Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Yamato

Who are Palestinians?

452 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then

What of the Palestinians who lived on the land designated Jewish?

They chose to leave that land because they hated the Jews OR were told they'd be treated as renegades by the rest of the Arabs if they didn't. These people have allowed themselves to be used as pawns for generations now. I have no sympathy or respect for people who would grovel in the dirt rather than demand their rights. Israel owes them nothing and if they aren't willing to do more than launch cowardly attacks against defenseless civilians then I don't care what happens to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW

What of the Palestinians who lived on the land designated Jewish?

They'll just have to put up with it. Just like I have to put up with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

They'll just have to put up with it. Just like I have to put up with you.

Michael, it should also be noted that Israel has proven, despite wars and racism of the Arab world towards it, that it is capable of having a large Palestinian minority as free and equal citizens.

Palestinians have yet to prove this, and have proved only against it.

Also if the Palestinians would accepted the partition offered in 1937, they would have a much bigger Palestine than what they had been offered in 1947, and again these days. It seems everytime the Palestinians refuse to such division, they only lose, yet they don't mind - because they let their hatred govern their politics.

Mind you, if the Arabs wouldn't have been hating Jews so much, a one state solution would have been a real viable option. It isn't.

Let's see what Jabotinsky, the father of right-wing Zionism, had to say about the future Jewish state (in 1934, when it was obvious that the land will be divided) and it's relations with a Palestinian minority:

Belief in integrating the Arab minority

Jabotinsky was a complex personality, combining cynicism and idealism. He was convinced that there was no way for the Jews to regain any part of Palestine without opposition from the Arabs, but he also believed that the Jewish state could be a home for Arab citizens.[9] In 1934 he wrote a draft constitution for the Jewish state which declared that the Arab minority would be on an equal footing with its Jewish counterpart "throughout all sectors of the country's public life." The two communities would share the state's duties, both military and civil service, and enjoy its prerogatives. Jabotinsky proposed that Hebrew and Arabic should enjoy equal rights and that "in every cabinet where the prime minister is a Jew, the vice-premiership shall be offered to an Arab and vice versa."[10]

SOURCE

And that was THE father of right wing Zionism. Mind you, the mainstream of Zionism back then was left-leaning social-democrat. Yep, Zionism is an evil, racist ideology fixated on ethnically cleansing the Palestinians.

If you can give me a Hamas leader (what is considered right wing in Palestinians nationalism) that speaks in exactly the same manner about the future of the Israeli settlers that will choose to remain inside a future Palestinian state, I'll take off my hat and eat it without salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

אלוהים לשמור על ישראל בטוחה. :)

He neither slumbers nor sleeps :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The "palestinians" are the unwanted,cast away people of the Arab nations that bordered Israel at the time of the mandate. They are, like their fore fathers, haters of all things Jewish. They had an opportunity to embrace a new reality that was quite generous on the ground but held out hope that Israel could be annihilated. When the Haganah managed to lead a poorly trained force to the defeat of Egypt,Syria,Iraq,Jordan and Lebanon. The Arabs fled against the promises that their land would be restored.

Fast forward 60+ years and they are still waiting for those promises to be made fact.

I believe that the only way to dispel unending hate is by the actions of a sovereign God. Until then the Arabs will continue to kill as will the Israelis. Eventually a great war may begin because of the turmoil in this area. But Israel will survive such a conflagration. I'm not so sure this will be the case for all of her immediate geographical neighbors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyvernkeeper

This is another thing I’ve noticed – Zionist supporters are paranoid as hell. All one needs do is disagree with the policies and that’s it… you hate Jews, you’re pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli, you’re racist! It would be amusing if not so sad – I guess this is an end result of Jewish history.

Yes everyone holds bias - my own does not come from hate but a detached viewing of the facts. I have listened to Erikl and understand his view (my bias here was formed after talking with him, not before) - it is not possible to discuss with him.

Why should Palestinians have agreed to relocate or submit to Jewish rule?

Because that is the nature of partition, which isn't a positive policy but was necessary all around the world to prevent civil wars following WWII.

Obviously we know it did not work so well now, but that is with the benefit of hindsight. Jews were expelled from virtually every country in the Arab world but nobody cares about that and the fact remains that had the Palestinian's agreed to the partition they would have received self-determination decades earlier. So yeah, it's unfortunate that they didn't get their ideal choice, but the world is not perfect. Compromises do have to be made regularly in politics. Besides, many of the Palestinians 'under Jewish rule' (as you so delicately put it,) receive greater rights and benefits than in many Arab nations, especially the women.

