2156 others browsing the Canadian Forums! Join us!

Israel...

Israel...

Risus

#781

Re: Israel...

Jan 17th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loon

I love your kind and feeling heart, Socrates! You are a good man and would never participate nor stand by idle in these brutalities. But look, what your "civilized" countries are capable of ....
--
or this here...
--
--
--

I think we should not point fingers, but rather clean up our own acts first, then we can lead by being a good example. To go there and butcher their men, women and children; destroy their land and belongings... isn't looking good on us either.

LOL, the USA is civilized? Give me a break. The country is run (for a few more days) by a war criminal.

Spade

Free Thinker

#782

Re: Israel...

Jan 17th, 2009

"Run" is stretching it a wee tad!

Zzarchov

#783

Re: Israel...

Jan 17th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loon

I know, Zzarkov, I've heard that advice before. It is very difficult to truly believe anything one finds in print. There is a saying in German: "Papier ist geduldig." Meaning, paper is tolerant.

To a degree its tolerant, but the truth comes out when the paper is out of one groups reach so to speak.

Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loon

If this info on Jew Watch is false, couldn't they be charged for slander? The Jews are otherwise so alert and go after anybody who says something about them that, in their opinion, isn't true. How can they let this slide?

Well for starters, its slander on dead people. You can't sue someone (a civil case) for a wrong that doesn't involve you.

And even if you did, the laws don't cross country to country, what county is the site hosted in? Who do you deliver papers to? What do the laws in that country say? If its Iran it might say that anything anti-jewish is fine. The internet is world wide.

Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loon

Encyclopedias and wikipedias have to conform to the official Jewish version of events. One does not find the truth there either. It's too one-sided.

No, they don't. There is no "Jewish Version" of events, there is no massive Jewish conspiracy. There is just historical documented fact. Its "one sided" because there is one side thats correct. Likewise if you went reading to see if the sky was blue or polka dot, it would be pretty "one sided" that people agree the sky is blue. That doesn't mean it isn't somehow true. The Jewish faith is not as all powerful as people make it out to be, they are a tiny portion of the population. Its no different than Claiming the masons run everything or the Arabs run everything.

Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loon

What is called "Revisionist" stuff is totally denied, no matter how well documented. I find it hard to believe historians will rather go to jail than retracting their findings as lies, or made up for the fun of it.

Germany is a different can of worms when it comes to their laws. But yes, alot of people will go to jail for what they believe is true. But believing something is true and it being true are different. Most of the "holocaust denial" documentation has shown to be false, repeatedly. But I welcome any scholarly work into the subject, as do most people, because its simply not possible to refute it when hundreds of thousands of people saw it with their own eyes.

The danger is that as time goes by, that will be glossed over, much in the same way people gloss over the Tyranny of Genghis Khan or the Aztecs.

Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loon

If the Jews have to resort to this scare tactic to silence people, then, I think, they have something to hide.
What, in your opinion, is the reason for this almost world-wide law on silence?

1, there is no world wide law on silence. There is Germany, and perhaps Austria though I am not sure. The Germans use this "Scare tactic" because too many German people were trying to simply cover up what happened for the sake of national pride, pretend it didn't happen like a housewife who finds out her new husband is molesting her child. Pretend nothing is happening and lie.

The opposition to holocaust denial comes strongest not from Jewish citizens, but the Christian and Atheist veterans (And their relatives) who saw first hand and refuse to let this sink quietly away.

2, there is no "The Jews". Seriously. There is no "Jew International" or "Elders of Zion" or any other group of Jews. They aren't even like Catholics and do not have a pope. They are individuals, thats it.

Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loon

Poland, apparently, is now also threatening to persecute people who say something unflattering about their State.

When will Germany follow suit?

Germany already tried to go through with that, thats why the current laws in Germany on denying the holocaust are in place. Otherwise back in the late 40's people would have swept the issue under the rug.

Zzarchov

#784

Re: Israel...

Jan 17th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loon

From the facts I know, which are well documented, it seems to me the Jews are in the wrong by taking the land from the Palestinians, that is, more land than was originally allotted them. From that fact alone I can understand the hostilities from the beleaguered Palestinians. The Arabs are probably asking, "why us?; why do the Western countries not give them a chunk of their land?"

Well Loon, here is the hypocrisy in that statement.

You stand as a European on Native Land. This land was taken from Native North Americans by Europeans through the unlawful use of force.

