zinkyusa wrote: I suppose if it were recent we might agree but Israel is a fact now.
Postwar is recent. Very recent. There are many people alive now who were born before Israel came into being.
Israeli Apartheid
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Postwar is recent. Very recent. There are many people alive now who were born before Israel came into being.
Not recent enough to change anything though. The British had their chance to stop the immigration of jews to Palestine and failed. The horse is long out of the barn. The only reasonble questions now are those dealing with how to get everyone to get along..
Not recent enough to change anything though. The British had their chance to stop the immigration of jews to Palestine and failed. The horse is long out of the barn. The only reasonble questions now are those dealing with how to get everyone to get along..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: I have no objection at all to debating the origins of the United States but I think you should read a little serious history on the subject first especially where tax and the state legislatures are concerned.
I have no doubt you are better read and more learned than myself. I was just stating the obvious.
I'll just ask the question.
At the time of the revolution, was it within the laws of England for the US to be founded?
I have no doubt you are better read and more learned than myself. I was just stating the obvious.
I'll just ask the question.
At the time of the revolution, was it within the laws of England for the US to be founded?
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: Not recent enough to change anything though. The British had their chance to stop the immigration of jews to Palestine and failed. The horse is long out of the barn. The only reasonble questions now are those dealing with how to get everyone to get along..
It was almost impossible to stem the flow of Jewish migration to Palestine because of world sympathy arising for what the Germans had done. Nor, in the light of what needed to be done at home, had we much stomach for it.
The answer to the reasonable question is that the question is at the root of the problem. The problem arises because the differences are so great that people cannot get along.
It was almost impossible to stem the flow of Jewish migration to Palestine because of world sympathy arising for what the Germans had done. Nor, in the light of what needed to be done at home, had we much stomach for it.
The answer to the reasonable question is that the question is at the root of the problem. The problem arises because the differences are so great that people cannot get along.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: Should the native americans fight the US government?
You had better define who native Americans are, exactly. Presumably everyone who has been born in the United States of America. Whio does that leave to fight the US Government?
You had better define who native Americans are, exactly. Presumably everyone who has been born in the United States of America. Whio does that leave to fight the US Government?
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: It was almost impossible to stem the flow of Jewish migration to Palestine because of world sympathy arising for what the Germans had done. Nor, in the light of what needed to be done at home, had we much stomach for it.
The answer to the reasonable question is that the question is at the root of the problem. The problem arises because the differences are so great that people cannot get along.
So do you think that declaring the state of Israel illegal is going to solve anything?
The answer to the reasonable question is that the question is at the root of the problem. The problem arises because the differences are so great that people cannot get along.
So do you think that declaring the state of Israel illegal is going to solve anything?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
YZGI wrote: At the time of the revolution, was it within the laws of England for the US to be founded?
I suppose the short answer was no but there was quite a degree of ambivalence in Britain on the subject of American self determination. The State Legislatures had been existence for some time but one of the problems was their reluctance to speak to each other. As for the question of tax, I suggest you look the matter up - it will at least demonstrate the difference between History and Hollywood!
Also to be remembered that in the 1770's America was far from being a jewel in the Colonial Crown since in the days prior to the Industrial Revolution it was largely agrarian and costing Britain far more to maintain than it contributed. At the time the real focus of Colonial Attention were the West Indies whose sugar production generated very real levels of wealth.
I suppose the short answer was no but there was quite a degree of ambivalence in Britain on the subject of American self determination. The State Legislatures had been existence for some time but one of the problems was their reluctance to speak to each other. As for the question of tax, I suggest you look the matter up - it will at least demonstrate the difference between History and Hollywood!
Also to be remembered that in the 1770's America was far from being a jewel in the Colonial Crown since in the days prior to the Industrial Revolution it was largely agrarian and costing Britain far more to maintain than it contributed. At the time the real focus of Colonial Attention were the West Indies whose sugar production generated very real levels of wealth.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: You had better define who native Americans are, exactly. Presumably everyone who has been born in the United States of America. Whio does that leave to fight the US Government?
I was of course referring to thos who were already here prior to the arrival of the Europen colonists..
I was of course referring to thos who were already here prior to the arrival of the Europen colonists..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: You had better define who native Americans are, exactly. Presumably everyone who has been born in the United States of America. Whio does that leave to fight the US Government?
Native Americans is the PC way of saying American Indians here in the US, before the hordes of whites killed most of them off.
Native Americans is the PC way of saying American Indians here in the US, before the hordes of whites killed most of them off.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: I was of course referring to thos who were already here prior to the arrival of the Europen colonists..
The Red Indians? Their plight was a matter between them and the post-1776 Americans.
The Red Indians? Their plight was a matter between them and the post-1776 Americans.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
YZGI wrote: Native Americans is the PC way of saying American Indians here in the US, before the hordes of whites killed most of them off.
Leave me out of the realms of the PC. Red Indians is not a dishonourable label.
Leave me out of the realms of the PC. Red Indians is not a dishonourable label.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: The Red Indians? Their plight was a matter between them and the post-1776 Americans.
The post 1776's are here illegally according to your reasoning.
The post 1776's are here illegally according to your reasoning.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: So do you think that declaring the state of Israel illegal is going to solve anything?
Yes, I do. For one thing it would remove any dubiety as to the correct status of Palestine. Having determined the status of the regime one can then decide what the next step is to be.
Yes, I do. For one thing it would remove any dubiety as to the correct status of Palestine. Having determined the status of the regime one can then decide what the next step is to be.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: The post 1776's are here illegally according to your reasoning.
That is something you must argue with them.
That is something you must argue with them.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Yes, I do. For one thing it would remove any dubiety as to the correct status of Palestine. Having determined the status of the regime one can then decide what the next step is to be.
Not at all Israel will ignore it as well they should. Besides they already have UN recognition.
Not at all Israel will ignore it as well they should. Besides they already have UN recognition.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
this handwringing that the palestinians were forced out of israel by the jews is just nonsense. the jews and the palestinians had been living side by side pre-state-of-israel for a very long time, long before the post world war I migrations began. it was only at the time of the creation of the state of israel that the neighboring arab states encouraged the palestinians to flee with tales of atrocities to come. at the same time, the neighboring arab states in no uncertain terms 'encouraged' their jewish populations to leave - from as far away as morocco - and go to israel. the neighboring arab states however refused to provide aid and comfort to the refugees they create.
were some palestinians forced out? surely. were some jews in arab lands forced out? surely. for the most part, jews left arab lands for israel willingly. for the most part, palestinians left israel willingly. they, unfortunately, were not welcomed by the very arab nations that encouraged them to leave - that's why today - sixty years after a palestinian nation could have been formed - they remain refugees.
have israeli committed crimes against humanity, with military targeting of civilians, or repressive control of some of the refugees? you bet. have the palestinians - and other organizations - committed crimes against humanity, with targeting of civilians, and repressive methods ("terrorism") of the israelis? you bet.
playing the 'who has been wronged more' card gets nowhere. and regrettably, it is the card played time and time again in this and other topics. and it is also the basis of these grievances that go back long before israel came to be.
one cannot deny, however, that israel has attempted to come to peaceful terms with its neighbors. since apparently some find it offensive when i mention the existing long-lasting peace treaties israel has with some of its neighbors, i'll just point out that israel has been following a policy of disengagement for some time now, pulling out - gradually, no argument - from the gaza strip. pulling some of its settlers from the west bank (there could be an entire topic on that matter, it's awfully complicated, and not just by the israelis). pulling out of lebanon - at least before this latest, brief war.
anti-semitism drives the arab nations in their desire to eliminate israel. the jews and israel are considered a 'stain on islam'. one need only listen to the fruitcake from iran for that to be palpable.
hey, for that matter, why doesn't iran simply lay claim to israel? the persians ruled the region for a few hundred years, they've as much claim as anyone, right?
were some palestinians forced out? surely. were some jews in arab lands forced out? surely. for the most part, jews left arab lands for israel willingly. for the most part, palestinians left israel willingly. they, unfortunately, were not welcomed by the very arab nations that encouraged them to leave - that's why today - sixty years after a palestinian nation could have been formed - they remain refugees.
