Apartheid in Israel

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Interesting. You’re the one who has a problem with my posting style, and yet you’re the one who started with the ‘insults’ so I just replied in kind. No big deal I thought, I figure we can take what we dish out, right?

Apparently not.

So I graciously said I was sorry if I had offended you (thinking you were very thin skinned, being as you were the original protagonist…), assuming that perhaps you would refrain from you own combative stance…

Apparently not.

Fine.

Okay, how shall we discuss this then? With respect or insults?

You choose and I will go along with whatever you pick.

Geez, Cal. Don’t make it any easier…
In the 20’s the Jewish population of Palestine was only about 11%. The only reason they might make up a third of the population by ’48 is because of illegal immigration.

Why else do you think that the Jews went to war with the British – the people who had promised them a homeland through the highly questionable Balfour Declaration? (although it clearly stated that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine' ) Because in ’35 60,000 Jews emigrated there, causing an Arab revolt ‘based on the fear that outsiders were going to take over their country’. After that point, the British had tight controls on immigration until after WWII.

Then because the British refused to admit 100,000 Jews after WWII, they came in illegally instead with the help of Jewish terrorists, who weren’t above bombing the odd soft target (such as the King David Hotel )

Check this site out to see what the British had to contend with… http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/rn.htm how many do you think slipped through the net? I’m willing to wager that far more made it through than were stopped! Take time to read the entire site – it is obvious from your wholesale ignorance that you have much to learn!

The point is that this was an illegal and hostile (witness the ferocious defence put up by the immigrants!) mass immigration organised the Zionist movement in order to artificially increase Palestine’s Jewish population and so create as large a Jewish state as possible at the expense of the local population!

Remember 11%.

Sorry Moby, your figures are all wrong, maybe you should do some reading up on the facts.
They show how the British carefully controlled Jewish immigration, and there was nothing "illegal" about it, so stop saying that, it's baseless.

http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm

http://www.mideastweb.org/PalPop.htm

I don’t – just a proportional one! One within a secular government, and not a racist one! Why do you try to assert their right to a state of their own, when they have less right than the Maoris, when it is racist?

Why do you:
A: Insist the jews have no rights, when they cleary do
B:Continue to bring up New Zealand?

Do your feelings toward Israel have another motivation? Since you refuse to accept the legality of their nation.

From that comment regarding the maoris it seems you support racial separation in New Zealand. Kind of racist dont you think? Not only that, but how will you distinguish maori from pakeha when there are no full-blooded maoris left? The whole comparison with the ME is irrelevant anyway, so why do you keep bringing it up?
Could it be because you have no rational argument for the ME, you think that bringing up the Maoris will make me defensive?

No, I’m saying that they should have taken part in the creation of a secular Palestine – a Jewish state AND an Arab state at the same time! A compromise based on democratic principles but with a clear constitution allowing both peoples to practise their faiths without fear of persecution. But then the Zionists would never have accepted that – they wanted Israel and they didn’t care from whom they took it!

Nonsense. NO islamic culture has EVER allowed non Islamics any say whatsoever, it goes against Sharia.

Bingo! Brain of NZ gets it at last! Now you can begin to understand why the Zionists wanted to get as many Jews into ‘The Promised Land’ as quickly as possible! Gold Star Cal, I knew you could do it!

The islamics were also trying to stack the deck, with MILITARY force. Why did the Brits leave their military equipment to the Pals, and NONE to the jews?

ANTI-SEMITISM is the answer, not your dog and pony show about "illegal immigration'

How many Islamics have put forth the concept of a coalition government?
If you can name ONE, I will be shocked.

It’s NOT their land – it hadn’t been for over a thousand years! Why should they have their own state anyway??? Why not be part of a secular state?

How many islamics wanted this "secular state"?
Name ONE.
They wanted yet another petty Muslim kingdom.

The ball's in your court Moby, if you can back up this assinine assertion that there were moderate Muslims that would traet Jews fairly, I will concede the argument

Remember, it MUST be 47, not NOW

I’ll remember that if you ever become the victim of a crime – you lost, too bad!