And while you yourself did nothing, nor did the Israeli citizens. In your case, the fighting was done even by the ancestors of others, you just immigrated here. So too is the case with more Israelis.

So If a native told you to abandon your house right now and leave , and all your children and their children had to leave Canada too? Would you? And if you didn't would they be right to shoot rockets at your house and try and kill your family?

Risus

#785

Re: Israel...

Jan 17th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Spade

"Run" is stretching it a wee tad!

Hmmmm, ok you got me on that one!

einmensch

#786

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Socrates--Cortez ,Pizarro greatly outnumbered like Israel defeated huge empires--so who is the threat -the Arabs with slingshots or Jews with with--
1.4 million Palestinians killed 9 Israelis--perhaps you need to rethink
-Israel attacked its neighbours not the other way around
-agreed Israel has not attacked Iran-it wants the USA to do it just like the USA attack on Iraq--so who is the threat?

einmensch

#787

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Zz-the Israelis are taking land from the Palestinians now-Illegal settlements etc.--so cut your crap comparing immigrants to Canada after WW2-to Jews immigrating not to Israel but being paid to push out and take land from Palestinians now, today and tomorrow-the problem is not Jews immigrating to Israel--most of the world's Jews don't want to live in Israel -but for $350.oo you can pay for a poor Jew to go live in Israel-Palestine ?and push out some Palestinian family

If the Jews would have moved into Palestine in the 17&18 hundreds-they could have killed off the native population and gotten away with it but not in the 20th-21st century

Zzarchov

#788

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by einmensch

Zz-the Israelis are taking land from the Palestinians now-Illegal settlements etc.--so cut your crap comparing immigrants to Canada after WW2-to Jews immigrating not to Israel but being paid to push out and take land from Palestinians now, today and tomorrow-the problem is not Jews immigrating to Israel--most of the world's Jews don't want to live in Israel -but for $350.oo you can pay for a poor Jew to go live in Israel-Palestine ?and push out some Palestinian family

If the Jews would have moved into Palestine in the 17&18 hundreds-they could have killed off the native population and gotten away with it but not in the 20th-21st century

actually most of the "Zionist immigration" happened in the 19th century (At the same time we "opened up the west" by pushing out Metis families). Thats why the largest religion in Jerusalem were Jews in the mid 1800's, and they were the majority by 1896.

When the war in 1947 happened the Area already had a burgeoning Jewish population, thats why the term Palestinian meant "Jew" at that point. More Jewish folks immigrated afterwords, in large numbers sure.

But you're pretending that in North America we stopped shooting natives and taking their land ing the 1700's? Try again, the latter half of the 20th century, into the 70's I believe but I'd have to look into the exact dates.

But hey, thats just us right? Why hold us to the same standards as anyone else. Apparently your logic is somehow the "century" matters when this wrong occurred.

Typical.

dancing-loon

#789

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Thank you, Zzarchov, for your detailed answers. It is difficult to quote your page, as it only gives your answers out of context. So, I will later on respond separately. Just now I have an article in my mouse I would like to drop here for you to look over.
It's an article as one can find many and I'm sure you have read some yourself. I also already know your response to it!

The two of us are at opposite ends and probably will forever be at odds with each other on the Jewish issue. I truly would just like to discuss the issues, not kick you or anyone in the shins. You seem to have already understood that I don't appreciate being slandered or insulted, or called stupid, as some idiot has!

If you find me too naive or stubborn or in any way annoying, just don't bother responding... I get the message.

Here now is the article:
--

One small excerpt from it:

Quote:

Höss Testimony

One example of this might be the testimony of Rudolf Höss, an SS officer who served as commandant of Auschwitz. In its Judgment, the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal quoted at length from his testimony to support its findings of extermination. (note 14)
It is now well established that H°ss' crucial testimony, as well as his so-called "confession" (which was also cited by the Nuremberg Tribunal), are not only false, but were obtained by beating the former commandant nearly to death. (note 15) Hoess' wife and children were also threatened with death and deportation to Siberia. In his statement -- which would not be admissible today in any United States court of law -- H°ss claimed the existence of an extermination camp called "Wolzek." In fact, no such camp ever existed. He further claimed that during the time that he was commandant of Auschwitz, two and a half million people were exterminated there, and that a further half million died of disease. (note 16) Today no reputable historian upholds these figures. Hoess was obviously willing to say anything, sign anything and do anything to stop the torture, and to try to save himself and his family.

