spot wrote: Undoubtedly. All it takes is a track record in producing factual statements to back the opinion. Giving opinion without facts is fine, so long as it's acknowleged to be opinion. Alleging facts without evidence is folly, especially where existing news reports differ.
especially where existing news reports differ.
Show me where.
Now I really MUST go - lunch calls.
What's Going On?
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Show me where.You're going in circles - I already did that in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=5
golem wrote: I don’t recall seeing too many Schwartzers in the Apartheid government of ZA. We got more than a few arab MK’s though!It's a while since I had the privilege of an afternoon in the public gallery of the Knesset, but the implication of "more than a few arab MK’s" doesn't match my memory of the occasion. Israel's population is 20% Arab and their representation (please correct me if I'm wrong) is 7% of Knesset members - 8 out of 120, these being Abdulmalik Dehamshe, Talab El-Sana, Mohammad Barakeh, Issam Makhoul, Ahmad Tibi, Azmi Bishara, Wasil Taha and Jamal Zahalka.
Speaking for myself, I'd regard the term "Schwartzers" as offensive.
golem wrote: I don’t recall seeing too many Schwartzers in the Apartheid government of ZA. We got more than a few arab MK’s though!It's a while since I had the privilege of an afternoon in the public gallery of the Knesset, but the implication of "more than a few arab MK’s" doesn't match my memory of the occasion. Israel's population is 20% Arab and their representation (please correct me if I'm wrong) is 7% of Knesset members - 8 out of 120, these being Abdulmalik Dehamshe, Talab El-Sana, Mohammad Barakeh, Issam Makhoul, Ahmad Tibi, Azmi Bishara, Wasil Taha and Jamal Zahalka.
Speaking for myself, I'd regard the term "Schwartzers" as offensive.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
Spot wrote: I offered to expand on the use of the word apartheid in relation to Israel and the Palestinians.
Comparing the Israel-Palestinian situation to S African apartheid is ridiculous. They are two completely different situations with completely different histories. You need to learn the history of Israel and Palestine to be able to form a valid opinion. You’re only looking at the current situation and you’re only looking at it from the viewpoint of the Palestinians.
To gain a quick understanding of the history of Israel and Palestine, check out this site:
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
If you would like, I could recommend some books on the topic.
Comparing the Israel-Palestinian situation to S African apartheid is ridiculous. They are two completely different situations with completely different histories. You need to learn the history of Israel and Palestine to be able to form a valid opinion. You’re only looking at the current situation and you’re only looking at it from the viewpoint of the Palestinians.
To gain a quick understanding of the history of Israel and Palestine, check out this site:
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
If you would like, I could recommend some books on the topic.
What's Going On?
Benjamin wrote: Comparing the Israel-Palestinian situation to S African apartheid is ridiculous. They are two completely different situations with completely different histories. You need to learn the history of Israel and Palestine to be able to form a valid opinion.Thank you Benjamin. As you say, there are different opinions, and you've just expressed yours. What I did was to post some of the reasons that the three witnesses I quoted gave for holding to the contrary. You've replied with your own opinion without any reasons at all. Obviously you can hold your opinion, but it would be a lot more instructive if, like me, you were to post some evidence to support it. If we all just say "I think this" and "Well I don't, I think that instead", it becomes contentious, having no hooks for subsequent debate, and the matter is left unresolved instead of drawing the thread to a conclusion. Nobody will have changed their mind in the process. Obviously I don't fully grasp the history of Israel and Palestine, but I feel I know enough of it to form a valid opinion. You tell me I'm wrong but give me no reasons, no evidence, to persuade me that the facts demonstrate my error.
What would be constructive is for you to go back to my post to which you replied and counter the evidence of the witnesses I advanced, rather than just saying "they're wrong". Why are they wrong? What did they say that was untrue? In what way do they lack the moral authority to speak on the issue? Why is their opinion of lesser weight than yours? All three of them explicitly disagree with your counterstatement that "Comparing the Israel-Palestinian situation to S African apartheid is ridiculous", since they all three do it.
What would be constructive is for you to go back to my post to which you replied and counter the evidence of the witnesses I advanced, rather than just saying "they're wrong". Why are they wrong? What did they say that was untrue? In what way do they lack the moral authority to speak on the issue? Why is their opinion of lesser weight than yours? All three of them explicitly disagree with your counterstatement that "Comparing the Israel-Palestinian situation to S African apartheid is ridiculous", since they all three do it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: What I did was to post some of the reasons that the three witnesses I quoted gave for holding to the contrary. You've replied with your own opinion without any reasons at all. Obviously you can hold your opinion, but it would be a lot more instructive if, like me, you were to post some evidence to support it.
You didn't do anything but post someone else's opinion. Your opinion is based on someone else's opinion. My opinion is based on the facts -- the fact that they are two completely different situations with different histories. If you want to prove me wrong, draw some valid parallels using facts. Never the less, I'll respond to some of it.
The full speech provides powerful testimony from a man whose impeccable credentials warrant close attention to his opinion.
That's debatable. A degree in theology doesn't impress me. Not to say Desmond Tutu hasn't done some good things, but his opinion has no relevance in the Israel-Palestinian situation.
â€Firoz Osman†wrote: Israel like apartheid-era South Africa, grants rights to individuals based not on their citizenship, but rather on their membership in a specific ethnic group.
Judaism is not an ethnic group
â€Firoz Osman†wrote: Israel classifies people at birth according to their ethnicity, and their rights and responsibilities towards the state vary based on this classification. In apartheid-era South Africa, only whites had full rights. In Israel, Palestinian citizens enjoy some conditional rights, such as the ability to vote and be elected, but only Jews have full rights allowing them to obtain land, to receive the benefits of military veteran status and to benefit from the "Law of Return."
Like I said in an earlier post, it’s necessary for Israel to maintain some homogeneity in order to retain its identity as a Jewish state. If they allowed unlimited Arab migration and equal rights to land, Israel would quickly become just another Arab country. Actually, it would cease to exist.
â€Firoz Osman†wrote: There are similarities between the ideologies of Afrikanerdom and Zionism, which portray the ruling groups in each case as an outcast people who, escaping oppression, found freedom in a Promised Land. The resistance of indigenous peoples is viewed ideologically as being merely an extension of the oppression which had driven the settlers to come to their promised land in the first place, thus justifying almost any measures the ruling group saw fit to take against them.
The Palestinians are not indigenous. Most of them are descended from Arabs who migrated into the region during the 19th and 20th centuries. If any group is “indigenous†it’s the Jews, since they occupied the land over 2000 years ago.
Obviously I don't fully grasp the history of Israel and Palestine, but I feel I know enough of it to form a valid opinion. You tell me I'm wrong but give me no reasons, no evidence, to persuade me that the facts demonstrate my error.
Read the information on that link I posted summarizing the history of the conflict.
You didn't do anything but post someone else's opinion. Your opinion is based on someone else's opinion. My opinion is based on the facts -- the fact that they are two completely different situations with different histories. If you want to prove me wrong, draw some valid parallels using facts. Never the less, I'll respond to some of it.
The full speech provides powerful testimony from a man whose impeccable credentials warrant close attention to his opinion.
That's debatable. A degree in theology doesn't impress me. Not to say Desmond Tutu hasn't done some good things, but his opinion has no relevance in the Israel-Palestinian situation.
â€Firoz Osman†wrote: Israel like apartheid-era South Africa, grants rights to individuals based not on their citizenship, but rather on their membership in a specific ethnic group.
Judaism is not an ethnic group
â€Firoz Osman†wrote: Israel classifies people at birth according to their ethnicity, and their rights and responsibilities towards the state vary based on this classification. In apartheid-era South Africa, only whites had full rights. In Israel, Palestinian citizens enjoy some conditional rights, such as the ability to vote and be elected, but only Jews have full rights allowing them to obtain land, to receive the benefits of military veteran status and to benefit from the "Law of Return."
Like I said in an earlier post, it’s necessary for Israel to maintain some homogeneity in order to retain its identity as a Jewish state. If they allowed unlimited Arab migration and equal rights to land, Israel would quickly become just another Arab country. Actually, it would cease to exist.
â€Firoz Osman†wrote: There are similarities between the ideologies of Afrikanerdom and Zionism, which portray the ruling groups in each case as an outcast people who, escaping oppression, found freedom in a Promised Land. The resistance of indigenous peoples is viewed ideologically as being merely an extension of the oppression which had driven the settlers to come to their promised land in the first place, thus justifying almost any measures the ruling group saw fit to take against them.
The Palestinians are not indigenous. Most of them are descended from Arabs who migrated into the region during the 19th and 20th centuries. If any group is “indigenous†it’s the Jews, since they occupied the land over 2000 years ago.
Obviously I don't fully grasp the history of Israel and Palestine, but I feel I know enough of it to form a valid opinion. You tell me I'm wrong but give me no reasons, no evidence, to persuade me that the facts demonstrate my error.
Read the information on that link I posted summarizing the history of the conflict.
What's Going On?
Benjamin wrote: Judaism is not an ethnic groupI'd thought that bloodline transmission of Judaism was of importance in Orthodox circles? http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article ... t/win3.htm seems to express that. I have friends who became Jewish through conversion but tell me that Orthodox Jews refuse to recognise them. Perhaps you can tell me, if Judaism is not an ethnic group, what it is, both culturally and in terms of Israeli property rights.
Benjamin wrote: Like I said in an earlier post, it’s necessary for Israel to maintain some homogeneity in order to retain its identity as a Jewish state. If they allowed unlimited Arab migration and equal rights to land, Israel would quickly become just another Arab country. Actually, it would cease to exist.I agree with you entirely, but I also think that's a statement compatible with the practice of apartheid.
Benjamin wrote: The Palestinians are not indigenous. Most of them are descended from Arabs who migrated into the region during the 19th and 20th centuries. If any group is “indigenous†it’s the Jews, since they occupied the land over 2000 years ago.Again, I have no problem with any of that. The Palestinians whose right of return is disputed had a right of residence that has been taken from them, hence the comparison with the Bantustan policy of apartheid South Africa where residency is shipped out of the area in which voting rights exist, while labour is shipped in to the same area for economic exploitation.
Benjamin wrote: Like I said in an earlier post, it’s necessary for Israel to maintain some homogeneity in order to retain its identity as a Jewish state. If they allowed unlimited Arab migration and equal rights to land, Israel would quickly become just another Arab country. Actually, it would cease to exist.I agree with you entirely, but I also think that's a statement compatible with the practice of apartheid.
Benjamin wrote: The Palestinians are not indigenous. Most of them are descended from Arabs who migrated into the region during the 19th and 20th centuries. If any group is “indigenous†it’s the Jews, since they occupied the land over 2000 years ago.Again, I have no problem with any of that. The Palestinians whose right of return is disputed had a right of residence that has been taken from them, hence the comparison with the Bantustan policy of apartheid South Africa where residency is shipped out of the area in which voting rights exist, while labour is shipped in to the same area for economic exploitation.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
Benjamin wrote: You’re only looking at the current situation and you’re only looking at it from the viewpoint of the Palestinians.
To gain a quick understanding of the history of Israel and Palestine, check out this site:
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
If you would like, I could recommend some books on the topic.As I said earlier, I'm balancing the thread. I don't see anyone else here putting a Palestinian perspective, and to be honest I think you’re correspondingly only looking at it from the viewpoint of the Israelis. There are various ploys in Internet debate, and offering to recommend some books on the topic is one of them. Tie the opponent into more hours of work than he can afford to devote and you shut him up. Let's stick to what we can each produce in the thread for the other to absorb, either from our heads or from the material to hand. Let's find facts on which to support our opinion. Let's try to find areas on which we can agree, and let's include sufficient reference text in the thread that we need only follow offsite hyperlinks for confirmation, not for imposed background reading.
To gain a quick understanding of the history of Israel and Palestine, check out this site:
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
If you would like, I could recommend some books on the topic.As I said earlier, I'm balancing the thread. I don't see anyone else here putting a Palestinian perspective, and to be honest I think you’re correspondingly only looking at it from the viewpoint of the Israelis. There are various ploys in Internet debate, and offering to recommend some books on the topic is one of them. Tie the opponent into more hours of work than he can afford to devote and you shut him up. Let's stick to what we can each produce in the thread for the other to absorb, either from our heads or from the material to hand. Let's find facts on which to support our opinion. Let's try to find areas on which we can agree, and let's include sufficient reference text in the thread that we need only follow offsite hyperlinks for confirmation, not for imposed background reading.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
Spot wrote: I don't see anyone else here putting a Palestinian perspective
Look at the post that started this thread
Spot wrote: As I said earlier, I'm balancing the thread. I don't see anyone else here putting a Palestinian perspective, and to be honest I think you’re correspondingly only looking at it from the viewpoint of the Israelis.
The facts cause me to favor the Israeli perspective. I can't understand why people are empathic towards the Palestinians any more than I can understand why people support George W. Bush. Logically it doesn't make sense.
Spot wrote: There are various ploys in Internet debate, and offering to recommend some books on the topic is one of them.
There are also ploys where you only pick and choose comments that you are able to respond to in ways that circumvent the issue. I provided a link to a brief history of Israel and Palestine -- an easy 10 minute read. I offered to recomend some books for a little more depth. People shouldn't form strong opinions about a situation without gaining a good understanding of it first.
Look at the post that started this thread
Spot wrote: As I said earlier, I'm balancing the thread. I don't see anyone else here putting a Palestinian perspective, and to be honest I think you’re correspondingly only looking at it from the viewpoint of the Israelis.
The facts cause me to favor the Israeli perspective. I can't understand why people are empathic towards the Palestinians any more than I can understand why people support George W. Bush. Logically it doesn't make sense.
Spot wrote: There are various ploys in Internet debate, and offering to recommend some books on the topic is one of them.
There are also ploys where you only pick and choose comments that you are able to respond to in ways that circumvent the issue. I provided a link to a brief history of Israel and Palestine -- an easy 10 minute read. I offered to recomend some books for a little more depth. People shouldn't form strong opinions about a situation without gaining a good understanding of it first.
What's Going On?
Benjamin wrote: [QUOTE=Spot]I don't see anyone else here putting a Palestinian perspectiveLook at the post that started this thread[/QUOTE]Bryn left the thread at post #3, saying he'd be back on Monday. I've been keeping his place warm for him. We're now on post #59. I don't see anyone else here putting a Palestinian perspective.
Benjamin wrote: There are also ploys where you only pick and choose comments that you are able to respond to in ways that circumvent the issue. I provided a link to a brief history of Israel and Palestine -- an easy 10 minute read. I offered to recomend some books for a little more depth. People shouldn't form strong opinions about a situation without gaining a good understanding of it first.But, as you said yourself, http://www.masada2000.org is a pro-Israeli site with considerable bias in its presentation. I went to Israel specifically to discuss these issues, which gives an indication that I am at least interested in them. I'd much rather be discussing ways toward a resolution, it grieves me that all I hear in return is intransigence. And I did climb to the fortress at Masada and look out over the Judean desert, I've a reasonable understanding of the emotional resonance of the name.
