Rockets, Mortars keep falling on Israeli cities

[Lemon law]

While SamurAchzar defends Israel he is perfectly OK with saying, " Israel wants nothing with those people. No one in Israel is mad enough to want control over this population, unless absolutely required to by security concerns (such as rockets being fired from their territories, rings a bell?. "

The point being, its the Palestinians who were displaced so the State of Israel could exists, one can not logically argue for fairness for Israel and still advocate unfairness for Palestinians, Israel is stuck with the Palestinians and would be better off assimilating them, instead they are shunted off into inhumane refugee camps. Were I in their boat, I would be rebelling too.

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is almost as reprehensible as Hitler's treatment of the Jews.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And while the State of Israel enjoys good press in the USA, its certainly does not share basic American values like separation of Church and State, equal opportunity for all, equal protection under the law, as we demonize various Muslim countries for similar values.

Big words. Any facts to back it up? How about the approximately 1.3 million Israeli-Arabs, who are Israeli citizens? Those could be classified as "Palestinian" too. Some of them even join the Israeli army, imagine that.

Obviously, you could find thousands of hardcore leftists and "new historians" who say they get 2nd class treatment, but then the same people also usually argue US white elite mistreats minorities. So lets count those people out for a while.

It's easy to back it up. Israel is a religious state. That is disgusting. It's one thing if private citizens discriminate or mistreat, but it's completely different if the government discriminates from such a basis.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Big words. Any facts to back it up? How about the approximately 1.3 million Israeli-Arabs, who are Israeli citizens? Those could be classified as "Palestinian" too. Some of them even join the Israeli army, imagine that.

Obviously, you could find thousands of hardcore leftists and "new historians" who say they get 2nd class treatment, but then the same people also usually argue US white elite mistreats minorities. So lets count those people out for a while.

Israel's previous Prime Minster obviously wasn't too far left to rise to his position. However, he did recently acknowledge Israel's long standing discrimination against Arab-Israelis:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036798.html

And the acting Prime Minister only confirmed that shortly before by suggesting Arab-Israelis should move to Palestine:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045787.html

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Israel wants nothing with those people.

Exactly, Israel don't want those people, but the Israelis running things do want those people's land.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
By the way, ever wondered why Egypt keeps its border with Gaza strip closed? Just some food for thought.

I know why. Because, Israel demands it:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953151.html

 

[JEDIYoda]

of course you would quote haaretz.com as a source of objective information....thats site is a joke!

Do you realize that haaretz.com advocates and sponsors a website that promotes genocide and terrorism?
Haaretz.com, the website of the Israeli newspaper often cited as an example of Israel's liberal, critical media carries paid advertisements from a website openly advocating the total destruction of the Palestinian people, the murder of large numbers of Muslim civilians, the assassination of the family members of Arab rulers, and the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons against dozens of countries.


Of course this probably does not matter to you because at least they back up your dribble!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Prior to 1948 there were more than 400,000 refugees before the British mandate ended

The key word being british Mandate .....

What are you on about here? The more than 400,000 refugees figure is up to 13 May 1948, days before the Arab nations declared war on Israel, as I said.

As for the Britsh mandate, they had notified the U.N. that they would be out by 1 August 1948, but they mostly had retreated from the chaos well before:

Within the framework for the expansion of Jewish territory foreseen by Plan Dalet, the forces of Haganah, Palmach and Irgun intended to conquer mixed zones. Whether ethnic cleansing was the intention, encouraged, or merely accepted, Palestinian society was shaken. Tiberias, Haifa, Safed, Beisan, Jaffa and Acre fell, resulting in the flight of more than 250,000 Palestinians.[44]


The British had, at that time, essentially withdrawn their troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...e_Mandate_and_1948_War

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Then you say -- Yeah, that was right after Israel displaced the of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians you apparently weren't previously aware of.

That is not even the reason the Arabs went to war with Israel.........

I'll defer to the King of Jordan at the time for this one:

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html

Read that, and feel free to try and make your argument that the the war was about anything but.

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You also do not understand that when Israel became a Nation they told the people occupying the land they did NOt have to leave, but could leave if they so desired.

You are in denial of the fact that they ran out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Most of the time anybody who would use wikipedia as a source of "accurate" infor ,mation has no clue at all!!

The sorces for the facts I site are listed on the pages I linked, Wiki simply compiles them and makes for easy access. If you have any reason to dispute the information I provided, please share it.

You have no real understanding of what has taken place and what truly is taking place now in that part of the world. Just like you use the http://www.Haaretz.com site to supposedly back up your nieve diatribe!!

The problem with these discussions are for every argument presented there is also someplace online that back up what is being said!

So we need tot ake this another step further as SamurAchzar stated -- Israel wants nothing with those people. No one in Israel is mad enough to want control over this population, unless absolutely required to by security concerns (such as rockets being fired from their territories, rings a bell?).

So try to understand that there are TWO societies. One society is within the borders of Israel, and comprised of Jews, Arabs and some Christians. The OTHER society, OUTSIDE the borders of Israel, is the Palestinians. They are not Israeli citizens whatsoever. You can shout "2nd class citizens" for all that you like, but these people have nothing to do with Israel.

By the way, ever wondered why Egypt keeps its border with Gaza strip closed? Just some food for thought.

