Israeli apartheid

digme · 15-02-2010 12:42pm #1

In the video I posted above, the man interviewed mentions that the Israelis are moved into the middle of a Palestinian town, and are settled there by surrounding them with soldiers, until they bring in more Israelis to take over more streets, and make the majority, in this case the Palestinians, be treated like sub humans.When is this going to stop?
Nelson Mandela was realeased from prison and apartied came to an end in 1994,when do the palestininas become free from these sick Israelis?
When you think about how the Palestinians are treated on their own land no wonder they are the way they are.

FlutterinBantam · 15-02-2010 1:52pm

Who is this man and what credibility does he have??

Anyone can set up a video.

The Saint · 15-02-2010 2:06pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Who is this man and what credibility does he have??

Anyone can set up a video.

Would you like to address the parts that you think are inaccurate?

digme · 15-02-2010 2:23pm

FlutterinBantam
interviewed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ratner
interviewer http://therealnews.com/t2/

wes · 16-02-2010 2:04pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Who is this man and what credibility does he have??

Anyone can set up a video.

Well, such activity is very well documented, for example off the top of my head, in Hebron and East Jerusalem.

While, I don't know much about the guy who made the video, the stuff he talks about is very well known, and it what Zionists have been up to in the occupied terroritories for a while.

Sykes · 16-02-2010 2:59pm

wes wrote: »

Well, such activity is very well documented, for example off the top of my head, in Hebron and East Jerusalem.

With the exception of 1929-1967, Hebron has had a Jewish presence for centuries/millennia. Long before Islam and long before 'Palestinians' were created.

Hebron was the scene of a massacre of Jews by 'palestinians' in 1929, long before the reestablishment of Israel or any 'occupation'.

Here is the most important part for you and propagandists like you - under the 1997 agreement (the Hebron protocol) with the 'palestinians', Israel would keep a Jewish presence in Hebron.

Perhaps you should devote more time to fact-finding.

wes · 16-02-2010 3:15pm

Sykes wrote: »

With the exception of 1929-1967, Hebron has had a Jewish presence for centuries/millennia. Long before Islam and long before 'Palestinians' were created.

Palestinians are the indigenous populace. In fact they are descended from Jews themselves. This has long been established. If the Palestinians wish to call themselves the lizard people, it doesn't change the fact that they are the indigenous populace.

Sykes wrote: »

Hebron was the scene of a massacre of Jews by 'palestinians' in 1929, long before the reestablishment of Israel or any 'occupation'.

Zionists first started arriving in Palestine in the late 1800's.

Either way the massacre was a terrible crime.

Sykes wrote: »

Here is the most important part for you and propagandists like you - under the 1997 agreement (the Hebron protocol) with the 'palestinians', Israel would keep a Jewish presence in Hebron.

Propogandist? Laughable accusation.

The agreement doesn't allow Palestinians to be attacked and have there shops closed due to violence from extremists colonists last time I checked. They also have no right to steal peoples homes either.

Sykes wrote: »

Perhaps you should devote more time to fact-finding.

I am well aware of the facts. The stuff I am talking about is very well known, and no amount of apologist nonsense will excuse the disgrace that is happening in Hebron as I type.

Israel is clearly engaged in colonization, this has been very clearly established and is in fact, one of the aims of the Zionist project. All the apologist nonsense in the world can't change this fact.

karma_ · 16-02-2010 4:18pm

Israel is an apartheid state, this much is obvious, they operate a system of segregation. Native people have been forced off their land while land has been given to 'chosen people' of a particular religion.

There are so many parallels between Israel and Apartheid South Africa and I have no doubt that Israel will come to eventually be reviled the same way SA was until it implements changes.

jhegarty · 16-02-2010 4:28pm

karma_ wrote: »

Israel is an apartheid state, this much is obvious, they operate a system of segregation. Native people have been forced off their land while land has been given to 'chosen people' of a particular religion.

There are so many parallels between Israel and Apartheid South Africa and I have no doubt that Israel will come to eventually be reviled the same way SA was until it implements changes.

The difference is no one can agree on who was there first.

It was very clear cut in South Africa , Europeans came and ran the natives off their land.

In the middle east each side have been kicking the other off their land for at least 2000 years.

karma_ · 16-02-2010 4:36pm

jhegarty wrote: »

The difference is no one can agree on who was there first.

It was very clear cut in South Africa , Europeans came and ran the natives off their land.

In the middle east each side have been kicking the other off their land for at least 2000 years.

Are both Jews and the Palestinians not semitic peoples? I would imagine both have been there as long as each other.

Sykes · 16-02-2010 4:39pm

wes wrote: »

The agreement doesn't allow Palestinians to be attacked and have there shops closed due to violence from extremists colonists last time I checked. They also have no right to steal peoples homes either.