In terms of your "pick and choose comments that you are able to respond to in ways that circumvent the issue", I note that you ignored both question and points raised in my http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=56 - I think it would help if you went back to them for completeness.
Benjamin wrote: There are also ploys where you only pick and choose comments that you are able to respond to in ways that circumvent the issue. I provided a link to a brief history of Israel and Palestine -- an easy 10 minute read. I offered to recomend some books for a little more depth. People shouldn't form strong opinions about a situation without gaining a good understanding of it first.But, as you said yourself, http://www.masada2000.org is a pro-Israeli site with considerable bias in its presentation. I went to Israel specifically to discuss these issues, which gives an indication that I am at least interested in them. I'd much rather be discussing ways toward a resolution, it grieves me that all I hear in return is intransigence. And I did climb to the fortress at Masada and look out over the Judean desert, I've a reasonable understanding of the emotional resonance of the name.
In terms of your "pick and choose comments that you are able to respond to in ways that circumvent the issue", I note that you ignored both question and points raised in my http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=56 - I think it would help if you went back to them for completeness.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
But, as you said yourself, http://www.masada2000.org is a pro-Israeli site with considerable bias in its presentation.
That's not what I said. I said http://fuelfortruth.org may have a bias towards Israel. That doesn't mean the information on the site isn't true. Same with massada2000.com. I've read the same information they present in books that have no bias.
Perhaps you can tell me, if Judaism is not an ethnic group, what it is, both culturally and in terms of Israeli property rights.
Judaism is difficult to explain. It has a religion, a language, a culture, and a country, but it's not really an ethic group. There are all kind of Jews. Have you seen pictures of Ethiopian Jews? They're hardly of the same ethnicity as say, Nicole Kidman, but they are all Jewish just the same. The Jews are a people, if that helps you any.
This site talks about it a little more:
http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm
I'll have to look up the specifics on property rights.
That's not what I said. I said http://fuelfortruth.org may have a bias towards Israel. That doesn't mean the information on the site isn't true. Same with massada2000.com. I've read the same information they present in books that have no bias.
Perhaps you can tell me, if Judaism is not an ethnic group, what it is, both culturally and in terms of Israeli property rights.
Judaism is difficult to explain. It has a religion, a language, a culture, and a country, but it's not really an ethic group. There are all kind of Jews. Have you seen pictures of Ethiopian Jews? They're hardly of the same ethnicity as say, Nicole Kidman, but they are all Jewish just the same. The Jews are a people, if that helps you any.
This site talks about it a little more:
http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm
I'll have to look up the specifics on property rights.
What's Going On?
Benjamin wrote: That's not what I said. I said http://fuelfortruth.org may have a bias towards Israel. That doesn't mean the information on the site isn't true. Same with massada2000.com. I've read the same information they present in books that have no bias.Then let me say it myself. http://www.masada2000.org is a pro-Israeli site with considerable bias in its presentation. There's a difference between presenting one half of a story and telling the truth about a situation where no other voice is present in debate, even when avoiding factual errors. It's a partisan website, not an unbiased information resource.
Benjamin wrote: Judaism is difficult to explain. It has a religion, a language, a culture, and a country, but it's not really an ethic group.There are misprints and there are howlers. That one definitely raised a smile. Let me fix it - Judaism is one of the most ethical systems humanity has ever seen.
Benjamin wrote: Judaism is difficult to explain. It has a religion, a language, a culture, and a country, but it's not really an ethic group.There are misprints and there are howlers. That one definitely raised a smile. Let me fix it - Judaism is one of the most ethical systems humanity has ever seen.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
Obviously I meant ethnic.
Those sites may be one sided, but they do present facts. You haven’t offered any facts to support your opinion – only other opinions. I can only conclude that you have no real argument and your motivation is your anti-Israel disposition.
Those sites may be one sided, but they do present facts. You haven’t offered any facts to support your opinion – only other opinions. I can only conclude that you have no real argument and your motivation is your anti-Israel disposition.
What's Going On?
Benjamin wrote: Those sites may be one sided, but they do present facts. You haven’t offered any facts to support your opinion – only other opinions. I can only conclude that you have no real argument and your motivation is your anti-Israel disposition.I thought I was doing fairly well on facts. If you want to address specifics, here's a small set..
1. Israel's population is 20% Arab and their representation is 7% of Knesset members.
2. The Palestinians whose right of return is disputed had a right of residence that has been taken from them, hence the comparison with the Bantustan policy of apartheid South Africa where residency is shipped out of the area in which voting rights exist, while labour is shipped in to the same area for economic exploitation.
3. (from Ha'aretz, July 8, 2002) The government decided yesterday to support a bill proposed by MK Haim Druckman (National Religious Party) that would enable state land to be apportioned for Jewish use only. The government decided to accept an appeal submitted by Education Minister Limor Livnat, who asked to overturn a recommendation against Druckman's proposal that was submitted by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation.
4. The West Bank cantons are isolated enclosed areas, functionally equivalent to the apartheid design of South African Bantustans. Although the analogy is vehemently discredited as too tenuous or absurd by sympathizers of Israel, it has been echoed by the likes of Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who have endured South African apartheid) as well as other intellectuals and leaders across the globe. Israel's settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are Jewish-only. The only time Palestinians are allowed in them is to either to work on their construction or for other forms of menial labor. In South Africa, these were the same preconditions for entry by blacks into white areas in apartheid South Africa. This is in effect what South African Apartheid did with the black "Bantustans" and "homelands." Most significantly, the settlers are given full rights under the law, while the Palestinian population divided by their roads and settlements, have none. Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have more rights, but are still second-class.
5. An aspect of its brand of Apartheid is Israel's "Law of Return." It allows any Jew anywhere to be granted Israeli citizenship whether they have been to Israel before or not. Palestinians living in squalid and destitute refugee camps 50 miles from their historic homes have no right of return.
Points 4 and 5 I have summarised from the University of California petition for divestment of Israeli investments by the University.
1. Israel's population is 20% Arab and their representation is 7% of Knesset members.
2. The Palestinians whose right of return is disputed had a right of residence that has been taken from them, hence the comparison with the Bantustan policy of apartheid South Africa where residency is shipped out of the area in which voting rights exist, while labour is shipped in to the same area for economic exploitation.
3. (from Ha'aretz, July 8, 2002) The government decided yesterday to support a bill proposed by MK Haim Druckman (National Religious Party) that would enable state land to be apportioned for Jewish use only. The government decided to accept an appeal submitted by Education Minister Limor Livnat, who asked to overturn a recommendation against Druckman's proposal that was submitted by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation.
4. The West Bank cantons are isolated enclosed areas, functionally equivalent to the apartheid design of South African Bantustans. Although the analogy is vehemently discredited as too tenuous or absurd by sympathizers of Israel, it has been echoed by the likes of Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who have endured South African apartheid) as well as other intellectuals and leaders across the globe. Israel's settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are Jewish-only. The only time Palestinians are allowed in them is to either to work on their construction or for other forms of menial labor. In South Africa, these were the same preconditions for entry by blacks into white areas in apartheid South Africa. This is in effect what South African Apartheid did with the black "Bantustans" and "homelands." Most significantly, the settlers are given full rights under the law, while the Palestinian population divided by their roads and settlements, have none. Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have more rights, but are still second-class.
5. An aspect of its brand of Apartheid is Israel's "Law of Return." It allows any Jew anywhere to be granted Israeli citizenship whether they have been to Israel before or not. Palestinians living in squalid and destitute refugee camps 50 miles from their historic homes have no right of return.
Points 4 and 5 I have summarised from the University of California petition for divestment of Israeli investments by the University.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
Well, that's the way it goes. Israel needs to enact and retain those types of policies in order to survive.
What's Going On?
I'm with Benjamin on this one, I find it fascinating that any Arabs are involved in the government, since every Arab country surrounding Israel is trying to wipe them out.:-2
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
What's Going On?
Benjamin wrote: Look at the post that started this thread
As I said at the time, I've been away - so hardly putting the Palastinian side of the argument.
I'm back now so, do you want me to start at the beginning and point out all of the one sided, unsupported arguments that have been put forward?
BTW - thanks for taking up the thread Spot. I hated leaving it that way.
As I said at the time, I've been away - so hardly putting the Palastinian side of the argument.
I'm back now so, do you want me to start at the beginning and point out all of the one sided, unsupported arguments that have been put forward?
BTW - thanks for taking up the thread Spot. I hated leaving it that way.
What's Going On?
spot wrote:
I thought I was doing fairly well on facts. If you want to address specifics, here's a small set..
1. Israel's population is 20% Arab and their representation is 7% of Knesset members.
So all that proves is that arabs by and large don’t trust each other – which in fact they don’t.
spot wrote:
2. The Palestinians whose right of return is disputed had a right of residence that has been taken from them, hence the comparison with the Bantustan policy of apartheid South Africa where residency is shipped out of the area in which voting rights exist, while labour is shipped in to the same area for economic exploitation.
Those who fled on the advice of their leaders were given the opportunity to return but eventually the doors simply had to be shut as there was so much uncertainty over unoccupied land and property and progress had to be made. Those who engaged in war blew it. End of story.
spot wrote:
3. (from Ha'aretz, July 8, 2002) The government decided yesterday to support a bill proposed by MK Haim Druckman (National Religious Party) that would enable state land to be apportioned for Jewish use only. The government decided to accept an appeal submitted by Education Minister Limor Livnat, who asked to overturn a recommendation against Druckman's proposal that was submitted by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation.
So what? Israel is the JEWISH homeland. The JEWISH state. Much as The Vatican os the ROMAN CATHOLIC state.
spot wrote: 4. The West Bank cantons are isolated enclosed areas, functionally equivalent to the apartheid design of South African Bantustans. Although the analogy is vehemently discredited as too tenuous or absurd by sympathizers of Israel, it has been echoed by the likes of Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who have endured South African apartheid) as well as other intellectuals and leaders across the globe. Israel's settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are Jewish-only. The only time Palestinians are allowed in them is to either to work on their construction or for other forms of menial labor. In South Africa, these were the same preconditions for entry by blacks into white areas in apartheid South Africa. This is in effect what South African Apartheid did with the black "Bantustans" and "homelands." Most significantly, the settlers are given full rights under the law, while the Palestinian population divided by their roads and settlements, have none. Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have more rights, but are still second-class.
So what? Imagine what life would have been like for German nationals in the UK when the UK was at war with the Germans. Get real. These people are AT WAR with us. It is to our enduring creit that we simply do not go in and expell the whole lot to their present national state – JORDAN. (Except they've been kicked out once for trouble making there :wah: )
Remember, Jordan was created by the Brits whilst the had the mandate and THAT IS the palest homeland – and state. The bunch that are now known as ‘the palestinians’ are composed of the bandits and trouble makers, their progeny, and the many hangers on who just want to destroy Israel. This mob were kicked out of Jordan as troublemakers and in fact have been kicked out of everywhere they tried to go.
Time however has moved on and what we face today are second, third, and now fourth generation people who have become KNOWN by their own propaganda as ‘palestinians’ and who sadly have been poisoned by the lies told by their elders and teachers so that now the lies have become reality, much the same having happened throughout the world.
spot wrote: 5. An aspect of its brand of Apartheid is Israel's "Law of Return." It allows any Jew anywhere to be granted Israeli citizenship whether they have been to Israel before or not. Palestinians living in squalid and destitute refugee camps 50 miles from their historic homes have no right of return.
So what? Israel is the --- (read this carefully) --- JEWISH HOMELAND. Get it yet?
As for right to return – see the comments made above.
spot wrote: Points 4 and 5 I have summarised from the University of California petition for divestment of Israeli investments by the University.
Well that certainly proves the assertion
(by Pope I think, and I may misquote here, it has been some years since I learned it ---)
"A little learning is a dangerous thing so drink deep, or taste not the Pieran spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, but drinking deeply sobers us again."
Maybe they and a few others would do well to drink DEEP on this matter and in ‘sobering up’ they may find that their opinion has significantly changed.
I thought I was doing fairly well on facts. If you want to address specifics, here's a small set..
1. Israel's population is 20% Arab and their representation is 7% of Knesset members.
So all that proves is that arabs by and large don’t trust each other – which in fact they don’t.
spot wrote:
2. The Palestinians whose right of return is disputed had a right of residence that has been taken from them, hence the comparison with the Bantustan policy of apartheid South Africa where residency is shipped out of the area in which voting rights exist, while labour is shipped in to the same area for economic exploitation.
Those who fled on the advice of their leaders were given the opportunity to return but eventually the doors simply had to be shut as there was so much uncertainty over unoccupied land and property and progress had to be made. Those who engaged in war blew it. End of story.
spot wrote:
3. (from Ha'aretz, July 8, 2002) The government decided yesterday to support a bill proposed by MK Haim Druckman (National Religious Party) that would enable state land to be apportioned for Jewish use only. The government decided to accept an appeal submitted by Education Minister Limor Livnat, who asked to overturn a recommendation against Druckman's proposal that was submitted by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation.
So what? Israel is the JEWISH homeland. The JEWISH state. Much as The Vatican os the ROMAN CATHOLIC state.
spot wrote: 4. The West Bank cantons are isolated enclosed areas, functionally equivalent to the apartheid design of South African Bantustans. Although the analogy is vehemently discredited as too tenuous or absurd by sympathizers of Israel, it has been echoed by the likes of Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who have endured South African apartheid) as well as other intellectuals and leaders across the globe. Israel's settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are Jewish-only. The only time Palestinians are allowed in them is to either to work on their construction or for other forms of menial labor. In South Africa, these were the same preconditions for entry by blacks into white areas in apartheid South Africa. This is in effect what South African Apartheid did with the black "Bantustans" and "homelands." Most significantly, the settlers are given full rights under the law, while the Palestinian population divided by their roads and settlements, have none. Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have more rights, but are still second-class.
So what? Imagine what life would have been like for German nationals in the UK when the UK was at war with the Germans. Get real. These people are AT WAR with us. It is to our enduring creit that we simply do not go in and expell the whole lot to their present national state – JORDAN. (Except they've been kicked out once for trouble making there :wah: )
Remember, Jordan was created by the Brits whilst the had the mandate and THAT IS the palest homeland – and state. The bunch that are now known as ‘the palestinians’ are composed of the bandits and trouble makers, their progeny, and the many hangers on who just want to destroy Israel. This mob were kicked out of Jordan as troublemakers and in fact have been kicked out of everywhere they tried to go.
Time however has moved on and what we face today are second, third, and now fourth generation people who have become KNOWN by their own propaganda as ‘palestinians’ and who sadly have been poisoned by the lies told by their elders and teachers so that now the lies have become reality, much the same having happened throughout the world.
spot wrote: 5. An aspect of its brand of Apartheid is Israel's "Law of Return." It allows any Jew anywhere to be granted Israeli citizenship whether they have been to Israel before or not. Palestinians living in squalid and destitute refugee camps 50 miles from their historic homes have no right of return.