In my opinion the whole Nueremberg Trials were a sham, a circus. Just like in the recent case of Saddam Hussein...the victor crooks, through their proxy, hanged him!

But let me state this: I do believe many, many Jews and others died in the concentration camps. I think it was wrong what was done to the Jews! If I just imagine how awful it must have been to be ostracized and herded into uncomfortable barracks, not knowing one's fate for the next hour... that alone is terrible! It was not befitting for an intelligent, civilized nation to stoop to such degrading actions! I also feel that Germany, if it can, should pay reparations to the surviving Jews. I know Germany does generously.
Do you, Zzarchov, have some reputable documentation as to how many Jews survived their ordeals?

L Gilbert

No Party Affiliation

#790

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov

actually most of the "Zionist immigration" happened in the 19th century (At the same time we "opened up the west" by pushing out Metis families). Thats why the largest religion in Jerusalem were Jews in the mid 1800's, and they were the majority by 1896.

When the war in 1947 happened the Area already had a burgeoning Jewish population, thats why the term Palestinian meant "Jew" at that point. More Jewish folks immigrated afterwords, in large numbers sure.

But you're pretending that in North America we stopped shooting natives and taking their land ing the 1700's? Try again, the latter half of the 20th century, into the 70's I believe but I'd have to look into the exact dates.

But hey, thats just us right? Why hold us to the same standards as anyone else. Apparently your logic is somehow the "century" matters when this wrong occurred.

Typical.

..... and yours seems to be that just because they did it a while ago, it's excusable for someone else to do the same later. That is hardly a progressive attitude.
If the Israelis stop being oppressive and give the Palestinians some rope to at least try and live in peace, but keep up a relatively strict security, it'd at least be an attempt to come to some terms. If the Palestinians settle for the rope now and then work toward what they hope for, it'd be kinda nice. It's just stupidity to antagonize a superior force. You can't win, so the best thing to do is try to get along with it and seek for more trust and goodies or at least sidetrack it from paying attention to you.
It's a few hotheads with some pretty primitive attitudes that keep stirring the shyte to keep it fresh.
The past is the past. It is good not to forget it as long as the stupidities of the past aren't repeated.

Zzarchov

#791

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert

..... and yours seems to be that just because they did it a while ago, it's excusable for someone else to do the same later. That is hardly a progressive attitude.
If the Israelis stop being oppressive and give the Palestinians some rope to at least try and live in peace, but keep up a relatively strict security, it'd at least be an attempt to come to some terms. If the Palestinians settle for the rope now and then work toward what they hope for, it'd be kinda nice. It's just stupidity to antagonize a superior force. You can't win, so the best thing to do is try to get along with it and seek for more trust and goodies or at least sidetrack it from paying attention to you.
It's a few hotheads with some pretty primitive attitudes that keep stirring the shyte to keep it fresh.
The past is the past. It is good not to forget it as long as the stupidities of the past aren't repeated.

My logic is we cannot as Canadians sit here and pretend we didn't do the exact same thing at the exact same time, and then preach the Israelis do something we vehemently refuse to do ourselves.

I myself in another thread opposed Natives in Canada being treated with seperate laws and getting a "sentancing circle" to avoid punishment for getting drunk and killing his two children.

Often we hear cries about how natives should accept they are part of Canada, how they shouldn't be able to just pick up guns and occupy land they claim is theirs.

If we applied the demands we place on Israel to ourselves, we would have to do things much differently.

lone wolf

Free Thinker

#792

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov

My logic is we cannot as Canadians sit here and pretend we didn't do the exact same thing at the exact same time, and then preach the Israelis do something we vehemently refuse to do ourselves.

I myself in another thread opposed Natives in Canada being treated with seperate laws and getting a "sentancing circle" to avoid punishment for getting drunk and killing his two children.

Often we hear cries about how natives should accept they are part of Canada, how they shouldn't be able to just pick up guns and occupy land they claim is theirs.

If we applied the demands we place on Israel to ourselves, we would have to do things much differently.

I'm all for fair compensation for that which a person has actually lost. If one hasn't walked upon it or held it in one's hand, then it was never a part of his/her life.

Zzarchov

#793

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf

I'm all for fair compensation for that which a person has actually lost. If one hasn't walked upon it or held it in one's hand, then it was never a part of his/her life.

I agree, so does the world, except when it comes to Palestinians. They and they alone of all the displaced peoples in the world, are considered refugees to a land they have never seen, nor have their parents nor often grandparents.