Besides, I'm Jewish and I live under 'Christian rule,' technically... It doesn't disenfranchise me.

Re: Your other point, you have completely missed what I said... I said that Erik and I have had disagreements, which should suggest to you that it is not all as black and white as you suggest. Sure, some people will try and oversimplify and paint all Pro Palestinians as anti-semites, but Erik and I are not doing that. In fact, the only person doing anything like that here is you with your blunt refusal to read the posts of other people you disagree with, whilst proclaiming your own supposed moral superiority and the insistence that anything anybody puts forward that is pro-Israeli is by virtue, automatically propaganda. At least given Jewish history, Jews have a reason or two for paranoia - as you point out. Gd only knows what your own reason for the same is.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

They'll just have to put up with it. Just like I have to put up with you.

First you said Palestinians would not be subjected to Jewish rule.

Now you say Palestinians would have to put up with Jewish rule.

So back to the original question: Why should Palestinians have agreed to relocate or submit to Jewish rule?

Because that is the nature of partition, which isn't a positive policy but was necessary all around the world to prevent civil wars following WWII.

Why was partition necessary?

Because of the tensions between Arabs and Jews.

Why was there tension?

Because Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

Therefore the answer is: The partition was necessary because Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

This is what it leads back to every time.

The desire for a Jewish state in Palestine came long before the necessity.

Obviously we know it did not work so well now, but that is with the benefit of hindsight.

That is true.

So why maintain the same policies even today with hindsight?

Besides, I'm Jewish and I live under 'Christian rule,' technically... It doesn't disenfranchise me.

Britain is classed a Christian country based on its population.

Its population is not based on the fact that Britain is Christian.

Re: Your other point, you have completely missed what I said... I said that Erik and I have had disagreements, which should suggest to you that it is not all as black and white as you suggest. Sure, some people will try and oversimplify and paint all Pro Palestinians as anti-semites, but Erik and I are not doing that. In fact, the only person doing anything like that here is you with your blunt refusal to read the posts of other people you disagree with, whilst proclaiming your own supposed moral superiority and the insistence that anything anybody puts forward that is pro-Israeli is by virtue, automatically propaganda. At least given Jewish history, Jews have a reason or two for paranoia - as you point out. Gd only knows what your own reason for the same is.

I am aware it is not all black and white to some peoples’ minds and that is fine.

I am not insisting that, “anything anybody puts forward that is pro-Israeli is by virtue, automatically propaganda”. That is nonsense. I read Erikl’s version of history and note that it does not match the widely accepted history, even of Israeli historians. At every turn Erikl blames Arabs, the British, the Europeans for the creation of Israel and present day situation, whilst missing the elephant in the room which is Zionism. Along with this, his posts are filled with the deep paranoia mentioned, that anyone who disagrees with Zionist policy is a racist out to get the Jews. I re-read the posts and wracked my brain trying to make a complete and logical argument out of it all, but cannot find one. When this pattern is repeated in every post, of course one would be led to think it is Erikl’s background speaking, rather than reason. This leads me to switch off because I don’t like to read what might be perceived as a repeated propagandistic view from either side.

Notice that I have read all content of your posts and not declared it propaganda despite our obvious differing views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

I'll start from the end:

I read Erikl’s version of history and note that it does not match the widely accepted history, even of Israeli historians. At every turn Erikl blames Arabs, the British, the Europeans for the creation of Israel and present day situation, whilst missing the elephant in the room which is Zionism.

Again, more opinions, no facts. I quote historians, including your own choice of Israeli "new historian" Benny Morris which you still ignored.

I do not blame everyone, I acknowledge the situation right now, and according to your requested analysed the reasons for the conflict and it's resolution. You on other hand keep on ranting against Israel, as if nothing changed, and claiming that your opinions are facts. The present situation right now is there is a state called Israel, which is a democracy, it's not racist and is not conducting ethnic cleansing in the Palestinians. The truth is also that it had made it's share of mistakes in the past. The truth is, as both me and Wyvernkeeper - two opposing Jews btw (what?! not all of us racist Zionists OMG!! )- try to explain, is that nothing is black and white. However, you (and Yamato) see the world just like that, which makes you the extremists.

Why was partition necessary?

Because of the tensions between Arabs and Jews.