So what? Israel is the --- (read this carefully) --- JEWISH HOMELAND. Get it yet?
As for right to return – see the comments made above.
spot wrote: Points 4 and 5 I have summarised from the University of California petition for divestment of Israeli investments by the University.
Well that certainly proves the assertion
(by Pope I think, and I may misquote here, it has been some years since I learned it ---)
"A little learning is a dangerous thing so drink deep, or taste not the Pieran spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, but drinking deeply sobers us again."
Maybe they and a few others would do well to drink DEEP on this matter and in ‘sobering up’ they may find that their opinion has significantly changed.
What's Going On?
It's all about the lining up of circumstances and peoples for the appearing of the "antichrist" and his deception which is the NEXT huge thing s to occur after there is a "deadly wound" to the "head" of the "beast" system (whatever that may entail).. I really believe that the end of the world/age as we know it is very soon to occur.
Check out some of the Bible studys at "theseason.org".
d:-5
Check out some of the Bible studys at "theseason.org".
d:-5
What's Going On?
golem wrote: "A little learning is a dangerous thing so drink deep, or taste not the Pieran spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, but drinking deeply sobers us again."
Good quote.
Good quote.
What's Going On?
golem wrote:
So what? Israel is the JEWISH homeland. The JEWISH state. Much as The Vatican os the ROMAN CATHOLIC state.
There is no comparison. Vatican city is the administrative centre for a religion. Israel is a secular state whose citizens belong to several religions
golem wrote: So what? Imagine what life would have been like for German nationals in the UK when the UK was at war with the Germans.
It's quite well documented, even well remembered. Suffice to say that they survived the experience unharmed.
golem wrote: Get real. These people are AT WAR with us. It is to our enduring creit that we simply do not go in and expell the whole lot to their present national state – JORDAN. (Except they've been kicked out once for trouble making there )
There is no credit in the behaviour of either side is the dispute – it sure ain't anything to be proud of!
golem wrote: So what? Israel is the --- (read this carefully) --- JEWISH HOMELAND. Get it yet?
One dedicated, if its founding charter is to be believed, on the principle that :-
it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants;
it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;
Given that, at its inception, 40% of the population off the State of Israel were Arabs and that 20% of its current citizenry are Arabs, you don't appear to be carrying out the declared principles.
Even during a war there are rules of civilised behaviour and they are not being observed by either side.
So what? Israel is the JEWISH homeland. The JEWISH state. Much as The Vatican os the ROMAN CATHOLIC state.
There is no comparison. Vatican city is the administrative centre for a religion. Israel is a secular state whose citizens belong to several religions
golem wrote: So what? Imagine what life would have been like for German nationals in the UK when the UK was at war with the Germans.
It's quite well documented, even well remembered. Suffice to say that they survived the experience unharmed.
golem wrote: Get real. These people are AT WAR with us. It is to our enduring creit that we simply do not go in and expell the whole lot to their present national state – JORDAN. (Except they've been kicked out once for trouble making there )
There is no credit in the behaviour of either side is the dispute – it sure ain't anything to be proud of!
golem wrote: So what? Israel is the --- (read this carefully) --- JEWISH HOMELAND. Get it yet?
One dedicated, if its founding charter is to be believed, on the principle that :-
it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants;
it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;
Given that, at its inception, 40% of the population off the State of Israel were Arabs and that 20% of its current citizenry are Arabs, you don't appear to be carrying out the declared principles.
Even during a war there are rules of civilised behaviour and they are not being observed by either side.
What's Going On?
Benjamin wrote: Judaism is difficult to explain. It has a religion, a language, a culture, and a country, but it's not really an ethic group. There are all kind of Jews. Have you seen pictures of Ethiopian Jews? They're hardly of the same ethnicity as say, Nicole Kidman, but they are all Jewish just the same. The Jews are a people, if that helps you any."The Jews are a people" doesn't help me enough, since it's legal rights we're focusing on. If you regard ethnicity as synonymous with race or more specifically colour then, as you say, it would be an inappropriate label. Given that the laws of Israel use the word Jew in areas related to land ownership, immigration and an automatic right of citizenship, I'd still like to come to a better understanding of who qualifies. As I said earlier, the Jewish identity of convert friends of mine is disputed by Orthodox members of the community. I think it's a difficult question.
If you look back in history, there is a beacon of Jewish self-identification - Jews were those people who daily practiced the mitzvot. People who did that identified themselves and were identified as Jews, people who didn't didn't and weren't. As you enter the period of the Enlightenment you find the concept of the non-religious or secular Jew emerging, and the "blood-line" inheritance became a more prominent identifier than previously. Is a person born a Jew and who converts to Christianity still a Jew? If he isn't, then the maternal inheritance isn't an issue. Jewish religious law, as I understand it, says he is. The Israeli court, in the case of Father Rufeisen (born and raised a Jew in Poland, converted to Roman Catholicism and claimed automatic immigration and citizenship rights to Israel) said he isn't.
It's easy to say that people who daily practice the mitzvot are Jewish, but there's a lot of Israeli Jewish citizens who don't - roughly 80%. They're not Jews by religious conviction, many are atheist. Most still circumcise their sons regardless, which might or might not be a religious observance. Most still celebrate the Seder, complete with reading the Hagadah, which is unambiguously a religious observance. Most of their sons still perform the bar mitzva which is also unambiguously a religious observance involving public Bible reading in the synagogue and accepting an obligation to practice mitzvot. But 80% of Israeli Jews don't practice, don't teach their sons to practice, watch their sons promise to practice knowing they won't, and nobody feels unease at the meaning of the term Jewish?
I'd be pleased if we could use terms in this thread that we all agree the meaning of, and Jewish is self-evidently the hardest (unless you'd like to go a lot further than you did so far in producing a definition). We know what an Israeli is - a citizen of Israel, a term which includes non-Jews. We know Zionist - someone who wants to gather all the Jews of the world into the Israeli State, a term which includes non-Israelis and excludes many Israelis. It's impossible, surely, to use the word Jew solely to refer to those who practice the Jewish religion. I want to avoid the more lunatic definitions like "Jews are the people who are periodically persecuted for being Jewish", if only because that places the rule for identification into the hands of the persecutors which would be obscene. I'd like to fall back on the Jewish religious definition - the maternal inheritance. I know you rejected it last time, and I'm open to alternatives, but I'd like to find an area of overlap between us.
If you look back in history, there is a beacon of Jewish self-identification - Jews were those people who daily practiced the mitzvot. People who did that identified themselves and were identified as Jews, people who didn't didn't and weren't. As you enter the period of the Enlightenment you find the concept of the non-religious or secular Jew emerging, and the "blood-line" inheritance became a more prominent identifier than previously. Is a person born a Jew and who converts to Christianity still a Jew? If he isn't, then the maternal inheritance isn't an issue. Jewish religious law, as I understand it, says he is. The Israeli court, in the case of Father Rufeisen (born and raised a Jew in Poland, converted to Roman Catholicism and claimed automatic immigration and citizenship rights to Israel) said he isn't.
It's easy to say that people who daily practice the mitzvot are Jewish, but there's a lot of Israeli Jewish citizens who don't - roughly 80%. They're not Jews by religious conviction, many are atheist. Most still circumcise their sons regardless, which might or might not be a religious observance. Most still celebrate the Seder, complete with reading the Hagadah, which is unambiguously a religious observance. Most of their sons still perform the bar mitzva which is also unambiguously a religious observance involving public Bible reading in the synagogue and accepting an obligation to practice mitzvot. But 80% of Israeli Jews don't practice, don't teach their sons to practice, watch their sons promise to practice knowing they won't, and nobody feels unease at the meaning of the term Jewish?
I'd be pleased if we could use terms in this thread that we all agree the meaning of, and Jewish is self-evidently the hardest (unless you'd like to go a lot further than you did so far in producing a definition). We know what an Israeli is - a citizen of Israel, a term which includes non-Jews. We know Zionist - someone who wants to gather all the Jews of the world into the Israeli State, a term which includes non-Israelis and excludes many Israelis. It's impossible, surely, to use the word Jew solely to refer to those who practice the Jewish religion. I want to avoid the more lunatic definitions like "Jews are the people who are periodically persecuted for being Jewish", if only because that places the rule for identification into the hands of the persecutors which would be obscene. I'd like to fall back on the Jewish religious definition - the maternal inheritance. I know you rejected it last time, and I'm open to alternatives, but I'd like to find an area of overlap between us.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Israel is the --- (read this carefully) --- JEWISH HOMELAND. Get it yet?"Surely the day is not far off when no more uninhabited land will be available and the settling of a Jew will lead automatically to the dispossession of a Palestinian peasant? [...] on every site where we purchase land and settle people, the present cultivators will, inevitably, be disposessed. It is our destiny to be in a state of continual warfare with the Arabs. This may well be undesirable but such is reality."
They're not my words - that's Moshe Dayan, commander-in-chief of the Israeli army, quoted in the Jerusalem Post. He makes an interesting use of the word "purchase", given the subsequent history of the West Bank. The word "destiny" makes me shudder, too.
To quote Akiva Orr, "The secular Jewish self-image of moral righteousness cannot be maintained forever in a reality which consists of dispossessing the Palestinians, of ignoring their human, civil and political rights."
And, since you might not agree with Akiva Orr, this is from Israel's first president, Dr Chaim Weizman, in his autobiography "Trial and Error": "History will judge the Jewish State according to its attitudes towards the Palestinians."
They're not my words - that's Moshe Dayan, commander-in-chief of the Israeli army, quoted in the Jerusalem Post. He makes an interesting use of the word "purchase", given the subsequent history of the West Bank. The word "destiny" makes me shudder, too.
To quote Akiva Orr, "The secular Jewish self-image of moral righteousness cannot be maintained forever in a reality which consists of dispossessing the Palestinians, of ignoring their human, civil and political rights."
And, since you might not agree with Akiva Orr, this is from Israel's first president, Dr Chaim Weizman, in his autobiography "Trial and Error": "History will judge the Jewish State according to its attitudes towards the Palestinians."
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
You guys can spin it whichever way that you want but the fact remains that whereas Israel sought to be inclusive to all people within her borders from before day #1 the arabs declared war on Israel the day AFTER day #1 (literally).
The so-called 'palestinians' are 100% to blame for the position that they are in.
The decision to formally declare war on Israel by electing a 'government' led by a party dedicated to the destruction of Israel will turn out to be the worst and most stupid of all of the bad and stupid decisions that they have EVER taken.
So be it.
As an aside – interesting that you guys in the UK are now getting wind and sensitivity of, despite the Muslim-appeasing government that you are presently enduring, the abuses that are taking place in the Muslim religious schools. The smart money tells that it is significantly worse than the Catholic priest scandals or the abuses that took place of young children in so many of your Children’s Homes – especially one notorious case in Wales. That’ll be one to watch!
Also that there’s a guy who converted from slam to Christianity now being tried for his life in Afghanistan. A religion of peace and tolerance eh? Know the tree by it’s fruit seems appropriate!. Back closer to home I also note thet the Brit government is considering – CONSIDERING for pitys sake – making forced marriage illegal. And on the same sort of theme how about all the ‘honour’ beatings and even killings in the UK now in the Muslim colonies?
Seems to me that you guys could do well no stop criticising what you plainly don’t understand and simply take a few leaves from OUR book.
After all, we’re the guys who know not just the theory – we know the practice as well of multi-culturalism and the inevitable conflict that simply has to take place when one side is implacably dedicated to convert all and sundry to their beliefs or as in our situation to conquer OUR land and (in their words) drive us all into the sea in spite of our repeated offers and even requests and willingness to co-exist.
Tell you what --- Has anyone actually READ the hammas charter? If anyone ants a link just ask. It makes chilling reading indeed.
The so-called 'palestinians' are 100% to blame for the position that they are in.
The decision to formally declare war on Israel by electing a 'government' led by a party dedicated to the destruction of Israel will turn out to be the worst and most stupid of all of the bad and stupid decisions that they have EVER taken.
So be it.
As an aside – interesting that you guys in the UK are now getting wind and sensitivity of, despite the Muslim-appeasing government that you are presently enduring, the abuses that are taking place in the Muslim religious schools. The smart money tells that it is significantly worse than the Catholic priest scandals or the abuses that took place of young children in so many of your Children’s Homes – especially one notorious case in Wales. That’ll be one to watch!
Also that there’s a guy who converted from slam to Christianity now being tried for his life in Afghanistan. A religion of peace and tolerance eh? Know the tree by it’s fruit seems appropriate!. Back closer to home I also note thet the Brit government is considering – CONSIDERING for pitys sake – making forced marriage illegal. And on the same sort of theme how about all the ‘honour’ beatings and even killings in the UK now in the Muslim colonies?
Seems to me that you guys could do well no stop criticising what you plainly don’t understand and simply take a few leaves from OUR book.
After all, we’re the guys who know not just the theory – we know the practice as well of multi-culturalism and the inevitable conflict that simply has to take place when one side is implacably dedicated to convert all and sundry to their beliefs or as in our situation to conquer OUR land and (in their words) drive us all into the sea in spite of our repeated offers and even requests and willingness to co-exist.
Tell you what --- Has anyone actually READ the hammas charter? If anyone ants a link just ask. It makes chilling reading indeed.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: You guys can spin it whichever way that you want but the fact remains that whereas Israel sought to be inclusive to all people within her borders from before day #1 the arabs declared war on Israel the day AFTER day #1 (literally).
One could easily argue that the Israeli Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was the initial declaration of war – especially given your assertion the electing a government constitutes such.
golem wrote: The so-called 'palestinians' are 100% to blame for the position that they are in.
NOTHING is EVER that black and white. As Ted so succinctly put it – none is so blind as he who will not see.
golem wrote: Seems to me that you guys could do well no stop criticising what you plainly don’t understand and simply take a few leaves from OUR book.
That'll be the day – I'd sooner be guided by any other example that the one you are shown here.
golem wrote: After all, we’re the guys who know not just the theory – we know the practice as well of multi-culturalism and the inevitable conflict that simply has to take place when one side is implacably dedicated to convert all and sundry to their beliefs or as in our situation to conquer OUR land and (in their words) drive us all into the sea in spite of our repeated offers and even requests and willingness to co-exist.
If I might paraphrase from post 35
I LIVE with islam, I SEE what takes place, I HEAR the Friday prayers,
I live in a city that is now, officially, more than 50% coloured. Where I live in London is more than 80% coloured (they don't call it Banglatown for nothing). That does not make me an expert who knows all about them – although I do try to understand where they're coming from.
Never mind hearing the Friday prayers, the main local Mosque is only ¼ mile away – just round the corner from the local Synagogue.
There is no inevitable conflict!
I see them in their daily lives when they're living in peace not in fear for their very existence.
