatory laws in Israel.

I have never seen an Israeli law that is discriminatory based on ethnicity, race, religion, gender or ability. There are laws based on nationality (perfectly moral and legal).

But you are fooling yourself if you think that there is not some deliberate and discriminatory segregation in Israel.

Community councils who demand that new residents "be suitable to the community's social-cultural fabric".

Special Haredi communities.

Lack of city planning in certain primarily Arab communities.


These things are outside the conflict because they concern Israeli citizens -- all of whom should be treated without discrimination.

I have never seen an Israeli law that is discriminatory based on ethnicity, race, religion, gender or ability. There are laws based on nationality (perfectly moral and legal).

Citizen Strangers Minority Rights in the State of Israel

 

[Sixties Fan]

as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice

Such serious accusation should be supported by serious facts of systematic discrimination of Arabs in Israel. Neither you nor Coyote provided them. Also Coyote disagree with you and insists that there are discriminatory laws in Israel.

I have seen no discriminatory Israeli laws.

But you do know how hard it is for A

as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice

Such serious accusation should be supported by serious facts of systematic discrimination of Arabs in Israel. Neither you nor Coyote provided them. Also Coyote disagree with you and insists that there are discriminatory laws in Israel.

I have never seen an Israeli law that is discriminatory based on ethnicity, race, religion, gender or ability. There are laws based on nationality (perfectly moral and legal).

But you are fooling yourself if you think that there is not some deliberate and discriminatory segregation in Israel.

Community councils who demand that new residents "be suitable to the community's social-cultural fabric".

Special Haredi communities.

Lack of city planning in certain primarily Arab communities.


These things are outside the conflict because they concern Israeli citizens -- all of whom should be treated without discrimination.

I have never seen an Israeli law that is discriminatory based on ethnicity, race, religion, gender or ability. There are laws based on nationality (perfectly moral and legal).

Citizen Strangers Minority Rights in the State of Israel

Sure Tinmore.
Palestinians are the only minority in Israel.
Palestinians are the only minority in Israel to be discriminated against.
They have no representation.
They cannot get jobs, study, work, etc, etc, etc

And Israel was to feel secure about the Arabs within its borders after 1949 when the war ended.

Sure.....

Another wonderful video from the world of Palestinian illusion.

Which continues to not explain why so many Arabs in Israel are applying for Israeli citizenship.

They just prefer to be discriminated against by Israel, isn't that the reason.

Israel has a much better discrimination policy than any of the other countries surrounding it, or so it seems.