Lovely place, indeed.

....that BDS is a hate movement. There's hope yet.

That Jew hating org ( BDS) once attempted to stop an American Jew perform at a reggae festival, because he was a Jew , all the time not saying a word against a homophobic Gay Hating fuck ups who were allowed to perform at the very same festival.

....crimes committed against Jews throughout Europe and the USA?

They don't speak out against it because they're for it. They're the ones inciting it.

It's also troubling that Spain considers Ariel University in the West Bank to be legal, which practically makes the settlements part of Israel:

Spain compensates West Bank university for boycott exclusion
Source: JTA, January 6, 2016
http://www.jta.org/2016/01/06/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/spain-compensates-west-bank-university-for-boycott-exclusion

This is of course a victory for the one-staters in this thread, but not for me - I still think that two states are better than one...

Missing from the one you provided was Spain saying that they consider the university to be legal and that the settlements are part of Israel. There's dispute over the legality of the settlement... but that doesn't mean that one has to decide whether a university within the settlement is either legal or illegal. What it is evidence of is that the BDS action was illegal, but that's plainly true.

Their Palestinian students don't seem to mind their existence:

I still think that two states are better than one...

Lol... no you don't. Two majority-Palestinian states perhaps... but not any rational version of the two-state solution.

of an occupying nation's own civilian population into occupied territory.

Any dealings with Ariel U amounts to official recognition of its existence and tacit approval of the breaching of international law. While I think that individual students from Ariel should have the right to compete, they shouldn't be allowed to be official representatives of an illegal entity.

If the division between the illegal settlements and Israel becomes blurred, it will be impossible to remove the settlements, and if they're not removed, there will be no place for a Palestinian state. I've tried to understand how some people seem to think that a completely non-contiguous Palestinian state will function without infrastructure, resources, industry, trade or areas where it can expand, but I've never got a good answer to that.

It could be argued that Israel is in breach of the convention... or even that the location of the University is illegal. But not it's existence.

If I park my car in a handicap space, I might be in violation of the law and you could say that the car is not permitted to be there. That doesn't make the car itself illegal... and when you scratch the car and your parents force you to pay for it - they aren't declaring that it was legal for me to park there - only that it was illegal for you to take action to punish its location. The university has moved previously and could move again - it's existence is not delegitimized by it's current location.

Are you with the Trump supporters that basic services should be denied to "illegal aliens"? If someone steals from one of them, does the court punishing the criminal amount to "tacit approval" of their being in the country?


If the division between the illegal settlements and Israel becomes blurred, it will be impossible to remove the settlements, and if they're not removed, there will be no place for a Palestinian state.

That's nonsense. As has been pointed out more than once, most peace plans include the majority of settlers staying where they are and land being swapped. Official Palestinian positions disagree on the total percentage of land to be swapped or the relative value of the land that they are offered... but they agree on the basics.

The UN Security Council resolution 242 is pretty clear that Israel has to withdraw from all occupied territories: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242)

Marking ‘setback,’ Abbas demands full Israeli withdrawal to ’67 lines
http://www.timesofisrael.com/marking-setback-abbas-demands-full-israeli-withdrawal-to-67-lines/

Arab League won't accept any changes to 2002 peace initiative, says chief
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Arab-League-wont-accept-any-changes-to-2002-peace-initiative-says-chief-456066

The only consensus that Israel can keep any settlements is with Israel, nobody else. All other countries consider the settlements illegal (or "illegitimate&quot and an obstacle to the two-state solution.

Until someone explains to me how a two-state solution is practically possible with the settlements in place, I will continue to believe that Israel can have either the two-state solution but not both.

And I don't understand how Ariel U could be considered a legal entity when every aspect of its existence and activity is in breach of international law...

You're simply wrong here. You cite that the Arab League "won't accept changes" to their peace initiative of 2002/2013 - and link to Abbas' position at one time (which also cited the Arab League's initiative)...

... what you keep missing is that the Arab League's peace initiative included the assumption of land swaps. You can't rationally continue to pretend that "The only consensus that Israel can keep any settlements is with Israel, nobody else" when the reality is that it's pretty much all players but Hammas. There is only debate over how much of the land will be swapped and what is acceptable in trade... not whether there will be swaps.

impossible.

I can't see how any land swaps can make Palestinian communities that are strangled by the settlements more viable. East Jerusalem is a good example; if the Jewish settlements aren't removed, it will be a cul-de-sac with nowhere to expand and no connection to other Palestinian cities. I really see no possibility of land swaps that would create a viable Palestinian state while leaving most or even a few of the settlements intact.

I think your assessment of the minimum requirements for a Palestinian state is too optimistic. Here's some background info about the economic situation in the occupied territories that confirms my view:

The economic costs of the Israeli occupation for the occupied Palestinian territory September 2011
Source: The Palestinian Ministry of National Economy and the Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem
http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/qpal/docs/2012Cairo/p2%20jad%20isaac%20e.pdf

East Jerusalem 2015: Facts and Figures
Source: Association for Civil Rights in Israel, May 2015
http://www.acri.org.il/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EJ-Facts-and-Figures-2015.pdf

Palestinian Authority Incurs US$285 Million in Annual Fiscal Losses
Source: The World Bank

By definition, ACRI is antisemitic.

When your sources do not even recognize Israel's right to exist in peace as a Jewish state, why should anyone take them seriously?

different figures that would contradict the findings of the UN, ACRI and the World Bank?

