So why do people hate Israel? - Page 57




 
--
 
April 19th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
It's simple and been done before.

They must adopt the south African solution or something based on that, as it is the only way of addressing the current (and more importantly) the future problems.
Recognition must be given to the fact that the land is that of the Palestinians and they must make the decisions as to which way they go. All of the past injustices committed to uphold the old regime must be addressed

Not everyone will be happy, as happened in South Africa, but it will solve the majority of the issues and give is a solid footing to work from, which can't happen at the moment because most of the present claims are not based on reason, morality or fact. For example, the claim that "today's Jews have a right of return to Palestine because their ancestors passed through the area 1300 years ago".... Pardon???

Imagine what would be the outcome, should you or I (or anyone else for that matter) try such a thing.

The Israelis are keen to perpetrate the myth that they have a "Right" to be there and that their occupation and the injustices committed to uphold this myth, is merely a local problem, whereas their actions have bought about a boilover and incited the Muslims of the world, which has in turn led many previously moderate Muslims to Fundamentalism. From there, it is anyone's guess where it could go as the fundamentalists use this as justification to spread terror around the world to support their cause. A cause that they can legitimise as a result of Israels occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian land.
The South African solution is a veiled attempt to destroy Israel. Israel is a democracy. The muslims want to destroy that. If there is one country the muslims will have the majority and after elections they are in power. Look at the muslim countries and what they did with the Jews. Not long ago after the ouster of Gaddafi a Jew came back to restore the synagogue and was beaten. There is no place for jewish religion in muslim countries while there is a place for muslim religion in Israel. That's why the South African solution sucks.
April 19th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I dunno if I'm reading you correctly, but I think you'd find that the Palestinians would gladly sacrifice their present miserable existence as second class citizens in their own country, subject to the constant thefts, harassment, beatings and gratuitous murders, by their occupiers, for the loss of whatever economic ties may be in place. (if there are any)

They certainly couldn't be any worse off economically than they have been for the last 60 years or so.

Y'know the old saying. "It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees".
This shows how little you know about the Israel-Palestine cooperation. Do not forget that the current situation is a direct result of the Oslo accords which both Israel and the PLO signed.
April 19th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
The South African solution is a veiled attempt to destroy Israel. Israel is a democracy.
No, Israel is a Racist state based on a totally false religious claim, intolerance and ethnic cleansing. All proven in a dozen previous posts, and backed by the admission of a number of Jewish organisations.

Below is an exerpt from an interview by Frank Barat with Ilan Pappe; (both are Jewish)

Ilan Pappé (Hebrew: אילן פפה‎; born 7 November 1954[1] in Haifa, Israel) is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the UK, director of the university's European Centre for Palestine Studies, co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies, and political activist. He was formerly a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Haifa (1984–2007) and chair of the Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian and Israeli Studies in Haifa (2000–2008).[2] He is the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), The Modern Middle East (2005), A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples (2003), and Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1988).[3] He was formerly a leading member of Hadash,[4] and was a candidate on the party list in the 1996 and 1999 Knesset elections.[5]
Quote:
FB: As coordinator of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, I am now preparing the next session of the tribunal which is going to take place in South Africa and will talk about the crime of apartheid in relation to Israel. For many, Israel is a democracy, because everyone is able to vote and Arabs are represented in the Knesset So is Israel a democracy?

IP: No, Israel is definitely not a democracy. A country that occupies another people for more than 40 years and disallows them the most elementary civic and human rights cannot be a democracy. A country that pursues a discriminatory policy against a fifth of its Palestinian citizens inside the 67 borders cannot be a democracy. In fact Israel is, what we use to call in political science a Herrenvolk democracy, its democracy only for the masters. The fact that you allow people to participate in the formal side of democracy, namely to vote or to be elected, is useless and meaningless if you don’t give them any share in the common good or in the common resources of the State, or if you discriminate against them despite the fact that you allow them to participate in the elections. On almost every level from official legislation through governmental practices, and social and cultural attitudes, Israel is only a democracy for one group, one ethnic group, that given the space that Israel now controls, is not even a majority group anymore, so I think that you’ll find it very hard to use any known definition of democracy which will be applicable for the Israeli case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
This shows how little you know about the Israel-Palestine cooperation. Do not forget that the current situation is a direct result of the Oslo accords which both Israel and the PLO signed.
But it does show exactly how much I know of the facts, regardless of Israeli propaganda.

