It didn't come out right. You assumed that anyone critical of Israeli aparthied policies is not critical of any Arab states and their treatments of Palestinians.
No, I don't assume that. But I have pointed out clear cases of it here in this thread. I won't play dumb. Of course no one wants anyone treated badly. Yet the bad treatment by some is worthy of posting about, while that of others is not. And when the side not being mentioned is far worse, that's hypocrisy. You calling Israel's policy apartheid is being a hypocrite. Funny because their policy is simply protecting themselves. Yet in your own response, you don't refer to Arab states as having apartheid policies when they outright slaughter people publicly for simply protesting.
And you want me to sit here and pretend that you look at this with an honest and unbiased view? Seriously?
That question has been raised already in this thread, and answered, at least on my part. The creation of Jordan and it's handing over to "King" Faisal was an act of political bastardry on the part of the British, not to mention other Colonial powers.
No, it was not. First of all the land belonged to the British. It was rightfully theirs, just like it was rightfully the property of the Ottoman empire, and the people before that, and the people before that. There was nothing bastardy about it. It was given to the arabs, it had to become a country. What exactly should have been done with it?
But it was only one more in a long line of Colonial decisions that made no recognition of existing ethnic and cultural ties in lands they ruled. The creation of Iraq was a more striking example, which was apparently intended to create an unstable state. So before you loaded questions, to which you do not even know an answer, it might be better to ask honest questions.
WTF? It was intended to be an unstable state? What nonsense. Please show us the exactly how the land should have been divided into countries in a way where there would be perfect ethnic and cultural unities. You can't do it. It's impossible. It's an argument that anyone can make and has no value. That's like me saying that America was intentionally set up to be unstable so that there would not be 100% racial equality. It's impossible to do such things and absurd to expect such things.
Where they wanted there state was where Israel had already just proclaimed a state.
That makes no sense.
This could also be a reason
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm
They already have to do with IIRC 20% of the water that Israelis get, for example. What would 'stringent' mean to daily survival.
Part of the problem is I have no understanding of your syntax. Israel has built an infrastructure for building water and generating electricity. They left such infrastructures in Gaza, which were destroyed by Hamas because Jews had created them. So now they depend on Israel for such things since they chose to use their resources to build weapons instead of helping the people of Gaza. So please don't go blaming Israel for that.
If not for the constant attacks their borders would be open, their shipping ports would be open, their airport would be open, they would have access to supplies from around the world. Anything they wanted. But it's more important to Hamas to attack Israel.