And that is the critical issue in the peace process, whether the great-grandchildren of Palestinian Arabs have a right to displace the Grandchildren of legal immigrants to Israel, and force those grandchildren of legal immigrants away as refugees (as they can't "Go back", when you are 1/4 ethiopian, 1/4 russian, 1/4 American and 1/4 French where do you "Go back" to?)

earth_as_one

#794

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Palestinian "right of return" is unique because:

The UN helped create the Palestinian refugee problem in the first place and as a result shares responsibility with Israel for resolving it.

The UN passed a resolution which recognized Israel on condition that it allow Palestinians right of return.

Quote:

...The one exception was at the Lausanne Conference, 1949, where a Joint Protocol was accepted by the Israeli government and the Arab delegates on May 12, 1949. Israel, under pressure due to its desire to become a member of the United Nations, agreed in principle to the repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. After Israel became a member of the United Nations, the only attempt at any repatriation was a short-lived offer to accept 100,000 refugees, but no more. This offer, which was rejected by the Arabs, was then quickly withdrawn by Israel.[1] David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, insisted in an interview with the members of the Conciliations Commission that as long as Israel could not count on the dedication of any Arab refugees to remain "at peace with their neighbors" - a consequence, he contended, of the Arab states' unwillingness to remain at peace with the state of Israel - resettlement was not an obligation for...
Quote has been trimmed

Israel can withdraw from the Unitied Nations and return to its status of disputed territory if its unwilling or unable to meet the terms of its recognition. Is 61 years of Israeli non-compliance with the terms of UN recognition, continued ethnic cleansing and war long enough? How much longer should Palestinians wait for Israel and the UN to abide by their "obligations" regarding them?

MHz

#795

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov

I agree, so does the world, except when it comes to Palestinians. They and they alone of all the displaced peoples in the world, are considered refugees to a land they have never seen, nor have their parents nor often grandparents.

And that is the critical issue in the peace process, whether the great-grandchildren of Palestinian Arabs have a right to displace the Grandchildren of legal immigrants to Israel, and force those grandchildren of legal immigrants away as refugees (as they can't "Go back", when you are 1/4 ethiopian, 1/4 russian, 1/4 American and 1/4 French where do you "Go back" to?)

The Jews lay claim to a piece of land that was taken away from them more than 2,000 years ago. Some of the things God took away were taken away in 600BC and never returned. A throne for a House of David King is one example.
Are you saying that their claim is valid where any claims made after 1900AD are not valid because some never actually possessed the land?
Being born in a refugee camp would be enough to disqualify a person from having a claim? 60 years of being a refuge will cause that, so what?

The person with 1/4 this and that should have the choice of going to all those countries or becoming a 'Native' of the country they are living in. Same living conditions we impose on reservations today (being poor is not applicable to all reservations because of oil & gas revenues)

--

Last edited by MHz; Jan 18th, 2009 at 04:42 PM..

earth_as_one

#796

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Judaism is a religion, not a ethnic group. Apart from Zionists, the only other people who considered Jews to be a race were the Nazis.

Palestinians are the people who had the misfortune of living on land Zionists believe God gave to Jews. Palestinians are a people, not a religious group. They are Muslim, Christian and Jew. Jewish Palestinians were acepted by the Zionists. Most Muslim and Christian Palestinians became nationless refugees and have no regognized human rights. They are the people Zionists can kill with impunity. They are the people the world tries to ignore. They are the people who won't go away and die.

Zzarchov

#797

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

Judaism is a religion, not a ethnic group. Apart from Zionists, the only other people who considered Jews to be a race were the Nazis.

That is correct, Israelis are citizens (Jews, Muslim, Christian and Druze).

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

Palestinians are the people who had the misfortune of living on land Zionists believe God gave to Jews.

The real misfortune is that their government decided to allow immigrants (as does the Canadian government) even if it messed with the "Racial purity" of the Arab inhabitants (Muslim, Jewish and Christian alike).

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

Palestinians are a people, not a religious group.

No, Palestine is a chunk of dirt that had alot of Arabs on it. Palestinians describe themselves as Arab for a reason. The religious groups are Muslim, Christian and Jewish (even though often Jewish Palestinians are called settlers..regardless of how long they have lived in a region)

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

They are Muslim, Christian and Jew. Jewish Palestinians were acepted by the Zionists. Most Muslim and Christian Palestinians became nationless refugees and have no regognized human rights.