Don't try to tell me I know nothing of multi-culturalism – and it's not two cultures barricading themselves against each other.
One could easily argue that the Israeli Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was the initial declaration of war – especially given your assertion the electing a government constitutes such.
golem wrote: The so-called 'palestinians' are 100% to blame for the position that they are in.
NOTHING is EVER that black and white. As Ted so succinctly put it – none is so blind as he who will not see.
golem wrote: Seems to me that you guys could do well no stop criticising what you plainly don’t understand and simply take a few leaves from OUR book.
That'll be the day – I'd sooner be guided by any other example that the one you are shown here.
golem wrote: After all, we’re the guys who know not just the theory – we know the practice as well of multi-culturalism and the inevitable conflict that simply has to take place when one side is implacably dedicated to convert all and sundry to their beliefs or as in our situation to conquer OUR land and (in their words) drive us all into the sea in spite of our repeated offers and even requests and willingness to co-exist.
If I might paraphrase from post 35
I LIVE with islam, I SEE what takes place, I HEAR the Friday prayers,
I live in a city that is now, officially, more than 50% coloured. Where I live in London is more than 80% coloured (they don't call it Banglatown for nothing). That does not make me an expert who knows all about them – although I do try to understand where they're coming from.
Never mind hearing the Friday prayers, the main local Mosque is only ¼ mile away – just round the corner from the local Synagogue.
There is no inevitable conflict!
I see them in their daily lives when they're living in peace not in fear for their very existence.
Don't try to tell me I know nothing of multi-culturalism – and it's not two cultures barricading themselves against each other.
What's Going On?
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
You guys can spin it whichever way that you want but the fact remains that whereas Israel sought to be inclusive to all people within her borders from before day #1 the arabs declared war on Israel the day AFTER day #1 (literally).
One could easily argue that the Israeli Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was the initial declaration of war – especially given your assertion the electing a government constitutes such.
Not so. The resolution that the portion of the Ottoman Empire that was to form the Jewish Homeland was a legal decision made by the League of Nations and Britain was mandated to govern the territory and ensure the resolution of the LON was achieved.
The actions of Britain were subsequently disgraceful and only ended when they were kicked out of what tiny portion of the intended land was left after they had given and traded the rest away.
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
The so-called 'palestinians' are 100% to blame for the position that they are in.
NOTHING is EVER that black and white. As Ted so succinctly put it – none is so blind as he who will not see.
In this case things are black and white. The palests have been given opportunity after opportunity to reach a peaceful coexistence with Israel and have turned down each and every opportunity – or rather their lying leaders have.
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Seems to me that you guys could do well no stop criticising what you plainly don’t understand and simply take a few leaves from OUR book
That'll be the day – I'd sooner be guided by any other example that the one you are shown here.
That day will come for most of the UK and it will come soon. If it doesn’t you guys are finished as a free nation.
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
After all, we’re the guys who know not just the theory – we know the practice as well of multi-culturalism and the inevitable conflict that simply has to take place when one side is implacably dedicated to convert all and sundry to their beliefs or as in our situation to conquer OUR land and (in their words) drive us all into the sea in spite of our repeated offers and even requests and willingness to co-exist.
If I might paraphrase from post 35
I LIVE with islam, I SEE what takes place, I HEAR the Friday prayers,
I live in a city that is now, officially, more than 50% coloured. Where I live in London is more than 80% coloured (they don't call it Banglatown for nothing). That does not make me an expert who knows all about them – although I do try to understand where they're coming from.
If someone has been born in a country, brought up in a country, had much of his education in a country, learned the beliefs of others in his country, played with kids from ‘The Other Community’ (OC) in his country from when he could only toddle, learned the language of the ‘OC’ , listened to people discussing the religion and consequential ideology of the OC, watched and listened in amazement to the lies being told about his own people by members of the OC, seen the riots and heard the directions being given by the tribal (oops! Better be PC – ‘community’!) leaders and – G-d forgive them – even their religious leaders – and later in life even taken up arms on more than one occasion against enemies who were invading his country - enemies who shared the same ‘religion’ and ideology of the majority of the ‘OC’, and a whole lot more - then and only then could a person be entitled to claim to know what is REALLY involved.
Living in London ad seeing the surface of what a person is allowed to see or more often wants to see counts for zilch.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Never mind hearing the Friday prayers, the main local Mosque is only ¼ mile away – just round the corner from the local Synagogue.
There is no inevitable conflict!
Oh yes there is! It just may not have ‘got hot’ yet! But what I simply fail to understand is that with all the the uK has suffered in attacks by moslem terrorists and all - no, rather the little that is leaked to your press - about their STATED aims and objectrives, the things that they say and so forth, you guys STILL can't see what's at stake and what is going on in your country.
Never mind. You will.
Bryn Mawr wrote: I see them in their daily lives when they're living in peace not in fear for their very existence.
Don't try to tell me I know nothing of multi-culturalism – and it's not two cultures barricading themselves against each other.
You see the calm before the storm. Mark my words. The UK is facing a great challenge and unlike some European countries such as for example (finally) The Netherlands where integration to the National Society is now mandatory for incomers, is doing NOTHING and still panders to their demands.
The UK don’t even kick out those with no right to be there most of the time! :wah: :wah:
As for the inference that the palests fear for their existence - that's rich. The fear that mnany have is from the own unless they toe the partry line or from having the bomb makers and murderers living in amongst them and using their own people as human shields. You guys are unreal in you failure to see what is REALLY taking place here. If it wasn't so tragic it would be almost funny.
But as to ‘multiculturalism’.
You seemingly do know NOTHING of multiculturalism – a thing that in any case is absolutely wrong in concept and practice.
You may know what you see in your day to day existence but what you see is the tip of an iceberg. You seemingly don’t see what is beneath the surface.
Especially that it is not the same 'ice' that sticks out above the surface.
Multiculturalism where two or more ‘cultures’ are expected to live on the same turf is stupidity exemplified.
One nation – one ‘culture’ must be the rule.
Incomers MUST fit in – or leave.
Change will come if they bring something worthwhile but that change will be by evolution, by assimilation, and only if it benefits the whole community. Having separate ‘communities’ is wrong in principle and practice as is now proving to be obvious to all but the most ideologically blinkered fools.
Multi-ethnic – fine and good, multi – faith (as long as one of the faiths doesn’t have as its directive to enforce change on all others) equally fine, but multi-cultural – no. It’s going to fail from day one – and if you look around GB where the stupid experiment was tried it has started to fall apart and now accelerates each day.
Multi-culturalism doesn’t cater for immigrants – it caters for colonists.
Originally Posted by golem
You guys can spin it whichever way that you want but the fact remains that whereas Israel sought to be inclusive to all people within her borders from before day #1 the arabs declared war on Israel the day AFTER day #1 (literally).
One could easily argue that the Israeli Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was the initial declaration of war – especially given your assertion the electing a government constitutes such.
Not so. The resolution that the portion of the Ottoman Empire that was to form the Jewish Homeland was a legal decision made by the League of Nations and Britain was mandated to govern the territory and ensure the resolution of the LON was achieved.
The actions of Britain were subsequently disgraceful and only ended when they were kicked out of what tiny portion of the intended land was left after they had given and traded the rest away.
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
The so-called 'palestinians' are 100% to blame for the position that they are in.
NOTHING is EVER that black and white. As Ted so succinctly put it – none is so blind as he who will not see.
In this case things are black and white. The palests have been given opportunity after opportunity to reach a peaceful coexistence with Israel and have turned down each and every opportunity – or rather their lying leaders have.
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Seems to me that you guys could do well no stop criticising what you plainly don’t understand and simply take a few leaves from OUR book
That'll be the day – I'd sooner be guided by any other example that the one you are shown here.
That day will come for most of the UK and it will come soon. If it doesn’t you guys are finished as a free nation.
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
After all, we’re the guys who know not just the theory – we know the practice as well of multi-culturalism and the inevitable conflict that simply has to take place when one side is implacably dedicated to convert all and sundry to their beliefs or as in our situation to conquer OUR land and (in their words) drive us all into the sea in spite of our repeated offers and even requests and willingness to co-exist.
If I might paraphrase from post 35
I LIVE with islam, I SEE what takes place, I HEAR the Friday prayers,
I live in a city that is now, officially, more than 50% coloured. Where I live in London is more than 80% coloured (they don't call it Banglatown for nothing). That does not make me an expert who knows all about them – although I do try to understand where they're coming from.
If someone has been born in a country, brought up in a country, had much of his education in a country, learned the beliefs of others in his country, played with kids from ‘The Other Community’ (OC) in his country from when he could only toddle, learned the language of the ‘OC’ , listened to people discussing the religion and consequential ideology of the OC, watched and listened in amazement to the lies being told about his own people by members of the OC, seen the riots and heard the directions being given by the tribal (oops! Better be PC – ‘community’!) leaders and – G-d forgive them – even their religious leaders – and later in life even taken up arms on more than one occasion against enemies who were invading his country - enemies who shared the same ‘religion’ and ideology of the majority of the ‘OC’, and a whole lot more - then and only then could a person be entitled to claim to know what is REALLY involved.
Living in London ad seeing the surface of what a person is allowed to see or more often wants to see counts for zilch.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Never mind hearing the Friday prayers, the main local Mosque is only ¼ mile away – just round the corner from the local Synagogue.
There is no inevitable conflict!
Oh yes there is! It just may not have ‘got hot’ yet! But what I simply fail to understand is that with all the the uK has suffered in attacks by moslem terrorists and all - no, rather the little that is leaked to your press - about their STATED aims and objectrives, the things that they say and so forth, you guys STILL can't see what's at stake and what is going on in your country.
Never mind. You will.
Bryn Mawr wrote: I see them in their daily lives when they're living in peace not in fear for their very existence.
Don't try to tell me I know nothing of multi-culturalism – and it's not two cultures barricading themselves against each other.
You see the calm before the storm. Mark my words. The UK is facing a great challenge and unlike some European countries such as for example (finally) The Netherlands where integration to the National Society is now mandatory for incomers, is doing NOTHING and still panders to their demands.
The UK don’t even kick out those with no right to be there most of the time! :wah: :wah:
As for the inference that the palests fear for their existence - that's rich. The fear that mnany have is from the own unless they toe the partry line or from having the bomb makers and murderers living in amongst them and using their own people as human shields. You guys are unreal in you failure to see what is REALLY taking place here. If it wasn't so tragic it would be almost funny.
But as to ‘multiculturalism’.
You seemingly do know NOTHING of multiculturalism – a thing that in any case is absolutely wrong in concept and practice.
You may know what you see in your day to day existence but what you see is the tip of an iceberg. You seemingly don’t see what is beneath the surface.
Especially that it is not the same 'ice' that sticks out above the surface.
Multiculturalism where two or more ‘cultures’ are expected to live on the same turf is stupidity exemplified.
One nation – one ‘culture’ must be the rule.
Incomers MUST fit in – or leave.
Change will come if they bring something worthwhile but that change will be by evolution, by assimilation, and only if it benefits the whole community. Having separate ‘communities’ is wrong in principle and practice as is now proving to be obvious to all but the most ideologically blinkered fools.
Multi-ethnic – fine and good, multi – faith (as long as one of the faiths doesn’t have as its directive to enforce change on all others) equally fine, but multi-cultural – no. It’s going to fail from day one – and if you look around GB where the stupid experiment was tried it has started to fall apart and now accelerates each day.
Multi-culturalism doesn’t cater for immigrants – it caters for colonists.
What's Going On?
Scrat wrote: Do it. Slap that sucker up here. While you're at it put up the Israeli constitution so we can compare and educate ourselves.
The hammas document.
http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html
The hammas document.
http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Multiculturalism where two or more ‘cultures’ are expected to live on the same turf is stupidity exemplified.
One nation – one ‘culture’ must be the rule.
Incomers MUST fit in – or leave.
Change will come if they bring something worthwhile but that change will be by evolution, by assimilation, and only if it benefits the whole community. Having separate ‘communities’ is wrong in principle and practice as is now proving to be obvious to all but the most ideologically blinkered fools.Well, just so - This is historically expressed as the "One State, One People" approach to national identity. How does it go? "Unfortunately the German national being is not based on a uniform racial type. The process of welding the original elements together has not gone so far as to warrant us in saying that a new race has emerged. On the contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially since the Thirty Years’ War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich itself, has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued steadily."
I'm quite sure you can work out the source yourself. Can you tell us how your view differs from the original?
One nation – one ‘culture’ must be the rule.
Incomers MUST fit in – or leave.
Change will come if they bring something worthwhile but that change will be by evolution, by assimilation, and only if it benefits the whole community. Having separate ‘communities’ is wrong in principle and practice as is now proving to be obvious to all but the most ideologically blinkered fools.Well, just so - This is historically expressed as the "One State, One People" approach to national identity. How does it go? "Unfortunately the German national being is not based on a uniform racial type. The process of welding the original elements together has not gone so far as to warrant us in saying that a new race has emerged. On the contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially since the Thirty Years’ War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich itself, has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued steadily."
I'm quite sure you can work out the source yourself. Can you tell us how your view differs from the original?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: Well, just so - This is historically expressed as the "One State, One People" approach to national identity. How does it go? "Unfortunately the German national being is not based on a uniform racial type. The process of welding the original elements together has not gone so far as to warrant us in saying that a new race has emerged. On the contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially since the Thirty Years’ War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich itself, has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued steadily."
I'm quite sure you can work out the source yourself. Can you tell us how your view differs from the original?
BLOWN IT! :wah:
:wah:
:wah:
Nonetheless let me explain in simple easy to understand terms.
As I wrote there is NOTHING WRONG with a multi-ethnic society. Actually there is great strength to be gained BY multi-ethnicity provided only that meritocracy prevails and political correctness is avoided at all costs.
On the other hand the ‘multi-cultural’ failed experiment that is so damaging the UK is based on stupidity – the concept that two (or more) societies can coexist within a single nation.
They can’t and that should have been patently obvious to all but the most stupid unworldly academic with no understanding of human nature, no experience of life as it is, and a blinkered determination to destroy a nation as the price of enforcing his own unrealistic and WRONG ideas and values.
A nation IS the society that exists with its boundaries and so by definition it’s laws.
A nation is the result of a collection of people with common values, ambitions, objectives, fears, hopes, and basically similar beliefs. That share the same common understanding of the realities of life.
To attempt to create a nation comprising of a number of societies with major fault lines between them as the UK (for some unfathomable reason) has tried and failed is bad enough.
To attempt to create a nation where one sub-nation (for that is what these ‘cultures’ of multi-culturalism actually are) has radically different views on life and perceives a totally different reality from others is simply asking for trouble.
Multi-ethnic, GOOD IDEA.
Multicultural – BAD IDEA.
What is taking place in Israel is nothing less than the focus of where the rubber is hitting the road between the two worlds of today.
One modern, advanced, valuing humanity and human life, recognition of all that is good and progressive.