If I were not so certain that you are no more than a dedicated Zionist stooge I would attempt to explain it to you, but I know that you are not here to present or hear the facts, or think about the visible evidence, just to push the Zionist myths.

Your much touted "Israel - Palestinian cooperation" has the same credibility, and bears a remarkable similarity to the "Nazi - Jewish Ghetto Police cooperation" in places like the Warsaw Ghetto.
--
April 20th, 2012  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
It's simple and been done before.

They must adopt the south African solution or something based on that, as it is the only way of addressing the current (and more importantly) the future problems.
Recognition must be given to the fact that the land is that of the Palestinians and they must make the decisions as to which way they go. All of the past injustices committed to uphold the old regime must be addressed

Not everyone will be happy, as happened in South Africa, but it will solve the majority of the issues and give is a solid footing to work from, which can't happen at the moment because most of the present claims are not based on reason, morality or fact. For example, the claim that "today's Jews have a right of return to Palestine because their ancestors passed through the area 1300 years ago".... Pardon???

Imagine what would be the outcome, should you or I (or anyone else for that matter) try such a thing.

The Israelis are keen to perpetrate the myth that they have a "Right" to be there and that their occupation and the injustices committed to uphold this myth, is merely a local problem, whereas their actions have bought about a boilover and incited the Muslims of the world, which has in turn led many previously moderate Muslims to Fundamentalism. From there, it is anyone's guess where it could go as the fundamentalists use this as justification to spread terror around the world to support their cause. A cause that they can legitimise as a result of Israels occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian land.
The problem is, the South African solution hasn't worked. There is massive corruption inside the ANC and the police, the ANC have appointed judges to the courts who give judgements based on ANC policy and not that in law, the ANC have put people in top jobs who haven't the ability or the education to do the job, when it collapses they blame apartheid. The whole infrastructure in South Africa is slowly collapsing.

I have no problem with a black government, but it really pisses me off big time when appointments are given purely on skin colour and not merit, basically Affirmative Action out of control leading to skilled and dedicated people like police officers, who are leaving the job because an Affirmative Action constable with the ability and the IQ of a frog gets promoted to station commander or some other high ranking position. Our top cop who was supposed to take over command of Interpol is now languishing in jail for 15 years for corruption, another ANC appointee.

Perhaps a better example would be Singapore.
April 20th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
The problem is, the South African solution hasn't worked. There is massive corruption inside the ANC and the police, the ANC have appointed judges to the courts who give judgements based on ANC policy and not that in law, the ANC have put people in top jobs who haven't the ability or the education to do the job, when it collapses they blame apartheid. The whole infrastructure in South Africa is slowly collapsing.

I have no problem with a black government, but it really pisses me off big time when appointments are given purely on skin colour and not merit, basically Affirmative Action out of control, leading to skilled and dedicated people like police who are leaving the job because an Affirmative Action constable with the education and the IQ of a frog gets promoted to station commander or some other high ranking position.
Singapore and Palestine are hardly comparable, there are some similarities, but the Brits gave up their Gun Boat diplomacy 100 years ago, whereas the Israelis are still improving their methods of oppression and colonial expansion.

Ask any the majority of the Blacks (oops y'can't say that can you?)

They do have the majority and it is their country, I'd say that obviously it is working as far as they are concerned, otherwise they could vote to change it. These things just have to run their course, and what else could you expect after hundreds of years of being treated no better than draft animals. Because they were never treated as equals they have no idea how economics and democracy works at a practical level, it will take time, but that's not their fault.

When you have two widely different classes of citizens whom you know are going to have to live together eventually, you know that both groups are going to have to change their standards. Those on the bottom will have to get better, those who ruled will have to take a drop in their living standards.

We have our problems here in Australia too but fortunately we started easing our Aboriginals into democracy several generations ago (very very slowly) and only now are they starting to understand the basics of how it's done. We were far too late and far too slow, but it's finally starting to pay small dividends, all we can do is wait and guide those who want to improve themselves.

Israel on the other hand continues to this day, to steal from, harass beat and murder Palestinians, and I guess they are rightfully afraid of what could happen should the Palestinians ever gain power. All I ask is,... Whose fault is that? I have no absolutely sympathy I'm afraid, the Israelis have been the eager architects of their own eventual undoing, and the longer it goes on the worse it will be for them. This is a deliberate ploy by the Israelis, hoping that they can convince the world that it's all too hard and that the democratic nations of the world can be convinced to just let it slide.