Why was there tension?

Because Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

Therefore the answer is: The partition was necessary because Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

This is what it leads back to every time.

The desire for a Jewish state in Palestine came long before the necessity.

As I said, your lack of deduction skills and your persistencr on ignoring history amazes me.

Let's answer, one by one, the questions that you answered, judging by all the historical info presented in this forum (that no one cared to negate, btw):

Why was partition necessary?

Because of the tensions between Arabs and Jews.

Because Arabs were attacking Jews whenever they had the chance, aka - whenever there was chaos in the land. They did it in the 1830s in two massacres in the city Safed, when the region was in chaos and the regime was weak. Then since that time all the way till the end of the Ottoman period, in 1920, there was no clash or riot.

As explained, the rise of Arab nationalism in the Middle East after WW1 is well documented. Yet you ignore it had anything to do with the conflict.

It just happens to be that after 40 years of Zionist immigration suddenly the Arabs, incited by the nationalist Haj Amin Al-Husseini, started to attack Jews. And not only Zionist Jews - all Jews (as I've shown - Jews were living here well before the Zionist immigration). That was when Jews (Zionist and non-Zionist) were only 15% of the population, in 1920, with only half of them being Zionists.

Why was there tension?

Because Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

That well may be, but Jews had equal claim to the land as any other people, and being that the Zionist didn't want to remove the local native population, they had every right to claim this no-man's land. There was no Palestinian country or state, heck - back then there weren't really a unified ethnic group called Palestinians. They were simply Arabs, the same as in Beirut, Damascus and Amman. Heck, who said that the borders of Palestine, with some 500,000 Arabic-speaking muslims, should be considered Palestine? Let's imagine that only a small part of it was named and allocated to be given to an existing minority, with the Arabs forming just 100,000. Would that be a problem? ofcourse not. The whole problem pro-Palestinians face is that they try to revise history, invent things that didn't exist back then, and try to paint the conflict into their black and white world view.

Therefore the answer is: The partition was necessary because Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

Again, this is your own view. Being that there was no country there to begin with, and that none of the Zionist streams involved removing the native people (which by early Zionist were considered descendants of the original Jewish population that had been converted to Christianity and Islam, btw) as part of their ideology, the only reason for the conflict is the development of nationalism among the local Arab people, starting right after WW1. Before that, there were no clashes. So let me get this straight - people that already lived there (as a minority), have roots in the land going back 3208 years, cannot create their own country in the region, while another group of people, that had nothing to separate them from the other people around them besides being locked behind a border just recently created by colonial powers, that just happens to be a majority in that specific territory that didn't exist in it's current form and size before the colonial power created it - has more rights? please.

I acknowledge that both Jews and Palestinians have equal claims. I also acknowledge that Palestinians could have lived with Jews in a one state solution, as wanted by the Zionist movement to begin with (no one really expected that Jews would be able to have their own country with a majority, and even in it's peak, before the creation of the state of Israel, the Zionist community didn't make more than 33% of the population in the region). I also understand that the Palestinians have been creating their own nation - the Palestinian nation - since the 1920s, which was and still is based mainly on hatred to Jews, and so it made it impossible for the two people to co-exist in one state. I also acknowledge that Zionism proved it can tolerate non-Jewish minorities and give them full human and civil rights. I understand that Palestinians will not tolerate Jewish presence in their country.

These are the issues which you seem to ignore, no matter what facts you're presented with.

So go on, keep your ranting :tu:.

Britain is classed a Christian country based on its population.

Its population is not based on the fact that Britain is Christian.

Tell that to the three crosses that appear on the british flag, and the anthem that starts "god save the queen", both of which are highly religious and goes against Jewish and Muslim beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyvernkeeper

Q, I think by 'Zionism,' you refer to a particular perception of Zionism which is not actually close to the philosophy in question.

Zionism means, the Jewish desire for self-determination, nothing more than that... However the term 'Zionist,' has been rebranded and can refer insultingly to the notion of a neo-Liberal, right wing warhawk... but that is all association. The original Zionists were actually fairly leftwing, more based on socialist notions of self-determination than the race-driven ideology that critics of Israel assume Zionism to be.

Erik might disagree with me but it is that notion of Zionism that inspired the pioneers and the kibbutzniks that I find so appealing, far more than some of the militant warhawks in the government. But those attitudes and actions I would not define as 'Zionist,' they are just the same *******s that you find the world over.

