Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Israel Apartheid State.

monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:22:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.thedailybeast.com...

"Could" become an apartheid state? It has been for years and the US has aided and abetted it's apartheid but has been afraid to say it because it's politically unpopular to tell the truth.

Maybe sooner, rather than later the American people will start to understand that attacks of revenge on the US by Muslim freedom fighters all have a reason behind them. If anything can be said for Ron Paul, at least he was aware of that fact.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:05:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 5:48:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
Ted Cruz is requesting Kerry step down and fox news is out of their minds.

It was pretty obvious that there would be an extreme rightist reaction to what Kerry said. He obviously knew it was risky but he must have been thinking that the American people are ready to hear the truth.

I doubt he would err on that because he has legions of propaganda experts working on feeling out the political climate on nearly all the issues. So with that in mind, it's becoming encouraging.
lannan13
Posts: 23,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:35:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 5:48:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
Ted Cruz is requesting Kerry step down and fox news is out of their minds.

Now I support Ted Cruz, but this is rediqulous.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 8:29:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Israel was created with the objective in mind of giving the Jews are refuge when it was found that due to historic bigotry from almost every part of the world, they could likely never fully integrate in to international society. That being said, it's fully reasonable that they give Jewish people more opportunities to immigrate to Israel and that it stays a Jewish state. Now gaza strip and Golan heights? I agree that they should be given back to the respective states they were taken from, or become an independent state in the case of Gaza strip that has full sovereignty, and Golan Heights should be given back to Syria. But it would be absurd to claim that Israel is an apartheid state with the objective in mind of being a refuge for primarily jews, and that simply because they have a favorable immigration policy to Jews, they are an apartheid state.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:00:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 8:29:50 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Israel was created with the objective in mind of giving the Jews are refuge when it was found that due to historic bigotry from almost every part of the world, they could likely never fully integrate in to international society. That being said, it's fully reasonable that they give Jewish people more opportunities to immigrate to Israel and that it stays a Jewish state. Now gaza strip and Golan heights? I agree that they should be given back to the respective states they were taken from, or become an independent state in the case of Gaza strip that has full sovereignty, and Golan Heights should be given back to Syria. But it would be absurd to claim that Israel is an apartheid state with the objective in mind of being a refuge for primarily jews, and that simply because they have a favorable immigration policy to Jews, they are an apartheid state.

Imaginative nonsense at best. But will Americans like you still try to claim to be innocent victims of the next freedom fighter attack. Nothing else is very important because the US supporters of apartheid aren't going to ever be reasonable and at least abide by the UN's mandate on Palestinian lands.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 11:28:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Seems like everyone missed the fact that his point was either that, should there be a one-state solution, Israel would either become:

1. An apartheid state
2. Not a "Jewish state"
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 11:54:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 8:29:50 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Israel was created with the objective in mind of giving the Jews are refuge when it was found that due to historic bigotry from almost every part of the world, they could likely never fully integrate in to international society. That being said, it's fully reasonable that they give Jewish people more opportunities to immigrate to Israel and that it stays a Jewish state. Now gaza strip and Golan heights? I agree that they should be given back to the respective states they were taken from, or become an independent state in the case of Gaza strip that has full sovereignty, and Golan Heights should be given back to Syria. But it would be absurd to claim that Israel is an apartheid state with the objective in mind of being a refuge for primarily jews, and that simply because they have a favorable immigration policy to Jews, they are an apartheid state.

Its not reasonable at all to give Jews more rights to a land, then is given to the indigenous Palestinians. You cannot use past European antisemitism to justify the brutal occupation of Palestine.

Within the confines of the occupied territories, especially the West Bank, there is little doubt that Israel is an apartheid state. Settler Jews and native Palestinians live under two very different sets of laws, are accorded different rights, and treated very differently, based upon their religious/ethnic designation.

Kerry was accurately warning that if Israel continues to sabotage the two-state solution, Israel/Palestine will become one state, where Apartheid will be the law of the land period, not just in the West Bank. This isn't a strange concept, and is echoed by former Israeli Prime-Ministers and officials. Unfortunately, America is more pro-Israel then Israel, so it seems we can't discuss these topics rationally.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 2:42:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:54:35 AM, HPWKA wrote:
At 4/29/2014 8:29:50 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Israel was created with the objective in mind of giving the Jews are refuge when it was found that due to historic bigotry from almost every part of the world, they could likely never fully integrate in to international society. That being said, it's fully reasonable that they give Jewish people more opportunities to immigrate to Israel and that it stays a Jewish state. Now gaza strip and Golan heights? I agree that they should be given back to the respective states they were taken from, or become an independent state in the case of Gaza strip that has full sovereignty, and Golan Heights should be given back to Syria. But it would be absurd to claim that Israel is an apartheid state with the objective in mind of being a refuge for primarily jews, and that simply because they have a favorable immigration policy to Jews, they are an apartheid state.

