Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Six-Day War started on July 5th, 1967, when Israel preemptively attacked Egypt. And Israel's victory doesn't entitle it to do whatever it likes to the vanquished. A certain German leader felt that way, which is why there are 2 million fewer Jews living today than there were in 1940. Did you never pick up a history book?!
massing troops on the borders of your neighbor is an act of war.
Accepting your premise that Israel annexed the West Bank in 1988, the preceding settlement activity was nonetheless illegal and Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return and reclaim their property (Section III, Article 49). Also, now that the West Bank is part of Israel, Arabs/Muslims living in the region must be afforded all the rights of citizenship, to include suffrage. Denying the residents of Ramallah (Muslim & Christian) liberties enjoyed by the residents of Modi'in Illit (a Haredi Jewish settlement 10 miles west) is de facto apartheid.
Israel did not annex "west bank" in 1988. The settlements are absolutely legal because Israel did not force its population to live there. "West Bank" is not part of Israel, it's ceased territories. Apartheid based on race or ethnicity. An arab, citizen of Israel, living in Ariel (city in Samaria) enjoy the same rights as a jew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
Bulldozing existing villages and colonizing the territory = removing its original inhabitants.
It's not "existing villages". Those villages are being build without any permissions. I believe that If you will build a house without proper documents and permissions, the authorities here in the US will demolish it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
The Six-Day War started on July 5th, 1967, when Israel preemptively attacked Egypt. And Israel's victory doesn't entitle it to do whatever it likes to the vanquished. A certain German leader felt that way, which is why there are 2 million fewer Jews living today than there were in 1940. Did you never pick up a history book?!
What? What are you talking about? The war started on JUNE 5th after Egypt entered Sinay despite all agreements and closed Tiran straits, which is a casus belli by all possible definitions (closing naval route). The war with Jordan started after Jordan shelled Tel Aviv Suburbs without any provocation. Did you never pick up a history book?!
To be fair; I'm more likely to side with Jews over Muslims, most of the time. Tho the Sufi Muslims DO have a real good rep AND those "Jews" with the black hats, dread lock looking hair and so on, I don't care for their kind.
" massing troops on the borders of your neighbor is an act of war.
seriously, READ A FREAKING BOOK!"
What part of "The Six-Day War started on July 5th, 1967, when Israel preemptively attacked Egypt" do your readin' books dispute -- aside from the fact that the date was June 5th, not July?
What part of "The Six-Day War started on July 5th, 1967, when Israel preemptively attacked Egypt" do your readin' books dispute -- aside from the fact that the date was June 5th, not July?
The little part that the war was started by Egypt which closed an international naval route, the Tiran straits, by placing a canon which supposed to hit Israeli ships that tried to cross. This is an act of war.
"The settlements are absolutely legal because Israel did not force its population to live [in the West Bank]."
This is too stupid to merit the merest effort at refutation, so I'll simply invite other readers to gaze at the gaping intellectual void.
Quote:
""West Bank" is not part of Israel, it's ceased territories."
Insofar as I know, the West Bank hasn't "ceased," so it's been seized and/or ceded, rendering it either occupied or annexed. In the latter scenario, the West Bank is part of Israel and its Arab citizens, many of whom have ties to the territory extending back hundreds of years, are entitled to the same rights as Jewish settlers who emigrated from Eastern Europe or Israel proper no more than 50 years ago (in many instances, less than a decade).
Quote:
"Apartheid based on race or ethnicity. An arab, citizen of Israel, living in Ariel (city in Samaria) enjoy the same rights as a jew."
Hahahaha! Arab citizenship -- ain't that the rub. Sure, they enjoy as robust a set of rights as one could expect of an ethnic/religious minority in an emphatically racial/sectarian state. (And spare me comparisons with the rest of the Middle East; that Alabama is more enlightened than Mississippi hardly makes it worthy of approbation.) However, securing second-class citizenship is no meager ordeal. A Jew whose ancestors resided in Hungary for a thousand years is offered citizenship upon arriving in Ariel -- a settlement that B'Tselem, an Israeli NGO, characterizes as:
Seized under the false pretext of imperative military needs and on land that was declared state land, including cultivated farmland of villages in the district and on rocky land the villagers used for grazing their flocks. The state's declaration of state land was made in breach of the right to due process and relied on a distorted interpretation of the binding legislation in the West Bank. The settlement's municipal area contains many enclaves of privately-owned Palestinian land, whose owners are not allowed access to them.
Incontrovertible claims to the land notwithstanding, obtaining citizenship is almost impossible for Arab natives of the Occupied Territories. In fairness, Israel isn't alone in embracing a jus sanguinis conception of citizenship (patently racist as it is). However, the second-generation Turkish immigrants denied German citizenship aren't longstanding residents of a region of Turkey arrogated by the German state. An analogous situation would be Mexico conquering Texas, the U.S. relinquishing its claim, and the Mexican government extending indefinite military control over San Antonio and colonizing the city whilst refusing it membership/representation in the Mexican state and denying citizenship/equal rights to the city's natives. How would that sit with you?
Last edited by drishmael; 09-17-2015 at 12:11 AM..
"The little part that the war was started by Egypt which closed an international naval route, the Tiran straits, by placing a canon which supposed to hit Israeli ships that tried to cross. This is an act of war."
Okay, so we're agreed that Israel preemptively attacked Egypt (whether justified or not).
This is too stupid to merit the merest effort at refutation, so I'll simply invite other readers to gaze at the gaping intellectual void.
It means that you cannot answer this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
Insofar as I know, the West Bank hasn't "ceased," so it's been seized and/or ceded, rendering it either occupied or annexed. In the latter scenario, the West Bank is part of Israel and its Arab citizens, many of whom have ties to the territory extending back hundreds of years, are entitled to the same rights as Jewish settlers who emigrated from Eastern Europe or Israel proper no more than 50 years ago (in many instances, less than a decade).
English is not my first language, even not the second.
"West bank" is not annexed, so its inhabitants, who not posses Israeli citizenship, entitled to rights under military law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
Hahahaha! Arab citizenship -- ain't that the rub. Sure, they enjoy as robust a set of rights as one could expect of an ethnic/religious minority in an emphatically racial/sectarian state. (And spare me comparisons with the rest of the Middle East; that Alabama is more enlightened than Mississippi hardly makes it worthy of approbation.) However, securing second-class citizenship is no meager ordeal.
Second class? They enjoy more rights than Jews, for example the right not to spend 3 years in the military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
-- a settlement that B'Tselem, an Israeli NGO,
B'tselem considered in Israel as traitors. It's a radical left organization funded by foreign countries so all those claims are one sided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
Incontrovertible claims to the land notwithstanding, obtaining citizenship is almost impossible for Arab natives of the Occupied Territories.
And what is wrong with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
In fairness, Israel isn't alone in embracing a jus sanguinis conception of citizenship (patently racist as it is). However, the second-generation Turkish immigrants denied German citizenship aren't longstanding residents of a region of Turkey arrogated by the German state. An analogous situation would be Mexico conquering Texas, the U.S. relinquishing its claim, and the Mexican government extending indefinite military control over San Antonio and colonizing the city whilst refusing it membership/representation in the Mexican state and denying citizenship/equal rights to the city's natives. How would that sit with you?
It would sit very well, if Mexico would offer USA 99% of Texas in exchange for peace, and USA would refuse and demand that 400 million Americans from around the world will be aloud to settle in Mexico itself + Texans will blow buses and restaurants in Mexico on a weekly basis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.