 

[Lemon law]

So bottom line, Israel wanted the Palestinian land, the people are merely to be thrown away. On that basis rests the justification for the State of Israel.

And then the Jews wonder why their Arab neighbors and most of the world hates them? Just some more food for thought.

Israel had the choice in 1948 to be fair, and instead opted to be be totally discriminatory, meanwhile the State of Israel can be propped up by armed might,
but probably cannot stand long term against the hatreds its building. The land gained in the 1967 war cannot be retained by UN charter, and since Israel will
is not open to any real fair settlement, its past time, IMHO, for binding third party arbitration.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
of course you would quote haaretz.com as a source of objective information....thats site is a joke!

Do you realize that haaretz.com advocates and sponsors a website that promotes genocide and terrorism?
Haaretz.com, the website of the Israeli newspaper often cited as an example of Israel's liberal, critical media carries paid advertisements from a website openly advocating the total destruction of the Palestinian people, the murder of large numbers of Muslim civilians, the assassination of the family members of Arab rulers, and the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons against dozens of countries.


Of course this probably does not matter to you because at least they back up your dribble!!

So why does this kind of zionist agenda, fail to get any air time on western media sources?
maybe because rupert murdoch is a zionist?

when will Israel comply with un-resolution 194?

 

[JEDIYoda]

So you also know nothing about the true hisatory of that region?

Caught between Arab and Jewish demands and short on funds, the Attlee government of Great Britain in February 1947 declared its Mandate in Palestine "unworkable" and referred the matter to the youthful UN. That body, with a surprising show of agreement between blocs, created a special committee of eleven member states to study the issues and report its recommendations.

The UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was the first truly independent tribunal to examine the Palestine question. In the summer of 1947 UNSCOP traveled to Palestine and held hearings in Jerusalem. The Palestine Arabs boycotted it. After completing its work in Palestine, the Committee drew up its recommendations in Geneva. Committee members were especially moved by the plight of desperate Holocaust survivors denied entry to Palestine.

Countering Arab claims that there was no basis for Jewish statehood in Palestine, in July 1947, the Christian Maronite Archbishop of Beirut, Lebanon, Ignatiyus Mubarak, presented a memorandum to UNSCOP in which he advocated the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine:

... to consider Palestine and Lebanon as parts of the Arab world would amount to a denial of history.
He also declared that:

Lebanon as well as Palestine should remain as permanent homes for the minorities in the Arab world.
It was Australia?s External Affairs Minister, Dr H.V. Evatt, chairing the UN committee dealing with Palestine in 1947, played a large role in persuading the UN to adopt partition. UNSCOP's report concluded that the League of Nations pledge of a Jewish national home had never been fulfilled, as Jewish immigration and land purchases had been artificially restricted by the British Mandate authorities.

The committee recommended an end to the British Mandate and the partitioning of the area. However, the partition plan was directed only at the 23% of the original Mandate that was left after the British subdivision that gave 77% to create the Arab territory of Transjordan. Of the remaining 23%, 56% was allocated to a Jewish state, 42% to an Arab state, and an international zone for the holy places in and around Jerusalem was allocated 2%. Summarizing this in a table:

The area designated as a Jewish state as over 75% desert; it had a population of 498,000 Jews and 325,000 Arabs. The proposed Arab state area had 807,000 Arab inhabitants and 10,000 Jewish inhabitants. The international trusteeship regime in Jerusalem would have a population of 100,000 Jews and 105,000 Arabs.

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly, in its 128th plenary session, by a two-thirds vote (33 to 13 with Britain and nine others abstaining) passed Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish community of Palestine jubilantly accepted partition despite the small size and strategic vulnerability of the proposed state. Not only were the West Bank and Gaza Strip not included, but also Jerusalem, most of the Galilee in the North and parts of the Negev desert in the South were excluded.

After the vote was announced, the six Arab delegations of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen stormed out threatening war and the annihilation of the Palestinian Jews. Pakistan's delegation followed suit. The Arab national movement in Palestine, as well as all the Arab states, angrily rejected partition. They demanded the entire country for themselves and threatened to resist partition by force. Had they accepted the UN proposal in 1947, the independent Palestinian Arab state, covering an area much larger than Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza, would have been created along with Israel. Instead, they rejected the plan and launched a war to destroy the nascent Jewish state.

Almost immediately there was Arab violence against the Jews in Palestine. Mordechai Palzur, the former chief of protocol at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, quotes a report published in Foreign Relations of the United States 1947 by Robert Macatee, consul general of Jerusalem:

It is tragic that many of the present casualties comprise innocent and harmless people going about their daily business. They are picked off while riding in buses, walking along the streets and stray shots even find them while asleep in their beds. A Jewish woman, mother of five children, was shot in Jerusalem while hanging out clothes on the roof. The ambulance rushing her to the hospital was machine gunned and finally the mourners following her to the funeral were attacked and one of them was stabbed to death.
The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini, the Arab Higher Committee's spokesman, told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:

The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.
The British commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, John Bagot Glubb admitted:

Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria. Some came through Jordan and even through Amman . . . They were in reality to strike the first blow in the ruin of the Arabs of Palestine.
UNSCOP was prevented by Arab and British forces from doing a full investigation in Palestine. They reported to the Security Council on 16 February 1948:

