Israeli apartheid

digme

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

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

Anyone can set up a video.

The Saint

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

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

wes

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

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

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_

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

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_

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

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

I think the Jews are from Russia and eastern europe.

Sykes

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

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

IrishTonyO

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

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_

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

jhegarty

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

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

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

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_

jhegarty wrote: »

No , I think the actual apartheid is worse.

Your right of course.

The Saint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sykes wrote: »

I think (....) is Palestine.

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

The Saint

Sykes wrote: »

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. .

Sorry but can you quote me something other than a line in a Wikipedia document that states that Israeli settlers in Hebron have a legal right to stay under international law? Please cite a credible source that states this right in law.

Sykes wrote: »

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?

I'm not going to go into the "have been here for millenia" crap with you as it has no basis in the current situation or in law. There's nothing that prohibits Jews from living there. However, settling the citizens of an occupying power is illegal under international law, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

Sykes wrote: »

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.

From what I know of the cases in Shiekh Jarrah, the authenticity of the Ottoman land documents are in dispute. Also, the settlers moving into these houses were not the people, or the decendents, of those who lived there previously. The UN stated the evictions were illegal and US condemned them. Also, an Israeli civilian court ruled over the issue in an area that is occupied under international law and therefore has no jurisdiction. Also, if possession of Ottoman property documents can allow for the eviction of Palestinians from their homes then surely Palestinians with Ottoman property deeds for homes in Israel can have Jews evicted from homes that they were evicted from in 1948. I've heard about talks regarding Palestinians considering taking such cases to Israeli courts. Surely not to allow them would be racist, no?

Sykes wrote: »

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

OK, so you can't cite anything in law. That's fine. No need to spout a load of irrelivant twaddle.

wes

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.

Firstly not a single member of the OIC is a part of the security council, which means that thery have limited power in the UN, but your Muslims control the UN nonsense is hardly surprising.

Secondly, your understanding of the Hebron agreement is bizarre to say the least, and other have already shown this up.

Thirdly, you inability to understand my basic point is simple breath taking. No where in any agreement anywhere are Zionist colonists allowed to drive Palestinians from there homes. Zionist colonists in the West Bank are there illegally, and have no right to be there.

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.

Removing colonists is not ethnic cleansing.

To sugggest it is the same is utter nonsense. Also, Abu Mazen has actually offered the colonists the right to stay in a Palestinian state, and be Palestinians citizens, but that is up to the Palestinians.

Sykes wrote: »

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.

Firstly 20% of the population is Palestinian, whom are Muslims, Atheist, Christian etc. Secondly, Israel was found on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and as such they have already done this in the past, and one of the main aims of Zionism is a ethnically pure as possible Jewish state, and main stream Israeli politicians have stated there desire to rid themselves as much of the indigenous Palestinian populace as they can manage.

So please don't try this nonsene with me. There is a world of difference between trying to get rid of colonists, who are some where illegally and the pre-exisiting indigenous population. They are not the same.

comeraghs

only one side has threatened to wipe out every single man, woman & child of the other side.

only one side trains it´s children & mentally handicapped to murder innocent civilians.

for every Palestinian refugee in 1948 .. there was a Jewish refugee from the Arabs countries & Iran ... Isreal accepted & integrated these refugees ... why didn´t the Musilm world do the same to the Plaestinian refugees?

if Israel allows 1 million Arabs live inside its borders, why should 100,000 or so Jews not live in the West Bank,

The Saint

comeraghs wrote: »

only one side has threatened to wipe out every single man, woman & child of the other side.

only one side trains it´s children & mentally handicapped to murder innocent civilians.

for every Palestinian refugee in 1948 .. there was a Jewish refugee from the Arabs countries & Iran ... Isreal accepted & integrated these refugees ... why didn´t the Musilm world do the same to the Plaestinian refugees?

if Israel allows 1 million Arabs live inside its borders, why should 100,000 or so Jews not live in the West Bank,

Not even worthy of a response tbh.

Nodin

comeraghs wrote: »

if Israel allows 1 million Arabs live inside its borders, why should 100,000 or so Jews not live in the West Bank,

Because that means the dispoessesion of Palestinians and their subjection to the state of Israel. Those Arabs were there before the state of Israel was founded, by the way.

IrishTonyO

Words and actions are different things. The three-week conflict last year claimed the lives of 1,400 Palestinians, and 13 Israelis.That seems very balanced!!! The UN has accused Israel of war crimes in the Goldstone Report. http://www.goldstonereport.org/

comeraghs

Palestine shall be free, from the ocean to the sea, Is that not a threat to wipe out the 6 million Jewish people who live in Israel?

There is lots of evidence that Hamas/Hizbollah have used mentally handicapped people as suicide bombers.

The figures about refugee numbers is FACT.


c´mon Saint? why is it not worthy of a response? or would you prefer to carry on with your hatred without looking at facts that don´t support your opinion?

I have been to Israel & to the West Bank for work & I had some of these common mis-conceptions of the situation before I went there BUT a few months in the place gives you an idea of the reality of the situation,

The FACT is that Israel isn´t going anywhere & The Palestinian leaders need to accept that and get on with building their nation rather than blaming Israel/USA for all their mostly self-inflicted problems

Nodin

comeraghs wrote: »

Palestine shall be free, from the ocean to the sea, Is that not a threat to wipe out the 6 million Jewish people who live in Israel?

emmmm...no?

