General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Virus]

Che as a Palestinian is heaps funny.

 

[AlexBr]

you are aware that this is an absolute and blatant lie.

the only folks I call Neo-Zionist, are ones who defend and stand up for right-wing Zionist agendas and goals.

for example: someone who supports the expansion of Israeli settlements or someone who supports discriminatory Israeli policies.

I would never call a liberal or even a moderate Zionist, a "Neo-Zionist". that would be like calling all Germans Nazis, or all Americans Tea-Baggers.

Personally, I don't get why "right-wing Zionists" get to be called neo-something. There is nothing "neo" about them.
In addition, the concept of "right-wing Zionist" remains to be rather fluid. Who's qualified to be the "right-wing" in your opinion?
"Supporters of discriminatory Israeli policies" is also unclear. You've implied that the Israeli Law of Return is discriminatory, although it is unclear against whom and by what logic. The Law of return is supported by the waste majority of Zionists. Are they all "right-wing"?

 

[Thunder]

Personally, I don't get why "right-wing Zionists" get to be called neo-something. There is nothing "neo" about them.
In addition, the concept of "right-wing Zionist" remains to be rather fluid. Who's qualified to be the "right-wing" in your opinion?

Originally Posted by Thunder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Zionism

http://www.kumah.org/neozionism.html

http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?p=1459

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-a..._b_749519.html

http://www.opendemocracy.net/vassili...onist-illusion

 

[AlexBr]

links

Sorry for missing this label. It did not get a grip in the Hebrew discourse. Maybe, because it is still a misnomer. There is nothing neo about Gush Imunim.

BTW, the last link is rather ridiculous and irrelevant as it tries to promulgate the bogus Marmara incident "narrative" of "the Zionist military attacking innocent civilians on a humanitarian mission". Anyone who pushes on this BS looses any credibility with me.

 

[Skeptic]

BTW, the last link is rather ridiculous and irrelevant as it tries to promulgate the bogus Marmara incident "narrative" of "the Zionist military attacking innocent civilians on a humanitarian mission". Anyone who pushes on this BS looses any credibility with me.

Indeed.

BTW, many, many countries have laws similar to the "law of return". The "law of return" is special in only one interesting sense: it (or rather the "who is a Jew" law which defines who is legally a Jew for the purposes of the "law of return") defines a "Jew" for such purposes based on the Nazi Nuremberg laws.

Why? The idea being that if someone was enough of a Jew for the Nazis to try and kill, they should be enough of a Jew for the Jewish state to grant citizenship to if they so wish. The one place, in other words, where Israeli laws really are based on Nazi laws, is precisely where they should be so based...

 

[Thunder]

BTW, many, many countries have laws similar to the "law of return". The "law of return" is special in only one interesting sense: it (or rather the "who is a Jew" law which defines who is legally a Jew for the purposes of the "law of return") defines a "Jew" for such purposes based on the Nazi Nuremberg laws.

not soooo fast there, Skeptic.

Did the Nuremberg Laws no longer qualify a Jew as a Jew....if that Jew clearly was a believer in Christianity and had possibly engaged in proselytizing? No..they made no such exemption. And yet, Jews who are born of a Jewish mother HAVE been denied the right to come to Israel under The Law of Return, due to their acceptance of Christian beliefs and possible proselytizing activities.

So basically, even though such a Jew would have still been murdered by the Nazis, he still ain't good enough of a Jew..and cannot make Aliyah...as far as Israel is concerned.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...arbra-streisand-s-cousin-make-aliyah-1.340949

Why? The idea being that if someone was enough of a Jew for the Nazis to try and kill, they should be enough of a Jew for the Jewish state to grant citizenship to if they so wish. The one place, in other words, where Israeli laws really are based on Nazi laws, is precisely where they should be so based...

not sooo fast there, Skeptic.

Did the Nuremberg Laws not qualify a converted Jew as a Jew, if he/she converted under the wrong Orthodox sect? The fact is that just recently, Jews who converted to Judaism under Orthodox regulations, have been DENIED the right to come to Israel under the Law of Return, because they converted through an Orthodox synagogue that is not supported by the Rabbinate.

So, even though such a Jew would surely face persecution and even death under the Nuremberg Laws, Israel does NOT allow such a Jew to come to make Aliyah.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...adian-orthodox-convert-denied-aliyah-1.345119


sorry Skeptic, but contrary to what you desire, you are dealing with folks who actually know what's going on in the Promised Land.

 

[bigjelmapro]

B'tselem says Israel issues permits:
http://www.btselem.org/english/gaza_strip/control_on_air_space_and_territorial_waters.asp

You mean makes an ambiguous statement without evidence, from an NGO with political movitvations to boot. There's no statement that Israel issues fishing permits there either, no matter how much you wish it does.

I trust them more than you.

You'll trust whoever supports this hapless argument of yours.

And, yes, I will peddle the CIA website again. Because it does support my claim -- it agrees with my claim word for word.