Right, so all the Christian, Muslim and Druze (the one you forgot) Israeli citizens who have been part of the nation since its birth..How do you explain them?

It seems the zionists accepted all Palestinians because Zionists WERE palestinians.

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

They are the people Zionists can kill with impunity. They are the people the world tries to ignore. They are the people who won't go away and die.

Zionism is by and large dead.

What you have a bunch of people born on the land being told to leave by people who's ancestors were born on the land.

This causes a logical impossibility.

Either you have a right to a land your ancestors lived on but you do not (in which case the Arab's who immigrated after the fall of Rome had no right to the land in the first place and should have been kicked out)

Or you don't have a right to the land your ancestors lived on but you never have (in which case the Jewish colonialism was crime as heinous as our nations founding, but Palestinian descended "refugees" have no right to return)

It can't work both ways.

L Gilbert

No Party Affiliation

#798

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov

My logic is we cannot as Canadians sit here and pretend we didn't do the exact same thing at the exact same time, and then preach the Israelis do something we vehemently refuse to do ourselves.

I myself in another thread opposed Natives in Canada being treated with seperate laws and getting a "sentancing circle" to avoid punishment for getting drunk and killing his two children.

Often we hear cries about how natives should accept they are part of Canada, how they shouldn't be able to just pick up guns and occupy land they claim is theirs.

If we applied the demands we place on Israel to ourselves, we would have to do things much differently.

"It is good not to forget it [the past]as long as the stupidities of the past aren't repeated. " - me

einmensch

#799

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Jews in 1900 Palestine Palestine 70,000 or 10%
The Jews in Palestine 1938: By Mahatma Gandhi (Mohandas Kirmachand Gandhi)

--
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

einmensch

#800

Re: Israel...

Jan 18th, 2009

Zionist pioneers were almost absent in Palestine as of 1906, and constituted only 1% of the total Jewish population in Palestine.

Amid this savagery, land grabbing and dehumanization of the victims, both the United States and Israel have managed to convince themselves that the way they treated their victims was in fact humane and civilized. "No other conquering or colonizing nation has ever treated savage owners of the soil with such generosity as has the United States," Roosevelt said.

"Many people were inside the houses we started to demolish. They would come out of the houses while we where working on them. I found joy with every house that came down, because I knew they didn't mind dying, but they cared for their homes. If you knocked down a house, you bury 40 or 50 people for generations. If I am sorry for anything, it is for not tearing the whole camp down. This is the way I thought in Jenin. I didn't give a damn. If I had been given three weeks, I would have had more fun. That is, if they would let me tear the whole camp down. I have no mercy."

A few months ago---
The Israeli army has behaved as "as the most moral army in the world and the most careful army in the world."

When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem."

From the beginning, Zionists advocated a "Jewish State" not just in Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights as well. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's" frontiers in details as follows:

"to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan" (--, p. 87) -- to view the "Greater Israel" map that was submitted by the Zionists to the peace conference after WWI.

GEE the Zionists knew in 1918 how Israel would look in 1969-Just by chance

Zzarchov

#801

Re: Israel...

Jan 19th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

Palestinian "right of return" is unique because:

The UN helped create the Palestinian refugee problem in the first place and as a result shares responsibility with Israel for resolving it.

The UN has created many similar situations over the years, none of them have that distinction. Not Unique.

And in Palestine, it didn't help create anything. There was a war brewing, it tried to step in, everyone on both sides ignored it, and its plan shares no real similarity with the outcome.

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

The UN passed a resolution which recognized Israel on condition that it allow Palestinians right of return.

Yes, Palestinians, not Palestinian descendants.

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

Israel can withdraw from the Unitied Nations and return to its status of disputed territory if its unwilling or unable to meet the terms of its recognition.

The UN does not grant recognition to nations. Not all nations are members of the UN.

Switzerland only joined in 2002, are you saying it wasn't a nation before 2002? The Vatican still is not a member of the UN.

The UN is not a world government.

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

Is 61 years of Israeli non-compliance with the terms of UN recognition, continued ethnic cleansing and war long enough? How much longer should Palestinians wait for Israel and the UN to abide by their "obligations" regarding them?

Israel has no obligations to the UN, the UN did not enforce its partition plan, it loses say in the matter. Lots of people and organizations had partition plans that also didn't come to be.
They also don't get to assign conditions.

So, tell me your position:

Are you entitled to lands you have never seen because your ancestors lived there, at the expense of the current residents who were born there?

Or are you not entitled to lands you have never seen regardless of where your ancestors lived?

earth_as_one

#802

Re: Israel...

Jan 19th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov

Are you entitled to lands you have never seen because your ancestors lived there, at the expense of the current residents who were born there?

Or are you not entitled to lands you have never seen regardless of where your ancestors lived?

Apparently you are enttled to lands you have never seen because your ancestors lived their, at the expense of the current residents who were born there... if you are Jewish.

Even if its been thousands of years and hundreds of generations since one of your ancestors last set foot in Palestine, you still have the right to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Palestinians and kill the residents with impunity. You will even have the support of military super powers, provided you are Jewish and Israeli.

Even if your ancestors never originated from this area, as long as you convert to Judaism first, you have the same right to imigrate to Israel, become and Israeli citizen and kill Palestinians and ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Palestine.

As a Jewish Israeli you can move into other peoples homes, sleep in their beds, toss their family portraits out with the trash, redecorate the house a little and its yours. As long as the former inhabitants weren't Jewish or Israeli.

Being Jewish and Israeli gives you the right to ignore UN resolutions, international treaties, trample people's fundamental human rights, lock them up in giant prisons, starve them, bomb them, commit war crimes, crimes against humanity.... You can even treat children this way. It doesn't matter as long as your victms aren't Jewish.

In order to justify your actions all you have to do is point to some passages in a religious book and accuse your adversaries of being terrorists. Your actions are completely justified regardless of how many lines of human decency you cross.... provided you are Jewish and Israeli.

But if you are Arab and Israeli, you better not complain about your treatment. Just be glad that you have can live in Israel for now...

Quote:

13/01/2009
Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

By Shahar Ilan and Roni Singer-Heruti, Haaretz Correspondents and The Associated Press

The Central Elections Committee (CEC) yesterday banned the Arab parties United Arab List-Ta'al and Balad from running in next month's parliamentary elections amid accusations of racism from Arab MKs. Both parties intend to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

Members of the CEC conceded yesterday that the chance of the Supreme Court's upholding the ban on both parties was slim.

Arab faction delegates in the CEC walked out of the hall before the vote, shouting, "this is a fascist, racist state." As they walked out, CEC deputy chairman MK David Tal (Kadima) and the Arab delegates pushed each other and a Knesset guard had to intervene and separate them...

--

While the chances of the Supreme Court's upholding the ban on both parties is slim, it will effectively prevent Israel's Arab population from having a voice in the next election.

Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:15 AM..

Zzarchov

#803

Re: Israel...

Jan 19th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

Apparently you are enttled to lands you have never seen because your ancestors lived their, at the expense of the current residents who were born there... if you are Jewish.

Thats not the question is it right, or is it not right. You seem to be saying it isn't right.

Well then, Palestinians have no "Right of Return". Or am I wrong and you DO have a right?

If they do, then nothing you say about the conception of Israel makes it wrong, if its ok for Arabs its ok for Hebrews.

Or its not ok as you seem to be implying, in which case it was wrong for the ancestors of modern Israelis and its wrong for the "Palestinian Refugees" who derail peace to claim some right.

You keep holding a double standard.

If it was wrong for Israelis of the past, it is still wrong now. If it is right now, it was right for the Israelis of the past.

There is no magic double standard.

As a Canadian, we go by the motto of Colonialism was wrong, but it happened, move on.

earth_as_one

#804

Re: Israel...

Jan 19th, 2009

What probably or might have happened 2000 years ago or is in a religious text should not be part of this equation.

What are you looking for Z? What's legal or moral? Sometimes the two are in conflict.

What Jews experienced in Nazi Europe under Hitler was immoral but legal according to Nazi laws at the time. But legality didn't help people at the Nuremburg trials did it?

When Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi arrived in Palestine, they did so illegally. But allowing these people to stay was moral.

The UN awarding Jewish refugees most of Palestine was legal, but immoral.

What Palestinians and their descendents have experienced at the hands Zionists since the UN awarded Jewish refugees most of Palestine isn't moral or legal.

Later when Israel became a country, Zionists passed laws making their actions legal in Israel. But it still didn't make their actions moral or legal internationally.

Israel has a legal obligation to allow refugees to return to their homes. That's international law as well as one of Israel's obligations as per the specific UN resolution which recognized Israel's existance.

Until Israel has met its legal obligations regarding the Palestinians the situation is like an unfulfilled contract. Israel is also legally and morally responsible for the damages resulting from their deliberate refusal to meet their legal obligations.