Its not reasonable at all to give Jews more rights to a land, then is given to the indigenous Palestinians. You cannot use past European antisemitism to justify the brutal occupation of Palestine.

Within the confines of the occupied territories, especially the West Bank, there is little doubt that Israel is an apartheid state. Settler Jews and native Palestinians live under two very different sets of laws, are accorded different rights, and treated very differently, based upon their religious/ethnic designation.

Kerry was accurately warning that if Israel continues to sabotage the two-state solution, Israel/Palestine will become one state, where Apartheid will be the law of the land period, not just in the West Bank. This isn't a strange concept, and is echoed by former Israeli Prime-Ministers and officials. Unfortunately, America is more pro-Israel then Israel, so it seems we can't discuss these topics rationally.

There's no rational reason for any decent human being to support the Israeli apartheid regime against the Palestinian people. And maybe it's just a coincidence that those supporting it seem to be the same ones we are able to tag with the 'racist' title.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 3:02:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:00:28 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 8:29:50 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Israel was created with the objective in mind of giving the Jews are refuge when it was found that due to historic bigotry from almost every part of the world, they could likely never fully integrate in to international society. That being said, it's fully reasonable that they give Jewish people more opportunities to immigrate to Israel and that it stays a Jewish state. Now gaza strip and Golan heights? I agree that they should be given back to the respective states they were taken from, or become an independent state in the case of Gaza strip that has full sovereignty, and Golan Heights should be given back to Syria. But it would be absurd to claim that Israel is an apartheid state with the objective in mind of being a refuge for primarily jews, and that simply because they have a favorable immigration policy to Jews, they are an apartheid state.

Imaginative nonsense at best. But will Americans like you still try to claim to be innocent victims of the next freedom fighter attack. Nothing else is very important because the US supporters of apartheid aren't going to ever be reasonable and at least abide by the UN's mandate on Palestinian lands.

It's blatantly obvious that the only reason you support Palestine is that they're anti-American. You're like Stephen Colbert in reverse. Hilarious.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 3:23:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 3:02:27 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:00:28 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 8:29:50 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Israel was created with the objective in mind of giving the Jews are refuge when it was found that due to historic bigotry from almost every part of the world, they could likely never fully integrate in to international society. That being said, it's fully reasonable that they give Jewish people more opportunities to immigrate to Israel and that it stays a Jewish state. Now gaza strip and Golan heights? I agree that they should be given back to the respective states they were taken from, or become an independent state in the case of Gaza strip that has full sovereignty, and Golan Heights should be given back to Syria. But it would be absurd to claim that Israel is an apartheid state with the objective in mind of being a refuge for primarily jews, and that simply because they have a favorable immigration policy to Jews, they are an apartheid state.

Imaginative nonsense at best. But will Americans like you still try to claim to be innocent victims of the next freedom fighter attack. Nothing else is very important because the US supporters of apartheid aren't going to ever be reasonable and at least abide by the UN's mandate on Palestinian lands.

It's blatantly obvious that the only reason you support Palestine is that they're anti-American. You're like Stephen Colbert in reverse. Hilarious.

Thank Barrazan a third party has finally called him out. He has literally turned around the most ridiculous topics into a US hate rant.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
slo1
Posts: 4,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:51:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:35:53 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 5:48:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
Ted Cruz is requesting Kerry step down and fox news is out of their minds.

Now I support Ted Cruz, but this is rediqulous.

Do you realize that Ted Cruz is a calvinist who believes that the return of Israel and Jews is a requirement to fill the prophesy of the second coming of Christ and thus has and obligation of supporting Israel no matter what?

It was pretty much stated in a speech to zionist christians.

People like to ignore the fact that Zionist Christians plaplayed a large role in gaining political support for the formation of Israel and continue to have a large impact on the US relationship with Israel.
lannan13
Posts: 23,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 5:02:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 4:51:25 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:35:53 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 5:48:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
Ted Cruz is requesting Kerry step down and fox news is out of their minds.

Now I support Ted Cruz, but this is rediqulous.

Do you realize that Ted Cruz is a calvinist who believes that the return of Israel and Jews is a requirement to fill the prophesy of the second coming of Christ and thus has and obligation of supporting Israel no matter what?