Organized efforts are being made by strong Arab elements inside and outside Palestine to prevent the implementation of the Assembly's plan of partition and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory... This Commission now finds itself confronted with an attempt to defeat its purposes, and to nullify the resolution of the General Assembly.
Jerusalem became the scene of the bloodiest battles, in danger of destruction, which aroused international concern. On 6 May 1948, the Special Session of the General Assembly recommended that:

... the Mandatory Power appoint, under Palestine legislation, before 15 May 1948, a neutral acceptable to both Arabs and Jews, as Special Municipal Commissioner, who shall, with the co-operation of the community committees already existing in Jerusalem, carry out the functions hitherto performed by the Municipal Commission. (General Assembly Resolution 187 (S.II).)
A Philadelphia attorney, Mr. Harold Evans, was appointed to the post, but he never set foot in Jerusalem. The General Assembly failed to decide on a Statute of Jerusalem, and turned down a proposal submitted at the decisive hour before the Mandate lapsed for a temporary trusteeship regime of the city.

The United States, the Soviet Union and most other member states of the United Nations immediately recognized Israel after it declared independence on May 14, 1948, and indicted the Arabs for their aggression. The United States urged a resolution charging the Arabs with breach of the peace. Soviet delegate Andrei Gromyko told the Security Council, May 29, 1948:

This is not the first time that the Arab states, which organized the invasion of Palestine, have ignored a decision of the Security Council or of the General Assembly. The USSR delegation deems it essential that the council should state its opinion more clearly and more firmly with regard to this attitude of the Arab states toward decisions of the Security Council.
The initial phase of the fighting ended after the Security Council threatened July 15 to cite the Arab governments for aggression under the Charter. By this time, the Haganah had been renamed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and succeeded in stopping the Arab offensive.

During the summer of 1948, Count Folke Bernadotte was sent by the UN to Palestine to mediate a truce and try to negotiate a settlement. Bernadotte's plan called for the Jewish State to relinquish the Negev and Jerusalem to Transjordan and to receive the western Galilee. This was similar to the boundaries that had been proposed prior to the partition vote, and had been rejected by all sides. Now, the proposal was being offered after the Arabs had gone to war to prevent partition and a Jewish state had been declared. The Jews and Arabs both rejected the plan. Bernadotte was assassinated by LEHI extremists in Jerusalem on September 17, 1948, an act that resulted in the elimination of the LEHI organization by mainstream Jewish leaders.

Although UN Resolution 181 is still sometimes cited when it is advantageous to the pro-Arab Palestinian position, the State of Israel has consistently maintained that the Partition Resolution became null and void when it was rejected by the Arab side in 1947.

As late as 1999, Resolution 181 was once again the focus of attention, more than 50 years after it was passed by the United Nations and rejected by the Arabs. The Palestinian Authority arranged for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to pass a resolution calling for Palestinian self-determination only on the basis UN Resolution 181. This was a blatent attempt to rewrite all of the history of the years between 1947 and 1999 and it was swiftly denounced.

Ironically, the United Nations has been an anti-Israel institution since shortly after the UN was instrumental in the founding of the State of Israel. Unfortunately the UN was often subverted by a coalition of third-world countries, Soviet client states, pro-Arab and anti-Semitic forces who could use actions against Israel as a proxy for stabs against the United States and its democratic allies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, this coalition was absorbed by the Middle Eastern forces seeking to destroy Israel. Today, the UN cannot be seen as a useful guide to world opinion or the moral course of action.

So tell me how blinded you are to the truth of the matter??

Once again the facts you state in your other posts have no proof other that to be used as fodder for people have no clue.....

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
of course you would quote haaretz.com as a source of objective information....thats site is a joke!

I quoted Haaretz because they were the first major news organization in the lists when I Googled for sources. Here are the same facts I was citing in the Haaretz article, this time from Israel's main right leaning news organization:

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/...7340,L-3622276,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/...7340,L-3622815,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/...7340,L-3169279,00.html

Now do you care to address the facts?

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Do you realize that haaretz.com advocates and sponsors a website that promotes genocide and terrorism?
Haaretz.com, the website of the Israeli newspaper often cited as an example of Israel's liberal, critical media carries paid advertisements from a website openly advocating the total destruction of the Palestinian people, the murder of large numbers of Muslim civilians, the assassination of the family members of Arab rulers, and the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons against dozens of countries.


Of course this probably does not matter to you because at least they back up your dribble!!

And how about you tell us where you got this claim from?

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
The problem with these discussions are for every argument presented there is also someplace online that back up what is being said!

So we need tot ake this another step further as SamurAchzar stated --

I already took it a step further and replied to what you had bolded there, just a few posts back where I posted the Harretz links you went into a furry over.

As for that wall of copy and paste you posted from yet another undisclosed source, what point are you trying to make with that?

