NationStates Jolt Archive

Married in Israel? Wife and kids on the wrong side of the Wall?

Tough shit, you terrorist scum. You're not seeing them again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4769661.stm

Reminds me of East/West Berlin and communist intransigence. :rolleyes:

(And more generally life in the Warsaw Ghetto)

I guess you have to give them points for being committed to a cause.... I guess....

I note that the article says that Israel considers Palestinians to be security risk now. Not Hamas, not terror groups, not people with records of criminal activity. Nope. Just Palestinians. Born a Palestinian, declared a terrorist.

Goes to show what the administration there thinks doesn't it?

I note that the article says that Israel considers Palestinians to be security risk now. Not Hamas, not terror groups, not people with records of criminal activity. Nope. Just Palestinians. Born a Palestinian, declared a terrorist.

Goes to show what the administration there thinks doesn't it?

I'd say they are using the law of the average...

No, this doesn't mean that Palestinians are "banned" or that spouses can't "see them again" or any such thing. It means that Palestinians can't move to Israel and they don't get Israeli citizenship just by getting married.

Although, since most NSers are about as familiar with Israel as what they read on the BBC, this is about the commentary I expect.

Israeli citizens can cross into and out of the territories pretty easily. This doesn't prevent families from seeing each other or separate them any more than persons from marrying in different countries around the world does. Citizenship rights are not automatically granted in every nation to spouses, nor should they be.

Of course, when NS posters read this for the first time on the BBC and then distort it into something that the law does not define, and what the article doesnt say, such as:

Tough shit, you terrorist scum. You're not seeing them again.

Or:

Born a Palestinian, declared a terrorist.

What does that really tell us about the bias here?

you do make a valid point....

thankyou for clarifying

I think the Israeli's are concerned for the safety of their citizens first, which justifies such a law. However, this has definitely been taken out of context somewhat.

I'll go ahead and explain a bit more. This law is temporary, and its been extended multiple times while new immigration laws are being worked on. None of the justices that voted on it like it any more than anyone reading the BBC article that aren't familiar with it do. However, it was deemed necessary for Israeli security and is a step to a more lenient and universal immigration law that is in the works right now, one that may be up and allowing Palestinians to return to their Arab-Israeli spouses within 9 months or so.

Of course, the BBC doesn't tell you this, nor do the anti-Israeli NS commentators who know zilch about current events in Israel. Lets just talk about the "apartheid wall" and those evil Jews keeping those poor old Palestinians down.

You know, I've never been to East Berlin under communism, and I've never been to apartheid-era South Africa, but I can read and form my own impression that it was shit. And from what I read, Israel is the same.

You know, I've never been to East Berlin under communism, and I've never been to apartheid-era South Africa, but I can read and form my own impression that it was shit. And from what I read, Israel is the same.

Obviously you misred, because nothing in the BBC article nor in the Citizenship Law stated what you claimed: "Tough shit, you terrorist scum. You're not seeing them again."

Or the title of you're thread, that there was any type of "ban on cross-boarder love."

The fact is, you've used sensationalist speech to demonize Israel, and you've demonstrated a serious lack of understanding regarding the subject in question, namely the Citizenship Law. If you want to be critical of Israeli policy, thats fine, every one of the 11 justices that voted on the Citizenship Law was critical of it, and that is why it will be repealed once they finish the new immigration reforms that will allow Palestinians to return to their spouses.

But if you're going to use sensationalist speech to demonize Israel, I don't think you're going to fool anyone. So far, you've done the latter (sensationalist speech) and not the former (legitimate criticism).

You know, I've never been to East Berlin under communism, and I've never been to apartheid-era South Africa, but I can read and form my own impression that it was shit. And from what I read, Israel is the same.

I beg to differ. Israel is a tremendous nation, and a friend of America, I whole-heartedly support their actions.

No, this doesn't mean that Palestinians are "banned"
The article clearly states Palestinians are considered a "security risk" and "should not be allowed into the country." What is your definition of banned?

It means that Palestinians can't move to Israel and they don't get Israeli citizenship just by getting married.
And are forced to leave if they are there.

Israeli citizens can cross into and out of the territories pretty easily.
Because that totally nullifies the point that Palestinians are considered inherently terrorists and won't be allowed in Israel. :rolleyes:

Citizenship rights are not automatically granted in every nation to spouses, nor should they be.
Unless you can back that up, I will believe the news article about Palestinians not being allowed in the country, much less receiving citizenship through marriage.


. However, it was deemed necessary for Israeli security and is a step to a more lenient and universal immigration law that is in the works right now
So a law updated by a state that said "Palestinians should not be allowed in the country" is a step to a more lenient immigration law? Someone here is blowing smoke up our ass and it isn't the BBC.


I would look up the law but the new version isn't available as of yet.

I guess you have to give them points for being committed to a cause.... I guess....
I'll give twice as many points to whoever could have the Israeli leadership committed. To an insane asylum. Assuming there's one somewhere large enough to accomodate them, that is.

The article clearly states Palestinians are considered a "security risk" and "should not be allowed into the country." What is your definition of banned?

The article is wrong, because Palestinians are routinely allowed into Israel legally. They work in Israel and travel into and out of Israel with permits. Just like non-citizens do in every country. However, travel for workers is strictly regulated, as it is in many countries, like the United States.

Palestinains are allowed in Israel with work permits, they are allowed to live in Israel with these permits just like people can live in most countries with visas, etc.

And are forced to leave if they are there.

Illegal immigrants can't live in a country they don't have citizenship in. The Citizenship Law doesn't make it so that spouses can't come to Israel with a permit like all Palestinians can, however.

Because that totally nullifies the point that Palestinians are considered inherently terrorists and won't be allowed in Israel. :rolleyes:

They aren't, its totally erroneous. Palestinians are not considered terrorists, nor are they banned from Israel. As I've already stated, they work and live in Israel on quite a large scale. Boarders are not closed to Palestinians.

Unless you can back that up, I will believe the news article about Palestinians not being allowed in the country, much less receiving citizenship through marriage.

Not only are Palestinians allowed in Israel with permits, but they even live and operate large scale organizations in Israel, such as "The Media Center for Palestinians in Israel:

http://www.ilamcenter.org/

So a law updated by a state that said "Palestinians should not be allowed in the country" is a step to a more lenient immigration law? Somewhere here is blowing smoke up our ass and it isn't the BBC.

The law wasn't updated. It was renewed for a short period of time. But hey, I guess you know all about Israeli policy after reading a BBC article about it.

The fact of the matter is, the Citizenship Law does not state what the OP stated it does, nor does it imply the things that the BBC article stated it does. All it does is state that Palestinian non-citizens can not gain Israeli citizenship by marrying an Israeli. I challenge anyone to point out anything in the Citizenship Law that states otherwise.

I guess you have to give them points for being committed to a cause.... I guess....

You could really say the same about Hitler and, to be honest, it's on the same lines.

I would look up the law but the new version isn't available as of yet.

You edited it, so I couldn't respond to this, but it highlights my point perfectly.


There is no new version. There is no new law. They simply renewed an old law.

This just goes to show how little everyone who reads these things and comments knows about Israel and Israeli policy. You read a BBC article and suddenly you think you know something about the topic. :rolleyes:

You edited it, so I couldn't respond to this, but it highlights my point perfectly.


There is no new version. There is no new law. They simply renewed an old law.
Which is impossible to tell without the new version. The end. Renewed or otherwise it is new and current.

Which is impossible to tell without the new version. The end. Renewed or otherwise it is new and current.

Maybe you don't get it. There is no "new version." Its the exact same law, it has only been extended for a temporary time period. Nothing has been changed or modified.

Its nonsensical to say "its impossible to tell without the new version" when that isn't the case. I've already explained what the Citizenship Law says. Its not my fault if Western Goyim don't know what it says. It certainly isn't impossible to tell, you just don't know WTF is going on in Israel.

I'll go ahead and explain a bit more. This law is temporary, and its been extended multiple times while new immigration laws are being worked on. None of the justices that voted on it like it any more than anyone reading the BBC article that aren't familiar with it do. However, it was deemed necessary for Israeli security and is a step to a more lenient and universal immigration law that is in the works right now, one that may be up and allowing Palestinians to return to their Arab-Israeli spouses within 9 months or so.

Of course, the BBC doesn't tell you this, nor do the anti-Israeli NS commentators who know zilch about current events in Israel. Lets just talk about the "apartheid wall" and those evil Jews keeping those poor old Palestinians down.

Does it bother you to defend bigotry?

If Israel shouts "security," is there anything you wouldn't support?

Lets just talk about the "apartheid wall" and those evil Jews keeping those poor old Palestinians down.
Okay, let's. Don't you think it's a gross double-standard that while people (rightly) rallied against the old white South Africa and it's incredibly racist policies, that Israel should be held (or not held, really)to a different standard because they cry 'security' at the drop of a hat?

Or is it perfectly fine to run roughshod over people on the basis of racial profiling?

I wasn't quoting the BBC article. I was giving my own interpretation of it. My interpretation is, further evidence that Israeli "security" policies suck hard-core. Don't agree? Fine.

Does it bother you to defend bigotry?

If Israel shouts "security," is there anything you wouldn't support?

yeah because israel obviously has no reason whatsoever to worry about palestinians. especially not since hamas won the recent elections. [/sarcasm]

its not a great law. it has kept and will keep families seperated. thats not a good thing. but to suggest that israel has no reason to pass a law like this is to deny reality. it may not be the best thing to do but it has a rational basis.

yeah because israel obviously has no reason whatsoever to worry about palestinians. especially not since hamas won the recent elections. [/sarcasm]

So all Palestinians are terrorists?

its not a great law. it has kept and will keep families seperated. thats not a good thing. but to suggest that israel has no reason to pass a law like this is to deny reality. it may not be the best thing to do but it has a rational basis.

Yeah, and Hamas blowing up innocent people in cafes has a "rational basis," too, but it shouldn't be defended for the same reason this shouldn't be - it stems from the faulty and immoral assumption that you have the right to punish people for atrocities other people have committed, just because they happen to be of the same nationality.

Okay, let's. Don't you think it's a gross double-standard that while people (rightly) rallied against the old white South Africa and it's incredibly racist policies, that Israel should be held (or not held, really)to a different standard because they cry 'security' at the drop of a hat?

Or is it perfectly fine to run roughshod over people on the basis of racial profiling?

Israel isn't "racial profiling." Israel is a multi-racial nation, and you wont find a single source of note that gives credit to the idea that there is such thing as a Jewish race, when it is in fact a religion that consists of many races and ethnicities.

There are many Arab-Israeli citizens, many Jewish citizens of multi-races, and a multi-tiered social hierarchy in Israel as there is in every single country. However, there is no "apartheid" system. There are no state-sponsored laws of racial discrimination. Punative measures are enacted against Palestinians because they are non-citizens, just like Mexicans are kept out of the United States because they are non-citizens. Not because their skin is darker than the white folks in the United States, or because there is some conspiracy against dark skinned Latinos. However, no punative measures are enacted against Arab-Israelis. They have the exact same rights as citizens as the Jews of many ethnicities and "races" in Israel do. Thus, there is no systematic or state-sponsored racial discrimination.

In fact, comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa has been condemned by both the US State Dept (2004 report on Global Anti-Semitism) and the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (2005 report on anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism) as veiled anti-Semitism and not a legitimate comparison or criticism of Israel in any way whatsoever.

So all Palestinians are terrorists?
no. all of those people who come into israel and blow themselves up in front of crowded cafes or on busses full of school children are palestinians.

they have to consider that reality. how well this law deals with that reality is the question.



Yeah, and Hamas blowing up innocent people in cafes has a "rational basis," too, but it shouldn't be defended for the same reason this shouldn't be - it stems from the faulty and immoral assumption that you have the right to punish people for atrocities other people have committed, just because they happen to be of the same nationality.

its real hard to punish the guy who just blew himself up now isnt it? what israel does is to let palestinians know that if they send their sons and daughters over to israel to die, THEY will pay a price for it. and the palestinians have paid a severe price for it.

you cant put the blame on one side only. thats why its a problem that hasnt been solved in ....40,, 50, 60 years of fighting eh?

In fact, comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa has been condemned by both the US State Dept (2004 report on Global Anti-Semitism) and the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (2005 report on anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism) as veiled anti-Semitism and not a legitimate comparison or criticism of Israel in any way whatsoever.
Nice way to side-step legitimate criticism of policy - haul out the spectre of Anti-Semitism. The Afrikaaners would've wet themselves to have had something similar to fall back on.

Okay, let's. Don't you think it's a gross double-standard that while people (rightly) rallied against the old white South Africa and it's incredibly racist policies, that Israel should be held (or not held, really)to a different standard because they cry 'security' at the drop of a hat?


Apartheid South Africa and Israel are not the same. Here are some of the differences. (1) The European population in South Africa didn't arrive until 360 years ago, by contrast there have always been Sephardic Jews residing in Israel/Palestine. (2) Apartheid and pre-apartheid laws were designed to remove the indigenous Africans from their land and turn indigenous Africans into cheap expendable labour (creating a dependence on the "goodwill" of the European invaders). Palestinians were not expropriated from their land, they rejected a Partition Plan that provided them with most of the productive land in Israel/Palestine and become refugees after fleeing the land during the 1947-48 "civil war" following the rejection of the partition plan. (3) The enemies of apartheid sought to create a racially inclusive state. The enemies of Israel seek the total destruction of Israel and the Jews.

So all Palestinians are terrorists?

Where do the anti-Israeli people get this garbage from? This is a non-sequitur. There is not a single piece of Israel legisilation on the books that states that all Palestinians are terrorists. The fact is, thousands of Palestinians live and work in Israel. They aren't treated like terrorists, nor does the State of Israel claim that they are all terrorists.

Yeah, and Hamas blowing up innocent people in cafes has a "rational basis," too, but it shouldn't be defended for the same reason this shouldn't be - it stems from the faulty and immoral assumption that you have the right to punish people for atrocities other people have committed, just because they happen to be of the same nationality.

What rational basis does Hamas blowing up innocent people in cafes have? I'd love to see you defend this using some sound rational principles.

And actually, a soverign state does have the right to enact any type of immigration legislation it likes. The very concept of immigration rights originated with the concept of states and boarders, and thus those rights are defined by states. There is no magical world of "rights" floating around that give non-citizens the right to move to Israel. Israel defines its own immigration laws and decides who does and who does not have the right to be a citizen. Palestinians don't have an inherent right to become Israeli citizens by any method any more than Mexicans have the right to become US citizens.

Nice way to side-step legitimate criticism of policy - haul out the spectre of Anti-Semitism. The Afrikaaners would've wet themselves to have had something similar to fall back on.

It isn't legitimate criticism of the policy. You used a fallacy, specifically that of questionable/false analogy. It was a fallacy identified by both the US State Dept and the EUMC. The fact is, as long as you use illogical, fallacious reasoning, then you aren't using "legitimate criticism." Your criticism is an anti-Semitic fallacy and has already been debunked by the civilized world as such.

It isn't legitimate criticism of the policy. You used a fallacy, specifically that of questionable/false analogy. It was a fallacy identified by both the US State Dept and the EUMC. The fact is, as long as you use illogical, fallacious reasoning, then you aren't using "legitimate criticism." Your criticism is an anti-Semitic fallacy and has already been debunked by the civilized world as such.
Palestinians and Jews are both 'Semitic' peoples. My criticism is political in nature, not 'racially' motivated. Again, nice attempt at side-stepping legitimate criticism, by simply deeming any criticism at all as being illegitimate. Not to mention trying to directly insert a motivation on my part for having critical thought.

Put words in somebody else's mouth, thanks.

In fact, comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa has been condemned by both the US State Dept (2004 report on Global Anti-Semitism) and the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (2005 report on anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism) as veiled anti-Semitism and not a legitimate comparison or criticism of Israel in any way whatsoever.
Yeah, because racists are really going to be comparing the civil rights abuses in Israel and the Palestinian territories to the mistreatment of blacks in South Africa. :rolleyes:

It's a question of political values and beliefs. I happen to think those policies are an affront to humanity in whatever country they are introduced. To say so is no more anti-Semitic than it is anti- anyone else in history who has screwed a population on account of applying suspicion universally.

