Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

probeson

Regulars
  • Content count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About probeson

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    SouthCarolina
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. FeatherFall, I've provided laws that prohibit denunciations of Israel as a state for Jews, I've shown laws that privilege Jews over non-Jews for citizenship while denying citizenship and the right of return for those who Arabs who were forced out, I've shown Equal Protection policy that show "discrimination between Arabs and Jews is legitimate based on the founding principles of Israel as a state for the Jewish people", I've shown the Nationality Law that prohibits Palestinians from marrying Israelis, I've shown the National Planning Law that confiscates property from Arab Israelis but provides for illegal Jewish settlements...all of these are discriminatory. ..and I haven't even begun to show why Palestinians living in the OPT should be included in the mix. " I'm currently of the opinion that Israel has repeatedly defended itself from Arab aggression, that the Palestinians never gave up their anti-Semitic Jihad like some of their neighbors, and that Israel's long-term decisions are more or less justified. You could begin to convince me otherwise if you were to show me that the so-called Nakba was not a warranted response by Israelis to an existential threat." Such discussions usually go nowhere. It should be clear to anyone who has objectively looked into this conflict that all of the wars Israel has fought happened outside its mandated borders. If this is true then how can one say it was defensive when it was clearly an invasion? And invasion is an act of aggression. Frankly, I do not see their resistance as anti-Semitism,,it's more like anti-colonialist.They have a right to resist by any means necessary. I firmly believe the agggressor forfeits ALL claims to morality, even the right to live. I may just visit the discussion...just to see how one justifies ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide....not to mention , creating the largest refuge population in the world.
  2. Nicky, Cmon man... You know full well that when the Palestinians where ethnically cleansed from their homeland, many fled to these neighboring countries. Jews are cautioned against travelling to these countries for security reasons but Palestinians have families there. A petition was files against it. From the article in Haaretz: "The petition goes on to argue that Israeli Arabs who travel to enemy states ? mainly to Syria ? usually do so to visit their families, and that barring them from doing so severely limits their freedom of movement."
  3. SoftwareNerd. Actually..I'm only speaking of Israeli-Palestinians. Take the amendment to the Basic Law: "Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including ..the right to freedom of movement" First Israeli Arabs are prevented from visiting family members that live in countries that Israel does not approve. This law does not apply equally to all citizens. Proof: http://www.haaretz.c...ges/997986.html
  4. FeatherFall, Under your analogy , the right of return is not discriminatory but it does become discriminatory when not applied evenly. For instance,the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their homes during the Nakba are not allowed to return...and they actually lived in Israel. Besides...this may have been considered necessary 60 years ago but to continue the policy 60 years later strains credulity. It is not that one(such as the law of return) particular law or measure is in itself racist, it is the totality that reveals the intent. I'm speaking here of a system of laws that consistently disenfranchises the non-Jew. Sure, we can ignore one or two...but fifteen? I can't really give you a 'proper' time frame for an occupation. But I will say that Israel has maintained the longest occupation in modern history. It would be a different matter all together if Israel had borders. It doesn't! Where are the borders of this state? This is why the Pals do not recognize it. A state without borders is a contradiction of terms. If it has no borders then it is responsible for all under its heel. It has ruled Palestine through a brutal and humiliating dictatorship for nearly fifty years...and its borders are growing. A state is a state when it has control over its territory...Israel was given 51% of Palestine but controls ALL of it. If no one knows where the borders are , only where they should be, then technically it's no longer an occupation-it is annexation but while the indigenous people living in poverty and squalor. Secondly, Of course Israel was the aggressor. The biggest clue is that all of those wars were fought outside of its borders.
  5. The term apartheid is a very specific concept. It may subsume an unlimited number of concretes but each will have similar characteristics but the measure of each may be omitted. Now here is the definition I provided for the concept: Apartheid- when any group imposes a status of legal inferiority or second class citizenship on another group because of religious, racial, ethnicity, or gender, which deprives them of social,legal, economic, cultural. or basic human rights Now, from the legal definition: Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; d. Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial/ethnic lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof; We may break this down into the following categories: measures calculated to prevent a group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country by denying to members of a group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, ​​These freedoms include : right to work right to form recognized trade unions the right to education the right to leave and to return to their country the right to freedom of movement and residence the right to freedom of opinion and expression right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association​ ​In addition: Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial/ethnic lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof Now..the central question here is -Is Israel an Apartheid state? To show if this is true, one would have to demonstrate that Israel meets the above criteria. Now lets take these separately as they would be easier to deal with. First: the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups Israel passed the Family Unification Law in 2003. The law only applies to Palestinians. Anyone living in another country not deemed an enemy state are welcome. All the enemy states are Arab countries. But if an Israeli Jew marries another Jew from one of the same enemy countries, he/she can obtain citizenship. Does this meet the criteria above? Is it discriminatory ?
  6. Leonid, "And I cannot see any basis for your claim that Jewish state is inherently racists simply because it's Jewish. France is a French country because the majority of its population is French, they use French language and share French heritage and culture. Nobody claims that France is racists or antidemocratic, in spite that 10% of its population are Arabs. " France and Israel are two different animals. Israel is a melting pot of Jews from all over the world. It is an avowed "Jewish State". It is not united around principles, like America or France for that matter, but around religion-or being Jewish. Based on the evidence I have provided, there are a system of laws that favor Jews over non-Jews. That is plain to see. If you have laws on your books that will allow any Jew to immigrate but not any Arab, then you have a tiered system of laws that places one group in an superior position. If a Jew wanted to immigrate to America, " a country for whites", but we took all comers except Jews then that would be racist would it not? What if America only took white people but everyone else was refused? What if we displaced non-whites to make way for whites...would that be racist? What if a white citizen of America wanted to marry a non-white citizen from another country -thereby giving him/her citizenship but was refused...but could marry a white person under the same circumstances and have citizenship granted him/her? Would that sound like a system of institutional discrimination? It's the same for Israel except they are a Jewish state.
  7. Nicky, Once upon a time, you could say it would be unfair to call the military dictatorship of the WB and Gaza a form of apartheid. You could have even said it was a 'temporary measure' .But Israel has now maintained control over these territories for nearly 50 years - that's almost as long as Israel has been a state. In addition Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and announced plans to permanently control up to nearly half of the West Bank and it still controls all of Gaza ..so much so that it can control how many calories Gazans consume: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-counted-calories-needed-for-gazans-in-blockade.html?_r=0 For all intents and purposes, Israel and the Palestinian territories it controls have functioned as one integrated economic and political unit. It is no longer possible to view an occupation of such long duration as a "temporary". We must include Gaza in the equation as it is still under occupation. Also...the idea that helping Jews to migrate while excluding everyone else is inherently racist. If you are applying the law differently to groups of people then it is discriminatory..plain and simple. If it privileges one group over another and there are a system of laws to the same end - it is apartheid. How can it not be so when it is an avowed 'Jewish State'? As for the sources... Here is a report from Human Rights Watch. It is titled Separate and Unequal http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/12/19/separate-and-unequal Here's a statement from B'Tselem about the policies of this apartheid state: "“The forbidden roads regime (for Palestinians) is based on the principle of separation based on discrimination, and assumes that every Palestinian constitutes a security threat. This assumption is racist, and cannot justify a policy that indiscriminately harms the entire Palestinian population. Therefore, the policy violates human rights and international law,” I see no need to cite Israeli law. We only need to know that a system of laws exist that privilege Jews over non-Jews to show Apartheid.
  8. Nicky, The Citizenship Law, the National Planning Law, the Basic Law, etc...are for Israeli citizens. Take the...: Development Authority (Transfer of Property Law) (1950) Transfers confiscated Palestinian villages and private property to the Development Authority, which is empowered to dispose of it in the interests of the State, giving priority to the Jewish National Fund - a Zionist organization aimed at settling Jewish immigrants to Israel. Both the JNF and the Jewish Agency - organizations that act exclusively in the interest of Jews - take on the status of quasi-governmental organizations within the framework of the Development Authority Law. Cmon man, Anyone can see the law privileges Jews over non-Jews.
  9. Leonid, In my opinion, Israeli Apartheid is more sinister than the Apartheid practiced in South Africa because it has the veneer of inclusion but without the substance. The very idea of a 'Jewish state" goes against the requirements of a democracy. It marginalizes every one who is not Jewish. If laws favor one group over another then must violate the rights of the inferior group. The fact that some people have an opinion that Israel does not practice apartheid does not change its essential nature. That would be social metaphysics. However, if it confers a status of legal inferiority by force against its own citizens because of race, creed, religion, or other criteria then it is by definition, an apartheid state. I completely disagree that Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews in Israel. How could they when the idea of a "Jewish State" makes them unequal before the law? The National Planning Law, The Citizenship Law, The Jewish National Fund that expropriates land from non-Jew and gives to Jews...and this isn't even half of it.
  10. Spiral, With the exception of the law that forbids material support to the enemy, most of the discriminatory laws clearly favor Jews or non-Jews. ""... bars a list of candidates from participation in elections to the Knesset “if its aims or actions, expressly or by implication” deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.” That is not racially motivated - That is telling someone you will not allow them to participate if they deny your existence, which is quite resonable. I'd show someone the door of they denied my right to exist. " Denying that ,"the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.” is getting compliance from those seeking office that they will accept their second class citizenship(if they are not Jewish) and will make no efforts to change it. It is an inherently "racist" law. Look more closely, the law is not about denying the existence of the state of Israel, it prohibits challenges to Jewish privilege. Remember that a 'Jewish state' means the state favors Jews and that all are not equal before the law. It is institutional racism at its finest because it stifles dissent. If you look at the laws I provided, with the exception of what you mentioned, the rest are discriminatory. A "Jewish state" is no different from a 'white state", or an 'Islamic state'. The bottom line is the same-that some are second class and do not enjoy a government which deals with each citizen according to non-racist criteria.
  11. I fail to see how providing a justification for racially discriminatory laws changes the essential nature of Apartheid. Is Israel an Apartheid state? YES OR NO?? Is Zionism an inherently discriminatory belief? YES OR NO? If you answer to the affirmative, based on the evidence I have provided, then who really gives a crap why they are an apartheid country? I mean, who would defend institutional racism and discrimination? Furthermore, the laws do not target those who want to destroy the state, it targets its own citizens. The vast majority of the laws posted target Israeli citizens of Arab descent. In addition...according to the definition I provided: "when any group imposes a status of legal inferiority or second class citizenship on another group because of religious, racial, ethnicity, or gender, which deprives them of social,legal, economic, cultural. or basic human rights" ....Apartheid MUST take the form of law(i.e. force). You can't have apartheid without force.
  12. Let me begin by defining my terms: Apartheid-when any group imposes a status of legal inferiority or second class citizenship on another group because of religious, racial, ethnicity, or gender, which deprives them of social,legal, economic, cultural. or basic human rights From the UN definition of Apartheid and international law: http://www.law-ref.org/APARTHEID/index.html --->c. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; d. Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial/ethnic lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof; <---- Zionism- Jewish Nationalism. The belief that Israel/Palestine should be the homeland of a "Jewish" state So I ask you, how can one have a state for Jews(Zionism) that does not give preferential treatment to Jews over all other groups? If it does not give preferential treatment to Jews then it is not a Zionist state. But we have all heard it said from its elected leaders that Israel expects the Palestinians to accept it as a Jewish state, have we not? Such a state as Israel can not truly be considered a democratic state either. If Israel gives a Jew more privileges than the non-Jew then all are not equal before the law-hence undemocratic. Isn't a "Jewish state" by definition, exclusive of other ethnicities? So is Israel deserving of the apartheid appellation? Let's see: First: "Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including ..the right to freedom of movement" First Israeli Arabs are prevented from visiting family members that live in countries that Israel does not approve. This law does not apply equally to all citizens. Proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/997986.html They have also set aside lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful , wide , and well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way. May I also add that humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either. Curfews also fall under restriction of freedom of movement. Based on a series of long curfews in the majority of Palestinian towns and villages and hundreds of CHECKPOINTS navigable only with Israeli-issued permits-movement between towns and villages is extremely restricted, and often impossible. DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP-YES OR NO? I am aware that the checkpoints are in the Occupied WB but they( WB Palestinians) are still subject to Israeli law. The restriction of movement for the first example applies to Israeli Arabs. proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804600.html Next: Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; Next: "Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups. Basic Law-1958 Passed in 1985, Section 7A(1) bars a list of candidates from participation in elections to the Knesset “if its aims or actions, expressly or by implication” deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.” In 2002 both Section 7A(1) of the Basic Law: the Knesset and the Law of Political Parties were amended further to bar those whose goals or actions, directly or indirectly, “support armed struggle of an enemy state or of a terror organization, against the State of Israel.” These amendments were added expressly to curtail the political participation of Palestinian Arabs within Israel – such as Azmi Bishara – who have expressed solidarity with Palestinians resisting military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. The Law of Political Parties (1992)Bars the Registrar of Political Parties from registering a political party if it denies “the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State.” Next: "Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by...the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups." 4. Judicial Practice: Equal Protection Cases The Israeli courts – guided by the Supreme Court – have consistently decided that discrimination between Arabs and Jews is legitimate based on the founding principles of Israel as a state for the Jewish people; “nationality” is considered a legitimate basis for discrimination. In the State of Israel vs. Ashgoyev (1988), an Israeli settler was convicted by the Tel Aviv District Court of shooting a Palestinian child. The judge sentenced him to a suspended jail term of six months and community service. When challenged by critics, the trial judge, Uri Shtruzman, said: “It is wrong to demand in the name of equality, equal bearing and equal sentences to two offenders who have different nationalities who break the laws of the State. The sentence that deters the one and his audience, does not deter the other and his community.” The Citizenship and Entry Law-The law, passed July 31, 2003 prohibits Palestinian spouses from obtaining citizenship, permanent residency and temporary residency status in Israel by marriage to an Israeli citizen. Under the new law, thousands of Palestinians living in Israel must go back to the West Bank or Gaza, and they will be denied identity cards—their passports to get past police checkpoints. Keep in mind that any Jew from anywhere gets blanket citizenship simply for the asking. Any Jewish citizen can easily obtain citizenship for their spouses especially since there is a strong stigma against Jews who marry outside of their faith. So this law does not affect the Vast majority of Jews- only Israeli Arabs. Proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996697.html The Nationality and Entry law forbids the marriage of Palestinians and Israelis and also forbids spouses of Arab citizens, who reside in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel? THESE LAWS PROHIBIT INTERMARRIAGE AND MEETS THE CONDITIONS ABOVE- DO YOU AGREE YES OR NO? proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135963.html Next: ......the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof Absentee Property Law (1950) Classifies the personal property of Palestinians who fled during the Zionist terror campaign of 1947/48 as "absentee property" and places it within the power of the Custodian of Absentee Property. According to the law, even the property of Palestinians who are present within the newly created state of Israel, but are not physically present on their property ("internal refugees"), becomes "absentee property." This creates the category of "present absentees." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1129744.html National Planning and Building Law (1965) Creates a system of discriminatory zoning that freezes existing Arab villages while providing for the expansion of Jewish settlements. The law also re-classifies a large number of Arab villages as "non-residential" creating the "unrecognized villages." These villages do not receive basic municipal services such as water and electricity; all buildings are threatened with demolition orders. DO THESE LAWS TARGET A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP WITH THE EFFECT OF SEIZING THEIR PROPERTY? YES OR NO? proof: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1076058.html Development Authority (Transfer of Property Law) (1950)Transfers confiscated Palestinian villages and private property to the Development Authority, which is empowered to dispose of it in the interests of the State, giving priorty to the Jewish National Fund – a Zionist organization aimed at settling Jewish immigrants to Israel. Both the JNF and the Jewish Agency – organizations that act exclusively in the interest of Jews – take on the status of quasi-governmental organizations within the framework of the Development Authority Law. World Zionist Organization (Jewish Agency (Status) Law (1952)Establishes the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency as organizations with governmental status in fulfilling Zionist objectives – the immigration and settlement of Jews in Palestine. Next: .... in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to leave and to return to their country. Law of Return (1950) Grants right of immigration to Jews born anywhere in the world. Amended in 1970 to extend this right to "a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew." A "Jew" is defined as "a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion." But a Palestinian born in Israel is not allowed to return to his home and property for fear of upsetting the Jewish majority. Non-Jewish native-born Palestinians - most importantly those who fled during the Zionist massacres in 1947 and 1948 - are in most cases prevented from returning. Nationality (/Citizenship) Law (1952) Confers automatic citizenship upon all who immigrate under the Law of Return. Non-Jews - including native-born Palestinians - must prove residency and pass other tests; citizenship is granted at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior. Under the new interim policy for "family unification" passed by the Israeli Cabinet in 2002, and made part of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law by the Knesset in 2003, a discriminatory system has been put in place preventing applications for residency or citizenship from Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens. DO THESE LAWS PREVENT PALS FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF RETURN? YES OR NO? proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEng.jhtml?itemNo=840119&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&title='Knesset%20extends%20law%20banning%20Israeli-Palestinian%20family%20unification%20'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5 Forgive the caps, they are for emphasis. Do these laws and their systematic uniformity illustrate what I mean? I could go on and on but that should be enough for you to catch the drift. As a side note, this is not just my assessment. Israeli apartheid is openly discussed in the UN and it is being recognized by Human Rights Organizations.
  13. You raise some interesting points but it is a propagandistic version of events, in my opinion. I will respond to them but it does not seem appropriate yet as I am trying to prove my claim that Israel is the aggressor.I don't think it controversial to say that Israel attacked first but it is now being suggested that rhetoric is equivalent to dropping a bomb. To begin discussing history at this point will only muddle the issue and it will deteriorate into your version against mine.
  14. The stated goals of the Likud is control of all of Palestine are they candidates for destruction too? It is my opinion that these fighters are fighting a moral war of self defense. . Israel was granted 51% of Palestine but now controls ALL of it. I would say this is more than an impression. Look this is simple. If Israel is inside the borders of the PP then it cannot also be outside of it. This means that to say that Israel has a right to land outside its borders contradicts the principle of sovereignty as it cannot have rights to ALL of Palestine when its borders are clearly defined. It is to say that what is not Israel is not Israel's. . Okay, Israel has jurisdiction over this territory. It is a completely subjective evaluation that a theocratic socialist country is objectively better than a theocratic fascist one so there is no "justly acquired land".As for the destruction of the Western world.....pure speculation-unless you claim some special knowledge about the future. Please explain how a theocratic socialist country has more legitimacy than a theocratic fascist one. Second, you have no idea of what kind of government the Palestinians will create, once again you are claiming omnipotence.
  15. To say that the threat of force is grounds for initiating actual force is to obliterate the non-initiation of force principle. According to your logic, then it really doesn't have to be a communicated threat. One may simply purchase a gun for his personal defense and become a valid candidate for destruction. A threat is a subjective evaluation about someone's intentions and since no one is omnipotent, there is simply no way to determine the contents of someone elses mind.This isn't a moral principle to protect one's life this is a cover to take someone elses. Any person in possession of a weapon coud be considered a threat-what then? Furthermore, now the principle is so muddled as to be non- existent. According to this expanded meaning then any ME state with the means has the moral right to destroy Israel as it has undeclared nuclear weapons or any state has the right to destroy any state by claiming omnipotence about the future. Where do you draw the line? When is it valid? ...there is no way to tell which is probably the intention of whoever thought of this cover for aggression.
×