Dealing with the Palestinian refugee issue is also Israel's moral obligation.

The UN has passed a resolution every year since restating Israel's legal and moral obigations to Palestinians.

Allowing Israel to violate international laws for 60 years without consequences is immoral.

Allowing 4.5 million people to suffer indefinitely as nationless refugees is immoral and illegal.

Allowing Israel to continue its illegal ethnic cleansing without consequence is immoral.

If the Nazis had done what moral rather than what was legal, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Zzarchov

#805

Re: Israel...

Jan 19th, 2009

Palestinian Refugees do no include the definition used by UNRWA (and only the UNRWA).

Also, there is no contract with the UN. IF there is, the UN never upheld their end of it.

East Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation for 20 years. The UN is not a world authority nor does it claim to be.

Nations do not have to be part of the UN to be created, recognized or exist. Likewise the UN cannot force a nation out of existence. The UN gives its advice, thats it.

There is no right for the desendants of refugee's to have any claim to a land they have never known anymore than the descendants of Puritan refugees in North America have any right to return to europe.

Socrates the Greek

#806

Re: Israel...

Jan 19th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by einmensch

Socrates--Cortez ,Pizarro greatly outnumbered like Israel defeated huge empires--so who is the threat -the Arabs with slingshots or Jews with with--
1.4 million Palestinians killed 9 Israelis--perhaps you need to rethink
-Israel attacked its neighbours not the other way around
-agreed Israel has not attacked Iran-it wants the USA to do it just like the USA attack on Iraq--so who is the threat?

The Christian population of Lebanon is particularly anxious to rid the country of the mainly Muslim Palestinians because of a fear that they threaten the delicate balance among the country's religious groups.
So, seeing such a dilemma facing the poor Gaza Palestinians, what is the remedy? to kill all 13 million Jews so the Arabs can give their disliked brothers the Israeli Land??
110 million Arabs, 13 million Jews, who is a threat to who? That is why defense is a right not a privilege, sure the Gaza Palestinians have the right to defense but their Arab brothers want to see them dead. Why blame the Jews.

If your people were out numbered 50 to 1 you will be dancing and singing a deferent song.

darkbeaver

Republican

#807

Re: Israel...

Jan 19th, 2009

Olmert’s Poodle

By Patrick J. Buchanan

January 18, 2009 "--" --- As Israel entered the third week of its Gaza blitz, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert regaled a crowd in Ashkelon with an astonishing tale.

He had, said Olmert, whistled up George Bush, interrupted him in the middle of a speech and told him to instruct Condi Rice not to vote for a U.N. resolution Condi herself had written. Bush did as told, said Olmert.

The crowd loved it. Here is the background.

After intense negotiations with Britain and France, Secretary of State Rice had persuaded the Security Council to agree on a resolution calling for a cease-fire. But Olmert wanted more time to kill Hamas.

So, here, in Olmert’s words, is what happened next.

“In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a cease-fire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favor.

“I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone.’ They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care. ‘I need to talk to him now.’ He got off the podium and spoke to me.

According to Olmert, Bush was clueless.

“He said: ‘Listen. I don’t know about it. I didn’t see it. I’m not familiar with the phrasing.’”

“I told him the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor. …

“She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favor.”

The U.N. diplomatic corps was astonished when the United States abstained on the 14-0 resolution Rice had crafted and claimed her country supported. Arab diplomats say Rice promised them she would vote for it.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, with Rice at the United Nations during the debate on the resolution, said Olmert’s remarks were “just 100 percent, totally, completely untrue.”

But the White House cut Rice off at the knees, saying only that there were “inaccuracies” in the Olmert story. The video does not show Bush interrupting his speech to take any call.

Yet the substance rings true and is widely believed, and Olmert is happily describing the egg on Rice’s face:

“He (Bush) gave an order to the secretary of state, and she did not vote in favor of it — a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for.
She was left pretty shamed. …”

With Bush and Rice leaving office in hours, and Olmert in weeks, the story may seem to lack significance.

Yet public gloating by an Israeli prime minister that he can order a U.S. president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of state may cause even Ehud’s poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its master.

Taking such liberties with a superpower that, for Israel’s benefit, has shoveled out $150 billion and subordinated its own interests in the Arab and Islamic world would seem a hubristic and stupid thing to do.