The other – for ever stuck in a world of tribal conflict of 1300 years ago, impossible to ever change, impossible to ever bring out of the blood and hatred of all things non-islamic by the very nature of the fundamental beliefs that it requires of its adherents.
As Benny Netanyahu said it should be remembered that the Muslims don’t hate The West because of Israel, they hate Israel because of the West.
How right he was and still is.
I'm quite sure you can work out the source yourself. Can you tell us how your view differs from the original?
BLOWN IT! :wah:
:wah:
:wah:
Nonetheless let me explain in simple easy to understand terms.
As I wrote there is NOTHING WRONG with a multi-ethnic society. Actually there is great strength to be gained BY multi-ethnicity provided only that meritocracy prevails and political correctness is avoided at all costs.
On the other hand the ‘multi-cultural’ failed experiment that is so damaging the UK is based on stupidity – the concept that two (or more) societies can coexist within a single nation.
They can’t and that should have been patently obvious to all but the most stupid unworldly academic with no understanding of human nature, no experience of life as it is, and a blinkered determination to destroy a nation as the price of enforcing his own unrealistic and WRONG ideas and values.
A nation IS the society that exists with its boundaries and so by definition it’s laws.
A nation is the result of a collection of people with common values, ambitions, objectives, fears, hopes, and basically similar beliefs. That share the same common understanding of the realities of life.
To attempt to create a nation comprising of a number of societies with major fault lines between them as the UK (for some unfathomable reason) has tried and failed is bad enough.
To attempt to create a nation where one sub-nation (for that is what these ‘cultures’ of multi-culturalism actually are) has radically different views on life and perceives a totally different reality from others is simply asking for trouble.
Multi-ethnic, GOOD IDEA.
Multicultural – BAD IDEA.
What is taking place in Israel is nothing less than the focus of where the rubber is hitting the road between the two worlds of today.
One modern, advanced, valuing humanity and human life, recognition of all that is good and progressive.
The other – for ever stuck in a world of tribal conflict of 1300 years ago, impossible to ever change, impossible to ever bring out of the blood and hatred of all things non-islamic by the very nature of the fundamental beliefs that it requires of its adherents.
As Benny Netanyahu said it should be remembered that the Muslims don’t hate The West because of Israel, they hate Israel because of the West.
How right he was and still is.
What's Going On?
Benjamin wrote: The Palestinians are not indigenous. Most of them are descended from Arabs who migrated into the region during the 19th and 20th centuries. If any group is “indigenous†it’s the Jews, since they occupied the land over 2000 years ago.Where do you draw the line? Do you insist on biblical injunctions? There's no fighting with religious convictions, after all. Still, this idea that the land was just sat there waiting to be used is a long-lasting error. I looked for a contemporary Jewish account of Palestine from the 19th century. Presumably you accept that the land was in use before then, and not an empty waste? We don't need to go near the short-lived Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, or Saladin re-establishing Arab possession in the 12th century? We can do that too, if you want, but for the moment let's concentrate on the decade prior to the start of the Zionist movement.
From Ahad-Ha'am, "Truth from Palestine" (1891):
We are used to believe abroad that Palestine nowadays is entirely desolate, a desert without vegetation, and that anyone desiring to buy land there can come and buy to his heart's content. This is really not the case. Throughout the land it is hard to find arable land that is not cultivated. Only sandy areas or rocky mountains which are suitable only for planting trees, and this too after much labour and great expense, are not cultivated because the Arabs are unwilling to work hard in the present for the sake of a distant future. Therefore not every day can one find good land for sale. Not only the peasants but also the big landowners will not easily sell good land which has no blemishes. Many of our brethren who came to buy land spent months in the country, toured it all over, yet failed to find what they were looking for. We are used to believe abroad that the Arabs are all savages from the desert, ignorant like animals, who neither see nor understand what happens around them. This is a great mistake. The Arab, like all Semites, has a sharp mind and is very cunning. All the towns of Syria and Palestine are full of Arab traders who know how to exploit the masses and how to outsmart their customers. Just like in Europe. The Arabs, particularly those who live in the towns, see and understand our aims and activities in Palestine. They pretend not to know because they see no threat to their future in what we do and they try to exploit us too, and make use of the newcomers as best they can, while laughing at us in their heart. The peasants rejoice when a Jewish colony is established because they get good wages for their labour there and enrich themselves every year. The big landowners are glad too because we pay for sandy and stony soil a high price they never dreamt about in the past.
However should a time come when the life of our people in Palestine will develop to such an extent as to push out, to a small or large extent, the indigenous population of the country, then not easily will they give up their place.
From Ahad-Ha'am, "Truth from Palestine" (1891):
We are used to believe abroad that Palestine nowadays is entirely desolate, a desert without vegetation, and that anyone desiring to buy land there can come and buy to his heart's content. This is really not the case. Throughout the land it is hard to find arable land that is not cultivated. Only sandy areas or rocky mountains which are suitable only for planting trees, and this too after much labour and great expense, are not cultivated because the Arabs are unwilling to work hard in the present for the sake of a distant future. Therefore not every day can one find good land for sale. Not only the peasants but also the big landowners will not easily sell good land which has no blemishes. Many of our brethren who came to buy land spent months in the country, toured it all over, yet failed to find what they were looking for. We are used to believe abroad that the Arabs are all savages from the desert, ignorant like animals, who neither see nor understand what happens around them. This is a great mistake. The Arab, like all Semites, has a sharp mind and is very cunning. All the towns of Syria and Palestine are full of Arab traders who know how to exploit the masses and how to outsmart their customers. Just like in Europe. The Arabs, particularly those who live in the towns, see and understand our aims and activities in Palestine. They pretend not to know because they see no threat to their future in what we do and they try to exploit us too, and make use of the newcomers as best they can, while laughing at us in their heart. The peasants rejoice when a Jewish colony is established because they get good wages for their labour there and enrich themselves every year. The big landowners are glad too because we pay for sandy and stony soil a high price they never dreamt about in the past.
However should a time come when the life of our people in Palestine will develop to such an extent as to push out, to a small or large extent, the indigenous population of the country, then not easily will they give up their place.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
Oh dear, a little learning and the Internet – what a potential for the ignorant to get things skewed up.
And they do.
The ORIGINAL Jewish homeland was intended to be the WHOLE of the area of the Ottoman empire that was put under the British mandate.
On that basis it is entirely right to say that the area was not desolate and that good land was hard to find that could be bought.
BUT ----
As a result of the Brits nor doing what was required of them by the LON the land was first split into Trans Jordan and The Rest and then further split into the area that was to become Israel and the rest. The effect was that a palestinian state was created LONG before a Jewish state was even designated by the Brits and that the area that was finally and VERY reluctantly partitioned to become modern day Israel was very poor land indeed that actually WAS mostly unoccupied though it had been worked for some time by European Jews and there had been an influx of arabs looking for work where there had previously been neither work nor a living to be had.
My late father was one of the early European Jewish settlers, he came to Israel with his father in 1925 and often spoke of how things were there at the time as he grew up.
The land that was fashioned into Israel was a mix of desert and marsh with malaria endemic and a very space population indeed. It was the draining of the marshes and the resultant reduction in mosquitoes that saw malaria significantly reduce, it was the work that the Jewish immigrants were willing to invest, it was the efforts and enterprise that was put in that made what had previously been nothing into a productive land.
When Mark Twain visited the area in 1867 he wrote of it being
“ ...[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.â€
Churchill also had something to say about the moslems and their work ethic quite apart from their morality.
He wrote ---
““How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
Like I wrote before about those who are so verbose in their criticism of Israel. So heavy on opinion, so light on knowledge.
And they do.
The ORIGINAL Jewish homeland was intended to be the WHOLE of the area of the Ottoman empire that was put under the British mandate.
On that basis it is entirely right to say that the area was not desolate and that good land was hard to find that could be bought.
BUT ----
As a result of the Brits nor doing what was required of them by the LON the land was first split into Trans Jordan and The Rest and then further split into the area that was to become Israel and the rest. The effect was that a palestinian state was created LONG before a Jewish state was even designated by the Brits and that the area that was finally and VERY reluctantly partitioned to become modern day Israel was very poor land indeed that actually WAS mostly unoccupied though it had been worked for some time by European Jews and there had been an influx of arabs looking for work where there had previously been neither work nor a living to be had.
My late father was one of the early European Jewish settlers, he came to Israel with his father in 1925 and often spoke of how things were there at the time as he grew up.
The land that was fashioned into Israel was a mix of desert and marsh with malaria endemic and a very space population indeed. It was the draining of the marshes and the resultant reduction in mosquitoes that saw malaria significantly reduce, it was the work that the Jewish immigrants were willing to invest, it was the efforts and enterprise that was put in that made what had previously been nothing into a productive land.
When Mark Twain visited the area in 1867 he wrote of it being
“ ...[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.â€
Churchill also had something to say about the moslems and their work ethic quite apart from their morality.
He wrote ---
““How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
Like I wrote before about those who are so verbose in their criticism of Israel. So heavy on opinion, so light on knowledge.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Oh dear, a little learning and the Internet – what a potential for the ignorant to get things skewed up.You know, golem, you're quite personally rude, have you noticed that? Instead of taking my referenced quotes - which, incidentally, are mostly derived from books on my desk and not the Internet - and responding from a factual basis, you seem unable to get away from stating your opinion. While that opinion is welcome, it would carry more weight if you used supporting testable sources. Looking on the Internet, I can see two pages which also quote the passage from "Truth from Palestine" which I used, but in neither of them is it accurately cited. The Internet may well have a potential for the ignorant to get things skewed up, but it's not what I invariably rely on. By all means demonstrate my ignorance by argument. I can't see that your sneering assumption of superiority helps your case.
Have you actually read Mark Twain's "The Innocents Abroad", for example, from which you - seemingly unwittingly - quoted? As with most of his writing, it's written with comic intent rather than to inform. He compares his homeland, the United States of America, with Europe and the Middle East, invariably to the advantage of the New World. He was, after all, hoping to sell widely among his native audience. Besides this initial bias, the website you copied from is, as one might expect, selective in its passages. Here's a few others from the same book to balance the picture:
[...] Toward the wide valley, we entered this little execrable village of Banias and camped in a great grove of olive trees near a torrent of sparkling water whose banks are arrayed in fig-trees, pomegranates and oleanders in full leaf. Barring the proximity of the village, it is a sort of paradise.
[...] The Lake is surrounded by a broad marsh, grown with reeds. Between the marsh and the mountains which wall the valley is a respectable strip of fertile land; at the end of the valley, toward Dan, as much as half the land is solid and fertile, and watered by Jordan's sources. There is enough of it to make a farm. It almost warrants the enthusiasm of the spies of that rabble of adventurers who captured Dan. They said: "We have seen the land, and behold it is very good ... a place where there is no want of any thing that is in the earth." Their enthusiasm was at least warranted by the fact that they had never seen a country as good as this. There was enough of it for the ample support of their six hundred men and their families, too.
[...] The narrow canon in which Nablus, or Shechem, is situated, is under high cultivation, and the soil is exceedingly black and fertile. It is well watered, and its affluent vegetation gains effect by contrast with the barren hills that tower on either side. One of these hills is the ancient Mount of Blessings and the other the Mount of Curses and wise men who seek for fulfillments of prophecy think they find here a wonder of this kind - to wit, that the Mount of Blessings is strangely fertile and its mate as strangely unproductive. We could not see that there was really much difference between them in this respect, however.
golem wrote: The ORIGINAL Jewish homeland was intended to be the WHOLE of the area of the Ottoman empire that was put under the British mandate.I wonder, for example, whether you could indicate an authority for this statement, and whose intention you refer to. The League of Nations made it quite clear (in Article 25) that Britain could selectively dismantle the Mandated Territory, and within a year Britain had gone back to the League to obtain explicit consent to detach Transjordan, which was given. If the League had intended the whole of the Mandate Territory to become the Jewish Homeland, it would firstly have said so and secondly refused to approve the action. All the references from the period which I've seen refer to setting up the Homeland *in* Palestine, not from the whole of Palestine.
Theodor Herzl, surely the engineer of the Zionist movement in practical terms, had no notion of territorial boundaries in his initial 1896 proposal, "The Jewish State": "The Jewish State, to be sure, is envisaged as a very special new formation on an as yet undetermined territory. But a state is formed not by an area of land, but by a number of men united under one sovereignty."
By the time of his first Zionist Congress in Basle in 1897, the proposal had become "Zionism seeks for the Jewish people a publicly recognized legally secured homeland in Palestine". The final adopted resolution included "Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law." - I note that some authorities have the word "Eretz Israel" in place of "Palestine". Whether that's accurate or revisionist I'm not sure.
The League of Nations Mandate, in 1922, applied "within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the British, who never (as far as I know) made a formal declaration of what they were. In 1936, the British Government's Peel Commission proposed the partition of the still unspecified Mandate Territory into a Jewish state and an Arab state, and that the Jewish state would include the coastal strip stretching from Mount Carmel to south of Be'er Tuvia, as well as the Jezreel Valley and Galilee while the Arab state was to include the hill regions, Judea and Samaria, and the Negev.
The Twentieth Zionist Congress, the following year, was called upon to determine the position of the Zionist movement towards this scheme. Congress decided to reject the specific borders recommended by the Peel Commission but empowered its executive to negotiate a more favorable plan for a Jewish State in Palestine.
By 1945, Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor that "Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the democratic world". The United Nations, in 1947, proposed boundaries for two states derived initially from the Peel Commission proposals (though quite different in their final form). The 1948 war made all the previous negotiations on boundaries rather irrelevant.
Have you actually read Mark Twain's "The Innocents Abroad", for example, from which you - seemingly unwittingly - quoted? As with most of his writing, it's written with comic intent rather than to inform. He compares his homeland, the United States of America, with Europe and the Middle East, invariably to the advantage of the New World. He was, after all, hoping to sell widely among his native audience. Besides this initial bias, the website you copied from is, as one might expect, selective in its passages. Here's a few others from the same book to balance the picture:
[...] Toward the wide valley, we entered this little execrable village of Banias and camped in a great grove of olive trees near a torrent of sparkling water whose banks are arrayed in fig-trees, pomegranates and oleanders in full leaf. Barring the proximity of the village, it is a sort of paradise.
[...] The Lake is surrounded by a broad marsh, grown with reeds. Between the marsh and the mountains which wall the valley is a respectable strip of fertile land; at the end of the valley, toward Dan, as much as half the land is solid and fertile, and watered by Jordan's sources. There is enough of it to make a farm. It almost warrants the enthusiasm of the spies of that rabble of adventurers who captured Dan. They said: "We have seen the land, and behold it is very good ... a place where there is no want of any thing that is in the earth." Their enthusiasm was at least warranted by the fact that they had never seen a country as good as this. There was enough of it for the ample support of their six hundred men and their families, too.