EXACTLY. The Muslims commited a crime, so why do you pine for a homeland for them? Or is it that only Jews aren't allowed to live free in peace in your opinion?

Do you believe in self determination? If yes, then you must support a jewish homeland. If not, youre a giant hypocrite, there is no third possibility.

[/quote]
WAS theirs – over a thousand years ago!!!!!!!!!

I take it you’re in favour of the American Indians getting America back, or the Aborigines getting Australia back… The Maoris getting NZ back?

IMO those peoples have far more right than the Jews![/quote]

Why is that? Because you believe Jews are racist and evil?

What right do the arabs have? It wasn't their's at all. EVER.

That’s called D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y, you silly boy…

No, it's called an end to self determination. What islamic nation has "democracy"?

Some might say you’re deliberately avoiding the argument by seeking insult me instead. What a fantastic way to convince people that you’re right…

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Moby.
When you can put forth a coherant argument, feel free to try again.

R-i-i-ght… The Palestinians want their country back! If they got the whole of the pre ’67 land back, they would probably settle for that. At least the extremists who want ‘to throw the Jews back into the sea’ would probably lose their popular support and become relatively insignificant… Apparently though, you think that Apartheid in Israel is OK? That would make you a racist, wouldn’t it?

How can they "get back" what they never had? Before 67, they referred to themselves as syrians, jordians, and lebonese. Now they are convienently palestinian? How naive you are Moby.

Apartheid is nonsense, when the Islamic world is committed to genocide against the jews.

I’d saying showing you up as a hypocritical supporter of racist policies, whilst knowing nothing about the illegal mass immigration of Jews into Israel before ‘independence’, would constitute as ‘running rings around you’.

Nice little fairy stories you make up, but the anti-jew camp is the racist side old boy.
Nothing ever changes in Europe, does it?
Your continent has loathed Jews for centuries, but I see you have found more imaginative ways to attack them now.

You no longer Sieg Heil, you just ignore facts and acuse. Goebells would be proud.

That and exposing your double standard (I’ve used ‘hypocritical’ once already!) of crying wolf about the ‘arrogant tone’ in my posts…

Fine, continue as you see fit. It wont bother me either way.

Sorry O Charming Poster, it would appear that unlike some people, I do have a life outside of Poly…

Amazing! Though you only met me once you seem to deduce I have no life outside of poly!

You know virtually nothing about me Moby, so try not to make silly assumptions. It only makes you look worse.

[Caligastia]

Another thing Moby, would you want to live in that "secular" state of yours? Be honest.

Integration is a waste of time, no arab can be trusted to live in peace, they made that clear over the last half century.

Would YOU trust them?

[Panag]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Interesting. You’re the one who has a problem with my posting style, and yet you’re the one who started with the ‘insults’ so I just replied in kind. No big deal I thought, I figure we can take what we dish out, right?

Apparently not.

So I graciously said I was sorry if I had offended you (thinking you were very thin skinned, being as you were the original protagonist…), assuming that perhaps you would refrain from you own combative stance…

Apparently not.

Fine.



Geez, Cal. Don’t make it any easier…
In the 20’s the Jewish population of Palestine was only about 11%. The only reason they might make up a third of the population by ’48 is because of illegal immigration.

Why else do you think that the Jews went to war with the British – the people who had promised them a homeland through the highly questionable Balfour Declaration? (although it clearly stated that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine' ) Because in ’35 60,000 Jews emigrated there, causing an Arab revolt ‘based on the fear that outsiders were going to take over their country’. After that point, the British had tight controls on immigration until after WWII.

Then because the British refused to admit 100,000 Jews after WWII, they came in illegally instead with the help of Jewish terrorists, who weren’t above bombing the odd soft target (such as the King David Hotel )

Check this site out to see what the British had to contend with… http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/rn.htm how many do you think slipped through the net? I’m willing to wager that far more made it through than were stopped! Take time to read the entire site – it is obvious from your wholesale ignorance that you have much to learn!