Hamas are far more racially supremacist in their ideology than the Israeli govt, yet we don't really speak about that. Instead - we mutate the word Zionism so that it becomes dirty, tarnished with notions of racial arrogance and superiority. Yet that is not what Jews mean when they speak of Zionism, to them Zion represents a yearning for freedom, based on millenia of persecution.

Critics of Israel have been very successful in branding 'Zionism' evil, which in turn has rendered 'Zionist' a dirty word, bordering on an insult, which in turn serves to further draw each use of the word away from its original meaning.

_____________

I've been accused of playing the 'Holocaust card' here so we'll keep this light, but if you believe that it all comes down to the Jewish desire for a homeland.... Then you need to surely ask what inspired that desire.... The answer to that is a two thousand years of persecution in Europe, ultimately culminating in the Holocaust. Jews have always managed without a homeland, for millenia. Very few cultural groups manage to get by for so long without one... The early stirrings of Zionism made perfect sense given the events of the time. Look into the Dreyfus affair for example and you can see some of the building sentiment amongst the Jewish and non Jewish communities of the time.

So pin it all on the Jews desire for their own country if you choose, just know that is disingenuous and an obviously reductive attempt at ignoring the entire context of the situation.

_____________

Btw, Q.. Stop repeatedly asking the same question.. I've given you my answer. If you don't like it then go somewhere else, but don't keep asking in the hope I will say 'Oh how wrong I have been, Q24, you genius - you were right all along.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

anyone who disagrees with Zionist policy is a racist out to get the Jews.

Yep, now it's Nick Clegg's turn:

he Deputy Prime Minister drew a hostile reaction from Israel by saying the government's continued construction on internationally recognised Palestinian land was "an act of deliberate vandalism" that undermined the basis of the Middle East peace process. In some of the most critical language ever used by a senior European politician in government, Mr Clegg accused Israel of making the likelihood of a negotiated settlement to the conflict impossible to deliver.

"It is an act of deliberate vandalism to the basic premise on which negotiations have taken place for years and years and years," Mr Clegg said.

He said there was "no stronger supporter of Israel than myself as a beacon of democracy in the region", but added: "The continued existence of illegal settlements risks making facts on the ground such that a two-state solution becomes unviable.

"That, in turn, will do nothing to safeguard the security of Israel itself or of Israeli citizens. That is why I condemn the continued illegal settlement activity in the strongest possible terms."

He was speaking alongside Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, who is on a visit to London.

Mr Clegg's comments reflect growing European impatience with the government Benjamin Netanyahu, the hawkish Israeli prime minister, who is seen by many Western officials as an obstacle to peace because of his refusal to freeze settlement building.

But while European and even American government officials regularly criticise Israel's settlement policies, few have done so quite as bluntly, a fact that will strain the Government's increasingly tense relations with Mr Netanyahu.

Israel reacted with predictable hostility, with a foreign ministry spokesman accusing Mr Clegg of "gratuitous bashing".

"It would be much better to contribute to peace by encouraging the fragile revival of Israeli-Palestinian talks," the spokesman said.

Mr Abbas was delighted by so strong an endorsement of the Palestinian position. "That is exactly what we wanted to hear officially from the government of the United Kingdom," he said.

Officials in Jerusalem say they now view Britain as one of the most hostile states to Israel in Europe, although the Government bowed to Israeli pressure by agreeing to abstain if a vote on Palestinian statehood was held in the UN Security Council.

My link

It doesn't seem to take much. As soon as anyone questions the legitimacy of the treatment of Palestinians by Israel, they become labelled racist, hostile, anti semitic, biased, anti-democratic, pro-arab or ignorant.

Absolutely hilarious the righteous rhetoric you find in some of the comments in these threads from pro Israeli posters trying to justify the mistreatment of other human beings. All Human Rights Groups in the world have been apostrophised as being biased, the UN is pro-arab (although the US has done a damn good job to balance this), the EU is hostile, all UM posters that see straight through the discrimination are labelled ignorant and anti-semitic (and this is where the ad hominem attacks start as a last ditch attempt to sway the argument away from the real issue :lol:) and arabs are anti-democratic, yet, seems like the pinnacle of democracy in the ME has a few racist and anti-democratic issues of their own,

My link

My link

The OP has expressed his opinion on "who are the palestinians". My simple opinion is they're a population subject to discrimination, first and foremost by the State of Israel and secondly, as refugees, by other arab nations. The simple fact that Israel has increased the amount of settlers during the last decade (approx 100,000 with an overall total of 600,000 in over 110 settlements) in the West Bank, shows they have a clear agenda to occupy as much land as possible and in the process of doing so, denigrating completely the peace process, world opinion, International Law, and Human Rights reports.

