USA Veto against Palestinians Again and again

[Harel13]

As actual racism state yes don't have right to exist.
If become Jewish state. all citizens had same rights. Whatever race and religion.
I would support it.

I don't care. I didn't ask you.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems only a couple years ago that when I referred
to Israel as a Jewish state/country, they leapt to correct
me that it is secular, & not Jewish. IIt seems that's over.

 

[Harel13]

It seems only a couple years ago that when I referred
to Israel as a Jewish state/country, they leapt to correct
me that it is secular, & not Jewish. IIt seems that's over.

Who are "they"?

 

[Revoltingest]

Who are "they"?

I wondered if the ambiguity would bother anyone.
Fans of Zionism / Israel.

 

[Rival]

It seems only a couple years ago that when I referred
to Israel as a Jewish state/country, they leapt to correct
me that it is secular, & not Jewish. IIt seems that's over.

I think this would depend on what one means by 'Jewish' in this context, as I could see either answer being correct. It is Jewish in the sense that it celebrates Jewish holidays, pays for Jewish institutions, uses Jewish symbols, imagery etc. and is a country primarily made up of Jews, celebrates their heritage and so-on. However, it could be called secular in the sense that it's not run in the way most Orthodox Jews would ideally see Israel being as a country. It doesn't enforce Halacha (Jewish Law), neither does it make non-Jewish residents submit to the Noachide Code/become gerim toshvim; nor has it a Temple and that kind of thing. It's not the way the Torah envisions Israel to be ideally, so in that sense it's not 'Jewish' to some folks. It really depends on one's use of these words.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think this would depend on what one means by 'Jewish' in this context, as I could see either answer being correct. It is Jewish in the sense that it celebrates Jewish holidays, pays for Jewish institutions, uses Jewish symbols, imagery etc. and is a country primarily made up of Jews, celebrates their heritage and so-on. However, it could be called secular in the sense that it's not run in the way most Orthodox Jews would ideally see Israel being as a country. It doesn't enforce Halacha (Jewish law), nor does it make non-Jewish residents submit to the Noachide Code/become gerim toshvim; nor has it a Temple and so on. It's not the way the Torah envisions Israel to be ideally, so in that sense it's not 'Jewish' to some folks.

As with so many religions, any point on the spectrum
is apostasy to those on different points.

 

[Kooky]

I know you were not party to it. I'm trying a hypothetical. If you were even just a bystander and read in the newspaper of the UN's decision at the time, would you have said: That is a legitimate decision, or would you have said: that is wrong?

From my limited knowledge of the historical circumstances that gave rise to the partition plan, it wasn't a legitimate decision in the sense of anybody asking the people actually living there for input, or trying to satisfy concrete petitions or policy proposals by the people who would actually be affected by the partition. As far as I know, neither the Arabs nor the Zionist settler organizations were involved in either the conceptualization or the implementation of the terms of partition.

And I would certainly, by my own modern moral standards, consider mass deportations a moral wrong.

What about you?

 

[Harel13]

From my limited knowledge of the historical circumstances that gave rise to the partition plan, it wasn't a legitimate decision in the sense of anybody asking the people actually living there for input, or trying to satisfy concrete petitions or policy proposals by the people who would actually be affected by the partition. As far as I know, neither the Arabs nor the Zionist settler organizations were involved in either the conceptualization or the implementation of the terms of partition.

Thanks.
From what I know, the Jewish Agency of Palestine was involved in the process of preparing the partition plan and gave their consent, despite disagreeing with the territory given. As we say today: "It's better than nothing".

And I would certainly, by my own modern moral standards, consider mass deportations a moral wrong.

What about you?

What do I think about the potential mass deportation of Arabs from the new Jewish state? As I've on this site quite a few times: Jews were deported from this land ages ago. It's still ours. Arabs are newcomers to this place.
With that said, the Arabs were given the opportunity to stay in the land, provided they recognized the state as being a Jewish one. Most refused.

 

[Kooky]

Thanks.
From what I know, the Jewish Agency of Palestine was involved in the process of preparing the partition plan and gave their consent, despite disagreeing with the territory given. As we say today: "It's better than nothing".

Thanks for volunteering that information. My impression has been that the Arabs were against the plan from the get-go, and so weren't even consulted over it, which should have been a tip-off how it was going to pan out in practice.

What do I think about the potential mass deportation of Arabs from the new Jewish state?

I think they would be a terrible crime against humanity, and one of the clearest signs of your state becoming fully fascist in nature.

As I've on this site quite a few times: Jews were deported from this land ages ago. It's still ours. Arabs are newcomers to this place.

That's not how land ownership typically works, and you should know that.

With that said, the Arabs were given the opportunity to stay in the land, provided they recognized the state as being a Jewish one. Most refused.

Actually, a lot of them were forcibly driven away by war and deliberate acts of intimidation, threats, or physical force. That you do not recognize the forcible mass deportations and ethnic cleansings of the 1948 War (on both sides, I want to add) as what they were does much to discredit your appearance of good faith in this discussion, in my eyes.

 

[Harel13]

That's not how land ownership typically works, and you should know that.

Okay, so at what point do the Arabs that no longer live in what is now Israel lose their right to their land?

Actually, a lot of them were forcibly driven away by war

What does "forcibly driven away by war" mean? Did they sit tight during the war and decided they would stay and fight the Jews? Or were they told by other Arab armies to leave and did so?

and deliberate acts of intimidation, threats, or physical force

Again, why did each situation take place? Is it merely because Jews are fascists?