have israeli committed crimes against humanity, with military targeting of civilians, or repressive control of some of the refugees? you bet. have the palestinians - and other organizations - committed crimes against humanity, with targeting of civilians, and repressive methods ("terrorism") of the israelis? you bet.
playing the 'who has been wronged more' card gets nowhere. and regrettably, it is the card played time and time again in this and other topics. and it is also the basis of these grievances that go back long before israel came to be.
one cannot deny, however, that israel has attempted to come to peaceful terms with its neighbors. since apparently some find it offensive when i mention the existing long-lasting peace treaties israel has with some of its neighbors, i'll just point out that israel has been following a policy of disengagement for some time now, pulling out - gradually, no argument - from the gaza strip. pulling some of its settlers from the west bank (there could be an entire topic on that matter, it's awfully complicated, and not just by the israelis). pulling out of lebanon - at least before this latest, brief war.
anti-semitism drives the arab nations in their desire to eliminate israel. the jews and israel are considered a 'stain on islam'. one need only listen to the fruitcake from iran for that to be palpable.
hey, for that matter, why doesn't iran simply lay claim to israel? the persians ruled the region for a few hundred years, they've as much claim as anyone, right?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
[QUOTE=anastrophe]playing the 'who has been wronged more' card gets nowhere. and regrettably, it is the card played time and time again in this and other topics. and it is also the basis of these grievances that go back long before israel came to be.
one cannot deny, however, that israel has attempted to come to peaceful terms with its neighbors.
QUOTE]
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation and administration then the retaliation of the Arabs is not an echoed wrong. It is a just reaction.
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation then attempts to placate its oppenents is just bombast. Rather like a burglar trying to make friends after he has robbed you.
No. The position of Israel should be justified in law and not, as has been the case, by political concensus and alliances.
one cannot deny, however, that israel has attempted to come to peaceful terms with its neighbors.
QUOTE]
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation and administration then the retaliation of the Arabs is not an echoed wrong. It is a just reaction.
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation then attempts to placate its oppenents is just bombast. Rather like a burglar trying to make friends after he has robbed you.
No. The position of Israel should be justified in law and not, as has been the case, by political concensus and alliances.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: [QUOTE=anastrophe]playing the 'who has been wronged more' card gets nowhere. and regrettably, it is the card played time and time again in this and other topics. and it is also the basis of these grievances that go back long before israel came to be.
one cannot deny, however, that israel has attempted to come to peaceful terms with its neighbors.
QUOTE]
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation and administration then the retaliation of the Arabs is not an echoed wrong. It is a just reaction.
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation then attempts to placate its oppenents is just bombast. Rather like a burglar trying to make friends after he has robbed you.
No. The position of Israel should be justified in law and not, as has been the case, by political concensus and alliances.
Glad to see you and anastrophe have kept the ball rolling while I was away. I hate to sound like a broken record but I shall anyway. The postion of Israel is justfied because it holds the ground and intends on keeping it. There is no one on the block who can change that fact. Why not accept it, make an accomodation as Sadat did for Egypt and get on with the living.
one cannot deny, however, that israel has attempted to come to peaceful terms with its neighbors.
QUOTE]
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation and administration then the retaliation of the Arabs is not an echoed wrong. It is a just reaction.
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation then attempts to placate its oppenents is just bombast. Rather like a burglar trying to make friends after he has robbed you.
No. The position of Israel should be justified in law and not, as has been the case, by political concensus and alliances.
Glad to see you and anastrophe have kept the ball rolling while I was away. I hate to sound like a broken record but I shall anyway. The postion of Israel is justfied because it holds the ground and intends on keeping it. There is no one on the block who can change that fact. Why not accept it, make an accomodation as Sadat did for Egypt and get on with the living.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: [quote=anastrophe]playing the 'who has been wronged more' card gets nowhere. and regrettably, it is the card played time and time again in this and other topics. and it is also the basis of these grievances that go back long before israel came to be.
one cannot deny, however, that israel has attempted to come to peaceful terms with its neighbors.
QUOTE]
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation and administration then the retaliation of the Arabs is not an echoed wrong. It is a just reaction.
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation then attempts to placate its oppenents is just bombast. Rather like a burglar trying to make friends after he has robbed you.
No. The position of Israel should be justified in law and not, as has been the case, by political concensus and alliances.
please name which law specifically you wish to see it justified under. continuing to claim that they are a rogue state, illegal, means nothing if you can't cite the law they are currently in violation of.
palestine was under the british mandate. if you suggest that they are an illegal state, then the former state is what was pushed out when they took it. therefore, your call should be for the return of british control of the region. no? then who before? there has never been a palestinian government, nor a palestinian nation, before israel. so who would you install, who would not also be a rogue state, created by other nations?
one cannot deny, however, that israel has attempted to come to peaceful terms with its neighbors.
QUOTE]
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation and administration then the retaliation of the Arabs is not an echoed wrong. It is a just reaction.
If, for the sake of argument, Israel is an illegal occupation then attempts to placate its oppenents is just bombast. Rather like a burglar trying to make friends after he has robbed you.
No. The position of Israel should be justified in law and not, as has been the case, by political concensus and alliances.
please name which law specifically you wish to see it justified under. continuing to claim that they are a rogue state, illegal, means nothing if you can't cite the law they are currently in violation of.
palestine was under the british mandate. if you suggest that they are an illegal state, then the former state is what was pushed out when they took it. therefore, your call should be for the return of british control of the region. no? then who before? there has never been a palestinian government, nor a palestinian nation, before israel. so who would you install, who would not also be a rogue state, created by other nations?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
[QUOTE=zinkyusa][QUOTE=William Ess]
The postion of Israel is justfied because it holds the ground and intends on keeping it. QUOTE]
Because you cannot justify theft on any scale. If I move into your house and hold it through force of arms, that does not make my position right.
The legality of Israel's position must first of all be clarified.
The postion of Israel is justfied because it holds the ground and intends on keeping it. QUOTE]
Because you cannot justify theft on any scale. If I move into your house and hold it through force of arms, that does not make my position right.
The legality of Israel's position must first of all be clarified.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: [QUOTE=zinkyusa][QUOTE=William Ess]
The postion of Israel is justfied because it holds the ground and intends on keeping it. QUOTE]
Because you cannot justify theft on any scale. If I move into your house and hold it through force of arms, that does not make my position right.
The legality of Israel's position must first of all be clarified.
I suppose diplomatic recognition and UN membership are something of a legal position.
I think the analogy would be more of you move into my neighborhood and I don't want you there, I try and boot you out but you kick my a$# ( 3times) and boot me out.
The postion of Israel is justfied because it holds the ground and intends on keeping it. QUOTE]
Because you cannot justify theft on any scale. If I move into your house and hold it through force of arms, that does not make my position right.
The legality of Israel's position must first of all be clarified.
I suppose diplomatic recognition and UN membership are something of a legal position.
I think the analogy would be more of you move into my neighborhood and I don't want you there, I try and boot you out but you kick my a$# ( 3times) and boot me out.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: [QUOTE=William Ess][QUOTE=zinkyusa]
I suppose diplomatic recognition and UN membership are something of a legal position.
.
Purely political.
I suppose diplomatic recognition and UN membership are something of a legal position.
.
Purely political.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: [quote=zinkyusa][quote=William Ess]
The postion of Israel is justfied because it holds the ground and intends on keeping it. QUOTE]
Because you cannot justify theft on any scale. If I move into your house and hold it through force of arms, that does not make my position right.
The legality of Israel's position must first of all be clarified.
it is a matter of convenience and semantics to suggest that israel stole anything.
see "no palestinian government or nation ever existed before israel" for detail. how can israel be a rogue state, if they didn't take the land from a palestinian nation? if the claim is the pre world war I ottoman control, then are you suggesting the region be ceded to turkey, the heirs after a fashion of the ottomans? how do you think the arab nations would take that? i'm quite sure the kurds in iraq might have some quibbles. what - the kurds have no claim to the region? then why should the turks? should the land be ceded to the saudis? what about the jordanians or egyptians? can you imagine the fighting that would occur if israel were handed over to egypt! that would be quite the cluster ****.
if you are suggesting that the palestinians in gaza and the west bank should be given control of israel, then where do you propose relocating the israelis? or should it just be yet another diaspora? erase nearly all evidence of the jews, just as the romans did.