Wait a second, you start off by claiming this happens in Hebron and that it's occupied, then you concede that there is an agreement and that Hebron is not occupied. Instead you switch to another point.

I put it to you that you had no idea about the agreement.

As for Jews being the descendents of 'Palestinians', I'm unable to counter that for its sheer stupidity. It's like trying to argue with someone who claims Tuesday doesn't follow Monday.

Although it doesn't make the BBC or Guardian, you should note that the 'palestinians' are engaged in daily attacks against Hebron's Jewish community and vise versa.

Pappy o' daniel · 16-02-2010 4:47pm

I think the Jews are from Russia and eastern europe.

Sykes · 16-02-2010 4:48pm

jhegarty wrote: »

The difference is no one can agree on who was there first.

I think only the Muslims and some die hard far left people believe anyone other than Jews were there first.

Remember Jews pre-date 'palestinians' and Islam by about 1,500 years. There's a reason why the West Bank is actually called Judea (derived from Judaism) and there's a reason why archaeologists dig up Jewish artefacts prior to the Islamic invasion or the creation of the 'palestinians'.

'Palestinians' as a people didn't really exist or become a 'people' until 1967. It was for political motives that they became a 'people'.

It's worth noting some basic facts:

At no point in history have the 'palestinians' ever had a country
At no point in history have the 'Palestinians' governed themselves until the 1990's when Israel gave them self-rule.

At no point in time has Jerusalem been the capital of 'palestinians'.

Even when Jordan illegally annexed East Jerusalem and drove the Jews from their homes, Jerusalem was still not their capital.

Jews of course did govern themselves in their own country and Jerusalem was their capital.

Israel is an inseparable part of Judaism. It's the birthplace and 3,000 year old synagogues are a testament to that.

Another thing to note is that the majority of 'palestinians' are actually Arabs from surrounding areas who migrated into what was 'palestine'

Arafat being a prime example. He claimed to be 'palestinian' but was actually Egyptian. Hamas named their organisation after a 'palestinian fighter' - who was actually a Syrian.

Modern day Jordan is Palestine.

20Cent · 16-02-2010 4:57pm

When someone puts Palestinians in quotes I know they are not worth engaging with.

IrishTonyO · 16-02-2010 4:58pm

As a geographic term, Palestine can refer to 'ancient Palestine,' an area that today includes Israel and the Israeli-occupied [2] Palestinian territories, as well as part of Jordan, and some of both Lebanon and Syria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

whynotwhycanti · 16-02-2010 5:15pm

Sykes wrote: »

Modern day Jordan is Palestine.

How can modern day Jordan be Palestine if you said Palestine never had a country. And why do you write Palestine in quotations?

Its kinda weird because any encyclopedia i have read disagrees with everything you have said. Also, read a book by former president Jimmy Cater there, he gives a detailed history of the area in the first few chapters and everything he said, which he referenced, is completely different to what you have just said. Also i find that you are probably in disagreement with the UN security council as , if what you have said is true, then resolution 248, amongst others would be deemed void. What about the agreement made by the Israelis in the peace agreement with Egypt in the Camp David Accords (1978) in recognising Palestine, its borders, its people etc. Maybe you should get onto them there because even those Israelis, who did not uphold the agreement of the Camp David Accords, seemed to think Palestine and Palestinainas were very real. Perhaps only hardcore right wing imperialists can actually believe what you have just written.

karma_ · 16-02-2010 5:16pm

The only thing worse than an apartheid state, is an apologist for an apartheid state.

jhegarty · 16-02-2010 6:00pm

karma_ wrote: »

The only thing worse than an apartheid state, is an apologist for an apartheid state.

No , I think the actual apartheid is worse.

Sykes · 16-02-2010 6:02pm

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

How can modern day Jordan be Palestine if you said Palestine never had a country. And why do you write Palestine in quotations?

They didn't have a country. That's a historical fact. No historian would contradict that, unless he was educated at a Hamas-run school. It's as much a fact as night following day. At no point in time have 'palestinians' had their own country.

'Palestine' was an area of land stolen from the Jews by the Romans and renamed.

Fast forward some time, and it was a British mandate. The British mandate included what is now Jordan. The land was going to be split to fit both major inhabitants, Jews and Arabs. Jordan would have been Palestine.

The majority of Jordan's population is 'palestinian'.

The reason I put it in quotes, is because 'palestinians' are a 'people' made up for political gain. They are Arabs no different from Egyptians or Lebanese. In fact, the majority ARE from the surrounding Arab nations who migrated into 'palestine'.