Those organisations simply contain people who would rather not see the issue debated at all. I view their stance as discredited.

Where do the anti-Israeli people get this garbage from? This is a non-sequitur. There is not a single piece of Israel legisilation on the books that states that all Palestinians are terrorists. The fact is, thousands of Palestinians live and work in Israel. They aren't treated like terrorists, nor does the State of Israel claim that they are all terrorists.

"Anti-Israel" is a nonsensical term, like "anti-American."

This law is clearly based on the principle that all Palestinians are a security risk. It discriminates against Palestinians as a whole, and as such is unjustified.

What rational basis does Hamas blowing up innocent people in cafes have? I'd love to see you defend this using some sound rational principles.

Sure. Israel is a democracy. In a democracy, the population determines policy. Scare the population, make them hurt, and they will support the policies that you want in order to get you to stop.

And actually, a soverign state does have the right to enact any type of immigration legislation it likes.

States have no rights whatsoever. At best, you could claim that the Israeli population has that right, but no, it doesn't. Bigoted policies are bigoted policies, and there is no justification whatsoever for permitting them.

The very concept of immigration rights originated with the concept of states and boarders, and thus those rights are defined by states. There is no magical world of "rights" floating around that give non-citizens the right to move to Israel. Israel defines its own immigration laws and decides who does and who does not have the right to be a citizen. Palestinians don't have an inherent right to become Israeli citizens by any method any more than Mexicans have the right to become US citizens.

Mexicans do have the right to become US citizens, though present US law violates that right. If they live here and intend to stay, they should automatically become citizens, period. I guess you missed me on all the immigration threads; I don't support double standards.

But all of that is irrelevant, because even US law is no longer racist. This Israeli law is.

Palestinians and Jews are both 'Semitic' peoples. My criticism is political in nature, not 'racially' motivated. Again, nice attempt at side-stepping legitimate criticism, by simply deeming any criticism at all as being illegitimate.

1. It wasn't me that deemed it as illegitimate and anti-Semitic. Lets get that straight. It was the US State Dept, and human rights groups, such as the EUMC. You should take it up with them.

2. It violates a fallacy, the fallacy of questionable/false analogy. Keep in mind that logic is a science, and fallacies are part of its laws and principles. I've explained the vast differences between Israel and apartheid South Africa, and how the two things are not similiar enough to make a logically valid analogy.

3. While both Palestinians and Jews are Semitic, that is not what the term anti-Semitic means. Get a dictionary, look the term up. It refers only to Jews. It is never a term used to refer to other Semitic groups. Strange, but true:

hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

The fact is, there is nothing even remotely similiar in Israel to apartheid South Africa. Most notably, you wont find South Africans who battled against apartheid today who claim that it is, either. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with apartheid or Israel can clearly see the difference. That is why groups like the US State Dept, and the human rights group I listed above, draw a clear distinction and dub the labeling of Israel with demonizing terms such as "apartheid" as anti-Semitic. Once agian, this isn't me saying this, its the governing and humanitarian bodies of the Western world. Take it up with them.

For every infraction you think you can find in Israel that relates it to apartheid, I could find a parallel or analogous infaction in the United States. However, no one is calling the US an apartheid state. Israel is being singled out. But all you really have to know is that the hallmark of apartheid was state sponsored racial discrimination, and in Israel there is not a single law on the books that sponsors any form of racial discrimination. Thus, while Israel can be accused of some human rights violations (like illegal settlements) it couldn't (and hasn't been) accused of any apartheid-type human rights violations by anyone except the uninformed and anti-Semitic.

(1) The European population in South Africa didn't arrive until 360 years ago, by contrast there have always been Sephardic Jews residing in Israel/Palestine.

Most of whom staunchly opposed Zionism. The Israeli state is overwhelmingly composed of the descendants of relatively recent arrivals.

"Anti-Israel" is a nonsensical term, like "anti-American."



How is anti-American a nonsensical term when you yourself admitted that nothing brings out your inner-racism like Americans? (on the Theocrac topic started by Drunk Commies Deleted)

Mexicans do have the right to become US citizens, though present US law violates that right. If they live here and intend to stay, they should automatically become citizens, period. I guess you missed me on all the immigration threads; I don't support double standards.

But all of that is irrelevant, because even US law is no longer racist. This Israeli law is.

Palestinians have the right to become Israeli citizens. Its a 4 year naturalization process, as it is with all non-Jewish citizens. If a Palestinian wanted to return under the Law of Return, they could convert to Judaism and become a citizen almost immediately.

Once again, you're another NSer who has demonstrated a lack of understanding of Israeli policy. The Citizenship Law does not state that Palestinians can't become citizens. It says they can't become citizens via marriage.

It seems very common on these boards for people to argue a position that they know nothing about.

Most notably, you wont find South Africans who battled against apartheid today who claim that it is, either.

Like, say, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who claimed exactly that?

Most of whom staunchly opposed Zionism. The Israeli state is overwhelmingly composed of the descendants of relatively recent arrivals.

pfft, the entire, huge Shas party is supported by indiginous Sefardi Jews who are fervent Zionists.

Maybe you don't get it. There is no "new version." Its the exact same law, it has only been extended for a temporary time period. Nothing has been changed or modified.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you worked in the Israeli government.

How is anti-American a nonsensical term when you yourself admitted that nothing brings out your inner-racism like Americans? (on the Theocrac topic started by Drunk Commies Deleted)

Because even if I really were bigoted against Americans, which I'm not - I'm not bigoted against myself, nor against most of my friends - that would make me bigoted against Americans, not against an abstract entity called "America."

Soheran: Sorry! :eek: I had you confused for someone else! It was Similization who made that on the theocracy thread.

pfft, the entire, huge Shas party is supported by indiginous Sefardi Jews who are fervent Zionists.

Most of the Sephardic population are immigrants or the children of immigrants, actually.

Tropical Sands, it wasn't either the US State Department or the EUMC who posted here, strongly implying that I am a racist for daring to voice criticism where Israeli policy is concerned. It was you.

Don't ever try second-guessing my motivations.

Tropical Sands, it wasn't either the US State Department or the EUMC who posted here, strongly implying that I am a racist for daring to voice criticism where Israeli policy is concerned. It was you.

Don't ever try second-guessing my motivations.

No, it was the US State Dept. and the EUMC that stated that doing what you did, comparing Israel policy to apartheid, was anti-Semitic. I simply pointed out that to you. The fact is, it isn't legitimate criticism of policy, its extremist demonization of a state that is recognized as anti-Semitic by civilized governments and humanitarian groups, as well as a logical fallacy.

pfft, the entire, huge Shas party is supported by indiginous Sefardi Jews who are fervent Zionists.
Well, not necessarily 'indiginous'. Most of Shas's supporters are also immigrants from other arab nations. The mizrahi Jews that have always lived in Israel are fairly small in number, not a consolidated community, and not a significant electoral constituancy.

However, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

This law is clearly based on the principle that all Palestinians are a security risk. It discriminates against Palestinians as a whole, and as such is unjustified.Any country is allowed to 'discriminate' against non-citizens wanting to gain entry into it. Palestinians as a whole ARE A SECURITY RISK. Get that through your head: not ALL palestinians are a security risk, but some are, and we don't know which ones are which. Thus they are all a security risk. This has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with protecting your own citizens from foreign nationals that have a significant history of violence. 'Discrimination' against foreign nationals is not unjustifid - it is merely the differetiation of citizen vs. national. If you don't like the idea of nationstates with the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, you're in the wrong wrld.

No, it was the US State Dept. and the EUMC that stated that doing what you did, comparing Israel policy to apartheid, was anti-Semitic. I simply pointed out that to you. The fact is, it isn't legitimate criticism of policy, its extremist demonization of a state that is recognized as anti-Semitic by civilized governments and humanitarian groups, as well as a logical fallacy.

In that case, they are just as wrong as you are. The most extreme demonization of Israel is not anti-Semitic unless it is motivated by hatred of Jews.

Any country is allowed to 'discriminate' against non-citizens wanting to gain entry into it. Palestinians as a whole ARE A SECURITY RISK. Get that through your head: not ALL palestinians are a security risk, but some are, and we don't know which ones asre which. Thus they are all a security risk. This has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with protecting your own citizens from foreign nationals that have a significant history of violence. 'Discrimination' against forein nationals is not unjustifid - it is merely the differetiation of citizen vs. national. If you don't like the idea of nationstates with the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, you're in the wrong wrld.

You are lumping together two separate problems I have with the Israeli policy on this issue.

First is my advocacy of open borders. I don't believe states have the right to restrict immigration, beyond preventing outright criminals from entering.

Second is my advocacy of non-discrimination. This is the more important one in this case, because I don't think Israel (or any other state) will adhere to the first one. It is wrong for a state to differentiate between people based on their nationality. If Israel wishes to do background checks, fine; I have no problem with that. But the prohibition on Palestinians achieving citizenship through marriage simply because they are Palestinian is bigoted and indefensible.

In that case, they are just as wrong as you are. The most extreme demonization of Israel is not anti-Semitic unless it is motivated by hatred of Jews.Yet, if something is not logical, one must find other motivations. That's the most abundant and likely one.
So why don't you explain the logic behind your comparison of Israel to apartheid south africa in more detail, or refute the dissimilarities that have been presented to you? If you wish to avoid having alterior motives pinned to you, you must make sure that your argument is logically sound. We are not satisfied that it is.

Once again, you're another NSer who has demonstrated a lack of understanding of Israeli policy. The Citizenship Law does not state that Palestinians can't become citizens. It says they can't become citizens via marriage.

The law is bigoted because it applies a double standard on the basis of nationality, not because of its breadth or lack of such. I never said anywhere that it was an across the board prohibition on Palestinian citizenship.

In that case, they are just as wrong as you are. The most extreme demonization of Israel is not anti-Semitic unless it is motivated by hatred of Jews.

Keep in mind that Israel is a Jewish state, and anti-Semitism is defined thus:

hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

The "extreme demonization of Israel", considering that Israel is a collection of Jewish ethnicities, is anti-Semitic by definition.

Now, I see that you've made up your own post hoc definition for what anti-Semitism is. I guess, by making up your own definitions post hoc, you can demonize Israel however you like and then say "oh no, its not anti-Semitic because I don't hate Jews."

Yet, if something is not logical, one must find other motivations. That's the most abundant and likely one.
So why don't you explain the logic behind your comparison of Israel to apartheid south africa in more detail, or refute the dissimilarities that have been presented to you? If you wish to avoid having alterior motives pinned to you, you must make sure that your argument is logically sound. We are not satisfied that it is.

You must be confusing me with somebody else, because I have never made that comparison on this forum, to my knowledge.

It could be argued that Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories, with regard to the contrasting treatment of the settlers and the Palestinian inhabitants, amounts to something roughly analogous to apartheid, but there are better and more relevant comparisons. Inside Israel proper it's a more complex question, with all sorts of institutional discrimination against the Arab minority (in land, education, employment) but not necessarily anything tantamount to outright apartheid.

Any country is allowed to 'discriminate' against non-citizens wanting to gain entry into it. Palestinians as a whole ARE A SECURITY RISK. Get that through your head: not ALL palestinians are a security risk, but some are, and we don't know which ones are which. Thus they are all a security risk. This has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with protecting your own citizens from foreign nationals that have a significant history of violence. 'Discrimination' against foreign nationals is not unjustifid - it is merely the differetiation of citizen vs. national. If you don't like the idea of nationstates with the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, you're in the wrong wrld.
to use a "local" example, if you are a citizen of canada you can come into the united states by presenting yourself at a border crossing, showing ID and informing the customs guard that you are visitng the US for the day (maybe you have to have a passport now, things have changed a bit since 9/11)

if you are a citizen of bangladesh, you have to make at least 2 in-person visits to the US embassy. one to get the application for a visa and one to have an interview with an embassy official. the process takes months and more than one technician of medical equipment who wanted to come to the US for training by my husband was refused a visa.

The "extreme demonization of Israel", considering that Israel is a collection of Jewish ethnicities, is anti-Semitic by definition.

By the same logic, the "extreme demonization" of, say, Noam Chomsky or Norman Finklestein is also anti-Semitic, because they are members of a Jewish ethnicity. No. Israel is a state that happens to be inhabited by Jews, it is not synonymous with Judaism or Jews. Unless its extreme demonization is motivated by "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group," it is not anti-Semitic.

You are lumping together two separate problems I have with the Israeli policy on this issue.

First is my advocacy of open borders. I don't believe states have the right to restrict immigration, beyond preventing outright criminals from entering.

Second is my advocacy of non-discrimination. This is the more important one in this case, because I don't think Israel (or any other state) will adhere to the first one. It is wrong for a state to differentiate between people based on their nationality. If Israel wishes to do background checks, fine; I have no problem with that. But the prohibition on Palestinians achieving citizenship through marriage simply because they are Palestinian is bigoted and indefensible.as you say, your first one can be dismissed at this time.

Your second complaint is a mere question of pragmatism. State discrimination comes into play when comparing the treatment of people that are already citizens - that is not the issue here (though it does exist in practice, not in law). The immigration process, or the process of achieving citizenship can be as selective as it wants. Monaco does not accept citizens that are not filthy rich due to snobishness. Israel does not accept Palestinians married to Israelis automatically as citizens due to security. This current (temporary) policy results from the fact that Israeli immigration does not have unlimitted resources to individually investigate each person who wants entry. Thus, generalizations (again, temporary ones) are made. Again, not racist, pragmatic. You want to call it discriminatory? fine: it literally discriminates between people as all other countires do in their selection process of immigrants.

to use a "local" example, if you are a citizen of canada you can come into the united states by presenting yourself at a border crossing, showing ID and informing the customs guard that you are visitng the US for the day (maybe you have to have a passport now, things have changed a bit since 9/11)

if you are a citizen of bangladesh, you have to make at least 2 in-person visits to the US embassy. one to get the application for a visa and one to have an interview with an embassy official. the process takes months and more than one technician of medical equipment who wanted to come to the US for training by my husband was refused a visa.

ZOMG, the USA is an apartheid state too! Look at how discriminatory and bigoted it is toward people from bangladesh! Human rights violation!

You must be confusing me with somebody else, because I have never made that comparison on this forum, to my knowledge.
Sorry, it was Dobbsworld

Reminds me of East/West Berlin and communist intransigence. :rolleyes:

(And more generally life in the Warsaw Ghetto)
indeed, good post

The law is bigoted because it applies a double standard on the basis of nationality, not because of its breadth or lack of such. I never said anywhere that it was an across the board prohibition on Palestinian citizenship.
This is your reason for your dissaproval?

Palestinians as a group have a the highest risk of security threat to Israel. They, as a group, will be treated in response to that. Unfortunate, yes, but it is the only pragmatic way to protect national interest. A country's main responsibility is to its citizens; it can treat goups of foreign people on the basis of nationality a certain way, if that basis is the most logical way to group them.

Israel isn't "racial profiling." Israel is a multi-racial nation, and you wont find a single source of note that gives credit to the idea that there is such thing as a Jewish race, when it is in fact a religion that consists of many races and ethnicities.

Sort of kills your argument that I was an anti-Semite for saying that the state of Isreal shouldn't exist, then, doesn't it?

There are many Arab-Israeli citizens, many Jewish citizens of multi-races, and a multi-tiered social hierarchy in Israel as there is in every single country. However, there is no "apartheid" system. There are no state-sponsored laws of racial discrimination. Punative measures are enacted against Palestinians because they are non-citizens, just like Mexicans are kept out of the United States because they are non-citizens. Not because their skin is darker than the white folks in the United States, or because there is some conspiracy against dark skinned Latinos. However, no punative measures are enacted against Arab-Israelis. They have the exact same rights as citizens as the Jews of many ethnicities and "races" in Israel do. Thus, there is no systematic or state-sponsored racial discrimination.

According to you, there is no Palestinian state. So why are people who, according to your logic, belong in Isreal not given the same rights as the "citizens" of Isreal?

In fact, comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa has been condemned by both the US State Dept (2004 report on Global Anti-Semitism) and the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (2005 report on anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism) as veiled anti-Semitism and not a legitimate comparison or criticism of Israel in any way whatsoever.