When you can narrow down particular events that show deportation of innocents, I will probably agree with you. Meanwhile, you provide context-less, generalized claims.

 

[Kooky]

Okay, so at what point do the Arabs that no longer live in what is now Israel lose their right to their land?

I'm not familiar with international conventions on the issue, but I would say, probably the same as any other war refugee.

What does "forcibly driven away by war" mean? Did they sit tight during the war and decided they would stay and fight the Jews? Or were they told by other Arab armies to leave and did so?

Why do you think people leave their homes during a war?

Again, why did each situation take place? Is it merely because Jews are fascists?

I would say it's because the Zionist vision of Israel called for a land without Arabs, much like the Serbian nationalist vision of Bosnia called for a land without Muslims or Croats.

Some Jews certainly are fascists, just as other Jews are pacifists, anarchists, or just people who don't want blood on their hands. That you desire to characterize your own people as a monolithic, ideologically-driven force without nuance saddens me.

When you can narrow down particular events that show deportation of innocents, I will probably agree with you.

I strongly doubt that will ever be the case.

The more likely outcome I envision is that you will first quibble over my sources (much like you have already characterized every contemporary media source critical of Israel as "antisemitic"), and then will find some way to allow you to deny the facticity of my claims, or to remove any intentionality from the crimes of Haganah et al; and if you cannot deny their facticity altogether, you will simply assert that it was a necessary defensive measure to prevent Arab genocide.

I say this because that has been your response so far to any allegiations of wrongdoings against the IDF in the current iteration of the Gaza conflict.

You know full well the history of Israel. If there had been any information on the 1948 that could have swayed you to believe in the facticity of the ethnic cleansing charges against Israeli paramilitary forces, you would have been swayed already. That none of the information available to the public has swayed you so far indicates to me that you are already convinced of your position and are not going to shift away from it if a stranger on the Internet supplies you with information you already have.

 

[Harel13]

I'm not familiar with international conventions on the issue, but I would say, probably the same as any other war refugee.

Which is never?

Why do you think people leave their homes during a war?

It could be any number of reasons, but that doesn't necessarily line up with your suggested image of "forceful deportation", i.e., Israeli soldiers actively pushing out people from their homes.

I would say it's because the Zionist vision of Israel called for a land without Arabs

And yet a hand of peace was extended to the Arabs in the Israeli Declaration of Independence of 1948. How does that square up with your claim?

Some Jews certainly are fascists, just as other Jews are pacifists, anarchists, or just people who don't want blood on their hands. That you desire to characterize your own people as a monolithic, ideologically-driven force without nuance saddens me.

That's a deflection because that has nothing to do with what I said.
I'm willing to sit down and go over the various situations with you and we can figure out what happened each time and why. But let me guess, you're not interested.

The more likely outcome I envision is that you will first quibble over my sources

Fair is fair, given that you quibble over my sources.

 

[Kooky]

hat's a deflection because that has nothing to do with what I said.

It has to do with your characterization of "the Jews" as a monolithic entity that always agrees with your personal political vision.

I'm willing to sit down and go over the various situations with you and we can figure out what happened each time and why. But let me guess, you're not interested.

Sorry, but I find this rhetoric a little duplicitous in appearance. I strongly doubt that you are looking to "figure out what happened"; your posts so far indicate to me that you already have a version of history in your head that you are looking to push onto others, much like you have a version of the Gaza conflict that you have been pushing by making thread after thread in support of your side of the story. I have no stomach to go over each and every incident just to quibble with you over an issue you will not budge on, and take a lot of time to dig up information you are going to dismiss out of hand as either counterfactual or antisemitic in nature anyway. I don't value my time that little.

 

[Harel13]

Sorry, but I find this rhetoric a little duplicitous in appearance. I strongly doubt that you are looking to "figure out what happened"; your posts so far indicate to me that you already have a version of history in your head that you are looking to push onto others, much like you have a version of the Gaza conflict that you have been pushing by making thread after thread in support of your side of the story. I have no stomach to go over each and every incident just to quibble with you over an issue you will not budge on, and take a lot of time to dig up information you are going to dismiss out of hand as either counterfactual or antisemitic in nature anyway. I don't value my time that little.

How utterly unsurprising.

 

[Godobeyer]

I don't care. I didn't ask you.

You are in my thread.
So you care. By the arrogance?.
You have mentality only Jews are right?
If yes so that's racism.

 

[Harel13]

You are in my thread.

Doesn't negate the fact that I don't care about your opinion on that specific question, or on really just about anything. Doesn't matter anyway. I'm leaving the thread. Bye.

 

[Lyndon]

Doesn't negate the fact that I don't care about your opinion on that specific question, or on really just about anything. Doesn't matter anyway. I'm leaving the thread. Bye.

how many times have we heard you leaving the thread?

 

[SalixIncendium]

You are in my thread.

 

[Kooky]

How utterly unsurprising.

I've always been outspoken about my unwillingness to enter debates when I don't feel a debate is going to be productive.
So no, if you've been following my posts on RF at all, it shouldn't be a surprise for you that I'm not going to debate you on these issues.

 

[Godobeyer]

Doesn't negate the fact that I don't care about your opinion on that specific question, or on really just about anything. Doesn't matter anyway. I'm leaving the thread. Bye.

Since you dont care about "my opinion" why you keep reply to my posts or my threads?
I consider use the expression."i don't care"
Is way of arrogance.
Good bye.