The postion of Israel is justfied because it holds the ground and intends on keeping it. QUOTE]
Because you cannot justify theft on any scale. If I move into your house and hold it through force of arms, that does not make my position right.
The legality of Israel's position must first of all be clarified.
it is a matter of convenience and semantics to suggest that israel stole anything.
see "no palestinian government or nation ever existed before israel" for detail. how can israel be a rogue state, if they didn't take the land from a palestinian nation? if the claim is the pre world war I ottoman control, then are you suggesting the region be ceded to turkey, the heirs after a fashion of the ottomans? how do you think the arab nations would take that? i'm quite sure the kurds in iraq might have some quibbles. what - the kurds have no claim to the region? then why should the turks? should the land be ceded to the saudis? what about the jordanians or egyptians? can you imagine the fighting that would occur if israel were handed over to egypt! that would be quite the cluster ****.
if you are suggesting that the palestinians in gaza and the west bank should be given control of israel, then where do you propose relocating the israelis? or should it just be yet another diaspora? erase nearly all evidence of the jews, just as the romans did.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: [quote=zinkyusa][quote=William Ess]
Purely political.
again, then, state the law you claim they are violating.
Purely political.
again, then, state the law you claim they are violating.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders.php
[T]he Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the wars, the bloodshed, aggressions and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant UN resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after Resolution 181 in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181.
There were conditions placed on the land division in Resolution 181 which gave Israel borders. Those conditions have not been met.
As to other Arab states telling the Palestinians to leave, that has already been shown, earlier in this thread, to be a myth that was corrected by scholars 20 years ago.
[T]he Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the wars, the bloodshed, aggressions and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant UN resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after Resolution 181 in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181.
There were conditions placed on the land division in Resolution 181 which gave Israel borders. Those conditions have not been met.
As to other Arab states telling the Palestinians to leave, that has already been shown, earlier in this thread, to be a myth that was corrected by scholars 20 years ago.
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders.php
[T]he Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the wars, the bloodshed, aggressions and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant UN resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after Resolution 181 in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181.
There were conditions placed on the land division in Resolution 181 which gave Israel borders. Those conditions have not been met.
As to other Arab states telling the Palestinians to leave, that has already been shown, earlier in this thread, to be a myth that was corrected by scholars 20 years ago.
Ah, this article clearly argues that Israel has the legal right to exist as a result of Britains acceptance of UNR 181. Granted these borders are different as a result of wars. The best then that can be said for Arab postition is that Israel should return to the 1947 borders. I'm not hearing from Hamas or Hizbollah and Iran. I hear Israel has no right to exist. In fact that is part of the Hizbollah Charter.
So I assume Koan that your point is that Israel is bad because they occupy territory outside of the 1947 borders. That is quite a stretch from defending the Islamoterrorists postion that Israel has no right to exist.
[T]he Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the wars, the bloodshed, aggressions and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant UN resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after Resolution 181 in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181.
There were conditions placed on the land division in Resolution 181 which gave Israel borders. Those conditions have not been met.
As to other Arab states telling the Palestinians to leave, that has already been shown, earlier in this thread, to be a myth that was corrected by scholars 20 years ago.
Ah, this article clearly argues that Israel has the legal right to exist as a result of Britains acceptance of UNR 181. Granted these borders are different as a result of wars. The best then that can be said for Arab postition is that Israel should return to the 1947 borders. I'm not hearing from Hamas or Hizbollah and Iran. I hear Israel has no right to exist. In fact that is part of the Hizbollah Charter.
So I assume Koan that your point is that Israel is bad because they occupy territory outside of the 1947 borders. That is quite a stretch from defending the Islamoterrorists postion that Israel has no right to exist.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: Ah, this article clearly argues that Israel has the legal right to exist as a result of Britains acceptance of UNR 181. Granted these borders are different as a result of wars. The best then that can be said for Arab postition is that Israel should return to the 1947 borders. I'm not hearing from Hamas or Hizbollah and Iran. I hear Israel has no right to exist. In fact that is part of the Hizbollah Charter.
So I assume Koan that your point is that Israel is bad because they occupy territory outside of the 1947 borders. That is quite a stretch from defending the Islamoterrorists postion that Israel has no right to exist.
Correct. Regardless of the offshoot conversations, this thread was started to discuss the apartheid conditions in the occupied territories (though there are cases of racial inequality within Israel as well regarding right to buy land).
I was looking at William's arguments against Israel's existence to be sure I had considered them properly. Look back and you will see where I agree to investigate. To me, the best way to be sure that an argument has been considered is to seek out it's justifications not shoot it down from the start. In the matter of borders, I am now more interested in looking into the one state solution regardless of what it would be called.
So I assume Koan that your point is that Israel is bad because they occupy territory outside of the 1947 borders. That is quite a stretch from defending the Islamoterrorists postion that Israel has no right to exist.
Correct. Regardless of the offshoot conversations, this thread was started to discuss the apartheid conditions in the occupied territories (though there are cases of racial inequality within Israel as well regarding right to buy land).
I was looking at William's arguments against Israel's existence to be sure I had considered them properly. Look back and you will see where I agree to investigate. To me, the best way to be sure that an argument has been considered is to seek out it's justifications not shoot it down from the start. In the matter of borders, I am now more interested in looking into the one state solution regardless of what it would be called.
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: Correct. Regardless of the offshoot conversations, this thread was started to discuss the apartheid conditions in the occupied territories (though there are cases of racial inequality within Israel as well regarding right to buy land).
I was looking at William's arguments against Israel's existence to be sure I had considered them properly. Look back and you will see where I agree to investigate. To me, the best way to be sure that an argument has been considered is to seek out it's justifications not shoot it down from the start. In the matter of borders, I am now more interested in looking into the one state solution regardless of what it would be called.
I actually don't disagree with you there. I just think it's unrealistic now to think there could be a single state solution. I certainly support the idea of a separate Palestinian state with the return of Muslim Holy Sites in the West Bank and some sort of joint rule over parts of Jerusulem as a starting point. If enough good will is built over time perhaps something more satisfying to the Palestinians can be agreed to.
I was looking at William's arguments against Israel's existence to be sure I had considered them properly. Look back and you will see where I agree to investigate. To me, the best way to be sure that an argument has been considered is to seek out it's justifications not shoot it down from the start. In the matter of borders, I am now more interested in looking into the one state solution regardless of what it would be called.
I actually don't disagree with you there. I just think it's unrealistic now to think there could be a single state solution. I certainly support the idea of a separate Palestinian state with the return of Muslim Holy Sites in the West Bank and some sort of joint rule over parts of Jerusulem as a starting point. If enough good will is built over time perhaps something more satisfying to the Palestinians can be agreed to.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
The Kellog-Briand treaty is only of value insofar as a state is prepared to recognise it. International law is not to be equated with internal criminal law because the latter is deemed to be the produced as a result of the collective will of a particular population. Treaties however cannot be enforced in the same way for quite obvious reasons. I believe Israel is fairly selective about the international obligations it observes.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: Ah, this article clearly argues that Israel has the legal right to exist as a result of Britains acceptance of UNR 181. Granted these borders are different as a result of wars. The best then that can be said for Arab postition is that Israel should return to the 1947 borders. I'm not hearing from Hamas or Hizbollah and Iran. I hear Israel has no right to exist. In fact that is part of the Hizbollah Charter.
So I assume Koan that your point is that Israel is bad because they occupy territory outside of the 1947 borders. That is quite a stretch from defending the Islamoterrorists postion that Israel has no right to exist.
the cited article is also far from a complete answer on the question. it is one legal professor's opinion on the matter. in the comments archive, there's considerable other information which calls into question his interpretation.