The US State department can lick my arsehole, and the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia is rather short-sighted if it thinks that comparing the Isreali state, which knocks down people's houses when they do anything "wrong" and move people on, to Apartheid is "veiled anti-Semitism".

Keep in mind that Israel is a Jewish state, and anti-Semitism is defined thus:
Highly irrelevant.
Sitting around crying racism, bigotry, and oppression wins you no points.

Sort of kills your argument that I was an anti-Semite for saying that the state of Isreal shouldn't exist, then, doesn't it?

No, because anti-Semitism is discrimination against Jews. This doesn't require the belief in a Jewish race, when such a thing doesn't exist. And as I've demonstrated time and time again, the arguments against Israel's existence are fundamentaly anti-Semitic at their core, and are recognized as such by the governments and humanitarian bodies of the world.

According to you, there is no Palestinian state. So why are people who, according to your logic, belong in Isreal not given the same rights as the "citizens" of Isreal?

How do you conclude that from the lack of the existence of a Palestinian state that they are Israelis? They belong in the occupied territories, which are not soverign. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the status of the occupied territories. They aren't 'states.'

The US State department can lick my arsehole, and the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia is rather short-sighted if it thinks that comparing the Isreali state, which knocks down people's houses when they do anything "wrong" and move people on, to Apartheid is "veiled anti-Semitism".

"Lick my arsehole" is usually how people respond when they get called out on their anti-Semitic biases.

First is my advocacy of open borders. I don't believe states have the right to restrict immigration, beyond preventing outright criminals from entering.

open borders are a luxury that israel doesnt have

in the US its a matter of not wanting to waste money and resources on people we didnt invite in.

in israel is a matter of not wanting to be blown up by people they didnt invite in.

"Lick my arsehole" is usually how people respond when they get called out on their anti-Semitic biases.
Or when someone sites an organisation with all the popular credibility of a propaganda ministry.

Or when someone sites an organisation with all the popular credibility of a propaganda ministry.

The EUMC and its affiliates are quoted consistently for the "human rights violations" that Israeli commits, such as illegal settlements. Yet, when these organizations stipulate when a violation is committed against Israel, it becomes "lick my arsehole." What a double standard from the anti-Semites.

So you use the orgs when they support you, then call them "propaganda ministries" when they do not.

The fact is, it isn't legitimate criticism of policy, its extremist demonization of a state that is recognized as anti-Semitic by civilized governments and humanitarian groups, as well as a logical fallacy.
Well, you're terribly biased. And what am I supposed to be, a pointy-eared Vulcan? Are you? Is it "logical" to accuse me of anti-Semitism, and claim that I am extremist, for having the temerity to voice criticism (or as you colourfully put it, 'to demonize') unjust practices and policies that are racially motivated?

Interesting twist to your skewed sense of logic there, Spock, old man.

Well, you're terribly biased. And what am I supposed to be, a pointy-eared Vulcan? Are you? Is it "logical" to accuse me of anti-Semitism, and claim that I am extremist, for having the temerity to voice criticism (or as you colourfully put it, 'to demonize') unjust practices and policies that are racially motivated?

Interesting twist to your skewed sense of logic there, Spock, old man.

Once again, everyone seems to be saying "you" are accusing me of anti-Semitism. No, thats not the case. You all fit the definition of anti-Semitism as outlined by the European Union's humanitiarn watchdog the EUMC, and the US State Dept's watchdog report on global anti-Semitism.

Both groups outlined, specifically, what has been done in this thread. The comparison of Israel to "apartheid" policies or the denial of its right to exist. It isn't my arbitrary decision that it is anti-Semitic, but the ruling of these humanitarian watchdog groups. The exact same watchdog groups that people quickly lean on for support when they cite the human rights violations of Israel.

So instead of saying "you accuse me of anti-Semitism" be accountable and admit that you fit the definition of anti-Semitism as outlined by these humanitarian groups. I don't accuse you, I simply hold you against the pre-defined criteria for anti-Semitism, and you fit it.

Once again, everyone seems to be saying "you" are accusing me of anti-Semitism. No, thats not the case. You all fit the definition of anti-Semitism as outlined by the European Union's humanitiarn watchdog the EUMC, and the US State Dept's watchdog report on global anti-Semitism.

Both groups outlined, specifically, what has been done in this thread. The comparison of Israel to "apartheid" policies or the denial of its right to exist. It isn't my arbitrary decision that it is anti-Semitic, but the ruling of these humanitarian watchdog groups. The exact same watchdog groups that people quickly lean on for support when they cite the human rights violations of Israel.

So instead of saying "you accuse me of anti-Semitism" be accountable and admit that you fit the definition of anti-Semitism as outlined by these humanitarian groups. I don't accuse you, I simply hold you against the pre-defined criteria for anti-Semitism, and you fit it.
Well then the US State Department and the spoonful of alphabet soup you keep referring to are, to put it mildly, completely full of the same rank horse-shit that you - yes, you (you might as well accept a little accountability yourself, TS) - are seeing fit to dispense here on this thread today. Why don't you admit that you fit the definition of an apologist where racially-motivated, unjust laws are concerned?

I don't accuse you of being one, I simply am pointing out that you meet the necessary criteria to be considered one. Shall I find some words to put in your mouth now? Tit-for-tat?

No, I won't bother. Presumably my inferior sense of logic would just trip me up.

*snip* Why don't you admit that you fit the definition of an apologist where racially-motivated, unjust laws are concerned?

No one has been able to actually show me a single law in Israel that is "racially motivated" or a single law that discriminates against race. Likewise, no one has been able to draw a logical analaogy between any Israeli policy and that of apartheid South Africa.

If you can show me a law on the books in Israel that discriminates against race, I'd like to see it.

Keep in mind that Palestinian isn't a race, but a nationality. A law that disallows Palestinians from the same rights as Israeli citizens is not "racist" any more than a law that disallows Mexicans the same rights as US citizens.

No one has been able to actually show me a single law in Israel that is "racially motivated" or a single law that discriminates against race. Likewise, no one has been able to draw a logical analaogy between any Israeli policy and that of apartheid South Africa.

If you can show me a law on the books in Israel that discriminates against race, I'd like to see it.

Keep in mind that Palestinian isn't a race, but a nationality. A law that disallows Palestinians from the same rights as Israeli citizens is not "racist" any more than a law that disallows Mexicans the same rights as US citizens.
Fine, then. Chauvinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism), you hair-splitting pedant.

Dobbsworld, the view you supported was condemned as anti-Semitic by reputable organisations. Does this make you an anti-Semite? If you admit you were wrong and you simply got carried away (after all, you didn't give even one reason for the presumed similarity between South Africa and Israel), no. If you persist in your error, yes.

This being said, many states already discriminate according to nationality. As a Romanian, it would be quite difficult to get a visa for France, for example. An Italian can just walk over the border if he so wishes. Targeting Israel for discriminating against a group from whom originate all the terrorists attacking that state is unrealistic. How would you feel if one of your children died in a suicide bombing? Would you say "well, I won't discrimate against anybody, even if this means my other child still risks being blown away"?

No, this doesn't mean that Palestinians are "banned" or that spouses can't "see them again" or any such thing. It means that Palestinians can't move to Israel and they don't get Israeli citizenship just by getting married.


But funnily enough the same law doesnt apply to the illegal settlers in the occupied territories..wonder why that is.


It certainly isn't impossible to tell, you just don't know WTF is going on in Israel.

Some of us may know far too much.


Israel isn't "racial profiling." Israel is a multi-racial nation, and you wont find a single source of note that gives credit to the idea that there is such thing as a Jewish race, when it is in fact a religion that consists of many races and ethnicities..However, no punative measures are enacted against Arab-Israelis. They have the exact same rights as citizens as the Jews of many ethnicities and "races" in Israel do. Thus, there is no systematic or state-sponsored racial discrimination.


Bollocks pure and utter. Palestinians and Sephradic Jews are discrminated against and have been for decades. So says various NGOs and the US state department

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm


Your criticism is an anti-Semitic fallacy and has already been debunked by the civilized world as such.

There are settler only roads and areas within the occupied territories and a slowness to prosecute settlers for violence. What would you compare that too? And while we're at it, could we have a discussion where somebody doesnt cry "anti-semite" at the drop of every hat? Its tiresome, pathetic and 99% of the time unwarranted.


demonization of a state that is recognized as anti-Semitic by civilized governments and humanitarian groups,.

The same humanitarian groups and Governments who say that the occupation should end and the settlements be removed, presumably.

The "extreme demonization of Israel", considering that Israel is a collection of Jewish ethnicities, is anti-Semitic by definition.,.

And in discussions such as this, its you, presumably, who is going to define extreme demonisation, and thus lead us inexorably off topic, post by post......


And as I've demonstrated time and time again, the arguments against Israel's existence are fundamentaly anti-Semitic at their core, and are recognized as such by the governments and humanitarian bodies of the world..,.

You've demonstrated sweet fuck all in that regard as far as I've seen. And when has anybody in this thread advocated an end to the existence of Israel?


So you use the orgs when they support you, then call them "propaganda ministries" when they do not...,.

Should you fail to address the US state department report above, you may take my answer to that as "Pot....".


Keep in mind that Palestinian isn't a race, but a nationality. ...,.

Thanks for finally admitting they're a nationality. I'll book mark this for the next time you try and tell me they're Jordanians.

No, because anti-Semitism is discrimination against Jews. This doesn't require the belief in a Jewish race, when such a thing doesn't exist. And as I've demonstrated time and time again, the arguments against Israel's existence are fundamentaly anti-Semitic at their core, and are recognized as such by the governments and humanitarian bodies of the world.

You've demonstrated nothing. You've got a few dictionary definitions, which you've laid down and told me that I'm an anti-Semite. I have nothing against Jews at all, I just don't believe in them having their own state due to what one horrible regime did to them.

How do you conclude that from the lack of the existence of a Palestinian state that they are Israelis? They belong in the occupied territories, which are not soverign. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the status of the occupied territories. They aren't 'states.'

So they're occupied territories... that have no status as "states". That are lived in people... but not soveirign? I see...

"Lick my arsehole" is usually how people respond when they get called out on their anti-Semitic biases.

Or possibly it's how people respond when commities say stuff like that pretty much because the Israelis are incredibly aggressive and have nuclear weapons, and they want to butter them up a bit.

Married in Israel? Wife and kids on the wrong side of the Wall?

Tough shit, you terrorist scum. You're not seeing them again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4769661.stm

Reminds me of East/West Berlin and communist intransigence. :rolleyes:

(And more generally life in the Warsaw Ghetto)

lol.

You are from UK right?

Is not the UK making it tough for foreign brides to enter the UK by raising the age limit from 16 to 18 and cracking down on what it calls "convenience marriages" and forced marriages. This is on top of the unofficial racist policies of the immigration officers of the UK.

http://www.noborder.org/without/britain.html
Many immigration officers almost nurture their racist stereotypes, even when in most cases they pretend to be entirely neutral. At the moment, people from Nigeria, Ghana and Jamaica are at the top of the list of enemies. In the past, this rejection was especially directed towards immigrants from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. There seem to be fewer reservations towards 'white' migrants from Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Baltic countries or Turkey.

http://www.blink.org.uk/print.asp?key=5146
Liberty, the human rights organisation, said the case exposed "racism at the heart of the government's asylum policy." A spokesman said they would now be on the look-out for further hard evidence of 'officially sanctioned' racism.

The Home Office has long been suspected of unofficial bias against visitors from certain countries such as Jamaica.

Every year hundreds of genuine visitors entering Britain to attend weddings and funerals have been turned back at the airport because officials claimed they would 'overstay' or become illegal immigrants.

Campaigners say countries like Jamaica are targeted because of racist stereotypes against certain people.

Figures published in December last year showed a 500% increase in visa refusal rates for Jamaicans between 2001 and 2002. This contrasted with low refusal rates for Australian and Canadian citizens.

Rejections also doubled for Kenyans, Nigerias and Gambian nationals in the same period. The Home Office insisted applications were looked at on a case-by-case basis, but critics said this was clear evidence of officially-sanctioned racism.

Today the government was blasted over immigration controls in Prague, which were condemned as a breach of international laws against race discrimination. The finding comes after an official document revealed an official practice of discrimination against gypsies.


The Home Office had breached Geneva Convention and the 1976 Race Relations Act, Law Lords found as they overturned an earlier Court of Appeal ruling in favour of the government.

The legal action was sparked by six Czech gypsies in a case raised by the European Roma Rights Centre. Roma gypsies were routinely treated with more suspicion and subjected to more intensive and intrusive questioning than non-Roma.

Keith Best, chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, said this case represented the tip of the iceberg. He told Blink: "The government now needs to have a root and branch review of their decision-making processes. There is clear discrimination going on in casework sections against people from particular parts of the world."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "This ruling exposes the racism at the heart of the Government’s asylum policy. The message was absolutely clear: 'Roma not welcome in UK'."


oh lookee here, Denmark too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2057594.stm
Denmark cracks down on migrant marriage

I think this would be targetting mostly the muslim immigrants. I don't see you making a topic "ZOMG lovers exiled, Denmark thinks all muslims are teh ev1!"...:D

But funnily enough the same law doesnt apply to the illegal settlers in the occupied territories..wonder why that is.

Because they aren't strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up Palestinian discos.

Bollocks pure and utter. Palestinians and Sephradic Jews are discrminated against and have been for decades. So says various NGOs and the US state department

There is discrimination in all nations. No one ever said there wasn't. Various NGOs and the US state department also admit that Blacks and Hispanics are discriminated against in the United States. What I stated was that there was no systematic or state-sponsored racial discrimination. And there isn't. Nor did the link you provided claim there was.

There are settler only roads and areas within the occupied territories and a slowness to prosecute settlers for violence. What would you compare that too? And while we're at it, could we have a discussion where somebody doesnt cry "anti-semite" at the drop of every hat? Its tiresome, pathetic and 99% of the time unwarranted.

Thats because settlements are gated communities. All gated communities are "members only" roads. That has to do with land ownership, not racial anything.

The same humanitarian groups and Governments who say that the occupation should end and the settlements be removed, presumably.

The Israeli government agrees. We all want the occupation to end and the settlements to be removed, we're working on a plan right now. The only ones that want something other than that are the far-right extremists and the Palestinian terrorists that want all of Israel. Right now, we have a plan to remove the settlements, end the occupation, and finalize the boarders.

You've demonstrated sweet fuck all in that regard as far as I've seen. And when has anybody in this thread advocated an end to the existence of Israel?

Yootopia did.

Should you fail to address the US state department report above, you may take my answer to that as "Pot....".

Your report above was another one of your non sequiturs. Nowhere did it state that Israel had state-sponsored racism or discriminatory laws. As I've stated, discrimination exists in all countries. For someone to deny that would just be a lie.

Yootopia did.

Insofar as the state itself. The people are fine, and they can still live there, I'd just prefer the state to be split into, say, three, and a nearby country gets the sector which it's geographically most linked to.

I note that the article says that Israel considers Palestinians to be security risk now. Not Hamas, not terror groups, not people with records of criminal activity. Nope. Just Palestinians. Born a Palestinian, declared a terrorist.

Goes to show what the administration there thinks doesn't it?

After all, how many Irishmen on vacation in Israel have blown up Jews?

Because they aren't strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up Palestinian discos..

So all "Palestinians are terrorists" strikes again


There is discrimination in all nations. No one ever said there wasn't. Various NGOs and the US state department also admit that Blacks and Hispanics are discriminated against in the United States. What I stated was that there was no systematic or state-sponsored racial discrimination. And there isn't. Nor did the link you provided claim there was. ..

Really?.....Heres a few bits you may have missed.

"The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there continued to be problems with respect to its treatment of its Arab citizens. Israeli and international human rights organizations continued to report allegations that security forces tortured detainees during interrogation and that police officers beat detainees. The conditions in military detention camps and Israeli interrogation centers for Palestinian security detainees held in Israel remained poor, and did not meet international standards. Human rights groups issued complaints regarding torture, insufficient living space, and inadequate medical care for those detained in interrogation centers. During the year, the Government detained without charge thousands of persons in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. According to human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the country, some security prisoners were sentenced on the basis of coerced confessions. "
"

"The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country's Jewish citizens."