All this under the umbrella of Uncle Sam. It'll be a tragic day for Israel if this "support" ever evaporates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
The OP has expressed his opinion on "who are the palestinians". My simple opinion is they're a population subject to discrimination, first and foremost by the State of Israel and secondly, as refugees, by other arab nations. The simple fact that Israel has increased the amount of settlers during the last decade (approx 100,000 with an overall total of 600,000 in over 110 settlements) in the West Bank, shows they have a clear agenda to occupy as much land as possible and in the process of doing so, denigrating completely the peace process, world opinion, International Law, and Human Rights reports.

All this under the umbrella of Uncle Sam. It'll be a tragic day for Israel if this "support" ever evaporates.

Welcome to the thread, BlackRedLittleDevil. Now read the entire thread, then come back. Thanks :tu: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

Q, I think by 'Zionism,' you refer to a particular perception of Zionism which is not actually close to the philosophy in question.

Zionism means, the Jewish desire for self-determination, nothing more than that... However the term 'Zionist,' has been rebranded and can refer insultingly to the notion of a neo-Liberal, right wing warhawk... but that is all association. The original Zionists were actually fairly leftwing, more based on socialist notions of self-determination than the race-driven ideology that critics of Israel assume Zionism to be.

Erik might disagree with me but it is that notion of Zionism that inspired the pioneers and the kibbutzniks that I find so appealing, far more than some of the militant warhawks in the government. But those attitudes and actions I would not define as 'Zionist,' they are just the same *******s that you find the world over.

Hamas are far more racially supremacist in their ideology than the Israeli govt, yet we don't really speak about that. Instead - we mutate the word Zionism so that it becomes dirty, tarnished with notions of racial arrogance and superiority. Yet that is not what Jews mean when they speak of Zionism, to them Zion represents a yearning for freedom, based on millenia of persecution.

Critics of Israel have been very successful in branding 'Zionism' evil, which in turn has rendered 'Zionist' a dirty word, bordering on an insult, which in turn serves to further draw each use of the word away from its original meaning.

:tu:

Be careful Wyv, even though you and I are on the two opposing political scale, you might be branded with me as an evil Zionist :lol: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Welcome to the thread, BlackRedLittleDevil. Now read the entire thread, then come back. Thanks :tu: .

All I had to do is read the last few posts (which included some of your enlightening convictions) and compare them against the OP to see it was still at first base. :sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

:tu:

Be careful Wyv, even though you and I are on the two opposing political scale, you might be branded with me as an evil Zionist :lol: .

Oh! Another trait I forgot to mention in my previous post, self victimisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyvernkeeper

:tu:

Be careful Wyv, even though you and I are on the two opposing political scale, you might be branded with me as an evil Zionist :lol: .

So long as I don't accept that Israel is nothing more than 100% EEEVVIIIILLLL, responsible for the general shi**yness of the entire Middle East, it seems that will be the case :)

Q24, on 19 January 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

anyone who disagrees with Zionist policy is a racist out to get the Jews

__________________

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 19 January 2012 - 12:49 PM, said

Yep, now it's Nick Clegg's turn:

Sorry, where exactly in that link did anybody accuse Clegg of racism>>?

Edited by Wyvernkeeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

So long as I don't accept that Israel is nothing more than 100% EVIIIIIIIL it seems that will be the case :)

Sorry, where exactly in that link did anybody accuse Clegg of racism>>?

Sorry, where in my post did I attribute that link to the accusation of racism. I bolded and enlarged what the accusation was. Then I took this as an example of the accusation of racism etc. which goes on when someone doesn't find the policies of the Israeli Govt "appealing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyvernkeeper

Sorry, where in my post did I attribute that link to the accusation of racism. I bolded and enlarged what the accusation was. Then I took this as an example of the accusation of racism etc. which goes on when someone doesn't find the policies of the Israeli Govt "appealing".

Sorry, but when you suggest a policy of labelling any critics of Israel as anti-semitic and then state 'now it's Nick Clegg's turn,' the obvious implication is that Clegg has been accused of racism (or is about to be,) which he hasn't. If you make a statement and follow it up with a link, the implication is usually that the two are in some way connected.