 

[gingermeggs]

Still no reference to 194, and I have no clue!
http://www.un.org/unrwa/public...ions/2004/res59117.pdf
At lest you acknowledge them as facts.
The truth my friend is at the moment Israel has the bigger stick, and they have control over that area- lets see what sails over the horizon.
I have never met a Jewish person I didn't like, nor anyone from Adelaide I didn't like.
I also had a friend- driver of a garbage truck- who lives a nightmare of busting thru a door and killing women and children. You can validate anything on paper, what you can't do is remove the memories in peoples minds.
What fucks me up is I know it could be so different, that region could be a paradise instead of a paradox.
Cluster bombing of Lebanon didn't do a lot for the Israeli' position internationally, again it showed how ineffective military force is against social justice issues it only creates another generation of haters.
From conquered to conqueror and so the cycle continues.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point being, its the Palestinians who were displaced so the State of Israel could exists, one can not logically argue for fairness for Israel and still advocate unfairness for Palestinians, Israel is stuck with the Palestinians and would be better off assimilating them, instead they are shunted off into inhumane refugee camps. Were I in their boat, I would be rebelling too.

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is almost as reprehensible as Hitler's treatment of the Jews.

Israel is champion in assimilation, perhaps more so than any other nation from the foundation of the USA. Israel has assimilated Jews from all around the world, most of which were atheists, not united by religion.
In the time of mass immigration of Soviet Jews, Israel has taken a number composing more than 20% of its population at the time. Even more amazingly, around that time, Israel also brought in hundreds of thousands of Jewish Ethyopians.

Now, would you imagine USA willingly assimilating 60 million ex-Soviet immigrants because they are Christians? How about, lets say, 10 million Christian Africans, guys that lived in tents up to that time, that have never seen a TV in their lives?

Which brings me to your issue - Assimilating the Palestinians was never an option. In general, no country can embrace a group around 60% of it's population and remain stable, regardless of who the population is. And then specifically, I've yet to see one Western country successfully assimilating a considerable amount of Muslims. We will all see what happens in Europe over the next decade, and it's not going to be pretty.

You just can't mix a tribal, primitive, non-educated, Muslim society with ANY Western society, let alone one they have grudges against. Funnily, the only Western society getting closest to assimilating Muslims is... Israel, with 1.3 million Muslim Arabs. It's not always working, but it's the closest you can get. But it's a fine balance.

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
It's easy to back it up. Israel is a religious state. That is disgusting. It's one thing if private citizens discriminate or mistreat, but it's completely different if the government discriminates from such a basis.

Israel was found as a home for the Jews. It was asked for after the outcome of WWII. Other religions have found themselves countries over time, while Jews missed the train, thinking they would be better off scattered around countries. Then came the Holocaust and proved them wrong. Obviously, just like the financial bailout of now, sometimes processes that should occur by themselves just don't, and artificial intervention is needed to set things right.

The ties of Israel, as a country, to Judaism are there to keep the demographical fine balances and country identity. Other democratic countries just don't need to do that, usually, as they enjoy an overwhelming majority of Christianity. Even so, Europe has already began looking with a crooked eye on Muslim immigrants, considering very tough immigration policies, and even deportation.

If you side with the "everyone is welcome" policy, please go ahead and remove the US immigration office. Let anyone come in. How is RACIAL profiling (no Blacks, no Mexicans) better than RELIGIOUS one? A person can not change race, but he can change his religion.

Other than immigration policies, Judaism has very little to do with the way Israel is ran - not any more than Christianity dictates for the US, and even less.

And like I said to Lemon Law, Israel has a larger percentage of Muslim citizens compared to any other country in the West - nearly 20% it's population.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Israel's previous Prime Minster obviously wasn't too far left to rise to his position. However, he did recently acknowledge Israel's long standing discrimination against Arab-Israelis:

The discrimination goes both ways. They evade civil duties and usually side with the Palestinians in conflicts, while Israel turns an eye away. It's not discrimination as it is separation - they are left alone, and leave the country alone, for good and worse.

And the acting Prime Minister only confirmed that shortly before by suggesting Arab-Israelis should move to Palestine:

Don't try to portray it like he suggested deportation. As part of an agreement, those in Israel seeing themselves Palestinians rather than Israeli are more than welcome to cross the border. More so, there are large Arab areas near the West Bank which are inside the '67 borders and are likely to be given, with inhabitants in place, to the Palestinians in the case an agreement is made, whether they like it or not.

As I said before, assimilation of these groups is very marginal at best, and Israel would do far better without them. There's nothing politically incorrect stating that - not all people are equal when it comes to values, traditions and way of life. Integration, in such cases, is better avoided if peacefully possible, for the sake of both sides. Consider Serbia.

Exactly, Israel don't want those people, but the Israelis running things do want those people's land.

That's why Kadima, the currently ruling party, was elected nearly solely upon the grounds of one-sided withdrawel from these territories?

I know why. Because, Israel demands it:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953151.html

Did you even read that link? It taken place AFTER the border was forcefully breached by the Hamas, and Palestinians fled into Sinai. Egyptians asked to increase their military, as the forces in Sinai peninsula are regulated by the Israel-Egypt peace agreement.

Egyptians weren't so nice when Hamas breached the fence, using deadly force to stop the rampage. They know why they don't want these people in their country. Palestinians are considered the Gypsies of the Arab world. Why didn't Jordan offer to assimilate the West Bank? Israel would happily comply, and Jordan is 80% Palestinian anyway. Why didn't Egypt ask for the Gaza strip? They saw from afar what Israeli leaders of 30 years ago didn't.

