What's new

Israel Cannot be an Apartheid State

There is no Turk race wtf, we are all homo sapiens. Jewish race, arab race, french race, german race, they are all fake races that do not exist.

Turkish is a nationality, means if you are a citizen of Turkey, you are Turkish. It has nothing to do with blood, genetics, skull, bones. It's a citizenship. I don't understand the relation between "legitimacy" and fake races o_O

Turk is technically a racial grouping.
 
.
Turk is technically a racial grouping.

None of the human groups were isolated enough to evolve into different race, and without enough isolation, you cannot get a race out of one existing race. In the middle of trade line with centuries, between east and west, on the silkroad and spices road, you cannot get isolation.
 
.
None of the human groups were isolated enough to evolve into different race, and without enough isolation, you cannot get a race out of one existing race. In the middle of trade line with centuries, between east and west, on the silkroad and spices road, you cannot get isolation.

You know what I mean.
 
.
Well, give me a reason other than the fact that Judaism claims the area belongs to the Jews.
We can start from there.
The secular legal basis for Israel is the post-WWI League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine which designates Palestine as the "Jewish National Home" and specifically encourages Jews to "closely settle" the region: Jews would have political rights there, but non-Jews would not. All parties would retain their civil and property rights - not just in Israel, but also in the non-Palestine regions of the formerly-Ottoman Middle East.

Note that those civil rights referred to were not the civil rights of sharia law but of the Ottoman Era's tanzimat reforms of a century earlier. These reforms put the civil rights of non-Muslim subjects on an equal basis with Muslims. In Palestine the tanzimat reforms enabled large purchases of land by Jews from Arab landowners: link. So under the Turks the Jews had the right to civil and property rights whether Muslims liked them or not; only loyalty to the Ottoman State was required and acts of disobedience against the political authority of the Sultan were considered a capital crime: link
 
.
The secular legal basis for Israel is the post-WWI League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine which designates Palestine as the "Jewish National Home" and specifically encourages Jews to "closely settle" the region: Jews would have political rights there, but non-Jews would not. All parties would retain their civil and property rights - not just in Israel, but also in the non-Palestine regions of the formerly-Ottoman Middle East.

Note that those civil rights referred to were not the civil rights of sharia law but of the Ottoman Era's tanzimat reforms of a century earlier. These reforms put the civil rights of non-Muslim subjects on an equal basis with Muslims. In Palestine the tanzimat reforms enabled large purchases of land by Jews from Arab landowners: link. So under the Turks the Jews had the right to civil and property rights whether Muslims liked them or not; only loyalty to the Ottoman State was required and acts of disobedience against the political authority of the Sultan were considered a capital crime: link

That justifies the existence of Jews in the region, but how does it justify taking the Palestinians land and forming your own state there, at the Palestinians expense?
 
.
That justifies the existence of Jews in the region -
Got it.

but how does it justify taking the Palestinians land and forming your own state there -
Are you sure that was the order of events? Under the Turks (and later the British) the Jews bought land from the Arabs. Is buying land somehow "taking land"?
 
.
Are you sure that was the order of events? Under the Turks (and later the British) the Jews bought land from the Arabs. Is buying land somehow "taking land"?

Right, but why does that give them the right to then establish their own state and impose their laws upon the Palestinians who quite literally treated them as equals.

Sounds like biting the hand that fed you, and doesn't make Israel's existence ethical at all. It only proves how stupid some of those Palestinians were.

It's like me establishing my own country in the Punjab because my family owns land there, and suppressing the locals. It's not justifiable.
 
.
Right, but why does that give them the right to then establish their own state and impose their laws -
Self-government was the point of the Mandate: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country [ Palestine] under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

With the abandonment by the British of their trusteeship sovereign political rights naturally and legally transferred to the intended beneficiary: the Zionist leadership that was recognized by the League. And while the Brits aren't there anymore Israel nonetheless honors the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews in Israel.

It's like me establishing my own country in the Punjab because my family owns land there, and suppressing the locals. It's not justifiable.
The Brits left both India and Palestine. In Palestine India the Brits drew lines but in Palestine the lines were drawn by the League and under Article 80 of the U.N. Charter they cannot be modified without the consent of the Zionists.
 