The CIA website is not there to make a legal argument by parrot what organizations like the UN state.

Call it argmentum ad populum. That doesn't alter in the slightest the credibility of the CIA. Nor of the UK govt or the EU.

None of which make legal arguments that support your claim.

Against that you have Mycroft's source who says: "a reasonable case can be made that Israel retains effective control over Gaza in this potential sense"

http://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/

Cherry picking. Here's the rest of that quote: "I honestly don’t think that the pro-occupation argument in the end withstands scrutiny on the facts. This is not an occupation – this is a siege."

Problem is, even the term siege does not adequately apply here. A siege would not involve those sieging said territory, town/city, etc. with hundreds of truckloads of food staples and supplies on a consistent basis.

Siege

Historically, a key element of siege warfare has been to reduce a town’s defenses and force its surrender by cutting off its vital supplies and leaving the population, civilian and military alike, to starve. Cruel as this tactic is, the laws of war permitted it at least until the end of World War II, under the rationale of military necessity.
...

All in all, the paper linked does make the basis for the legal argument that Gaza is not under occupation.

As the legal arguments made more extensively in this paper:

Is Gaza Occupied? Redefining the Legal Status of Gaza

Which support Mycroft's position more adequately and in greater detail.

An excerpt:

Although the factual and legal arguments in this paper have demonstrated that Gaza is no longer effectively controlled by Israel and that there has been a transfer of governmental authority to the Palestinian Authority which has been accepted as the indigenous government of the people, international recognition of the end of occupation of Gaza has not been forthcoming. While the absence of effective control is legally sufficient, in and of itself, to indicate the end of the occupation of Gaza, the recognition of that end by
international legal experts is politically important for universal acknowledgement and acceptance of Gaza’s changed status and of
Israel’s efforts to move the process forward.
...
Although determining the end of an occupation is not dependent upon a formal redefinition, this paper presents the recommendation that, in the case of Gaza, there should be a temporary or intermediate status that reflects the absence of occupation after disengagement as well as the exercise of Palestinian governance in the territory while awaiting the finalization of
permanent status negotiations. The status of Gaza should be redefined as a “sui generis territory” under the governmental control of the Palestinian Authority.

I support this changing of status from occupied to an intermediate, albeit, temporary one. The reason it has not done so following Israel's unilateral withdrawal and loss of effective control of Gaza is merely one of politics, nothing more.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Of course it's not photo shopped, a quick Google search turns up several examples of the cap with the image not centered. In red even....

Its photoshopped b/c one is not permitted, its not possible, its not in style, etc. to print a picture off-center on a hat. Case closed.

 

[Thunder]

Folks can't proclaim the utter neccessity and honor of the Law of Return, and how its discriminatory laws are simply a vital response to anti-Semitism and the Nuremberg Laws, when the Law of Return actually rejects Jews who hold views it does not like, and rejects converted Jews....EVEN Orthodox ones, just because they convert under the wrong Rabbi or Synagogue.

 

[Thunder]

Interesting picture today from Israel.

 

[The Fool]

I support this changing of status from occupied to an intermediate, albeit, temporary one. The reason it has not done so following Israel's unilateral withdrawal and loss of effective control of Gaza is merely one of politics, nothing more.

Of course you support another word to be used other than occupying power....or occupied. You wish to deny that Israel Is the occupying power. The view held by the world excluding Israel and its apologists.

Israel still has effective control of Gaza even after you move the ground troops to the borders. This has been explained to you over and over and over.....And your case is certainly not reinforced by that University paper you site that judges the case by creating its own definition of "effective control" presumably because it doesn't like the definition used by the rest of the world.

a very weak paper, it is simply apologia for the position of the Current Israeli administration.

 

[Virus]

So Israel controls Hamas?

 

[Skeptic]

You mean makes an ambiguous statement without evidence, from an NGO with political movitvations to boot.

By the way, it was exposed recently that "B'tselem" supports the so-called "right of return", that is, the demographic destruction of the Jewish state. Like most such "human rights" organizations in Israel, they seem to support all human rights, except those of the Jews to live.

 

[Skeptic]

If Israel is still occupting Gaza, the solution is simple: send the soldiers back in and re-establish military control. Since the usual idiots will blame Israel for occupation whether or not it actually does occupy the place, one might as well go back to the situation where at least it has control of the ground and less rockets are fired.

 

[Virus]

By the way, it was exposed recently that "B'tselem" supports the so-called "right of return", that is, the demographic destruction of the Jewish state. Like most such "human rights" organizations in Israel, they seem to support all human rights, except those of the Jews to live.

Wow. I didn't know B'tselem supported "Right of Return". Not even the communists support that.

 

[bigjelmapro]

By the way, it was exposed recently that "B'tselem" supports the so-called "right of return", that is, the demographic destruction of the Jewish state. Like most such "human rights" organizations in Israel, they seem to support all human rights, except those of the Jews to live.