So I assume Koan that your point is that Israel is bad because they occupy territory outside of the 1947 borders. That is quite a stretch from defending the Islamoterrorists postion that Israel has no right to exist.
the cited article is also far from a complete answer on the question. it is one legal professor's opinion on the matter. in the comments archive, there's considerable other information which calls into question his interpretation.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: The Kellog-Briand treaty is only of value insofar as a state is prepared to recognise it. International law is not to be equated with internal criminal law because the latter is deemed to be the produced as a result of the collective will of a particular population. Treaties however cannot be enforced in the same way for quite obvious reasons. I believe Israel is fairly selective about the international obligations it observes.
name a country that isn't.
name a country that isn't.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: The Kellog-Briand treaty is only of value insofar as a state is prepared to recognise it. International law is not to be equated with internal criminal law because the latter is deemed to be the produced as a result of the collective will of a particular population. Treaties however cannot be enforced in the same way for quite obvious reasons. I believe Israel is fairly selective about the international obligations it observes.
OK, Anastrophe has asked you twice now what laws you referring to when you claim Israel has no legal right to exist. We are all waiting for the answer.
OK, Anastrophe has asked you twice now what laws you referring to when you claim Israel has no legal right to exist. We are all waiting for the answer.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: It was actually a response to your insistence that Israel is a J-E-W-I-S-H S-T-A-T-E.I never insisted or even suggested that. I said that it was, and I'll spare you the hyphens, a JEWISH HOMELAND. As far as I know, like some European countries that are almost entirely Roman Catholic, Israel is a SECULAR state, one where freedom of religion or non-religion is constitutionally guaranteed. I can go to Sunday Mass there, Arab Israelis can attend their mosques, etc. That we will be constantly aware that we are minorities there is obvious.
Contrast that with the various Islamic hellholes like Saudi Arabia where practicing, preaching or coverting to any religion but Islam, even owning or reading a Judeo-Christian Bible, will get you killed. Quickly.
Which is apartheid?anastrophe wrote: Israel is not going anywhere. I think you and William Ess are denying reality if you think it will.Denying sanity is probably closer.
And by the way, while we are on the subject, you [koan] have still provided no sustantiation for your claim that only Jews can own land in Israel. I don't know whether that is true or not. I doubt it, but I have an open mind on the matter and have asked for proof, which you have not provided.
See, one of the easiest ways to spot a liar is that, when challenged, they simply ignore the challenge and keep repeating the lie.
Contrast that with the various Islamic hellholes like Saudi Arabia where practicing, preaching or coverting to any religion but Islam, even owning or reading a Judeo-Christian Bible, will get you killed. Quickly.
Which is apartheid?anastrophe wrote: Israel is not going anywhere. I think you and William Ess are denying reality if you think it will.Denying sanity is probably closer.
And by the way, while we are on the subject, you [koan] have still provided no sustantiation for your claim that only Jews can own land in Israel. I don't know whether that is true or not. I doubt it, but I have an open mind on the matter and have asked for proof, which you have not provided.
See, one of the easiest ways to spot a liar is that, when challenged, they simply ignore the challenge and keep repeating the lie.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: See, one of the easiest ways to spot a liar is that, when challenged, they simply ignore the challenge and keep repeating the lie.
No, you are wrong. It is not a reliable way of detecting an untruth. It simply suggests that the claimant does not have the proof to hand. You should be more temperate in your language and have some respect for the protocol of debate.
No, you are wrong. It is not a reliable way of detecting an untruth. It simply suggests that the claimant does not have the proof to hand. You should be more temperate in your language and have some respect for the protocol of debate.
Israeli Apartheid
In particular, HIC and Adalah wish to draw the Commission’s attention to the policy of the Israel Lands Administration (ILA), a state agency, of prohibiting Palestinian citizens of Israel from leasing Jewish National Fund (JNF) lands, which amount to 13% of Israel's lands. This policy, under which Palestinian citizens of Israel have no access to 13% of “Israel’s lands, encourages apartheid-like settlements and segregation along racial or ethnic lines.
The ILA claims to control over 93% of the land in Israel. Since 1948, large tracts of Arab-owned land have been confiscated or otherwise appropriated by the state or Zionist “national institutions such as the JNF, for the exclusive use of Jewish citizens. The JNF acquired approximately 78% of its land from the state in 1949 and 1953, the majority of which belonged to Palestinian refugees.
The JNF enjoys a special status under Israeli law. For example, Israel signed a covenant with the JNF in 1961, declaring that all JNF lands would be administered by the ILA, subject to the JNF’s objectives, namely to purchase, acquire on lease or in exchange land in Israel "for the purpose of settling Jews." The JNF interprets this as prohibiting the allocation of its lands to “non-Jews. This prohibition is racist in nature and effect. Israeli law also confers upon the fund privileges usually reserved for a public authority. As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has recognized, the JNF executes many governmental functions. Meanwhile, this discriminatory institution operates in several of the Member States of this Commission, registered as a tax-exempt charitable organization.
HIC-HLRN, Adalah, Oral intervention to UN Commission on Human Rights, Sixtieth session, 14 March–22 April. Statements to UN bodies, 2005 - also see Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah, "Equality" p. 216-217 for examples of inequality in land rights.
These repeated attempts to call me a liar are actually working in my favour. Keep it up, Bronwen.
I fail to see you typing out large passages of text to prove your points. In fact, I see you saying "I don't know" a lot. Please shut up and research something for yourself before making accusations or, God forbid, "factual" statements.
The ILA claims to control over 93% of the land in Israel. Since 1948, large tracts of Arab-owned land have been confiscated or otherwise appropriated by the state or Zionist “national institutions such as the JNF, for the exclusive use of Jewish citizens. The JNF acquired approximately 78% of its land from the state in 1949 and 1953, the majority of which belonged to Palestinian refugees.
The JNF enjoys a special status under Israeli law. For example, Israel signed a covenant with the JNF in 1961, declaring that all JNF lands would be administered by the ILA, subject to the JNF’s objectives, namely to purchase, acquire on lease or in exchange land in Israel "for the purpose of settling Jews." The JNF interprets this as prohibiting the allocation of its lands to “non-Jews. This prohibition is racist in nature and effect. Israeli law also confers upon the fund privileges usually reserved for a public authority. As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has recognized, the JNF executes many governmental functions. Meanwhile, this discriminatory institution operates in several of the Member States of this Commission, registered as a tax-exempt charitable organization.
HIC-HLRN, Adalah, Oral intervention to UN Commission on Human Rights, Sixtieth session, 14 March–22 April. Statements to UN bodies, 2005 - also see Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah, "Equality" p. 216-217 for examples of inequality in land rights.
These repeated attempts to call me a liar are actually working in my favour. Keep it up, Bronwen.
I fail to see you typing out large passages of text to prove your points. In fact, I see you saying "I don't know" a lot. Please shut up and research something for yourself before making accusations or, God forbid, "factual" statements.
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: In particular, HIC and Adalah wish to draw the Commission’s attention to the policy of the Israel Lands Administration (ILA), a state agency, of prohibiting Palestinian citizens of Israel from leasing Jewish National Fund (JNF) lands, which amount to 13% of Israel's lands. This policy, under which Palestinian citizens of Israel have no access to 13% of “Israel’s lands, encourages apartheid-like settlements and segregation along racial or ethnic lines.
The ILA claims to control over 93% of the land in Israel. Since 1948, large tracts of Arab-owned land have been confiscated or otherwise appropriated by the state or Zionist “national institutions such as the JNF, for the exclusive use of Jewish citizens. The JNF acquired approximately 78% of its land from the state in 1949 and 1953, the majority of which belonged to Palestinian refugees.
The JNF enjoys a special status under Israeli law. For example, Israel signed a covenant with the JNF in 1961, declaring that all JNF lands would be administered by the ILA, subject to the JNF’s objectives, namely to purchase, acquire on lease or in exchange land in Israel "for the purpose of settling Jews." The JNF interprets this as prohibiting the allocation of its lands to “non-Jews. This prohibition is racist in nature and effect. Israeli law also confers upon the fund privileges usually reserved for a public authority. As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has recognized, the JNF executes many governmental functions. Meanwhile, this discriminatory institution operates in several of the Member States of this Commission, registered as a tax-exempt charitable organization.