And there are straws in the wind that, despite congressional resolutions giving full-throated approval to all that Israel is doing in Gaza, this is becoming a troubled relationship.

Two weeks ago, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in opposing any truce, assured the world there “is no humanitarian crisis in the (Gaza) Strip,” and the hum

einmensch

#808

Re: Israel...

Jan 19th, 2009

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel should withdraw from nearly all territory captured in the 1967 Middle East war in return for peace with the Palestinians and Syria, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was quoted Monday as telling a newspaper

That is what the Arab states offered to Israel in 2003. Took five years to sink in.
Israel realizes that it can't displace nor kill all the Palestinians.

earth_as_one

#809

Re: Israel...

Jan 19th, 2009

Z:

I believe your problem is that you are having a hard time understanding that peace will only come to this region with a morally correct and just solution. That means these people must have freedom and justice.

But since the concept of morality and justice eludes you Z, maybe this legal information will help answer your question:

Quote:

Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, was established by United Nations General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949 to carry out direct relief and works programmes for Palestine refugees. The Agency began operations on 1 May 1950. In the absence of a solution to the Palestine refugee problem, the General Assembly has repeatedly renewed UNRWA's mandate, most recently extending it until 30 June 2011...

--

All UNRWA is responsible for is making sure these people's basic needs are met. They have no authority to resolve this problem. But they do identify the Palestinian refugee problem as unique and why.

Quote:

UNRWA and the UNHCR are both UN agencies mandated by the international community to do specific jobs for refugee populations. UNRWA deals specifically with Palestine refugees and their unique political situation. One reason for the distinction is that in the main the UNHCR is mandated to offer refugees three options, namely local integration and resettlement in third countries or return to their home country – options which must be accepted voluntarily by refugees under UNHCR’s care. These are not feasible for Palestine refugees as the first two options are unacceptable to the refugees and their host countries and the third is rejected by Israel. Given this context, the international community, through the General Assembly of the United Nations, requires UNRWA to continue to provide humanitarian assistance pending a political solution.

--

A host country has to agree to accept their refugees. They have not.

Refugees have to agree to live in their host countries. They have not.

In such cases when the country of origin refuses to recognize the right of refugees to return home, they would face international sanctions and pressure until the problem is resolved. In this case, Israel is the exception.

Since Israel, the host nations and the UN has created this unique situation, the UN has been force to pass resolutions specific to the Palestinian refugee problem.

In these UN resolutions regarding the Palestinian refugee problem, the UN has recognized Palestinians as a "people" with "inalienable rights". One of which is their right to return to their homes and property.

For example:

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974

Quote:

....Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

...

--

A "people" is a different classification than a "person". A person can be a refugee, but a "people" is like a "nation" and includes descendants. Also if you notice the wording in section 5, these "people" have a right to regain their rights by "all means".

The Palestinian "people" probably have a legal UN charter right to use military force to regain rights illegally denied them by Israel.

The rights of the Palestinian "people" could be voided by a new UN or UNSC resolution. Until then previous resolutions remain legally binding.

MHz

#810

Re: Israel...

Jan 19th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov

As a Canadian, we go by the motto of Colonialism was wrong, but it happened, move on.

Actually it is more black-hearted than that, the Canadian Govt stonewalls every legal action the First Nations have taken in regards to treaties. The First Nations didn't break them the Canadian Govt did (at every opportunity). The cases cannot be allowed to run their course, the Fist Nations would win every single one of them, that would cost the Govt big money. The taxpayer would be on the hook for that cash, so when it comes to the rights of others being upheld it depends if it is going to cost some personal cash. Every taxpaying Canadian will say the First Nations should be more or less equal. Ask them if they should be compensated for broken treaties at the personal cost of $100,000 for each taxpayer and the support for rights goes up in smoke. If those same (not so lovely) people would be in court in a heartbeat if some lawyer approached them with an offer to sue somebody that would net them $100,000 free and clear.
Stealing land, resources, and decimating a local population is the hallmark of western civilization and paint themselves as being the victim.
How naive to think otherwise, to not see through the smoke and mirrors is willfull stupidity, a commodity that will never be in short supply.

--

Similar Threads

144

Cut Israel Off
by JBeee | Jan 25th, 2010

Israel
by hadi_86 | Jan 19th, 2007

Israel can do whatever it wants
by Jersay | Mar 17th, 2006

WAR FOR ISRAEL
by moghrabi | Nov 7th, 2004

No War for Israel!
by moghrabi | Jul 7th, 2004