"The law provides for an independent judiciary, and the Government generally respected this provision in practice. The judiciary generally provided citizens with a fair and efficient judicial process. However, in practice, Arab citizens often received harsher punishments than Jewish citizens did. Palestinians from the occupied territories are prosecuted under a separate system of military law and courts. "

"At year's end, the Government had still not implemented the 2000 High Court of Justice ruling that the Government cannot discriminate against Israeli Arabs in the distribution of State resources, including land."
(all bolds mine).
And theres far more.

Please don't piss on my head and tell me its raining. It part of the reason I rant on this topic so often.


Thats because settlements are gated communities. All gated communities are "members only" roads. That has to do with land ownership, not racial anything...

The land ownership of an Israeli bulldozer and military escort pushing same "bypass road" through farmers fields. And woe betide the farmer who gets too close to an Israeli settlement. The land those settlements are on is not theirs either, as they are illegal.



The Israeli government agrees. We all want the occupation to end and the settlements to be removed, we're working on a plan right now. The only ones that want something other than that are the far-right extremists and the Palestinian terrorists that want all of Israel. Right now, we have a plan to remove the settlements, end the occupation, and finalize the boarders..

Then why has there been more building in the West Bank and more attempts to grab Arab East Jerusalem?

After all, how many Irishmen on vacation in Israel have blown up Jews?

Its often been said that one or IRA men were in Beirut when the Israelis arrived and fought with the PLO. Whether this is true or not, I've no idea. However due to the increasing Islamisation of the people its unlikely to occur again.

So all "Palestinians are terrorists" strikes again

No one said all Palestinians were terrorists. What I stated was that no Jews were suicide bombers. You've always got to twist and distort things, because you can't make an honest point.

Really?.....Heres a few bits you may have missed.

"The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there continued to be problems with respect to its treatment of its Arab citizens. Israeli and international human rights organizations continued to report allegations that security forces tortured detainees during interrogation and that police officers beat detainees. The conditions in military detention camps and Israeli interrogation centers for Palestinian security detainees held in Israel remained poor, and did not meet international standards. Human rights groups issued complaints regarding torture, insufficient living space, and inadequate medical care for those detained in interrogation centers. During the year, the Government detained without charge thousands of persons in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. According to human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the country, some security prisoners were sentenced on the basis of coerced confessions. "
"

"The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country's Jewish citizens."

"The law provides for an independent judiciary, and the Government generally respected this provision in practice. The judiciary generally provided citizens with a fair and efficient judicial process. However, in practice, Arab citizens often received harsher punishments than Jewish citizens did. Palestinians from the occupied territories are prosecuted under a separate system of military law and courts. "

"At year's end, the Government had still not implemented the 2000 High Court of Justice ruling that the Government cannot discriminate against Israeli Arabs in the distribution of State resources, including land."
(all bolds mine).
And theres far more.

Please don't piss on my head and tell me its raining. It part of the reason I rant on this topic so often.

I'll just leave it, instead of snipping it out, and repeat myself. Nowhere does anything you just posted demonstrate legislation or state-sponsored racial discrimination. It does state that there are allegations of misbehavior, but not state-sponsored misbehavior, nor can it be proven, since it only states that they are alleged.

It states that the territories, which are under military occupation, are under a set of military courts. Nothing disciminatory or racial there. It stated that the judiciary provided citizens with fair trials.

Of course, I'm sure you believe the allegations, with no real proof. Guilty until proven innocent, right?

The fact is, you can't provide a single piece of discriminatory Israeli legislation. It doesn't exist. There is not a single piece of legislation on the books that says "Arabs cant do this." There is discrimination, but not legally enforced or state-sponsored discrimination. Its the same as it is in every state. Nothing in the report has really confirmed your claims, as much as you'd like to slant it to seem that way.

The land ownership of an Israeli bulldozer and military escort pushing same "bypass road" through farmers fields. And woe betide the farmer who gets too close to an Israeli settlement. The land those settlements are on is not theirs either, as they are illegal.

The vast majority of them are theirs. And they are included in the proposed boarders for Israel that are drawn up and should be implemented soon. Keep in mind, international law does not take precedence over the laws of soverign states. As much as you'd like to try to play Genvea convention, Israel never ratified the treaties regarding settlements, and thus those portions of international law do not apply to Israel.

Then why has there been more building in the West Bank and more attempts to grab Arab East Jerusalem?

The West Bank and Jerusaelm were "grabbed" during the Six-Day War. Jerusalem and a sizable portion of the West Bank will be annexed when Israel draws up its boarders. The building is occuring in those areas in an attempt to develop them in preparation for the finalization of the boarders.

Not very familiar with current events in Israel, are we?

You are from UK right?

Is not the UK making it tough for foreign brides to enter the UK by raising the age limit from 16 to 18 and cracking down on what it calls "convenience marriages" and forced marriages. This is on top of the unofficial racist policies of the immigration officers of the UK.
For the record, I think UK immigration policy is shit too. You can't really accuse me of double-standards there.

For the record, I think UK immigration policy is shit too. You can't really accuse me of double-standards there.

:) NP.

No one said all Palestinians were terrorists. What I stated was that no Jews were suicide bombers. You've always got to twist and distort things, because you can't make an honest point.?

Irony obviously isn't your strong point.


I'll just leave it, instead of snipping it out, and repeat myself. Nowhere does anything you just posted demonstrate legislation or state-sponsored racial discrimination. It does state that there are allegations of misbehavior, but not state-sponsored misbehavior, nor can it be proven, since it only states that they are alleged..?

Where does it say "alleged" in the following paragraph? Also note the words bolded.

"The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country's Jewish citizens."

"institutional" and "legal" covers the "legislation" and "state sponsored" you've just said it doesnt state, "Government" being fairly self explanatory.

Where is the word "alleged" here?


"Section 5 Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Disability, Language, or Social Status

Palestinians were disadvantaged under Israeli law and practices compared with the treatment received by Israeli settlers. This included discrimination in residency and land use. "

Likewise below?
"Israeli security forces often used excessive force against Palestinians and others"

"Israeli forces arbitrarily destroyed or looted Palestinian property and solicited bribes during military operations"

"Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip accused of security and ordinary criminal offenses were tried under Israeli law in the nearest Israeli district court. Civilian judges presided, and the standards of due process and admissibility of evidence were governed by the laws of Israel, not military orders. Settlers rarely were prosecuted in Israeli courts of crimes against Palestinians, and, in the rare instances in which they were convicted, regularly received lighter punishment than Palestinians convicted in Israeli courts (see Section 1.a.). "


"The COI report (see Section 1.a.) stated that the "Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory," that the Government "did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner." As a result, "serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure." On September 14, the Cabinet appointed a special ministerial committee to advise the Government on how to implement those recommendations within 60 days. The committee's tenure was extended at year's end. "


The fact is, you can't provide a single piece of discriminatory Israeli legislation. It doesn't exist. There is not a single piece of legislation on the books that says "Arabs cant do this." There is discrimination, but not legally enforced or state-sponsored discrimination. Its the same as it is in every state. Nothing in the report has really confirmed your claims, as much as you'd like to slant it to seem that way...?

See above. And as certain benefits are restricted to those with a relation in the IDF, who is that aimed at?




The vast majority of them are theirs. And they are included in the proposed boarders for Israel that are drawn up and should be implemented soon. Keep in mind, international law does not take precedence over the laws of soverign states. As much as you'd like to try to play Genvea convention, Israel never ratified the treaties regarding settlements, and thus those portions of international law do not apply to Israel....?

Refusing to recognising the court, plus the old "Well I successfully mugged him so its mine" tune. The law applies whether Israel recognises it or not. Thats why the US has to use its vetoes.


The West Bank and Jerusaelm were "grabbed" during the Six-Day War. Jerusalem and a sizable portion of the West Bank will be annexed when Israel draws up its boarders. The building is occuring in those areas in an attempt to develop them in preparation for the finalization of the boarders.....?

Thats not pulling out of the West Bank, thats just making official its seizure.
And you said the following, which is contradicted by what you then put above -
"The Israeli government agrees. We all want the occupation to end and the settlements to be removed, ."

I am so tired of people going on about the Israelis as though they're racists and don't have their own rights. I mean the entire thing is crazy. People will go after Israel for the littlest things. Oh, look at those mean evil Jews and those poor, pathetic Palestinians! It's just an evolving of 2000 years of European anti-semitism.

The situation about Palestine and Israel is NOT some sort of apartheid. On May 14, 58 years ago today, Israel was declared as a nation. At this declaration, what did the Israeli leaders say to the Palestinians "Stay in your homes!" This is an exact quote "Stay in your homes." They left anyway. Why? Jordan and Egypt. "Oh," they effing say, "We're going to push the Jews into the sea so come into these territories until we finish that and by 1950 you'll be back". Well, guess f***ing what: the Israelis beat them back. And have continued to beat them back. These continuing attempts by the Arab states to, and I quote "Push the Jews into the sea" have failed, and therefore the Palestinians are still in the territories. You know what? You lose your rights to return "home" when you leave voluntarily and stay away for 60 effing years!!!

Now this. Israel makes it so that marrying an Israeli citizen does not automatically make you an Israeli citizen. Big bloody whoop. The United States has the exact same law. Israel has every right to define their own immigration law and to discriminate against specific immigrants if they so wish. Israel is a JEWISH state as defined by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, and it is through Israel's allowance that non-Jews live in Israel.

They have the right to define who can become a citizen, when, where, and how.

I am so tired of people going on about the Israelis as though they're racists and don't have their own rights. I mean the entire thing is crazy. People will go after Israel for the littlest things. Oh, look at those mean evil Jews and those poor, pathetic Palestinians! It's just an evolving of 2000 years of European anti-semitism..

A 40 year occupation is not a "little thing". Nor is it little when every nutcase with a beard uses it as a recruiting poster. Its made even more conspicous by the amount of people saying"nothing to see here, move on" . And where on this thread has anybody mentioned "evil jews"? Or said that Israelis don't have rights.


The situation about Palestine and Israel is NOT some sort of apartheid...

Theres institutional Govermental racism within Israel, and an even more extreme version of this in the illegally occupied territories. What would you call it?



You know what? You lose your rights to return "home" when you leave voluntarily and stay away for 60 effing years!!!...

Yet the actions of the Irgun, Haggannah etc were to drive those same people from their homes. Therefore a large number left under threat. and as the record shows, it was used as an opportunity to take the land. Now three years after the end of the holocaust, this is a somehat understandable bit of behaviour. Whats not on is to deny it occurred.

Oh Oh!
Those EBIL Israeli's are stopping the palestinians from creating more suicide bombers!

UNTIL the day that the socalled palestinians toally and unconditionaly accept the rights and interests of the Israeli State, there ain't no such animal as an innocent palestinian.

Lets just talk about the "apartheid wall" and those evil Jews keeping those poor old Palestinians down.

Excellent idea.

After you.

I note that the article says that Israel considers Palestinians to be security risk now. Not Hamas, not terror groups, not people with records of criminal activity. Nope. Just Palestinians. Born a Palestinian, declared a terrorist.

Goes to show what the administration there thinks doesn't it?

I think thats a little over simplistic.

What they are saying is that since it seems a large majority of Paliestians voted for Hammas, they must agree with there want to "drive the Jew's into the sea". That is a security risk. If that kind of anti-semitism was displayed in France, Britian, America or anywhere else, it would not be tollerated.

Theres institutional Govermental racism within Israel, and an even more extreme version of this in the illegally occupied territories. What would you call it?


Do you know what the Isralie government did immidately after 1948. They said all the Palistians who had left could come back if they did 3 things
- Became Isralie citizens
- Renounced viloence
- Lived as peaceful and productive citizens
Is it the Isralies fault if the Palistinains didnt accept that
(A brief point 150,000 did, but the majority chose, it seems to remain refugees)

Do you know what the Isralie government did immidately after 1948. They said all the Palistians who had left could come back if they did 3 things
- Became Isralie citizens
- Renounced viloence
- Lived as peaceful and productive citizens
Is it the Isralies fault if the Palistinains didnt accept that
(A brief point 150,000 did, but the majority chose, it seems to remain refugees)

If you got kicked off of your land by people that you'd been at war with anyway for the last few hundred years, on the wishes of the rest of the world, and you weren't even consulted on the matter, would you honestly want to?

Or would you resist the oppressors?

Could you really live with the fact that you'd have bowed down, and lost everything on the whims of a foreign power that'd already messed about with your country?

If you got kicked off of your land by people that you'd been at war with anyway for the last few hundred years, on the wishes of the rest of the world, and you weren't even consulted on the matter, would you honestly want to?

Or would you resist the oppressors?

Could you really live with the fact that you'd have bowed down, and lost everything on the whims of a foreign power that'd already messed about with your country?


AH! But now we get to the essence.
That part of the world was jewish soil long before there was a muslim on this planet.
The muslims are the invaders should not be allowed to exist there at all - other than as loyal subjects of the Israeli authorities!

AH! But now we get to the essence.
That part of the world was jewish soil long before there was a muslim on this planet.
The muslims are the invaders should not be allowed to exist there at all - other than as loyal subjects of the Israeli authorities!

Well, shit. If thats all that qualifies as 'ownership' I'm off the Paris to reclaim some property my ancestors left there 500 hundred years ago.

Although there are probably some other people there at the moment, I have the 'history' argument right? I mean that's legal and all? Right?

Well, shit. If thats all that qualifies as 'ownership' I'm off the Paris to reclaim some property my ancestors left there 500 hundred years ago.

Although there are probably some other people there at the moment, I have the 'history' argument right? I mean that's legal and all? Right?

In other words: you support palestinian thieves, squatters, and terrorists.

AH! But now we get to the essence.
That part of the world was jewish soil long before there was a muslim on this planet.
The muslims are the invaders should not be allowed to exist there at all - other than as loyal subjects of the Israeli authorities!

The religion of it all is irrelevant, in my opinion.

The Arabs had been living there since the fall of Byzantium, that's a rather long time. And then after that, the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and such didn't do much to help Palestine, which the British went on to own.

I'd be slightly pissed off if I was Palestinian, especially since the various governments of the world are now messing the people of Palestine about by retracting aid to the region because a fairly elected government that they don't like is in power.

In other words: you support palestinian thieves, squatters, and terrorists.

You support Israeli murderers and oppressors, instead, then?

In other words: you support palestinian thieves, squatters, and terrorists.
I support neither. Both can live in the same scrap of dust without trying to drive one side to sea, or trying to push the other side out of their land.

No skin off my nose.

I just think the ''We were here 5,000 years ago... we just went on a long coffee break'' argument is weak.

How is anti-American a nonsensical term when you yourself admitted that nothing brings out your inner-racism like Americans? (on the Theocrac topic started by Drunk Commies Deleted)Ceia I think I'm gonna have to take credit for saying that ;)

Incidentially, Anti-American is a nonsensical term, as it would imply I have a problem with a geographic location.

- Now I'll go back to reading the rest of the thread.

EDIT: Oh, I see you got it sorted.

I support neither. Both can live in the same scrap of dust without trying to drive one side to sea, or trying to push the other side out of their land.

Okay, you know what, how about you get a bunch of your friends, convert to judaism, move to israel, and lobby to invite the palestinians in. Why don't you go live with them as an outspoken jew espousing friendship and snuggles. Somehow I doubt you would.

Okay, you know what, how about you get a bunch of your friends, convert to judaism, move to israel, and lobby to invite the palestinians in. Why don't you go live with them as an outspoken jew espousing friendship and snuggles. Somehow I doubt you would.

Wow. How can I argue with such rational logic?

I support neither. Both can live in the same scrap of dust without trying to drive one side to sea, or trying to push the other side out of their land.

Understood...now heres the problem.

The Israelis arnt the ones trying to push the arabs into the sea.

Israel is on the defensive.

The arabs are the ones who mission is to wipe out Israel.

This is what both sides call for, for a total peace...you all can tell me which side you agree with.

Isreali - recognize us as a real country and stop attacking us, just let us live.

Arab - Wipe out Israel, push the Jews into the sea, turn Jersusalem Muslim.