Gaza strip was under Egyptian control before '67, while the West Bank was Jordanian territory. Ever seen countries NOT looking to get their land back in peace agreements? Because Israel formed agreements with both, and neither asked for these territories back.

Do you know the Palestinians in Rafiah (Gaza strip) were very happy to see Israeli tanks on the way to Sinai? Just like the Iraqis were happy with American tanks going into Bagdhad.

Things are much more complicated than it seems, down in the Middle East.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets take two SamurrAchzar quotes sides by side.

1. "You just can't mix a tribal, primitive, non-educated, Muslim society with ANY Western society, let alone one they have grudges against. Funnily, the only Western society getting closest to assimilating Muslims is... Israel, with 1.3 million Muslim Arabs. It's not always working, but it's the closest you can get. But it's a fine balance."

2. " In the time of mass immigration of Soviet Jews, Israel has taken a number composing more than 20% of its population at the time. Even more amazingly, around that time, Israel also brought in hundreds of thousands of Jewish Ethyopians."

Its rather hard to argue that the existing Palestinians were less cultured or had less chance of assimilation than Ethiopians, but their mere Jewishness some how trumped the rights of native born Palestinians?
Its called religious bigotry, you may not be able to see the obvious, but you condemn yourself as a religious bigot by your own words.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
It's easy to back it up. Israel is a religious state. That is disgusting. It's one thing if private citizens discriminate or mistreat, but it's completely different if the government discriminates from such a basis.

Israel was found as a home for the Jews. It was asked for after the outcome of WWII. Other religions have found themselves countries over time, while Jews missed the train, thinking they would be better off scattered around countries. Then came the Holocaust and proved them wrong. Obviously, just like the financial bailout of now, sometimes processes that should occur by themselves just don't, and artificial intervention is needed to set things right.

Look, you can try to justify discrimination and religious states through history, but the bottom line is that Israel is a religious state. That is disgusting and wrong.

The ties of Israel, as a country, to Judaism are there to keep the demographical fine balances and country identity. Other democratic countries just don't need to do that, usually, as they enjoy an overwhelming majority of Christianity. Even so, Europe has already began looking with a crooked eye on Muslim immigrants, considering very tough immigration policies, and even deportation.

Even some countries with an 'overwhelming majority of Christianity' do not have state imposed religious discrimination as Israel does. Israel has no separation of religion and state.

You can try to excuse the religious discrimination and state sponsored religion of Israel through whatever means you wish, but in the end the act of a state sponsoring a religion is disgusting and wrong. Even your response seems to imply that Israel discriminates against non-Jews.

If you side with the "everyone is welcome" policy, please go ahead and remove the US immigration office. Let anyone come in. How is RACIAL profiling (no Blacks, no Mexicans) better than RELIGIOUS one? A person can not change race, but he can change his religion.

You are showing your extremist views now. It's either Israel's horrible discriminatory policies or an 'everyone is welcome' policy? Nothing else? Here's a crazy idea - how about a policy that doesn't violate any levels of human decency?

Furthermore, immigration allows Mexicans and Blacks in the United States. You see, the US is not as disgusting as Israel.

Other than immigration policies, Judaism has very little to do with the way Israel is ran - not any more than Christianity dictates for the US, and even less.

And like I said to Lemon Law, Israel has a larger percentage of Muslim citizens compared to any other country in the West - nearly 20% it's population.

Are you claiming that Israel doesn't discriminate via religious through any other means?

Let's face it - Israel is a disgusting religious state. They need to change their ways and have a more appropriate government.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Now, would you imagine USA willingly assimilating 60 million ex-Soviet immigrants because they are Christians? How about, lets say, 10 million Christian Africans, guys that lived in tents up to that time, that have never seen a TV in their lives?

I wouldn't want the US to only allow people in just because they're Christians and not allow a sufficient opportunity to other groups of people.

Your comments here show how disgusting you are.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets take two SamurrAchzar quotes sides by side.

1. "You just can't mix a tribal, primitive, non-educated, Muslim society with ANY Western society, let alone one they have grudges against. Funnily, the only Western society getting closest to assimilating Muslims is... Israel, with 1.3 million Muslim Arabs. It's not always working, but it's the closest you can get. But it's a fine balance."

2. " In the time of mass immigration of Soviet Jews, Israel has taken a number composing more than 20% of its population at the time. Even more amazingly, around that time, Israel also brought in hundreds of thousands of Jewish Ethyopians."

Its rather hard to argue that the existing Palestinians were less cultured or had less chance of assimilation than Ethiopians, but their mere Jewishness some how trumped the rights of native born Palestinians?
Its called religious bigotry, you may not be able to see the obvious, but you condemn yourself as a religious bigot by your own words.

Actually, the Palestinians are probably a more advanced society than those Ethyopians were, but the Ethyopians looked forward to become Israelis, while the Palestinians look forward to the day Israel stopped existing. Verdict is still out on how the Ethyopians make it, though. We'll see if they make it into useful members of the society, or just adopt some kind of a miserable ghetto mentality very often found in Blacks in the US. I suspect the latter. Perhaps some Israeli leaders did - they brought them in anyway.

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Look, you can try to justify discrimination and religious states through history, but the bottom line is that Israel is a religious state. That is disgusting and wrong.