IrishTonyO · 16-02-2010 6:09pm

Sykes wrote: »

The reason I put it in quotes, is because 'palestinians' are a 'people' made up for political gain. They are Arabs no different from Egyptians or Lebanese. In fact, the majority ARE from the surrounding Arab nations who migrated into 'palestine'.

just like Israel is full of Jews from other countries????

Sykes · 16-02-2010 6:20pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

just like Israel is full of Jews from other countries????

The vast majority of Israelis are indigenous to the country of Israel.

Of course there was emigration into Israel by Jews, but if we in Britain protested immigration like the 'palestinians' and their left wing bedfellows do - we'd be slaughtering Muslims in Bradford and Birmingham. Last time I checked, there was a lot of immigration there.

Palestine didn't belong to 'palestinians'. They didn't own it, run it, or govern it. They had no capital, they didn't have a unique culture or currency. They were and are Arabs mainly from the surrounding Arab nations.

Arafat was Egyptian, yet he was called a 'palestinian'.

karma_ · 16-02-2010 6:22pm

jhegarty wrote: »

No , I think the actual apartheid is worse.

Your right of course.

The Saint · 16-02-2010 6:36pm

Sykes wrote: »

Arafat was Egyptian, yet he was called a 'palestinian'.

David Ben Gurion and Shimon Peres were Polish and became Israeli. What's your point?

Why don't you address the topic of the thread instead of dragging it off topic. We are dealing with the situation as it currently is and not in some biblical historical context.

Sykes · 16-02-2010 6:45pm

the saint 2 wrote: »

David Ben Gurion and Shimon Peres were Polish and became Israeli. What's your point?

The point being that the 'palestinians' and their supporters claim that they're indigenous people, when in fact the majority are Arab immigrants.

Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Jordanians etc.

Why don't you address the topic of the thread instead of dragging it off topic. We are dealing with the situation as it currently is and not in some biblical historical context.

I did. I notified the thread starter about his glaring error with regards to Hebron. He was unaware that the 'Palestinians' and Israelis reached an agreement whereby the original inhabitants (Jews) who were slaughtered in 1929 by 'palestinians', would remain in Hebron which they have lived in for millennia.

wes · 16-02-2010 6:50pm

Sykes wrote: »

Wait a second, you start off by claiming this happens in Hebron and that it's occupied, then you concede that there is an agreement and that Hebron is not occupied. Instead you switch to another point.

You clearly have issue with understanding my simple statement. Under international law, Hebron is occupied, this is not in any kind of doubt.

Sykes wrote: »

I put it to you that you had no idea about the agreement.

I put it to you, that you don't understand the agreement.

Sykes wrote: »

As for Jews being the descendents of 'Palestinians', I'm unable to counter that for its sheer stupidity. It's like trying to argue with someone who claims Tuesday doesn't follow Monday.

There are genetic tests that prove Palestinains are descended from Jews. So stating this fact is hardly stupid, and your denialism is ridiculous in the face of a simple well known fact.

Sykes wrote: »

Although it doesn't make the BBC or Guardian, you should note that the 'palestinians' are engaged in daily attacks against Hebron's Jewish community and vise versa.

Somehow, I am not going to take your word for it.

wes · 16-02-2010 6:55pm

Sykes wrote: »

The point being that the 'palestinians' and their supporters claim that they're indigenous people, when in fact the majority are Arab immigrants.

Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Jordanians etc.

Nope, your wrong. Genetic tests say otherwise. They are indegnous. The old Zionist lie has since been proven long:

From http://www.globalpolitician.com/2851-palestinians

--SNIP--
Palestinians, however, differ from other Arabs in some ways. As the web site for Harper's Magazine reported, one study showed that Jews and Palestinians have common ancestry that is so recent that it is highly likely that at least some of the Palestinian blood actually descends from Jews. [3] Another study by New York University confirmed a remarkable similarity between Jewish and Palestinian genes. "Jews and Arabs are all really children of Abraham," said Dr. Harry Ostrer, director of the Human Genetics Program at New York University School of Medicine, who worked on the study. "And all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years.
[4]
--SNIP--

To put it simply. You are wrong, and it is well known that you are wrong. The Palestinain are indigenous, and to state otherwise is a lie.

Sykes wrote: »

I did. I notified the thread starter about his glaring error with regards to Hebron. He was unaware that the 'Palestinians' and Israelis reached an agreement whereby the original inhabitants (Jews) who were slaughtered in 1929 by 'palestinians', would remain in Hebron which they have lived in for millennia.

The agreement does not give them the right to attack and steal more land.

The Saint · 16-02-2010 6:57pm

Sykes wrote: »

The point being that the 'palestinians' and their supporters claim that they're indigenous people, when in fact the majority are Arab immigrants.

Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Jordanians etc.

I presume you have a reliable source for this or are you basing this on some Joan Peters type claptrap?