It was pretty much stated in a speech to zionist christians.

People like to ignore the fact that Zionist Christians plaplayed a large role in gaining political support for the formation of Israel and continue to have a large impact on the US relationship with Israel.

Yes I know that.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
slo1
Posts: 4,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 5:16:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 3:02:27 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:00:28 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 8:29:50 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Israel was created with the objective in mind of giving the Jews are refuge when it was found that due to historic bigotry from almost every part of the world, they could likely never fully integrate in to international society. That being said, it's fully reasonable that they give Jewish people more opportunities to immigrate to Israel and that it stays a Jewish state. Now gaza strip and Golan heights? I agree that they should be given back to the respective states they were taken from, or become an independent state in the case of Gaza strip that has full sovereignty, and Golan Heights should be given back to Syria. But it would be absurd to claim that Israel is an apartheid state with the objective in mind of being a refuge for primarily jews, and that simply because they have a favorable immigration policy to Jews, they are an apartheid state.

Imaginative nonsense at best. But will Americans like you still try to claim to be innocent victims of the next freedom fighter attack. Nothing else is very important because the US supporters of apartheid aren't going to ever be reasonable and at least abide by the UN's mandate on Palestinian lands.

It's blatantly obvious that the only reason you support Palestine is that they're anti-American. You're like Stephen Colbert in reverse. Hilarious.

Sure monty may be very vocal but why do Americans ignore even the possibility of considering this as an apartheid situation?

Fact:
1. Israel does not recognize the sovereignty of the west bank or gaza.
2. They fundamentally control both territories
3. They do not give their citizens representation.
4. Apartheid is an Afrikaner word meaning, "the state of being apart", which is 1-3 above.

The level of control upon west bank and gaza is done in the name of security, but why can't a duck be called a duck. Instead we support propaganda that calls a duck something else?

It goes to show that honesty and governance don't work together. Here we have a situation where any time a policy of Israel is criticized there are serious repercussions. This level of dishonesty is justified in the name of security.

It is no different than the US dropping bombs on terrorists in various countries and admitting to it. We don't have the courage of honesty in the name of security. One would if they had higher moral standing honesty would not be something to fear.
slo1
Posts: 4,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 5:17:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:28:43 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
Seems like everyone missed the fact that his point was either that, should there be a one-state solution, Israel would either become:

1. An apartheid state
2. Not a "Jewish state"

Well put.
slo1
Posts: 4,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 5:20:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 5:02:03 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:51:25 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:35:53 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 5:48:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
Ted Cruz is requesting Kerry step down and fox news is out of their minds.

Now I support Ted Cruz, but this is rediqulous.

Do you realize that Ted Cruz is a calvinist who believes that the return of Israel and Jews is a requirement to fill the prophesy of the second coming of Christ and thus has and obligation of supporting Israel no matter what?

It was pretty much stated in a speech to zionist christians.

People like to ignore the fact that Zionist Christians plaplayed a large role in gaining political support for the formation of Israel and continue to have a large impact on the US relationship with Israel.

Yes I know that.

Up early. I guess you marines are used to that. Have a good day man.
lannan13
Posts: 23,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 5:22:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 5:20:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/30/2014 5:02:03 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:51:25 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:35:53 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 5:48:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
Ted Cruz is requesting Kerry step down and fox news is out of their minds.

Now I support Ted Cruz, but this is rediqulous.

Do you realize that Ted Cruz is a calvinist who believes that the return of Israel and Jews is a requirement to fill the prophesy of the second coming of Christ and thus has and obligation of supporting Israel no matter what?

It was pretty much stated in a speech to zionist christians.

People like to ignore the fact that Zionist Christians plaplayed a large role in gaining political support for the formation of Israel and continue to have a large impact on the US relationship with Israel.

Yes I know that.

Up early. I guess you marines are used to that. Have a good day man.

It's a pain. I get up at 430 to put my uniform on or regular cloths and go drill at 545. Thanks you too.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 8:46:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:00:28 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 8:29:50 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Israel was created with the objective in mind of giving the Jews are refuge when it was found that due to historic bigotry from almost every part of the world, they could likely never fully integrate in to international society. That being said, it's fully reasonable that they give Jewish people more opportunities to immigrate to Israel and that it stays a Jewish state. Now gaza strip and Golan heights? I agree that they should be given back to the respective states they were taken from, or become an independent state in the case of Gaza strip that has full sovereignty, and Golan Heights should be given back to Syria. But it would be absurd to claim that Israel is an apartheid state with the objective in mind of being a refuge for primarily jews, and that simply because they have a favorable immigration policy to Jews, they are an apartheid state.