Once again, all religions found some national home sooner or latter. The only major religion without a national home has been Judaism. Just to clarify, are you suggesting Judaism doesn't need such an home?

Even some countries with an 'overwhelming majority of Christianity' do not have state imposed religious discrimination as Israel does. Israel has no separation of religion and state.

That's not what I meant and you probably know it. What I meant is that Israel has to implement such policy in order to live up to its goal, which is a national home to Jews from all around the world. It doesn't have any kind of inherent demographics advantage more established nations have.

Do you seriously think that any Western Christian country wouldn't use dirty tricks to keep the Christian majority were it in danger? You're just naive if you do. The only difference is that Israel has to do so from the beginning.

You are showing your extremist views now. It's either Israel's horrible discriminatory policies or an 'everyone is welcome' policy? Nothing else? Here's a crazy idea - how about a policy that doesn't violate any levels of human decency?

Furthermore, immigration allows Mexicans and Blacks in the United States. You see, the US is not as disgusting as Israel.

Oh really. So some poor illiterate guy from Africa has the same chances of becoming a legal immigrant as a wealthy Swede with PhD. in Physics? Who are you kidding? Countries always choose who crosses their gates. I guess US is giving bulk immigration approvals, that's why so many Mexican immigrants are legal

What kind of discrimination are you talking about anyway, and how does it violate human decency? The only real discriminatory act concerns immigration, and I'd hardly call say it has anything to do with "human decency". Are Muslims in Israel denied medical treatment? Is their "human decency" in any way compromised?

The Palestinians, mind you, are not a part of Israel - they are an enemy to the Israelis, as Israelis as enemy to them. They were offered a path to human decency and turned the other way.

Are you claiming that Israel doesn't discriminate via religious through any other means?

Let's face it - Israel is a disgusting religious state. They need to change their ways and have a more appropriate government.

So the US, that makes citizens swear on the bible, that prohibits Gay marriage, that teaches Creationism in schools, is less religious? :roll: Other than repeating the same "disgusting religious" combination like a seriously broken record, you bring very little in way of arguments.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Now, would you imagine USA willingly assimilating 60 million ex-Soviet immigrants because they are Christians? How about, lets say, 10 million Christian Africans, guys that lived in tents up to that time, that have never seen a TV in their lives?

I wouldn't want the US to only allow people in just because they're Christians and not allow a sufficient opportunity to other groups of people.

Your comments here show how disgusting you are.

Are you suggesting everyone should be allowed in? If not, what are the criteria? Is it race? Or education? Or income? Or family status? Are these any less discriminatory than religion alone?

Sure, in an idealistic world immigration authorities wouldn't be needed because everyone would be let in. But in reality, societies filter their immigrants very carefully, to keep the status quo (or improve upon it).

The only difference is that Israel publicly states the criteria- and completely ignores all other aspects, that are weighed in immigration applications elsewhere. I don't think that's any more discriminatory, and regardless, that is to be expected with a country formed as a national Jewish home.

 

[Lemon law]

The criteria is native born first, on that principle was the State of Israeli founded by the UN, after the failed British mandate became non viable.

Israel could have become a just nation, it sadly failed to rise to the UN principle of its founding to equally govern its mixed population, and cannot be long term viable because of that failing.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Once again, all religions found some national home sooner or latter. The only major religion without a national home has been Judaism. Just to clarify, are you suggesting Judaism doesn't need such an home?

Religion can find a home without an official religious government. Judaism doesn't need a home via a discriminatory state sponsored religious state. No religion requires such a barbaric and hideous institution.

Just to clarify, but what do you feel are the 'homes' of Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism? Are these barbaric religious states?

That's not what I meant and you probably know it. What I meant is that Israel has to implement such policy in order to live up to its goal, which is a national home to Jews from all around the world. It doesn't have any kind of inherent demographics advantage more established nations have.

Do you seriously think that any Western Christian country wouldn't use dirty tricks to keep the Christian majority were it in danger? You're just naive if you do. The only difference is that Israel has to do so from the beginning.

It sounds like Israel is itself discriminatory and wishes to be a discriminatory state as its goal. Sorry, but that's not an excuse. No country should be such a state.

What are these 'Western Christian' countries? Not many countries have such an evil and discriminatory policy as Israel. Good luck finding a valid comparison.

Oh really. So some poor illiterate guy from Africa has the same chances of becoming a legal immigrant as a wealthy Swede with PhD. in Physics? Who are you kidding? Countries always choose who crosses their gates. I guess US is giving bulk immigration approvals, that's why so many Mexican immigrants are legal

There are lots of legal Mexican immigrants. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

A wealthy person with a PhD would have an easier chance of being admitted to the US, regardless of the person's race or religion. That's the key.

What kind of discrimination are you talking about anyway, and how does it violate human decency? The only real discriminatory act concerns immigration, and I'd hardly call say it has anything to do with "human decency". Are Muslims in Israel denied medical treatment? Is their "human decency" in any way compromised?

Do you deny that Israel discriminates in any other way other than immigration? How about the sponsorship of a specific religion?

The Palestinians, mind you, are not a part of Israel - they are an enemy to the Israelis, as Israelis as enemy to them. They were offered a path to human decency and turned the other way.