Sykes wrote: »

I did. I notified the thread starter about his glaring error with regards to Hebron. He was unaware that the 'Palestinians' and Israelis reached an agreement whereby the original inhabitants (Jews) who were slaughtered in 1929 by 'palestinians', would remain in Hebron which they have lived in for millennia.

Well you stated that:

Wait a second, you start off by claiming this happens in Hebron and that it's occupied, then you concede that there is an agreement and that Hebron is not occupied.

Hebron is occupied. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that it isn't.

As for all the Jews in Hebron not being settlers, here's what UNOCHA say about it:

Hebron is the only West Bank city with Jewish settlements inside its
urban area: around 600 settlers live in the four settlements of
Avraham Avinu, Beit Romano, Beit Hadassah and Tel Rumeida1.
Approximately 1,500 IDF soldiers are also present to secure these
settlements. Two larger Jewish settlements (Kiryat Arba and Givat
Harsina with a combined population of 6,400) sit on the hills
overlooking the Hebron’s eastern neighbourhoods.

Here's the full report. It's quite illuminating.

Sykes · 16-02-2010 7:19pm

wes wrote: »

You clearly have issue with understanding my simple statement. Under international law, Hebron is occupied, this is not in any kind of doubt.

I think you'll find that under the agreement with the 'Palestinians' in 1997, Jews are entitled to stay in Hebron. Whatever the UN says with the 56 members of the OIC dominating it, the agreement still stands and thus Jews are entitled to live there, just as they ought to be entitled to live anywhere in the West Bank.

Unless you're claiming that Jews should be ethnically cleansed from the West Bank in order to create a 'pure palestinian' country. That would be extremely racist.

I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy if Israel decided to make itself a purely Jewish country and threw out the Muslims who make up 20% of its population.

The Saint · 16-02-2010 7:39pm

Sykes wrote: »

I think you'll find that under the agreement with the 'Palestinians' in 1997, Jews are entitled to stay in Hebron. Whatever the UN says with the 56 members of the OIC dominating it, the agreement still stands and thus Jews are entitled to live there, just as they ought to be entitled to live anywhere in the West Bank.

Well I've read the 1997 agreement and nowhere in it does it say that Jews are entitled to stay in Hebron.

Here is what it actually says:

Israel will retain all powers and responsibilities for internal security and public order in Area H-2. In addition, Israel will continue to carry the responsibility for overall security of Israelis.

Nowhere here does it say that Jews, or more correctly Israelis, are entitled to stay in the West Bank.
It says that Israel is responsible for the security in Israeli populated areas. This would be a similar arrangement to Area C of the West Bank in which Israel have full administrative and security control. This is no way means that Israeli settlers there are legal under international law.

Please tell me under what laws that Israelis should be allowed to live in the West Bank. Is that your opinion or does it have any basis in law. Regarding the latter I can tell you that it doesn't.

Sykes wrote: »

Unless you're claiming that Jews should be ethnically cleansed from the West Bank in order to create a 'pure palestinian' country. That would be extremely racist.

I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy if Israel decided to make itself a purely Jewish country and threw out the Muslims who make up 20% of its population.

The Israeli settlers are there illegally. It has nothing to do with ethnic purity. If Israel deported illegal Arab immigrants would you consider that ethnic cleansing or racist? Of course not. Your arguement has no basis in logic or law.

Sykes · 16-02-2010 8:34pm

the saint 2 wrote: »

Well I've read the 1997 agreement and nowhere in it does it say that Jews are entitled to stay in Hebron.

It's the 'Hebron protocol'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Concerning_the_Redeployment_in_Hebron

The Israelis did gain some from the agreement, in the details of the redeployment arrangements and in the right of Jewish settlers to remain in Hebron.

Please tell me under what laws that Israelis should be allowed to live in the West Bank. Is that your opinion or does it have any basis in law. Regarding the latter I can tell you that it doesn't.

Well they have lived on that land for millennia. That's a pretty strong case. Are you really saying that you support the creation of a 'palestinian' state that prohibits Jews from living there? that's highly racist, isn't it?

The Israeli settlers are there illegally. It has nothing to do with ethnic purity. If Israel deported illegal Arab immigrants would you consider that ethnic cleansing or racist? Of course not. Your arguement has no basis in logic or law.

Well Israel did evict a 'palestinian' family from a house owned by Jews not long ago in East Jerusalem, and there was an international outcry even though the Jewish family that owned the land had title deeds which were 100 years old.

The West Bank is Judea. The Jewish birthplace. The idea that Jews should be barred from living there is abhorrent.

Nodin · 16-02-2010 8:53pm

Sykes wrote: »

I think (....) is Palestine.

Genetically, both are related. Palestinians are largely descended from converted Jews. Look it up.

Israeli apartheid

Comments