HIC-HLRN, Adalah, Oral intervention to UN Commission on Human Rights, Sixtieth session, 14 March–22 April. Statements to UN bodies, 2005 - also see Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah, "Equality" p. 216-217 for examples of inequality in land rights.
These repeated attempts to call me a liar are actually working in my favour. Keep it up, Bronwen.
I fail to see you typing out large passages of text to prove your points. In fact, I see you saying "I don't know" a lot. Please shut up and research something for yourself before making accusations or, God forbid, "factual" statements.First, if the indented portion is, as it seems to be, from an anti-Zionist source, then you'll excuse me if I prefer documentation from an Israeli or neutral source.
Secondly, even if accurate, it falls way short of claims you made previously.
Thirdly, if the goal of the 'Palestinians' is their own state in the West Bank and Gaza, why ON EARTH would they have the slightest interest in their rights regarding owning land in Israel? It makes you wonder how serious they are about ANYTHING but continuing to murder as many Jews as possible and then whining and wailing about how their Israeli victims are persecuting them by fighting back.
The ILA claims to control over 93% of the land in Israel. Since 1948, large tracts of Arab-owned land have been confiscated or otherwise appropriated by the state or Zionist “national institutions such as the JNF, for the exclusive use of Jewish citizens. The JNF acquired approximately 78% of its land from the state in 1949 and 1953, the majority of which belonged to Palestinian refugees.
The JNF enjoys a special status under Israeli law. For example, Israel signed a covenant with the JNF in 1961, declaring that all JNF lands would be administered by the ILA, subject to the JNF’s objectives, namely to purchase, acquire on lease or in exchange land in Israel "for the purpose of settling Jews." The JNF interprets this as prohibiting the allocation of its lands to “non-Jews. This prohibition is racist in nature and effect. Israeli law also confers upon the fund privileges usually reserved for a public authority. As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has recognized, the JNF executes many governmental functions. Meanwhile, this discriminatory institution operates in several of the Member States of this Commission, registered as a tax-exempt charitable organization.
HIC-HLRN, Adalah, Oral intervention to UN Commission on Human Rights, Sixtieth session, 14 March–22 April. Statements to UN bodies, 2005 - also see Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah, "Equality" p. 216-217 for examples of inequality in land rights.
These repeated attempts to call me a liar are actually working in my favour. Keep it up, Bronwen.
I fail to see you typing out large passages of text to prove your points. In fact, I see you saying "I don't know" a lot. Please shut up and research something for yourself before making accusations or, God forbid, "factual" statements.First, if the indented portion is, as it seems to be, from an anti-Zionist source, then you'll excuse me if I prefer documentation from an Israeli or neutral source.
Secondly, even if accurate, it falls way short of claims you made previously.
Thirdly, if the goal of the 'Palestinians' is their own state in the West Bank and Gaza, why ON EARTH would they have the slightest interest in their rights regarding owning land in Israel? It makes you wonder how serious they are about ANYTHING but continuing to murder as many Jews as possible and then whining and wailing about how their Israeli victims are persecuting them by fighting back.
Israeli Apartheid
I did a little research and found that basically no one buys land in Israel, Jews or Arabs, everyone leases land and Arabs have equal access. I think there is a blatant effort in this thread to smear Israel and present a false picture. Israel is remarkably demcoratic and fair considering the postion it is in. Anyway here is the text and a link for you to review.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to ... l_land.php
What about land? Does Israel discriminate against Arabs owning land?
While often repeated, the assertion that Arabs cannot obtain land in Israel is based on misconception, error and outright invention. In fact, most of the land in Israel is government-owned, and it is equally available to all Israelis, whether Jewish or Arab.
History of Land Ownership in Israel
In order to purchase land for the resettlement of Jews in their ancient homeland, the Fifth Zionist Congress (1901) created a private charitable organization called the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, land purchased by the JNF was not resold but was instead leased out on a long-term basis to create kibbutzim and other forms of Jewish settlement.
After 1948 state-owned lands formerly in the possession of British Mandatory Authorities, together with property abandoned by Arab refugees, passed into the control of the new Israeli government. Some of this land was sold by the government to the JNF, which had developed expertise in reclaiming and developing waste and barren lands and making them productive.
In 1960 under Basic Law: Israel Lands, JNF-owned land and government-owned land were together defined as "Israel lands," and the principle was laid down that such land would be leased rather than sold. The JNF retained ownership of its land, but administrative responsibility for the JNF land, and also for government-owned land, passed to a newly created agency called the Israel Land Administration or ILA.
Of the total land in Israel in 1997, the Israel Government Press Office statistics say 79.5% is owned by the government, 14% is privately owned by the JNF, and the rest, around 6.5%, is evenly divided between private Arab and Jewish owners. Thus, the ILA administers 93.5% of the land in Israel.
Who can access Israel Land Administration (ILA) land?
The crux of the issue then, is who can actually access the land that is almost completely controlled by the ILA? The statement that "Arabs cannot buy land in Israel" is largely true, but meaningless since Jews cannot buy land either, bound by the same ILA restrictions. In actual practice, ILA lands are leased and both Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel have equal access. Some classes of Arab citizens, e.g. Bedouins, have been the beneficiaries of highly subsidized land programs in Israel, so beneficial that Jews have gone to court to try to get the same terms. Affirmative action programs for Bedouins have been upheld by Jewish courts to the detriment of Jewish citizens.
Special case of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) land
JNF land, even when managed by the Israeli government, is restricted by the formal charter of the JNF. The purpose of the JNF was to purchase land for the settlement of Jews, and this has been interpreted to mean that JNF land should not be leased, at least on a long-term basis, to non-Jews. The agreement that placed the JNF land under government administration incorporates the restriction.
In practice, however, JNF land has been leased to Arab citizens of Israel, both for short-term and long-term use such as leases on a yearly basis to Bedouins for use as pasture. In other cases, JNF land has been traded for other, unrestricted, land so it can be leased to Arabs.
Private land in Israel
There are no restrictions on private land transfers in Israel. Private land can be purchased or leasaed by Israeli Arabs or by non-citizens. Such land can be, and has been, purchased by Israeli Arabs and by foreigners, including Arab foreigners.
The Israeli government has announced plans to privatize much of Israel's state-owned land and offer cheap building permits to Israelis willing to move to less-desirable parts of the country, away from the crowded central area.
Contrast with Arab Policies
The relatively unrestricted access to land in Israel is in sharp contrast with Arab policies. During the 1948-1967 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), for example, Jews were forbidden to live there under pain of death. In 1973, under the direct instructions of King Hussein, the government of Jordan passed the Law for Preventing the Sale of Immoveable Property to the Enemy. The "enemy" defined in Article 2 as:
... any man or judicial body [corporation] of Israeli citizenship living in Israel or acting on its behalf.
This law, or equivalent, continued in effect under the Palestinian Authority (PA). By 1997, 172 people had been sentenced to death under this law, although "only" about 10 have been executed. The law is invalid under the Oslo II agreement and is one of the many violations of the Oslo peace process agreements by the PA. Palestinian land dealers in PA controlled areas have been murdered as "collaborators", a practice that was publically condoned by Yasser Arafat.
In 1995, following the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the Jordanian Parliament repealed the 1973 law and replaced it with milder statutes that still effectively bar Israelis from purchasing or leasing land in Jordan.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to ... l_land.php
What about land? Does Israel discriminate against Arabs owning land?
While often repeated, the assertion that Arabs cannot obtain land in Israel is based on misconception, error and outright invention. In fact, most of the land in Israel is government-owned, and it is equally available to all Israelis, whether Jewish or Arab.
History of Land Ownership in Israel
In order to purchase land for the resettlement of Jews in their ancient homeland, the Fifth Zionist Congress (1901) created a private charitable organization called the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, land purchased by the JNF was not resold but was instead leased out on a long-term basis to create kibbutzim and other forms of Jewish settlement.
After 1948 state-owned lands formerly in the possession of British Mandatory Authorities, together with property abandoned by Arab refugees, passed into the control of the new Israeli government. Some of this land was sold by the government to the JNF, which had developed expertise in reclaiming and developing waste and barren lands and making them productive.