They both arguably have no decency - the Israelis and Palestinians.

So the US, that makes citizens swear on the bible, that prohibits Gay marriage, that teaches Creationism in schools, is less religious? :roll: Other than repeating the same "disgusting religious" combination like a seriously broken record, you bring very little in way of arguments.

The US doesn't make people swear on the Bible. Are you joking? You're clearly delusional. You're a hatemonger and a fundamentalist.

The only thing that you bring in the way of an argument is you attempting to justify discrimination. You are simply a disgusting human being.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Give them laser guided missiles if you want them to avoid civilians. I'm sorry but it's not their fault that they have been forced into a whole and there's no way for them to come out except by firing rockets that do no good. The international community must step in to make Israel stop their crimes.

Should wipe out Syria, Iran and Pakistain. A few million to save the world a shitload of problems.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Once again, all religions found some national home sooner or latter. The only major religion without a national home has been Judaism. Just to clarify, are you suggesting Judaism doesn't need such an home?

Religion can find a home without an official religious government. Judaism doesn't need a home via a discriminatory state sponsored religious state. No religion requires such a barbaric and hideous institution.

Just to clarify, but what do you feel are the 'homes' of Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism? Are these barbaric religious states?

Believers of these religions can always find a country where they are not the minority. Judiasm wanted one too. Do you really fail to realize why, following the Holocaust, Jews didn't feel safe anywhere but in a country of their own?

It sounds like Israel is itself discriminatory and wishes to be a discriminatory state as its goal. Sorry, but that's not an excuse. No country should be such a state.

What are these 'Western Christian' countries? Not many countries have such an evil and discriminatory policy as Israel. Good luck finding a valid comparison.

And when Muslims are denied entrance to Europe, would that be evil and discriminatory in your eyes?

There are lots of legal Mexican immigrants. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

A wealthy person with a PhD would have an easier chance of being admitted to the US, regardless of the person's race or religion. That's the key.

Again, turning a blind eye. How many of these ARRIVED as legal immigrants?

Do you deny that Israel discriminates in any other way other than immigration? How about the sponsorship of a specific religion?

What, Christians and Muslims aren't allowed worship in Israel? Muslims in Israel are much more free than Christians would be in Arab countries, and I don't see you shouting "Discrimination" over that.

The CIA Factbook lists the population in Israel as 76% Jewish, 23% Muslim, the rest are Arab Christians. That, obviously, only includes Israeli citizens (no Palestinians).

The same factbook lists US religious structure as 76% Christians, 1.7% Jewish, 0.7% Buddhist, 0.6% Muslim, and Others at 2.5% (Unaffiliated make the rest).

Interesting, taking into account that one is the light of the free world, the other is a bunch of barbaric, discriminating, Jewish supremacists

The US doesn't make people swear on the Bible. Are you joking? You're clearly delusional. You're a hatemonger and a fundamentalist.

What does the US president swear on when entering office? Look closely during Obama's ceremony, you might learn something new. What about Creationism?

The only thing that you bring in the way of an argument is you attempting to justify discrimination. You are simply a disgusting human being.

No, I'm just honest, unlike yourself. Discrimination exists and is sometimes required. It's not ideal, but that's the way things are. When that discrimination serves some kind of a greater goal other than itself, it is a fact of life.
In this case, Israel discriminates not because it thinks less on non-Jewish human beings, but because it looks to maintain the Jewish majority within its borders. The moment Israel stops doing that, it will be swept with a wave of Muslims that will certainly void Israel's existence.

The Palestinians use your exact arguments, knowing that the day they are allowed to move in uninterrupted and form a majority, that is the day they would claim victory over the Zionists. Maybe then they could form an enlightened, non-discriminatory state just like the rest of the Arabs did :laugh:

 

[Lemon law]

What religion has a national homeland SamurAchzar? Yet many religion hop from nation to nation because they contribute to the society and do not try to dominate their new host countries.

Even Islam somewhat follows that model because its also fragmented into sects. There is no shortage of religious bigotry in the world, but to found the nation of Israel on that basis smack dab in the middle
of an almost Muslim monopoly, leaves Israel with the onus of setting the better example. Instead Israel almost makes Islam a shining example of religious tolerance because of Israeli religious bigotry.
Even Ossama Bin Laden acknowledges the people of the book, Muslims, Christians and Jews alike who have common religious roots.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Believers of these religions can always find a country where they are not the minority. Judiasm wanted one too. Do you really fail to realize why, following the Holocaust, Jews didn't feel safe anywhere but in a country of their own?

It doesn't matter what Judaism or any other religion wants. Discriminatory or a religious state government is despicable. Perhaps Jews didn't feel safe anywhere but in a country of their own after the Holocaust, but that does not mean that it's OK to allow for a state sponsored religious government. They could have still formed a secular state that isn't disgusting and vile.

Anyways, you're the one who said that other religions had their own home countries and Judaism wanted one like these others.

And when Muslims are denied entrance to Europe, would that be evil and discriminatory in your eyes?

It's wrong if Muslims in general are denied because they are simply Muslims. It's even worse when a state is a religious state.

Again, turning a blind eye. How many of these ARRIVED as legal immigrants?