Personally, unless someone is an arab themself, I cannot see how someone can side with the arab "peace" contact.:confused:

Understood...now heres the problem.

The Israelis arnt the ones trying to push the arabs into the sea.

Israel is on the defensive.

The first one was a reference to Israel. The second one was a reference to the Palestinians.

The arabs are the ones who mission is to wipe out Israel.
A bit of a generalisation don't you think? :rolleyes:

Isreali - recognize us as a real country and stop attacking us, just let us live.
....and give us our biblical homeland.. you know... Greater Israel.... and then we'll stop... but we'll be your rulers, just so you know.


Arab - Wipe out Israel, push the Jews into the sea, turn Jersusalem Muslim.
Thats the viewpoint of some Arabs and some organisations, yes.


Personally, unless someone is an arab themself, I cannot see how someone can side with the arab "peace" contact.:confused:

No, one can associate themselves with simialr situations. Countries that were born out of struggles against oppression, near genocide, general 'imperial' type attitudes- have a tendancy to understand both sides to the argument.

I'm just surprised more Israelis can't see that considering their history.

*shrugs*

Wow. How can I argue with such rational logic?
By dismissing the problem casually, you are asking them to put their lives on the line. Would you be willing to do the same? I sure as hell wouldn't, but then that's because I'm realistic about what would happen, which from your post it appears that you aren't.

By dismissing the problem casually, you are asking them to put their lives on the line. Would you be willing to do the same? I sure as hell wouldn't, but then that's because I'm realistic about what would happen, which from your post it appears that you aren't.

How exactly am I asking them to put their lives on the line?

Would it change the current situation of people dying needlessly on both sides?

Both sides could live in the same area without knocking lumps out of each other. Similar situations have happened before.

A bit of a generalisation don't you think? :rolleyes:

Oh come on, you know what I meant. It is the arabs against the Israelis. Obviously, not all Israelis and not all arabs are in the fight, but those are the factions.


....and give us our biblical homeland.. you know... Greater Israel.... and then we'll stop... but we'll be your rulers, just so you know.

That crap. Israel isnt expanding into arab lands....it just wants to be allowed to live on the land it has.

and the only people Israel wants to rule are the Israelis.

Oh come on, you know what I meant. It is the arabs against the Israelis. Obviously, not all Israelis and not all arabs are in the fight, but those are the factions.

I would never dream of assuming such things on NS. :D



That crap. Israel isnt expanding into arab lands....it just wants to be allowed to live on the land it has.
West Bank settlements?

I mean the Gaza withdrawal was a good signal for sure, but really... it is still only half of the job.


and the only people Israel wants to rule are the Israelis.
Of course.

And living in land controlled by the State of Israel, you would become Israeli, no?
Doesn't matter whether you call yourself Arab or not ;) You'd officially be 'Israeli'....

[QUOTE=Psychotic Mongooses]West Bank settlements?

I mean the Gaza withdrawal was a good signal for sure, but really... it is still only half of the job.[QUOTE]

All the land that Israel has gotten from the arabs, have been because Israel has beaten the arabs back when the arabs have shown agression.

Anyway, I agree that Gaza is a start...but my problem is this...when you look at leading Palestinian authorities, they dont only want areas like Gaza..ect...they want Jerusalem, they want all of Israel...they want the Jews dead.

I dont see how its possible to deal with these people.

...

And living in land controlled by the State of Israel, you would become Israeli, no?
Doesn't matter whether you call yourself Arab or not ;) You'd officially be 'Israeli'....
Actually, no. The inhabitants of occupied territories cannot become nationals of the occupying state. The Germans post-1945 certainly weren't Anglo-Americano-Franco-Russian.

As for the topic... The fact is not pretty, to say the least... but can an Israeli travel to his/her loved one if the loved one in question lives in Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc.? No? Where's the outrage over that?

All the land that Israel has gotten from the arabs, have been because Israel has beaten the arabs back when the arabs have shown agression.
When you war with people, you do it to beat them. Not take their land and 'plant' it.


Anyway, I agree that Gaza is a start...but my problem is this...when you look at leading Palestinian authorities, they dont only want areas like Gaza..ect...they want Jerusalem, they want all of Israel...they want the Jews dead.
What do you expect with Hamas?

Of course they want Jerusalem. So does Israel. The trick is, is to offer a compromise where both parties think they got a bigger piece of the pie. That hasn't happened yet. Both sides are to blame on that count- both.


I dont see how its possible to deal with these people.
That old line- "We'll NEVER deal with XYZ"

Old IRA, Basques, Provisional IRA, Banda Aceh rebels, Chechens to a certain extent, Kosovo Liberation Army proved that statement false.

What is the saying... "Today's terrorists are tomorrow's statesmen"

Actually, no. The inhabitants of occupied territories cannot become nationals of the occupying state.
I'm talking about if the State of Israel included the Occupied Territories and their legitimacy was recognised. It was hypothetical ;)



As for the topic... The fact is not pretty, to say the least... but can an Israeli travel to his/her loved one if the loved one in question lives in Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc.? No? Where's the outrage over that?

Oh, right..yeah, the topic. Kinda getting side tracked as per usual :p

I don't know. I've never heard of a case where an Israeli has been denied the right to travel to these's places. Could you point in the direction of a link? :)

Do you know what the Isralie government did immidately after 1948. They said all the Palistians who had left could come back if they did 3 things
- Became Isralie citizens
- Renounced viloence
- Lived as peaceful and productive citizens
Is it the Isralies fault if the Palistinains didnt accept that
(A brief point 150,000 did, but the majority chose, it seems to remain refugees)

No, they said they'd take back 100.000 (out 0f 700,000). They offered to take the Gaza strip and its population, which rather unsuprisingly, was rejected.


Israel is on the defensive.)

Yes, the IDF sit inside their APCs and Merkavas, crapping themselves as an 11 year old lashes a stone at them.....


That crap. Israel isnt expanding into arab lands....it just wants to be allowed to live on the land it has..)

The West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, Golan......tut tut.

When you war with people, you do it to beat them. Not take their land and 'plant' it.

When you win wars, more so if you were on the defensive, you do whatever you want, because you're the victor.


What do you expect with Hamas? Its resignation.

Of course they want Jerusalem. So does Israel. The trick is, is to offer a compromise where both parties think they got a bigger piece of the pie. That hasn't happened yet. Both sides are to blame on that count- both.

It was a nuetral zone...in which both people could use...but the arabs just couldnt deal with that.

I'm talking about if the State of Israel included the Occupied Territories and their legitimacy was recognised. It was hypothetical ;)
Ah, now I see... :)



Oh, right..yeah, the topic. Kinda getting side tracked as per usual :p

I don't know. I've never heard of a case where an Israeli has been denied the right to travel to these's places. Could you point in the direction of a link? :)
Indeed...

Well, they cannot be stripped of the non-existent right, can they?

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/country/passport_visa.ehtml?o=218&NAV_guide_class=CountryGuide&NAV_Region=218&NAV_SubRegion=
"The Government of Pakistan refuses entry to nationals of Israel, even for transit."

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/country/passport_visa.ehtml?o=124&NAV_guide_class=CountryGuide&NAV_Region=124&NAV_SubRegion=
"Nationals of Israel or holders of passports containing a visa for Israel (either valid or expired) will be refused entry under all circumstances." [Iran]

Well, Syria is legally at war with Israel, so...

Yes, the IDF sit inside their APCs and Merkavas, crapping themselves as an 11 year old lashes a stone at them.....

Not our fault if the arabs have sucky weapons....


The West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, Golan......tut tut.

The arabs attacked the Israelis...the Israelis won...now all those lands are Israeli lands to do with them what they see fit.

It just so happens, that, unlike the arabs, the Israelis actually want a peace without the other faction being pushed into the ocean, and are trying to give back some of that land to the arabs.

The arabs attacked the Israelis...the Israelis won...now all those lands are Israeli lands to do with them what they see fit...

Good thing nobody took that attitude when the Poles lost to Germany, isn't it?

Married in Israel? Wife and kids on the wrong side of the Wall?

Tough shit, you terrorist scum. You're not seeing them again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4769661.stm

Reminds me of East/West Berlin and communist intransigence. :rolleyes:

(And more generally life in the Warsaw Ghetto)

It's to keep Hamas and all those other undesirables from getting into Israel for suicide bombings and shootings. :headbang:

Indeed...

Well, they cannot be stripped of the non-existent right, can they?

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/country/passport_visa.ehtml?o=218&NAV_guide_class=CountryGuide&NAV_Region=218&NAV_SubRegion=
"The Government of Pakistan refuses entry to nationals of Israel, even for transit."

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/country/passport_visa.ehtml?o=124&NAV_guide_class=CountryGuide&NAV_Region=124&NAV_SubRegion=
"Nationals of Israel or holders of passports containing a visa for Israel (either valid or expired) will be refused entry under all circumstances." [Iran]

Well, Syria is legally at war with Israel, so...

Thanks for the links. :) Interesting read.


When you win wars..... you do whatever you want, because you're the victor.

Damn. You've stumped me.
*throws out Geneva Convention*


12. The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof. They recall the need to safeguard and guarantee the rights and access of all inhabitants to the Holy Places.

Oh well I guess.
Fourth Geneva Convention 5th Dec 2001
(http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/8fc4f064b9be5bad85256c1400722951!OpenDocument)

I think thats a little over simplistic.

What they are saying is that since it seems a large majority of Paliestians voted for Hammas, they must agree with there want to "drive the Jew's into the sea". That is a security risk. If that kind of anti-semitism was displayed in France, Britian, America or anywhere else, it would not be tollerated.

Excuse me? Because Hamas got in power, all Palestinians are security risks now? Can we say that because Bush got in power, all Americans are neo-con fundamentalistic loons with a militaristic bent?

No?

Then the same principle applies to the Palestinians.

Otherwise we get cases of outright murder like that Israeli officer who executed a school girl in cold blooded murder.

That crap. Israel isnt expanding into arab lands....it just wants to be allowed to live on the land it has.

Uh huh, and those security fences it's building don't cut into land that doesn't belong to Israel huh?

To Tropical Sands:you are obviously pro-Israel, but at the same time, you make apoint of not "demonizing" all Palestinians. If more people thought like you, maybe Hamas, the Bush administration, and whatever government is currently ruling the Darfur region in Sudan wouldn't be in power. Unfortunately, for almost everybody, people don't think like you and the three organizations stated above are in power. Oh well.

To Tropical Sands:you are obviously pro-Israel, but at the same time, you make apoint of not "demonizing" all Palestinians. If more people thought like you, maybe Hamas, the Bush administration, and whatever government is currently ruling the Darfur region in Sudan wouldn't be in power. Unfortunately, for almost everybody, people don't think like you and the three organizations stated above are in power. Oh well.
Nah, he just makes a point of demonizing anybody who happens to voice the opinion that Israel has and is comporting itself in a chauvinist manner.

As a little note: Palistinians are allowed to live in Israel (and many do). Contrary to what the uninformed seem to think, they were never kicked out during independance, they were never kicked out during the wars, they were never kicked out during the suicide bombings, they were never kicked out at all. Many Palestinians are Israeli citizens. Plain and simple.

Good thing nobody took that attitude when the Poles lost to Germany, isn't it?

Uh, I know my history is a little ruff but Nazi Germany wasnt exactly on the defensive in its ATTACK on Poland, fool. :p

Uh huh, and those security fences it's building don't cut into land that doesn't belong to Israel huh?

I have no idea where the fences are but I know they are protecting Israel's borders so I could only assume they are on Israel's borders.

Oh well I guess.
Fourth Geneva Convention 5th Dec 2001
(http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/8fc4f064b9be5bad85256c1400722951!OpenDocument)

Yes, thats all fine and dandy on paper in safe secluded Switzerland...but it just doesnt work in the given situation.

I have no idea where the fences are but I know they are protecting Israel's borders so I could only assume they are on Israel's borders.

And the fact that it cuts up 1300 acres of land east of the Green Line which also blocks off Palestinian access to farmlands that are their's to work hmm?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/ik-qalqilyah_7jun03_2.jpg

Tell you what, let me put a concrete wall through your house and have guards patrol it with orders to shoot anyone who attempts to cross. The catch is that I'm the only one with the key and you're not allowed to leave.

Good thing nobody took that attitude when the Poles lost to Germany, isn't it?

Poles did not initiate the war with Germany.

Your analogy is wrong.

And the fact that it cuts up 1300 acres of land east of the Green Line which also blocks off Palestinian access to farmlands that are their's to work hmm?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/ik-qalqilyah_7jun03_2.jpg

Tell you what, let me put a concrete wall through your house and have guards patrol it with orders to shoot anyone who attempts to cross. The catch is that I'm the only one with the key and you're not allowed to leave.

What the hell does that map mean to me?

If your using that a source youll have to do better.

I want a n actual source on this wall that cuts up Palestinian territory.

Poles did not initiate the war with Germany.

Your analogy is wrong.

Exactly.

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/country/passport_visa.ehtml?o=218&NAV_guide_class=CountryGuide&NAV_Region=218&NAV_SubRegion=
"The Government of Pakistan refuses entry to nationals of Israel, even for transit."

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/country/passport_visa.ehtml?o=124&NAV_guide_class=CountryGuide&NAV_Region=124&NAV_SubRegion=
"Nationals of Israel or holders of passports containing a visa for Israel (either valid or expired) will be refused entry under all circumstances." [Iran]

Well, Syria is legally at war with Israel, so...

What about KSA? IIRC, they too do not give visas to Jews, no?

The funniest part in this is that of Pakistan's "more Arab than thou" approach. One would think that a country which has had no presence/experience with Jews in their country (both in its modern history and the collective memory of the people who resided there before the state was formed) would be indifferent to them...:p

What about KSA? IIRC, they too do not give visas to Jews, no?

The funniest part in this is that of Pakistan's "more Arab than thou" approach. One would think that a country which has had no presence/experience with Jews in their country (both in its modern history and the collective memory of the people who resided there before the state was formed) would be indifferent to them...:p

But why arnt they?

What the hell does that map mean to me?

If your using that a source youll have to do better.

I want a n actual source on this wall that cuts up Palestinian territory.

Alright. It's from global security. Knock yourself out. The white line is the new planned fencing. Qalqilyah will be blocked off from accessing the farmland by the fence, forcing the residents there to rely on alternative means of getting food. The only way in and out of that city will be by Israeli military checkpoints. Israel does not own Qalqilyah.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/fence-imagery.htm

There is no guarantee that the people there will be able to actually get that alternative.

But why arnt they?

It is kinda complex. Pakistan was formed as a "fortress of Islam" and Pakistanis think of themselves as a claimant to the leadership of the ummah.

In issues like this (and who shows more outrage to cartoons, Salman Rushdie etc etc..."muslim solidarity"..u get the idea?), there is a competition among muslim nations about who can be more islamic than others.

For ex, India was the first country to ban Satanic Verses (Rajiv Gandhi, a young PM was pressurised into that by muslim leaders). Now Pakistan cannot be seen left behind, so they banned it and upped it by burning the book. Now Khomeini of Iran had to prove that he was more islamic than Indo-pak, so he issued the hukm on Rushdie's head.

Similarly, Pakistan has to be compulsively anti-Jew eventhough there have been no Jews in Pakistan itself and Pakistan as an independant nation has no reason to be anti-jew. The virulent anti-jew nature of Pak would take even seaasoned jew haters by surprise. For ex, the serving elected chief minister of NWFP believes that 9/11 was a mossad job.

For more details, please read Bernard Henri Levy's "Who killed Daniel Pearl?". It is also coming out as a movie.

Alright. It's from global security. Knock yourself out. The white line is the new planned fencing. Qalqilyah will be blocked off from accessing the farmland by the fence, forcing the residents there to rely on alternative means of getting food. The only way in and out of that city will be by Israeli military checkpoints. Israel does not own Qalqilyah.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/fence-imagery.htm

There is no guarantee that the people there will be able to actually get that alternative.

First of all, its no where near as bad as you put it. Only one town is in jeapordy.

Second of all, they havnt even officially decided on a route for the fence.

It is kinda complex. Pakistan was formed as a "fortress of Islam" and Pakistanis think of themselves as a claimant to the leadership of the ummah.