Consistency is what B'tselem lacks, except when it comes to bias against 1 country in particular. Its great and all that they to such great lengths in pursuit of human rights, but with many NGO's with such obvious political bias, they on many occasions support unverified sources without question.

B’Tselem – Human Rights and Terrors

“What B’Tselem lacks in credibility and accurate research, it compensates for with simplistic campaigns that erase the complex reality,” said Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. “B’Tselem acknowledges the Israeli government’s readiness to reduce checkpoints. But as today’s shooting of three police officers highlights, this often puts Israelis at risk – a dimension that B’Tselem continues to ignore.”

NGO Monitor’s reports demonstrate the lack of credibility in B’Tselem’s research, with numerous disputes over the facts and evidence. For instance, regarding a December 2009 incident, B’Tselem classified three members of Fatah’s al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades responsible for the murder of an Israeli civilian as “Did not participate in hostilities.” Additionally, B’Tselem’s press release for the annual report grossly undercounts the number of Palestinians killed by Palestinian security forces in Gaza, including an August 2009 gun battle at a mosque that left at least 21 dead.

“By relying on unverifiable evidence and testimonies that lack credibility, and are used to promote political goals, B’Tselem’s categories and statistics can not be taken seriously,” continued Steinberg. “The funding from European governments and the New Israel Fund is also provided in this political context.”

I don't expect this to change much. But it would be interesting to see more people question positions of NGOs, and not follow their word in a rope-a-dope fashion...

 

[Skeptic]

Wow. I didn't know B'tselem supported "Right of Return". Not even the communists support that.

More details here (link in Hebrew). To be fair, it's not their official position -- it's "only" the position openly expressed and supported by many of its top officials on many occassions...

 

[Skeptic]

Did the Nuremberg Laws no longer qualify a Jew as a Jew....if that Jew clearly was a believer in Christianity and had possibly engaged in proselytizing? No..they made no such exemption. And yet, Jews who are born of a Jewish mother HAVE been denied the right to come to Israel under The Law of Return, due to their acceptance of Christian beliefs and possible proselytizing activities.

Indeed so. Because if someone explicitly denies their belonging to the Jewish nation, naturally the law no longer applies. But someone who merely is of "Jewish stock", so to speak, the "law of return" applies.

Did the Nuremberg Laws not qualify a converted Jew as a Jew, if he/she converted under the wrong Orthodox sect? The fact is that just recently, Jews who converted to Judaism under Orthodox regulations, have been DENIED the right to come to Israel under the Law of Return, because they converted through an Orthodox synagogue that is not supported by the Rabbinate.

The law of return doesn't limit the recognition of "Jew" only to those considered Jews by the Nazis. It, for example, accepts converts (which the Nazis would not consider Jews from the racial point of view) or purely "aryan" spouses (so as to not break up families) as Jewish for the purposes of the law.

But surely the Israeli government it has the right to decide what conversion is valid -- much like it has the right to decide what marriages count as genuine marriages and which ones are sham marriages for visa purposes.

 

[WildCat]

So Israel controls Hamas?

That is the claim, yes.

 

[Thunder]

Indeed so. Because if someone explicitly denies their belonging to the Jewish nation, naturally the law no longer applies.

so believing in Jesus not only makes you no longer a member of the Jewish faith, but you are also no longer of the "Jewish Nation"?

that is utter BS. Jewish laws are clear: a Jew who chooses to follow another religion is an apostate Jew...but they are still a Jew. One born of a Jewish mother cannot stop being a Jew.

I think you need to read up on your Judaism 101.

But someone who merely is of "Jewish stock", so to speak, the "law of return" applies.

this man IS of Jewish stock. both of his parents were Jews. but you are contending that if such a Jew decides to believe in Jesus, he is no longer a Jew. And you are VERY wrong.

But surely the Israeli government it has the right to decide what conversion is valid -- much like it has the right to decide what marriages count as genuine marriages and which ones are sham marriages for visa purposes.

The Rabbinate accepts all Reform and Conservative conversions done outside Israel as valid. But they do NOT consider Orthodox conversions valid if they are done by a disliked Orthodox Rabbi, synagogue, or sect.

do you actually accept this????????????????????

does the State of Israel have the right to tell World Jewry who is a Jew, based on such insane criteria???????


..the fact is, that Israel forbids 100% Jews from making Aliyah if they believe in Jesus, and doesn't even consider Orthodox converts to be Jews if they converted under the wrong Rabbi, Synagogue, or sect.

such Jews would surely have been persecuted and/or murdered under the Nazis. so this whole idea that the discriminatory Law of Return is neccesary to protect Jews from rules like the Nuremberg Laws, is utter lies and BS. If this was TRULY the case, Israel would allow anyone to make Aliyah who would be persecuted as Jewish under the Nuremberg Laws, and that includes full-Jews who believe in Jesus and all Orthodox converts.