A significant number of legal immigrants are Mexican. Are you delusional?

What, Christians and Muslims aren't allowed worship in Israel? Muslims in Israel are much more free than Christians would be in Arab countries, and I don't see you shouting "Discrimination" over that.

Oh, many Arab countries are despicable as well, but that's aside the point of this thread. The issue is Israel and it is simply disgusting. Feel free to start a thread about other despicable religious sponsored governments.

The CIA Factbook lists the population in Israel as 76% Jewish, 23% Muslim, the rest are Arab Christians. That, obviously, only includes Israeli citizens (no Palestinians).

The same factbook lists US religious structure as 76% Christians, 1.7% Jewish, 0.7% Buddhist, 0.6% Muslim, and Others at 2.5% (Unaffiliated make the rest).

Interesting, taking into account that one is the light of the free world, the other is a bunch of barbaric, discriminating, Jewish supremacists

The US isn't a religious state, unlike Israel with its despicable policy.

What does the US president swear on when entering office? Look closely during Obama's ceremony, you might learn something new. What about Creationism?

Again, you have no idea what you're speaking of. Obama chooses to have a Bible for his inauguration. Other public officials have sworn upon other books like the Koran.

No, I'm just honest, unlike yourself. Discrimination exists and is sometimes required.

Thanks for admitting that you are a disgusting and vile human being.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The discrimination goes both ways. They evade civil duties and usually side with the Palestinians in conflicts, while Israel turns an eye away. It's not discrimination as it is separation - they are left alone, and leave the country alone, for good and worse.

The discrimination Omert referred to is that which has been institutionalized by the construction of an ethnic nationalist state. That goes one way.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Don't try to portray it like he suggested deportation.

I didn't suggest she said anything of the sort, my point stands.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
That's why Kadima, the currently ruling party, was elected nearly solely upon the grounds of one-sided withdrawel from these territories?

That is why settlement expantion contenued under Kadima anyway.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Did you even read that link?

I suppose it doesn't make my point as clear as I intended, point being that it Israel is the one who actually controls the Gaza-Egypt boarder. This article makes the point obvious:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28389767/

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Palestinians are considered the Gypsies of the Arab world.

Is that an attempt to dehumanize Palestinians?

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Things are much more complicated than it seems, down in the Middle East.

Complications can be elaborated on anywhere, but in doing so here you are continuing to dodge the simple fact that this conflict is rooted in Israel's ongoing conquest of Palestinian land.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Dman877
Why are Palestinian actions so hard for people to understand? Imagine the US government took a few million Americans and settled them in Iraqi cities, displacing the Iraqi's who lived there previously in the process. I don't care who you are, if you were on the losing end, you would be pissed enough to fight over it.

The only way to prevent this kind of 'terrorism' (quotes because in other times and for other peoples, it is called other things) is to invade your enemies and occupy them ancient Greek style; kill every male over 12 and sell the women and children into slavery. Trying to live in close proximity to a conquered people with access to the kinds of weapons we now have is just foolish.

Most of us understand why the Palestinians are so pissed. Israel needed to exist, but maybe not in that exact location. That was our bad. We didn?t foresee all the consequences of our actions when we carved out the Israeli state.
But what is done is done. Israel is not going anywhere. Palestine is not going to defeat them. So, maybe it is time they look for the next best solution.

Yes, but add emotions into it, and you'll see people pissed off and ready to lob rockets at Israel.

These rockets came because IDF killed 3 "terrorists" (I never heard of the IDF ever killing a civilian, even though they are all civilians there, but to make us feel good we can label them all terrorists)... People claim to push them back bulldoze their urban areas create a buffer, but then Israel will just expand into that land and create new settlements like they have done time and time again, and then they push the Palestinians back even more, which cause more rockets to land in Israel, and the cycle repeats.

Israel, if you want the rockets to stop raining down on you, stop pushing around the Palestinians, or kill them all entirely. But you will be guilty of what Hitler tried to do to you 70 years ago, and really, you'd be no better than he is. But I have a feeling thats what you will become, and to be honest, Palestinians had nothing to do with that, but you will commit genocide on a people who are innocent.

Israel had a buffer zone (called settlements) in Gaza. While those settlements existed, there was little shelling of Israel proper.

A few years ago, Israel agreed to remove those settlements and in return the Palestinians would work for peace.
The day the settlements were abandoned, Israel started being shelled.

Israel can scorch earth the first few miles of north Gaza to prevent the cover being used by the militants. They were willing to give land for peace, HAmas showed they do not want peace.

Then last year, Israel agreed to relax the restrictiions when Hamas stated that they would honor a cease fire. thee day the cease fire went into effect, rockets were launched. Hamas then stated, that they would honor the cease fire, BUT NOT FORCE others to honor it. But Israel was expected to honro their part of the agreement.

Hamas is a democratically elected government that has declared was on Israel and complains when ISrael performs acts of war on them.

WAR is not one sided; sooner or later, Israel is going to take the gloves off and Hamas can be an PLO/Arafat - crying to the world that they have no home.

Gaza is no Southern Lebanon - they will have no where to run.

Aye.

 

[walrus]

Most of the Hamas "security men" are just simple policeman. We call police "peace officers" here in the US. There is no standing army (or heavy weapons) in the Gaza.