The point is that this was an illegal and hostile (witness the ferocious defence put up by the immigrants!) mass immigration organised the Zionist movement in order to artificially increase Palestine’s Jewish population and so create as large a Jewish state as possible at the expense of the local population!

Remember 11%.



I don’t – just a proportional one! One within a secular government, and not a racist one! Why do you try to assert their right to a state of their own, when they have less right than the Maoris, when it is racist?



No, I’m saying that they should have taken part in the creation of a secular Palestine – a Jewish state AND an Arab state at the same time! A compromise based on democratic principles but with a clear constitution allowing both peoples to practise their faiths without fear of persecution. But then the Zionists would never have accepted that – they wanted Israel and they didn’t care from whom they took it!



Bingo! Brain of NZ gets it at last! Now you can begin to understand why the Zionists wanted to get as many Jews into ‘The Promised Land’ as quickly as possible! Gold Star Cal, I knew you could do it!



It’s NOT their land – it hadn’t been for over a thousand years! Why should they have their own state anyway??? Why not be part of a secular state?



I’ll remember that if you ever become the victim of a crime – you lost, too bad!



WAS theirs – over a thousand years ago!!!!!!!!!

I take it you’re in favour of the American Indians getting America back, or the Aborigines getting Australia back… The Maoris getting NZ back?

IMO those peoples have far more right than the Jews!



That’s called D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y, you silly boy…



Some might say you’re deliberately avoiding the argument by seeking insult me instead. What a fantastic way to convince people that you’re right…



R-i-i-ght… The Palestinians want their country back! If they got the whole of the pre ’67 land back, they would probably settle for that. At least the extremists who want ‘to throw the Jews back into the sea’ would probably lose their popular support and become relatively insignificant… Apparently though, you think that Apartheid in Israel is OK? That would make you a racist, wouldn’t it?



I’d saying showing you up as a hypocritical supporter of racist policies, whilst knowing nothing about the illegal mass immigration of Jews into Israel before ‘independence’, would constitute as ‘running rings around you’.

That and exposing your double standard (I’ve used ‘hypocritical’ once already!) of crying wolf about the ‘arrogant tone’ in my posts…



Sorry O Charming Poster, it would appear that unlike some people, I do have a life outside of Poly…

Let the games continue!

hi ,

go or write to the nearest Israeli consulate , ..;they shall give you the correct numbers , .....

and since you seem to really take the cause personal , come over , and see with your own eyes , .....

then you can post your findings , .....

have a nice day

[Caligastia]

hi,

nice to see you here panag , ...; I see you havent

changed your posting style,.....

carry on,....

have a nice day

[Ned]

Morbius, Just to be fair, neither the Jews nor the Arabs had ruled the area for a 1000 years, if I recall my history correctly. I beleive the crusades were caused by Turk takeover of the Holy Land. They denied Christian free access to the holy places unlike the former Arab rulers. Later, the Holy Land was ruled by the Crusaders or later by the Turks again.

For Israeli rule, one has to go back to before 135 when the Romans wiped out the Jewish nations.

Once the Turks had been kicked out in 1917, the land did not automatically revert to Arab sovereignty - although that is exactly what Faisal demanded. The Brits took over. They and the League of Nations recognized that Terra Sancta was even then bi-ethnic.

You also paint the Jewish immigration in the '30s in a very poor light. This was a time of great calamaity for the Jews. They were being persecuted across the world as they had never been before. They really needed sanctuary. Immigration to Palestine was literally their only option - either that or death.

Respectfully,

Ned

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ned
Morbius, Just to be fair, neither the Jews nor the Arabs had ruled the area for a 1000 years, if I recall my history correctly. I beleive the crusades were caused by Turk takeover of the Holy Land. They denied Christian free access to the holy places unlike the former Arab rulers. Later, the Holy Land was ruled by the Crusaders or later by the Turks again.

For Israeli rule, one has to go back to before 135 when the Romans wiped out the Jewish nations.