[...] The narrow canon in which Nablus, or Shechem, is situated, is under high cultivation, and the soil is exceedingly black and fertile. It is well watered, and its affluent vegetation gains effect by contrast with the barren hills that tower on either side. One of these hills is the ancient Mount of Blessings and the other the Mount of Curses and wise men who seek for fulfillments of prophecy think they find here a wonder of this kind - to wit, that the Mount of Blessings is strangely fertile and its mate as strangely unproductive. We could not see that there was really much difference between them in this respect, however.
golem wrote: The ORIGINAL Jewish homeland was intended to be the WHOLE of the area of the Ottoman empire that was put under the British mandate.I wonder, for example, whether you could indicate an authority for this statement, and whose intention you refer to. The League of Nations made it quite clear (in Article 25) that Britain could selectively dismantle the Mandated Territory, and within a year Britain had gone back to the League to obtain explicit consent to detach Transjordan, which was given. If the League had intended the whole of the Mandate Territory to become the Jewish Homeland, it would firstly have said so and secondly refused to approve the action. All the references from the period which I've seen refer to setting up the Homeland *in* Palestine, not from the whole of Palestine.
Theodor Herzl, surely the engineer of the Zionist movement in practical terms, had no notion of territorial boundaries in his initial 1896 proposal, "The Jewish State": "The Jewish State, to be sure, is envisaged as a very special new formation on an as yet undetermined territory. But a state is formed not by an area of land, but by a number of men united under one sovereignty."
By the time of his first Zionist Congress in Basle in 1897, the proposal had become "Zionism seeks for the Jewish people a publicly recognized legally secured homeland in Palestine". The final adopted resolution included "Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law." - I note that some authorities have the word "Eretz Israel" in place of "Palestine". Whether that's accurate or revisionist I'm not sure.
The League of Nations Mandate, in 1922, applied "within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the British, who never (as far as I know) made a formal declaration of what they were. In 1936, the British Government's Peel Commission proposed the partition of the still unspecified Mandate Territory into a Jewish state and an Arab state, and that the Jewish state would include the coastal strip stretching from Mount Carmel to south of Be'er Tuvia, as well as the Jezreel Valley and Galilee while the Arab state was to include the hill regions, Judea and Samaria, and the Negev.
The Twentieth Zionist Congress, the following year, was called upon to determine the position of the Zionist movement towards this scheme. Congress decided to reject the specific borders recommended by the Peel Commission but empowered its executive to negotiate a more favorable plan for a Jewish State in Palestine.
By 1945, Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor that "Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the democratic world". The United Nations, in 1947, proposed boundaries for two states derived initially from the Peel Commission proposals (though quite different in their final form). The 1948 war made all the previous negotiations on boundaries rather irrelevant.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: You know, golem, you're quite personally rude, have you noticed that? Instead of taking my referenced quotes - which, incidentally, are mostly derived from books on my desk and not the Internet - and responding from a factual basis, you seem unable to get away from stating your opinion. While that opinion is welcome, it would carry more weight if you used supporting testable sources. Looking on the Internet, I can see two pages which also quote the passage from "Truth from Palestine" which I used, but in neither of them is it accurately cited. The Internet may well have a potential for the ignorant to get things skewed up, but it's not what I invariably rely on. By all means demonstrate my ignorance by argument. I can't see that your sneering assumption of superiority helps your case.
Maybe the fact that I am here, in the middle of what you only see from books, many no doubt written by questionable sources and from tranching the ‘net actually gives me a superior position to comment from!
Maybe because I’ve spent most of my life IN Israel and watched what has taken place and how different what I have read about what I SAW in the press may have some bearing on it as well.
Maybe because I know people – in fact have some neighbors who were in palest areas before the actions of arafat’s “interfada†brought all hope of progress to a shuddering halt and who tell of the threats and intimidation that they saw taking place all around them and that caused them to move years ago and that they know are taking place still today to keep the moderate palests who DO want a peaceful relationship with Israel but are being prevented from achieving because of their own criminal gang based leadership should be taken into account.
Maybe because I just know and understand the whole situation better and don’t have an axe to grind.
You want to help the so called palestinians? Great! Help dismantle the corrupt leadership they have now been conned and bullied into electing. Help break the suffocating cult of islam by educating them to the modern world. Help Israel to finish the security fence that will provide a ‘cordon sanitare’ that will make attacks on Israel very much more difficult (hopefully mostly impossible) so removing the NEED for punitive strikes against the guilty so taking away the argument used by their leaders for continuation of the campaign of hatred against us. At least that would be one reason less that their ‘leaders’ use for what they convince the rest of the palests to do.
And just pause to consider this. What if the positions were reversed. What if there was to be a palest enclave with a Jewish population. What if this palest enclave was in possession of all sorts of modern day weapons, had massive support from the rest of the arab world, were suffering from repeated attacks.
What would THEY do. Focused strikes on the bomb factories? Focused strikes at the terrorist killers and their leaders? When conflict wasn’t at a red hot stage pay taxes on goods used by them to their treasury? Provide health care for the sick when needed? Provide humanitarian aid? Build a fence to stop the jews attacking them?
Get real.
They would go balls out to destroy us, they would drive us out, they would send in their army to obliterate our ‘camps’ by whatever means at their disposal.
Do we?
No. We try to keep them at bay in the HOPE that some day common sense will prevail, that they will ditch their corrupt and corrupting evil individuals and groups and join the civilised world.
Sad to say the election of hammas is a massive step backwards. Now we will have to do what we will have to do but believe me, if anyone wants to find a villain in this region they should put aside the traditional Jew-Hatred that is STILL so prevalent in the West and just use a bit of common sense.
Maybe the fact that I am here, in the middle of what you only see from books, many no doubt written by questionable sources and from tranching the ‘net actually gives me a superior position to comment from!
Maybe because I’ve spent most of my life IN Israel and watched what has taken place and how different what I have read about what I SAW in the press may have some bearing on it as well.
Maybe because I know people – in fact have some neighbors who were in palest areas before the actions of arafat’s “interfada†brought all hope of progress to a shuddering halt and who tell of the threats and intimidation that they saw taking place all around them and that caused them to move years ago and that they know are taking place still today to keep the moderate palests who DO want a peaceful relationship with Israel but are being prevented from achieving because of their own criminal gang based leadership should be taken into account.
Maybe because I just know and understand the whole situation better and don’t have an axe to grind.
You want to help the so called palestinians? Great! Help dismantle the corrupt leadership they have now been conned and bullied into electing. Help break the suffocating cult of islam by educating them to the modern world. Help Israel to finish the security fence that will provide a ‘cordon sanitare’ that will make attacks on Israel very much more difficult (hopefully mostly impossible) so removing the NEED for punitive strikes against the guilty so taking away the argument used by their leaders for continuation of the campaign of hatred against us. At least that would be one reason less that their ‘leaders’ use for what they convince the rest of the palests to do.
And just pause to consider this. What if the positions were reversed. What if there was to be a palest enclave with a Jewish population. What if this palest enclave was in possession of all sorts of modern day weapons, had massive support from the rest of the arab world, were suffering from repeated attacks.
What would THEY do. Focused strikes on the bomb factories? Focused strikes at the terrorist killers and their leaders? When conflict wasn’t at a red hot stage pay taxes on goods used by them to their treasury? Provide health care for the sick when needed? Provide humanitarian aid? Build a fence to stop the jews attacking them?
Get real.
They would go balls out to destroy us, they would drive us out, they would send in their army to obliterate our ‘camps’ by whatever means at their disposal.
Do we?
No. We try to keep them at bay in the HOPE that some day common sense will prevail, that they will ditch their corrupt and corrupting evil individuals and groups and join the civilised world.
Sad to say the election of hammas is a massive step backwards. Now we will have to do what we will have to do but believe me, if anyone wants to find a villain in this region they should put aside the traditional Jew-Hatred that is STILL so prevalent in the West and just use a bit of common sense.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Maybe the fact that I am here, in the middle of what you only see from books, many no doubt written by questionable sources and from tranching the ‘net actually gives me a superior position to comment from!"Being here" doesn't seem to have stopped you from voicing a disdainful opinion of the UK's multicultural society. I happen to find the juxtaposition of many cultural settings in my home town a positive experience, and I've said so elsewhere on the forum. First hand testimony is as water off a duck's back in your eyes, it would seem. Your suggestion that you "understand the whole situation better and don’t have an axe to grind" I'll leave to others to assess.
You speculate "What if the positions were reversed [...] What would THEY do". That's a good question, we might make some progress with this thread by considering it.
There is a single piece of land, bordered by Egypt, the Mediterranean, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Red Sea. Let's assume those borders are agreeable as part of an international settlement, just to simplify the internal question which you raise. Let's refer to this single piece of land as the Territory, for want of a neutral word. Within the Territory, at the moment, live Jews, Arabs and Others.
Firstly, if I may, I'll go through all of the alternative configurations that could apply to the Territory, irrespective of political reality, for completeness. It could be:
You speculate "What if the positions were reversed [...] What would THEY do". That's a good question, we might make some progress with this thread by considering it.
There is a single piece of land, bordered by Egypt, the Mediterranean, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Red Sea. Let's assume those borders are agreeable as part of an international settlement, just to simplify the internal question which you raise. Let's refer to this single piece of land as the Territory, for want of a neutral word. Within the Territory, at the moment, live Jews, Arabs and Others.
Firstly, if I may, I'll go through all of the alternative configurations that could apply to the Territory, irrespective of political reality, for completeness. It could be:
- a single nationor partitioned into two or more nations each with an independent right of residence, an independent economic policy, an independent defence policy and an independent foreign policyor a single federated nation of two or more States (as is the USA), with both national and State parliaments dividing responsibility for right of residence, economic policy, defence policy and foreign policyNow, I have no preference at all for any of these models. What I would want to avoid is any segregationist policy within a single State or nation, and I've pointed out to you that the current Israeli system is segregationist. For clarity, this currently relies on the registration of citizens by ethnicity. The Teudat Zehut (identity card), since 2002, no longer labels citizens 'Jewish' 'Arab' 'Druze' or by their country of origin but the Mirsham Ha-uchlusin (Population Registry) still carries this information and the distinction has two major legal consequences for individuals. Firstly, the automatic right of return is based on the assessed label. Secondly, citizenship depends on it, non-Jews needing to be physically present in the country whenever a census is conducted in order to retain their right of abode.
So, what model is the Israeli government currently forcing into place within the Territory? It seems to me that it's the federated model, not the two-nation model. It has the separation barrier defining an internal boundary. It has two populations with distinct rights of access to each State. It has two State governments. The missing element at the moment is a Federal government with both Israeli and Palestinian representation to debate right of residence, economic policy, defence policy and foreign policy - those are all still determined by just the one side. I think we can assume that eventually the Federal level of debate will be formalized on a more equitable basis than that.
Now, "What would THEY do", you asked. Exactly what you're doing, as far as I can see. Both sides have their fanatics who want to drive the opposition into the sea and claim the entire Territory as their own, but that's not a practical option. Neither side wants a single nation with no State parliaments. The chances of two nations side by side, as opposed to a Federation of States, is impractical since Israel refuses to relinquish control of at least Palestinian defence and foreign policy.
The reason I've put things in these terms is that it gives a structure which can accommodate both side's insistence on access to Jerusalem. In the Federated model, which both sides seem to be set on constructing, Jerusalem can quite handily take the form of a third Federated State within the single nation arrangement. It involves constructing an additional layer of governance to overarch the State legislatures, which is ambitious in today's climate. I think it's a desirable objective.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote:
"Being here" doesn't seem to have stopped you from voicing a disdainful opinion of the UK's multicultural society. I happen to find the juxtaposition of many cultural settings in my home town a positive experience, and I've said so elsewhere on the forum. First hand testimony is as water off a duck's back in your eyes, it would seem. Your suggestion that you "understand the whole situation better and don’t have an axe to grind" I'll leave to others to assess.
As I wrote, there’s nothing wrong with a multi-ethnic society where everyone no matter what their ethnicity is part of a single ‘culture’ and incomers join in and FIT IN with the indigenous culture. That way lies strength and growth. The time it is wrong is when a nation attempts to exist with a number of separate ‘cultures’ running in parallel and THAT is what is being met in Europe and especially in the UK.
spot wrote: You speculate "What if the positions were reversed [...] What would THEY do". That's a good question, we might make some progress with this thread by considering it.
There is a single piece of land, bordered by Egypt, the Mediterranean, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Red Sea. Let's assume those borders are agreeable as part of an international settlement, just to simplify the internal question which you raise. Let's refer to this single piece of land as the Territory, for want of a neutral word. Within the Territory, at the moment, live Jews, Arabs and Others.
Firstly, if I may, I'll go through all of the alternative configurations that could apply to the Territory, irrespective of political reality, for completeness. It could be:
• a single nation
• or partitioned into two or more nations each with an independent right of residence, an independent economic policy, an independent defence policy and an independent foreign policy
• or a single federated nation of two or more States (as is the USA), with both national and State parliaments dividing responsibility for right of residence, economic policy, defence policy and foreign policy.
There is another model that you have left out.
That is where the single piece of land has been partitioned into three already. The first, Jordan, is established and recognised and is the real palest. state.
The second was subsequently partitioned into two, these being Israel and secondly the West Bank – the land for the arabs who for one reason or another wouldn’t or couldn’t gain admission into THEIR state – Jordan.
WE accepted the deal on 1947. Although far less that it should have been for us, the arabs did not.
spot wrote: Now, I have no preference at all for any of these models. What I would want to avoid is the current segregationist policy within a single State or nation, and I've pointed out to you that the current Israeli system is segregationist.
So what? Israel is OUR nation state. What WE do in OUR nation is no concern of anyone. Get it? It’s OUR nation, WE choose the laws, WE call the tune. Those who wish to live in OUR nation have a choice. Take it or leave it. End of story.
spot wrote: For clarity, this currently relies on the registration of citizens by ethnicity. The Teudat Zehut (identity card), since 2002, no longer labels citizens 'Jewish' 'Arab' 'Druze' or by their country of origin but the Mirsham Ha-uchlusin (Population Registry) still carries this information and the distinction has two major legal consequences for individuals. Firstly, the automatic right of return is based on the assessed label. Secondly, citizenship depends on it, non-Jews needing to be physically present in the country whenever a census is conducted in order to retain their right of abode.
So what? See the remarks above. You don’t like it? Don’t come.
spot wrote: So, what model is the Israeli government currently forcing into place within the Territory? It seems to me that it's the federated model, not the two-nation model. It has the separation barrier defining an internal boundary. It has two populations with distinct rights of access to each State. It has two State governments. The missing element at the moment is a Federal government with both Israeli and Palestinian representation to debate right of residence, economic policy, defence policy and foreign policy - those are all still determined by just the one side. I think we can assume that eventually the Federal level of debate will be formalized on a more equitable basis than that.
We HAVE a government in Israel that HAS arab members in the Knesset. The palests have by their own actions ended up where they are. Their problem, they know what they need to do to resolve it.
