Quote:
You're wrong. Trust me on this.
Umm no.
Quote:
Yes it makes great copy that Israeli law make it extremely difficult for Arabs to but land in Israel but the fact that people miss is that it's also difficult for Jews to own land. Because of the way the laws were originally set up, something like 93% of land is govt land and govt land cannot be sold, only leased. Govt land is leased to Arabs just as it is leased to Jews. In fact, Arab Bedouins receive huge govt subsidies for these long term leases and Israeli Jews have gone to court to try and get the same subsidies. They were denied on the basis of it being affirmative action.
Utterly incorrect. On Sunday, 7 July 2002, the Israeli cabinet, in a vote of 17-2, recommended the adoption of a new bill to restrict access to 'state land' to Jews only. The proposed bill was formulated as a response to a High Court decision on 8 March 2000, which upheld the right of Adel and Iman Qaadan, a Palestinian couple from Baqa al-Gharbiyya in the Galilee, to lease a plot of land and build a home in the nearby Jewish "lookout" settlement of Katzir. Katzir was jointly established by the Jewish Agency and the Katzir Cooperative Society in 1982 on 'state land' allocated by the Israel Lands Administration (ILA) as part of a project to prevent the development of large contiguous Palestinian areas in the Galilee. The Cooperative Society only accepts Jewish members. In reviewing the case, the High Court held that the state may not allocate land to the Jewish Agency knowing that the Agency will only permit Jews to use the land. The Court noted, however, that the decision applied only to the "particular facts of the case." Katzir has refused to implement the decision.
Quote:
So, you're correct in saying it's nearly impossible for Arabs to buy land.
Where did I refer to buying land? I said that the land laws were a form of apartheid. Restricting 93% of the countries land to Jews (and passing new laws to overturn court decisions) shows this quite clearly.
The cabinet decision resembles, in principle, South Africa's 1950 Group Areas Act - one of the cornerstones of apartheid.
Quote:
You're right. The Holocaust was all about refugee camps and besieged towns. It had nothing to do with the mass murder of 6 million people. Sigh.
Are you trying to belittle the suffering of people in the Warsaw ghetto? I suppose you are one of those people who also regards the Holocaust as purely a Jewish tragedy. I assume you are also unaware of the views of Kach and others.
The occupation of a people and their oppression based on religion or culture is exactly the same as the ghetto's. Sure, the IDF does not run gas chambers - they couldn't get away with it even if they wanted to (which of course most do not). But I was referring to the ghetto's, not the death camps as the programs were specifically about those ghetto's and the survivors. The similarities are stark and apparent to all.
Quote:
I suggest you read the history of the 1967 war before you make statements like this. I suggest you read the history of the 1967 war before you make statements like this.
I know about the 67 war thanks. So does the UN which has passed numerous resolutions demanding Isreal's withdraw. Sound familiar? Read up on Saddam maybe?
Quote:
If you think that Israel invaded a peaceful tiny neighbour in order to obtain land then you'll believe anything.
How naive are you? Ever heard of the phrase liebensraum? Take a geological map of the area out and you may notice why Isreal takes the land it does. For example, the Golan Heights. There is something much more valuable than oil there. Oh and don't give me the defenceable position argument, we are talking about a country with a nuclear arsenal and an army capable of crushing any neighbour. A few hills would change nothing militarily.
Quote:
How many countries do you know who pick wars with 5 countries in order to obtain tiny slivers of land with large foreign populations?
Where to start. Sweden / Germany / UK / Russia / USSR / USA / France etc etc. Just about any country that at some point in history felt it could throw it's weight around locally. Isreal has the most powerful army in the region and nuclear weapons, it doesn't have to be afraid of any of it's neighbours and can do as it pleases.
Quote:
You should be aware of the fact that after fighting broke out with Syria and Egypt
This has what exactly to do with the palestinians? You are another one who see's arabs as some homogenous mass rather than seperate populations with their own land and history.
What about Lebanon too? You know, that operation that led to Ariel Sharon being sacked as defence minister due to complicity in the deaths of 1000's of civilians in 2 refugee camps.
Quote:
Whatever. I've been through these debates before
Me too, I have heard the same defences of state oppression from others and you say nothing new either. I will keep replying to anyone who states that mass murder of children (the IDF has admitted targetting children and has killed over 1200 in the last few years) is ok and that Isreal is somehow the aggrieved party. They are illegally (in the eyes of international law and opinion) occupying palestinian land and the palestinians have a right of defence. It's just a shame they target civilians sometimes too, something I oppose on their side as much as the Isreali side. However I understand the desperation that drives them to it.
Quote:
It's the same garbage that appears on sites like Radio Islam and Indymedia
Garbage? Facts are included above - where is your defence? No opinion please, just facts regarding govt decisions and IDF actions.
Quote:
A small example is when he talked about the "great play" the woman made on Israeli deaths. Intentionally, he missed the point of her statement and misrepresented her non-emotive wording in an attempt to drive the discussion back toward his anti-Israel agenda.
Ok, since you are obviously blind to what I am saying I will say it again.
Palestinian article - mentions the propaganda on the part of the PLO and attacks on Isreali's. No mention of Isreali killings, which are up to 10x higher depending on when you start counting.
Isreali article - mentions the suicide bombers and attacks on Isreali's, the interviewee points out Isreali aggression.
Therein lies the problem - why does the interviewer not mention the Isreali aggression in the first article as a balance to the demonisation of the PLO?
Quote:
When I called him on it, he ignored me and refused to admit his distortion. That was my test to see how he was going to behave.
Um dream on m8. I answered, and have again here. Try reading rather than skimming ok? Where is the balance in the first article when compared to the second?
Quote:
He'll keep doing this and you will keep explaining how he is twisting a point. He has no intent on considering anything. His view is absolute, why bother talking to him?
I present facts and evidence, you present nothing but opinion and personal attacks. Who do you think has zero credibility? Try answering my points, I have answered yours.
Quote:
In addition, this thread is a micro-cosm of human conflict, not specifically about I/P, and certainly not about which side is "more right" or "more wrong".
Oh definitly, in the original articles and in the responses from people such as yourself. Blind agression while disregarding the evidence. Answer my points.
Quote:
To 1234, get your own thread. It seems you are unable to satisfy your thirst for this issue on the many other I/P threads, maybe one more will be just the ticket.
Anyone who condones the IDF slaughtering people, illegally occupying land, and operating an oppressive apartheid regime will have to defend their position, can you?
The point of the original post was (and it's subtitle confirms this) to paint the palestinians as unprovoked terrorists rather than an occupied people with a right to self defence. My reply was to show that Isreali's agree with that position too.