That could happen, but so long as it does, the world will be at war. The question is, is it worth it.
April 20th, 2012  
Der Alte
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
The League of Nations partitionend Palestine, one part for Israel and the other for the Palestinians. That is a fact. Wheter it was right or wrong is opinion.
After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.

Thus when the partition plan was announced in 1947 it included land held illegally by Jews, which was incorporated as a fait accompli inside the borders of the Jewish state. And after Israel announced its statehood, an impressive series of laws legally assimilated huge tracts of Arab land (whose proprietors had become refugees, and were pronounced ‘absentee landlords’ in order to expropriate their lands and prevent their return under any circumstances)

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Jews accepted, Palestinians refused. Fact. Can you go to court and reclaim something you refused without new evidence?
Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be (only half) Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body — a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine.

The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930’s and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.

But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic “land without people for a people without land” was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is, in my opinion, the root of the problem.

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.
April 23rd, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Alte
After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.
The British White Paper of 1939 limited Jewish immigration to 15,000 per year and stopping it thereafter, as well as severely limiting the purchase of land by Jews or the Zionist organization, but the supervising authority, the League of Nations, the Permanent Mandates Commission abstained unanimously from endorsing the White Paper although they didn't take steps to prohibit it. The Arabs did not complain, neither to the Permanent Mandates Commission nor to the British Mandate for Palestine, about illegal buying or selling. They were worried though that to many Arabs were selling their properties to Jewish people because they paid a good price for it. I'm not going to say that illegal buying and selling didn't happen (it happens all over the world, even today) but most of them were legal. All properties were (should have been) registered because of an Ottoman law in the previous century.

Quote:
Thus when the partition plan was announced in 1947 it included land held illegally by Jews, which was incorporated as a fait accompli inside the borders of the Jewish state. And after Israel announced its statehood, an impressive series of laws legally assimilated huge tracts of Arab land (whose proprietors had become refugees, and were pronounced ‘absentee landlords’ in order to expropriate their lands and prevent their return under any circumstances)
There was no land illegally held by the Jews. If it was then why didn't the British intervene or the Arabs protest? There are no official documents that stated that the Jews had bought or were biying land illegal.
The law you are referring to is ABSENTEES' PROPERTY LAW, 5710-1950. The land was not confiscated but was managed by a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property.

Quote:
Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be (only half) Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body — a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter
When the Ottoman Empire was defeated there was no Saudi-Arabia, no Iraq nor Lebanon Syria Jordan or Palestine. In fact 40 new countries were formed from the partitioning of the Ottoman empire after WWI. The local population was not involved in any of those new countries. The winners divided it all and put allies on the throne. In times of crisis and war people move around a lot (immigration, refugees) and yes, the jews also have a right to self-determination. How "self-determined" where the local population of the region of Palestine? Most of them called themselves Syrians, Jews called themselves Palestinians. The UN charter says in article 1-2: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;".

Quote:
The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine.
That's true. But both in the Ottoman Empire and later the British Mandate immigration and land buying was legal. In order to buy something you need to find one who sells it. It's mutual. Putting the blame only on the buyer is not fair. How would you feel as an Arab Palestinian who wants to sell his property at an much elevated price but can't because the Jew is not allowed to buy? Is that that freedom?

Quote:
The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930’s and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.
The Zionists were not desperate but were in desperate need to to find a haven for refugees.

Quote:
But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic “land without people for a people without land” was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is, in my opinion, the root of the problem.
According to the King Crane Report of 1919 there were 647.500 people living in the Region Palestine ( 515,000 Muslims, 62,500 Christians, 65,000 Jews and 5.000 others). This was an estimate by the commision.
The root of the problem was religion. The Jews were welcome to live in an Arab Palestine but the Arabs vehemently opposed a Jewish state. The Koran says that a non-muslim state is not allowed on muslim ground. The first riots against the Jews were instigated by clerics. They even attacked fellow Arab Palestinians who did not agree with them.