In 1960 under Basic Law: Israel Lands, JNF-owned land and government-owned land were together defined as "Israel lands," and the principle was laid down that such land would be leased rather than sold. The JNF retained ownership of its land, but administrative responsibility for the JNF land, and also for government-owned land, passed to a newly created agency called the Israel Land Administration or ILA.
Of the total land in Israel in 1997, the Israel Government Press Office statistics say 79.5% is owned by the government, 14% is privately owned by the JNF, and the rest, around 6.5%, is evenly divided between private Arab and Jewish owners. Thus, the ILA administers 93.5% of the land in Israel.
Who can access Israel Land Administration (ILA) land?
The crux of the issue then, is who can actually access the land that is almost completely controlled by the ILA? The statement that "Arabs cannot buy land in Israel" is largely true, but meaningless since Jews cannot buy land either, bound by the same ILA restrictions. In actual practice, ILA lands are leased and both Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel have equal access. Some classes of Arab citizens, e.g. Bedouins, have been the beneficiaries of highly subsidized land programs in Israel, so beneficial that Jews have gone to court to try to get the same terms. Affirmative action programs for Bedouins have been upheld by Jewish courts to the detriment of Jewish citizens.
Special case of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) land
JNF land, even when managed by the Israeli government, is restricted by the formal charter of the JNF. The purpose of the JNF was to purchase land for the settlement of Jews, and this has been interpreted to mean that JNF land should not be leased, at least on a long-term basis, to non-Jews. The agreement that placed the JNF land under government administration incorporates the restriction.
In practice, however, JNF land has been leased to Arab citizens of Israel, both for short-term and long-term use such as leases on a yearly basis to Bedouins for use as pasture. In other cases, JNF land has been traded for other, unrestricted, land so it can be leased to Arabs.
Private land in Israel
There are no restrictions on private land transfers in Israel. Private land can be purchased or leasaed by Israeli Arabs or by non-citizens. Such land can be, and has been, purchased by Israeli Arabs and by foreigners, including Arab foreigners.
The Israeli government has announced plans to privatize much of Israel's state-owned land and offer cheap building permits to Israelis willing to move to less-desirable parts of the country, away from the crowded central area.
Contrast with Arab Policies
The relatively unrestricted access to land in Israel is in sharp contrast with Arab policies. During the 1948-1967 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), for example, Jews were forbidden to live there under pain of death. In 1973, under the direct instructions of King Hussein, the government of Jordan passed the Law for Preventing the Sale of Immoveable Property to the Enemy. The "enemy" defined in Article 2 as:
... any man or judicial body [corporation] of Israeli citizenship living in Israel or acting on its behalf.
This law, or equivalent, continued in effect under the Palestinian Authority (PA). By 1997, 172 people had been sentenced to death under this law, although "only" about 10 have been executed. The law is invalid under the Oslo II agreement and is one of the many violations of the Oslo peace process agreements by the PA. Palestinian land dealers in PA controlled areas have been murdered as "collaborators", a practice that was publically condoned by Yasser Arafat.
In 1995, following the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the Jordanian Parliament repealed the 1973 law and replaced it with milder statutes that still effectively bar Israelis from purchasing or leasing land in Jordan.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Here is an example of humour.
Schoolmaster: "What was Hitler's Christian name?"
Schoolboy: "Heil"Your humor is about as numb-nutted as your political theories. Here are a couple of FUNNY German name jokes:
1. A German exchange student, a big, husky guy who looks like a natural for the football team, is registering on his first school day in the USA:
Last name?
Schmidt.
First name?
Alice.
Alice?
Ja, Alice.
Well, OK, but do you mind me asking, how did you get a name like Alice?
Vell, wen I vas born, meine parents already had five children, und all girls. Mein Vater looked at me und said, 'Das ist Alice'.
2. A man is visiting New York City and walking through Chinatown. We sees a sign on a storefront, 'HANS SCHMIDT - HAND LAUNDRY'. Intrigued, he goes in and sees the obviously Chinese-American owner hard at work.
'Excuse me, are you Hans Schmidt?'
'Yes, that's right. What can I do for you?'
'Well, it's none of my business, but how did you get a name like Hans Schmidt?'
'Well, it's a funny thing, that's the name the immigration official gave me years ago on Ellis Island. You see, I was standing in line, and he asked the guy in front of me, "What's your name?", and the guy said "Hans Schmidt", and the official wrote it down on the form, stamped it, and sent him on his way.
'Then he asked me, "What's your name?", and I said, "Sam Ding." '
Schoolmaster: "What was Hitler's Christian name?"
Schoolboy: "Heil"Your humor is about as numb-nutted as your political theories. Here are a couple of FUNNY German name jokes:
1. A German exchange student, a big, husky guy who looks like a natural for the football team, is registering on his first school day in the USA:
Last name?
Schmidt.
First name?
Alice.
Alice?
Ja, Alice.
Well, OK, but do you mind me asking, how did you get a name like Alice?
Vell, wen I vas born, meine parents already had five children, und all girls. Mein Vater looked at me und said, 'Das ist Alice'.
2. A man is visiting New York City and walking through Chinatown. We sees a sign on a storefront, 'HANS SCHMIDT - HAND LAUNDRY'. Intrigued, he goes in and sees the obviously Chinese-American owner hard at work.
'Excuse me, are you Hans Schmidt?'
'Yes, that's right. What can I do for you?'
'Well, it's none of my business, but how did you get a name like Hans Schmidt?'
'Well, it's a funny thing, that's the name the immigration official gave me years ago on Ellis Island. You see, I was standing in line, and he asked the guy in front of me, "What's your name?", and the guy said "Hans Schmidt", and the official wrote it down on the form, stamped it, and sent him on his way.
'Then he asked me, "What's your name?", and I said, "Sam Ding." '
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: I did a little research and found that basically no one buys land in Israel, Jews or Arabs, everyone leases land and Arabs have equal access. Thank you. I don't have time to read it carefully now but will do so later.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
[QUOTE=Bronwen]Your humor is about as numb-nutted as your political theories. Here are a couple of FUNNY German jokes:
Must have had them rolling in the heils..............
(BTW. You haven't have any of my political theories - how do you know they are 'numb-nutted*')
* 'dumb-nutted' is the way some might put it, others might say: 'Political views conceived more in the heat of momentory ideology than belonging to the framework of legislative pragmatism.'
Must have had them rolling in the heils..............
(BTW. You haven't have any of my political theories - how do you know they are 'numb-nutted*')
* 'dumb-nutted' is the way some might put it, others might say: 'Political views conceived more in the heat of momentory ideology than belonging to the framework of legislative pragmatism.'
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: First, if the indented portion is, as it seems to be, from an anti-Zionist source, then you'll excuse me if I prefer documentation from an Israeli or neutral source.
Secondly, even if accurate, it falls way short of claims you made previously.
Thirdly, if the goal of the 'Palestinians' is their own state in the West Bank and Gaza, why ON EARTH would they have the slightest interest in their rights regarding owning land in Israel? It makes you wonder how serious they are about ANYTHING but continuing to murder as many Jews as possible and then whining and wailing about how their Israeli victims are persecuting them by fighting back.
First, nice recovery since you wrote that you didn't see a quoted source then changed it to just being a bad one. There is lots of information about Arabs being refused land and having what they owned taken away from them.
secondly, if I wanted to satisify your request I might as well write a book. No one is paying me for doing that on this website so, unless you want to offer me a publication deal, you are not going to get what you are asking for.
thirdly, you are basically saying that Arabs should not live in Israel because it undermines other Arab intentions to become an independent state. That is...not worth commenting on.
zinky, I can see why you think you found a good source but if you look closer you'll see that they aren't. In a section where they ask "Is Israel violating UN resolutions" they refuse to admit that they are. They then like to a document that discusses the UN bias against Israel.
I found this article from Harper's Magazine in which an Israeli discusses living in Israel. The whole article is good but I'll focus on the points of the inequality, specifically land related.