Right now and for many years past we have not had a partner with whom we could discuss peace. Since the death of arafat for a while it looked as if we had and progress was being made. Now with hammas once more we have not.
spot wrote: Now, "What would THEY do", you asked. Exactly what you're doing, as far as I can see.
Then as I suspected (actually realised some way back) your vision is both blurred and very blinkered. Really.
spot wrote: Both sides have their fanatics who want to drive the opposition into the sea and claim the entire Territory as their own, -----
Not so. We keep our few hot heads under firm control. Not only are they very few in number (just as NBP supporters exist but in small numbers in YOUR country) but the wish to ‘drive the palests’ anywhere is NOT government policy, nor is it a the wish of the general population both of whom want nothing more than a lasting peace in which BOTH parties can make progress.
spot wrote: ----- but that's not a practical option. Neither side wants a single nation with no State parliaments. The chances of two nations side by side, as opposed to a Federation of States, is impractical since Israel refuses to relinquish control of at least Palestinian defence and foreign policy.
Well of course we won’t! Certainly not when the moment that we do there will be treaties all over the place, an escalation violence, no action taken by the PA, only our people let to take out the trash, an immediate escalation and call for support from third parties and next thing you know the whole region is in flames – possibly literally.
Going to war on Iraq certainly had this factor as a component. The smart money said that if the palests were to be given a recognised statehood within minutes they would have aligned with Iraq and then a follows b follows c and up goes the balloon. Amazing when you think about it. Had it not een for the likes of arafat the palests could by now have been living in their own nation in peace in growing prosperity. They really could.
HOPEFULLY – with the completion of our Security Fence acts of terrorism will be at the very least significantly scaled down, hopefully with Iraq not being there with a leader using his support of the palest terrorists to increase his popularity in other neighboring states that he obviously had his eye on gaining power of, hopefully (well, it had been until hammas were elected) with the PA becoming more active in the provision of security in their patch, hopefully with the withdrawal of the settlements, a shame really, they could have been centers of civilisation and opportunity that the palests could have worked with, hopefully with all that the path to acceptability of a palest land with THEIR secure borders and OUR secure borders could have come about.
Shame hamms has blown the hope away so much. Shame the palests once more snatch potential disaster from the jaws of a possible prosperous future.
spot wrote: The reason I've put things in these terms is that it gives a structure which can accommodate both side's insistence on access to Jerusalem. In the Federated model, which both sides seem to be set on constructing, Jerusalem can quite handily take the form of a third Federated State within the single nation arrangement. It involves constructing an additional layer of governance to overarch the State legislatures, which is ambitious in today's climate. I think it's a desirable objective.
Aaah – Jerusalem!
Jerusalem is and for ever will be the capital city of Israel.
That position is absolutely non-negotiable.
Jerusalem was the capital city of the Jewish state, even when in exile, from long before Jesus was born let alone mohammed. Jerusalem is King David’s City and has been since a thousand years before Jesus walked the earth (if in fact he did, but that’s another matter).
"Being here" doesn't seem to have stopped you from voicing a disdainful opinion of the UK's multicultural society. I happen to find the juxtaposition of many cultural settings in my home town a positive experience, and I've said so elsewhere on the forum. First hand testimony is as water off a duck's back in your eyes, it would seem. Your suggestion that you "understand the whole situation better and don’t have an axe to grind" I'll leave to others to assess.
As I wrote, there’s nothing wrong with a multi-ethnic society where everyone no matter what their ethnicity is part of a single ‘culture’ and incomers join in and FIT IN with the indigenous culture. That way lies strength and growth. The time it is wrong is when a nation attempts to exist with a number of separate ‘cultures’ running in parallel and THAT is what is being met in Europe and especially in the UK.
spot wrote: You speculate "What if the positions were reversed [...] What would THEY do". That's a good question, we might make some progress with this thread by considering it.
There is a single piece of land, bordered by Egypt, the Mediterranean, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Red Sea. Let's assume those borders are agreeable as part of an international settlement, just to simplify the internal question which you raise. Let's refer to this single piece of land as the Territory, for want of a neutral word. Within the Territory, at the moment, live Jews, Arabs and Others.
Firstly, if I may, I'll go through all of the alternative configurations that could apply to the Territory, irrespective of political reality, for completeness. It could be:
• a single nation
• or partitioned into two or more nations each with an independent right of residence, an independent economic policy, an independent defence policy and an independent foreign policy
• or a single federated nation of two or more States (as is the USA), with both national and State parliaments dividing responsibility for right of residence, economic policy, defence policy and foreign policy.
There is another model that you have left out.
That is where the single piece of land has been partitioned into three already. The first, Jordan, is established and recognised and is the real palest. state.
The second was subsequently partitioned into two, these being Israel and secondly the West Bank – the land for the arabs who for one reason or another wouldn’t or couldn’t gain admission into THEIR state – Jordan.
WE accepted the deal on 1947. Although far less that it should have been for us, the arabs did not.
spot wrote: Now, I have no preference at all for any of these models. What I would want to avoid is the current segregationist policy within a single State or nation, and I've pointed out to you that the current Israeli system is segregationist.
So what? Israel is OUR nation state. What WE do in OUR nation is no concern of anyone. Get it? It’s OUR nation, WE choose the laws, WE call the tune. Those who wish to live in OUR nation have a choice. Take it or leave it. End of story.
spot wrote: For clarity, this currently relies on the registration of citizens by ethnicity. The Teudat Zehut (identity card), since 2002, no longer labels citizens 'Jewish' 'Arab' 'Druze' or by their country of origin but the Mirsham Ha-uchlusin (Population Registry) still carries this information and the distinction has two major legal consequences for individuals. Firstly, the automatic right of return is based on the assessed label. Secondly, citizenship depends on it, non-Jews needing to be physically present in the country whenever a census is conducted in order to retain their right of abode.
So what? See the remarks above. You don’t like it? Don’t come.
spot wrote: So, what model is the Israeli government currently forcing into place within the Territory? It seems to me that it's the federated model, not the two-nation model. It has the separation barrier defining an internal boundary. It has two populations with distinct rights of access to each State. It has two State governments. The missing element at the moment is a Federal government with both Israeli and Palestinian representation to debate right of residence, economic policy, defence policy and foreign policy - those are all still determined by just the one side. I think we can assume that eventually the Federal level of debate will be formalized on a more equitable basis than that.
We HAVE a government in Israel that HAS arab members in the Knesset. The palests have by their own actions ended up where they are. Their problem, they know what they need to do to resolve it.
Right now and for many years past we have not had a partner with whom we could discuss peace. Since the death of arafat for a while it looked as if we had and progress was being made. Now with hammas once more we have not.
spot wrote: Now, "What would THEY do", you asked. Exactly what you're doing, as far as I can see.
Then as I suspected (actually realised some way back) your vision is both blurred and very blinkered. Really.
spot wrote: Both sides have their fanatics who want to drive the opposition into the sea and claim the entire Territory as their own, -----
Not so. We keep our few hot heads under firm control. Not only are they very few in number (just as NBP supporters exist but in small numbers in YOUR country) but the wish to ‘drive the palests’ anywhere is NOT government policy, nor is it a the wish of the general population both of whom want nothing more than a lasting peace in which BOTH parties can make progress.
spot wrote: ----- but that's not a practical option. Neither side wants a single nation with no State parliaments. The chances of two nations side by side, as opposed to a Federation of States, is impractical since Israel refuses to relinquish control of at least Palestinian defence and foreign policy.
Well of course we won’t! Certainly not when the moment that we do there will be treaties all over the place, an escalation violence, no action taken by the PA, only our people let to take out the trash, an immediate escalation and call for support from third parties and next thing you know the whole region is in flames – possibly literally.
Going to war on Iraq certainly had this factor as a component. The smart money said that if the palests were to be given a recognised statehood within minutes they would have aligned with Iraq and then a follows b follows c and up goes the balloon. Amazing when you think about it. Had it not een for the likes of arafat the palests could by now have been living in their own nation in peace in growing prosperity. They really could.
HOPEFULLY – with the completion of our Security Fence acts of terrorism will be at the very least significantly scaled down, hopefully with Iraq not being there with a leader using his support of the palest terrorists to increase his popularity in other neighboring states that he obviously had his eye on gaining power of, hopefully (well, it had been until hammas were elected) with the PA becoming more active in the provision of security in their patch, hopefully with the withdrawal of the settlements, a shame really, they could have been centers of civilisation and opportunity that the palests could have worked with, hopefully with all that the path to acceptability of a palest land with THEIR secure borders and OUR secure borders could have come about.
Shame hamms has blown the hope away so much. Shame the palests once more snatch potential disaster from the jaws of a possible prosperous future.
spot wrote: The reason I've put things in these terms is that it gives a structure which can accommodate both side's insistence on access to Jerusalem. In the Federated model, which both sides seem to be set on constructing, Jerusalem can quite handily take the form of a third Federated State within the single nation arrangement. It involves constructing an additional layer of governance to overarch the State legislatures, which is ambitious in today's climate. I think it's a desirable objective.
Aaah – Jerusalem!
Jerusalem is and for ever will be the capital city of Israel.
That position is absolutely non-negotiable.
Jerusalem was the capital city of the Jewish state, even when in exile, from long before Jesus was born let alone mohammed. Jerusalem is King David’s City and has been since a thousand years before Jesus walked the earth (if in fact he did, but that’s another matter).
What's Going On?
golem wrote: [quote=spot]Now, I have no preference at all for any of these models. What I would want to avoid is the current segregationist policy within a single State or nation, and I've pointed out to you that the current Israeli system is segregationist.So what? Israel is OUR nation state. What WE do in OUR nation is no concern of anyone. Get it? It’s OUR nation, WE choose the laws, WE call the tune. Those who wish to live in OUR nation have a choice. Take it or leave it. End of story.You're simply accepting that Israel should be segregationist and that the world has no option but to take it or leave it. You put Israel where South Africa was during the apartheid era. I think that's been adequately discussed in this thread already.
golem wrote: We HAVE a government in Israel that HAS arab members in the Knesset. The palests have by their own actions ended up where they are. Their problem, they know what they need to do to resolve it [...] the wish to ‘drive the palests’ anywhere is NOT government policy, nor is it a general wish by the general population [...] of course we won’t [relinquish control of at least Palestinian defence and foreign policy].
Excuse my editing - I refer readers to the original unedited passages in the preceding message. I collated material to focus.And yet you won't allow these same Palestinians unfettered citizenship of Israel. You don't want to drive them out, you don't wish to allow them citizen status inside Israel, and you won't allow them a defence and foreign policy. That fairly well restricts us to the Federated States model I advanced.
golem wrote: Jerusalem is and for ever will be the capital city of Israel.I don't see why you find the idea of incorporating Jerusalem as a Federal State problematic - Canberra, as a Federated State, is the capital of Australia. Does that make it any less Australian than Queensland? Washington DC, as a Federated State, is the capital of the USA. Does that make it any less American than Utah?
golem wrote: We HAVE a government in Israel that HAS arab members in the Knesset. The palests have by their own actions ended up where they are. Their problem, they know what they need to do to resolve it [...] the wish to ‘drive the palests’ anywhere is NOT government policy, nor is it a general wish by the general population [...] of course we won’t [relinquish control of at least Palestinian defence and foreign policy].
Excuse my editing - I refer readers to the original unedited passages in the preceding message. I collated material to focus.And yet you won't allow these same Palestinians unfettered citizenship of Israel. You don't want to drive them out, you don't wish to allow them citizen status inside Israel, and you won't allow them a defence and foreign policy. That fairly well restricts us to the Federated States model I advanced.
golem wrote: Jerusalem is and for ever will be the capital city of Israel.I don't see why you find the idea of incorporating Jerusalem as a Federal State problematic - Canberra, as a Federated State, is the capital of Australia. Does that make it any less Australian than Queensland? Washington DC, as a Federated State, is the capital of the USA. Does that make it any less American than Utah?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote:
You're simply accepting that Israel should be segregationist and that the world has no option but to take it or leave it. You put Israel where South Africa was during the apartheid era. I think that's been adequately discussed in this thread already.
There is no comparison between the ZA apartheid regime and the situation in Israel. To suggest that there is simply exposes yet again your ignorance, probably of both. Just as an aside – have you ever actually BEEN to my country!
spot wrote:
Excuse my editing - I refer readers to the original unedited passages in the preceding message. I collated material to focus.
And yet you won't allow these same Palestinians unfettered citizenship of Israel. You don't want to drive them out, you don't wish to allow them citizen status inside Israel, and you won't allow them a defence and foreign policy. That fairly well restricts us to the Federated States model I advanced.
Why should we? The palests are a artificially created nation, in reality a rag tag collection of outlaw tribes who reside in territories outside of Israel and who have no right of abode or right of entry to Israel other than for strictly defined reasons.
In any case there IS no ‘federated states’ model. There is Israel and there is The West Bank combined with the Gaza strip.
Israel a nation, the other a potential nation when and if the population become normalized.
The Israeli arab population, along with other non-Jewish citizens of Israel are to all intents full citizens of Israel.
The palests - who are NOT Israeli citizens - have no right to be in Israel other than for specific purposes such as employment, health treatment in our hospitals (yes, we do extend that to them, and more), negotiation of assistance and transfer of various funds to them including some tax revenue, and so forth. But why should they have the same rights as Israeli nationals when they are not ?
Actually there is one point that seems to be constantly overlooked and that concerns the very recognition of a ‘palest’ territory. In actual fact Israel won that land fairly within the international laws regarding the articles and conventions of war since she was attacked by surrounding countries.
On that basis and on more precedence than you could shake a stick at Israel would have been entirely within her rights to simply absorb the lands into Israel proper just as any one of the arab states would had they beaten Israel in war.
But no. Israel instead simply installed members of the IDF to provide some semblance of law and order and even went so far as to provide help and assistance TO the palests to rebuild their lives. The settlers program was in my opinion bound to fail from day #1 no matter how well intentioned it was but that’s another matter.
But here’s two more matters that need to be brought into play. Genocide. Forbidden under international law. In synopsis for comprising of the murdering a person or a group of people based upon their nationality, race, religion or ethnic origin is genocide.
The palests, since the election of hammas once more reinforced, , advocate and practice and intend to practice genocide upon the Jewish Israeli people. Not just the few either.
“Several hours after the murderous attack on the Hatuel family of Katif - leaving David Hatuel bereft of his entire family: his pregnant wife and four daughters - PA radio praised the murderous terrorists as "heroic martyrs," and their heinous crime as one of "heroic martyrdom." In its report the next morning,â€
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=61855
One example of what is taking place. One of many.
Then there is the little matter of ‘Hateful Words’. This is actually a designated and even defined war crime. The UN 1966 draft of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: "Any advocacy of national racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."
This law has now been ratified by 151 nations in the UN.
Every day this war crime is committed by the palests in their press on the radio, on the palest TV, and worst of all in their schools. They even to this day repeat The Blood Libel and worse as if fact.