Once the Turks had been kicked out in 1917, the land did not automatically revert to Arab sovereignty - although that is exactly what Faisal demanded. The Brits took over. They and the League of Nations recognized that Terra Sancta was even then bi-ethnic.

You also paint the Jewish immigration in the '30s in a very poor light. This was a time of great calamaity for the Jews. They were being persecuted across the world as they had never been before. They really needed sanctuary. Immigration to Palestine was literally their only option - either that or death.

Respectfully,

Ned

Hi ,

Ned , you are getting there , but the gap is a bit big , anyway , we have been there , even in that gap , we just kept low profile , and , the world would not care , actuallt they still do , most people think we completely died , or even went to an other planet for all they care , however we stayed , but kept nice and easy , when one is in Israel there are lots and lots of places to show otherwise , but the whole world seems to think we went away , and came back in the thirties , ........

and it was a close call , either die as a race , or get back to our country , the role og the British , well , forget about that black page , the only thing they did was in their own intrest , ....create war in order to send (read sell) weapons , ....

anyone knows the saying "you keep them stupid , i keep them poor" , divide and rule , ...

have a nice day

[Ned]

Panag, I sometimes do not understand what the anti-Israeli posters want other than the destruction of Israel. They state they are against terrorism while in the same breath they justify it. They state they are in favor of a Palesinian state, but in the same breath deny that Israel had or even today has a right to exist. It goes on like this. The one-sidedness of the anti-Israeli side of the argument is simply remarkable.

It is to them, like you said, as if the Jews moved to Palestine for sole puposes of conquest. Morbius and others state that the Jews "stole the land from the Palestinians." Kroeze and Morbius and others would declare Israel an illegal apartheid state that must be ended under international law. Finally, they all seem to agree that Israel is "illegally" occuping the West Bank and Gaza and must withdraw even without an overall peace agreement.

These, to a candid viewer, are all extremist positions. In the words of President Johnson who discussed this viewpoint his 1967 remarks on peace in the Middle East, this kind of thinking is not a formula for peace, but a formula for further war.

These extremist views are not shared by the Government of the United States. But they do seem to be shared by the European Union. For this reason, I think it would be decidedly unhelpful to include the EU in any upcoming peace talks.

What do you think?

[Ramo]

Nonsense. NO islamic culture has EVER allowed non Islamics any say whatsoever, it goes against Sharia.

I take it you've never heard of Turkey.

What islamic nation has "democracy"?

Cali's talking out of his ass again, what a surprise.

Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, etc.

Granted, these countries aren't exactly the freest countries in the world, but they're comparable to other third world democracies.

IIRC, the majority of Moslems live under electoral democracy, while the majority of humans don't.

The only reason they might make up a third of the population by ’48 is because of illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration? How could immigration barriers against people fleeing Nazi persecution possibly be justified?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ned
Panag, I sometimes do not understand what the anti-Israeli posters want other than the destruction of Israel. They state they are against terrorism while in the same breath they justify it. They state they are in favor of a Palesinian state, but in the same breath deny that Israel had or even today has a right to exist. It goes on like this. The one-sidedness of the anti-Israeli side of the argument is simply remarkable.

It is to them, like you said, as if the Jews moved to Palestine for sole puposes of conquest. Morbius and others state that the Jews "stole the land from the Palestinians." Kroeze and Morbius and others would declare Israel an illegal apartheid state that must be ended under international law. Finally, they all seem to agree that Israel is "illegally" occuping the West Bank and Gaza and must withdraw even without an overall peace agreement.

These, to a candid viewer, are all extremist positions. In the words of President Johnson who discussed this viewpoint his 1967 remarks on peace in the Middle East, this kind of thinking is not a formula for peace, but a formula for further war.

These extremist views are not shared by the Government of the United States. But they do seem to be shared by the European Union. For this reason, I think it would be decidedly unhelpful to include the EU in any upcoming peace talks.