BTW:

Promoting equal civil rights ≠ Anti-Semitism

....and living conditions similar to that of the rest of the middle east is not equal rights for Israelis living in a liberal democracy right now. That's hell for them and you know it.

As it pertains to the well-being of the Jews there, that's antisemitism.

Remember the Hezbollah-supporting Arab MK's from the Joint List and their rightwing views on LGBTQ rights? That's not equal rights but that's the kind of secular leadership BDS and ACRI support for 1-state.

Own it.

....to death camps & has nothing to do with Jews choosing to live in Jerusalem, Judea or Samaria.

The UN is a disgusting institution.

And there are plenty more of these types of articles demonstrating the UN's depravity.

Also, your notion of 2 states....1 Palestinian state with no Jews and 1 Israeli state with a majority Palestinian population after full RoR makes for 2 Palestinian states. What's not to like about that?

You're fooling no one with your BS.

My assertion that the situation in the occupied territory amounts to Apartheid is based on solid evidence.

Israel and the apartheid analogy
Source: Wikipedia

Israeli Arab citizens and Palestinian permanent residents of Israel have guaranteed equal rights with other Israelis. They are the same in every way to Palestinians in the W.Bank who are denied rights due to not being citizens of Israel. That's the only reason they're denied rights. It's not based on race, ethnicity, religion. Hence, no Apartheid.

Once you show a similar situation that is defined as Apartheid anywhere else in the world, then you'll have a case. S.Africa doesn't come close because there were no Blacks on equal footing with whites in one area as opposed to another. Arabs within Israel have equal rights as citizens while those in the territories are a different nationality. So find "Apartheid" somewhere else in the world that can actually be compared to Israel, or just admit you don't have shit.

I've challenged you to provide a definition of Apartheid that we could then use to compare Israel with the rest of the world. You punted on that one too. If Israel is Apartheid, then provide the definition that fits. How difficult is that?

Also, please stop mentioning 2 states when your disingenuous notion of it is one Palestinian state that is Jew free and another Palestinian state with eventual majority Arab Islamic rule over 6 million Jews.

For example, a murderer in New York is sentenced in the same courts under the same laws, regardless whether that person happens to be an American or an illegal immigrant. In the occupied territories, there are two different legal systems, one is completely unfair and the other is a normal justice system of a democratic country. That's a clear example of Apartheid when one group is legally discriminated against and have no civil rights.

If the Palestinians in the occupied territories were part of the same legal system like they would be in every other democratic country in the world, that particular part of the Apartheid analogy wouldn't stick. If the Palestinians had equal rights, or even separate but equal rights there would be no basis whatsoever for the Apartheid analogy.

There are of course other reasons for the Apartheid analogy, like the fact that State land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is for Jewish use only (!) and that Palestinians can't legally access natural resources, including water, which literally prevents all forms of economic growth. The Palestinians aren't allowed to expand existing communities or build new ones, while Israel is building new settlements all the time. There are no circumstances where Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights.

Here's a report from Human Rights Watch about Israel's treatment of Palestinians that doesn't mention the A word:

Separate and Unequal: Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Source: Human Rights Watch, December 19, 2010

I thought that the West Bank was not part of Israel?

Jerusalem who believe that the settlements are part of Israel.

That's beside the point, though. There is currently no place this side of Apartheid South Africa that has different legal systems for civilians. The American Jim Crow laws were never as bad as the Apartheid in the occupied territories.

Israel is pretty unique when it comes to legal discrimination, and is currently the only country that practises Apartheid.

Palestinians there are under a different legal system. If they were citizens of Israel they'd have equal rights like Israeli Arabs and Palestinians who are permanent residents.

Where's that definition of Apartheid I keep asking you for? It should be clear from that definition that Israel falls into the category. Otherwise they don't.

Better cases for Apartheid than Israel...

Apartheid alive and well in Australia
http://www.herald.co.zw/apartheid-alive-and-well-in-australia/

Lebanese apartheid
http://friendsoflebanon.org/archives/1258

Now prove they aren't Apartheid. Go on...

and lived under a different legal system than the local population, in this case the laws of the occupying country. Now there are 600 000 civilians living under Israeli civilian law, while the local population is living under Israeli military law.

It's interesting that you put up two examples of supposed Apartheid that would classify Israel as an Apartheid state as well if the same standards were used. As the political system in the occupied territories is even more discriminatory, it would mean a fortiori that the Apartheid is stronger in the occupied territories than either Australia or Lebanon. I don't believe that there's a system of Apartheid in Australia and Lebanon, for me that's just discrimination. I don't believe that there's Apartheid in Israel either, just discrimination.

Anyway, your link to the Herald article didn't work, but here's another description of discrimination against aboriginals in Australia:
Do we have apartheid in Australia?
Source: Creative Spirits
(snip)

while there's Apartheid in the occupied territories, the situation in Israel isn't worse than how things were in the Jim Crow South.

I'm not really sure what your argument is - do you think that the Apartheid analogy can be applied to Lebanon and Australia, and if so, what prevents Israel from being included as well?

Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)

So your claims are baseless.

Reminds me of your failure to provide a definition for antisemitism. You don't like definitions when they contradict your worldview.

Consider yourself debunked until you find a definition of Apartheid that describes Israel & only Israel.