So these people, these non-Israeli citizens, these outlaws who have reinforced by their vote for hammas their dedication to our destruction should be treated as equal citizens of our nation? Get real.
I sometimes think we as a nation must be insane for not treating them as they continually treat us. Then the world WOULD have something to belly ache about.
You're simply accepting that Israel should be segregationist and that the world has no option but to take it or leave it. You put Israel where South Africa was during the apartheid era. I think that's been adequately discussed in this thread already.
There is no comparison between the ZA apartheid regime and the situation in Israel. To suggest that there is simply exposes yet again your ignorance, probably of both. Just as an aside – have you ever actually BEEN to my country!
spot wrote:
Excuse my editing - I refer readers to the original unedited passages in the preceding message. I collated material to focus.
And yet you won't allow these same Palestinians unfettered citizenship of Israel. You don't want to drive them out, you don't wish to allow them citizen status inside Israel, and you won't allow them a defence and foreign policy. That fairly well restricts us to the Federated States model I advanced.
Why should we? The palests are a artificially created nation, in reality a rag tag collection of outlaw tribes who reside in territories outside of Israel and who have no right of abode or right of entry to Israel other than for strictly defined reasons.
In any case there IS no ‘federated states’ model. There is Israel and there is The West Bank combined with the Gaza strip.
Israel a nation, the other a potential nation when and if the population become normalized.
The Israeli arab population, along with other non-Jewish citizens of Israel are to all intents full citizens of Israel.
The palests - who are NOT Israeli citizens - have no right to be in Israel other than for specific purposes such as employment, health treatment in our hospitals (yes, we do extend that to them, and more), negotiation of assistance and transfer of various funds to them including some tax revenue, and so forth. But why should they have the same rights as Israeli nationals when they are not ?
Actually there is one point that seems to be constantly overlooked and that concerns the very recognition of a ‘palest’ territory. In actual fact Israel won that land fairly within the international laws regarding the articles and conventions of war since she was attacked by surrounding countries.
On that basis and on more precedence than you could shake a stick at Israel would have been entirely within her rights to simply absorb the lands into Israel proper just as any one of the arab states would had they beaten Israel in war.
But no. Israel instead simply installed members of the IDF to provide some semblance of law and order and even went so far as to provide help and assistance TO the palests to rebuild their lives. The settlers program was in my opinion bound to fail from day #1 no matter how well intentioned it was but that’s another matter.
But here’s two more matters that need to be brought into play. Genocide. Forbidden under international law. In synopsis for comprising of the murdering a person or a group of people based upon their nationality, race, religion or ethnic origin is genocide.
The palests, since the election of hammas once more reinforced, , advocate and practice and intend to practice genocide upon the Jewish Israeli people. Not just the few either.
“Several hours after the murderous attack on the Hatuel family of Katif - leaving David Hatuel bereft of his entire family: his pregnant wife and four daughters - PA radio praised the murderous terrorists as "heroic martyrs," and their heinous crime as one of "heroic martyrdom." In its report the next morning,â€
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=61855
One example of what is taking place. One of many.
Then there is the little matter of ‘Hateful Words’. This is actually a designated and even defined war crime. The UN 1966 draft of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: "Any advocacy of national racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."
This law has now been ratified by 151 nations in the UN.
Every day this war crime is committed by the palests in their press on the radio, on the palest TV, and worst of all in their schools. They even to this day repeat The Blood Libel and worse as if fact.
So these people, these non-Israeli citizens, these outlaws who have reinforced by their vote for hammas their dedication to our destruction should be treated as equal citizens of our nation? Get real.
I sometimes think we as a nation must be insane for not treating them as they continually treat us. Then the world WOULD have something to belly ache about.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: There is no comparison between the ZA apartheid regime and the situation in Israel. To suggest that there is simply exposes yet again your ignorance, probably of both. Just as an aside – have you ever actually BEEN to my country!I have, golem. I've made that quite apparent several times in this thread. I think I even mentioned observing a Knesset session there once.
Perhaps you could tell us why there is no "comparison between the ZA apartheid regime and the situation in Israel". There's the lack of citizenship issue, the employment of workers who cross segregation boundaries to work in areas where they can't live, the local equivalent of the South African "whites only" residential areas, the differential laws based on classification - I can find lots of comparisons.
Perhaps you could tell us why there is no "comparison between the ZA apartheid regime and the situation in Israel". There's the lack of citizenship issue, the employment of workers who cross segregation boundaries to work in areas where they can't live, the local equivalent of the South African "whites only" residential areas, the differential laws based on classification - I can find lots of comparisons.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: I have, golem. I've made that quite apparent several times in this thread. I think I even mentioned observing a Knesset session there once.
Perhaps you could tell us why there is no "comparison between the ZA apartheid regime and the situation in Israel". There's the lack of citizenship issue, the employment of workers who cross segregation boundaries to work in areas where they can't live, the local equivalent of the South African "whites only" residential areas, the differential laws based on classification - I can find lots of comparisons.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should extend rights of citizenship to non-citizens?
We're actually doing them a favour by offering them employment - in OUR nation.
Perhaps you could tell us why there is no "comparison between the ZA apartheid regime and the situation in Israel". There's the lack of citizenship issue, the employment of workers who cross segregation boundaries to work in areas where they can't live, the local equivalent of the South African "whites only" residential areas, the differential laws based on classification - I can find lots of comparisons.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should extend rights of citizenship to non-citizens?
We're actually doing them a favour by offering them employment - in OUR nation.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that we should extend rights of citizenship to non-citizens?
We're actually doing them a favour by offering them employment - in OUR nation.Spoken like a true pioneering Vortrekker. You could have taken that word for word from Hendrik Verwoerd:
His aim was to create a South African state where whites would be the demographic majority, in order to ensure that white South Africans were not politically and culturally swamped by a black African majority. In order to achieve this ten black homelands or Bantustans, were created. Blacks were given the vote in these homelands instead of in 'white' South Africa. Verwoerd argued that these were the original areas of descent for the black South African population.
We're actually doing them a favour by offering them employment - in OUR nation.Spoken like a true pioneering Vortrekker. You could have taken that word for word from Hendrik Verwoerd:
His aim was to create a South African state where whites would be the demographic majority, in order to ensure that white South Africans were not politically and culturally swamped by a black African majority. In order to achieve this ten black homelands or Bantustans, were created. Blacks were given the vote in these homelands instead of in 'white' South Africa. Verwoerd argued that these were the original areas of descent for the black South African population.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: Spoken like a true pioneering Vortrekker. You could have taken that word for word from Hendrik Verwoerd:
But ZA was one nation with a population comprising of four races, specifically the whites, the Blacks, the Asians, and the Cape Coloured. In ZA these ZA citizens WERE prevented form a whole mess of things by the law of ‘apart living’ within that single nation.
Israel is a nation comprising of Israeli citizens and a few foreign residents. No matter if someone is white black, or sky blue-pink they can live where they can afford, they can take any non-religious related job that they can do (OK, there’d not be much call for a mohammedan mohel but no big surprise there eh?) – where’s the comparison?
The palests who live in The Gaza Strip and The West bank are NOT Israeli citizens. The do NOT live in Israel - end of story. there is strong argument that Israel could justifiably claim that land but has chosen not to, preferring simply to attempt to bring some semblance of civilisation and modernity by example with the settlements.
That, in my opinion, was bound to fail. You can't civilise and bring into the modern world those who don't want to be civilised and modernised or whose leaders prevent them from doing but that's another matter.
So why should we offer them the same deal as the Israeli citizen gets? Especially considering their ongoing conduct and declaration to destroy us and our nation reinforced now by the election of hammas! They’re not OUR citizens, they don’t reside in OUR country – end of story!
But ZA was one nation with a population comprising of four races, specifically the whites, the Blacks, the Asians, and the Cape Coloured. In ZA these ZA citizens WERE prevented form a whole mess of things by the law of ‘apart living’ within that single nation.
Israel is a nation comprising of Israeli citizens and a few foreign residents. No matter if someone is white black, or sky blue-pink they can live where they can afford, they can take any non-religious related job that they can do (OK, there’d not be much call for a mohammedan mohel but no big surprise there eh?) – where’s the comparison?
The palests who live in The Gaza Strip and The West bank are NOT Israeli citizens. The do NOT live in Israel - end of story. there is strong argument that Israel could justifiably claim that land but has chosen not to, preferring simply to attempt to bring some semblance of civilisation and modernity by example with the settlements.
That, in my opinion, was bound to fail. You can't civilise and bring into the modern world those who don't want to be civilised and modernised or whose leaders prevent them from doing but that's another matter.
So why should we offer them the same deal as the Israeli citizen gets? Especially considering their ongoing conduct and declaration to destroy us and our nation reinforced now by the election of hammas! They’re not OUR citizens, they don’t reside in OUR country – end of story!
What's Going On?
golem wrote: The palests who live in The Gaza Strip and The West bank are NOT Israeli citizens. The do NOT live in Israel - end of story.And do we recall why that is? Because the Israeli Government refuses them a right of return, that's why. I think you're making more of the comparison with the South African Bantustan policy than even I did.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: And do we recall why that is? Because the Israeli Government refuses them a right of return, that's why. I think you're making more of the comparison with the South African Bantustan policy than even I did.
No comparison.
The right to return for palests who could show that they had been resident within the borders of Israel prior to 1948 was eventually closed some years ago. Many did return before the gate came down, many more did not. Those who did have for the most part done very well and are fully integrated Israeli citizens.
Those who chose not to go back for fear of prosecution for their crimes, or out of fear of the horrors that their own lying leaders had told them they would face, or who were simply bullied NOT to return lost out.
No comparison.
The right to return for palests who could show that they had been resident within the borders of Israel prior to 1948 was eventually closed some years ago. Many did return before the gate came down, many more did not. Those who did have for the most part done very well and are fully integrated Israeli citizens.
Those who chose not to go back for fear of prosecution for their crimes, or out of fear of the horrors that their own lying leaders had told them they would face, or who were simply bullied NOT to return lost out.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: [quote=spot]I think you're making more of the comparison with the South African Bantustan policy than even I did.No comparison.Then let me offer you the identical view, this time expressed by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former US National Security Adviser rarely associated with either wild leftist or anti-Zionist notions:
From September 12, 1997 "Newshour Transcript" at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... _9-12.html
Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski: [Binyamin Netanyahu's] concept of "peace" is really very different from the concept of peace that labor embraced and which I suspect we support. His concept of peace is essentially a very close equivalent of what the white supremacist apartheid government in South Africa was proposing at one point for the Africans - a series of isolated - lands - broken up, not contiguous territory, essentially living in backward villages, surrounded by white islands of prosperity.
From September 12, 1997 "Newshour Transcript" at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... _9-12.html
Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski: [Binyamin Netanyahu's] concept of "peace" is really very different from the concept of peace that labor embraced and which I suspect we support. His concept of peace is essentially a very close equivalent of what the white supremacist apartheid government in South Africa was proposing at one point for the Africans - a series of isolated - lands - broken up, not contiguous territory, essentially living in backward villages, surrounded by white islands of prosperity.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Maybe the fact that I am here, in the middle of what you only see from books, many no doubt written by questionable sources and from tranching the ‘net actually gives me a superior position to comment from!
I thought you were in the UK.
golem wrote: ForumGarden? What’s THAT?
I thought that I’d done a search for weed killer! How did I end up here?
Bloomin’ computers, I HATE ‘em. Let’s face it ANY bit of machinery that is capable of thought isn’t to be trusted.
Anyway seeing as I’m here anyway I’m Golem and I live in the UK.
Boring, self centred, opinionated, argumentative, and ignorant – all attributes that I’ve been told that I have and all, incidentally, that I think of as being good, proper, and much to e sought after! It makes life so much simpler that way!
My interests include my wife, my son, my dog, my boat, and our stray cat. The order of preference varies depending on a combination of mood, weather, and alcohol.
I’m retired from paid employment ‘cos I stole, fiddled and embezzled enough over the years to be able to, not to mention persuaded my employer to give me my pension early but I still make the odd penny from various activities.
Interests? Getting very old is a keen interest that I have but that apart politics, silly funny things, travelling but mostly in Europe and by car, single malt whisky, blended malt whisky, grain whisky, blended malt and grain whisky, and at a push whiskey.
Can’t stand the stuff that gets made in The Colonies though.
Wine isn’t too bad an alternative to whisky and by preference one of the better Haut Medoc’s. (I’m NOT an alcoholic – they attend meetings.)
So thas’ me. A self confessed curmudgeon, and enjoying every minute of it!
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=1
I thought you were in the UK.
golem wrote: ForumGarden? What’s THAT?
I thought that I’d done a search for weed killer! How did I end up here?
Bloomin’ computers, I HATE ‘em. Let’s face it ANY bit of machinery that is capable of thought isn’t to be trusted.
Anyway seeing as I’m here anyway I’m Golem and I live in the UK.
Boring, self centred, opinionated, argumentative, and ignorant – all attributes that I’ve been told that I have and all, incidentally, that I think of as being good, proper, and much to e sought after! It makes life so much simpler that way!
My interests include my wife, my son, my dog, my boat, and our stray cat. The order of preference varies depending on a combination of mood, weather, and alcohol.
I’m retired from paid employment ‘cos I stole, fiddled and embezzled enough over the years to be able to, not to mention persuaded my employer to give me my pension early but I still make the odd penny from various activities.
Interests? Getting very old is a keen interest that I have but that apart politics, silly funny things, travelling but mostly in Europe and by car, single malt whisky, blended malt whisky, grain whisky, blended malt and grain whisky, and at a push whiskey.
Can’t stand the stuff that gets made in The Colonies though.
Wine isn’t too bad an alternative to whisky and by preference one of the better Haut Medoc’s. (I’m NOT an alcoholic – they attend meetings.)
So thas’ me. A self confessed curmudgeon, and enjoying every minute of it!
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=1
What's Going On?
Accountable wrote: I thought you were in the UK.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=1
No. I live in Israel but spend a lot of time in the UK in connection with my business, a thing that I set up shortly before I retired and which is now taking much of my time. This gives me the opportunity to indulge myself in things that I like. Retirement? Hard work but you can’t beat it!
It’s that connection together with family in the UK that lets me see what’s going on in the world and not just to rely on the odd few weeks and what I read in the news or see on television.
Funny how things change between what you see in one place and read somewhere else. Funny may not be the right word, Tragic more like.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=1
No. I live in Israel but spend a lot of time in the UK in connection with my business, a thing that I set up shortly before I retired and which is now taking much of my time. This gives me the opportunity to indulge myself in things that I like. Retirement? Hard work but you can’t beat it!
It’s that connection together with family in the UK that lets me see what’s going on in the world and not just to rely on the odd few weeks and what I read in the news or see on television.
Funny how things change between what you see in one place and read somewhere else. Funny may not be the right word, Tragic more like.