Saving Israel From Itself
By Bernard Avishai
So on the one hand are people whose preoccupation with “a Jewish majority suggests an intuitive grasp of what it takes to preserve Jewish culture but whose grasp of building democracy is shallow and mechanical, who are painting by numbers—and (intentionally or not) laying the groundwork for ethnic cleansing...
When I finally moved to Jerusalem in 1972, I was given a virtually interest-free mortgage to buy an apartment in Jerusalem's French Hill, a new neighborhood that the state, in collaboration with Zionist philanthropic agencies, was putting up next to Mt. Scopus in Arab East Jerusalem. All I had had to do was prove myself a Jew by birth, which I had done, to an Israeli consul back in Canada. I did not think of this apartment complex as “a settlement. I did not think it strange that I was moving into a neighborhood stringently segregated by the very Zionist laws, dreams, and management I had come to identify with liberation. The point is, settlements were made in territories beyond the Green Line so effortlessly after 1967 because the Zionist institutions that built them and the laws that drove them—The Jewish Agency, Zionist land banks and mortgage companies, the Law of Return, regulations supporting the Orthodox Rabbinate's determination of what a Jew is—had all been going full throttle within the Green Line before 1967. To focus merely on West Bank settlers was always to beg the question...
Israel is also a country, however, in which the institutional discrimination I spoke about has always been so routine as to be hardly noticed, especially among Jews. The most important continuing inequality is preferential residency on the land. Israeli Arabs, who are disproportionately engaged in farming, live mostly in separate towns having jurisdiction over 2.5 percent of the total land mass of pre-1967 Israel, augmenting their holdings with private land. This segregated pattern of settlement results from the fact that about 93 percent of pre-1967 Israel is public land administered by the Israel Lands Administration, which since its founding in 1960 has essentially taken over the mission of the prestate Jewish National Fund. Few outside observers have been able to penetrate the Lands Administration's convoluted leasing arrangements with Jewish Agency mortgage companies, or with preferred contractors, or with large secretive holding companies such as Himanuta. Adding to the complexity, a 2001 Supreme Court ruling determined that old Jewish National Fund regulations, prohibiting sale of land to non-Jews, could not be used to keep an Arab couple from acquiring housing in the established village of Katzir. Yet nobody doubts that when any new housing developments are completed, only people with “Jewish nationality need apply.
http://www.harpers.org/SavingIsraelFromItself.html
Secondly, even if accurate, it falls way short of claims you made previously.
Thirdly, if the goal of the 'Palestinians' is their own state in the West Bank and Gaza, why ON EARTH would they have the slightest interest in their rights regarding owning land in Israel? It makes you wonder how serious they are about ANYTHING but continuing to murder as many Jews as possible and then whining and wailing about how their Israeli victims are persecuting them by fighting back.
First, nice recovery since you wrote that you didn't see a quoted source then changed it to just being a bad one. There is lots of information about Arabs being refused land and having what they owned taken away from them.
secondly, if I wanted to satisify your request I might as well write a book. No one is paying me for doing that on this website so, unless you want to offer me a publication deal, you are not going to get what you are asking for.
thirdly, you are basically saying that Arabs should not live in Israel because it undermines other Arab intentions to become an independent state. That is...not worth commenting on.
zinky, I can see why you think you found a good source but if you look closer you'll see that they aren't. In a section where they ask "Is Israel violating UN resolutions" they refuse to admit that they are. They then like to a document that discusses the UN bias against Israel.
I found this article from Harper's Magazine in which an Israeli discusses living in Israel. The whole article is good but I'll focus on the points of the inequality, specifically land related.
Saving Israel From Itself
By Bernard Avishai
So on the one hand are people whose preoccupation with “a Jewish majority suggests an intuitive grasp of what it takes to preserve Jewish culture but whose grasp of building democracy is shallow and mechanical, who are painting by numbers—and (intentionally or not) laying the groundwork for ethnic cleansing...
When I finally moved to Jerusalem in 1972, I was given a virtually interest-free mortgage to buy an apartment in Jerusalem's French Hill, a new neighborhood that the state, in collaboration with Zionist philanthropic agencies, was putting up next to Mt. Scopus in Arab East Jerusalem. All I had had to do was prove myself a Jew by birth, which I had done, to an Israeli consul back in Canada. I did not think of this apartment complex as “a settlement. I did not think it strange that I was moving into a neighborhood stringently segregated by the very Zionist laws, dreams, and management I had come to identify with liberation. The point is, settlements were made in territories beyond the Green Line so effortlessly after 1967 because the Zionist institutions that built them and the laws that drove them—The Jewish Agency, Zionist land banks and mortgage companies, the Law of Return, regulations supporting the Orthodox Rabbinate's determination of what a Jew is—had all been going full throttle within the Green Line before 1967. To focus merely on West Bank settlers was always to beg the question...
Israel is also a country, however, in which the institutional discrimination I spoke about has always been so routine as to be hardly noticed, especially among Jews. The most important continuing inequality is preferential residency on the land. Israeli Arabs, who are disproportionately engaged in farming, live mostly in separate towns having jurisdiction over 2.5 percent of the total land mass of pre-1967 Israel, augmenting their holdings with private land. This segregated pattern of settlement results from the fact that about 93 percent of pre-1967 Israel is public land administered by the Israel Lands Administration, which since its founding in 1960 has essentially taken over the mission of the prestate Jewish National Fund. Few outside observers have been able to penetrate the Lands Administration's convoluted leasing arrangements with Jewish Agency mortgage companies, or with preferred contractors, or with large secretive holding companies such as Himanuta. Adding to the complexity, a 2001 Supreme Court ruling determined that old Jewish National Fund regulations, prohibiting sale of land to non-Jews, could not be used to keep an Arab couple from acquiring housing in the established village of Katzir. Yet nobody doubts that when any new housing developments are completed, only people with “Jewish nationality need apply.
http://www.harpers.org/SavingIsraelFromItself.html
Israeli Apartheid
Interesting article and I think it illustrates "the facts on the ground" accurately. It's much like the race situation in the US, in that civila rights laws have been implemented and everyone theoretically has the same opportunities. The reality is that there is till racism practiced by some people and unofficially "institutionalized" by these people. Same thing with Israelis Jews and Arabs. Until peoples individual views as human beings change towards thier fellows there was always be unofficial appatheids. Israel faces the same stresses as any other multi-cultural or multi-racial society only in a more extreme environment than many. I still think they have handled it as well as most societies. Where is your call for tolerance by the Islamofacists, African dicatorships and Asian tyrrany. You seem to expect the Israelis to be perfect in an imperfect world...
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: Where is your call for tolerance by the Islamofacists, African dicatorships and Asian tyrrany. You seem to expect the Israelis to be perfect in an imperfect world...
The words "islamofascism" and "islamofascist" have been discussed to exhaustion on this forum elsewhere. Israel justifies its own crimes by redirecting attention to the crimes of its opponents. Asking for them to stop crimes of aggression is not asking them to be perfect. It is asking them to maintain international standards instead of becoming the terrorists they despise. I also expect Israel to accept the role they play in creating the terrorists they are fighting.
The words "islamofascism" and "islamofascist" have been discussed to exhaustion on this forum elsewhere. Israel justifies its own crimes by redirecting attention to the crimes of its opponents. Asking for them to stop crimes of aggression is not asking them to be perfect. It is asking them to maintain international standards instead of becoming the terrorists they despise. I also expect Israel to accept the role they play in creating the terrorists they are fighting.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
I was thinking of you this afternoon! There is one thing the Germans can do better than anyone else...................
Drum sag' ich euch:
ehrt eure deutschen Meister!
Dann bannt ihr gute Geister;
und gebt ihr ihrem Wirken Gunst,
zerging' in Dunst
das heil'ge röm'sche Reich,
uns bliebe gleich
die heil'ge deutsche Kunst!
Drum sag' ich euch:
ehrt eure deutschen Meister!
Dann bannt ihr gute Geister;
und gebt ihr ihrem Wirken Gunst,
zerging' in Dunst
das heil'ge röm'sche Reich,
uns bliebe gleich
die heil'ge deutsche Kunst!