Imaginative nonsense at best. But will Americans like you still try to claim to be innocent victims of the next freedom fighter attack. Nothing else is very important because the US supporters of apartheid aren't going to ever be reasonable and at least abide by the UN's mandate on Palestinian lands.

Actually at one time pretty much everyone on the UN council besides Arab League members supported Israel as a jewish state, it wasn't until the Arab League pretty much took over the UN that the UN started to adopt anti-Israel policies. And define: palestinian lands please.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 8:48:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:28:43 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
Seems like everyone missed the fact that his point was either that, should there be a one-state solution, Israel would either become:

1. An apartheid state

Okay, but Kerry is using buzz words, appealing to emotion to further his agenda. There is a clear distinction between South African 'apartheid' and Israeli 'apartheid'. The objective of Israel as a state when it was created was to be a refuge for jews around the world to live and rule their own state where they wouldn't be subject to persecution, since it was proven that history had repeated itself multiple times where atrocities were carried out against the Jews, and we cannot trust other nations to protect their Jewish minority, so Israel should have favorable immigration policies towards Jews, because for it to fulfill it's objective as a state, it needs to retain a sizable Jewish/Hebrew majority, not an arab majority.

2. Not a "Jewish state"
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 8:56:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:54:35 AM, HPWKA wrote:
At 4/29/2014 8:29:50 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Israel was created with the objective in mind of giving the Jews are refuge when it was found that due to historic bigotry from almost every part of the world, they could likely never fully integrate in to international society. That being said, it's fully reasonable that they give Jewish people more opportunities to immigrate to Israel and that it stays a Jewish state. Now gaza strip and Golan heights? I agree that they should be given back to the respective states they were taken from, or become an independent state in the case of Gaza strip that has full sovereignty, and Golan Heights should be given back to Syria. But it would be absurd to claim that Israel is an apartheid state with the objective in mind of being a refuge for primarily jews, and that simply because they have a favorable immigration policy to Jews, they are an apartheid state.

Its not reasonable at all to give Jews more rights to a land, then is given to the indigenous Palestinians. You cannot use past European antisemitism to justify the brutal occupation of Palestine.

You aren't listening, the objective of Israel when it was created was to be a safe haven, a refuge where Jews would be able to have sovereignty over their own state so they wouldn't be subject to persecution, since it has been proven that due to prevailing antisemitic attitudes that seem to rise and then die down, they'll never be able to fully integrate in to international society without fear of persecution. Israel's favorable policies towards Jews are for the purpose of fulfilling it's objective as a state, to be a refuge for Jews around the world, maintaining a sizable Jewish majority is necessary for this.

Within the confines of the occupied territories, especially the West Bank, there is little doubt that Israel is an apartheid state. Settler Jews and native Palestinians live under two very different sets of laws, are accorded different rights, and treated very differently, based upon their religious/ethnic designation.

I would like to see evidence of governmental discrimination against palestinians, when it isn't aimed at fulfilling the objective of the state of Israel. If you can prove this, we will talk about Israel being unjust.


Kerry was accurately warning that if Israel continues to sabotage the two-state solution,

Debatable, the obstruction of peace talks between Palestinians and Israel seems to be something that is mutual, placing all the blame on Israel, or even most of it is ridiculous.

Israel/Palestine will become one state, where Apartheid will be the law of the land period, not just in the West Bank. This isn't a strange concept, and is echoed by former Israeli Prime-Ministers and officials. Unfortunately, America is more pro-Israel then Israel, so it seems we can't discuss these topics rationally.

Sure we can, we are now. I am saying it is justified if the goal of it is to fulfill the objectives of the state of Israel, just like in the USA where discrimination is justified if it involves a 'compelling government interest', the same applies to Israel. If you can prove that this discrimination does not serve a compelling government interest, then we can talk.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 9:00:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 5:16:27 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:02:27 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:00:28 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 8:29:50 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Israel was created with the objective in mind of giving the Jews are refuge when it was found that due to historic bigotry from almost every part of the world, they could likely never fully integrate in to international society. That being said, it's fully reasonable that they give Jewish people more opportunities to immigrate to Israel and that it stays a Jewish state. Now gaza strip and Golan heights? I agree that they should be given back to the respective states they were taken from, or become an independent state in the case of Gaza strip that has full sovereignty, and Golan Heights should be given back to Syria. But it would be absurd to claim that Israel is an apartheid state with the objective in mind of being a refuge for primarily jews, and that simply because they have a favorable immigration policy to Jews, they are an apartheid state.