What do you think?

hi ,

well Ned ,

okay , you asked for it ;

these anti Israeli posters dont knwo what tehy are doing , they dont have a clue , they dont knwo what its , ......

most pals have it better then some poster's on these forums , .....free , well almost healthcare , free fixed landline telephones , ...free education , etc , ...of course these poster's dont have a clue what it is to have no eletricity , or no telephone , because a bomb went of around the corner , or a rocket hit the house nextdoor , ...
a pals state , fine , over the river where today jordan is , that is there land , but even they dont want them , egypt and the saudi's are crying for a pals state , fine , they have the land , give it , but no , ...

pals have no right s in other countries in the arab world , ...whatsoever !

an example , during a meeting yesterday ; some people are talking about options to put a halt to the terror , but the top say's , listen , give them an other chance , forgive them there misstakes , lets give them money , and BTW yasser gets his money from the Israeli taxpayer , during the meeting a guy stood up , and sayed , remeber your wife sir , and you , remember your cousin , who is in the hospital , and you , you remember your child in a wheelchair , the guy left , and still the top wants to talk about peace , ........try to imagine what this war has on an economy , .........

EU , with belgium in the foreground , should better shut-up , why , well , first of all they should look in their own backyard , belgium five governments , and still they cant run the country , they interfere in Africa , but have no plane s that can fly there in one time , they need to stop 2-3 times , .... or call uncle sam for a galaxy or c-17 , .... , they better look at themself's , they are going at this rate to a new balkan situation in 10 years , ..there secret service , nsa , fbi , cia, is 500 people together , and the top just went home , want a fake id , easy , want free money , easy , and they are going to tell us what to do , .....

they dont even have nukes , we have , enough to destroy the world , and they are going to tell us what to do , ......pfffffffff , they better solve their own problems , ...fast

as for the peace talks , they should stay out of it , why , well , they know "zero" about the conflict , the rather like the news and the attention , but that is it , no real plans , nothing serious , .....like always , ....

they are a bit like some people you know , ...except that the EU gives money to criminals to blow other people up , ........

have a nice day / night

[CyberGnu]

Ned,
We mainly just want Israel to behave like a civilized nation. Is that really to much to ask?

I am against terrorism, but I don't consider armed resistance to an occupying power terrorism.

Apparently you consider wanting a palestinian state and denying that Israel has a right to exist to at odds with each other? Now, I can understand that you don't agree with both or even one of the points, but they are not by any means at odds. It's based in the simple assumption that Israel is built on stolen land. Now, I'm not arguing this particlar point, just showing you the logic in the particular view that the people who owned the land are entiteld their won state, while the people who stole it aren't...


And finally, you are using the traditional argumentative technique of Israeli apologizers of (deliberately?) mixing ideological and practical issues.

From an ideological view point, it is by no way extreme to think that Israel has no right to exist (well, rather, no right to exist at the expense of another people). Many people here, myself included, adhere to this ideological view point.

From a practical view point this would indeed be extreme, but to the best of my knowledge, no poster on these forums actually advocate dismantling Israel overnight. This is not a practical solution to the problem.

I trust you see the difference.

[CyberGnu]

Panag, still not able to write in coherent sentences I see?

[Sirotnikov]

I am against terrorism, but I don't consider armed resistance to an occupying power terrorism.

You actually are saying that a goal justifies any means.

You do not consider targetting civilians and innocent people an act of terror.

I concede that it is legitimate to target IDF soldiers. They are after all an "occupying power", regardless of what I think of their justification.

However, terrorism is never legitimate, no matter what justification it has.

It's based in the simple assumption that Israel is built on stolen land

Good.
This point is wrong.

Israel was created on land bought by jews and land in which jews lived on the eve of 1948.

Since the arab states declared war on Israel, and no Palestinian state existed, it is perfectly legal for Israel to annex land which it occupied through armed struggle with the arab countries, in the same manner that Arab countries got to keep and annex other parts of mandatorial Palestine.

Israel is much less stolen from the Palestinians than Jordan. Infact, many Palestinians lived and still live in Jordan. Yet, Brittain chose to reward the Hashemic dynasty and gave it the rule over the Jordan's east bank, calling it "Trans-Jordan".