The Saint

comeraghs wrote: »

Palestine shall be free, from the ocean to the sea, Is that not a threat to wipe out the 6 million Jewish people who live in Israel?

There is lots of evidence that Hamas/Hizbollah have used mentally handicapped people as suicide bombers.

The figures about refugee numbers is FACT.


c´mon Saint? why is it not worthy of a response? or would you prefer to carry on with your hatred without looking at facts that don´t support your opinion?

I have been to Israel & to the West Bank for work & I had some of these common mis-conceptions of the situation before I went there BUT a few months in the place gives you an idea of the reality of the situation,

The FACT is that Israel isn´t going anywhere & The Palestinian leaders need to accept that and get on with building their nation rather than blaming Israel/USA for all their mostly self-inflicted problems

Still not worthy of a response. Good for you having been to Israel and the West Bank. I wouldn't make assumptions as to where others have been or not before you fall off your high horse. You're still talking absolute crap though.

Oh, and who do you assume I hate?

IrishTonyO

comeraghs wrote: »

Palestine shall be free, from the ocean to the sea, Is that not a threat to wipe out the 6 million Jewish people who live in Israel?

How is that a threat to kill 6 million Jews?

lugha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

How is that a threat to kill 6 million Jews?

They may not put it so explicitly but aren't Hamas supported by the Palestinians and don't they want to replace Israel with an Islamic state?

IrishTonyO

lugha wrote: »

They may not put it so explicitly but aren't Hamas supported by the Palestinians and don't they want to replace Israel with an Islamic state?

And up to recently the Irish constitution claimed 32 counties, and political parties like Fianna Fail still aspire to it. Were/are they claims to want to kill all protestants???

lugha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

And up to recently the Irish constitution claimed 32 counties, and political parties like Fianna Fail still aspire to it. Were/are they claims to want to kill all protestants???

They did indeed lay such claims. And you might recall that those claims had to be set aside before the relative peace in NI that we now have became possible.
Are you suggesting that Hamas will only consider peaceful means to eliminate Israel?

IrishTonyO

lugha wrote: »

They did indeed lay such claims. And you might recall that those claims had to be set aside before the relative peace in NI that we now have became possible.
Are you suggesting that Hamas will only consider peaceful means to eliminate Israel?

That's not the point, did those claims mean we wanted to kill all protestants??

lugha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

That's not the point, did those claims mean we wanted to kill all protestants??

Comeragh used the term "wipe out" which granted has a sinister ring to it, but you are the one who equated this with kill.

As for articles 2 and 3, I don't think the explicitly stated how this 32 county utopia were to come about but yes, I would say if the British refused to defend the Unionists (not protestants), and a UI was ours if were prepared to take it by force (i.e. kill people), I think we probably would have.
I think if you make these kind of claims, then usually it is implicit that force will be used if necessary and practical to realize it.

Sykes

the saint 2 wrote: »

Sorry but can you quote me something other than a line in a Wikipedia document that states that Israeli settlers in Hebron have a legal right to stay under international law? Please cite a credible source that states this right in law.

The quote is from the Hebron protocol. Why don't you use google instead of asking me to find you multiple sources. I gave you a source.

Will this do? it's the Israeli government website.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Protocol+Concerning+the+Redeployment+in+Hebron.htm

I'm not sure you'll accept any source other than from a Hamas-run site.

I'm not going to go into the "have been here for millenia" crap with you as it has no basis in the current situation or in law. There's nothing that prohibits Jews from living there. However, settling the citizens of an occupying power is illegal under international law, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

Indeed. Shame that wasn't the case pre-67 when it was Jews thrown out of East Jerusalem by Jordan. Not a peep about international law then.

I think a people living on land for millennia is a very important part of the debate. After all, the 'palestinians' only claim to the land is based on legth of time, as they have never had a country or a rightful claim like the Jews did.

IrishTonyO

Sykes wrote: »

I think a people living on land for millennia is a very important part of the debate. After all, the 'palestinians' only claim to the land is based on legth of time, as they have never had a country or a rightful claim like the Jews did.

You speak of Jews as if they are a race, they are not it is a religion. There are Jews from all over the world

Sykes

IrishTonyO wrote: »

How is that a threat to kill 6 million Jews?

Umm, you're not seriously contesting that the Palestinians and surrounding countries and terrorist groups have vowed to destroy Israel, are you?

That would be rather foolish.

Nasser made plenty of speeches pre-67 about the annihilation of Israel, before they got their arse handed to them in 6 days .

Macha

Sykes wrote: »

I think a people living on land for millennia is a very important part of the debate. After all, the 'palestinians' only claim to the land is based on legth of time, as they have never had a country or a rightful claim like the Jews did.

The very concept of there being a Jewish state, along with the idea of a nation, has only existed since the late 1800s. And are you aware that one of the locations discussed for Israel was in the middle of Uganda?

How hypocritical to argue that the Palestinians never had a country or rightful claim when the grounds for a Jewish one are so modern and manufactured.

Sykes

IrishTonyO wrote: »

You speak of Jews as if they are a race, they are not it is a religion. There are Jews from all over the world

The debate of Jews being a race or not is one that Jews themselves can't always agree on.

Most opinion tends to see Jews as a race AND a religion.

Under British law, Jews are recognised as a race (as are Sikhs). There is shared genes/DNA and other specifics which make Jews a racial group.