Imaginative nonsense at best. But will Americans like you still try to claim to be innocent victims of the next freedom fighter attack. Nothing else is very important because the US supporters of apartheid aren't going to ever be reasonable and at least abide by the UN's mandate on Palestinian lands.

It's blatantly obvious that the only reason you support Palestine is that they're anti-American. You're like Stephen Colbert in reverse. Hilarious.

Sure monty may be very vocal but why do Americans ignore even the possibility of considering this as an apartheid situation?

Fact:
1. Israel does not recognize the sovereignty of the west bank or gaza.
2. They fundamentally control both territories
3. They do not give their citizens representation.
4. Apartheid is an Afrikaner word meaning, "the state of being apart", which is 1-3 above.

The level of control upon west bank and gaza is done in the name of security, but why can't a duck be called a duck. Instead we support propaganda that calls a duck something else?

It goes to show that honesty and governance don't work together. Here we have a situation where any time a policy of Israel is criticized there are serious repercussions. This level of dishonesty is justified in the name of security.

It is no different than the US dropping bombs on terrorists in various countries and admitting to it. We don't have the courage of honesty in the name of security. One would if they had higher moral standing honesty would not be something to fear.

Would you cede that most, if not all of Israel's purported 'apartheid' or discrimination serves a compelling government interest? Just as, in the United States the supreme court ruled that discrimination is justified if it serves a compelling government interest. Would you cede that retaining a sizable Jewish/Hebrew majority for Israel and the security of Israel are both compelling government interests?
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 9:26:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually at one time pretty much everyone on the UN council besides Arab League members supported Israel as a jewish state, it wasn't until the Arab League pretty much took over the UN that the UN started to adopt anti-Israel policies. And define: palestinian lands please.

There is no point in history where the vast majority of the UN (all but a couple states) weren't against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza. The entire world has always classified it as Palestinian land, and condemned Israeli aggression and settlements.

There has never been a UN vote on Israel being a "Jewish" state, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Also, how exactly has the Arab League "taken over" the UN?
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 9:29:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Would you cede that most, if not all of Israel's purported 'apartheid' or discrimination serves a compelling government interest? Just as, in the United States the supreme court ruled that discrimination is justified if it serves a compelling government interest. Would you cede that retaining a sizable Jewish/Hebrew majority for Israel and the security of Israel are both compelling government interests?

You seem to think that because Israel's apartheid policies serve the roll of maintaining Israel's security (like in South Africa), then that means its not "real" apartheid.

Similarly, you seem to believe that since Israel was set-up as a state for a once-persecuted people (Jews), then that's makes whatever policies Israel enacts in pursuit of that goal justified.

I know I don't need to point this out, but those are real dumb positions.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 9:35:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 9:26:49 AM, HPWKA wrote:
Actually at one time pretty much everyone on the UN council besides Arab League members supported Israel as a jewish state, it wasn't until the Arab League pretty much took over the UN that the UN started to adopt anti-Israel policies. And define: palestinian lands please.

There is no point in history where the vast majority of the UN (all but a couple states) weren't against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza. The entire world has always classified it as Palestinian land, and condemned Israeli aggression and settlements.

In the original partition, Jerusalem was supposed to be a UN mandated neutral zone, the arabs rejected this, not the Jews or Israelis, ever since this the arabs still reject the idea of East Jerusalem being a UN mandated zone, so of course until they agree to make it a UN mandated zone, it should go to Israel since the only other option would be for it to belong to the aggressors who attempted to illegally conquer it in the first place.

There has never been a UN vote on Israel being a "Jewish" state, so I don't know what you are talking about.

"The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. "

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, how exactly has the Arab League "taken over" the UN?

http://www.questia.com...

It was an exaggeration, but Arab influence in the UN is relatively significant. For more information read Pedro Sanjuans "The UN Gang" great book.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 9:40:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 9:29:37 AM, HPWKA wrote:
Would you cede that most, if not all of Israel's purported 'apartheid' or discrimination serves a compelling government interest? Just as, in the United States the supreme court ruled that discrimination is justified if it serves a compelling government interest. Would you cede that retaining a sizable Jewish/Hebrew majority for Israel and the security of Israel are both compelling government interests?

You seem to think that because Israel's apartheid policies serve the roll of maintaining Israel's security (like in South Africa), then that means its not "real" apartheid.