That is the most evident stealing.

If you refer to the land appropriation by the government of Israel, of previously arab owned / populated terrotories in the 50s, 60s and 70s, then I'd say I again disagree.

Now admittedly, it's a murky bussiness. From some point of view - yes it was sort of stealing.

However, in reality, it was simply an attempt by the state to affirm it's control over it's territory. The laws which were used to confiscate the land were not Israeli made, but rather Brittish laws, on which the Israeli law is still based.

These laws, allow in times of crisis, for the state to appropriate large chunks of civilian property for the use of the state.

Most notably, those areas were used for agriculture. If the lands would have been left vacant, or in the hands of inept arab farmers, everyone would starve.

However, the Jewish Kibutzes and Workers Settlements collective, managed to get very efficient use of the lands, feeding all the citizens.

Infact, the whole idea was not to specifically rob anyone from his property, but to create a communal collective for the benefit of all.

I remind you that Israel was a very communal and practically a communist democracy until the late 70s.

Almost all the land is state owned. Some is still owned by the Jewish agency.

In the 40s and 50s, people tried to create a massive commune.

"But it was only jewish commune" you'd say.

You're right. But there was a reason for it. Three infact.

One, was the Jewish national movement which co-existed with this sort of communism. The spring of nations finally hit Jews, and they tried to celebrate it.

Second, and more practical and of much greater weight, was the fact that Arabs were seen as enemies and a danger to Israel. And it wasn't baseless. Most people had relatives fighting in the Arab armies, and a good portion of those forcefully evicted in 48 were actually local combatants of different degrees.

Arabs living in cities enjoyed better status and cooperation with Jews.

A third was the heavily feudalic and conservative traditional fashion of life of most of the Arab popluation. Many thought that this would actually come as a blessing to the Arabs and that the Jews would come and help the backwards Arabs progress into a working active Social communal structure. The Arabs however, were not in on these plans, and infact really didn't want to be "pushed into the 20th century".

Only in the late 70s and early 80s did they began abandoning nomadic styles and traditional way of life, in benefit of good infrastructure and healthy economical systems. The arab family unit became smaller, like the western one. The education quotient has gone up. So did the skill levels.

[Sirotnikov]

Tell me this, additionally.

Suppose someone "steals" my house in what ever way.

Am I entitled to murdering his children, one by one, until I get it back?

NO!

[CyberGnu]

I don't equate 'civilian' with 'innocent'. (Ironically, if this was true, the ones you label 'terrorists' are also 'innocent').

If a civilian decides to go live on stolen land, he has only himself to blame if he is hurt when the rightful owner tries to take the property back.

Furthermore, if said civilian decides to take his children with him, said civilian is solely responsible for any harm that comes to them.



The majority of your post is basically a bold faced lie.
First off, immigration of an ethinc group does not warrant special treatment of that ehtnic group. Swedes might be the biggest ethnic group of Nebraska, that still doesn't give the swedish decesendants of Nebraska right to ceceede out of the union.

Second, only a small portion of Israel was owned by jews in 1948, way less than even the 25% that constituted the population.

Third, the declaration of Israel was never legal. The arabs who owned the land never agreed to it, and using their opposition to an illegal declaration as a justification as to why it should be legal is a logical leap that can convince only someone dumber than an american politician.


I enjoyed your 'blatant theft is a murky business, since it was the goveremnt that stole it, not individual people'.

Not sure what it was supposed to prove, though.

[Ned]

CyberGnu, You confirm my observations. The ultimate goal is not to make Israel "behave" properly, but to destroy it - you used the word dismantle, a word the implies that this could be done "peacefully."

I hope you come to accept that Israel is here to stay and work towards solutions based upon that assumption. This may lead to a result that brings lasting peace in the short term. Trying to "dismantle" Israel in favor of some idealic Arab-Jewish democracy where the lambs and the wolves live side by side in paradise is not going to happen - at least not in the short term. (We can dispute later which are the lambs and which are the wolves.)