Excuse me if I am confused, but what you said was confusing.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Further, to emphasise on my point that Palestinians are a population being subject to mistreatment and discrimination by Israel,

Barrier Complicates Everyday Life

Palestinian settlements like Qalqilyah are surrounded on three sides, making a seemingly simple trip to school or a neighboring village an arduous journey. In other locations, farmland has become inaccessible. In Jerusalem,it can take half a ay just to get to the next street. It can be kilometers between the checkpoints which people need to pass through to get to the other side. They can also only do so provided they have the right documentation.

Ray Dolphin is a "barrier specialist" at the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Jerusalem. He cites the three main problems for Palestinians as being "... freedom of movement in the villages, farmers not being able to get to their land and people in Jerusalem being cut off from hospitals, schools and religious centers."

In Israel, the separation barrier is seen as a success, in spite of the enormous costs. The military and political classes are happy to remind the public that since the barrier was erected, infiltration into Israel by suicide bombers has fallen to almost zero. But there are still difficulties: The Israeli Supreme Court deals with hundreds of lawsuits from Palestinians hoping to bring about the removal of the barrier from their land. The court keeps ruling in the plaintiffs' favor.

My link

Apart from the land grabbing, the clincher is the bolded part. Which basically means, despite the ruling by the ICJ and the fact it's causing hardship to Palestinians, the Israeli Supreme Court is showing itself to be totally biased and discriminatory . Another "Israel is a bastion of fairness and democracy" pillar crumbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Sorry, but when you suggest a policy of labelling any critics of Israel as anti-semitic and then state 'now it's Nick Clegg's turn,' the obvious implication is that Clegg has been accused of racism (or is about to be,) which he hasn't. If you make a statement and follow it up with a link, the implication is usually that the two are in some way connected.

Excuse me if I am confused, but what you said was confusing.

Sorry, are you less confused now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

I see this thread is turning into slandering and bickering, pointless abuse of things that have no relevance. Please, BlackRedLittleDevil, besides claiming that everyone who's criticizing Israel is labelled as anti-Semite, do you have anything important to add to the conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyvernkeeper

Sorry, are you less confused now?

No, I still don't understand whether I misunderstood what you said, or whether you misunderstood yourself. But it's ok... I have no desire to dwell on the subject of Nick Clegg

Apart from the land grabbing, the clincher is the bolded part. Which basically means, despite the ruling by the ICJ and the fact it's causing hardship to Palestinians, the Israeli Supreme Court is showing itself to be totally biased and discriminatory . Another "Israel is a bastion of fairness and democracy" pillar crumbles.

The Israeli Supreme Court has also ordered the dismantling of Settled communities in the West Bank, including the largest... So I don't think it is 'totally biased.' Besides, in some countries - persecuted parts of the population might not be even granted representation in the courts at all.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-s-supreme-court-orders-state-to-dismantle-largest-west-bank-outpost-1.376583

"There is no doubt, that according to Israeli law, no settlements can be built on private lands of Palestinians," Beinisch (Supreme Court President) said.

In the court ruling, the Supreme Court justices said that they recognize the difficulties surrounding the dismantling of such an outpost, which has already expanded to 50 families, but said this could have been avoided if the state had initially worked to better enforce the law and prevented the construction of Migron in the first place.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Hamas are far more racially supremacist in their ideology than the Israeli govt, yet we don't really speak about that. Instead - we mutate the word Zionism so that it becomes dirty, tarnished with notions of racial arrogance and superiority. Yet that is not what Jews mean when they speak of Zionism, to them Zion represents a yearning for freedom, based on millenia of persecution.

Hamas has a history as extremists, but in recent times they have toned down a lot and made some improvements to the population in Gaza. Unfortunately though, they're restricted by Israeli sanctions so we haven't been able to fully see if they've changed their agenda.

I believe everyone interprets Zion the correct way it's perceived, depending from a view point. If Jews interpret it as a yearning for freedom, the arabs interpret it as a yearning for freedom at the expense of others.

I've been accused of playing the 'Holocaust card' here so we'll keep this light, but if you believe that it all comes down to the Jewish desire for a homeland.... Then you need to surely ask what inspired that desire.... The answer to that is a two thousand years of persecution in Europe, ultimately culminating in the Holocaust. Jews have always managed without a homeland, for millenia. Very few cultural groups manage to get by for so long without one... The early stirrings of Zionism made perfect sense given the events of the time. Look into the Dreyfus affair for example and you can see some of the building sentiment amongst the Jewish and non Jewish communities of the time.