In issues like this (and who shows more outrage to cartoons, Salman Rushdie etc etc..."muslim solidarity"..u get the idea?), there is a competition among muslim nations about who can be more islamic than others.

For ex, India was the first country to ban Satanic Verses (Rajiv Gandhi, a young PM was pressurised into that by muslim leaders). Now Pakistan cannot be seen left behind, so they banned it and upped it by burning the book. Now Khomeini of Iran had to prove that he was more islamic than Indo-pak, so he issued the hukm on Rushdie's head.

Similarly, Pakistan has to be compulsively anti-Jew eventhough there have been no Jews in Pakistan itself and Pakistan as an independant nation has no reason to be anti-jew. The virulent anti-jew nature of Pak would take even seaasoned jew haters by surprise. For ex, the serving elected chief minister of NWFP believes that 9/11 was a mossad job.

For more details, please read Bernard Henri Levy's "Who killed Daniel Pearl?". It is also coming out as a movie.

WTF is wrong with Pakistan.

That was very informing, thank you.

I never knew Pakistan was so fucked up like that.

First of all, its no where near as bad as you put it. Only one town is in jeapordy.

Only one town in jeapordy only eh? I suppose Warsaw wasn't that bad either. It was only one town. In fact, Treblinka wasn't that bad either. It was only one camp. Don't be an idiot. One town linked here doesn't mean there aren't any other towns being effected.

Hell, Frankfort is only one city after all. Lets build a great big wall around it so nobody can get in or out, including food supplies.

Keep this up, and it won't be long before I put you in the white supremacist camp.


Second of all, they havnt even officially decided on a route for the fence.

That is their planned route, and if Israel holds it's course, it will go through there. I don't see any indication that Israel won't.

*snip*
The world never ceases to amaze me.

Only one town in jeapordy only eh? I suppose Warsaw wasn't that bad either. It was only one town. In fact, Treblinka wasn't that bad either. It was only one camp. Don't be an idiot. One town linked here doesn't mean there aren't any other towns being effected.

Hell, Frankfort is only one city after all. Lets build a great big wall around it so nobody can get in or out, including food supplies.

Keep this up, and it won't be long before I put you in the white supremacist camp.

No, my point was that your post made it seem like Israel's fence was zigzaging threw the Arab countries. Thats all.


That is their planned route, and if Israel holds it's course, it will go through there. I don't see any indication that Israel won't.

It says in the source you gave to me that they havnt officially decided on a route...read your source again.

No, my point was that your post made it seem like Israel's fence was zigzaging threw the Arab countries. Thats all.

First, it's through, not threw. A fence can't chuck countries.

Second, it's still cutting people off from working properties that rightfully belong to them as well as preventing vital resources from flowing into the city. How's that right at all?

Maybe you'd like to live under virtual siege with no way of getting food hmm? Having your doors locked from outside by your neighbors and guns pointed at you when you try to leave may change your mindset a bit.


It says in the source you gave to me that they havnt officially decided on a route...read your source again.

Read the source yourself. That part of the fence is being built as we speak.


"This image taken on 7 Jun 2003 show ongoing construction of the Israeli security wall. When complete it will surround the town of Qalqilyah. Source: Space Imaging Eurasia"

In 2002
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/ik-qalqilyah_3mar02_overview.jpg

In 2003
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/fence-imagery2.htm

The Israeli's are building that wall just as was indicated. This photo was taken in 2003. It's now 2006. Where's your defence now?

NOTE: I may not be able to reply again quickly, but don't think you've won at all. I'll be back soon enough to crush whatever you've put up.

Yes, thats all fine and dandy on paper in safe secluded Switzerland...but it just doesnt work in the given situation.

Are you telling me, that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Israel because..... they're Israel?!

That's an incredible statement.

So, despite the fact that nigh on the entire planet (individual countries and International Organisations, enemies of Israel and allies of Israel) has said, ''It's illegal"... that's all ok.... because Israel says it's not.

Despite the fact that Israel proclaims to adhere to the Geneva Convention, the above statement from the very Commission governing it shows Israel is continuously breaching the Geneva Convention.

This seems to be acceptable to you.

You are truely blind to this, that is the only answer I can find.

Uh, I know my history is a little ruff but Nazi Germany wasnt exactly on the defensive in its ATTACK on Poland, fool. :p

But as you're arguing the "to the victor belong the spoils line" so really its irrelevant who attacked who but who wins. Of course if that isnt good enough you could just say that Russia have every right to trample over eastern Europe for 50 odd years - they won, and they were indeed attacked.


I have no idea where the fences are but I know they are protecting Israel's borders so I could only assume they are on Israel's borders.

Walls, because they aren't fences. And they are not on Israels borders but annex land inside the West Bank and Gaza.


Poles did not initiate the war with Germany..

Dealt with at the start there.


Are you telling me, that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Israel because..... they're Israel?!

That's an incredible statement...

....Yet quite popular. You get the same thing from the yanks over the Guantanamo issue. "Its different for us". Totall bollocks, but there you go....

No, this doesn't mean that Palestinians are "banned" or that spouses can't "see them again" or any such thing. It means that Palestinians can't move to Israel and they don't get Israeli citizenship just by getting married.
Oh, you mean as is the case with, say, a U.S. permanent resident who was married in his/her country of origin?

Oh yeah, those horrible, horrible Israelis. :rolleyes:

Excuse me? Because Hamas got in power, all Palestinians are security risks now? Can we say that because Bush got in power, all Americans are neo-con fundamentalistic loons with a militaristic bent?

No?

Then the same principle applies to the Palestinians.

Significent differnce. Hammas's central aim is the genocidal wiping out of the Jews. Republican politics are far more widespread than what you are suggesting. You are exporting your bad opinion of the American government, and that is a subjective opinion. It isnt a subjective opinion that Hammas want to wipe out Israel. That is what they say. If a party in the US said they wanted to drive all mexicans into the sea then voting for them you would be endorcing genocide. The same is true of voting for Hammas.

If you got kicked off of your land by people that you'd been at war with anyway for the last few hundred years, on the wishes of the rest of the world, and you weren't even consulted on the matter, would you honestly want to?

You forget. They weren't "kicked out" as you so eliquently put it. When the state of Israel was created the Israelie government told its Arab citizens to stay in their homes, and that they wouldnt do anything to them. They would be safe. If the Arab states around them hadn't attacked Israel there would be no problem,


Or would you resist the oppressors?

What opression? What human rights were the Isralies denying the Palestinans when Israel was created. The right to viloence?


Could you really live with the fact that you'd have bowed down, and lost everything on the whims of a foreign power that'd already messed about with your country?

They hadnt "lost everything" unlike the Jewish refugees from the Arab states, who actually had something genuine to complain about. All the Palestian refugees have been refused citizenship by the Arab states around them and have refused to go back to Israel because they won't abide by those very reasonable three statements. You seem to forget that if you are an Israelie citizen then you can vote to the Isralie government.

the country's Arab citizens[/B], who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country's Jewish citizens."

That's right, Israeli Arabs are not obliged to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, as other Israelis (including the Druze) are; they may, however, volunteer for the IDF, and many do.


Then why has there been more building in the West Bank and more attempts to grab Arab East Jerusalem?
The city of Jerusalem, "complete and united" is the Constitutional capital of the State of Israel.

If you got kicked off of your land by people that you'd been at war with anyway for the last few hundred years, on the wishes of the rest of the world, and you weren't even consulted on the matter, would you honestly want to?

It was the Arabs who had been terrorizing the area's Jewish population, and, as was just pointed out, they weren't "kicked off their land" at all.

What about KSA? IIRC, they too do not give visas to Jews, no?
Quite so; I've just thrown a couple of examples. Most of the Arab countries and some of the counties where Islam is predominant deny entry to Israelis as a matter of policy. I think that Saudi Arabia is the only one which bars entry to Jews regardless of their citizenship.

There's no outrage at all, though.

The funniest part in this is that of Pakistan's "more Arab than thou" approach. One would think that a country which has had no presence/experience with Jews in their country (both in its modern history and the collective memory of the people who resided there before the state was formed) would be indifferent to them...:p
Is Pakistan Judenfrei? Wow...

I don't know. I've never heard of a case where an Israeli has been denied the right to travel to these's places. Could you point in the direction of a link? :)
Oh yeah, I'm sure Israelis are real welcome in Syria, Pakistan and Iran. :rolleyes:

In any case, I do know, with certainty, that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia prohibits Israelis from entering the country. In fact, any one who has so much as an Israeli entry stamp on their passport is denied entry.

Good thing nobody took that attitude when the Poles lost to Germany, isn't it?
I wasn't aware that Poland invaded Germany in September 1939.

The city of Jerusalem, "complete and united" is the Constitutional capital of the State of Israel.

That's fun. Let's go and change the constitution of the US to claim that the capital is now Ottawa. That way, we'll be able to annex Canada and nobody can find a fault in our action, since our capital is Ottawa.

Or, you know, find our argument specious and stupid.

Oh yeah, I'm sure Israelis are real welcome in Syria, Pakistan and Iran. :rolleyes:


I...did...not...know...that...was...an...official...state...policy.

Olantia pointed me to some information. I thanked Olantia.

Where is the sarcasm in my original post? Where was my conceitedness? Nowhere. Stop being a prick- I was merely asking a simple question. It was answered and that was it.

I...did...not...know...that...was...an...official...state...policy.

Olantia pointed me to some information. I thanked Olantia.

Where is the sarcasm in my original post? Where was my conceitedness? Nowhere. Stop being a prick- I was merely asking a simple question. It was answered and that was it.


Now that this point has been clarified, I guess we can go back to supporting terrorists and damn Israel for refusing to cooperate with Sharia and Ayatollahs.

Now that this point has been clarified, I guess we can go back to supporting terrorists and damn Israel for refusing to cooperate with Sharia and Ayatollahs.

...

Well....

That came out of left field....



And 'terrorism' is subjective anyway. Just ask Atlantian Islands.... ;)

But as you're arguing the "to the victor belong the spoils line" so really its irrelevant who attacked who but who wins. Of course if that isnt good enough you could just say that Russia have every right to trample over eastern Europe for 50 odd years - they won, and they were indeed attacked.

..
Erm... First, we didn't annex Eastern Europe. Second, do you think that Russia has indeed no right to 'trample over' Konigsberg and Poland has no right to 'trample over' Danzig, Elbing, Posen, Breslau, Stettin etc.? Is that so?

I...did...not...know...that...was...an...official...state...policy.

Olantia pointed me to some information. I thanked Olantia.

...
Oh, not at all! Although I thought it is common knowledge, maybe owing to the fact that I plan to visit Israel in a year or two, and an Israeli visa is a serious impediment to travelling in the Middle East. I was wondering whether I would be able to visit the UAE; it seems that the Emirates' consular officials and border guards now turn the blind eye to Israeli stamps in passports. However, Israelis are, of course, still banned from visiting the UAE.

...

Well....

That came out of left field....



And 'terrorism' is subjective anyway. Just ask Atlantian Islands.... ;)

*grumbles something about disagreeing* :p

Oh, not at all! Although I thought it is common knowledge, maybe owing to the fact that I plan to visit Israel in a year or two, and an Israeli visa is a serious impediment to travelling in the Middle East. I was wondering whether I would be able to visit the UAE; it seems that the Emirates' consular officials and border guards now turn the blind eye to Israeli stamps in passports. However, Israelis are, of course, still banned from visiting the UAE.

I visited Israel last Christmas.

Are you Jewish?

Also, I didnt know that Israelis were banned from visiting the UAE.

But as you're arguing the "to the victor belong the spoils line" so really its irrelevant who attacked who but who wins. Of course if that isnt good enough you could just say that Russia have every right to trample over eastern Europe for 50 odd years - they won, and they were indeed attacked.

But one could make the arguement that your analogy is again false, because Russia was an agressor in the war...after all, it did ally with the Nazi and agree to invade and split Poland with them.

Walls, because they aren't fences. And they are not on Israels borders but annex land inside the West Bank and Gaza.

Honestly, I dont care. I support the wall because, hey! if the arabs would just stop being so damn militant and suicidal, there would be no need for a wall. The arabs are bringing it upon themselves. Nobodys fault but their own.

I'm very interested in why you are so eager to defend the people you hate, but you hate to defend the people that would accept you.

Unless, of course, you yourself are an arab.:p

I'm very interested in why you are so eager to defend the people you hate, but you hate to defend the people that would accept you.

Again, people who are born in countries that were founded from such resistance to similar regimes can easily identify with the oppressed rather then the oppressor. People who live in countries who's history is still very fresh in the mind, can readily see the side of the 'underdog'.

It is not hard to understand.

Again, people who are born in countries that were founded from such resistance to similar regimes can easily identify with the oppressed rather then the oppressor. People who live in countries who's history is still very fresh in the mind, can readily see the side of the 'underdog'.

It is not hard to understand.

Except the arabs arnt oppressed.

They are not the the ones who face total extermination and wipage into the sea if they let down their guard.

Israel lives its life, day by day, in threat of all the other arab countries, terrorist, suicide bombers, and Muslim relgious leaders who call for its destruction.

I really feel like I'm going round in circles now....

*flashback to arguments 5 pages ago regarding walls, oppression, international condemnation, Geneva Accords...*

*sigh*

I really feel like I'm going round in circles now....

*flashback to arguments 5 pages ago regarding walls, oppression, international condemnation, Geneva Accords...*

*sigh*

But thats how this arguement goes.

Because while the arab supporters like to keep reminding us about how hard it is for the palestinains and how these walls cut them off...ect *excuse me while I wipe my eyes*, us Israel supporters remind you guys about the very real militant and terrorist threats that Israel lives under.

But thats how this arguement goes.
Then why repeat ourselves every few pages? Sounds childish to me.


Because while the arab supporters like to keep reminding us about how hard it is for the palestinains and how these walls cut them off
It is, and it does.

...ect *excuse me while I wipe my eyes*
How charitable of you.

us Israel supporters remind you guys about the very real militant and terrorist threats that Israel lives under.

A lot of countries live under the same threat. Their reaction however is more... evolved.

A lot of countries live under the same threat. Their reaction however is more... evolved.

Right, but lets count em.

Not one, 1! of those countries live in the fucking middle east, surrounded by idiot nations whos "people" can simply attack from right across the border.

Your reasoning is false and stupid...I expected better from someone smart like you.

Right, but lets count em.

Not one, 1! of those countries live in the fucking middle east, surrounded by idiot nations whos "people" can simply attack from right across the border.

Your reasoning is false and stupid...I expected better from someone smart like you.

Who said anything about the country being in the Middle East? A lot of countries (in the world) live with terrorism, where a goal of one or more groups in 'driving out' the 'foreigners', or 'purging' etc etc.

People get on with their lives. Most don't go around building high walls to try and solve the problem. "Out of sight, out of mind"

Who said anything about the country being in the Middle East? A lot of countries (in the world) live with terrorism, where a goal of one or more groups in 'driving out' the 'foreigners', or 'purging' etc etc.

People get on with their lives. Most don't go around building high walls to try and solve the problem. "Out of sight, out of mind"It isn't really "out of site out of mind" at all. Attacks have drasitically decreased since the fence's construction. And it is mostly a fence - certain sections are a solid wall. The fence as I understand it isn't an ideological nationalist/racist sort of measure - it is a pragmatic security measure that works.

Who said anything about the country being in the Middle East? A lot of countries (in the world) live with terrorism, where a goal of one or more groups in 'driving out' the 'foreigners', or 'purging' etc etc.

People get on with their lives. Most don't go around building high walls to try and solve the problem. "Out of sight, out of mind"

Yes but none of these countries that deals with terrorism lives in the middle east, a terrorist hotbed.

Israel is, geographically, in harms way.

Therefore to say that other countries deal with it better is false because other countries arnt in the same position as Israel.

Anyway, name me a country that deals with its terrorism better than Israel that is also in the same extreme position Israel is in.

It isn't really "out of site out of mind" at all. Attacks have drasitically decreased since the fence's construction. And it is mostly a fence - certain sections are a solid wall. The fence as I understand it isn't an ideological nationalist/racist sort of measure - it is a pragmatic security measure that works.