Quote:
In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.
The Zionists wanted a Jewish state. The local population was not to be removed by force but by persuasion, i.e. giving a good price for their property. The Zionists even wanted to build, develop and finance a new state for the local population in Syria but nothing came out of it. There's nothing wrong with buying something. After all the seller decides.
April 27th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
The British White Paper of 1939 limited Jewish immigration to 15,000 per year and stopping it thereafter, as well as severely limiting the purchase of land by Jews or the Zionist organization, but the supervising authority, the League of Nations, the Permanent Mandates Commission abstained unanimously from endorsing the White Paper although they didn't take steps to prohibit it. The Arabs did not complain, neither to the Permanent Mandates Commission nor to the British Mandate for Palestine, about illegal buying or selling. They were worried though that to many Arabs were selling their properties to Jewish people because they paid a good price for it. I'm not going to say that illegal buying and selling didn't happen (it happens all over the world, even today) but most of them were legal. All properties were (should have been) registered because of an Ottoman law in the previous century.



There was no land illegally held by the Jews. If it was then why didn't the British intervene or the Arabs protest? There are no official documents that stated that the Jews had bought or were biying land illegal.
The law you are referring to is ABSENTEES' PROPERTY LAW, 5710-1950. The land was not confiscated but was managed by a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property.



When the Ottoman Empire was defeated there was no Saudi-Arabia, no Iraq nor Lebanon Syria Jordan or Palestine. In fact 40 new countries were formed from the partitioning of the Ottoman empire after WWI. The local population was not involved in any of those new countries. The winners divided it all and put allies on the throne. In times of crisis and war people move around a lot (immigration, refugees) and yes, the jews also have a right to self-determination. How "self-determined" where the local population of the region of Palestine? Most of them called themselves Syrians, Jews called themselves Palestinians. The UN charter says in article 1-2: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;".



That's true. But both in the Ottoman Empire and later the British Mandate immigration and land buying was legal. In order to buy something you need to find one who sells it. It's mutual. Putting the blame only on the buyer is not fair. How would you feel as an Arab Palestinian who wants to sell his property at an much elevated price but can't because the Jew is not allowed to buy? Is that that freedom?



The Zionists were not desperate but were in desperate need to to find a haven for refugees.



According to the King Crane Report of 1919 there were 647.500 people living in the Region Palestine ( 515,000 Muslims, 62,500 Christians, 65,000 Jews and 5.000 others). This was an estimate by the commision.
The root of the problem was religion. The Jews were welcome to live in an Arab Palestine but the Arabs vehemently opposed a Jewish state. The Koran says that a non-muslim state is not allowed on muslim ground. The first riots against the Jews were instigated by clerics. They even attacked fellow Arab Palestinians who did not agree with them.



The Zionists wanted a Jewish state. The local population was not to be removed by force but by persuasion, i.e. giving a good price for their property. The Zionists even wanted to build, develop and finance a new state for the local population in Syria but nothing came out of it. There's nothing wrong with buying something. After all the seller decides.
Even if the history is important, but this thread is going back to a point from where people can connect with. We need to discuss solutions and not the going into the trap of the blame game. Both sides have committed atrocities, we can all agree to that, I think and I hope so. What shall we do to solve the problem, not to accuse the other side for atrocities, they both have done that. This forum has people from both sides so to speak, what we need to do is to find a common ground. Regardless, if the people in the area are Israelis or Palestinians, they all want to create a better future for their children. How can we, the people not living there help them to achieve that?
April 27th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
. How can we, the people not living there help them to achieve that?
We can't, because Israel has always approached any solution in a state of total denial, with an ongoing pro active policies that contravene a dozen or more International Laws. Once the world takes off it's blinkers, it will require a military solution.

Only within the last week or so the Israelis legitimised (according to Israeli law) three more "settlements" on occupied lands in the West Bank, breaking International law and ignoring the objections of a number of countries including the US.

Read: http://www.israellawresourcecenter.o...ides/sgil3.htm
April 27th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
We can't, because Israel has always approached any solution in a state of total denial, with an ongoing pro active policies that contravene a dozen or more International Laws. Once the world takes off it's blinkers, it will require a military solution.

Only within the last week or so the Israelis legitimised (according to Israeli law) three more "settlements" on occupied lands in the West Bank, breaking International law and ignoring the objections of a number of countries including the US.

Read: http://www.israellawresourcecenter.o...ides/sgil3.htm

Thank you,

How shall we make Israel to change their attitude? Just asking
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
Israel strikes Beirut suburb, tightens blockade
A conversation with Iranian dissident (MUST READ)
Palestinians
American racism