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: It's much like the race situation in the US, in that civila rights laws have been implemented and everyone theoretically has the same opportunities. The reality is that there is till racism practiced by some people and unofficially "institutionalized" by these people. Same thing with Israelis Jews and Arabs. Until peoples individual views as human beings change towards thier fellows there was always be unofficial appatheids. Israel faces the same stresses as any other multi-cultural or multi-racial society only in a more extreme environment than many. I still think they have handled it as well as most societies. Where is your call for tolerance by the Islamofacists, African dicatorships and Asian tyrrany. You seem to expect the Israelis to be perfect in an imperfect world...
I don't think the US is an especially good example to use as a yardstick. It is probably the most totalitarian country this side of the Balkans. I like America and most of the Americans I have come across - I am a regular visitor - but their institutions are just asking for an uprising.
The most objectionable thing about racism is the hypocracy that goes hand in glove Most of us are 'racist' to some degree and it is only human to be so. There is a (theoretical) list of people I would prefer my daughter not to marry andI suppose that list marks me out as a racist. I hope, at any rate, I can be labelled as an honest one.
In the case of Israel, we have a state that is shouting its mulricultural credentials whilst practising the opposite. It is clear from what we have seen that a Gentile does not have equal treatment - but Israel should be honest enough to say so.
I don't think the US is an especially good example to use as a yardstick. It is probably the most totalitarian country this side of the Balkans. I like America and most of the Americans I have come across - I am a regular visitor - but their institutions are just asking for an uprising.
The most objectionable thing about racism is the hypocracy that goes hand in glove Most of us are 'racist' to some degree and it is only human to be so. There is a (theoretical) list of people I would prefer my daughter not to marry andI suppose that list marks me out as a racist. I hope, at any rate, I can be labelled as an honest one.
In the case of Israel, we have a state that is shouting its mulricultural credentials whilst practising the opposite. It is clear from what we have seen that a Gentile does not have equal treatment - but Israel should be honest enough to say so.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: It is probably the most totalitarian country this side of the Balkans.
apparently the term 'totalitarian' has no meaning any more. none.
what's the point of discussing the legality of israel (still waiting on that) when the terms used in the discussion have been decomposed into pile of sludge?
apparently the term 'totalitarian' has no meaning any more. none.
what's the point of discussing the legality of israel (still waiting on that) when the terms used in the discussion have been decomposed into pile of sludge?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
[QUOTE=koan]Israel justifies its own crimes by redirecting attention to the crimes of its opponents.
QUOTE]
This is a very good point and shows the banality of 'eye for an eye' policies. My view is that Israel is on a losing wicket.
It is essentially an Arab country which the Jewish minority populated by encouraging the notion that Israel was the biblical homeland of their race and that Jews worldwide should settle there.
Power was taken quite arbitrarily and the fact that the nomadic Palestinian Arabs showed no signs of wanting an administration did not justify the theft.
Britain should have kept to its original scheme of retaining Palestine for the Arabs.
The result is that the oil and water of Jew and Arab has created a foment of almost continuous war. I cannot see the matter being resolved until, somehow, Israel is returned to the Palestinians.
QUOTE]
This is a very good point and shows the banality of 'eye for an eye' policies. My view is that Israel is on a losing wicket.
It is essentially an Arab country which the Jewish minority populated by encouraging the notion that Israel was the biblical homeland of their race and that Jews worldwide should settle there.
Power was taken quite arbitrarily and the fact that the nomadic Palestinian Arabs showed no signs of wanting an administration did not justify the theft.
Britain should have kept to its original scheme of retaining Palestine for the Arabs.
The result is that the oil and water of Jew and Arab has created a foment of almost continuous war. I cannot see the matter being resolved until, somehow, Israel is returned to the Palestinians.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
[QUOTE=anastrophe]apparently the term 'totalitarian' has no meaning any more. none.
A totalitarian state is one in which the individual is subordinate to the state and its mechanisms. In a free society the state echoes the will of the people: this is not the case in today's America.
A totalitarian state is one in which the individual is subordinate to the state and its mechanisms. In a free society the state echoes the will of the people: this is not the case in today's America.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: [quote=koan]Israel justifies its own crimes by redirecting attention to the crimes of its opponents.
This is a very good point and shows the banality of 'eye for an eye' policies. My view is that Israel is on a losing wicket.
so. you're suggesting that the palestinians do not justify their crimes by redirecting attention to the crimes of the israelis? i guess i would suggest that 'eye for an eye' requires at least that one have their eyes open when looking at the issue!
It is essentially an Arab country which the Jewish minority populated by encouraging the notion that Israel was the biblical homeland of their race and that Jews worldwide should settle there.
it is a matter of record that the arab countries, from as far as morocco on the west and iran on the east, strongly "encouraged" their jewish populations to go to israel, as it solved their localized "problem" of having the unwanted jews in their lands. of course, once the jews were in israel, the cry became that israel must go too.
Power was taken quite arbitrarily and the fact that the nomadic Palestinian Arabs showed no signs of wanting an administration did not justify the theft.
Britain should have kept to its original scheme of retaining Palestine for the Arabs.
for there have been 'theft', there had to have been a legal state and administration from which it was taken. at that time, it was your motherland, the UK. so, if israel is to be dissolved as "illegal" (still waiting on that one), then the only authority it can be returned to is the UK. how's the opinion of of the UK with the arab states these days? amicable as always?
The result is that the oil and water of Jew and Arab has created a foment of almost continuous war. I cannot see the matter being resolved until, somehow, Israel is returned to the Palestinians.
the middle east has been in almost continuous war for long before the jews settled israel. heaping it on them is no more rational than calling the united states a totalitarian nation.
This is a very good point and shows the banality of 'eye for an eye' policies. My view is that Israel is on a losing wicket.
so. you're suggesting that the palestinians do not justify their crimes by redirecting attention to the crimes of the israelis? i guess i would suggest that 'eye for an eye' requires at least that one have their eyes open when looking at the issue!
It is essentially an Arab country which the Jewish minority populated by encouraging the notion that Israel was the biblical homeland of their race and that Jews worldwide should settle there.
it is a matter of record that the arab countries, from as far as morocco on the west and iran on the east, strongly "encouraged" their jewish populations to go to israel, as it solved their localized "problem" of having the unwanted jews in their lands. of course, once the jews were in israel, the cry became that israel must go too.
Power was taken quite arbitrarily and the fact that the nomadic Palestinian Arabs showed no signs of wanting an administration did not justify the theft.
Britain should have kept to its original scheme of retaining Palestine for the Arabs.
for there have been 'theft', there had to have been a legal state and administration from which it was taken. at that time, it was your motherland, the UK. so, if israel is to be dissolved as "illegal" (still waiting on that one), then the only authority it can be returned to is the UK. how's the opinion of of the UK with the arab states these days? amicable as always?
The result is that the oil and water of Jew and Arab has created a foment of almost continuous war. I cannot see the matter being resolved until, somehow, Israel is returned to the Palestinians.
the middle east has been in almost continuous war for long before the jews settled israel. heaping it on them is no more rational than calling the united states a totalitarian nation.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: [quote=anastrophe]apparently the term 'totalitarian' has no meaning any more. none.
A totalitarian state is one in which the individual is subordinate to the state and its mechanisms. In a free society the state echoes the will of the people: this is not the case in today's America.
unadulterated nonsense, with no factual basis, no basis in reality, and purely a construct of a vivid imagination.
you're aware that forumgarden's servers are hosted here in the united states? that people are absolutely free to spout utterly absurd tripe about the united states on a server hosted in the united states?
try doing that in cuba, which i believe is west of the balkans, last i checked a map. you won't get much past plugging in the hardware.
A totalitarian state is one in which the individual is subordinate to the state and its mechanisms. In a free society the state echoes the will of the people: this is not the case in today's America.
unadulterated nonsense, with no factual basis, no basis in reality, and purely a construct of a vivid imagination.
you're aware that forumgarden's servers are hosted here in the united states? that people are absolutely free to spout utterly absurd tripe about the united states on a server hosted in the united states?
try doing that in cuba, which i believe is west of the balkans, last i checked a map. you won't get much past plugging in the hardware.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]