So pin it all on the Jews desire for their own country if you choose, just know that is disingenuous and an obviously reductive attempt at ignoring the entire context of the situation.

Full credit to the Jews for surviving thousands of years of persecution but, in your words, being ingenuous and open minded means we recognise this persecution (Jews) and ignore other persecution (Palestinians) does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

I see this thread is turning into slandering and bickering, pointless abuse of things that have no relevance. Please, BlackRedLittleDevil, besides claiming that everyone who's criticizing Israel is labelled as anti-Semite, do you have anything important to add to the conversation?

:lol:. It's starting.

Certainly, my point in a paragraph:

The OP has expressed his opinion on "who are the palestinians". My simple opinion is they're a population subject to discrimination, first and foremost by the State of Israel and secondly, as refugees, by other arab nations. The simple fact that Israel has increased the amount of settlers during the last decade (approx 100,000 with an overall total of 600,000 in over 110 settlements) in the West Bank, shows they have a clear agenda to occupy as much land as possible and in the process of doing so, denigrating completely the peace process, world opinion, International Law, and Human Rights reports.

Followed by a link in another post showing one example of discrimination and international law breach. There's plenty more available as well....

Whats been your fulfilling contribution, the story of Jews back in 57 BC?

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

No, I still don't understand whether I misunderstood what you said, or whether you misunderstood yourself. But it's ok... I have no desire to dwell on the subject of Nick Clegg

:blink: You still don't understand whether you misunderstood me? Wow, you DO sound confused :lol: (BTW, I'm joking)

The Israeli Supreme Court has also ordered the dismantling of Settled communities in the West Bank, including the largest... So I don't think it is 'totally biased.' Besides, in some countries - persecuted parts of the population might not be even granted representation in the courts at all.

http://www.haaretz.c...utpost-1.376583

"There is no doubt, that according to Israeli law, no settlements can be built on private lands of Palestinians," Beinisch (Supreme Court President) said.

In the court ruling, the Supreme Court justices said that they recognize the difficulties surrounding the dismantling of such an outpost, which has already expanded to 50 families, but said this could have been avoided if the state had initially worked to better enforce the law and prevented the construction of Migron in the first place.

That's all well and good. Now that they've talked the talk, when are they going to start walking the walk?

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
Hamas has a history as extremists, but in recent times they have toned down a lot and made some improvements to the population in Gaza. Unfortunately though, they're restricted by Israeli sanctions so we haven't been able to fully see if they've changed their agenda.

I believe everyone interprets Zion the correct way it's perceived, depending from a view point. If Jews interpret it as a yearning for freedom, the arabs interpret it as a yearning for freedom at the expense of others.

So you openly whitewash Hamas? What kind of tone down, exactly? it's still hold onto it's antisemitic covenant. Another racist of low expectations here, guys :rolleyes:

As for interpreting Zionism, you do understand that the term and the movement was created by the Jews, so their definition is probably the most accurate? No, it's much better to trust their haters to define them.

Full credit to the Jews for surviving thousands of years of persecution but, in your words, being ingenuous and open minded means we recognise this persecution (Jews) and ignore other persecution (Palestinians) does it?

Unbelievable. Please, go back and read the entire thread, it's as if I'm debating with Q24 10 pages ago all over again. "Zionists persecute Palestinians blah blah blah". Gosh.

Besides, in some countries - persecuted parts of the population might not be even granted representation in the courts at all.

Wyv, you seem to fall into the same lingo as the anti-Israelis. Palestinians are not persecuted by Israel. The definition of persecution is:

"Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms. The inflicting of suffering, harassment, isolation, imprisonment, fear, or pain are all factors that may establish persecution. Even so, not all suffering will necessarily establish persecution. The suffering experienced by the victim must be sufficiently severe. The threshold level of severity has been a source of much debate."

SOURCE

Defining the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis as persecution play into the hands of Q24 and his like, and establish a base for the untruthful deduction that Israel treats the Palestinians bad because of them being a religious or ethnic "other". This is obviously not the case, as Israeli Palestinians, which are of exact same ethnicity and religion as non-Israeli Palestinians, enjoy Israeli citizenship and human rights.

The sole reason Palestinians are in the situation they are right now is security-related, not a racist one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.