If it can be proven that they serve the purpose of security and that they impose a burden on the people being discriminated against that is minimal to ensure their security, sure it's real apartheid, but it's justified. Most nations have a legal system that has a similar maxim/policy of discrimination being legal and justified if it serves a compelling government interest, why you would make Israel a special exception is beyond me.

Similarly, you seem to believe that since Israel was set-up as a state for a once-persecuted people (Jews), then that's makes whatever policies Israel enacts in pursuit of that goal justified.

If the policies are are aimed at serving that objective and nothing else, then sure it's justified. Compelling government interest. Palestinians and other arabs knew the objective of Israel as a state since it's existed, if they don't like that they can leave, but they won't because since Israel's creation they have opposed it's objective and want to destroy Israel as a state.

I know I don't need to point this out, but those are real dumb positions.

They only seem dumb to people who are dumb and can't comprehend them.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 9:52:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the original partition, Jerusalem was supposed to be a UN mandated neutral zone, the arabs rejected this, not the Jews or Israelis, ever since this the arabs still reject the idea of East Jerusalem being a UN mandated zone, so of course until they agree to make it a UN mandated zone, it should go to Israel since the only other option would be for it to belong to the aggressors who attempted to illegally conquer it in the first place.

Firstly, this is a common misconception. The Jews "agreed" to the original 1947 partition, with the stated goal of using the newly acquired land as a springboard to seize the rest of Palestine. The Palestinians refused, as the area that was to become to Jewish state, was only 7% owned by Jews, and whose population would be 50% Muslim/Christian.

Secondly, the 1948 war wasn't started or fought by the Palestinians. It was fought by a couple surrounding Arab states. The Palestinians didn't conquer Jerusalem, Jordan did. Furthermore, Israel too attempted to illegally seize Jerusalem during the fighting in 1948, but was beat to it by Jordan.

The armistice lines after 1948 became effective borders after 1967 (via UN/World Court). This means that Jerusalem (conquered by Jordan) became part of the Palestinian West Bank (after Jordan relinquished them both). Similarly, the land Israel ILLEGALLY seized in 1948 from the nascent Palestinian state, was allowed to remain Israeli.

I agree Jerusalem should in the end become a International Zone, but if you are for Jerusalem being outright taken away from Palestinian jurisdiction, then you are also for much of current-day Israel being taken away from Israeli jurisdiction, and returned to Palestine.

"The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. "

We know the UN approved of A Jewish State on 1947 borders, which is roughly 50% the size Israel is today. There has been no recognition of Israel's sovereignty or "Jewishness" over what is present-day Israel, which as the UN iterated, contains occupied land.

Also, how exactly has the Arab League "taken over" the UN?

It was an exaggeration, but Arab influence in the UN is relatively significant. For more information read Pedro Sanjuans "The UN Gang" great book.

Many states have "influence" in the UN (including Israel). That does't mean anything. Its clear however, that the Arabs haven't "taken over" the UN, to the point that they are able to pass anti-Israel resolutions simply because they can, and not because Israel's committing atrocities.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 10:00:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You seem to think that because Israel's apartheid policies serve the roll of maintaining Israel's security (like in South Africa), then that means its not "real" apartheid.

If it can be proven that they serve the purpose of security and that they impose a burden on the people being discriminated against that is minimal to ensure their security, sure it's real apartheid, but it's justified. Most nations have a legal system that has a similar maxim/policy of discrimination being legal and justified if it serves a compelling government interest, why you would make Israel a special exception is beyond me.

LOL please, its not justified. You sound like a colonialist apologist, who after invading and conquering the natives, forces them into camps so the oppressed don't resist the oppressors.

Colonial Whites forced native Black South-Africans into apartheid "bantustans", so the natives wouldn't be a danger to their occupation. Nazi Germany interned Jews for the "security of the state". Israeli-Jews are employing the same methods against the native Palestinians. Its not justified.

Colonial invaders deserve no more protection from the natives, then a burglar deserves from the residents of the home he's attacking.

Name me multiple countries that have a similar system to the one Israel enforces upon the Palestinians. Because many Human Rights Organizations say that Israel's particular atrocity has no parallel in the world.

Similarly, you seem to believe that since Israel was set-up as a state for a once-persecuted people (Jews), then that's makes whatever policies Israel enacts in pursuit of that goal justified.

If the policies are are aimed at serving that objective and nothing else, then sure it's justified. Compelling government interest. Palestinians and other arabs knew the objective of Israel as a state since it's existed, if they don't like that they can leave, but they won't because since Israel's creation they have opposed it's objective and want to destroy Israel as a state.