Agreed. I'm glad you understand. :)

I visited Israel last Christmas.

Are you Jewish?

Also, I didnt know that Israelis were banned from visiting the UAE.
No, I'm ethnic Russian.

Actually, I think that only Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Oman are among the Arab countries that allow entry to Israeli citizens. Maybe Sudan... Somalia? :D

It isn't really "out of site out of mind" at all. Attacks have drasitically decreased since the fence's construction. And it is mostly a fence - certain sections are a solid wall. The fence as I understand it isn't an ideological nationalist/racist sort of measure - it is a pragmatic security measure that works.

But since it 'works', that makes the racist/nationalist bit ok then? :rolleyes:

And to be fair, the wall 'may' have had an impact on decreased bombings..... but so has the (relatively abided) cease-fire proclaimed by Hamas and the PA a year or so ago.

So says Shin Bet:
The main reason for the decline, Shin Bet said, was the informal truce observed by some Palestinian groups.

Forty-five Israelis were killed in Palestinian militant attacks in 2005, the Israeli internal security agency Shin Bet has reported.
This is 60% fewer than the number killed in 2004, and the lowest since the start of the intifada in 2000.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4574720.stm

But one could make the arguement that your analogy is again false, because Russia was an agressor in the war...after all, it did ally with the Nazi and agree to invade and split Poland with them.

...
To be sure, Russia was an agressor in the armed confict of 1939, but a victim in 1941... Damn 1939... what a shameful year it was.

Yes but none of these countries that deals with terrorism lives in the middle east, a terrorist hotbed.
So? Israel ain't special. A LOT of countries have dealt with terrorism with similar goals- wiping out, driving out, purging etc etc.



Therefore to say that other countries deal with it better is false because other countries arnt in the same position as Israel.
You seem to hold particular weight on its location why? Becasue it is surrounded by those who wish to see it gone? *Shock* So do the other places? :eek:


Anyway, name me a country that deals with its terrorism better than Israel that is also in the same extreme position Israel is in.

Depending on your definition of 'terrorism' I would point you to the mid-late 20th century history of the IRA and Northern Ireland.

The Tamil Tigers (LTTE) are another example.

Chechens.

ETA to a certain extent- although a little less considering they wanted something slightly different.

Banda Aceh.

Look them up later on. You'll be surprised at the amount of similarities between some of the above and the Palestinians.

Israel is not a unique situation.

No, I'm ethnic Russian.

Actually, I think that only Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Oman are among the Arab countries that allow entry to Israeli citizens. Maybe Sudan... Somalia? :D

Couldnt you be an ethnic Russian and be Jewish, though?

Anyway I think that Turkey also has no problem with people of other religions visiting.

Anyway I think that Turkey also has no problem with people of other religions visiting.

Turks aren't Arab.

Turks are Turkic. They probably couldn't give a shit so long as Olantia brought ze tourist dollars! :D

To be sure, Russia was an agressor in the armed confict of 1939, but a victim in 1941... Damn 1939... what a shameful year it was.

Yes, but thats like saying, Japan was an agressor for pearl harbor but a victim at the end of the war...well, they were...but it doesnt really work that way. :p

Turks aren't Arab.

Turks are Turkic. They probably couldn't give a shit so long as Olantia brought ze tourist dollars! :D

Are people from Sudan and Somalia arab?

You seem to hold particular weight on its location why? Becasue it is surrounded by those who wish to see it gone? *Shock* So do the other places? :eek:

Yes. No, your wrong, no other places are in the situation Israel is.

Couldnt you be an ethnic Russian and be Jewish, though?

Anyway I think that Turkey also has no problem with people of other religions visiting.
Erm... by converting to Judaism? Theoretically, yes... but I do not intend to do that.

Yes, Turkey is not an Arab country.

Yes, but thats like saying, Japan was an agressor for pearl harbor but a victim at the end of the war...well, they were...but it doesnt really work that way. :p
Well, not quite. Imagine that the US and Japan together attacked China in say 1937, fought with Chinese for some time, conquered something and held a victory parade in Shanghai. And then the US 'ally' attacks Pearl...

Are people from Sudan and Somalia arab?

Some are; Northern Sudanese (the infamous Janjaweed militias), and possibly some Somalis- but the are probably split 50/50 in both.

Yes. No, your wrong, no other places are in the situation Israel is
To you maybe. But it really isn't.

Really.... it isn't.

Are people from Sudan and Somalia arab?
Not very much, I reckon. :D Nevertheless both Sudan and Somalia are members of the Arab League.

Erm... by converting to Judaism? Theoretically, yes... but I do not intend to do that.

Yes, Turkey is not an Arab country.

Got it.

I thought we were just talking about the Muslim world in general.

Anyway, Israel is a strange place, youll see taht when you visit.

There is also a noticable Russian influence there, from all the people that left after the Soviet Union fell.

Like when I was in Jerusalem, there was Russian guy with a Russian store selling Russian vodka...right in the middle of Jerusalem. I thought it was the coolest thing.

Turks aren't Arab.

Turks are Turkic. They probably couldn't give a shit so long as Olantia brought ze tourist dollars! :D
That's for sure; I did just that in 2002. Istanbul is certainly worth visiting.

Well, not quite. Imagine that the US and Japan together attacked China in say 1937, fought with Chinese for some time, conquered something and held a victory parade in Shanghai. And then the US 'ally' attacks Pearl...

Yes, well then America and Japan would be the agressors.

Some are; Northern Sudanese (the infamous Janjaweed militias), and possibly some Somalis- but the are probably split 50/50 in both.


To you maybe. But it really isn't.

Really.... it isn't.

Understood.

Eh, enough arguing about this...we both arnt moving from our positions and I dont really feel like arguing in cirlces anymore. :D

Not very much, I reckon. :D Nevertheless both Sudan and Somalia are members of the Arab League.

Got it.

That's for sure; I did just that in 2002. Istanbul is certainly worth visiting.
My friend was there a few months ago. First thing he noticed?

The traffic :D

Right, but lets count em.

Not one, 1! of those countries live in the fucking middle east, surrounded by idiot nations whos "people" can simply attack from right across the border.

Your reasoning is false and stupid...I expected better from someone smart like you.
How about Lebanon?

For years, the IDF has made inroads into lebanon and targetted the civilians with strikes. Sure, Israel calls that surgical strike against known terrorists with collateral dammage, but Lebanon can see it as a terrorist organization supportyed by a foreign regime making terrorist strikes at it's civilian population.

And, best of all, it is in the middle east! So your claim that the middle east is somewhat special when it comes to terrorism doesn't apply.

Understood.

Eh, enough arguing about this...we both arnt moving from our positions and I dont really feel like arguing in cirlces anymore. :D


Yay!

*goes to find aspirin*

My friend was there a few months ago. First thing he noticed?

The traffic :D

Is it safe to go to?

Also, is their currency really low?

Is it safe to go to?
Emm. Why wouldn't it be? :confused:

Its a lovely place

(unless you're Greek)


Also, is their currency really low?
Depends where you are coming from. Euro treated him nicely, but as for the US $... *shrug*

Yes, well then America and Japan would be the agressors.
Against China? Yes. But what about Americano-Japanese conflict? Who is the aggressor there?

How about Lebanon?

For years, the IDF has made inroads into lebanon and targetted the civilians with strikes. Sure, Israel calls that surgical strike against known terrorists with collateral dammage, but Lebanon can see it as a terrorist organization supportyed by a foreign regime making terrorist strikes at it's civilian population.

From Wiki, "Cross-border attacks by Palestinian Muslim groups in southern Lebanon against civilians in Israeli territory led to an invasion by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) on March 15, 1978 in what was titled the Litani River Operation. A few days later, the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions 425 and 426, calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces, and establishing an international peace-keeping force in southern Lebanon, the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL). Three months later, on June 13, 1978, Israel completed the withdrawal of its troops, and turned over control of southern Lebanon to the SLA."

And again, "The PLO's armed forces continued to use Lebanon as a base to attack Israel with rockets and artillery, and on June 6, 1982 Israel again invaded Lebanon with the objective of evicting the PLO. Israeli forces occupied areas from the southern Lebanese border with Israel northward into areas of Beirut. During this invasion the Phalangist militia, under the command of Elie Hobeika, moved into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, with the knowledge of Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, and committed the first Sabra and Shatila massacre. Israel's plans for Lebanon suffered a severe setback on September 14, 1982, with the assassination of the Phalangist leader and President-elect Bachir Gemayel, who was regarded as secretly sympathetic to Israel."

And even today, while Israel and Lebanon arnt "technically" at war, they sorta are. Theres no diplomatic communication between the two at all.

Emm. Why wouldn't it be? :confused:

Its a lovely place

(unless you're Greek)


Depends where you are coming from. Euro treated him nicely, but as for the US $... *shrug*

I dont know why it wouldnt be safe, I was just asking because my parents have been interested in taking the family there.

They dont like Greeks there?

Yes well, the American dollar is not far behind the Euro, so I guess it will do just fine.

Yay!

*goes to find aspirin*

Just as I was about to pop one, looks like East Canuck reopend the can of worms.

Against China? Yes. But what about Americano-Japanese conflict? Who is the aggressor there?

Japan, in that context...but overall in the overview of the entire war, they are both agressors.

I see the point your trying to make though.

They dont like Greeks there?


Oh, the whole 'Cyprus' thing.....

Japan, in that context...but overall in the overview of the entire war, they are both agressors.

I see the point your trying to make though.
That's a bit more complicated... Let's look into WWII -- can we regard the three countries, Bulgaria, Finland and the UK, as aggressors?

That's a bit more complicated... Let's look into WWII -- can we regard the three countries, Bulgaria, Finland and the UK, as aggressors?

Bulgaria yes, it occupid parts of Greece and Yugoslavia.

Finland, no, it fought against Russian agression to save itself.

UK, no...it fought against the orginal agression, which was German.

Bulgaria yes, it occupid parts of Greece and Yugoslavia.

Finland, no, it fought against Russian agression to save itself.

UK, no...it fought against the orginal agression, which was German.
Bulgaria did not attack the US; nevertheless the Congress declared war. Is the US aggressor, then? The US was not in any way allied with Greece and Yugoslavia when they were invaded.

Finland and the USSR went to war in 1939, then signed a peace treaty in 1940, Finland giving up some territory. In 1941 Finns attacked us in order to get their ceded lands back, breaking the said treaty. An act of aggression?

The UK was not attacked by Germany prior to the declaration of war. And what about Mers-el-Kebir, when Britons attacked the French ships, sinking several of them?

Bulgaria did not attack the US; nevertheless the Congress declared war. Is the US aggressor, then? The US was not in any way allied with Greece and Yugoslavia when they were invaded.

Finland and the USSR went to war in 1939, then signed a peace treaty in 1940, Finland giving up some territory. In 1941 Finns attacked us in order to get their ceded lands back, breaking the said treaty. An act of aggression?

The UK was not attacked by Germany prior to the declaration of war. And what about Mers-el-Kebir, when Britons attacked the French ships, sinking several of them?

But you could say that America was still simply helping out Greece and Yugoslavia, even though we werent allied.

Yes, but the Soviet Union attacked Finland, then...to have peace, made them give up their land. The Finns atacked simply to get their land back, not to take over Russia.

Yes, but the UK was sticking up for Poland, who could not stick up for itself.
Also, when Mers-el-kebir happend, hadnt France already fallen and wasnt France under control of ze Nazis?

But you could say that America was still simply helping out Greece and Yugoslavia, even though we werent allied.
America wasn't -- Greece and Yugoslavia were carved up in 1941, the US issued the declaration of war in 1942. The timing is wrong.

Yes, but the Soviet Union attacked Finland, then...to have peace, made them give up their land. The Finns atacked simply to get their land back, not to take over Russia.
Erm... the problem is, it was (and still is) the Russian territory, according to the treaty of 1940, signed by the government of Finland, which then reneged and broke the peace treaty. It is as if Spain attacked Gibraltar, ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht -- just to take it back, not to conquer the UK. It isn't OK with me.

Yes, but the UK was sticking up for Poland, who could not stick up for itself.
Also, when Mers-el-kebir happend, hadnt France already fallen and wasnt France under control of ze Nazis?
Collective self-defence, yes -- a best defence from the charge of aggression.

The French ships in question were under control of the Vichy government. No matter how pro-German it was, the UK simply wasn't at war with it; to be precise, the French navy was never controlled by the Nazis. But the Britons stabbed the allies of yesterday in the back...

But as you're arguing the "to the victor belong the spoils line" so really its irrelevant who attacked who but who wins. Of course if that isnt good enough you could just say that Russia have every right to trample over eastern Europe for 50 odd years - they won, and they were indeed attacked.

Dealt with at the start there.




Now you are just being an idiot.

Russia was attacked by Germany, not by eastern Europe. Again your analogy is wrong.

The Tamil Tigers (LTTE) are another example.


Not that I am batting for the LTTE, but the SL govt attitude towards the ethnic Tamil minority is far worse than the Israeli attitude towards Palestinians.

Turks aren't Arab.

Neither, incidentally, are Somalis.

Are people from Sudan and Somalia arab?
Most Sudanese are, but Somalia is more than 98% black Africa (almost all are ethnic Somalis).

...

Well....

That came out of left field....



And 'terrorism' is subjective anyway. Just ask Atlantian Islands.... ;)


For me, the matter is exceedingly simple.

That plot of land was jewish soil before the first muslim was born.
And any gasp of breath now taken by an arab muslim on that plot of land, otherwise than with the consent of the legitimate Israeli Authorities, is a crime in itself.
A crime that demands punishment.

As far as I am concerned, the slightest hint of a suggestion that the so-called palestinians should be allowed to exist there, other than as loyal subjects or guests, is completely unacceptable.

For me, the matter is exceedingly simple.

That plot of land was jewish soil before the first muslim was born.
And any gasp of breath now taken by an arab muslim on that plot of land, otherwise than with the consent of the legitimate Israeli Authorities, is a crime in itself.
A crime that demands punishment.

Oh goody. Lets have all white Americans punished right here and now. America belonged to the native Americans in the first place and had it taken from them by force. I'm sure they didn't give any consent to any white settlers to draw breath while on their lands. It's a crime that any white Americans are alive today. They should all be dead according to your views.

If you don't think this way, you sir, are a hypocrite of the highest order, your credibility no stronger than used toilet paper.

Oh goody. Lets have all white Americans punished right here and now. America belonged to the native Americans in the first place and had it taken from them by force. I'm sure they didn't give any consent to any white settlers to draw breath while on their lands. It's a crime that any white Americans are alive today. They should all be dead according to your views.

If you don't think this way, you sir, are a hypocrite of the highest order, your credibility no stronger than used toilet paper.

Remember Pocahontas? The fools did!

Meanwhile, the credibility of a non-aligned item is zero, ie, rather less than that of used toilet paper.

Remember Pocahontas? The fools did!

Trail of tears. Forcible relocation from land not belonging to the US government and subsequent bloodshed when relocation was resisted. Similar to the other forced relocations.


Meanwhile, the credibility of a non-aligned item is zero, ie, rather less than that of used toilet paper.

For using an ad-honimem attack and evading the question, you get 0 points. Further evasion of the question will result in your answer being defaulted, which would place you in the circles of the biggest of hypocrites.

EDIT: Future ad-honimem attacks based on name listings will merely bump you down on the maturity index.

.



For using an ad-honimem attack and evading the question, you get 0 points. Further evasion of the question will result in your answer being defaulted, which would place you in the circles of the biggest of hypocrites.

You started it.
+ strawman.

En bref: be fruitful.

You started it.
+ strawman.

Strawman? You yourself laid out the groundwork by stating that the continued existence of Palestinians without express consent by the Israeli government to be a crime that should be punished. And the reasoning behind that as you stated was because "The jews were there first thousands of years ago."

Thereby, I am using the same reasoning you created to apply to the expansion and subsequent conquests of settlers when they came in conflict with natives.

By calling it to be a strawman, you yourself are calling your arguments to be strawmen. Do you need something to remove your foot from your mouth?

Answer the question or admit that your arguments were false. Either or.