Last edited:
.
Self-government was the point of the Mandate: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country [ Palestine] under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

With the abandonment by the British of their trusteeship sovereign political rights naturally and legally transferred to the intended beneficiary: the Zionist leadership that was recognized by the League. And while the Brits aren't there anymore Israel nonetheless honors the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews in Israel.

The Brits left both India and Palestine. In Palestine the Brits drew lines but in Palestine the lines were drawn by the League and under Article 80 of the U.N. Charter they cannot be modified without the consent of the Zionists.

What right does Britain have to give Palestine to the Israelis? Why are the Palestinians being forced against their will to accept people who are not native to the land setting up their own country which doesn't even allow for Palestinians to exist as a state?

Why wasn't a Jewish homeland setup somewhere uninhabited, or in Germany (they did perpetrate the holocaust after all)? Why must the Palestinians suffer for no justifiable reason?
 
. .
The secular legal basis for Israel is the post-WWI League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine which designates Palestine as the "Jewish National Home" and specifically encourages Jews to "closely settle" the region: Jews would have political rights there, but non-Jews would not. All parties would retain their civil and property rights - not just in Israel, but also in the non-Palestine regions of the formerly-Ottoman Middle East.

Note that those civil rights referred to were not the civil rights of sharia law but of the Ottoman Era's tanzimat reforms of a century earlier. These reforms put the civil rights of non-Muslim subjects on an equal basis with Muslims. In Palestine the tanzimat reforms enabled large purchases of land by Jews from Arab landowners: link. So under the Turks the Jews had the right to civil and property rights whether Muslims liked them or not; only loyalty to the Ottoman State was required and acts of disobedience against the political authority of the Sultan were considered a capital crime: link
In short Israel is where Europe dumped their problems

Still state-mandated pablum. When the Emperor has no clothes, he should be called out for it:

5ae79f204de05.jpg

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
- Afiya S. Zia, May 1st, 2018

Thats just stupid
 
. . . .
I don't see any difference between Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia. All those countries should declare secularism and remove religious authority from their laws.

From an enlightened guy in a land
that may soon see the reverse???

:tup: Steadfast and courageous!



He means that the Brits "gave" it
to Jews but not Israëlis as Israël
didn't exist at the time.

But as we touched on time, let's
see if a contextual example helps.

As this is much a Jews vs Muslims
thing so far, I'll pick a French guy
like me that we'll call TT ( Theoretical Tay ) :

Born nowadays, TT is for equality.
He's equally appalled by apartheid
in its original form and Israël's ways.
Stuff in the OP about many races and
religions remind him that while negroes
were sub-humans in South Africa itself,
some foreign delegations included black
people, sometimes as a taunt, and that
those were treated with polite deference.

Both attitudes were apparently coherent?
TT doesn't think that works and deduces
from it that states act funny
( although it rarely is ).

Now, as TT lives in a multi racial / multi
religious land, he finds that natural too.
But, had TT been born in the France of
say 1,100 AD
( not CE or ME, dsr, didn't compute then ; ),
he might have gone to the crusades. I
mean, it's doubtful that he'd have been
anything but Christian in that era.

In between the two TTs came the Siècle
des Lumières when ideas got liberated
from sectarian diktats and allowed to
blossom into modern universal concepts.

The modern TT cannot absolve the acts
of invasion of the crusaders while he also
understands ancient TT's contextual limits.
He ideally would not emulate him however.

Today's Israël is full of modern TJ and Israelis
that are very universal in thinking, I know some,
but runs as a nation on old ideas from ancient
TJs. How ancient? From before the Tfutza or
from easily found darkest decades of it? Date?

That's the problem with getting all your light
from God or your social media group, it is not
universal and only works within you context.
Enlightenment will have to wait for someone
to turn on the lights or dissipate the clouds.

Me ( the real Tay ), I know God can help me
but if I'm in the woods in the dark hunting the
talibans or escaping the Nazis, while His Light
may fill my heart with the gift of say compassion,
I'd rather have a flashlight!

Israel is certainly not alone in this dissociation
between yore and now or shifting attitudes but
for now, the old guard makes the club unsavoury.

And, since Solomon mentioned it in passing, the
status of Jews as Hebrews is a private club, again
nothing even remotely universal. And this actual
non-theoretical Tay agrees with the saying :
-I wouldn't want to be part of a club that would have people like me as members.
Groucho Marx ( the nice Marx guy not ... ).​

If I must be an elitist snob, I'll be a universal one!

Good convo all, Tay.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom