Finnish FM: Israeli occupation is 'apartheid'

Actually my first quote was made in 1956 to Nahum Goldman, President of the World Zionist Organization who was urging him to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Arabs.

And I assume you have missed previous quotes in post #66 in which the "great man" was promoting ethnic cleansing....for which "compulsory transfer" is the euphemism.

As I said in my previous post

And as long as there are so many Israelis who know or care so little about anything other than their Zionist indoctrination and their Western style life at the expense of others....then little is ever going to change.

 

because you assume they had the country in the first place which they didnt, no one had, they were exactly the same as jews that lived there, now did the jews had the right to control arab border crossing/immigration into palestine themselves? ofc not, both should have been treated equaly with same rights,
It's your National Home - but not your country
Jews can live here - but they cant come here

C'mon give me a break, the original meaning was clear to the whole world that later on voted for a jewish state.

As i see it the arabs refusal was not legit in terms of damaging thier own rights and religion belives - as the mandate stated.

 

Apartheid? no.


Bloodshed? Lots of it


Reason? Nobody wants to accept the truth.

 

We had jews already living in palestine, we had jews that came here to build the jewish home - while some zionist spoke of owning whole palestine it was never the offical target of the movement, many others never thought of borders, are'nt you guys like to quete Herzel and teh jewish congress about alternative home to jews?
Then we have the holocaust refugees, sometimes things dont go as planned and some maniac decides on REAL ethnic clearing, those refugees/survivurs had a right to come to the "jewish national home" by interpertation alone.

The arabs didnt have the legal right to refuse jews from their natinal home as not right of their were offended only the risk that it might be.

If you strip idiology, national rights, religion etc' to discover only international intersts of both sides - than what does the past matters? Israel is a state and the palestinians also need a state asap, both can co-exist as they did until now only without killing each other and palestinians can start making money and rot in their armchairs like everyone else on this planet.

Your last comment about Israelis, sadly,many Israelis let Hamas decide for them what note they should put in the election box, i hope that will change.

 

They didnt have it? No one had? What or have to exactly do you mean here? What does one need to do or be to 'have it'?

They built it, they farmed it, the traded on it and bred on it. What more would you want from them?

Indeed they were exactly the same as the jews that lived except for one thing - they were many more voices opposed to zionism than for it. And so those opposing zionism had the country.

Indeed both should reasonably have immigration controls according to the wishes of the majority of humans.

Indeed a national home, thats not a carte blanche. And Jews all coming along to claim the land does indeed offend the rights of the inhabitants just as it would anywhere today - including israel.

You wouldnt accept such an imposition today on israelis yet you seem to think that arabs ahould have done so years ago. Can you explain this further? Or is it really just a hypocrisy we must all learn to accept?

 

Hey ho...................

 

Problem is in getting much of a life in the first place particularly a family life.

Even at the height of South African apartheid in the 1980s, a South African court refused to approve orders similar in effect to the present Israeli Citizenship and Entry Laws "because they contradicted the right to a family".

It appears that in a State which gets irate if it is even hinted that they practise apartheid, Israeli Arabs in particular don't even have the same rights to a family life as the non-white South Africans did...even though Israel's Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, on the renewal of the Laws again in 2006, declared in the dissenting minority: "This violation of rights is directed against Arab citizens of Israel. As a result, therefore, the law is a violation of the right of Arab citizens in Israel to equality".

I am quite sure that the likes of Gilos will say, as he usually does, that all Israelis have equal rights....inasmuch as Israeli Jews are unable to have a family life if their partner comes from among the "Verboten".........but, as Barak pretty much said, it is a law which disproportionately hits Israeli Arabs...because it was specifically written to hit Israeli Arabs...who are those most likely to marry, or be married to Arabs from outside Israel.

Effectively, non-Israeli spouses from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and currently Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, or Syria, who are allowed to stay in Israel, (due to the 2005 exception allowing applications for temporary visit permits by women over the age of 25 and men over the age of 35 only), must renew those permits every six months.

However, they are not allowed to apply for citizenship, do not receive social and health insurance, cannot work or even drive. In contrast, individuals from other countries who marry Israelis are allowed to apply for Israeli citizenship through a five-year process.

There are no equal rights if laws are written in terms which specifically target one element of the population, while theoretically aimed at all.

It's like saying that if the UK passed a Law aimed at people with ginger hair and broad Glasgow accents, they are aiming it at all Scots.

Another example of this targeted law is in the latest Revocation of Citizenship amendment, which given the number of Jews who are ever deemed terrorists by Israel and given the number of Arabs who are, is blatantly aimed at the Israeli Arab population.

Shin Bet even fails to see the point of this amendment, branding it irrational and superfluous.....because they believe the powers set out in it already exist in Israeli Law.

Meretz MK Nitzan Horowitz said: "In light of the Shin Bet's position, it is impossible to hide behind the security excuse for this law." "The real plan behind the bill is to create an air of fear and threat among the Arab population."

According to the latest US Human rights Report on Israel (including the Occupied Territories) Arab and other minority residents of Israel faced official and societal discrimination in a number of areas, including employment, education, land ownership, and naturalization.

The whole report makes for interesting reading....and Israel's best friends wrote it.

 

It's important to get this information into the American press. Its biased reportage and absence of facts is scandalous.

 

I would have found their women, (*)(*)(*)(*)ed them, impregrated them, and when they were born they would become settlers of kibbutsim.

 

Try answering seriously for a change. The exercise will do you good.

It will force you to inevitably to admit that I am correct. Does it make you nervous to have to come round to my view?

 

You are indeed correct and Albert Di Salvo won't admit such. Native American fought against the immigrants, as it is read in the history books.