Strawman? You yourself laid out the groundwork by stating that the continued existence of Palestinians without express consent by the Israeli government to be a crime that should be punished. And the reasoning behind that as you stated was because "The jews were there first thousands of years ago."

Thereby, I am using the same reasoning you created to apply to the expansion and subsequent conquests of settlers when they came in conflict with natives.

By calling it to be a strawman, you yourself are calling your arguments to be strawmen. Do you need something to remove your foot from your mouth?

Are americans jews?
Are americans palestinians?
Are indians jews?

Why should identical logic be applied to things that are not identical?

But this is already excessively lengthy: one either is 100% pro-Israel, or one is an accomplice post facto of Arafat, Yassin et al.

Are americans jews?
Are americans palestinians?
Are indians jews?

Why should identical logic be applied to things that are not identical?

But this is already excessively lengthy: one either is 100% pro-Israel, or one is an accomplice post facto of Arafat, Yassin et al.

Okay. Now I know you're taking the piss.


Not that I am batting for the LTTE, but the SL govt attitude towards the ethnic Tamil minority is far worse than the Israeli attitude towards Palestinians.
Really? Wow. Might read up on that situation in more detail.

In the comparsion still invalid? I know the situations are not identical, but for the most part, could it be said to be broadly similar?

Are americans jews?
Are americans palestinians?
Are indians jews?

Are they human? Are they, by their very nature of their birthland, any less deserving of life just by the very fact that they are born there? Does something that they have no control over make them somehow subject to a omnipotent entity that determines whether they live and die at their pleasure? You seem to think so.

The KKK seemed to think it applied to anyone with dark skin.

The Nazis seemed to think it applied to anyone of inferior stock.

Muslim/Christian extremists seem to think it applies to anyone not of their religion.

These people affected are all human. But not in your eyes. No, their sub-human, and that somehow, Israel is justified in treating them however they want to.


But this is already excessively lengthy: one either is 100% pro-Israel, or one is an accomplice post facto of Arafat, Yassin et al.

With us or against us eh? I'll tell you this. You're jingoistic bullshit is nothing more than an immature rant that deserves to be condemned to the darkest corners of the earth, never to be seen again.

Your idea of pro-Israel is that they can round up every single Palestinian and execute them in death camps if they wanted to. AND YOU WOULD SUPPORT THIS!

If you really believe all this, you're scum, no better than a nazi.

I have nothing more to say to one such as you.

I note that the article says that Israel considers Palestinians to be security risk now. Not Hamas, not terror groups, not people with records of criminal activity. Nope. Just Palestinians. Born a Palestinian, declared a terrorist.

I can understand that reasoning when the Palestinians just voted and the majority of them supported the terror group hamas.

SNIP
I have nothing more to say to one such as you.

The feeling is mutual.

I have nothing to say for one who sides with so-called palestinians.

For me, the matter is exceedingly simple.

That plot of land was jewish soil before the first muslim was born.
And any gasp of breath now taken by an arab muslim on that plot of land, otherwise than with the consent of the legitimate Israeli Authorities, is a crime in itself.
A crime that demands punishment.

As far as I am concerned, the slightest hint of a suggestion that the so-called palestinians should be allowed to exist there, other than as loyal subjects or guests, is completely unacceptable.
For me, the matter is not so exceedingly simple.

That plot of land was populated before the first jew or muslim was born.
No one can claim ownership by way of "we were there first" because both have shaky ground to base their stand on. Besides, an absentee landlord loose his priviledge, like Israel apologists are quick to point out.

You, sir, are full of shit. Your opinion isn't worth the bandwith it travelled to allow me to read it. People like you coumpound the problem rather than trying to solve it.

For me, the matter is not so exceedingly simple.

That plot of land was populated before the first jew or muslim was born.
No one can claim ownership by way of "we were there first" because both have shaky ground to base their stand on. Besides, an absentee landlord loose his priviledge, like Israel apologists are quick to point out.

You, sir, are full of shit. Your opinion isn't worth the bandwith it travelled to allow me to read it. People like you coumpound the problem rather than trying to solve it.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Looks like the Israelis possess it.

For me, the matter is not so exceedingly simple.

That plot of land was populated before the first jew or muslim was born.
No one can claim ownership by way of "we were there first" because both have shaky ground to base their stand on. Besides, an absentee landlord loose his priviledge, like Israel apologists are quick to point out.

You, sir, are full of shit. Your opinion isn't worth the bandwith it travelled to allow me to read it. People like you coumpound the problem rather than trying to solve it.

That problem won't be solved short of Judgement Day.

Attempts to solve the problem? What I see here is nothing but support for a bunch of squatters-annex-terrorists-annex-fundies.

yes, yes DK. Sure. Go ahead with that.

Still doesn't change the fact that BogMarsh's stance on things is not only about possession but also as seeing me and 65% of the world as criminals who need to be dealt with. His views are idiotic. End of story.

And his stance is based on "they were there first!" which is not possession.

yes, yes DK. Sure. Go ahead with that.

Still doesn't change the fact that BogMarsh's stance on things is not only about possession but also as seeing me and 65% of the world as criminals who need to be dealt with. His views are idiotic. End of story.

And his stance is based on "they were there first!" which is not possession.

Well Canuck, you can start being "fair" about things by giving all of Canada back to the aboriginal First People.

Otherwise, you're in my camp - where possession is 9/10ths.

Seeing as I never stated anything of the sort, I wonder what you were doing before jumping to that conclusion. One has to wonder if you are not contradictory for "being contradictory"'s sake.

Go back and read my posts. Number 212 and 215. Where did I say anything like what you claim?

yes, yes DK. Sure. Go ahead with that.

Still doesn't change the fact that BogMarsh's stance on things is not only about possession but also as seeing me and 65% of the world as criminals who need to be dealt with. His views are idiotic. End of story.

And his stance is based on "they were there first!" which is not possession.

Oh?

I could base my stance on Divine Right as well.

Instead, I base it on nativity.
You reject it, because you fear to lose your squatters-rights.

Seeing as I never stated anything of the sort, I wonder what you were doing before jumping to that conclusion. One has to wonder if you are not contradictory for "being contradictory"'s sake.

Go back and read my posts. Number 212 and 215. Where did I say anything like what you claim?

Oh, East Canuck. You've made your way back into this thread again. Back to be proven wrong again, then just ignore my informative post?

Erm... First, we didn't annex Eastern Europe. Second, do you think that Russia has indeed no right to 'trample over' Konigsberg and Poland has no right to 'trample over' Danzig, Elbing, Posen, Breslau, Stettin etc.? Is that so?

I never said 'Annex'. And are you saying that USSR did not have an entirely free hand behind the "Iron Curtain".


Honestly, I dont care.?

Yes, yes....you went on a little jaunt to the middle east, didn't like the Arabs, so anything that happens to them is ok, because you don't like them. You told us all about it and I'm sure everybody was as moved as I was.


The arabs are bringing it upon themselves. Nobodys fault but their own..?

The Arabs are actually dressing up as the IDF and occupying themselves? Does their demonic hate of Israel know no end?????????????????


I'm very interested in why you are so eager to defend the people you hate, but you hate to defend the people that would accept you...?

I don't hate the Palestinians, or the Israelis. Whether either would accept me as an individual is neither here nor there.


Except the arabs arnt oppressed....

I think 40 years of checkpoints, beatings, humiliation, land seizure and settlements prove otherwise.


Israel lives its life, day by day, in threat of all the other arab countries,....

Poor nuclear armed it.....


Now you are just being an idiot.

Russia was attacked by Germany, not by eastern Europe. Again your analogy is wrong.
,....

What other nations were members of the "Axis"? And kindly desist from name calling. It lowers the tone.

I never said 'Annex'. And are you saying that USSR did not have an entirely free hand behind the "Iron Curtain".

...
So what did you mean by 'trample over'? Yeah, I'd like to say precisely that. Hoxha gave us the bird, Ceaucescu didn't care at all, Gomulka liked to taunt us... The usual image of the Kremlin dictating everything to anyone in Eastern Europe is a bit misleading.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Looks like the Israelis possess it.

Then I suggest you get your eyes tested ;)

Looks to me like the Palestinians are the dominant population in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Looks to me like the PA has sovereignty over it.

You reject it, because you fear to lose your squatters-rights.

Then by your logic Canada, the United States, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, South Africa, Zimbabwe and a few others should be 'purged' of 'squatters'.

You like Mugabe's policies I take it?

For me, the matter is not so exceedingly simple.

That plot of land was populated before the first jew or muslim was born.
No one can claim ownership by way of "we were there first" because both have shaky ground to base their stand on. Besides, an absentee landlord loose his priviledge, like Israel apologists are quick to point out.

You, sir, are full of shit. Your opinion isn't worth the bandwith it travelled to allow me to read it. People like you coumpound the problem rather than trying to solve it.

The Jews after being let free from Egypt thousands of years ago wanded until they found that land. They had it and kept it from then up until now. It's theirs-Not only did God promise them land (A Goodly inheritance, as the bible says) but the Balfour declaration made it theirs for their contributions during WWII.

The Jews after being let free from Egypt thousands of years ago wanded until they found that land. They had it and kept it from then up until now. It's theirs-Not only did God promise them land (A Goodly inheritance, as the bible says) but the Balfour declaration made it theirs for their contributions during WWII.

Good old God....theres a problem though...he doesn't exist. Secondly, even if he did exist, he didn't leave an authenticated and identifiablle copy of the deeds. Thirdly the Balfour declaration said that "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.." (my bold)

Then by your logic Canada, the United States, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, South Africa, Zimbabwe and a few others should be 'purged' of 'squatters'.

You like Mugabe's policies I take it?

I wouldn't give BogMarsh the attention it would take to response to his posts. He's more or less said that he would support Israel if it chose to ship every single Palestinian to a gas chamber.

He's a bigot who should be in Stormfront rather than NS.

I don't hate the Palestinians, or the Israelis. Whether either would accept me as an individual is neither here nor there.[QUOTE]

I meant, why are you so eager to defend the people who hate you, but you hate the people who would accept you?



[QUOTE]I think 40 years of checkpoints, beatings, humiliation, land seizure and settlements prove otherwise.

They deserve it for fighting multiple wars against Israel...AND LOSING.

This is from a previous post of mine on a different thread...maybe some of the facts in it can clear this up a little bit...

Most of the Palestinian Arabs living in what was then the Mandate of Palestine considered themselves Syrians and left in various waves of both leading up to and during Israel's war of Independance (or as I like to call it, their war of survival). The first to leave were the more affluent "effendi" and were followed by the fellaheen. The only Arabs that were forced to leave by the IDF were in such villages as Lydda and Ramleh. The only reason they were forced to leave by the Haganah was for strategic reasons; being that these villages surrounded Jewish populations of over 100,000 Jews who risked being murdered by the invading Arab armies OR the Haganah needed certain villages as strategic points to defend the road leading to Jewish Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Without maintaining those positions, those Jews living there would have been slaughtered. Once again, the Jews did not take over their property but welcomed them back to return as was mentioned in a previous post.

As for your mention of the "camps" that they were placed in, they were not placed in these camps by Jews; rather they were put there by the Arab countries that they were settled in. The only ones keeping the Palestinians living in squalor and filth is their own Arab "brothers." This is continuing till this day in these same refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. In the '79 peace accords with Israel, Egypt did not take Gaza in that deal so that they would not have to deal with them.

An interesting fact that many choose to ignore is the fate of the more than ONE MILLION Jews that became refugees between 1947 and 1954 after THEY were stripped of all their belongings and property and forced to leave their native Middle Eastern Muslim countries. These refugees however were integrated into Israeli society and overcame their problems by becoming citizens of the only democracy and the freest nation in the Middle East. The Palestinian refugees however, were not afforded that right by their fellow Arab brothers with the exception of Jordan. The other Palestinian refugees, had they stayed, would have become Israeli citizens and afforded more rights than any Arab living anywhere else in the Middle East.

My deepest sympathies go out to the Palestinian people who for 58 years have been used as pawns and bargaining chips by their corrupt leaders in their continuing propoganda war against the Jewish state.

Informing post...where in Florida do you live.

*points at location*

I, myself am a Floridian too!

lol born in Miami, raised in Ft. Lauderdale, in school at UF

lol born in Miami, raised in Ft. Lauderdale, in school at UF

Oh, thats cool. I was born and lived in Southern California...but we moved to Ft. Lauderdale....I just finished high school here...and I'm pretty sure I'm going to college at UCF...I really like it.

Really? Wow. Might read up on that situation in more detail.

In the comparsion still invalid? I know the situations are not identical, but for the most part, could it be said to be broadly similar?

The SL govt, if not for the rebels and the LTTE, would have wiped the Tamils off without a tsunami. Read up on Jaffna riots of 1983.

Israelis wish Palestinians were gone but they would not go the lengths that the SL govt went.

The difference of perception is due to the spotlight on Israel and the relative obscurity of Sri Lanka.

Atleast Israel would settle for an independant Palestine if they can be assured that there would be no more attacks on their sovereignity. SL govt would not even give increased autonomy under a federal structure to the tamils (something that will bring the rebels to the table and eventually peace...).

[QUOTE=Nodinia]I don't hate the Palestinians, or the Israelis. Whether either would accept me as an individual is neither here nor there.[QUOTE]

I meant, why are you so eager to defend the people who hate you, but you hate the people who would accept you?

Again, their relation to me is neither here nor there. Same with the Sudanese or the Tibetans or Chechens. Thinking one side is somehow justified by similarities in contemporary secular culture with ones own background is somewhere between nauseatingly shallow and fucking despicable.

[QUOTE=The Atlantian islands]
They deserve it for fighting multiple wars against Israel...AND LOSING.

They were largely civillians in the conflicts.


Most of the Palestinian Arabs (snip) else in the Middle East..

And as I explained in that other thread, crap. By the way on "rights" not enjoyed by other Arabs.....heres what the US thinks. Not too impressed, it would appear.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm

firstly I would like to say to bogmarsh ,Your veiws are nieve and racist,whether a person is an israeli or a palestinian they have a right to life without confict or opression-they are still human.
Frankly if you took the time to try and understand islam or the arab tratiotions then you would realise that it is the minority that are suicide bombers and terrorists-just like the minority of catholics in northern Ireland were terrorists.Because more people in the western world understood catholicism they understood this. Just as not all northern irish catholics were IRA not all palestinians are terrorists and should not be treated as such.By grouping all muslims and palistinians into the group of 'terrorists' only enhanses the veiw that the waqr on terror is a war on islam-which unfortunatly only causes more suicide bombings.I am niot under any circumstances advocating suicide bombing because those who commit these crimes are grouping all westerners or israleies into the group of enemies -just as people have done by grouping all palestinians and muslims into the group of enemies.There is no justification for suicide bombings and killing innocednt israelies, but there is also no justification in Israel killing innocent palestinians.The veiw that because Hammas was elected that means all palestinians support terrorism.Many representatives of palestinian hammas are teachers doctors and ther like with no interst in terror.They joined hammas because they felt that the ruling party was not representing them.Hammas was elected also in response to israeli atroicities-of which there have been many.You complain that hammas want to wipe israel off the map and that this is because of anti semitism-but there are many Israelies that wish to wipe the palestinians off the map also-is this not also racism.The 'we had it first ' claim has no basis-just because you 'had' a country first does not mean you will always have it-states change-look at europe on a map 200 hundred years ago and you will find much of it is completly differentt.And just because you had it first does not meran that tyuo can disregard the rights of anyone living in the country that is not your nationmality.
Both sides in this war have committed atrocities and neither are completly right.Those who say that israel can do no wrong are plain wrong themselves-as are those who say the palestinians can do no wrong.Yes, there are palestinians who are anti-semetic but this does not justify or legitimise israeli prejudice against palestinians or muslims.The main problem is neither side will compromise-both sides want complete control of the whole territory and neither will get it.Ther should(and hopefully will be) a two state solution where the rights of palestinians and israelis are equally respected.Israel exists now and cannopt be wiped off the map bhut they should recoignise that not all palestinians are walking bombs.
Also, legitimate criticism of Israel is not anti semitism and should not be seen as this-just because a person does not agree with the policies of a country does not mean that that person hates its peopkle.I dislike anerican foregn policy but i certainly dont hate americans.