Again, this is a disgusting way of thinking. So since Israel's apartheid policies have a concrete objective, they are okay? This argument extends to the Nazi Holocaust, which you could then similarly justify.

Also, how sweet. If the native Palestinians don't like the colonizing Apartheid policies of the Jews, they can just leave. This seems backwards.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 10:25:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 9:52:11 AM, HPWKA wrote:
In the original partition, Jerusalem was supposed to be a UN mandated neutral zone, the arabs rejected this, not the Jews or Israelis, ever since this the arabs still reject the idea of East Jerusalem being a UN mandated zone, so of course until they agree to make it a UN mandated zone, it should go to Israel since the only other option would be for it to belong to the aggressors who attempted to illegally conquer it in the first place.

Firstly, this is a common misconception. The Jews "agreed" to the original 1947 partition, with the stated goal of using the newly acquired land as a springboard to seize the rest of Palestine. The Palestinians refused, as the area that was to become to Jewish state, was only 7% owned by Jews, and whose population would be 50% Muslim/Christian.

Your theory is based on what, exactly? I mean, history tells us that the aggressors in almost every conflict regarding Israel were the arabs, so who really wishes to seize the rest of Palestine? In 1949 the arabs had armies prepared to storm Israel as soon as the british mandate expired, how could you really claim that Israel was the nation that wanted to seize the rest of Palestine? lol

Secondly, the 1948 war wasn't started or fought by the Palestinians. It was fought by a couple surrounding Arab states. The Palestinians didn't conquer Jerusalem, Jordan did. Furthermore, Israel too attempted to illegally seize Jerusalem during the fighting in 1948, but was beat to it by Jordan.

The Palestinians contributed significantly and were terrorizing the Israelis, fighting in a shadow war while the British mandate was still in effect. Also, do you have evidence that Israel was attempting to seize Jerusalem until after it was illegally seized by the Jordanians?

The armistice lines after 1948 became effective borders after 1967 (via UN/World Court). This means that Jerusalem (conquered by Jordan) became part of the Palestinian West Bank (after Jordan relinquished them both). Similarly, the land Israel ILLEGALLY seized in 1948 from the nascent Palestinian state, was allowed to remain Israeli.

Only East Jerusalem was part of the west bank, to clarify. Israel did not illegally seize any land from the Palestinian state, the phony UN resolutions that carry no real legal or political weight state this, but Israel seized Palestinian territories in it's defense when they were used as staging areas to attack Israel in the Arab-Israeli war. I am for East Jerusalem becoming an international zone of occupation.

I agree Jerusalem should in the end become a International Zone, but if you are for Jerusalem being outright taken away from Palestinian jurisdiction, then you are also for much of current-day Israel being taken away from Israeli jurisdiction, and returned to Palestine.

East Jerusalem should be an international zone of occupation, Golan Heights should be returned to Syria, Gaza Strip should be returned to Egypt or made it's own sovereign state, these are my views, not sure what you define as 'much of current-day Israel'.

"The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. "

We know the UN approved of A Jewish State on 1947 borders, which is roughly 50% the size Israel is today. There has been no recognition of Israel's sovereignty or "Jewishness" over what is present-day Israel, which as the UN iterated, contains occupied land.

If we both agree that Israel should relinquish golan heights, east jerusalem and gaza strip, and the rest should stay a Jewish state, we are on the same page. If not, what other lands should be relinquished?

Also, how exactly has the Arab League "taken over" the UN?

It was an exaggeration, but Arab influence in the UN is relatively significant. For more information read Pedro Sanjuans "The UN Gang" great book.

Many states have "influence" in the UN (including Israel). That does't mean anything. Its clear however, that the Arabs haven't "taken over" the UN, to the point that they are able to pass anti-Israel resolutions simply because they can, and not because Israel's committing atrocities.

The Interim government of gaza strip commits many atrocities that are never condemned, a lot of 'atrocities' that Israel commits are condemned, but atrocities of a greater or similar nature committed by other countries are not, the anti israeli double standard is clear.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 10:49:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, at least Kerry had the balls to tell the truth even though he didn't have them to stick with it. The American people are so propagandized with the "Israel is our best friend" nonsense that Kerry would have been severely damaged if he stuck with it.

But on the bright side, he tried and he had a lot of media going with the story for a while. It could be a breakthrough.

And on this forum where people are less reluctant to tell the truth because they don't have to suffer any consequences, there's a definite side that knows very well that the Israeli apartheid regime is going to come back and sting them. That's if it doesn't sting the US with a freedom fighter attack first?

Encouraging maybe for the next time Israel goes on one of it's big murdering sprees!
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 11:06:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Your theory is based on what, exactly? I mean, history tells us that the aggressors in almost every conflict regarding Israel were the arabs, so who really wishes to seize the rest of Palestine? In 1949 the arabs had armies prepared to storm Israel as soon as the british mandate expired, how could you really claim that Israel was the nation that wanted to seize the rest of Palestine? lol

Maybe Israeli history, but the rest of the world doesn't classify a single major Israeli-Arab conflict as being wholly Arab initiated. Below is in reference to Jewish resistance to a partitioned Palestine even in early 1947.

Ben-Gurion (first president of Israel) had written that "after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine". Partition should be accepted, he argued, "to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine". The Jewish State would then "have to preserve order", if the Arabs would not acquiesce, "by machine guns, if necessary." http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Also, the Arab armies weren't all united against Israel.

"The Arab states were divided between the pro-British Hashemites of Iraq and Transjordan and the anti-British regimes in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Each side sought to enlist the Zionists' support, the Hashemites to abet their long-standing ambition of extending the Kingdom's borders, and anti-British regimes to further their independence struggle.

Ben-Gurion opted to cut a secret deal with Transjordan's King Abdallah, which in effect divided Palestine between them. When the Arab armies did finally attack, Abdallah "honored his commitment not to disturb the creation of the Jewish state or attack its forces," thus crucially contributing to the Israelis' eventual victory. http://www.nimn.org...=

The Arab states aren't guilt-free, but you are attempting to conflate Arab-crimes with Palestinian crimes.

The Palestinians contributed significantly and were terrorizing the Israelis, fighting in a shadow war while the British mandate was still in effect. Also, do you have evidence that Israel was attempting to seize Jerusalem until after it was illegally seized by the Jordanians?

"Zionist Arab-affairs expert, observed in January 1948 that, "the majority of the Palestinian masses accept the partition as a fait accompli and do not believe it possible to overcome or reject it." Later, Ben-Gurion similarly said that, "it is now clear, without the slightest doubt, that were we to face the Palestinians alone, everything would be all right. They, the decisive majority of them, do not want to fight us, and all of them together are unable to stand up to us."

"Blocked by Zionist policy from officially expressing their opposition to war, the Palestinian Arabs arranged "non-aggression" pacts with their Jewish neighbors. The relatively few who did take up arms did so primarily to defend themselves against feared attacks by the Jews." http://www.nimn.org...=

"Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948"

"Menahem Begin, the Leader of the (Israeli) Irgun, tells how "in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive...Arabs began to flee in terror"

Only a small number of Palestinians fought against Israel/Jews, and these were primarily concerned with self-defense. To conflate Arab states invading Palestine/Israel, with Palestinians resisting expulsion is ridiculous.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org...

As for Israel/Jordan/Jerusalem, just read a summary of the 1947 war where both attempted to seize Jerusalem.

Only East Jerusalem was part of the west bank, to clarify. Israel did not illegally seize any land from the Palestinian state, the phony UN resolutions that carry no real legal or political weight state this, but Israel seized Palestinian territories in it's defense when they were used as staging areas to attack Israel in the Arab-Israeli war. I am for East Jerusalem becoming an international zone of occupation.

Here's a common problem encountered by Israeli-apologists. To have a case at all, you need to say every country's opinion, the UN, Human Rights Organizations, and the World Court are "phony", and that only Israel's official positions are accurate. Israel illegally seized Palestinian land in 1948 and 1967, expelling Palestinians who were not attacking Israel on a large-scale. You are conflating separate Arab states with native Palestinians.

I think we agree that Jerusalem should be an international zone that both Israeli's and Palestinians can enjoy. Gaza and the West Bank become the Palestinian state, and the Golan Heights returned to Syria.

The Interim government of gaza strip commits many atrocities that are never condemned, a lot of 'atrocities' that Israel commits are condemned, but atrocities of a greater or similar nature committed by other countries are not, the anti israeli double standard is clear.

Gaza's government (Hamas) commits many atrocities, both against Israeli's, and its own people. However, as we've seen throughout history, the errors of an occupied people are generally disregarded, while the occupied people are engaged in a larger struggle against an oppressor, who has committed far more flagrant atrocities. For the record though, the UN and Human Rights Organizations have/do condemn Hamas's violations.

Israel's atrocities are somewhat unique in the world today, so I'm not sure about the whole double-standard issue. For instance, Israel doesn't kill nearly as much people as other regimes, but no other regime has an apartheid-like system based on religion/ethnicity, that has/is cleansing natives from their land under pain of death.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.